THE COMMUNITY REVIEW ER PROGRAM: AN EXAMINATION OF A PARENT EMPOWERMENT PROGRAM IN DETROIT By Ashley Johnson A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of K-12 Educational Administration -Doctor of Philosophy 2015 ABSTRACT THE COMMUNITY REVIEW ER PROGRAM: AN EXAMINATION OF A PARENT EMPOWERMENT PROGRAM IN DETROIT By Ashley Johnson This descriptive, embedded case study s ought to explore the phenomena of h ow to improve and create effective partnerships between urban parents and urban schools. The study examine d a novel parent involvement program in Detroit that involved over 500 urban parents. The program, called the Community Reviewer Program, trained pare nts and community members to assess and evaluate the quality of schools in the city of Detroit through the use of citywide school visitations and evaluations. The purpose of th e study was to describe the Community Reviewer Program and to examine how partic ipation in the program influenced parentÕs experiences with their childrenÕs schools. To better understand the program and its influences on participants, I conducted ten months of formal and informal program observations, obtained and analyzed program doc uments , and conducted in -depth pre - and post interviews with nine parents who participated in the program . The Community Reviewer Program reflected a theory of action and a program model emphasizing parent and community access to transparent information on school performance trends, new experiences for parents as school quality reviewers, and the development of relationships and interactions among and between urban parents , schools, and program organizers as a way to bu ild parentÕs social capital and positi vely influenced their interactions with their childrenÕs schools. Findings suggests schools and programs must recognize urban parents as assets rather than liabilities, utilize new and diverse forms of parent involvement, and design programs and initiative s to meet the specific needs of parents. Copyright by ASHLEY JOHNSON 2015 iv To my family and my ancestors who made sacrifices that I may never know. Also, to the parents who participated in this study. I am truly appreciative of your sacrif ices and your continuous pursuit of a better life. Ò I am what I am because of who we all are.Ó v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would lik e to thank my friends and family for being so supportive and for encouraging me throughout this process. Specifically, I would like to thank my mother, Karen Johnson, for her ongoing support and for being my biggest cheerleader. I also want to thank my brother, Tyrell Johnson, for the daily phone calls and words of encouragement. I could not have completed this process without yo u both; I truly appreciate your support. I would also like to thank my advisor, Dr. Bets Ann Smith , for her many y ears of support, patience , and thoughtful guidance. I would also like to thank all of the members of my guidance and dissertation committee fo r their time, energy, encouragement, and guidance. Also, I appreciate Excellent Schools Detroit for allowing me to study and observe the Community Reviewer Program for almost two years. A special thanks goes to my colleagues and manager at Excellent Scho ols Detroit for their thoughtful support of my research. I would also like to thank the participants in my study. They had a tremendous impact on my research and on me as a person. T his research experience opened my eyes to how strong and resilient urban parents truly are. Lastly, I would like to thank my amazing fianc”, Dr. Leron Lightfoot, for his encouragement and support. Leron, helped reignite my passion and kept me on track during the hard and difficult times. He was also there to cheer me on during the victories and celebrations. I am truly thankful that he is in my life. Again thank you all so much for your support and encouragement. Without each of you, I woul d not have been able to accomplish this milestone. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................................... x LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................................... xi CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 1 Background and Context ............................................................................................................. 1 Problem Statement ...................................................................................................................... 6 Purpose of the Study and Research Approach ............................................................................ 8 Program Background and Context .............................................................................................. 8 Rationale and Significance of the Study ................................................................................... 10 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK ....................... 12 Key Terms ................................................................................................................................. 12 Review of Literature ................................................................................................................. 13 History of School -Parent Relations and Parent Involvement ................................................ 13 Parental Involvement Activities and Frameworks ................................................................ 16 Less Recognized Forms of Parent Involvement ..................................................................... 18 Factors that Influence Parent In volvement ............................................................................ 20 The Influence of Race and Ethnicity ................................................................................. 22 The Influence of Social Class and Socioeconomic Status ................................................ 24 The Influence of Social Capital ......................................................................................... 27 Components of social c apital ...................................................................................... 29 Types of social c apital ................................................................................................. 30 Soc ial c apital and parent i nvolvement ........................................................................ 31 The Influence of Culture ................................................................................................... 34 The Influence of Self -Efficacy .......................................................................................... 36 ParentsÕ Perceptions of Schools ........................................................................................ 38 TeachersÕ Perceptions of Urban Schools .......................................................................... 39 Effective Parent Involvement Programs and Community Organiz ing .................................. 40 Summary .............................................................................................................................. 44 The Conceptual Framework .................................................................................................. 44 CHAPTER 3: STUDY CONTEXT AND METHODOLOGY ..................................................... 47 Detroit and the Community Reviewer Program ........................................................................ 47 Excellent Schools Detroit and the Community Reviewer Program ...................................... 50 Research Questions and Conceptual Framing ........................................................................... 52 Research Questions ............................................................................................................... 53 Rationale for Research Approach ......................................................................................... 54 Description of Research Sample ............................................................................................ 55 Sources of Data ..................................................................................................................... 57 Interviews and Questionnaires ........................................................................................ 57 Participant Observations and Document Analysis ............................................................ 60 vii Data Analysis and Synthesis ..................................................................................................... 60 Role of th e Researcher and Trustworthiness ............................................................................ 62 CHAPTER 4: COMMUNITY REVIEWER PROGRAM FINDINGS ......................................... 64 Description of the StudyÕs Participants ..................................................................................... 64 Maria ...................................................................................................................................... 67 Damon .................................................................................................................................... 68 Tanesha .................................................................................................................................. 64 The Community Reviewer ProgramÕs Model and Approach ................................................ 70 The ProgramÕs Theory of Action .............................................................................................. 73 Making Transparent and Disseminating School Quality Information .................................. 74 Parents as School Reviewers ................................................................................................. 76 Access to Social Capital ........................................................................................................ 78 Bonding Social Capital .................................................................................................... 79 Bridging Social Capital ................................................................................................... 81 Empowered Parents ............................................................................................................... 84 The Program In Action: How it Works ..................................................................................... 86 Program Start Up .................................................................................................................... 86 Schools Targeted .................................................................................................................... 87 Unannounced Visits .............................................................................................................. 88 Recruiting and Enrollment of Community Reviewers .......................................................... 88 Reviewer Trainings ............................................................................................................... 90 Team Leaders and Education Specialists ............................................................................... 94 Community Reviewer Teams ................................................................................................ 96 School Visits and Evaluation Tool s ...................................................................................... 97 School Visits ..................................................................................................................... 97 Evaluation Tools .............................................................................................................. 99 Learning and Adjusting ........................................................................................................... 104 Adjustments to the Community Reviewer Team Composition .......................................... 104 Adjustments to Scoring and Data Collection Process ......................................................... 106 Early Program Outcomes ........................................................................................................ 107 Program Participation Outcomes ........................................................................................ 107 Characteristics of the Community Reviewers ..................................................................... 107 Characteristics of the Schools ............................................................................................. 108 Reaching the Program Goals ............................................................................................... 110 Individual Empowerment ............................................................................................... 111 Collective Empowerment ............................................................................................... 113 Chapter Summary ................................................................................................................... 114 CHAPTER 5: THE EXPERIENCES OF NINE COMMUNITY R EVIEWERS ....................... 116 Why th e Participants Joined the Program ............................................................................... 116 ParentÕs Experiences with the Program .................................................................................. 118 Beliefs and Definitions about Good Schools ...................................................................... 119 Involvement Behaviors and Dispositions ............................................................................ 124 Self-Efficacy and Confidence in Involvement .................................................................... 126 Social Capita l ...................................................................................................................... 129 viii Bonding Capital ............................................................................................................... 129 Bridging Capital .............................................................................................................. 131 New Knowledge and Skills ................................................................................................. 132 School Choice Decisions and Methods ............................................................................... 133 Chapter Summary ................................................................................................................... 136 CHAPTER 6: DISCUSSIO N, IMPLICATIONS, AND CONCLUSION ................................... 139 Purpose of the Study and Research Questions ........................................................................ 139 Essential Strategies for Urban Parent Involvement ................................................................. 140 The Singular Impact of School Review Visits ......................................................................... 143 ParentÕs Personal Experiences with the Program .................................................................... 145 Defining a Good School ....................................................................................................... 145 Confidence and Self -Efficacy ............................................................................................. 147 New Knowledge, Skills, and Dispositions, N ew Social Capital .......................................... 147 New School Choices and Involvement Behaviors ............................................................... 148 The Potential of the Community Reviewer Program Strategy and Model ............................. 150 Implications for Practice ......................................................................................................... 152 A Note to Parent Involvement Programs ............................................................................ 152 A Note to E xcellent School Detroit and the Community Reviewer Program ..................... 154 Data Collection and Program Evaluation ......................................................................... 154 Target a Different Group of Community Members ......................................................... 155 Share Power and Responsibility with Participants ....................................................... 155 Improve Br idging Capital ............................................................................................ 156 Comba t the School Choice Marketplace in Detroit ..................................................... 156 Implications for Further Research .......................................................................................... 156 Urban Parents are Diverse Groups ...................................................................................... 156 The Untold Counter -Stories ................................................................................................ 157 Conclusio n ............................................................................................................................... 158 APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................. 161 APPENDIX A: Epstein's Framework of Six Types of Involvement and Sample Practices ... 162 APPENDIX B: Excellent Schools Detroit Scorecard Methodology ...................................... 164 APPENDIX C: Participant Recruitment Flyer ....................................................................... 165 APPENDIX D: Research and Interview Q uestion Matrix ...................................................... 166 APPENDIX E: Pre -and Post Interview Questions .................................................................. 169 APPENDIX F: Community Reviewer Application Form ...................................................... 172 APPENDIX G: Sample Detroit School Scorecard ................................................................. 174 APPENDIX H: School Visit Observation Forms ................................................................... 176 APPENDIX I: The Community Reviewer F inal Rubric ......................................................... 185 APPENDIX J: Research Participant Information and Consent Form -Survey ........................ 189 APPENDIX K: Self -Efficacy Questionnaire .......................................................................... 192 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................ 193 ix LIST OF TABLES Table 3.1 Demographic Changes in Detroit 2000 -2011 ............................................................ 48 Table 3.2 Education Landscape Changes in Detroit 2000 -2012 ............................................... 49 Table 3.3 Interview Participants Demographic Characteristics ................................................ 56 Table 3.4 Sources of Data .......................................................................................................... 57 Table 4.1 Characteristics of Study Participants .......................................................................... 65 Table 4.2 CRP Participation Rates and Characteristics ............................................................ 109 Tabl e 4.3 CRP Sc hool Visits and Evaluations ........................................................................ 110 Table 5.1 Characteristics of Study Participants ....................................................................... 112 Table A .1 Epstein's Framework of Six Types of Involvement and Sample Pract ice ............... 162 Table A .2 Excellent Schools Detroit Scorecard Methodology .................................................. 164 Table A .3 Research and Interview Question Matrix ................................................................ 166 x LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2.1 Factors that Influence Parent Involvement .............................................................. 21 Figure 2.2 StudyÕs Conceptual Framework ............................................................................... 46 Figure 3.1 ESD Theory o f Change ............................................................................................ 51 Figure 3.2 Conceptu al Framework and Study Guide ................................................................ 53 Figure 4.1 Th e ProgramÕs Theory of Action ............................................................................. 74 Figure 4.2 Social Capital in the Community Reviewer Program .............................................. 81 Figure 4.3 The Co mmunity Reviewer Final Rubric ................................................................ 100 Figure 5.1 ParentÕs Experiences with the Community Reviewer Program ............................. 119 Figure 6.1 Conceptual Framework and Study Guide ............................................................... 140 Figure A.1 Sample Detroit School Scorecard .......................................................................... 173 Figure A.2 The Community Reviewer Fin al Rubric ............................................................... 184 1 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION This case study examine d a novel parent involvement program in Detroit that successfully involved over 500 urban parents. The program, called the Community Reviewer Program, trained parents and community members to a ssess and evaluate the quality of schools in the city of Detroit through the use of citywide school visitations and evaluations. The purpose of this study was to describe the Community Reviewer Program and to examine how participation in the program influe nced parentÕs experiences with schools. To better understand the program and its influences on participants, I conducted ten months of formal and informal program observations, obtained and analyzed several program documents, and conducted nine in -depth pr e- and post interviews with parents who participated in the program. This chapter begins with a discussion of the background and context that frame d the study. Then, I discuss the problem, purpose of the study, research approach, and provide an overview of the program context and background. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the rationale and significance of the research study. Background and Context During the last three decades, there has been a national focus on the role that families play in t heir childrenÕs educational development ( Georgiou, 2007; Mapp, 2003). Researchers continue to find evidence that higher levels of involvement by parents are correlated with a number of positive child outcomes including increased academic performance, stude nt motivation, student attendance, and student attitude (Epstein, 2001; Gonzalez -DeHass & Willems, 2003). As a result of this link between parent involvement and student outcomes, school, parent, and community partnerships are a primary component of succes sful schools 2 (Epstein & Sanders, 2006; Henderson & Berla, 1994; Henderson & Mapp, 2002; Hoover -Dempsey & Sandler, 1997; Jordan, Orozco & Averett, 2001). Families of all incomes, educational, racial, and cultural groups care about their childrenÕs educatio n and are involved in supporting their childrenÕs education (Henderson & Mapp, 2002). However, not all parents are engaged and involved with their childrenÕs schools in the same ways or at equal rates. Low -income and racially diverse urban parents are less involved in traditional ly recognized, at -school parent involvement activities than white, middle -class parents (Henderson & Mapp, 2002; Lazar & Slostad, 1999; McDermott & Rothenberg, 2000). Traditional ly recognized forms of parent involvement are often de scribed as parent -teacher conferences and associations and parents volunteering at schools. Parent involvement literature s highlight several characteristics that influence parentsÕ at -school involvement trends (Henderson & Mapp, 2002; Mitchell, 2008). Par ent and family characteristics influence the types, frequency, and levels of at -school parent involvement (Georgiou, 2007; Lee & Bowen, 2006) and are predictors of parent involvement behaviors that can act as facilitators or hindrances of involvement (Geor giou, 2007). The most commonly documented family characteristics in the parent involvement literature include; social class (Brantlinger, 2003; Lareau, 2001, 2003), cultural capital ( Bourdieu, 1986 ; Lee & Bowen, 2006; McNeal, 1999; Huntsinger & Jose, 2009) , race and ethnicity (Huntsinger & Jose, 2009; Lareau & Horvat, 1999), social capital ( Bourdieu, 1986 ; Coleman, 1988; Lareau, 2001) and parentsÕ self -efficacy (Hoover -Dempsey and Sandler, 1995). Families who possess social, racial , and cultural characteri stics that align closely with schools have a benefit t hat those whose characteristics are not as aligned ( Bourdieu, 1986; Brantlinger, 2003; Coleman, 1988; Lareau, 1987, 2003). White, middle -class 3 families possess race, class , cultural and social capital characteristics that align with those valued most by American schools. Therefore, they are more likely to be involved with their childrenÕs schools (McNeal, 1999; Huntsinger & Jose, 2009). Alternatively, urban parents often possess race, ethnicity, social class, and cultural norms that d o not align as closely and are not as valued, making it tougher to form effective at -school partnerships and collaborations. Due in part to this lack of alignment, many urban parents engage less in traditional ly recognized forms of at -school involvement and are less likely to form productive relationships with schools and school personnel. The school itself is also a barrier to at -school involvement for urban parents. The most widely accepted and utilized policies and strate gies of parent involvement focus on behaviors , such as volunteering at schools and attending meetings at schools , that are more easily accomplished by middle and upper -income parents and disregard the needs of low -income and racially diverse families (Mapp , 2003; Delgado - Gaitan, 1991; Noguera, 2006 ). Most at -school parent involvement activities are school -centered and are generally restricted to a few types of activities and programs (Gonzalez -DeHass & Willems, 2003). School -centered programs are programs established by the school and serve school -determined interests (Henderson & Mapp, 2002). These activities and programs often include parent -teachers conferences or parent -teachers associations and focus on volunteering or giving parents guidelines for ho w to assist their children with academic development. Although these types of programs are important, they are school -centered and often cast urban parents as social, cultural outsiders rather than full members welcomed into schools as valuable helpers . Ur ban families, like other low -income and racially diverse families, struggle to feel welcome in the traditional school -centered parent 4 involvement programs and are consequently less likely to form productive relationships with schools (Lareau, 2003). Althou gh family characteristics and the school environment are often described as barriers or hindrances to urban parent involvement, if valued, enhanced, or improved they can help increase parent involvement. For example, s elf-efficacy can be improved, social a nd cultural capital can be enhanced , and a welcoming school or program environment can be created. Bourdieu (1986), Coleman (1988), La reau (2003) and Noguera (2004), suggest that providing parents with access to experiences that enhance social capital Ñto k nowledge, power, and resources, can aid in improving the relationships and partnerships between parents and schools and the at -school involvement trends of parents. In the context of education, social capital refers to the resources that parents have to dr aw upon when they interact with and navigate their childrenÕs schools and other educational settings. Parents with more capital are better advocates for their childrenÕs education and are more likely to be involved with their childrenÕs schools (Coleman, 1 988, McNeal, 1999). Social capital can be acquired through membership in social networks and structures such as Parent Teacher Associations and parent involvement programs. Through these relationships, parents can gain knowledge about effective at -home ac ademic activities and the importance of being involved in at -school activities. Coleman (1988) found that parents with more social capital better underst ood the norms and expectations of schools, allowing parents to feel more welcome in schools , supporting higher rates of parent involvement and student success. He (1988) argued that social capital could be increased if schools create intentional processes and programs for social closure among parents and school perso nnel. 5 Noguera also (2004) argued that u rban schools could develop social capital within low -income parents and communities by working closely with parents and community members to create programs that allow them to gain access to new relationships within the school building and within the commu nity. However, many schools do not have intentional processes or programs for social closure ; as a result there is a lack of alignment between the norms and expectations of parents and schools causing low at -school involvement rates. Due to home -school di sconnection, researchers and educators have sought to develop the conditions that support urban schools, families , and communities to form more productive relationships and partnerships that support and encourage student achievement (Epstein, 2001; Mitchel l, 2008; Jordan et al., 2001) . Parent involvement programs are a common method for involving parents in schools and parent involvement programs and models that are not school -centered can encourage urban parents to participate in their childrenÕs educatio n (Delgado - Gaitan, 1991). Henderson & Mapp (2002) examined 51 parent involvement studies and found that access to parent involvement programs had a positive impact on the at -school involvement rates of parents. Programs that successfully engage families from diverse backgrounds exhibit three key practices; they recognize, respect and value diverse families and their needs, they focus on building trusting relationships among teachers, families, and community members, and they share power and responsibility between schools and families ( Henderson & Mapp, 2002) . These programs value parents as assets rather than labeling them as problems. Through these programs, schools can be transformed from places where only certain groups of students benefit to place wher e all children succeed and benefit ( Henderson, Mapp, Johnson, & Davies, 2007). 6 Problem Statement Schools and parent involvement programs often struggle to successfully engage and create effective partnerships with urban parent s (Henderson & Mapp, 2002; Henderson, et. al, 2007). A primary reason for this is that schools and programs often view urban parents as liabilities rat her than assets. Many school personnel rely on deficit thinking (Yosso, 2005) and perceive urban parents as being unsupportive, uninv olved, and as barriers to their childrenÕs education (Jackson & Remillard, 2005). The deficit thinking and preconceived not ions about urban parents hinder efforts to buil d effective parent involvement programs and partnerships. Lazar & Slostad (1999) argue that urban parents are not involved with schools due to the schoolsÕ perceptions and isolation of them. Additionally, schools often rely on traditional ly recognized forms of involvement that disregard the needs of urban parents. Most parent involvement a ctivities are school -centered and are generally restricted to a few types of activities and programs (Gonzalez -DeHass & Willems, 2003). These types of involvement are more easily accomplished by middle and upper -income parents and disregard the needs of lo w-income and racially diverse families (Mapp, 2003; Delgado - Gaitan, 1991; Noguera, 2006 ). Although these types of programs are important, they are school -centered and often cast urban parents as outsiders . Due to these rigid views of parent involvement, schools often do not recognize the alternative ways that many urban parents are involved with schools and with their childrenÕs education and often assume that some parents do not value and are not involved with their children's education. To address these issues, this case study exam ined a parent involvement program that recognize d urban parents as assets and that meaningfully engage d parent s in new 7 forms of parent involvement . If increased parent involvement and engagement is to be harnessed, new models o f parent involvement must be examined. The parent involvement program was led by a school -community organization in Detroit that rethought parent involvement and created a new program that expanded beyond volunteering and academic engagement act ivities. T he organization shifted away from school -centered in volvement techniques and focused on methods that empower ed parents and community members through the value and use of their opinions and voices. This is much differ ent from the traditional ly recognized fo rms of involvement such as parent -teacher conferences, parent -teacher associations, and volunteering in schools. The school -community organization valued and recognized participants as assets and designed the program to meet their specific needs. The goal of the Community Reviewer Program was to empower participants at the individual and community level. At the individual level the program seeks to empower parents to make better school choice decisions. At the community level, the program seeks to empower participants to pressure Detroit schools to be more responsive and accountable. The program seeks to accomplish these goals by training parents and community members to assess and evaluate the quality of schools in the city of Detroit through the use of ci tywide school visitations and evaluations. The unique program model fostered and promoted participantsÕ access to transparent information, new experiences with schools, and new relationships in order to build parentÕs social capital and empowered them to m ake more informed school choices decision and to pressure Detroit schools to be more responsive and accountable. There is a need for research that examines parental involvement programs that can meaningfully engage low -income and racially diverse groups an d that help urban schools and 8 parents form more effective relationships. Access to effective parent involvement initiatives can provide urban parents and families with access to empowering knowledge and skills such as enhanced social capital and improved s elf-efficacy that can aid in improving their relationships with schools and increasing the educational outcomes for their children. Purpose of the Study and Research Approach The purpose of this case study was to describe the unique program model and its underlying logic, its early outcomes after three years, and whether it influenced parentÕs interactions and orientations with schools. Three primary research questions gave direction and provided continued focus during the study: 1. What strategies and practi ces did Excellent Schools Detroit utilize to create the Community Reviewer Program? 2. How do parents describe their experience participating in the parent involvement program? 3. How might participation in the program influence urban parentsÕ experiences and interactions with their childrenÕs schools? With approval of the universityÕs institutional review board, the researcher studied the experiences and perceptions of nine participants of the Community Reviewer Program, conducted ten months of formal and infor mal program observations, and obtained and analyzed several program documents. In Chapter 3, I will discuss the studyÕs methodology and research questions in more detail. Program Background and Context The program was developed as part of a larger effort t o increase school accountability to the local community and to improve parent and community -member access to information about 9 the quality of schools in Detroit. Like other urban cities, Detroit parents exercise school choice and can send their children to the school of their choice. In spite of the many school choice options in Detroit, there a substantial dearth of quality schools in Detroit. In 2012, only 40% of elementary students attending schools in Detroit were proficient in third grade reading on th e state mandated standardized tests and only 16% were proficient in third grade math ( Data Driven Detroit , 2012). High schools in Detroit also lack academic quality. In 2012, only 2% of Detroit students scored a college ready 21 on the ACT ( Data Driven Det roit , 2012). Although parents are school ÒshoppersÓ and can select the school of their choice, schools are still not accountable to the local community and parents and continue to inadequately educate their children academically. Consequently, parents and community members have very little influence over the unaccountable, ineffective school system. The examined program was developed to combat these issues by empowering local parents and community members. The program gives participants access to empowering resources and knowledge that support parents to make better school choice decisions and to hold the cityÕs schools accountable for chronic low student achievement. Parents who are more knowledgeable about the schoolÕs expectations and norms and the way in which schools operate are more likely to be involved with their kids schools and are better advocates for their children than parents who lack such skills (Delgado -Gaitan, 1991). Additionally, urban parents that can identify quality schools are better adv ocates for their children and are better equipped with the tools and knowledge to select quality schools and to demand that their childrenÕs schools provide an adequate education for their children. Through the use of school visits and evaluations, the program examined gives parents access to positive experiences with schools that supports the development of new knowledge and skills that influence participantsÕ future interactions with 10 schools. Parent involvement programs that support access to new knowledg e and skills are theorized to empower parents to be better advocates and make better -informed decisions regarding their childrenÕs education (Henderson & Mapp, 2002). Rationale and Significance of the Study The rationale for the study emanates from the res earcherÕs desire to uncover ways to encourage and support the at -school involvement of urban parents. Research over several decades demonstrates that higher levels of parent involvement are related to academic success for students. However, many urban pare nts and families have been unable to benefit in part due to the lack of effective partnerships between urban parents and urban schools. Understanding why these trends exist and overcoming these issues is crucial to increasing the involvement of these paren ts. This study supports those efforts by examining a parent involvement program that recognized and valued urban parents as assets and empowered them to become more involved at schools and better advocates for their childrenÕs education. An increased under standing of how to support the at -school involvement of urban parents will not only improve relationships and partnerships between urban parents and schools but will also improve the academic outcomes for urban children. This chapter has provided an over view of the background and context of urban parent at -school involvement. I discussed why urban parents and urban schools often struggle to create effective partnerships and how that affects the at -school involvement rates of urban parents. I also discusse d the purpose of this study and provided an overview of the studyÕs research questions. In chapter two, I review previous research on at -school parent involvement and factors that influence at -school parent involvement. The chapter closes with a descrip tion of the studyÕs 11 conceptual framework. In chapter three, I discuss the city and program context and the studyÕs methodological approach. I also discuss the research questions and why a case study is an appropriate methodological approach. Next, I descri be the data collection methods, data analysis, and limitations. I conclude chapter three with a discussion of my positionality as a researcher and the trustworthiness of the study. In chapter four and five, I present the studyÕs findings. Chapter four foc uses on the program findings. I provide an overview of the studyÕs participants, describe the program model, its theory of action, and early program outcomes. Chapter five provides the findings specific to the program experiences of the studyÕs participant s. In chapter five, I describe how participation in the program influenced parentÕs interactions, dispositions, and behaviors with schools. This study concludes with chapter six where I utilize the findings and relevant literature to answer the studyÕs res earch questions, provide a conclusion, and discuss implications for practice and future research. 12 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK The purpose of this case study is to describe the Community Reviewer Program and to examin e how participation in the program influenced parentÕs experienc es with schools. The study sought to describe the unique program model and its early outcomes, and to assess whether parentsÕ experiences with the program enhanced their senses of empowerment and influenced their orientations to ward interacting with schools. To place the program in context, the researcher completed a review of current literature s on different types and forms of parent involvement, factors that influence parent involvement Ñwith a particular look at urban parents Ñand perceived benefits of parent involvement. A review of these topics provided a comprehensive understanding of the current literature on urban parent involvement. In an effort to clarify and frame multiple components of the study, I provide some definitions of terms and phrases that are continuously utilized in this study before I delve into the literature review. Key Terms There are several terms within the study that need to be clarified before reviewing current litera ture. Some of these terms can be defined in a variety of ways. These definitions provide some clarity about the usage of these terms in the context of this study. Urban parents and families : A person who lives in a city or metropolitan area who is the care taker of a child. This study is specifically about urban parents in Detroit who are often, but not always low -income and racially diverse . Parent involvement : A concept used to describe parents, families and other caregiversÕ behaviors and practices with their childrenÕs educational development inside and outside of their childrenÕs school. 13 Family involvement: There are diverse family types, and a childÕs caregiver is not necessarily a parent . This concept encompasses families and other caregiversÕ behavio rs and practices with childrenÕs educational development inside and outside of schools. In this is paper I utilize parent involvement and family involvement interchangeably. Community involvement: Behaviors and practices with childrenÕs educational develop ment inside and outside of schools by local residents or organizations who live in the neighborhoods around schools whom may or may not have children in the school, but have an interest in the school. At-school parent involvement: Parents, families, and o ther caregiversÕ behaviors and practices with their childrenÕs educational development at their childrenÕs school. These practices encompass attendance at the school and communication with school staff. Review of Literature The literature review is organi zed to inform and support the studyÕs purpose and research questions. I conclude the chapter by discussing how the literature informed and helped shape the studyÕs proposed conceptual framework. History of School - Parent Relations and Parent Involvement Parents are more welcome at schools than ever before, and they are perhaps more influential. However, there is still a struggle in American urban schools for effective collaboration between urban parents and schools (Cutler, 2000). In order to understand the use of parent involvement in American public schools, it is helpful to recognize the history of the relationship between schools and the families of the students they serve. Historically, the home and the church were primarily responsible for the educa tion of students. Before the American Revolution, families and churches controlled the education of 14 children and few families participated in an organized educational system. Families who did participate controlled the hiring of teachers, selection of curr icula and had majority of the guidance of their childrenÕs education (Epstein, 1995). In the mid -nineteenth century, a shift occurred in the education of American youth from the home to the school. This shift reflected new demands for a public education sy stem and increases in industrial and urban development (Hiatt -Micheal, 2001; Cutler, 2000). Through the leadership of Horace Mann and others, development of a public schools system began in almost every state (Hiatt -Micheal, 2001). Simultaneously, many fam ilies migrated from the countryside to urban cities to join in the industrial revolution and many immigrant groups came to American cities in search of work. Industrial development led to a large increase in the population of school -aged children and incre ased the demand for the expansion of public schools. Through this shift, schools became the primary provider of education to students. Parents were expected to teach good behavior and family, ethnic, and moral values while schools were expected to teach e ducation curricula (Cutler, 2000). At the beginning of the twentieth century, bureaucratic reforms accelerated to address compulsory schooling and the expansion of secondary schooling, giving educators increased control over studentÕs lives. Equally, the h ome -school relationship began to change. After World War I, many schools began to form stronger alliances with parents. Although educators drove the social and instructional development of schools, they believed that mothers and fathers could be a valuable part of the American educational system and wanted to work with families in the activities of education. Cutler (2000) stated, ÒBureaucratic reform led educators to contemplate how parents could be transformed from vocal adversaries to loyal advocates by building them into the schoolÕs organizational frameworkÓ (p. 3). For example, many schools began to offer 15 parent education, pediatric examinations, and other social welfare services. These initiatives welcomed parents into schools and many parents began to accept the school as a partner with the home (Cutler, 2000). Parents began to form mothersÕ clubs and other parent associations (Hiatt, 1994). These associations gave the parents a small presence in schools (Cutler, 2000). In 1897, the National Congres s of Parents and Teachers (NCPT) founded and developed the standards for Parent Teacher Associations (PTA). The PTA began to grow as many state organizations were developed in the mid -twentieth century. PTAs serve three functions: promotion of social activ ities, development of school policy and service as a community organization (PTA, 2005). The goal of the PTA was to improve the lives and futures of all children. Today the PTA is the largest volunteer child advocacy organization in the nation. The PTA now serves as the primary parent involvement program in schools across America. In the 1960s, another dramatic change occurred in the relationship between homes and schools. Programs associated with a Òwar on povertyÓ and the Ògreat societyÓ drove a national focus on poverty, child development, and family st ability (Epstein & Sanders, 2006 ). Through this focus came federal legislation aimed at tackling these issues including the implementation of the federal Head Start, Follow Through, and Title I programs in preschools and in the early elementary grades. Through these programs, the federal government legitimized parent involvement by mandating parent advisory councils and programs in schools. Later, the 1970s Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) also required parent advisory councils to assist with the development of programs for low -income children in response to poverty in the cities and the alienation of poor families in the public schools (Epstein & Sanders, 2006). Lastly, the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act served as the reauthorization of the ESEA, and the concept of family and community involvement was threaded throughout the legislation and 16 will continue to be a part of educational federal legislation. Through these initiatives, th e topic of parental involvement programs and organizations began to gain pro minence (Epstein & Sanders, 2006). Federal legislations and mandates encouraged and provided concrete actions and responsibilities for schools to work in conjunction with families. Legislation has forced schools to create mechanisms for engaging poor and working -class families and stimulated ongoing research and debate of how to effectively and strategically engage low -income, racially diverse, and urban parents in schools. The fede ral mandates and the parent involvement research confirm the importance of parental involvement and parent involvement programs in the American educational system (Barton & Coley, 2007). Parental Involvement Activities and Frameworks Parent involvement is a concept used to describe parents, families and other caregiversÕ behaviors and practices with their childrenÕs educational development inside and outside of their childrenÕs school. The practice of parent involvement in education encompasses a wide range of philosophies, ideas, goals, and activities. There is no consensus among researchers and educators of a shared definition or description of the practices or activities that constitute parent involvement (Keith et al., 1998). Researchers rarely utilize o ne common description of parental involvement and educators rarely utilize one specific form of parental involvement activities in their schools. Although there is no single form or method of parental involvement, the conventional idea of parent involvemen t brings up images of parents helping out in classrooms, managing fundraising activities, helping their children with homework and participating in PTA meetings (Hong and Ho, 2005; Keith et al., 1998). Parent involvement is commonly described as certain b ehaviors and practices at -home or 17 at-school that capture parentsÕ interactions with their childrenÕs education. Traditionally, there have been two broad categories of recognized and researched parent involvement: at -home and at-school practices. At -home a ctivities can range from help with homework to the existence of a home environment that supports learning in school (Jordan et al, 2001). At -school involvement ranges from participating in parent -teacher conferences to serving on school leadership advisory boards. Although there is no common description of parent involvement, researchers and professionals utilize frameworks as a method of describing parent involvement practices and activities. Most frameworks incorporate five features: parent expectations; a home structure for learning; educational communication between parents, schools, and students; parent participation in school activities; and parent participation in school decision -making (Keith et al., 1998) . The most commonly used framework is Epstei nÕs Six Types of Involvement framework of parenting, communicating, volunteering, learning at home, decision making, and collaborating with community (see Appendix A). EpsteinÕs framework , which stretches across home and school activities, was designed to conceptualize and organize common practices that constitute parent involvement with the intention of informing and improving parent involvement practices (Epstein, 1995) . It has been adopted by many schools and professional groups including the National Pa rent Teacher Association and is used to develop comprehensive programs for school, family, and c ommunity partnerships (PTA, 2005 ). The first type, Parenting , involves helping families establish home environments that support children as students. Through t his type, schools can help parents establish home conditions that support childrenÕs education at each grade level; such as helping parents establish an at -home library of books that are appropriate to the childÕs reading abilities. Communicating 18 involves designing effective forms of school -to-home and home -to-school communication about studentÕs needs, progress and school programs and opportunities. Schools and families can establish weekly forms of communication that meet he needs of both parties. Volunte ering includes recruiting and organizing parent help and support that may range from volunteering in classrooms to volunteering for safety patrol or the parent resource room. Learning at Home activities provide information and ideas to families about how t o help students at home with educational activities, decisions, and planning. Decision Making includes involving parents in school decisions and developing parent leaders and representatives. Lastly, Collaborating with Community involves identifying and in tegrating resources and services from the community to strengthen school programs, family practices, and student learning and development. Although, this is the most commonly utilized framework in education, Epstein herself states that the framework prese nts challenges that must be met in order to adequately implement it (Epstein, 1995). The framework is merely a roadmap for schools. Epstein (1995) states, ÒAlthough all schools may use the framework of six types as a guide, each school must chart its own c ourse in choosing practices to meet the needs of its families and studentsÓ (p. 707). The framework can be interpreted and utilized in different ways, leading to varying expectations and descriptions of behaviors and activities that qualify as parent invol vement. The six types of involvement can guide a comprehensive program of partnerships, including involvement at home and at school. However, the results will depend on the types of involvement implemented and the quality of the implementation (Epstein, 19 95). Less Recognized Forms of Parent Involvement Many researchers argue that some parents are involved with schools in ways that are not often recognized and valued by school personnel. In the book, Beyond the Bake Sale: The 19 Essentials Guide to Family -Sch ool Partnerships, Henderson, Mapp, Johnson, and Davies (2007) argue families engage in parent involvement activities that are often not recognized or supported by schools and educators. They (2007) state, Ò While some parents readily join the PTA and help organize bake sales, families from other cultures may have different traditionsÓ (p. 123). For example, in his study of migrant workers whose children perform well in school, Lopez (2001) found that the parents considered themselves to be highly involved b ut defined involvement as teaching their children to value education through hard work. They took their children with them to work in the fields and gave them consejos (advice) about how limited their opportunities would be if they dropped out of school (a s cited by Henderson et. al, 2007; p. 124). Diamond (2004) and Huntsinger & Jose (2009) have similar studies that describe the involvement of Asian families. It is often argued that Asian students do well in school because their parents are more invested in their education. However, when examining Asian parentsÕ participation in traditional forms of at -school involvement, they tend to be the least involved group and attend school events least often. They argue this is because Asian parents have a different model for how to be involved with their childrenÕs schools. They make substantial investments in the at -home education context by utilizing one -on-one tutoring, workbooks from their native country and drill and practice methods. Asian parents also rely he avily on their school networks outside of schools to support their childrenÕs education. Several studies highlight how African American parents are involved with schools in ways that are not often recognized by schools. For example, in his study of black families Diamond (2000) found that some of their educational beliefs and strategies for involvement contrast sharply with traditional forms of parent involvement. While some of the participants in his study were involved in traditional at -school activities such as volunteering at school and 20 serving on committees, he found that many families used extended family networks, religious involvement, and communal childrearing to support involvement with their childrenÕs education. Additionally urban parents are of ten involved with community -based organizations and community organizing efforts that center on improving the educational outcomes for children. A goal of community organizing efforts is to develop a neighborhoodÕs ability to identify its own issues and to support them with finding resources to solve the problems. Henderson et. al (2007) stated, Ò This kind of community capacity can help not only improve the safety and economic vitality of neighborhood but also, as it evolves, to improve the quality of teac hing and learning in the schoolsÓ (p. 5). Many schools do not recognize the se forms of parent involvement. Because of their limited categories of parent involvement, educators often assume that some parents do not value and are not involved with their c hildren's educ ation. Diamond (2004) states, Ò We canÕt go in with this single vision...of what parent involvement looks like or we miss the fact that all parents want to be involved. There just may be a different script for how they do itÓ (as cited in Hend erson et. al, 2007; p. 125). Factors that Influence Parent Involvement Urban parents and urban schools face a number of barriers when trying to engage and partner with one another. These barriers not only include demographic, psychological, and logistical obstacles, but also barriers generated by the school itself. Parent involvement literature highlights several family characteristics that influence parentsÕ at -school involvement trends (Henderson & Mapp, 2002; Mitchell, 2008). Parent and family character istics are predictors of parental involvement behaviors that can act as facilitators or hindrances to the types, frequency, and levels of at -school parent involvement (Georgiou, 2007; Lee & Bowen, 2006). 21 The most commonly documented family characteristics in the parent involvement literature includ e race and ethnicity (Huntsinger & Jose, 2009; Lareau & Horvat, 1999), social class and economic status (Brantlinger, 2003; Lareau, 2001, 2003), culture and cultural capital (Bourdieu, 1986 ; Lee & Bowen, 2006; Mc Neal, 1999; Huntsinger & Jose, 2009), social capital (Bourdieu, 1986 ; Coleman, 1988; Lareau, 2001) and parentsÕ self-efficacy (Hoover -Dempsey and Sandler, 1995). In addition to family characteristics, other factors such as urban parent and school personnel Õs perceptions of one another (Davies, 1993; McDermott & Rothenberg, 2000 ) logistical factors (Brantlinger, 2003) , and the school environment also influence parent involvement (Henderson & Mapp 2002; Henderson et. al, 2007; Hoover -Dempsey and Sandler, 1995). Figure 2.1 Factors that Influence Parent Involvement 22 Families who possess characteristics that align closely with schools have a benefit to those whose characteristics are not as aligned ( Bourdieu, 1986 ; Brantlinger, 2003; Coleman, 1988; Lareau, 1987, 2003). White, middle -class families possess characteristics such as race, class, and cultural and social capital that align greatest with and that are valued most by American schools. Therefore, they are more likely to be involved with their childrenÕs sc hools (McNeal, 1999; Huntsinger & Jose, 2009). Alternatively, urban parents generally have characteristics that do not align as closely. For example, many urban parents often possess different race, ethnicity, social class and cultural norms than the schoo l personnel who are responsible for educating their children, making it tougher to form effective at -school partnerships and collaborations. Additionally, urban parents often face more logistical barriers to being involved in at -school activities, and they have cultural and social capital that does not align with and is often not valued by urban schools. Due to these differences, many urban parents engage less in at -school parent involvement and are less likely to form productive relationships with schools and school personnel ( Jordan et al., 2001 ). The Influence of Race and E thnicity Parent involvement positively influences the educational outcomes of students, regardless of race or ethnicity (Mapp, 2002). However, levels of at -school participation have bee n shown to vary by race and ethnicity and certain types of parents and families participate more in certain types of involvement (Lareau & Horvat , 1999). McNeal (1999) found that at -school parent involvement strategies such as volunteering and parent -teacher organizations are more prevalent among European American families than among African American, Hispanic and Asian American families, families with low socioeconomic status, and single parent families. A comparative study that examined Chinese American and European American parents 23 from similar socioeconomic backgrounds revealed that race and ethnicity influence the levels of involvement and types of involvement of the parents (Huntsinger & Jose, 2009). The study utilized EpsteinÕs Six Types of Involveme nt specifically focusing on communicating, volunteering and learning at home. The study found that while European American parents were more likely to participate in school -based practices like volunteering; the Chinese American parents had higher levels o f participation in at -home learning. Chinese American parents utilized systematic forms of one -on-one tutoring, texts from libraries, workbooks from their native country and drill and practice methods that did not always align with the methods of instructi on at their childÕs school. However, European American parents, were more likely to volunteer at their childÕs school while engaging in more informal practices at home such as play -based methods of instruction and incentives for reading books (Huntsinger & Jose, 2009). Chinese families have higher rates of at -home parent involvement, while whites have higher rates at -school parent involvement (Huntsinger & Jose, 2009). In Lareau & HorvatÕs (1999) study of parent involvement patterns of African Americans and whites, they suggest that it is more difficult for African American parents to become involved. Lareau & Horvat (1999) write, ÒAlthough social class seems to influence how black and white parents negotiate their relationships with schools, for blacks race plays an important role, independent of social class, in framing the terms of their relationshipÓ (p. 38). Lareau & Horvat (1999) suggest that African American parentÕs struggled more to meet compliance with the institutional standards of schools and the demands of educators. Conversely, Lareau & Horvat (1999) state, Ò Whiteness represents a largely hidden cultural resource that facilitates white parents compliance with the standard of deferential and positive parental involvementÓ (p. 24 49). African Americ an parents lack this resource; it is more difficult for them to meet the demands and standards of schools and educators (Lareau & Horvat, 1999). The Influence of S ocial Class and Socioeconomic Status Research suggests that parentÕs social structure locat ion also shape their interactions with schools. One of the most often cited finding is that middle -class parents participate in their childrenÕs education at higher rates than their poor and working -class counterparts (Lee & Bowen, 2006; Lareau, 2001). Thr ough their location in the social class structure, middle class parents are more likely to have access to material resources, such as a disposable income, and flexible work schedules that better facilitate school -based engagement than working and poor class parents (Bratlinger, 2003; Lareau, 2001). Also, the social class values of middle -class families align more easily with the values of American schools. American schools rely on certain social structures and authority patterns in their relationships with families. Lareau (1987) writes, ÒThe standards of schools are not neutral; their requests for parental involvement may be laden with the social and cultural experiences of intellectual and economic elitesÓ (p. 74). Families living in poor socioeconomic con ditions often find it difficult to be involved in schools, because of their lack of flexible time and resources and their lack of alignment and understanding of middle -class values and standards. In Unequal Childhoods: Class, Race, and Family Life , Lare au (2003) examines the cultural logic of child -rearing practices among middle, poor, and working class families. The child -rearing techniques of families influence their relationships with schools. Lareau (2003) finds that families whose child -rearing tech niques are more closely aligned with schools benefit when interacting with schools and when trying to become involved with their childrenÕs schools. 25 Among middle class families, Lareau (2003) identified a child -rearing style called concerted cultivation , in which parents are actively engaged in the development of their child's skills, talents and opinions. Such parents tend to assign their children to very active schedules full of extra -curricular activities, communicate with their children using limited directives, and are more likely to intervene when their child encounters struggles or conflicts. When concerning educational institutions, middle -class parents use criticism and intervene on the behalf of their children; these parents also training their c hildren to take on this role (Lareau, 2003). Students who are raised in such households are more likely to develop a sense of entitlement that is evidenced in a number of ways (Lareau, 2003). For example, children from such households are more likely to ch allenge authority and are encouraged to be proactive when they encounter problems or struggles. Their parents model these behaviors and often engage in these practices in front of their children (Lareau, 2003). These behaviors closely align to the expecta tions and philosophies of American schools. Lareau (2003) writes, Ò Middle -class children were trained in Ôthe rules of the gameÕ that govern interactions with institutional representatives.Ó This creates an advantage for this group. Therefore, these pare nts and students are well suited and feel more comfortable interacting with schools, and these parents are more often involved in schools. Among poor and working class families, Lareau (2003) identified child -rearing practices that she described as accompl ishment of natural growth . These parents tend to focus on providing basic needs for the child including food, shelter, and safety. These children are granted more autonomy over many aspects of their daily lives and interactions. Often, the daily activities of these students outside of school include hanging out with family members, particularly other children. The parents use directives and the children rarely question or challenge the adults. 26 These families exhibit a dependence on institutions and are less likely to challenge those within such institutions (Lareau, 2003). According to Lareau (2003), the consequence for these actions is an emerging sense of constraint on the part of the parents and the children. Lareau (2003) writes, ÒFor working -class and poor families, the cultural logic of child rearing at home is out of synch with the standards of institutions.Ó This influences their parent involvement with schools and makes it harder for them to be involved with schools. For example, many poor families find it difficult to join PTA programs that are dominated by middle -class norms. These parents also realize that PTAs are run primarily to benefit schools and school administrations, not parents themselves. In her discussion of social class differences, L areau (2003) argues that these differences exist because schools rely on certain social structures and authority patterns that are not consistent with the social values and child rearing techniques of working -class and low -income parents. These social clas s differences affect the ways in which parents relate to schools. The greatest match in class values and practices exist between middle -class families and schools. In the book, Dividing Classes: How The Middle Class Negotiates and Rationalizes School Adva ntage Brantlinger (2003) examined social class stratification and the ways it influences schools. In theory, schools are supposed to provide all children an equal chance to move up in social class rank and to improve life conditions. However, in reality s chools do not accomplish this. Brantlinger (2003) argues that schools reproduce stratified class structure giving the middle -class an advantage. According to Brantlinger (2003), the educated middle class benefits the most from the social stratification. B rantlinger (2003) writes, ÒThe educated middle class, who are primarily in control of schooling whether consciously or not, consistently arrange school structure to benefit children of their classÓ (p.189). Brantlinger (2003) suggests that social 27 class aid s in the creation of an unequal and inequitable school system by influencing the ways in which parents interact with schools. In the context of parent and school relationships, the inequality greatly benefits the parent involvement behaviors of middle -class parents. The social class advantage makes it easier for middle -class parents to be more involved with their childÕs schools. The Influence of Social C apital Closely tied to social class and status is the concept of social capital (Coleman, 1988; Lareau , 2007; Lin, 2001). The acquisition of social capital, or lack thereof, influences parent participation in parent involvement activities (Coleman, 1988; Lareau, 2007; Lin, 2001). Social capital stemmed from sociology and political science, but it is also v ery popular in educational literature. It is a term used to describe the resources available to individuals through social relationships and social networks. The initial theoretical development of the concept of social capital is attributed to French soci ologist Bourdieu (Portes, 1998). In his book chapter The Forms of Capital (1986), Bourdieu discussed the interactions of economic capital, cultural capital and social capital (Bourdieu, 1986). Bourdieu defines social capital as, The aggregate of the actual or potential resources which are linked to possession of a durable network of more or less institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance and recognition - or in other words, to membership in a group -which provides each of its member with the backi ng of the collectivity -owned capital, a ÔcredentialÕ which then to credit, in various senses of the word (p. 9). BourdieuÕs (1986) definition of social capital encompasses two elements: the social relationships that allow the individual to claim resource s possessed by the collectivity and the quantity and quality of those resources (Bourdieu, 1986; Dika & Singh, 2002; Portes, 1998). Another commonly cited social capital theorist is Robert Putnam, who works in the field of political science. Putnam establi shed that social capital has both an individual and a collective aspect. He primarily examined social capital as a public good, arguing that communities benefit 28 from an individualÕs possession of social capital. He argued that a well -connected individual i n a poorly connected society is not as productive as a well -connected individual in a well -connected society (Putnam, 2000). Putnam (1993) defined social capital as Features of social organization, such as networks, norms, and trust that facilitate coordin ation and cooperation for mutual benefit. Social capital enhances the benefits of investment in physical and human capital. Putnam (2001) states, Ò The central idea of social capital, in my view, is that networks and associated norms of reciprocity have valueÓ (p. 1). He argues that just as physical and human capital can increase productivity, resources, and values; social networks and contacts can do the same. In educational research, ColemanÕs (1988) description and conceptualization of social capital is the most frequently utilized. His conceptualization stresses the role of social capital in communicating the norms, trust, authority, and social controls that an individual must understand and adopt in order to succeed in educational environments. Cole man (1988) offered the following definition Social capital is defined by its function; it is not a single entity, but a variety of entities with two elements in common: they all consist of some aspect of social structures, and they facilitate certain acti ons of actors Ð whether persons or corporate actors Ð within the structure. Like other forms of capital, social capital is productive, making possible the achievement of certain ends that in its absence would not be possible.Ó (p. 98). According to Colem an (1988), social capital is social structures that facilitate the actions of the actors in the structure. It facilitates productive activity and action. Persons or actors vary in the amount of social capital that they have access to which influences their knowledge and understanding of the norms and social controls that govern the system or structure. Individuals with access to more social capital are able to accomplish much more than individuals who lack access to the same social capital (Coleman, 1988). 29 Bourdieu examines social capital as a tool of reproduction for the dominant class, whereas Coleman examines social capital as social control, where trust and norms are characteristics of the community. ColemanÕs work supports the idea that families and pa rents can gain access to social capital by adopting the prescribed norms (Perna & Titus, 2005). BourdieuÕs work emphasizes structural constraints and unequal access to institutional resources based on class, gender, and race (Lareau, 2001). Alternatively, Robert Putnam proposes that social capital can be viewed as an attribute of community and as a property of cities or nations. This usage of the term has become extremely popular in public discourse and has been used to support the idea of loss of community or social decline in America (Perna & Titus, 2005). All of the researchers would agree that families with valuable social capital fare better in school than students with less valuable social capital (Bourdieu, 1986; Coleman 1988; Lareau, 2003). Componen ts of social capital. Although each researcher conceptualized social capital in different ways, the common aspects and components of social capital are the social relationships and networks and the value that is added due to participation in the relationsh ips and networks. The value of the social capital possessed depends on the size of the network connections and the possession of other forms of capital and resources possessed by the individuals in the network (Bourdieu, 1986; Dika & Singh, 2002). The firs t component of social capital is the social relationships and networks that make up the social structure. Social relationships and networks are defined as collections of individuals who interact socially. These networks exist between individuals due to the ir informal or formal social relationships with one another (Halpern, 2005). An example is the social networks that exist between teachers and parents in a school. These relationships may occur formally, through parent -teacher associations (PTA), or inform ally, through conversations with one another outside of school. 30 These relationships and networks are governed by norms, values, and expectations ; these are also known as social norms. The social norms are the rules, guidelines, values, and expectations th at characterize the social network or social relationships. They can be formal or informal Òunwritten rules.Ó The norms are a common understanding among network members that is a guide to acceptable actions and behaviors for the members of the social netwo rk. For example, in parent -teacher associations, they are social norms and expectations that guide the individuals within the social network; they may include the norms of attendance and the expectations of communication between teachers and parents. Urban parents often do not know or understand the Òunwritten rulesÓ for parent involvement and it effects their interactions with their childrenÕs schools. The second component of social capital is the value that exists within the social structure among the soc ial networks and relationships within the structure. The value depends on the size of the network connections and the acquisition of capital and resources already possessed by the individuals in the network (Bourdieu, 1986; Dika & Singh, 2002). Social rela tionships and networks are measured by density and closure (Halpern, 2005). The number of people in the social network who know one another defines the density. The closure is defined by the links that the actors in the social network have to those inside as well as outside of the social network (Halpern, 2005). The value of the social structure is determined by the quality and quantity of the density and closure. Valuable social structures contain access to human, cultural, and other forms of capital, as w ell as to institutional resources and supports (Coleman, 1988; Lin, 2001; Portes, 1998; Stanton -Salazar & Dornbusch, 1995). Types of social capital. There are two types of social capital: bonding and bridging. Bonding in social capital is referred to as social networks that are inward looking and between 31 homogenous groups (Haplern, 2005; Ottebjer, 2005). Bonding can be valuable for oppressed and marginalized members of society to band together in social networks that support their collective needs (Putnam , 2000). Bridging in social capital is referred to as social networks that are outward looking and socially heterogeneous groups ( Haplern, 2005; Ottebjer, 2005). Bridging allows diverse groups the opportunity to share and exchange information and ideas and to build consensus among the groups representing diverse interests. Bridging social capital is the most needed for collective problems (Halpern, 2005). A mothers only parent involvement group is an example of bonding social capital and a citywide parent involvement group is an example of bridging social capital. Many social networks bond along some social dimensions and bridge across others at the same time (Putnam, 2000). Both forms of social capital have powerful positive social effects. Social capital and parent involvement. Parent involvement rates can be negatively impacted due to the lack of social capital possessed by a parent or student; students with valued social capital fare better in school than students with less valuable social capital (Bourd ieu, 1986; Coleman 1988; Lareau, 2003). As previously discussed, social capital is acquired through an individualÕs relationships with other individuals. The formal and informal relationships in schools such as informal relationships between teachers and p arents or formal relationships such as Parent Teacher Associations and other parent -school organizations facilitate social capital. In his work Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital (1988), Coleman examined how social capital influenced parent i nvolvement. He stressed the role of social capital in communicating the norms, trust, authority, and social controls that an individual must understand and adopt in order to succeed. It is his argument that parents vary in the amount of social capital that they have access to which influences their knowledge and understanding of the norms, social 32 controls and authority that govern educational systems, thus influencing their parent involvement behaviors. Parents with more social capital tend to have higher r ates of parent involvement and better student success . He (1988) examined High School and Beyond (HSB) data and found that greater amounts of social capital, such as the presence of two parents in the home, higher parental education expectations, and inter generational closure led to lower incidences of students dropping out of school. He also found that parents from middle -class families have access to more social capital than parents from working and poor class families, influencing their childrenÕs educat ional outcomes. Sheldon (2002) examined the impact of parentÕs social networks on their parent involvement behaviors and found that the size of parentsÕ social networks predicted the degree to which parents were involved with their childrenÕs schools. Parents who reported speaking with more parents whose children attended the same school as their own children tended to have higher rates of involvement at the school (Sheldon, 2002). Urban parents often have small or limited social netwo rks that have the ca pital that is valued by schools . Due to the strained relationships between many urban parents and urban schools there is limited access to social capital through their relationships with urban schools. Although some groups of parents do not have access to social capital, they can acquire it through participation in applicable formal and informal networks, organizations, and relationships. Access to social capital gained through valuable social networks is theorized to generate knowledge, resources and skill s that participants can use to achieve their desired goal (Coleman, 1988; Portes, 1998). An example is how urban parents might utilize social capital gained through relationships with schools, teachers, parents or organizations to improve their knowledge and understanding of 33 how to engage in their childrenÕs education at -school as well as at -home. For example, parents can gain knowledge about the schoolÕs expectations for volunteering and homework activities through their relationships with teachers and ot her parents. They can also gain skills such as how to help their children with homework, reading at home, and parenting tips from informal social relationships or by attending more formal workshops or programs. In his examination of the impact of school l eadership on cultural and social capital at an urban alternative high school, Khalifa (2010) found that often school leaders struggle to recognize a nd validate capital that i s not associated with the dominant culture. However, in his study he (2010) found that the school leaders and teachers from the urban alternative high school validate d and enhanced students and familiesÕ social capital. Noguera also (2001) argues that urban schools can aid urban parents in acquiring increased social capital that can pos itively impact the educational outcomes of their students. He argues that the value and conditions of the relationships between urban parents and urban schools determine whether social capital can be increased. If relationships between schools and parents are weak and are characterized by fear and distrust then, it is harder for schools to improve the social capital of parents (Noguera, 2001). However, when the relationships are Ògenuine and based upon respect and a shared sense of responsibilityÓ strong so cial capital can be generated (Noguera, 2001). In their book So Much Reform, So Little Change: Building -Level Obstacles to Urban School Reform, Payne and Kaba report on a study conducted by the Consortium on Chicago School Research in which they surveyed staff at 210 schools to identify the characteristics shared by the schools that were improving. They found that strong social trust, the quality of staff -to-staff and staff -to-parent relationships, were characteristics of the improving schools. Relationshi ps matter when engaging parents. How school staff treat and view parents and 34 community members, as assets rather than liabilities, is important when engaging parents and working to increase their social capital (Henderson & Mapp, 2002). Urban parents can a lso acquire valuable social capital through participation in meaningful parent involvement programs that exist within or outside of schools. The Influence of C ulture Another perspective that helps us understand lower parent involvement patterns among cert ain populations is the related theory of cultural capital. Beyond relationships and networks, cultural capital refers more specifically to an individualÕs histories, experiences, customs, and traditions. In the context of education, cultural capital is the attitudes, personal dispositions and knowledge of education gained through experiences with educational systems and connections to other education -related benefits (Lee & Bowen, 2006). The greater an individual's or familyÕs cultural capital, the greater his or her advantage in obtaining additional capital. Families as well as individuals can possess cultural capital. Some individuals inherit cultural capital through the values and habits present in their familyÕs histories, experiences, customs, and tra ditions, in this case, those related to interactions with educational systems. This family advantage allows for more successful outcomes. In contrast, individuals with less cultural capital encounter constraints that result in unequal access to resources ( Lareau, 2001). For example, a family that has a culture that does not highly value education, may not engage in their childrenÕs education as much as a family whose culture highly values education. In the context of education, cultural capital is determi ned by the concordance of the educational aspects of the family's values and practices with the educational systems in which the family interacts. According to Lee & Bowen (2006), cultural capital is the advantage gained by middle -class educated European A merican parents from knowing, preferring, and 35 experiencing a lifestyle congruent with the culture that is dominant in most American schools. This advantage accrues from their support of the types of involvement most valued by the school or most strongly as sociated with achievement (Lee & Bowen, 2006). According to McNeal (1999), the cultural capital possessed by affluent European American families magnifies the effects of parents' involvement on their children's achievement at school, supporting better educ ational results . Most urban cities consist of ethnically and racially diverse populations. Often, their histories, experiences, customs, and traditions differ from the schools, instructors and administrators they interact with. American schools rely on social structures and authority patterns that are less consistent with the cultural values and child rearing techniques of these families (Lareau, 2007). Cultural differences and cultural diversity is one of the greatest challenges that an urban school fa ces in soliciting parent involvement. Additionally, many schools facilitate the exclusion of students and parents by utilizing activities that require specific culturally based knowledge and behaviors about the school as an institution that are often not p ossessed by urban parents and families. These parents may not possess the knowledge of how to navigate educational institutions and how to advocate for their children. The absence of appropriate knowledge excludes these parents from acceptable participatio n in formal school activities, resulting in isolation for many of these parents ( Delgado - Gaitan, 1991). Due to this, racially diverse families living in poor socioeconomic conditions often face sustained isolation from schools. Parents who are less knowle dgeable about the school's expectations and the ways in which the school operates are less able to advocate for their children than parents who have such knowledge and skills (Lareau, 2007). The cultural expectations of schools for parent involvement are d ifferent than the cultural experiences and expectations of many urban parents. 36 In all, racially diverse families living in poor socioeconomic conditions often face sustained isolation from schools. Parents who are less knowledgeable about the school's expe ctations and the ways in which the school operates are less able to advocate for their children than parents who have such knowledge and skills (Lareau, 2007). The Influence of Self -Efficacy Higher levels of self -efficacy are associated with more involve d and engaged parents; parents with higher efficacy are more likely to volunteer at their c hildrenÕs schools and spend time in educational activities with their children (Hoo ver -Dempsey, Bassler & Brissie, 1992). Self-efficacy is belief in oneÕs abilities to act in ways that will produce desired outcomes (Bandura, 2006). Bandura (2006 ) suggests those with higher self -efficacy are more likely to engage and are more persistent when encountering obstacles than those with lower self -efficacy. In the context of parent involvement, Hoover -Dempsey and Sandlers (1995) define parent self -efficacy as parentÕs belief that they have the skills and knowledge necessary to help their children succeed in school, belief that their children can learn what they teach them, and belief that they can find alternative or additional helpful resources and skills when necessary. Hoover -Dempsey & Sandler (1997), utilize psychological theory to understand why parents become involved in their childrenÕs education and to understand the e ffects of that involvement. Their Model of the Parent Involvement Process (1997) conceptualizes a process that is composed of five levels operating between parentsÕ initial choice to be involved and the beneficial influence of that involvement on student o utcomes (Hoover -Dempsey & Sandler, 1997). Level 1 is parentsÕ initial choice to become involved. Hoover -Demsey & Sandlers (1997) suggests that this decision is influenced by parentÕs construct of the parental role, parentÕs sense 37 of efficacy for helping t heir children succeed in school, and general invitations and demands for involvement from their child and their childÕs school. Level 2 is parentÕs choice of involvement forms; these are influenced by parentÕs skill and knowledge, demands of parent time an d energy, and specific invitations and demands for involvement from the child and school. Level 3 addresses the mechanisms through which parent involvement influences child outcomes; these include modeling, reinforcement, and instruction. Level 4 is the in fluence of major mediating variables that enhance or diminish the influence of involvement. One such variable includes the fit between parentsÕ involvement actions and the schoolÕs expectations of parent involvement. Level 5 is the childÕs outcomes for lea rning. This encompasses the influence of parent involvement and studentsÕ personal sense of efficacy for doing well in school academically. Through this model Hoover -Dempsey & Sandler (1997) identified three major constructs that contribute to parentsÕ de cisions for involvement. The first construct is parentÕs perceptions of their role and responsibility in their children's education. Middle class parents, for example, feel that they should collaborate with and be involved at schools. But low -income famili es often perceive themselves as being outsiders to the school system and are more reluctant to be involved. Second is parentsÕ sense of efficacy for helping their children succeed in schools. Parents who believe they can make a difference in their children 's education are more likely to visit and participate in school activities than those who feel ineffective. Sense of efficacy is important because it enables parents to be more involved with their childrenÕs schools and to persist when encountering barrier s to helping their children succeed in school. The last construct is parentsÕ perceptions that their children and the school desire their involvement. Some schools are more welcoming than others and extend invitations, demands and opportunities for involve ment. The perceptions and the extent to which schools make parents feel comfortable and 38 valued contributes to their participation in their children's education. Hoover -Dempsey and Sandler (1997) argue schools serving low income, ethnically diverse familie s must make greater efforts to welcome families, because those are the parents who often feel excluded because of differences in their ethnicity, income, and culture. Sense of efficacy is important because it enables parents to be more involved with their childrenÕs schools and to persist when encountering barriers to helping their children succeed in school (Hoover -Dempsey and Sandlers, 1995). Parents who believe they can make a difference in their children's education are more likely to visit and be invo lved with their childrenÕs school activities than those who feel inadequate ( Hoover -Dempsey and Sandlers, 1995; McDermott & Rothenburg, 2000) . Those that have low efficacy can develop high efficacy. Higher self -efficacy can be developed through experiences that positively influence parentÕs beliefs. The examined program gives pa rents access to experiences can potentially influence their self -efficacy. ParentsÕ Perceptions of S chools ParentsÕ perceptions of schools are influenced by their interactions with s chools including their prior personal experiences as students and interactions with their childrenÕs schools. Many urban parents did not have positive experiences with schools as students. In her article Low -Income Parents and the Public Schools , Lott (200 1) discusses an ambitious study conducted by Davies (1993) that included 350 parent interviews. Davies (1993) found that parents reported several bad memories about schools and negative interactions and relationships with school personnel including teacher s and administrators. These negative experiences influence the way urban parents interact with their childrenÕs schools. Urban families also perceive schools as being culturally insensitive and school -centered in the area of parent involvement. In a study that examined parentsÕ perceptions of family 39 engagement at an inner city school, McDermott & Rothenberg (2000) found Òparents comments indicated that they perceived the school as representing the values and interests of established white America and not t he needs of low -income people of colorÓ (p. 9). The urban parents also perceived the urban school as unwelcoming and their interactions with the inner city school as painful encounters (McDermott & Rothenberg, 2000). Due to these perceptions, McDermott & Rothenberg (2000) found that the parents Òdeliberately decided to withdraw from school activities Ó (p. 9). Urban parentsÕ perceptions of schools create an additional barrier that further strains the relationship between urban parents and schools and urban parentÕs at -school involvement rates (Henderson & Mapp, 2002). TeachersÕ Perceptions of Urban Parents Urban parents face a number of barriers when trying to engage in school involvement, including barriers generated by the school itself. Many school pers onnel rely on deficit thinking in the ways they perceive urban parents. Deficit thinking takes the position that minority students and families are at fault for poor academic performance because students enter school without the normative cultural knowledg e and skills and parents neither value nor support their childÕs education (Yosso, 2005). TeachersÕ preconceived notions about urban parents further hinder efforts to build effective parent involvement. Since AmericaÕs colonial period, educators have perce ived parents as incapability of supporting their childrenÕs intellectual, social, and moral development (Gonzalez -DeHass & Willems, 2003). More than a century later, educators continue to blame low -income and racially diverse parents for their childrenÕs a cademic failures (Lazar & Slostad, 1999). School personnel perceive parents as being unsupportive, uninvolved, and as barriers to their childrenÕs education (Jackson & Remillard, 2005). 40 Lazar & Slostad (1999) argue that urban parents are not involved with schools due to schoolsÕ perceptions and isolation of urban parents. They argue that many teachers often assume that poor and minority parents do not care about supporting their children's academic progress (Lazar & Slostad, 1999). These teachers tend to b elieve that parents from urban communities neither value education highly nor provide their children with the intellectual and motivational prerequisites for learning and success in school. It is Lazar & SlostadÕs (1999) argument that teachers have these b eliefs because of the lack of cultural sensitivity training they receive during their preparation. McDermott & Rothenberg (2000) found that although teachers recognize that parents are disengaged with schools; they lack the tools and knowledge of how to al leviate the lack involvement. They (2000) state, Ò The teachers recognized the importance of parental involvement in children's education, but they knew they were unsuccessful in this aspect of their teaching (p. 5).Ó Many teachers and school personnel sub scribe to the majoritarian view that urban parents do not care about their childrenÕs education, are not motivated to be involved, and are consequently not involved with their childrenÕs schools. Also, as previously discussed, schools and teachers subscrib e to very rigid definitions of parent involvement and do not recognize the alternative ways that many urban parents are involved with schools and with their childrenÕs education. Effective Parent Involvement Programs and Community Organizing Parent involv ement programs are a common method for involving parents in schools. Henderson & Mapp (2002) examined 51 parent involvement studies and found that access to parent involvement programs positively impacted the at -school involvement rates of parents. They al so found that parent involvement programs make a difference and have a positive impact on student outcomes. Involvement programs and schools that successfully engage families from diverse 41 backgrounds exhibit three key practices; they focus on building tru sting relationships among teachers, families, and community members, they recognize, respect and address families needs including class and cultural differences, and they share power and responsibility between schools and families ( Henderson & Mapp, 2002) . Lopez, Scribner, & Mahitivanichcha (2001) examined four schools that effectively involved migrant parents and found that schools were successful at involving parents because they aimed to meet parental needs above all other involvement considerations. The schools were successful not because they subscribed to a particular definition of involvement, but because they held themselves accountable to meet the multiple needs of migrant parents on a daily and ongoing basis (Lopez, Scribner, & Mahitivanichcha, 2001). Unfortunately, most schools and parent involvement programs do not have these characteristics. Most programs and interventions are school -centered, do not take into account the needs of families, and are generally restricted to a few types of activiti es and programs (Gonzalez -DeHass & Willems, 2003). School -centered programs are programs established by the school and serve school -determined interests (Henderson & Mapp, 2002). These activities and programs often include parent -teachers conferences or p arent -teachers associations, and focus on volunteering or giving parents guidelines for how to assist their children with academic development. Although these are important types of programs, many of them do not build trust, meet the needs of the families participating, or share power with parents and families. Programs and schools tend to limit parental involvement practices to the more formal activities that ignore the specific perspectives of minority populations (Lopez, Scribner, & Mahitivanichcha, 200 1). Ultimately, these school -centered approaches cast urban parents as outsiders rather than welcoming them into schools. Urban families, like other low -income and 42 racially diverse families, struggle to feel welcome in school -centered parent involvement programs and are consequently less likely to form productive relationships with schools and school personnel (Lareau, 2003). Due to this disconnection, researchers and educators have sought to develop the conditions that support urban schools, families and c ommunities to form productive relationships and partnerships that support and encourage student achievement (Epstein, 2001; Mitchell, 2008; Jordan et al., 2001). As previously discussed, schools must recognize all the ways that parents are involved in thei r childrenÕs education (Henderson et al., 2007). Additionally schools must expand their definitions of parent involvement and create parent involvement models that are not school -centered . When the programs build trust, meet the specific needs of families and communities, and share power they are successful in creating and sustaining genuine connections and partnerships that improve student achievement ( Henderson & Mapp, 2002) . Parent and commun ity organizing is a unique approach and a popular strategy uti lized to improve relationships and increase parent involvement and partnerships among low -income and racially diverse families and schools. Effective organizing strategies focus on building power and relationships to increase equity and improve public educ ation and other issues confronting families in low -income communities (Warren & Mapp, 2011). Parent and community organizing efforts often use strategies that are aimed at establishing a power base to hold schools and school districts accountable for low s tudent achievement. Organizing is a much dif ferent strategy than most parent involvement programs. Unlike many involvement programs, organizing is based outside of schools and is often led, designed and controlled by parents, community members and communi ty organizations. A key goal of community organizing is to give parents and community members more power over what 43 happens in their childrenÕs schools. Organizing seeks to change the power relations that create and sustain poor functioning schools (Henders on & Mapp, 2002). Additionally, it aims to change and alleviate conditions that underlie low academic performing schools. These conditions include, but are not limited to low standards and expectations for learning, poor and mediocre teaching, inadequate l earning resources and materials, and ineffective instructional and school leadership. Lastly, organizing seeks to create and improve local leadership and capacity to improve and rebuild distressed communities (Henderson & Mapp, 2002). Through the emphasis on relationship building, organizing often increases and builds social capital. In their book, A Match on Dry Grass: Community Organizing as a catalyst for School Reform , Warren and Mapp (2011) wrote, ÒWhere financial capital and human capital are in shor t supply, as they are in many low -income communities, social capital often provides a particularly critical resourceÓ (p. 24). Organizing builds and leverages building and bonding social capital. Organizing strategies have been successful in many cases and have contributed to changes in policy, resources, personnel, school culture, and educational program improvements (Henderson & Mapp, 2002). Henderson and Mapp (2002) state, Ò Programs that successfully connect with families and community invite involvemen t, are welcoming, and address specific parent and community needsÓ (p. 43). For effective and genuine involvement, programs must be welcoming, have strong social trust, and address the specific needs of the parents and community. Ultimately, programs will be effective and successful not because they subscribed to a particular definition of involvement, but because they hold themselves accountable to meet the multiple needs of parents and families on an ongoing basis (Lopez, Scribner, & Mahitivanichcha, 2001 ). 44 Summary Parent and family characteristics can act as facilitators or hindrances to parental involvement. The most commonly documented family characteristics in the parent involvement literature include race and ethnicity, social class, social and cultural capital, and parentsÕ self -efficacy. In addition to family characteristics, other factors also influence at -school involvement such as urban parent and school personnelÕs perceptions of one another, logistical factors, and the school environment. Families who possess characteristics that align closely with schools and that are valued by schools have a benefit to those whose characteristics do not ( Bourdieu, 1986 ; Brantlinger, 2003; Coleman, 1988; Lareau, 1987, 2003). Urban parents often possess ra ce, ethnicity, social class, and cultural norms that are not valued by schools, making it tougher to form effective at -school partnerships and collaborations. Community organizing approaches are an emerging strategy for improving relationships and partnerships between schools and low -income, racially diverse families. Effective community organizing strategies focus on building relationships that increase equity and improve a wider set of issues confronting low -income families and communities (War ren & Mapp, 2011). This study examines a parent involvement program that utilized a community organizing approach to empower parents to become more involved with schools. The Conceptual Framework The review and critique of the literature and my own observ ations and experiences have contributed to developing a conceptual framework for this study (Maxwell, 2005). Miles and Huberman (1994) described a conceptual framework as a visual or written product that explains the key factors and concepts that are being studied (as cited by Maxwell, 2005, p. 33). The purpose of this study is to describe the Community Reviewer Program and to examine how 45 participation in the program influenced parentÕs experiences with their childrenÕs schools. Describing the Community Rev iewer Program and how participation influenced parentÕs orientations toward involvement in their childrenÕs schools encompassed two general domains: the Community Reviewer Program and its early outcomes, and parent experiences and their early outcomes (Fig ure 2.2). This conceptual framework aligns with the studyÕs research questions. The first question aimed to describe and understand the programÕs underlying theory of action, its operating model, and its early outcomes. A second set of questions sought to understand parentsÕ experiences with the program and how it influenced their orientations to greater involvement or improved interaction with their childrenÕs schools or other schools. As discussed in the literature review, many factors affect parent in volvement. Rather than testing for changes in these factors one by one, they study drew instead on the broader concepts of efficacy and social capital as a way to explore parent experiences and outcomes. Effective parent involvement programs can serve as interventions that give parents access to applicable and valuable social capital that can influence their relationships with schools and experiences that can positively affect their self -efficacy. Specific to the goals of the Community Reviewer Program, th e model included some targeted outcomes such as changes in parentsÕ beliefs and ideas about what constitutes a good school, their confidence in being involved with schools, their involvement dispositions and behaviors, their school choice methods and decis ions, and other knowledge and skills. The conceptual framework focused the research process and served as a guide for data collection and coding -- described further in the next chapter. Across that process some concepts were deleted and others were modifie d, or collapsed. The final working framework was as follows: 46 Figure 2.2 StudyÕs Conceptual Framework The structure of the thesis chapters aligns to this framework. Chapter F our shares the program Õs theory of action, model and early outcomes. Chapte r Five provides findings and interpretations on parents the experiences of nine program part icipants. A concluding chapter offers final interpretations and implications. 47 CHAPTER 3: STUDY CONTEXT AND METHODOLOGY The purpose of this case stud y wa s to describe the Community Reviewer Program developed by Excellent Schools Detroit and to examine the experiences of a sample of participants. This chapt er includes an overview of the p rogramÕs origins and context, the studyÕs research questions, and a rationale for the studyÕs approach. It then describes the studyÕs research sample, methods of data collection, methods of data analysis, and reflections on validity. Detroit and the Community Reviewer Program The Community Reviewer Program was develop ed in and for Detroit, Michigan. Detroit currently has a population of about 701,000 that is 82% African American, 10% white and 6 % Hispanic. It has a school -aged population of about 130,000 children. Now in bankruptcy, the city has faced serious challenge s that negatively impact school quality and student achievement, including high unemployment rates and high concentrations of poverty. The median income is only $25,000, with over 55% of school -aged children living in poverty ( Data Driven Detroit , 2012; Ta ble 3.1). The structure of the cityÕs schools has changed dramatically in the past ten years. In the year 2000, there were about 194,000 school -aged children in the city; over 154,000 students attended traditional Detroit Public Schools and about 11,000 s tudents attended public charter schools. In 2011, there were only about 126,000 school -aged students in Detroit with about 57,000 students attending Detroit Public Schools, about 29,500 students attending more than 100 public charter schools, and about 11, 000 students in 15 schools managed by a newly created Education Achievement Authority (EAA). Another 25,000 Detroit children were attending school in DetroitÕs suburbs (Table 3.2). The EAA is a new statewide school system created to 48 operate the lowest per forming 5 percent of schools in Michigan. It was designed to provide stable, financially responsible management to these schools and create the conditions under which teachers could help students make significant academic gains. Together, these changes sho w a dramatic population decrease of school -aged children and rapid growth in public charter school enrollments. Table 3.1 Demographic Changes in Detroit 2000 -2011 49 Table 3.2 Education Landscape Changes in Detroit 2000 -2012 Although school ch oice options in Detroit have dramatically increased, the cityÕs schools including district and charter are characterized by chronically low academic performance and weak evidence of improvement over the last decade. Currently, 46 percent of Michigan Õs Òbo ttom 5%Ó schools (in the s tateÕs top -to-bottom ranking of all schools) and almost half of all Òfailing schoolsÓ are located in Detroit. More than a third of DetroitÕs school -aged students attend a ÒfailingÓ school and more than 80 percent attend a school in the bottom 25% of the statewide ranking. Significant choice and charter developments have not altered the fact that many Detroit students still attend ineffective, academically weak schools. 50 Excellent Schools Detroit and the Community Reviewer Program In 2009, Detroit Public Schools (DPS) voluntarily participated in the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) exam for the first time. Local and state leaders called upon the district to compare its student achievement to other cities nationwid e, and the results were staggering. Only 3 percent of DPSÕs fourth graders and only 4 percent of eighth graders met the national standards on math. DPS students received the nationÕs worst scores on the NAEP, hitting historic lows in mathematical proficien cy (Erb & Dawsey, 2009) and prompting US Secretary of Education Arne Duncan to label Detroit schools as Òground zero for educatio n in this countryÓ (Erb & Dawsey, 2009 ). In an attempt to combat these serious shortcomings, education, philanthropic, civic, and nonprofit leaders across Detroit formed a school -community nonprofit called Excellent Schools Detroit (ESD) in March 2010. ESDÕs first call to action included a bold education plan that aimed to ensure that, by 2020, every Detroit child would attend an excellent school. Excellent schools were defined by the Ò90 -90-90Ó concept, indicating a school where 90 percent of students are on -track to graduate, 90 percent of those graduates enroll in college or a quality postsecondary training program, and 90 perc ent of those enrollees succeed in their post secondary placements without remediation. Today, ESD is a coalition of over forty organizations including educational, philanthropic, government community -based, and schools. Excellent Schools DetroitÕs theory of change works to create the conditions in DetroitÕs education system that will result in four major outcomes: 1) parents and families will choose the highest -quality education available for their children; 2) any and all new schools that open in Detroit will be of high quality; 3) weak schools will improve; or 4) they will be closed (Figure 3.1). 51 Figure 3.1 ESD Theory of Change In order to create the conditions that support achievement, ESDÕs first task was to create a shared definition of an excellen t education through the 90 -90-90 standard and a shared information system. To accomplish this, ESD developed and launched the Detroit School Scorecard to assess and compare all of the cityÕs schools against the 90 -90-90 standard and an overall A - F grade b ased on additional factors (see Appendix B). The Detroit School Scorecard was to become an annual process for evaluating the academic performance and culture of all schools in Detroit (public, charter and private) using the same standards and measurement s regardless of governance model or affiliation. Schools on -track to accomplish the 90 -90-90 standard would be rated as ÒAÓ schools and Ò excellent schools.Ó More specifically, the Scorecard utilized four performance categories: academic status, academ ic progress, school culture, and extra credit. Academic status is a measure of the schoolÕs 52 current academic achievement based on how students perform on stat e-mandated standardized tests. Academic progress is a measure of the schoolÕs progress to ward the ESD 90 -90-90 goal; it measures academic growth over the course of one year based on standardized tests and grow th-to-achievement assessments. The extra credit score can be earned for serving large populations of disadvantaged students including schools wi th high numbers of students who are English language learners, eligible for free or reduced price lunch or receiving special education services. Skeptical of test -based accountability, parents and school leaders called for alternatives to test based indic ators of school performance on the Scorecard. In response to the demands, ESD created a School Culture category based on two measures: survey data from teachers and students and schools evaluation grades given by parents and community members.. The Commun ity Reviewer Program was created to conduct the evaluations and produce a school culture grade for the Scorecard. Grades earned in each of the performance categories are combined to create an overall grade of A, B, C, D or F (see Appendix B). Schools mu st have both an academic status and academic progress grade to receive an overall grade. ESD recommends that parents send their children to schools with a C+ or better rating. Research Questions and Conceptual Framing The purpose of this study was to exam ine the Com munity Reviewer Program and the experiences of a sample of program participants. It was guided by the p rogramÕs theory of action. Discussed more in the next chapter, this theory suggested that providing reliable, transparent dat a on the perfor mance of schools and engaging parent and community members in school as reviewers would enhance the social capital of parents and empower them to choose good schools for their children and to pressure schools to improve. The Program trained parents 53 to con duct school evaluation visits in groups, providing new information and experiences, and new relationships with other parents, community members and ESD leaders and organizers. The study aimed to describe the unique program and to explore whether parentsÕ experiences with the program influenced their interactions with schools (Figure 3.2). Figure 3.2 Conceptual Framework and Study Guide Research Questions The following main questions and sub questions gave direction and provided continued focus during th e study: 1. What strategies and practices did Excellent Schools Detroit utilize to create the Community Reviewer Program? a. What was the programÕs theory of action and components of the program model? b. What strategies and activities most empowered participants? c. What are the early outcomes of the program? 54 2. How do parents describe their experience participating in the parent involvement program? a. Does it affect their thinking about what constitutes a good school for their child? b. Does participation in the program af fect parentÕs self -efficacy and confidence in being involved with their childrenÕs schools? c. What sorts of knowledge, skills, and dispositions do they report acquiring? 3. How might participation in the program influence urban parentsÕ experiences and interac tions with their childrenÕs schools? Rationale for Research Approach My goal was to gain insight into the CRP model but also to understand the lived experiences of the parent participants and to give voice to them. Descriptive findings on program operatio ns and outcomes involved quantitative measures of participation rates but the central purpose was to understand the thoughts and experiences of the p rogram participants. Therefore, a qualitative research approach was viewed as the most appropriate method f or the study. Qualitative research grounds itself in lived experiences and also seeks to understand and interpret how people in a specific setting construct and make meaning of the world around them (Glesne, 2010; Marshall and Rossman, 2006; Maxwell, 2005 ). The approach is committed to views of social reality whereby a researcherÕs participants become the experts; it is his or her view of reality that the researcher seeks to interpret ( Hesse-Biber, 2010) . The qualitative approach also values reflection an d listening with the goal of giving voice to respondentsÕ experiences (Hesse -Biber, 2010). 55 The most suited design for the study was a descriptive, embedded case study. A case study is an empirical inquiry that investigates a phenomenon within its real -life context (Yin, 2003). They are often used to illustrate events and their specific context and seek to assess them in detail and in depth, based on an articulation of a descriptive theory (Yin, 2003). An embedded case study also allows for more than one u nit of analysis (Yin, 2003). The examined case was the Community Reviewer Program and the units of analysis for this embedded case study were the experiences of nine parent participants. Description of Research Sample I utilized a purposeful sample of n ine parent participants of the Community Reviewer Program. According to Polkinghorne (2005) a purposeful sample can provide relevant descriptions of the experiences that I seek to better understand. The criteria for selection of the participants were as fo llows: ! Program participant in the 2013 -14 Community Reviewer Program ! First time participant in the Community Reviewer Program ! Parent or legal guardian with a child currently in K -12 schools in Detroit Study participants were recruited during CRP training s essions in November and December of 2013. ESD supported this study and allowed time during the program trainings for me to explain the purpose of the study, ask participants to complete a flyer, and answer any questions that the participants had regarding the study. Each participant at these trainings received a recruitment flyer soliciting participation in the two -stage interview process. The flyer briefly described the purpose of the study and included a few questions that asked their interest in part icipating in the interviews, whether they currently had children in Detroit schools, basic demographic information, and contact 56 information (see Appendix C ). At the end of the program training , I collected the flyers from the participants that were interes ted in taking part in the study. A total of about thirty -five participants expressed interest in participating by turning in the flyer. Of the thirty -five participants about twenty five of them met the criteria. After the program training, I followed up with parents who met the criteria for the study via telephone. Some of the parents phone numbers were disconnected, some of did not return my phone calls, and some did not show up for the scheduled pre -interview. The final sample included nine parents includ ing two fathers, six mothers, and one grandmother who is the legal guardian of her grandchild. Seven participants were African American, one Latino, and one biracial participant (Table 3.3). Table 3.3 Interview Participants Demographic Characteristics !Pseudonym !!Gender !Race !Age !Education Level !Annual Income !Employment !!Hattie !!Female !AA!70!BA!Degree !$35,000 - 40,000 !Retired !Barry !Male !AA!49!MA!Degree !0ver !$45,000 !Program Director at a Nonprofit !Ebony !Female !AA!42!GED !Less than $5,000 !Unemployed !Miche lle!Female !AA!41!MA Degree !!0ver !$45,000 !College Counselor at Local College !Maria !Female !HA!50!11th !Grade !$5,000 -!10,000 !Unemployed !Damon !Male !AA!45!High School Diploma !$10,000 - 20,000 !Part time at a High School !Tanesha !Female !AA!31!Pursuing Associate Degree !$5,000 -!10,000 !Unemployed !Beverly !Female !AA!40!!GED !$20,000 - 30,000 !Nursing Home !!Vanessa !Female !Bi-racial !43!Associate Degree !Less than $5,000 !Unemployed ! 57 Sources of Data To answer my research questions, I utilized in -depth interviews, questio nnaires, participant and program observations, and document analysis (Table 3.4). These data were collected during the third year of the Community Reviewer Program (CRP), from November 2013 to April 2014. The use of multiple methods and data triangulation is critical when conducting a case study (Yin, 2003). This data collection strategy added rigor, depth, and sources of corroborative evidence to the study. Table 3.4 Sources of Data Data Source Sample Size Description Interviews N=9 Parent participants of the program Questionnaires N=9 Parent participants of the program Participant Observations Trainings, program staff meetings, school site visits and evaluations Document Analysis Website, program documents and videos, participantsÕ school visit rub rics Interviews and Q uestionnaire s The i nterviews were the primary source of data. I utilized the studyÕs research questions and conceptual framework as a guide to develop the studyÕs interview questions, constructing a matrix to illustrate relationship s between the studyÕs research questions and the int erview questions (see Appendix D ). I asked members of my dissertation guidance committee to review and provide feedback on the interview questions, and I incorporated their comments into the final int ervi ew protocols (see Appendix E ). 58 To explore the perceptions and experiences of parent participants of the Community Reviewer Program, I utilized phenomenological based interviewing (Seidman, 1998). Phenomenological based interviewing explores the human know ing through accessing peopleÕs experiences and how they perceive those experiences (Titchen and Hobson, 2005). In this case, it asks questions such as can you describe your childrenÕs social and academic experiences in schools and can you tell me a negativ e story about a school you visited during the prog ram (see Appendix E ). A loosely structured pre - and post interview was conducted with each of the nine selected participants. The average duration of each interview was two hours. I used a tape recorder and I took notes during the interviews. All interview participants agreed to sign a consent form and agreed to have the interviews audio recorded (see Appendix J ). Participants were also informed that pseudonyms would be utilized for the program, their names, and the school names. After participants complete bot h interviews I offered them a $4 0 visa gift card. The pre -interviews were conducted after the program training, but before par ticipation in the school visits. The purpose of the pre -interviews was to g ather life history and baseline information about their experiences with schools and with their childrenÕs schools and their beliefs and descriptions of a good school. Parents were , however, exposed to ESD language and descriptions of the standards that ma rk a good school during the program trainings. A review of the pre -interviews showed much of this language in parentÕs own descriptions, for example the parents offered descriptions of a good school very similar to those used in the training. In retrospe ct, the timing of these interviews was not as ideal as one that might have occurred prior to being exposed to language and terms during program trainings. Earlier interviews might have 59 revealed language and descriptions of a good school more authentic to these parents and less aligned with that of the training. The post interviews occurred after parents completed the three required school visits. They allowed participants to reconstruct the details of their experience with the program and encouraged paren ts to reflect on the meaning the experience held for them (see Appendix E). Some elements of the post interview were also affected by the timing of the pre interview. Differences in how parents thought about a good school changed little, as both drew hea vily on language and standards introduced in the program training. This awareness and limitation aside, the interviews still present parents thinking about schools. Most of the interviews were conducted in the participantÕs homes; three were conducted in other locations selected by the participants: at a school, a library, and a restaurant. The interviews in the homes of the participants took place in the participantÕs living room, dining room, or on the front porch. In some cases the houses were quiet, i n other cases children and telephone calls frequently intervened. The interviews were open -ended and were set up to be like a conversation. I had an interview guide with questions, but depending on how the interview evolved, I sometimes deviated from it. At the conclusion of the pre -and post interviews, each participant also completed a brief questionnaire. The questionnaire assessed participantÕs self -reported efficacy when interacting with their childrenÕs schools, teachers, an d administrators (see Appen dix K ). The questionnaire was constructed utilizing Bandura Õs (2006 ) Guide for Constructing Self -Efficacy Scales and pre -existing questions from Hoover -Dempsey & SandlerÕs (2005) Model of Parental Involvement Process . The pre - and post questionnaire includ ed the same items and had statements such as; I know how to help my child do well in school and I am confident when communicating with my 60 childÕs teachers. Participants were asked to assess each statement by selecting not at all, somewhat, mostly, or compl etely. At the conclusion of the post interview, I placed both the pre - and post questionnaire side -by-side and asked participants to describe what experiences during the program most influenced any changes in their questionnaire. Participant Observations and Document Analysis The observations were conducted during the program trainings and school visits. I attended all of the program trainings and many of the program planning meetings and debriefings. During some of the trainings I just observed and took g eneral field notes, and in others I participated in group discussions and aided the program staff with administrative tasks. I primarily recorded information that pertained to the training content, participantsÕ interactions with team leaders and other par ents, and their conversations and discussions about the program training rubrics and tools. I also attended program meetings with the program community organizers and scoring consultants. During these meetings, I participated in discussions, and I recorded general information. The documents collected and reviewed included information on the program website, internal program documents (flyers, media releases, frequently asked questions documents, promotional videos, participation data, and other general pro gram documents). I also collected training and program meeting agendas and other documents given to participants during the trainings. Additionally, ESD gave me access to the participantÕs school visit rubric responses. Data Analysis and Synthesis Analysi s was ongoing and began early in the data collection process. Shortly after the observations and interviews a short one to two page analytical memo was written to summarize the key issues and reflections for each observation and interview. Documents and m emos on 61 program operations and outcomes were then pooled together to construct a descriptive picture of the programÕs origins, the model that emerged, how the program operated, and what early outcomes were in terms of participant rates and patterns. These analysis and findings are shared in Chapter 4. I spent hours listening to the participantÕs interviews over and over, and documented my thoughts and reflections. I also had each interview transcribed verbatim. The shortest transcription was about twenty p ages and the longest was about forty pages. I read and analyzed each participantÕs pre - and post interview transcript. As I read, my primary questions were: ÒWhat is this about? What is being referenced here?Ó I highlighted particular passages and organize d them into tables to surface clusters of experiences and events. I then began to assign the clusters of experiences and events a code name. I utilized the studyÕs research questions and conceptual framework to create a master list of codes and patterns (C ampbell, 1975; Trochim, 1985; Yin, 2003). Then, I mapped each participantÕs clusters of experiences and events on to the master list of codes. Next, I began cross -case analysis by comparing the master list of codes and patterns across the parent data (Yi n, 2003). For example, I found that most of the participants desired to send their children to schools that would prepare them to be successful beyond high school descriptions of a good school were similar. As cross -case analysis continued, I began to nar row down the master list of codes, and I identified common themes, for example beliefs and descriptions of a good school (Yin, 2003). I utilized quasi -statistics: descriptive statistics that can be derived from qualitative research (Becker, as cited in Ma xwell, 2005, p. 113) to create frequency charts for each theme and counted how many participantsÕ responses aligned with each theme. I then utilized axial coding to synthesize themes into a final set of key 62 themes. Lastly, I grounded the themes through tri angulating differen t sources of data (Yin, 2003). These analyses are shared in Chapter 5. Across the process, I capitalized on the expertise of the Excellent Schools Detroit staff and the Community Reviewer Program staff. Although I was the primary invest igator in this study, I discussed my findings with two ESD staff and past participants of the program to compare findings with their observations and experiences. These steps help ed to strengthen the credibility of study findings and interpretations. To strengthen the validi ty of data and interpretation, I used multiple data sources, triangulation, quasi -statistics, and member checking (Maxwell, 2005). I collected data from pre - and post interviews and questionnaires, conducted observations, and collected several meant study findings were supported by more than one independent data source (Miles & Huberman,1994). I utilized quasi -statistics. Becker (1970) described quasi -statistics as descriptive statistics that can be derived from qualitative research (as cited in Maxwell, 2005, p. 113). When applicable, I utilized frequency charts to count particular references and establish leading themes and convergences. I also utilized member checking with multiple groups. I capitalized on the expertise of the Excell ent Schools Detroit staff and the Community Reviewer Program staff. Although I was the primary investigator in this study, I discussed my findings with two ESD staff that were able to critique my findings and provide alternative viewpoints that could be ex plored against the data. These procedures increased the studyÕs overall credibility . Role of the Researcher and Trustworthiness During qualitative research, researchers must continuously seek to control for potential bias that might be present through th e research process. I recognize that trustworthiness could be 63 an issue due my affiliation with Excellent Schools Detroit and my positiona lity as an African -American middle class women working on a doctorate degree. While conducting the study, I was a full time employee of Excellent Schools Detroit. My official role was K12 Program Manager. In this role I worked with the CRP staff to provide support at the trainings, and I often participated in CRP planning and debriefing meetings. I did not work directly w ith or communicate with the Community Reviewer Program participants outside of my research. However, some of the participants saw me as part of the Community Reviewer Program staff or part of ESD . In order to overcome this and to make participants feel more comfortable about speaking candidly with me, I explained that I was an independent researcher and that my research was in no way sponsored by or beholden to the CRP or ESD. Additionally, I told them that I would use pseudonyms and their identities woul d not be revealed . I also let them know that I would not share any information with the other CRP staff unless they specifically asked me to and , again, without reference to them individually. I also made clear that my work with ESD would not be affected . I worked hard to build a rapport with each of the parents and spent a lot of time getting to know them and having general conversation that did not pertain to the study. This allowed participants to relax and helped create a conversation style interview that seemed to build on social, cultural connections and reduce differences. My perceptions of these interviews were that these parents were speaking naturally, without hesitations or signs of unease. The positive tilt of their comments seemed genuine (and similar to other sources of data such as year 2 pilot phone survey of participants) . But I cannot say if they would have spoken in the same, consistently positive way, to an interviewer who was not connected to ESD or the CRP. It may be that more cr itical comments may have been expressed. 64 CHAPTER 4: COMMUNITY REVIEWER PROGRAM FINDINGS In examining the Community Reviewer Program and experiences of the participants, we can learn how to better improve the relationships between urban parents and urban s chools, and thus, improving the at -school involvement rates of urban parents. This chapter describes the programÕs theory of action, its model and components, and early program outcomes. I present key findings obtained from program documents, ten months of formal and informal program observations and nine in -depth pre - and post interviews with parents who participated in the program. Because some of the data and evidence for the program findings came from participant interviews, I begin the chapter with an overview of the participants. Description of the StudyÕs Partici pants As discussed in Chapter 3, the study utilized a purposeful sample of nine parents who had children in Detroit schools and who participa ted in the 2013 -14 Community Reviewer Progra m. Two fathers, six mothers and one grandmother were interviewed. Seven participants were African American, one was Latin o, and one was biracial (Table 4.1 update). The parents had variable levels of education, income, and employment but all were minority parents or caretakers who wanted their children to have access to a quality education that successfully prepared them for opportunities beyond high school. 65 Table 4 .1 Characteristics of Study Participants Most (6 out of 9, 67%) of the participants interviewed reported being frequently involved with their childrenÕs schools. Descriptions of their invol vement often aligned closely with Pseud onym Gender Race Age Childr en Relation to Child Education Level Annual Income Employment Hattie Female AA 70 Daughter in Middle School Grand - mother & Guardian BA Degree $35,000 - 40,000 Retired Barry Male AA 49 Son in High School Father MA Degree 0ver $45,000 Program Director at a Nonprofit Ebony Female AA 42 Two Daughters in High School Mother GED Less than $5,000 Unemployed Michelle Female AA 41 Daughter in Elementary school; Son in High School Mother MA Degree 0ver $45,000 College Counse lor at Local College Maria Female HA 50 Son in Elementary School Mother 11th Grade $5,000 - 10,000 Unemployed Damon Male AA 45 Two Sons in Elementary School Father High School Diploma $10,000 - 20,000 Part time at a High School Tanesha Female AA 31 Son and Daughter in High School; Two Sons in Elementary School Mother Pursuing Associate Degree $5,000 - 10,000 Unemployed Beverly Female AA 40 One Son in High School Mother GED $20,000 - 30,000 Nursing Home Vanessa Fem ale Bi-racial 43 Two Daughters in Elementary School Mother Associate Degree Less than $5,000 Unemployed 66 EpsteinÕs Six Types of Involvement framework, emphasizing attendance at events and general help and assistance at school. Hattie reported that she frequently visited her granddaughterÕs school for events she received invit ations for. Michelle, Maria, Vanessa, and Damon described being involved by frequently volunteering in classrooms, for lunch and during school dismissal, attending events, and communicating with teachers and other personnel at their childrenÕs schools. Dam on also reported that he worked at his sonsÕ school as a parent escort to high school students, allowing for daily communication with his sonsÕ teachers and administrators. Maria stated that she often volunteered by helping with lunchtime at her sonÕs scho ol. She also shared that she approached her sonÕs school principal to inquire about job opportunities at the school. Tanesha was the most involved of the participants. She served as the PTA president of her sonÕs school. In fact, her post interview was co nducted at her sonÕs school in the parent resource room. Ebony shared that she was unable to attend her childrenÕs school due to transportation issues; however, I witnessed her take 3 phone calls from their school during the pre - and post interviews. She r eported being involved primarily when the school called her to discuss discipline issues. Three parents: Barry, Beverly and Ebony, reported that they rarely visited and interacted with their childrenÕs schools, going only for special events such a sporting events or special celebrations. Although Barry reported not being heavily involved with his sonÕs school he described being involved in the community; he leads a mentoring program for black males and is involved in blight removal and improving the Ford neighborhood. 67 The school and community involvement profiles of the parents aligned with the type of parent and community member the program sought to engage. In recruitment materials for the program, CRP staff wrote: Community Reviewers are involved parents, residents, educators and members of the business and nonprofit communities who want all of DetroitÕs children to receive an excellent education...We are looking for parents and community members who have already demonstrated leadership or whose leadership and talents you would like to develop. However the study also involved 3 parents who were not heavily involved with their childrenÕs schools prior to participation in the program Below I provide a brief summary of three of the participants to provide mo re contexts for the program and the participants . The summaries provide a brief overview of their prior experiences with schools, their levels of involvement with their childrenÕs education, and a brief description of their children. Maria Maria is a Latin o mother of one son who is in elementary school. She lives in a predominantly Latino neighborhood in Southwest Detroit. She invited me to her home to conduct the interviews. She was very pleasant and her home was nice and inviting. We spent a lot of time t alking about her experiences with the neighborhood and her sonÕs school. She reported that someone recently stole her car while it was parked in front of her house. Unfortunately, she is unemployed and could not afford to move. So, she is focused to live across the street from the people whom she suspects stole her car. Maria was a good student and enjoyed elementary and middle school. However, she struggled in high school and due to an unfortunate situation with a classmate and her math teacher, she was fo rced to transfer schools. She did not complete her high school diploma and 68 does not have her GED. This has been a major barrier to consistent employment. Although she hasnÕt had consistent employment, during the post -interview she reported that she just made her last payment on the home and will soon be a homeowner. She stated, ÒSo thatÕs my dream is to finish up those two...I did say before I hit 50, I was gonna own my house and I wanta get my GED. And IÕm gonna be 51 this year and in May of 2014, IÕll be the owner of this house.Ó The Southwest Detroit neighborhood is over saturated with elementary schools and there are a lot of school choice options for parents. Maria visited five schools before enrolling her son in his current school. She selected the sch ool because it valued the Latino culture, had high levels parent involvement, and the staff and principal were Òdown to earth.Ó Maria often volunteers at the school in the lunchroom and in her sonÕs classroom. Her son is a good student, but is struggling i n math and is several grade levels behind. Maria tries to help him and encourages him to work hard, but her lack of education is a barrier. Damon Damon is the African American father of two elementary aged sons. He requested that we conduct the interviews at a local fast food restaurant located in his neighborhood. Damon currently works at the high school located on the same campus as his sonsÕ school. He serves as a parent escort at the high school. His role is to make sure that the hallways are clear and students are in their classes and to support teachers with students that are having behavior issues. He also connects students with other services that will help keep them on track including counseling and behavior interventionist. When discussing his per sonal experiences with school as student, he stated that he was unmotivated and not a good student. He stated, ÒI wasnÕt a super bright student. I just barely 69 got through, through the cracks. I just wanted to get out of there. You know, I wasnÕt really mot ivated. I just got my diploma and left, IÕm like, hey, I made it. ThatÕs all that matters.Ó However after he left school and began to look for jobs, he realized the importance of taking academics seriously. Because he works on the campus where his sonsÕ at tend school, he is able to communicate frequently with his childrenÕs teachers. He reported that he communicates with his childrenÕs teachers weekly and with the school administrator monthly. He also reported that he volunteers in his sonÕs lunchroom daily . Although he is very involved and constantly at the school, he reported that his oldest son is very far behind academically and is constantly being suspended from school. Therefore most of his interactions with teachers and administrators are about behavi oral issues. Tanesha Tanesha is an African American mother of four children, including three sons who are in third, fifth, and tenth grade and a daughter who is in ninth grade. She invited me to her house to conduct the first interview and to her sonÕs sc hool to conduct the second. Although her home is located in one of the most notoriously violent housing projects in Detroit, her home was warm and inviting. She told me that they recently moved to the neighborhood and were having a pleasant experience desp ite being previously warned about living there. When discussing her personal experiences with school as a student, Beverly reported having good grades, being on the Òhonor rollÓ and overall good experiences in schools until she got to high school. High sch ool gave her more freedom and autonomy than she was accustom to. Consequently, she did not handle it well and began to hang out with the Òwrong crowd.Ó She began to skip school and eventually dropped out of high school. This experience has impacted 70 the way she interacts with her childrenÕs education. She is very vigilant and involved; she does not want her children to go down the same path she went down. She stated, ÒthatÕs why itÕs important for me as a parent to discuss and have an open relationship with my children, especially my teens about peer pressure, you know, so they wonÕt go down the same road.Ó After having her four children, she decided to go back to get her GED. She failed the test seven times, but successfully passed on the eighth try. She is now pursuing an associateÕs degree at a local community college with a dual major in early childhood development and social work. She wants the best for her children and is trying very hard to raise them properly and to give them experiences that she think s will help them achieve their dreams. Taking full advantage of the school choice market in Detroit, she has enrolled her children in a total of 7 different schools. She had a difficult time finding the Òright fitÓ for her children. She now sends her child ren three different schools. Tanesha is heavily involved in her childrenÕs education, and is the PTA president of her two youngest childrenÕs schools. Because I conducted the post interview at the school, I was able to see her involvement. During our post interview teachers and school staff frequently interrupted us requesting her assistance or guidance with students and other school related issues. It was very obvious that she is valued by the school staff and is considered an essential partner. She report ed that the school was the only school she has been involved with at the level she is currently involved. She stated it was due to the Òfamily -likeÓ environment at the school. The Community Reviewer ProgramÕs Model and Approach The Community Reviewer Prog ram evolved out of Detroit community membersÕ dissatisfactions with the original Detroit School Scorecard created by Excellent Schools Detroit in 2009. An ESD document about the background and purpose of the CRP, stated: 71 The first Scorecard Excellent Schoo ls Detroit released was a top -to-bottom list of schools using just one data point: their average MEAP or ACT scores. We got a lot of feedback from families and school staff that the quality of a school should be judged by more than one test. They told us t hat student academic performance is very important, but other factors also make up the quality of a school, including the safety, how welcoming the environment is to families, whether or not students feel cared for and feel like much is expected of them... They also told us that it was important for community leaders to participate in the Scorecard process so they could get a better understanding of what it is all about and bring that understanding back to their schools, churches, and neighborhoodsÉ. So, we expanded the quality measures on subsequent Scorecards to include a school site visit by community members that assesses the climate, namely, the upkeep of the facility, how safe and caring it feels to students, how high expectations are for students, and how welcoming it is to parents (Excellent Schools Detroit, 2013, p. 3). In response to this, Excellent Schools Detroit (ESD) developed the Community Reviewer Program. To do so, it utilized a unique program model designed to meet the specific needs of ESD and the Detroit community. As an enhancement to the achievement data of the Scorecard, the program sought to provide access to other reliable information about school quality that parents could use to select the best school for their children and to hold schools accountable for their performance. The Community Reviewer Program was also created to generate and increase parent involvement at both the individual and community level. At the parent level, it wanted to give parents the tools and skills to make more informed school choice decisions. The program seeks to achieve this by providing parents with access to empowering information and experiences with schools by training them to assess and evaluate the quality of schools throughout the city. At a comm unity level, it wanted to develop a power base of parents and community members that would make Detroit schools more responsive and accountable for chronic low performance. The program seeks to achieve this by creating a space for parents and community to gain access to empowering information and by utilizing their voices and opinions in the Detroit School Scorecard. The Program was designed to meet and achieve the goals at both levels. 72 Because meeting the needs of and empowering the local community was a priority of the program, ESD utilized a community organizing approach to design CRP. Community organizing approaches are much different from conventional methods of parent involvement such as parent -teacher conferences, parent -teacher associations, or trai ning parents to support their childrenÕs learning at home. Organizing approaches are based outside of schools and are often led, designed, and controlled by parents, community members, and community organizations. Parent and community organizing is a comm on approach and a popular strategy utilized to improve relationships and increase parent involvement and partnerships among urban families and schools. They shift away from school -centered involvement methods to methods that support knowledge and skills th at empower parents and community membersÕ interactions with local schools. Key goals of community organizing are to establish a power base of parents and community to hold schools and school districts accountable for low student achievement, to give paren ts and community members more power over what happens in their childrenÕs schools, and to create and improve local leadership and capacity to improve and rebuild distressed communities (Henderson & Mapp, 2002). These goals closely mirror ESDÕs goals for th e Community Reviewer Program. Pragmatically, the Community Reviewer Program aimed to develop a power base of parents and community members that would make Detroit schools more responsive and accountable for their chronic low performance, bring value to par ent perspectives and opinions by including their evaluations as part of the publicly available Detroit School Scorecard, and to improve relationships between Detroit parents and schools. A Detroit community leader and CRP team leader described the program as: Ultimately, a way to generate information that community organizations and parents can use to learn about their current schools where their kids are going. They should use this 73 information to get engaged, to engage community and parents in the process of improving schools in Detroit. This quote describes how the CRP utilized a community organizing process to empower parents with information in order to encourage them to become more involved with the cityÕs schools. Excellent Schools Detroit valued the community -organizing model so much that they hired community organizers in 2010 to help create, design, and implement the program. In a document used to discuss why ESD chose to create the Program as part of the larger Detroit School Scorecard, it states, During a series of community conversations held between January -May 2010, parents, community members, teachers, and school leaders shared their desire for a site visit evaluation to be a component of the Detroit School Scorecard methodology. The site vis it would provide an opportunity for educators at a building to share innovative practices and bright spots of the school, while giving the evaluators a sense of the learning environment (ESD, 2010c, p. 1). This quote describes how parents and community in put led to the creation of the Community Reviewer Program. The use of a community organizing approach to create the program was vital to the CRP model and theory of action. The ProgramÕs Theory of Action The Community Reviewer Program reflects a theory of action in which transparent information, new experiences with schools, and new relationships and interactions with others build parentÕs social capital, empowers them to make more informed school choices decision, and pressures schools to be more responsi ve and accountable (Figures 4.1). ESD believed that access to these new experiences and resources would allow parents to interact more confidently and effectively with schools; improving the relationships between urban parents and schools and increasing at -school involvement. 74 Figure 4.1 The ProgramÕs Theory of Action Making Transparent and Disseminating School Quality Information Excellent Schools Detroit believed that a key need of the Detroit community was access to reliable information about the quali ty of schools. Similarly, school choice policies meant that parents needed reliable information in order to select the best schools for their children. In generating school scorecards based on studentÕs academic outcomes, ESD established that many local schools were ranked as ineffective and unaccountable to the local community. In a document used to provide information about the 2010 Detroit School Scorecard, it states: We believe that every school should provide a quality education Ð regardless of wheth er that school is a charter, Detroit Public School, independent or private school. Parents, families, and community members deserve the best information both to choose the right schools for their children and to engage in those schools to improve them. Thi s year, Excellent Schools Detroit is continuing the important work of empowering families with reliable information about their schools. Specifically, we are: (1) Identifying comprehensive school quality measures. (2) Reviewing every school in Detroit. (3) 75 Reporting the results to the community in an actionable, accessible and up -to-date way (ESD, 2010a, p. 1). This quote describes ESDÕs logic for creating transparent school quality information. Before participation in the CRP many parents were unaware of the rampant poor school performance and lack of student success. Through the program trainings and access to transparent information, parents gained a better understanding of the chronically low reading and math achievement as well as the low graduation ra tes from high school and college, of Detroit students. All but one of the nine parents interviewed stated that the program trainings were ÒinformationalÓ and that they learned a lot about the performance of the cityÕs schools. When asked about his experie nce at the program trainings, Barry the father of a teenage son stated: I learned some interesting things. I really did. I think that, again, that piece you all use in the beginning (activity to discuss the chronic low performance of Detroit schools and i ts effects on the outcomes of Detroit students), is an excellent visual mechanism to engage the audience that youÕre trying to reach. It really is. And the fact that when you put it into quantitative variables, that you canÕt refute the numbers. You know, numbers never lie. They donÕt... It, it made, for me, it makes you ask the question if not you, then who and also it makes you say, damn, is this gonna be my child? I mean, seriously, and you could have, and this is, the reason why it was so polarizing, if you would, is because I know for a fact that even if you got two parents, that your child may not have as great a risk but thereÕs still a risk. No one is exempt from this demographic information. Barry found an activity (described below) that helped to visualize chronic low performance across the cityÕs schools so insightful and useful, that he requested a copy of the data and activity guide. He stated that he planned to share with other parents. He said, ÒI was impressed thatÕs why I want the training information because I was so impressed.Ó Access to transparent information about school quality was valued and eye -opening to the program participants. Participation in the program also helped to demystify the school choice market in Detroit. Due to the u nregulated school choice market in Detroit and the lack of transparent information on school quality, many parents in Detroit described the process of selecting a school for their 76 children as Òoverwhelming and challenging.Ó A community leader in Detroit de scribed the school choice process as daunting and overwhelming for parents, stating: One of the challenges for a Detroit family raising children in this city is a lack of transparency around school performance...ItÕs going to be much more critical for pare nts to be able to get credible information now that we have lots of charters coming in and we have public schools chartering schools, and we have the statewide school district (McGee, 2012). A parent in the Community Reviewer Program promotional video st ated ÒItÕs a little scary especially for a parent if you want to find the best school, you want to have options but you are not always sure.Ó These quotes illuminate some of the challenges Detroit parents faced when trying to find the right school for the ir children. They suggest that without clear, consistent information on a schoolÕs performance, many parents found school choice to be overwhelming and taxing. However, participation in the program helped to demystify the school choice market in Detroit and gave parents tools, such as a website that has students performance for all schools in Detroit, rubrics to use to evaluate school quality, and a list of questions to ask school personnel during school visits, to utilize when making school choice decis ions. A community leader who also served as a team leader stated, ÒExcellent Schools Detroit has done a tremendous job of making this transparent and making the process (school choice process) understandable to parents. And so that there is real choice.Ó A fter the program, they knew where to go to get accurate information on each schoolÕs academic performance and how to better make school choice decisions. Parents as School Reviewers Although ESD could have used professional education evaluators to conduc t the school site visits and reviews, it selected to train Detroit parents and community members as reviewers. As discussed in the literature review, low -income, minority families possess social and cultural 77 capital that is often viewed as a liability rath er than an asset. In contrast, community -organizing approaches view parents as an asset rather than a liability; CRP recognized, valued, and utilized the current capital of families and community members. Their goal was to recruit members of the Detroit community Òwho have already demonstrated leadership or whose leadership and talents you would like to develop.Ó Utilizing local leaders to review and evaluate schools, demonstrates how ESD recognized, valued, and utilized their individual capital and power . Through the Program, ESD also harvested their collective power, which will be discussed in more detail in the next section. ESD coined the term Òcommunity reviewersÓ for the parent and community members who conducted the school site visits. ESD worked cl osely with local community organizations to recruit community members and parents to participate in the program. In documents sent to local community organizations to help recruit community reviewers, ESD described the role of community reviewers by statin g: Community Reviewers are involved parents, residents, educators and members of the business and non -profit communities who want all of DetroitÕs children to receive an excellent education. 500 Community Reviewers will split into teams and visit every school in the city to observe the school culture and learning environment. Guided by trained team leaders, the Reviewers will make a report about each school they visit that Excellent Schools Detroit will share with parents and students to help them choose th e best schools...We are looking for parents and community members who care about education, who want to be a part of a longer -term movement to create great schools in Detroit, and who have already demonstrated leadership or whose leadership and talents you would like to develop (ESD, 2012, p. 1). Since the inception of the Detroit School Scorecard and the Community Reviewer Program, ESD has valued and worked closely with Detroit parents and community members to build their capabilities. The Program belie ves in validating and harvesting their knowledge and skills while developing them also. They valued their assets and ÒvoicesÓ so much that they utilized them to 78 help create the tools to assess the schools and as school reviewers and evaluators, which will be discussed in more detail later in this chapter. Access to Social Capital Building up parentsÕ access to social capital was also central to the programÕs theory of action. Social capital is a resource that parents may utilize to enhance their knowledge and understanding of the educational system in which their children participate. Access to social capital is theorized to enable parents to gain access to other forms of capital as well as to institutional resources and supports (Coleman, 1988; Lin, 2001; Portes, 1998; Stanton -Salazar & Dornbusch, 1995). Through participation in the CRP, parentsÕ knowledge and values were valued and leveraged, and they gained access to new social capital. ESD believed that access to new experiences and resources would all ow parents to interact more confidently and effectively with schools, improving the relationships between urban parents and schools and increasing at -school involvement. Through participation in the program, participants gained access to new social relati onships with program staff, other parents and community members, team leaders, education specialist, and urban schools (Figure 4.2). Through these new relationships, Community Reviewer Program provided participants access to bonding and bridging social cap ital. CRP created a space for what is known as bonding social capital. Bonding social capital is an integral component of community empowerment and coalition building as it connects individuals with high degrees of homogeneity, such as individuals with s imilar social -financial position and demographics characteristics. The Program aimed to ÒbondÓ urban parents current social capital by providing them with access to new social networks of other urban parents and community members. 79 The also CRP created a Ò bridgeÓ to give parents access to social capital that is valued by schools. Prior to participation in the program, many of the urban parents did not possess social capital that was valued by public schools and this negatively affected their relationships w ith their childrenÕs schools. The Program created a ÒbridgeÓ to new social capital by giving parents access to new social relationships with program staff, education specialist, and urban schools. Bonding Social Capital As discussed in the literature re view, low -income, minority families possess social capital that is often viewed as a liability rather than an asset. However, CRP recognized and valued the current capital of families and community members in Detroit. ESD valued their capital and ÒvoicesÓ so much that they created a program to leverage their collective capital and as previously stated trained them to review schools. Bonding social capital is a valuable strategy to support oppressed and marginalized members of society to band together in gro ups and networks to support their collective needs. The Community Reviewer Program provided a space to ÒbondÓ a homogeneous group of urban parents with the common goal of holding the cityÕs schools accountable. Bonding capital can only be utilized if the capital of the individuals involve d are recognized and valued and therefore worth bonding over. Tanesha, spoke about her experience interacting with other program participants and the relationships she gained. She stated, ÒIt was a great situation because I got to know parents from other schools. It was cool to know that other parents share the same interest as you have you know and just getting different ideas and things of that nature.Ó This quote describes how participants gained access to bonding socia l capital. The bonding capital validated the parents in Detroit by allowing them to work collectively with other like -minded individuals with the same goals. 80 Through their interactions, the community reviewers recognized that their bonding capital mattered and that they had power as group. Parents reported that through their participation in the program they gained ÒpowerÓ and a ÒvoiceÓ in their childrenÕs education. One program participant stated that the program Òwoke her upÓ and gave her a ÒvoiceÓ and ÒpowerÓ in her childÕs education. She stated, ÒItÕs like something that had fell asleep in you, woke up and you realized that your voice has power. And you realized that your voices together has even more power.Ó Maria, the mother of a young son, discussed h ow participation in the program was empowering and how it showed her that she does have a Òvoice.Ó She stated: We as parents do have a voice, we have to have a voice for the children of today...Some parents including myself might not know how to address th e situation or know how to pinpoint oh my gosh look at this or look at that, you know. I think groups like that (CRP) if a lot more parents knew about them they would help the schools of today. You know rethink of how they address certain situations maybe even add additions to their schooling The participantsÕ quotes illuminate how parents reported feeling a greater sense of belonging and found value and power in being able to interact with other parents that had similar issues and interest. ESD created t he CRP as a space to ÒbondÓ and leverage their capital. The participants of the program were a similar group of individuals in social class, race, and geographic location, and they had common goal. Building bonding capital mobilized parents in Detroit aro und the common goal of holding the cityÕs schools accountable for their chronic low performance. 81 Figure 4.2 Social Capital in the Community Reviewer Program Bridging Social C apital Urban parents and school personnel often have differing social class a nd race characteristics which makes it harder for them to form productive relationships . Prior to participation in the program, many of the parents did not understand the culture, norms, and expectations of their childrenÕs schools. In the CRP promotiona l video, a former community reviewer stated, ÒA lot of parents do not know what is going on in these schools.Ó The Community Reviewer Program built bridging capital by connecting parents to information and groups beyond their normal social spheres. Bridgi ng social capital allows diverse groups the opportunity to share and exchange information and ideas. In this case, the program participants 82 have the opportunity to learn more about the culture, norms, and expectations that guide urban schools. The program provided participants access to new relationships with program staff, education specialists, and urban schools. Through these new relationships and other experiences with the program, participants were given access to opportunities to better understand th e dominant school norms. Parents interacted with the program staff during trainings and when they were contacted to finalize their school visit schedule. The program staff was responsible for communicating the program norms and expectations for the school visits. Parents repeatedly stated that the program staff was ÒinformationalÓ and helped them to better understand the norms and expectations of schools. For example, the program staff discussed with participants what to wear to the school visits and how t o present themselves to school personnel. Damon, the father of two elementary sons discussed his interaction with program staff by stating, ÒI mean, they told us how to present yourself to the teachersÉ you gotta follow the principal.Ó DamonÕs quote illumi nates that the program staff emphasized the importance of being a good representative of the Community Reviewer Program and an engaged and concerned Detroit citizen. The program staff emphasized the importance of arriving on time, being dressed properly, r epresenting CRP positively, and addressing their concerns about the schools with the team leader and school principals. Parents also reported having positive interactions with the team leaders and education specialist and felt they helped them better und erstand what to look for in schools and what questions to ask school personnel. Ebony, discussed the resources she gained from her new social relationships with the team leaders. She stated, ÒI wouldnÕt have known the questions to ask or the things to look for until they gave us insight on it.Ó Her quote demonstrates that parents 83 benefited greatly and gained new knowledge from their new relationships with team leaders and education specialist. Parents also described how their overall experiences including t he new relationships, trainings, and school visits influenced their perceptions and understandings about urban school procedures and norms. When ask what new skills or knowledge she gained from her participation in the program, Ebony stated that the progra m taught her that she should address the concerns that she has with her childrenÕs schools, and she now understands that in order to get results she may need to take her concerns to the school board. She stated: Yeah, to be more aware of whatÕs going on a nd the things that you want, address those issues... But yeah, just be more patient and start addressing these issues to the school board, period. You know. Cuz a lot of times, the teachers are like, weÕve been telling them that for years. You know, so yea h, just getting with the people that can change it and make a difference. During the interviews, Ebony described that she was concerned about her daughter's school. She discussed how the school called her almost everyday for dress code violations and othe r issues that had little to do with teaching and learning. In fact, during my interviews with her the school called her twice. EbonyÕs quote describes that she learned that she should address her concerns with someone other than the teachers at her daughte rsÕ schools. She was frustrated because she has been telling the teachers about her concerns, but nothing had been done. Her quote is also an example of how parents reported learning more about the structures and policies that guide urban schools and how t he new knowledge can be translated into action for their particular situations with schools. Both bonding and bridging social capital existed in the Community Reviewer Program. The bonding capital was important to cultivate trust, cooperation, and colle ctive strength among individual community reviewers. The bridging capital was useful for building connections between urban parents and urban schools. ESD believed that access to these new experiences 84 and resources would increase urban parents involvemen t with schools by equipping parents to interact more confidently and effectively with schools. Empowered Parents The end outcome of t he Community Reviewer Program was to empower parents to pick better schools and hold schools accountable for student achiev ement by giving them access to information, the opportunity to review schools, and access to expanded social capital. The program intended that parents and others would begin to hold schools accountable for their responsiveness and performance. A board m ember of a Detroit charter school and prominent community leader, described the program as a way to build the Òpublic willÓ to hold schools accountable for performance: The more folks that we have concerned about education, as chaotic as that may be somet imes, [the better]. I think it is a good thing for creating the strong public will to make sure that we are accountable for educating every child in this city (McGee, 2012). A parent -participant of the program described how it helped to build public will for school accountability by stating: If you keep grabbing these parents you will have a voice. One parent should be able to grab the next parent, the next parent should be able to grab the next parent and it should be a line of parents. Because we are t he school system! We make the schools! So every parent need to grab a parent and thatÕs the way itÕs going to have to start (McGee, 2012). These quotes illuminate that the Program provided a space and process for parents and community members to get invol ved with schools and begin to hold schools accountable. The Program also aimed to empower parents individually by helping them better select the right school for their children. Many parents and community members in Detroit have little knowledge about edu cation besides their own personal experiences and the experiences of their children. The CRP reflected a hope that direct experience as a school reviewer would lead parents to feel both more able and more willing to investigate their childrenÕs schools in new and 85 important ways. Although parents can select any school in the city to send their children to, the school visits conducted as part of the program was the first time that most (5 of 9) of the parents visited schools in the city. Ebony, the mother of two teenage girls who utilized school choice to send her children to a charter school, but did not visit the school before sending her children there stated, ÒIf it wasnÕt for this reviewing process, I donÕt think I would have ever stepped into other scho ols. You know what I am saying, so I was grateful for that.Ó Participation also caused many parents to reassess their school choice methods and decisions, which will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 5. Hattie, the grandmother and legal guardian of a n elementary student, who utilized school choice to send her granddaughter to a charter school, reported that participation in the program will influence her future methods for making future school choice decisions for her granddaughter. She stated I will use some of the guidelines (from the program). IÕll be looking at the environment. I will be looking at teacher interactions. IÕll be looking at diversity. I know I will be looking at safety, all of the things that are really important. Not just, you know , the big picture. IÕll be looking at a more total picture rather than just narrowing my focus on what academics are extremely important but everything else is important, too. Hattie is currently looking for a high school to send her granddaughter to beca use the charter school she selected for her daughter is one of the lowest performing schools in the state of Michigan, and she wants to remove her from the school after she finishes eighth grade. HattieÕs reported that participation in the program will hel p tremendously with selecting a high school for her granddaughter. She now has ÒguidelinesÓ to help her make a better school choice. The Program aimed to empower parents individually by helping them better select the right school for their children and col lectively by empowering them to hold the cityÕs schools accountable for achievement through their choices. 86 The Program In Action: How it Works This section describes how the program has been implemented and how it has functioned operationally. The key e lements of the program operations were the: 1. Program trainings 2. Community reviewer teams 3. School visits and evaluation tools. Also, there have been adjustments to these components since the start of the program. In this section, I will describe the programÕs key elements and adjustments made to the program. Program Start Up As a result of the feedback they received from parents and community members about the Detroit Scorecard, ESD designed the Community Reviewer Program in 2010. Since the programÕs launch in 2011, ESD has worked closely with the community to design and implement the Program. As a first step, the Program had to develop criteria for assessing the quality of a school and a review process. In a document published in 2010 to answer frequently answered questions about the Program, ESD wrote, Ò The design of the observation tool will be largely informed by the community reviewers themselves, through a research -based process led by the National Equity Project. A local university will co nstruct the actual tool, which will be available for school leadersÓ (ESD, 2010b, p. 3). ESD utilized community reviewersÕ input and opinions about a good school to create the evaluation tools utilized during the school visits. Documents from the program Õs first training outline how ESD asked reviewers to discuss Òwhat is a good school?Ó According to the training agenda, reviewers worked in small groups at their tables to answer the following questions: ! What was school like for you? ! What did you like ab out school? ! What helped you most as a student? 87 ! A good school is like (fill in the blank) Because... ! What makes a school good? ! What would you expect to see in a good school? What might adults be doing? Students? What does it fee l like? ! What kind of information do YOU want to know about a school? ! What will YOU be looking for when you visit schools? ! What do you want to see in the final report about schools? Each table had a facilitator, a note taker, and a group of community review ers. The notes from each table were given to a regional university hired to create rubrics and school visit evaluation tools evaluation tools. The final tools primarily focused on the schoolÕs climate and culture by examining and evaluating the maintenanc e of the school facilities, school safety, staffÕs expectations for students, how caring the adults in the building are toward students, and how welcoming and open the school is to community and parents (described below). In a document used to provide an overview of CRP, ESD wrote the school site visits Òassesses the climate, namely, the upkeep of the facility, how safe and caring it feels to students, how high expectations are for students, and how welcoming it is to parents Ó (ESD, 2010c, p. 2). Schools Targeted CRP actively reached out to and invited every school in Detroit to ask that they participate in the program. In a program overview document from the 2012 program it states: Students in Detroit attend more than 250 schools, which are governed by many different authorizers with differing expectations and results. Detroit Public Schools manages over 100 schools, while 10 independent authorizers monitor over 100 public charter schools operating in the city. Detroit also has more than 30 independent s chools, each setting its own standards. The divided authority makes it too easy to finger -point and too hard to make the tough decisions that are needed to ensure that every child is in a high -quality school...Each of these schools has different standards of success. This mishmash makes it impossible for parents and families to get credible, easy -to-understand information about 88 which schools are best for their children. It is our obligation to the Detroit community to ensure (1) all schools are measured aga inst the same standards of quality and (2) information is accessible and consistent. ESDÕs goal was to evaluate every school in Detroit with the goal of measuring their performance against the same standard of quality. Unannounced Visits In discussion of the Detroit Scorecard and the development of the Reviewer program the practice of unannounced visits was also established. That is, not only did the community request community led school visits, but they also requested unannounced schools visits. Their desire was to see a school on a regular day and to avoid a school Òputting on a showÓ for visitors. On the 2011 community reviewer recruitment flyer and application, it states ÒIn 2010, parents, teachers, and school leaders agreed that unannounced site vis its should be one Ð but not the only Ð piece of any school evaluationÓ (ESD, 2010d, p. 1). Recruiting and Enrollment of Community Reviewers Participation in the CRP is open to all parents and community members who have an address within the Detroit city l imits. There are no restrictions to the types of schools participantÕs children attend; they may send their children to traditional public, charter, private, parochial, independent or suburban schools or they may not have children who currently attend scho ol. All community reviewers are required to complete an application, pass a background check, attend at least one training, and complete at least three school visits. To enroll in the program, participants must complete and submit a brief program applicat ion that asks for basic demographic information, their education level and schools attended, information about their childrenÕs schools, and why they want to be a co mmunity reviewer (see Appendix F ). After participants submit the application, the communit y organizers and other CRP staff go through the applications and invite the appropriate participants to attend a training. 89 ESD worked closely with local community organizations to recruit community members and parents to participate in the program. The pr ogram was announced in the Detroit Free Press, on the ESD website, through communications with community organizations and general circulation of a program recruitment flyer. After its first year, ESD also sent an email and text message to former communit y reviewers to offer them the opportunity to participate in the program again. Beyond general invitations, CRP sought a specific pool of Detroit parents and community members for community reviewers. A goal was to engage parent and community leaders. In a document titled, What is Community Reviewer , CRP wrote, ÒCommunity Reviewers are involved parents, residents, educators and members of the business and nonprofit communities who want all of DetroitÕs children to receive an excellent education (ESD, 2012, p. 1).Ó ESDÕs goal was to recruit community members who were already involved with schools or who had an interest in being involved with schools. As discussed in the theory of action, ESD wanted to create a space to bond the capital that already existed in the community in an effort to build a power base of parents that would begin to hold Detroit schools more accountable. While ESD saw parents as assets, many school leaders did not initially think parents should evaluate schools when the program first launched. In a document providing an overview of CRP, the CRP community organizers wrote: In the first year, it was a real struggle to convince schools to open their doors to unannounced visits by community members. Many school leaders did not think that parents should be evaluating schools, that parents donÕt have the necessary expertise. Community leaders from our partner organizations all across the city had to push schools in their neighborhoods to participate in the School Quality Review because they believed it was important for parents to have good information (ESD, 2013, p. 3). However, ESD has valued and utilized parent and community reviewers since the beginning of the Community Reviewer Program and continues to do so. The ESD website states: 90 You have the opportunity to be a part of Excellent Schools DetroitÕs mission by becoming a community reviewer. Community reviewers are an integral part of the Detroit School Scorecard, ensuring that the perspective of the community is factored into how scho ols are evaluated... As a community reviewer, you will be trained to observe the multiple elements of positive school culture while contributing your knowledge and experience to improving how we measure school culture. You will be the experts of school cul ture, working in teams to take a closer look inside the schools. Becoming a community reviewer shows that you are committed to the belief that every child in Detroit deserves a quality education (ESD, 2015). Reviewer Trainings All participants of the pro gram are required to attend a 1 -day training that last 6 hours. Excellent Schools Detroit staff, including two community organizers, three support staff, and consultants instituted and facilitated the program trainings. The trainings are held in schools and churches throughout the city and follow the same general agenda: a welcome and explanation of the purpose of the day, a Òwhy this mattersÓ activity, training on the tools and rubrics and a practice school visit and evaluation. During this studyÕs ob servations of the program, CRP offered participants three trainings, with participants attending the training that best fit their schedule and locations needs. ESD offered participants free bus and taxi transportation to and from the trainings, and they se rved breakfast and lunch. One of ESDÕs coalition partners also offered participants on -site childcare services during the trainings. When participants arrived at the training locations they were immediately greeted by ESD staff and directed to the registr ation table. There they received their training materials and a nametag . Participants were instructed to sit at the table of their choice. Each table had at least one team leader or education specialist who was responsible for leading table discussions and facilitating training activities with participants at their table. Prior to the trainings, ESD met with the team leaders and education specialists to go over the agenda and activities for the trainings. 91 The CRP community organizers began the trainings by welcoming the parents and community members and by thanking them for being there and for taking an interest in the welfare of the cityÕs schools and children. They also gave the participants time to meet and greet with others at their tables. After the wel come, introductions, and purpose of the meeting, the CRP s taff gave each participant a piece of paper that had a male or female child stick figure on it. The staff asked participants to write their childrenÕs name or the name of children they know on the p aper and to write something special about the child. After participants named their children, they were asked to place the children down on their table in a line. Next the ESD community organizers began to read statistics about the outcomes of children in Detroit. One staff member, stated, ÒIn 2012, the high school graduation rate in the Detroit was 68%, so that means one out of every three students in Detroit dropped out before graduating. I will now walk around and take one out of every three children on the table.Ó The staff member counted aloud as she collected the paper -children from the table. She continuously counted, ÒOne, two, three; I will take this child.Ó After she collected all of the children, she began to read each childÕs name and the speci al comment written by participants. Ò Tyrell very smart, Marquis is artistic, Monique a hard worker, Latoya wants to be a doctor. All of these children are high school dropouts, and the children left on the table are high school graduates. Ó CRP staff con tinued the activity by taking one of every three children for college enrollment and two of every three children for college graduation. At the end of the activity, there were four stacks of children, those that were high school dropouts, high school gradu ates, those with some college, but no degree, and those with a college degree. During the activity, other staff members wrote the number of children in each group down on a large board at the front of the room. 92 Then, the staff asked the participants, ÒHow much money in a year do you think is a living wage for one parent and one child in Detroit?Ó Participants guessed the living wage; then, the staff revealed that the living wage is about $39,000. Next, they ask participants to guess how much money a person with no high school diploma earns in a year, a high school graduate, someone with some college, and someone with a college degree. The staff revealed to the participants that the only yearly wage that is equal to or exceeds the living wage is the person that earns a college degree including associate or bachelor's degrees. Lastly the staff stated, ÒThese are real statistics. For every 100 students that start 9 th grade in Detroit, only 14 of them are likely to graduate from college and make a living wage. We need to change some things. ThatÕs what this program is all about. Ó As discussed in the theory of action, this activity is an example of how the CRP gave participants access to information about the quality of schools and the ramifications of school fai lure. It was an eye opening activity for participants; it helped them connect the dots between education and poverty. Before participation in the CRP many parents did not know the extent of poor school performance and lack of student success or its consequ ences. Through this activity, parents gained a better understanding of the quality of schools in Detroit and how many students in Detroit were not graduating from high school and college. Eight of the nine parents interviewed for this study reported that the program trainings were ÒinformationalÓ and that they learned a lot about the performance of the cityÕs schools. As previously discussed, when asked about his experience at the program trainings, Barry the father of a teenage son stated I learned some i nteresting things. I really did. I think that, again, that piece you all use in the beginning (to display failure rates with stick figures) is an excellent visual mechanism to engage the audience that youÕre trying to reach. It really is. And the fact that when you put it into quantitative variables, that you canÕt refute the numbers. 93 Barry found the activity so insightful and useful, that he requested a copy of the data and activity guide. He stated that he planned to share it with other parents. He said, ÒI was impressed thatÕs why I want the training information because I was so impressed.Ó Next, the consultants instructed the community reviewers about how to utilize the designated tools and rubrics for the school visits. (The documents and tools utili zed by the community reviewers are discussed later in this chapter). The staff discussed each document one section and one question at a time. They went over each section and question on the observations tool that is used when the reviewers are walking an d assessing the school and the final rubric that is used at the conclusion of the school visit. For example, on the Main Entrance and Main Office section on the observation tool one of the questions is the main office has copies of the most recent parent n ewsletter or parent information sheets. The consultant reminds parents to pay close attention to the location, availability, and dates of the parent newsletters and information documents while in the main office. Next, trainers gave participants pictures of different locations in a school building and asked participants to practice utilizing the tools and rubrics. For example, there were pictures of a school restroom and of a school hallway. Participants were first instructed to utilize the observation to ol that is arranged by school area to answer the open -ended questions and questions specific to the applicable areas. Then, participants were directed to utilize the second rubric to provide an overall impression of the areas in the pictures. Next, the tea m leaders and education specialists led a group discussion at their tables to discuss the participantsÕ answers. Lastly, the consultants discussed each picture and observations aloud with all of the participants at the training. 94 The last portion of the t raining included a practice school visit. The team leaders and education specialists led the participants from their table on a practice school review and evaluation utilizing the tools and rubrics they had just received training on. The participants were led on a thirty -minute practice school tour. At the conclusion of the practice school tour, participants completed the school evaluation survey and rubric. Lastly, each team leader and education specialist led a discussion with their group about the partic ipantsÕ findings. At the conclusion of the training, the participants received a call to action to help improve the cityÕs schools and to become more involved with the cityÕs schools. During the training, ESD also asked participants to submit an online for m that indicated their dates of availability to conduct school visits. ESD utilized this online form to assign each community reviewer their school visit locations and dates. Following the training, each community reviewer received their schedule and a hub location for each school visit. The hub locations were at McDonaldÕs restaurants located throughout the city. The day before each school visit, community reviewers receive a text message, email, or phone call reminder that includes their location hub. In order to protect the integrity of the unannounced school visits, community reviewers do not find out which school they were visiting until they arrived at the hub location on the day of the visit. ESD utilized one or two McDonaldÕs restaurants and conducte d five to ten school visits each day during the 2013 CRP. Team Leaders and Education Specialists The Program uses team leaders and education specialists to lead the community reviewers during the school visits. In the team leader and education speciali st handbook used during their trainings, it asserts: The Team Leader and Education Specialist are the most critical roles in the Site Visits. The validity of the results, as well as the opinion of the process that school leaders and 95 community members hold will largely be determined by you...Your first expectation is to be the face of the Community Reviewer Program to the school leader. Your second expectation is to enforce the rules for reviewers. Your last expectation is to facilitate critical thinking an d friendly conversation (ESD, 2013, p. 4). Team leaders were recruited from local community organizations. During the year of this study, they were employees of the eight community organizations that recruited community reviewers. Most of the team leaders served in a community organizing type role at the community organizations. Their jobs often consisted of working with people in the community to connect them to the services and opportunities available at the community organizations. Also, all of the team leaders were former community reviewers and had participated during the first two years of the program. Consequently, many of them had prior relationships with the community reviewers. Team leaders were responsible for guiding reviewer teams through sch ools, keeping them on schedule, and facilitating the debrief and survey process that followed the school tour. The CRP 2013-14 internal overview document states: The team leader is drawn from local community organizations and receives special training to help them organize the day. The leader participates in both team leader training and community reviewer training. He or she must be organized and able to direct a group of diverse individuals. They are responsible for interacting with school administrators and staff and leading the teams of parents and community members through the schools during school visits and evaluations. The team leader must be organized and able to direct a group of previously unrelated individuals. The education specialists were gr aduate students of education from local universities. They served as experts on the school visit tools and rubrics, answering education questions posed by the community reviewers, ensuring that the team completed the entire visit and answered all the quest ions on the tools and rubrics. The specialists were the most knowledgeable about current trends in education and education reform. They helped community reviewers better understand and interpret the education environments. The CRP 2013 -14 internal overview document states: The specialist is responsible for becoming an expert on the site visit rubric, arriving on -time at training and events, answering questions posed by the community reviewers, and 96 reminding community reviewers to seek out elements from the facilities checklist. The specialist should be knowledgeable about current trends in education, able to speak objectively but non -academically regarding education reforms, and personable toward individuals from a background different from him /herself. Team leaders and education specialist attend a full -day training prior to community reviewer trainings. They were trained on the program tools and rubrics, methods for leading conversations between school leaders and community reviewers, and methods for faci litating conversations and debriefs with community reviewers. They also attended and helped facilitate portions of the community reviewer trainings. As previously discussed they facilitated conversations at the tables during the community reviewer training s and led team of community reviewers on mock school evaluations during the trainings. The team leaders and education specialists often led school visits on the same days each week. They submitted to CRP their available days to conduct visits, and they wer e given a weekly schedule. To protect the integrity of the unannounced school visits, they were only told the school name and location the night before their visits. Community Reviewer Teams The composition of the school review teams was a vital compone nt of the Community Reviewer Program. The school visits were conducted by teams of 3 -4 trained parents and community members and facilitated and led by a team leader and an education specialist. The team leader is responsible for navigating the school and interacting with school administrators and staff. There is also one education specialist per team; they have deeper knowledge of schools and provide feedback and guidance during the walk -through to ensure reviewers observe all aspects of the school. There are generally 3 -4 community reviewers per team, and they are the primary reviewers of the schools. They score the schools by completing designated school visit 97 rubrics, surveys, and documents. In order to complete the program, each team is required to comp lete at least three school visits. School Visits and Evaluation Tools ESD contacted every school in Detroit and schools in the suburbs that serve 50% or more Detroit students to ask that they participate in the Community Reviewer Program. ESD generally conducts visits to between seventy and two hundred schools each year. During the year of my formal observations, ESD conducted visits to about seventy schools. Each school visit lasted for about four hours, from 10:00am to 2:00pm. During the visits, teams t our the school for two hours and discuss and rate their observations for the remaining two hours. The teams use two documents during their schools visits. The first is an open -ended observation tool used during the school tour, and the second document is s urvey that is complete by the team after their school tour. School Visits As previously discussed, the community reviewers meet at a hub location on the morning of the visit at 9:30am and leave the hub for the school where the team leader and education specialist meet them. The community reviewer team generally arrives at the school at 10:00am, and the school tour begins. The team leader and education specialist go directly to the school and arrive at 9:00am. When they arrive at the school they meet with the school principal or administrator to discuss the process for the school visit, go over the tools and scoring rubrics, and answer the administratorÕs questions. They also request a school map, bell and lunch schedule, and a room for the community review ers to use for the debrief. After their meeting with the school administrator, they walk around the school and finalize a route for the school visit. The teams generally visit 98 school surroundings, the main entrance and main office, hallways, restrooms, t he cafeteria, auditorium, library, media center, computer lab, science labs, gym, art and music rooms, and classrooms. After the team leader greets the reviewers in the lobby, they lead them to a designated room. While in the room the team leader and educ ation specialist discuss the group norms and give an overview of the school visit route and process. Important norms emphasized included, stay in a group and do not wander off, disrupt student learning as little as possible, and evaluate the school on only what you observe, not what others tell you. Next, each team member is given a large clipboard and observation document. The team leader and education specialist then guide the team through the school. During the tour the community reviewers are required to take notes of their observations using the designated tools and rubric forms. At the conclusion of the tour, each team member individually completes a rubric through which they rate and evaluate their experience during the school visit. These rubrics a re later scored to give the school an overall score. After each member finishes rating the school, the team leader and e ducation specialist facilitate a group conversation during which they discuss the following questions: What are the strengths and areas for improvements for this school? What can the school do to make these improvements? How can community help with the improvements? The information gathered during the group discussion accompanies the scores aggregated from the rubrics in a final school profile that describes the participantsÕ experience and perspectives during the school visit. The information gathered is later made public by ESD through the publicly available and widely disseminated Detroit School Scorecard (see Appendix G ). 99 Evaluation T ools The community reviewers use two documents during their school visits; the first is an open -ended observation form used during the two -hour walk through (see Appendix H ). The open -ended observation tool provides a structure for the school tour portio n of the site -visit and is arranged by school settings and includes the following sections: ! School surroundings ! Main entrance and main office ! Common areas (hallways, restrooms, cafeteria, auditorium) ! Shared learning spaces (library, media center, compute r lab, science labs, gym, art and music rooms) ! Classroom one, two and three. Each section has the following questions: what is your first impression, what do you see, smell, and hear? Each section also includes location specific questions. For example, th e school surroundings section includes the questions: Is the schoolÕs main entrance indicated? Are the school grounds well maintained? The second form used during the school visits is a rubric that each participant completes individually at the conclusion of the school tour but before the debriefing conversation that follows the school tour (see Appendix I ; Figure 4.3). As previously discussed the rubric was created primarily through recommendations given by the community reviewers, and it examines the sch oolÕs climate and culture by asking participants to assess the maintenance of the school facilities, school safety, staffÕs expectations for students, how caring the adults in the building are toward students, and how welcoming and open the school is to co mmunity and parents. The final rubric has four main sections: 100 1. Facilities Checklist (also included on the observation school tour tool) 2. Safe and Caring Environments 3. High Expectations for Learning 4. Parent and Community Partnerships. Sample indicators of these components include school safety procedures, school mission and vision statements, and signals of parent and community involvement in the school. Using the rubric, each participant rates his or her perceptions and experiences during the school visit . Figure 4.3 The Community Reviewer Final Rubric 101 Figure 4.3 (contÕ d) 102 Figure 4.3 (contÕd ) 103 Figure 4.3 (contÕd ) The 3 -4 community reviewer rubrics completed during each visit are averaged together and aggregated into a final sco re. A school can earn up to fifteen points on the Detroit School Scorecard for the Community Reviewer Program. The ESD Scorecard Rulebook states The Average Community Review Score is the schoolÕs average score on the three -four rubrics of ESDÕs Community R eview survey. The Community Review measures feedback given by members of the Detroit community who visited the school...The Average Community Review Score is calculated from community review data collected by Excellent Schools Detroit and uses the most rec ent year of data. If a school did not participate in a community review, the Average Community Review Score will still count toward its cumulative grade and the school will earn 0 out of 15 possible points on the measure. According to the internal CRP 2014 Executive Summary document, each rubric is scored on a 1 -4 point scale (1=Not at all, 2=somewhat , 3=mostly, 4=completely). The individual questions are then averaged to create measure scores, and the measure scores are averaged to create a domain 104 score f or each of the thre e main categories. Lastly, the domain scores are averaged to create the overall score and are converted to a 0 -15 scale. According to the same internal document, Detroit schools averaged ÒMostlyÓ across the three site visit domains, scor ed lowest on the College & Career Measure and scored highest on the Emotional Environment measure, with Welcoming Culture close behind. Learning and Adjusting The program has been operating for three years and has made adjustments and changes during that t ime. At the conclusion of each year of the program, program staff evaluated the strengths, weaknesses, and potential areas of improvement for the program through the use of debrief meetings with community reviewers, team leaders, and school leaders. From those debriefs and through internal meetings with program staff, CRP has made two major adjustments to the program. It changed the composition of the community reviewer teams and it changed the school scoring process. Adjustments to the Community Reviewer Team Composition During the first year of the program, the community reviewer teams consisted of 4 -5 community reviewers and one team leader. During my observations of internal program meetings, the program staffed discussed that CRP intentionally utiliz ed retired school administrators as team leaders during the programÕs first year. Their rationale was to make the visited school leaders more comfortable about the school reviews and to get buy -in from educators in Detroit. As previously stated, the team l eaders served as the face of the program; they were the first to arrive at the school, and interacted the most with visited school principals and leaders. Although the retired administrators were well accepted by the school leaders, CRP received negative feedback from the community reviewers during the first year debriefs. The 105 community reviewers complained that the team leaders were biased and made excuses for the schools and school leaders. They gave examples of team leaders that would not allow them to see certain parts of the school building in an effort to protect the school and school leader. They also stated that the team leaders did not value the community reviewerÕs voices and opinions. They described team leaders who continuously inserted their op inions and voices into conversations during the school visits. The intended role of the team leader was to remain unbiased and to value and empower the voices and opinions of the community reviewers. According to feedback, that was not occurring so CRP s hifted the composition of the teams. During the second year the teams consisted of team leaders who were leaders from local community organizations. They received better feedback from community reviewers after the second year, and they had very little neg ative feedback from the school leaders. CRP learned that involving community leaders as team leaders seemed a better approach and they continued to use it during the third year of the program. During the third year of the program the team composition shi fted again. After shifting to team leaders from community organizations during the second year of the program, CRP realized that there was no one with education training and backgrounds to help community reviewers understand and interpret displays in halls , classroom interactions and other observed scenes. They also wanted to increase and improve the quality of data collected during the school visits (discussed in the next section). Therefore, during the third year they added the role of the education speci alist. The job description for the education specialists listed the following as key responsibilities: On school walkthroughs, help team members make adequate observations of schools through facilitation, open -ended questions and highlighting notable schoo l components. Provide 106 educational expertise in school data and school displays during school walkthroughs. P rovide expertise about artifacts and evidence of effective school climate and culture. Contribute to the development of clear, useful, and accurate reports that can be used by school leaders and community to understand school climate in individual schools The education specialists were education graduate students fr om local universities . Excellent Schools Detroit was overall satisfied with the educat ion specialist and intended to continue utilizing their role in the Community Reviewer Program. Adjustments to the Scoring and Data Collection Process The third change was to the rubric and to the scoring methods. During the first year of the program, the community reviewers utilized one final rubric to collect all of their opinions and were required to reach a consensus on each of the rubric items. Every community reviewer had to agree before they could move on to the next question and complete the rubric . After the school tour, during the debrief conversations, the team leader would read each question out loud and ask the community reviewers one at a time to rate the school on a 5 -point scale ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree. This process was difficult for team leaders to facilitate, and did not allow every community reviewerÕs voice to be heard equally. Often times, the loudest or most aggressive community reviewer was able to persuade the rest of the group. CRP staff received feedback f rom team leaders and community reviewers that this process did not truly capture the opinions of all of the reviewers. Thus, after the first year, CRP changed the process for collecting scoring data. During the second and third year of the program, each c ommunity reviewer had his or her own individual rubric. This adjustment created an opportunity for every community reviewerÕs opinion to be valued and counted. A schoolÕs score on each rubric item became an average of the reviewerÕs individual scores. 107 Early Program Outcomes This section brings together some data on early program outcomes. First, it is necessary to note that careful, systematic data collection has not been a strong point of the CRP and ESD. Data collection has varied year to year. I n some cases, ESD collected basic participation numbers but not information on the types of parents or community members participating. They know the number of schools reviewed but have not worked with the reviewer data to show patterns in reviewer demogra phics and background or how schools are scored over the three years of the program. This is a frustration that limits what might be learned about the program thus far. Still, there is some preliminary data on the characteristics and participation rates o f community reviewers and the number of schools reviewed. All sources of formal and informal data pooled together allow some reflection on whether the program is accomplishing its goals of empowering participants at the individual and collective level or shows potential to do so longer term. Program Participation Outcomes The Community Reviewer Program (CRP) began in 2011 and is currently in its third year of operation. In its first year, it worked with over two hundred parents and community participant s. According to the multiple sources of program participation rates, at this time, over five hundred parents and community members have participated in the program. It has conducted and completed over four hundred and fifty school visits and reviews to D etroit schools, including K -12 private, parochial, charter and traditional public schools. Characteristics of the Community Reviewers Detailed inf ormation about participants varied from year to year (see Table 4.2) . In 2012-13, over three hundred and seve nty community reviewers participated in CRP. Ninety percent of 108 the participants were African American, eight percent were Latino and two percent were White. Eighty -one percent of the participants were female, and the median age of the participants was for ty-two. Ninety -five percent of the participants had a high school diploma or GED, and thirty percent of the participants had a bachelorÕs degree (Table 4.2). Earlier it was noted that ESD looked to engage ÒinvolvedÓ parents and community leaders. This ma y explain the profile of participants. Clearly, the program has attracted community members that are older and have higher levels of education than the average Detroit parent. The average age of community reviewers during the 2012 -13 program was 42 and 9 5% of reviewers had at least a high school degree or GED equivalent, rates higher than the average Detroiter (Table 4.2). So far, younger, and less educated parent and community members have much lower participation rates in the program, as do males, Lati nos and whites. Characteristics of the Schools During the 2011 -12 and 2012 -2013 operation years, the Community Reviewer Program was open to all schools that desired to participate in the program. ESDÕs goal was to visit as many schools as possible and to urge every school in the city to participate. CRP successfully engaged a range of schools: Detroit Public Schools, Education Achievement Authority schools, and charter schools, to participate. In contract, catholic, private and select charter schools hav e not participated much in the program. 109 Table 4.2 CRP Participation Rates and Characteristics Rate & Demographics 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014 Detroit Number of Schools Evaluated 175 210 79 - Number of Participants 350 377 102 - Median Age * 42 ? 34 High School Diploma or GED or higher * 95% 93% 69.5% BachelorÕs Degree or Higher * 29.5% 45% 11.2% % Male * 19% 24% 48% % Female * 81% 76% 52% % African American * 90% 92% 82.7% % Latino * 8% 3% 6.8% % White * 2% 5% 7.8% * Data is not available During the most recent year, 2013 -2014, CRP only evaluated 70 schools (Table 4.3) . They focused on newer schools , schools in operation four years or less and schools that had recently gone through a turnaround schools that had been through a state takeove r, had a new 110 management company or new school authorizer. Consequently, only about 100 community reviewers participated in the program in 2013 -2014 (Table 4.2). Table 4 .3 CRP School Visits and Evaluations Type of School 2013-2014 Charter School 45 Tra ditional Public Schools 22 Private/parochial Schools 3 Total 70 Reaching the Program Goals The Community Reviewer Program has developed to operate as envisioned and it continues to learn from its experiences. Many parent involvement programs struggl e, so it is no small thing that the CRP has engaged as many parents and schools as it has. It can claim basic operational success. In creating the program, ESD wanted to empower Detroit community members to become more involved with schools. At the indiv idual level, it wanted to provide parents with the tools and skills to make more informed school choice decisions. At the community or collective level, it wanted to develop a power base of parents and community members that would make Detroit schools more responsive and accountable for their chronic low performance. Assessing success on these complex matters is difficult. But on the basis of its overall observations and its more in -depth study of 9 parents, the study has developed some case -based 111 evidenc e that the program may change parentÕs interactions with schools and the school choice behaviors. Individual E mpowerment Prior to participation in the program, many of the paren ts, even more involved parents, reported having little knowledge about educat ion except for their own personal experiences and the experiences of their children. The program allowed them to learn more about the state of education in Detroit and what a quality school should ÒlookÓ and ÒfeelÓ like. In the case of the 9 parents inter viewed for this study, all reported that they gained new information and acquired new resources and skills through their participation in the program. This also aligns with the experiences of other program participants. For example, a participant featured in the program promotional video stated: Going into the Community Reviewer Program and going on school reviews, I learned so much. ItÕs unbelievable of a way that a school should look when you walk in. The way that you are supposed to be greeted when you walk in. ItÕs just certain levels of different things that you should see and that should be there. Visiting and reviewing schools was a significant experience for many of the participants. Although parents can visit and select any school in the city , the school visits sponsored by the CRP were frequently the first time that most had visited other schools in the city. In the study sample of parents, it was the first time for 5 of the 9 parents. For example, Ebony, the mother of two teenage girls, ut ilized school choice to send her children to a charter school but did not visit the school before sending her children there: If it wasnÕt for this reviewing process, I donÕt think I would have ever stepped into other schools. You know what I am saying, so I was grateful for that. Because I donÕt think that if I was a parent off the streets coming in I donÕt think the school would have offered anything to me you know versus me being a reviewer. Participation in the program changed the way Ebony saw her childrenÕs schools also. She stated, ÒI thought they were doing a fantastic job (her childrenÕs school) but looking at what I saw 112 (during the program) they can do a lot more, a lot better.Ó Participation in the program also caused her to reflect upon her p rior school choice decision: I should have done more research. I shouldnÕt have took someone elseÕs word for it. I shouldnÕt have been blindsided by the newness (of her daughtersÕ school) and when I saw constant turnover in teachers, I should have asked mo re questions then. Because now I see that it was something going on with the way they were operating her school. The experience of Ebony and the experiences of other participants shared in this chapter suggest how participation in the CRP might lead to a greater sense of confidence and empowerment about school decision -making. Participation in the program was a significant experience for many of the participants. It helped to demystify the school choice market in Detroit and gave them tools to utilize wh en making school choice decisions. They now knew where to go to get accurate, information on each schoolÕs academic performance. They reported a better understanding of what questions to ask schools and how to assess the quality of a school. As a result, t he 9 studied participants reported having a better understanding of what to look for in a good school and how to make better school choice decisions for their children. It changed their thinking about what a school should offer and what sort of expectatio ns they should or could have for their own childÕs school. Several of the parents expressed a changed opinion of the type of school they wanted their children to attend. The participantÕs comments also suggest a changed sense of identity in terms of their relationships with schools. They felt more able to ask questions but also more allowed to ask questions, (a theme explored further in the next chapter). They were more connected to people who might provide support for them to do so also. These signs off ers some evidence for the idea that participation could enhance the participants overall social capital and individual sense of empowerment. 113 Collective E mpowerment The programÕs other goal was to foster collective empowerment among community reviewers in order to hold Detroit schools more accountable and pressure them to improve. Led by the same community organizers that helped created the CRP, after participating as reviewers and as team leaders in the Community Reviewer Program, community leaders fr om several neighborhoods launched neighborhood based school improvement strategies. The Ford Neighborhood Alliance and Ford Faith Alliance, launched a school attendance campaign and a parent mentoring program. They started looking at attendance data from s chools in their neighborhood and found that Òov er 60% of children in Ford Neighborhood schools were missing more than 10 days of school each year.Ó Through their campaign, sc hools and churches in Ford worked together to launch a community campaign to incr ease attendance rates to 97%. After participation in the CRP, members of the Antioch Neighborhood Education Committee launched a campaign to increase the role of parents as decision -makers and school -to-home communicators. The Committee held dozens of on e-on-one conversations with neighborhood parents and students to understand what prevented their involvement in their childrenÕs schools. They also conducted a national scan of best practices in parent involvement. Ultimately, the Committee chose to imple ment the Parent Mentor Program, a nationally recognized parent engagement model that builds deep and lasting relationships between students, teachers, and parents. In Antioch , the program offers parents a small stipend to work in the classroom or elsewher e in the school to support students academically and connect families to resource s. In 2013 -2014, there were 3 parent me ntors at the neighborhood elementary school and 2 parent mentors at the neighborhood high schools. 114 With support from the CRP community organizers, community leaders involved in the CRP also launched a citywide education organizing network called Our Schools . According to the Our Schools website, they are a collective of Òneighborhood organizations, parents, and youth committed to ensurin g that all Detroit children have access to an excellent education, regardless of their race or socioeconomic status.Ó The groups credits the CRP for it Õs founding: In 2012, Excellent Schools Det roit convened community -based organizations from around the city to participate in their annual Detroit School Scorecard . That year, ESD added an exciting new part to their school rating system: an unannounced site visit by parents and community members to assess the climate and learning environment of each school. É Participating in the Detroit School Scorecard energized and activated some community leaders so much that they begin to lead local organizing campaigns with the neighborhood organizations tha t recruited them...Ultimately, this convening proved to be such a powerful lever for improving schools that participating groups decided to make it official, and Our Schools was born...Together, we are building power to make systemic change and win educati onal justice for our communities. It is not yet know n how these new initiative s will develop and how they will interact with schools. But they offer some preliminary evidence of positive collective outcomes from the CRP. The tools and resources of the C RP offer important support structures and experiences to these new organizations that lend them a very important assist. Chapter Summary According to Delgado -Gaitan (1991), Empowerment is an ongoing intentional process centered in the local community invo lving mutual respect, critical reflection, caring and group participation through which people lacking an equal share of valued resources gain greater access to and control over those resources. The CRP was an intentional process centered in the Detroi t community that helped parents who lacked an equal share of resources to gain greater access to information, new knowledge and experiences and new relationships. ESD created the CRP to increase parent involvement and improve relationships between urban pa rents and schools by empowering participants to make better school choice decisions and to hold the cityÕs schools more accountable. It drew on 115 community organizing models that view parents as assets rather than liabilities. It also successfully develop ed a model and process for parents and community members to conduct school quality reviews that enhanced the Detroit School Report card and the dissemination of reliable and valued information about Detroit schools. In a document used to provide an overvi ew of CRP, ESD wrote Now in its third year, the Community Reviewer Program has become an invaluable tool not just for collecting information, but also for engaging local leaders in creating educational change. Over 500 neighborhood leaders have participat ed in Site Visits, and are bringing a new -found energy and resource back to their communities. They have started parent engagement programs, school attendance initiatives, and are recruiting more folks every year to get involved with the Scorecard. CRP brokered opportunities for parents to engage in new relationships and to gain information and knowledge about norms that are valued by schools and variations in school conditions and qualities. Data from a small set of parents who participated in the prog ram suggest that the program succeeded in developing a stronger orientation to learn more about their childrenÕs schools and a greater sense of empowerment about asking questions of schools and making school choices. The involvement of community leaders i n the CRP led some of them to develop local programs of parent involvement and school improvement. Overall, preliminary data from the program gives some affirmation to the programÕs theory of action and the value of a very different form of parent involvem ent in urban schools. The next chapter shifts perspective away from the program to consider the personal experiences of the nine parents who participated. 116 CHAPTER 5: THE EXPERIENCES OF NINE COMMUNITY REVIEWERS In the previous chapter, I discusse d the findings related to the program theory of action, program model, and early program outcomes. A second area of inquiry in the study was to examine how participation in the program influenced individual parents. This chapter presents key findings from in-depth pre - and post interviews and surveys of 9 of the community reviewers. I provided a description of the participants in Chapter 4. This chapter provides an overview of their experiences with the program and discusses how the program influenced thei r beliefs about quality schools, their interest and comfort in being involved with schools, their involvement behaviors, and their school choice decisions. In closing it considers how the program may have influenced their social capital. The school and co mmunity involvement profiles of the parents aligned with the type of parent and community member the program sought to engage. As noted in Chapter 4, the program sought to attract Òinvolved parents and residents.Ó In recruitment materials for the program, CRP staff wrote: Community Reviewers are involved parents, residents, educators and members of the business and nonprofit communities who want all of DetroitÕs children to receive an excellent education...We are looking for parents and community members wh o have already demonstrated leadership or whose leadership and talents you would like to develop. The sample of parents interviewed for the study largely aligned with this description. However the program also involved a small group (3 out of 9, 33%) of p arents who were not heavily involved with their childrenÕs schools prior to participation in the program Why t he Participants Joined the Program 117 In 2013, the CRP conducted a phone survey of the 2012 -2013 community reviewers to gain feedback on their exper iences. An overview of the data showed that most joined the program to learn more about what was happening in the schools and to know how they could help. A common comments was: I decided to participate in the community review process because I wanted t o see what is going on in Detroit Public SchoolsÉI think that education is very important and I wanted to see for myself what is going on and what I could do to make things better. In pre-interviews, (after their training but prior to their school review visits) the 9 study participants were asked to explain why they became a community reviewer. All shared a desire to help improve the Detroit community, their childrenÕs schools, or other schools in Detroit. Another common reason was a desire to separat e fact from fiction about the schools, as was clear in this comment from Tanesha: Because I wanna see whatÕs going on in some of the other schools, comparing to my schools and see how I can, either we change the stuff or incorporate it. See what works, se e whatÕs really going on other than hearsay, because IÕm not a hearsay person. Michelle stated: People really donÕt know the jewels that we have in the city... Because the city gets such a bad rap so I donÕt think that they really know. And they go for what looks best because the school that I did go in, itÕs a newer school so it looked really nice on the outside but I was just looking, thinking the quality of this could be better. Many parents stated that they heard negative things about schools in De troit, and the program offered them a chance to explore the quality of schools in Detroit for themselves. They wanted to explore the schools personally, to get beyond the negative stories heard, past hearsay, to learn about Detroit schools for themselves. Other participants shared similar interests in being able to directly observe and compare the conditions of Detroit schools against the negative stories they often heard about them. 118 Participants also saw the program as an opportunity to help improve the communities and schools in Detroit. When asked why he joined the program, Barry replied by stating: Because I know that for the rest of my life, IÕm going to be doing something with the amelioration of these blighted communities in Detroit. And I have to have as much information and knowledge on what IÕm doing to be successful in that endeavor. So IÕll try to expose myself to a repository of information. And I think that when you have those in the community who have a vested interest in understanding wh at makes your school good or bad and that you have the ability to change this, is, itÕs imperative. Ford , that is my target area because it is such, it is such a decimated area. That when you say Ford , thatÕs the look you gonna get. Exactly what youÕre doing. People just, they cringe when you mention that area. They donÕt wanta go over there. Definitely not after 5:00 and they ainÕt going over there before the sun is up. So you know, but the need for that, in fact, I truly believe just a strong, small nucleus of parenting over there, concerted parenting. IÕm talking about again not just for a week or a month, IÕm talking about you committing your child for the next few years and giving them what they need. Barry like many of the other community review ers is a community leader in Detroit. Barry worked heavily in the Ford community to combat the neighborhood blight problem and as mentor to black males. BarryÕs quote is an example of how some of the participants connected their participation in the progra m to the larger goal of improving the city and communities in Detroit. ParentÕs Experiences with the Program The Community Reviewer Program reflects a theory of action in which access to transparent information, new experiences with schools, and new relati onships build parentÕs social capital, empowers them to make more informed school choices decision and to pressure schools to be more responsive and accountable (Figures 4.1). This chapter examines parentÕs individual experiences with the program and how t he program influenced participants at the individual level. This study specifically wanted to examine whether participation influenced parentsÕ beliefs and descriptions of a good school, self -efficacy, involvement behaviors and 119 dispositions, social capital , and other knowledge and skills (Figure 5.1). It also wanted to examine whether it empowered parents to make better school choice decisions. Figure 5.1 ParentÕs Experiences with the Community Reviewer Program Beliefs and Definitions about Good Schools Exploring whether participation in the program influenced parentÕs beliefs about what constituted a good school was a central interest of the study. In pre -and post interviews, participants were asked to describe components of a good school and their ex periences of their favorite school visited during the program. Many parent comments may reflect the timing of their pre -interviews. The pre -interviews were conducted prior to conducting school visits but 120 after the program trainings where parents were exp osed to descriptions and discussions of standards that constitute a good school. Parents did not define good schools exactly the same, but their attentions were directed by the tools and rubrics created by parent and community members that emphasized the maintenance of school facilities, school safety, staffÕs expectations for students, how caring the adults in the building were toward students, and how welcoming and open the school was to parents and the community. Participants described good schools in part as Òsafe, clean, welcoming, and have good academics and curriculum.Ó Safety was a central quality of a good school for these parents. Beverly, a parent of a teenage son, drew on her experiences during a school review visit to describe what she thoug ht a good school looked and felt like: They had security, where you had to, we all had to get badges, wasnÕt you could just come in and leave out. And when one of the kidsÕ parents came there, the lady said, excuse me, could you just, one second and she g ave all us our badges and then she said, I will escort you around but before she left her post, she went and got somebody else to take over her post while she went somewhere else. Hattie noted safety right off also. She stated, Ò ItÕs safe, you feel sa fe going in the door. You feel good when you walk in the environment.Ó In her descriptions, Maria also shared experiences that spoke to central concerns about safety: Make sure the school is protected. That was another thing that the school is protected. With all these issues going on in the school today, people just walking in there, that frightens me, too. And I made a point to that, you know, at one of the parents meetings (at her sonÕs school). You know, now they have a doorbell. You canÕt just get int o the school and the main door has a doorbell. You canÕt just open the door, thank God. Thank God, not like before. Before you could go in there like nothing. Closely connected to safety was the quality of being Òwelcoming.Ó Many of TaneshaÕs comments sp oke to this: A good school to me is first, when you walk in the door, a school must make parents feel welcome...ItÕs what the school has to offer when I step in. Now, if I walk in the school and they donÕt even say good morning, or I go in the office and theyÕre not even trying to 121 respond and not even noticing IÕm there, IÕm not gonna send my child there cuz how you treating these kids when IÕm not here In the CRP video, a parent spoke of how visiting schools changed her expectations of what schools shou ld look like and how she should be greeted: Going into the Community Reviewer Program and going on school reviews, I learned so much. ItÕs unbelievable of a way that a school should look when you walk in. The way that you are supposed to be greeted when y ou walk in. ItÕs just certain levels of different things that you should see and that should be there. Related to being welcoming, Maria underscored the theme of communication during both her pre - and post interview. During the pre -interview she defined a good school as a place where thereÕs communication with the principal, the teachers, and the setting. She stated, ÒWhen thereÕs communication with the principal, the teachers, and the setting. Yeah, thatÕs what I think, the main thing is the communication and the safety of my child.Ó School safety and a welcoming environment were central themes used by the parents to describe a good school. For urban parents whom often hear about crimes and violence in their neighborhoods and communities, having a safe sch ool is very important and centrally important to them. A welcoming school environment is also an important element to a good school. This is often because the parents themselves did not have good experiences with schools and they often feel unwelcome and uncomfortable at schools and interacting with school staff. This aligns with the literature which concluded that parentsÕ perceptions and interactions with schools are influenced by their prior personal experiences as students (Davies, 1993; Lott, 2001; Mc Dermott & Rothenberg, 2000). In his study Benefits and Barriers to Parent Involvement, Davies (1993) found that parentsÕ bad memories about schools and prior negative interactions and relationships with school personnel influenced and impacted the way pare nts interacted with their childrenÕs 122 schools. It is critically important that good schools create a welcoming environment for urban parents. The CRP program sought to increase parentsÕ attention to the quality of academic programs in schools. Parent def initions of a good school spoke to this also. Beverly voiced that good schools have quality academics, sharing her observations that a good school is one where kids that go there Òaccomplish a lot.Ó She stated: The kids that IÕve seen that went there (a g ood school), they accomplished a lot, from going there. And with the curriculumÉthey have to keep a certain grade point average to stay there and that made it a good school to me. Tanesha commented about the importance of academics and her experience at a school during the site visits: And you gotta look for the academics because if a school ainÕt functioning in academics, how can you teach my child so they can succeed in the future? So I look for that, too... [At Rosa Parks Creative Studies] they allow their kids go out in the hallway, sit on the floor. You know, any way the child feel comfortable learning. And also, they cater to their kids like if they wanta draw, they incorporate it with their like curriculum and stuff. I thought that was cool, too. And the kids, they had art projects all over the place and everything Hattie, the grandmother of an elementary female student, saw a good school as safe, but also one where there is discipline and where staff and the curriculum Òrecognize cultural differe ncesÓ: They have lots of materials, educational materials that will help the learners with their critical thinking skills and their creativity...I also think a good school is one that is disciplined, where the teachers are disciplined um where the teacher s respect their students and in turn I think the students will respect the teachers. I think a good school is one that has a good curriculum okay and one that is up on the curriculum and is sensitive to who their students are. For example, my granddaughter came home and they were studying immigration and migration. And she came home with a project that she had to do and one of the projects wanted to know where did your ancestors come from and why did they come here. And what were their native languages and you had to know who they were. What was the names of you ancestors that came here and why did they come here? Those questions to African American students are very insensitive. You know why did they come here; they were enslaved...So why would you give an assignment like that...Curriculums need to be relevant to whoever you are teaching and they need to understand that. To me a good school recognizes cultural differences; they know who their audience is, whom their students are and they are able to teach ac cordingly. 123 The interview data from parents may not show significant shifts in how they defined a good school between their pre and post interviews but there are signs of developments to their thoughts and perceptions. Perhaps because he was the most ex pansive in his comments, BarryÕs comments on what makes a school good or valuable are interesting. During the pre -interview, Barry, the father of a son in high school, described a quality school this way: What makes a school valuable? The fact that you r oll up to Business Academy [School] and its aesthetically appealing: this is a pretty school. That makes it valuable. The fact that you come in and you are greeted professionally. Girlfriend ainÕt on the phone, she ainÕt smacking no gum you know she ainÕt doing none of that. She is appropriately dressed for the job that she works. So that makes a school valuable. When itÕs clean, when its well lit, when you come in and somebody is speaking to you or assisting you with things you donÕt know. When it puts on events, if it has a strong PTA association. If there are things on the wall that you can see that they are making kids feel good about themselves. The value of a school, what does it bring to the community, that type of thing. You have to understand that i s what is going to educate your child. When your child goes from third to twelfth grade that school is the most influential factor and those individuals in there are too. During the post interview, BarryÕs description of a good school developed and shifte d some: What does a good school look like? Just from my experience overall, IÕm thinking a good school looks like it can show an upward increase in progression in your students. They donÕt have to be A students but if you can show me a consistent pattern of students who started here and now theyÕre here, it can be as small steps incrementally as possible, but as long as thereÕs a continuous, gradual upward spiral of progression in academics and social development...Yeah, I think thatÕs, I think, I donÕt th ink you can have one without the other. I think a child whoÕs progressing academically will progress socially. Those skills should be synonymous anyways. And I think the administrative portion (of a school) should be enthusiastic and inviting across the b oard...You got to have people that are committed to the school. The school has to be a pulse of the neighborhood. When the school ceases to become a pulse for your neighborhood, then I think that is the beginning of your downward spiral. Although some par ts of BarryÕs definition of a quality school are the same, his overall description developed and shifted. Some things are consistent, for example before and after participation the program, he describes a good school as welcoming, having professional and committed school personnel, being a valuable part of the community, and one that successfully 124 develops students. However the differences in the descriptions are important to pull out. In the first quote, Barry notes the quality of the school appearances; it is aesthetically appealing and clean, there is art and other displays on the walls. He also notes adult behaviors; the staff are professional, and the parents are involved through a professional like body like the PTA. In this description, he expresses w hat some might call middle class expectations of a good school. In the quote that follows, he moves past appearances of the building and the visible behaviors of adults to consider what is transpiring among students. He speaks about students and their academic and social growth and success over time. He speaks of adults as people who should be reaching out and connecting to the community. He moves past the degree to which the school has visible signs of order and to matters below the surface. His cri teria are not different, but they are developed. Involvement Behaviors and Dispositions During the post interviews, parents were asked whether participation in the program influenced their involvement and interactions with their childrenÕs schools. Most (5 out of 9, 56%) replied ÒnoÓ because they were already involved with their childrenÕs schools and participation had not change their involvements. Recall that 6 of the 9 parents interviewed reported being frequently involved with their childrenÕs educat ion. Damon, stated ÒUh uh. I stayed the same...I was already doing it before even I knew (the Community Reviewer Program) existed. So I always interacted with them (personnel at his childrenÕs school). I still am.Ó Vanessa shared a steady form of involv ement as a volunteer in her childÕs school: I think I got a good rapport with my kidsÕ teachers, both of them. And like I said, I saw them last night and a couple of them, I havenÕt seen because I do different things at the school, I donÕt get a chance to see all of them at the same time. They walked up to me and hugged me and greeted me and was like I havenÕt seen you and I was like thatÕs because IÕve been on the other side of the building, whatever. You know any time you wanta come read or you wanta co me in, you can. 125 However, 4 (out of 9, 44%) of the parents reported that the program had some influence on how they thought about their interactions and involvement with their childrenÕs schools. These influences were mostly in terms of asking themselves new questions about how they might be helpful. For example, Michelle stated, I know what questions to ask. I know nonverbals to look for. I also see areas that need support that I probably wouldnÕtÕve typically thought about supporting... People always say we need somebody in the lunchroom, help out with lunch duty or they might simply need copy paper. The staff may need someone to come in and assist, you know, just to kinda help monitor in the classroom so they can get some paperwork done. So do readi ng with the children or play a game for the older children. Those areas that we donÕt always think about. Maybe spearheading, IÕve always wanted to do this, spearheading a, Éteacher appreciation week or something, something to appreciate the teachers that will go a week long. Where they may have people in the building that may do a movie with the 5 th grade so the teachers can go and get a hand massage. You know, having little gifts that may have been donated so they can take little tokens home. Just somet hing to get them excited. And Maria felt more able to interact after her experiences, stating: It gives me more interaction with his teacher and the school itself to know what I want for my child... And you know, to let them know that IÕm willing to hel p in any way, you know, help him with his education. And even in the school, like as a volunteer, you know. Barry was the only parent who reported that he took action to become more involved with his childÕs school as a consequence of his participation i n the CRP. Barry was one of three parents who reported not being frequently involved with their childrenÕs school prior to participation in the program. In the post interview Barry stated that participation affected his involvement behaviors with his sonÕs school: Yeah. Well, IÕm moreÉIÕve been involved as far as going up there more and to see, you know, the platform where parents can go in there and view grades and look at type of things, look at social events, just to see what theyÕre, see what theyÕre pu tting out there. TheyÕre very good at keeping parents informed, keeping the information board updated and accessible...Yeah, just, just to pay a visit. I mean, I think a parent should make at least two visits up to the childÕs school during the calendar ye ar. At least two and volunteer once. Just if nothing else, to give the student, the teachers and the principal that IÕm involved in my childÕs life. Period. I wanta come up here and just go to one 126 class. Just hey, howÕs it going? HowÕs things going? Wha t are you all doing? WhatÕs going on? Just, and then your child appreciates you. Prior to participation, Barry had not visited his sonÕs school during the school day or explored the schoolÕs website and other parent tools. He now thinks it is important to be more present at his sonÕs school. Participation in the program influenced some of the parentsÕ thoughts and orientations about at -school involvement. Because most of the parents were already involved, measuring a shift was limited. However, particip ation in the program compelled some to think more deeply about how to be more involved with their childrenÕs schools or to see different ways to become involved. Several reported that they would like to help and volunteer at the school more often. Althoug h the parents reported how they would like to be more involved with their childrenÕs schools, they had not taken the actions they described. In the case of the parents who were not involved, one, Barry, seemed ready to take some specific actions. Self-Efficacy and Confidence in Involvement To assess whether the program influenced parentÕs self -efficacy and confidence when interacting with schools, the study analyzed the interviews and also created a questionnaire to assess parentsÕ confidence when interact ing with schools before and aft er participation (see Appendix K ). Self -efficacy is belief in oneÕs abilities to act in ways that will produce desired outcomes (Bandura, 2006 ). In the context of parent involvement, Hoover -Dempsey and Sandler (1995) define p arent self -efficacy as parentÕs belief that they have the skills and knowledge necessary to help their children succeed in school. The questionnaire was const ructed utilizing BanduraÕs (2006 ) Guide for Constructing Self -Efficacy Scales and pre -existing qu estions from Hoover -Dempsey & SandlerÕs (2005) Model of Parental Involvement Process . The purpose of the questionnaire was to examine parentsÕ 127 sense of efficacy for involvement, interacting with school personnel, and helping their child succeed in school. The questionnaire had items such as: I know how to help my child do well in school, I am confident when communicating with my childÕs teachers, and the school I selected for my child is a great school. Participants were asked to assess each statement by se lecting not at all, somewhat, mostly, or completely. At the conclusion of the post interview, the researcher placed both the pre - and post survey side -by-side and asked participants to describe what experiences during the program most influenced any change s in their self -efficacy and confidence. Most (8 out of 9, 89%) of the participants selected mostly and completely to most of the questions in both the pre - and post questionnaire. For example Tanesha and Maria stated ÒcompletelyÓ to all of the questio ns on both the pre -and post questionnaires. Additionally, Ebony marked ÒcompletelyÓ on all of the questions except the school I selected for my child to attend is a great school . As discussed in more detail throughout this study, she was concerned that the school she selected was not a good school. For this question she selected somewhat for both the pre-and post questionnaire. The remaining participants had small shifts from mostly to completely or from completely to mostly on a few of the questions. For example, Hattie answered ÒcompletelyÓ to all of the questions in the pre -questionnaire, but shifted her answer to mostly and somewhat on the post questionnaire for questions about selecting a good school. She stated: At first, I thought I knew how to, you know, select, identify (a good school), but now I know that thereÕs some things that I didnÕt know. So thatÕs why I said mostly now when before I thought I knew it all. And IÕve learned that I donÕt, so thatÕs why... Knowing how the environment, knowing about the environment and how important the environment is. She has to be in the right environment, right school environment. 128 During the post interview when asked if she would select the same school for her granddaughter she replied, Ò No, I would have pi cked another school.Ó HattieÕs concerns about her granddaughterÕ school is also discussed in other sections in this chapter. Damon and Barry also shifted their answers to the questions about selecting a good school. Both shifted their answers from mostly to completely. They reported feeling more confident in how to make school choice decisions. Damon stated: Now I know what IÕm looking for. I go in there, this school well maintained. Is the teacher teaching my son, my daughter anything? DonÕt want my son sitting like, ainÕt learning...I go in there and the teacherÕs on the cell phone, not interacting with my child. YouÕre wasting my childÕs time. I want my child to learn. I want my child to do well, better than where I am. I want him to be topnotch. Hav e everything I didnÕt have. I want him to have the best education he can get, while he can get it, while itÕs free. At the individual level of empowering parents to think critically about their school choice decisions, the program accomplished itÕs goal. Participation in the program pushed many of the parents to think deeper about school quality and in some cases to reconsider their school choice decisions. This is also discussed in more detail in the school methods and decisions section. Beverly, Michel le, and BarryÕs answers shifted for the questions about school involvement and their impact on their childÕs school performance. As evident in the involvement behaviors and dispositions section, Barry became more involved with his sonÕs school after partic ipation in the program and reported that he had visited his sonÕs school more often. His self-efficacy for school involvement and his impact on his sonÕs school performance shifted to completely. He stated: I think that because I hadnÕt been to the school except for football games...Now itÕs like, okay, when you show up at the school (during school hours), itÕs like, okay...you have an involved parent...Just having the dialogue with his principal, you know, instructors, all that. Just them being so inviting ...This is part of the role. IÕm not doing nothing thatÕs extraordinary. This is what IÕm supposed to do. 129 Participation in the program also stimulated some of the parents to think deeper about their involvement with their childrenÕs schools. However, bec ause most of the parents reported high levels of involvement before participation, it appears that the program did not substantially impact the overall groupÕs involvement behaviors. This aligns with what is discussed in the involvement and dispositions se ction. Although there appeared to be little change in participantsÕ self -efficacy as a group, there were a few individual parents whose self -efficacy shifted as a result of participation in the program. Social Capital Access to new relationships was a ke y component of the program model and theory of action. Through the new relationships participants gained social capital that helped enhance the knowledge and skills they utilize when interacting with their childrenÕs schools. They gained access to bonding and bridging social capital. Bonding social capital occurred through their new social relationships with other urban parents and community members, and bridging social capital was established by giving parents access to new social relationships with progra m staff and urban schools (Figure 4.2). Bonding Capital Through the bonding capital parents gained a shared language for school quality and a new identity as a community reviewer. The participants gained a new language and way to talk about schools. Thro ugh training on the rubrics, the school visits and their shared experiences, they developed a new language for describing the quality of schools. This language closely mirrors the rubrics utilized during the school visits. As previously discussed the rubri c were created primarily through recommendations given by other parents and community members. 130 The rubrics focus on the maintenance of the school facilities, school safety, staffÕs expectations for students, how caring the adults in the building are toward students, and how welcoming and open the school is to community and parents. The shared language among the participants became evident when they were asked to describe a good school. The participants utilized the same categories of safety, cleanliness, welcoming, and good academic curriculum. It comes as no surprise that these are similar categories from the program rubric, but they were also qualities that the parents seemed to truly value. This will be discussed in more detail in the description of a goo d school section later in this chapter. Participants also gained a new identity as a community reviewer. In a flyer to recruit community reviewers, ESD described community reviewers as: Involved parents, residents, educators and members of the business and non-profit communities who want all of DetroitÕs children to receive an excellent education... parents and community members who care about education, who want to be a part of a longer -term movement to create great schools in Detroit Hattie described her e experience as a community reviewer by stating: It w as good to feel that you were a part of making sure that the schools were organized and managed the way that they were supposed to, according to the reviewer list that we had...It was a good thing to do and there should be a continuation of monitoring schools to make sure that they are carrying out their objectives and their missions and visions. Participants of the program were bonded to other like -minded community members who cared about education in D etroit. The program gave them the opportunity to be a part of a collective group of community members who were dedicated to improving Detroit schools. The program also provided a pathway to stay involved at the collective level with school improvement in Detroit. After the second year of the program, participants created Our Schools , an education -organizing network of neighborhood organizations, parents, and youth committed 131 to ensuring that all Detroit children have access to an excellent education, regard less of their race or socioeconomic status. After participation in the program, participants were encouraged to stay involved by joining a community organization in their neighborhood, a parent involvement program at their childrenÕs school, or Our Schools . Bridging C apital New language and other tools gained through the program created bridges to urban educators and schools in new ways for the participants. The bridging social capital available through the program allowed participants the opportunity to l earn more about urban schools. The bridging capital influenced their interactions with their childrenÕs schools. Vanessa discussed how participation helped her to better understand how to handle issues at her childrenÕs schools: Yes. I can honestly say aft er my second review, I stopped being all hyped and irritated (about issues at the school). I took things differently when the kids told me, oh, guess what so and so said today or guess what happened today. I was a little bit more, I wasnÕt upset. I was lik e, you know, you gotta understand this, this and that other thing. Just from visiting the other schools and seeing and hearing things, I was able to like not be upset and give my kids a reason why certain things had occurred Michelle discussed how partici pation has influenced her interactions with her childrenÕs schools: It will become more intense...because I know what questions to ask. I know nonverbals to look for. I also see areas that need support that I probably wouldnÕtÕve typically thought about su pporting. The visits gave participants insight and a better understanding of the culture and norms of her childrenÕs schools, which influenced the way they interacted with the schools. Participants utilized the new language and tools in their future int eractions with their childrenÕs schools to create more informed and positive interactions with the school. The social capital gained through participation in the program is one of the program components that enhanced knowledge and skills that parents utili ze when interacting with schools. 132 New Knowledge and Skills All (9 out of 9, 100%) of the participants indicated that they gained new information and access to new resources through their participation in the Community Reviewer Program. During the post i nterview, parents described what they learned from participation in the program. When asked to describe what she learned from her experience with the Community Reviewer Program, Michelle stated: People really donÕt know the jewels that we have in the city ...And unless itÕs, you know, the outside is a new and this fabulous school, looking on the outside, people really donÕt know, you know, that we have really good schools. Because the city gets such a bad rap so I donÕt think that they really know. And they go for what looks best because the school that I did go in, itÕs a newer school so it looked really nice on the outside but I was just looking, thinking the quality of this could be better. When asked the same question, Tanesha shared: I learned new is not to judge a book by its cover and what I mean by that is before you comment on any school, parents need to really get out and research that school before, whether itÕs positive or negative comment, go look into it yourself. DonÕt base judgment on some thing somebody else told you...ItÕs so many different styles of learning and like their environments and the cultures and stuff. And somewhat just because you see their name, things ainÕt how they always seem, just by the name. You have to go in. Cuz some of them, like, wow! Really? For example, my favorite one was the Rosa Parks Creative Studies. Their program is awesome...Versus when I went to Carrollton. I went during the winter time. Built up ice, the sidewalk wasnÕt clear. You didnÕt get greeted just l ike that. It was just like, like wow. It was like, like a jail or something. Like it was just like, you know, just because you going to school in the neighborhood, that donÕt mean the school gotta be horrible cuz the neighborhood is horrible. Each quote is an example of how participants described their perceived learning from the program. The quotes illuminate that the program helped to demystify the myth that all Detroit schools are bad. Many participants reported that they heard many negative things a bout schools in Detroit. The program offered them the opportunity to explore the quality of schools for themselves. Michelle stated that schools in Detroit often get a Ò a bad rap.Ó However, through 133 her participation in the program she discovered that the re are good schools in Detroit; she describes them as Òjewels.Ó Parents in Detroit often judge the quality of schools based on the external and internal appearance of the schools or the school name. They are often distracted by the newness of the building and do very little investigation into other aspects of the school. However, participants of the program found that you cannot judge a school by its name or outside appearance. The quality of a school must be examined by visiting and exploring the school. P articipants described learning that there are diverse types of schools. The schools are diverse in their environments, cultures, and quality. They were surprised to discover that Detroit has good and bad schools. School Choice Decisions and Methods One o f the most targeted goals of the program was to empower parents to select better schools for their children. A community leader in Detroit described the school choice process as overwhelming for parents due to the lack of school performance information: One of the challenges for a Detroit family raising children in this city is a lack of transparency around school performance...ItÕs going to be much more critical for parents to be able to get credible information now that we have lots of charters coming i n and we have public schools chartering schools, and we have the statewide school district. A parent in the Community Reviewer Program promotional video stated, ÒItÕs a little scary, especially for a parent, if you want to find the best school, you want to have options but you are not always sure.Ó Although parents can select any school in the city to send their children to, the school visits conducted as part of the CRP were the first time that most (5 of 9, 56%) of the parents visited schools in the city other than the schools they attended and their childrenÕs schools. As shown above, many of these parents were not confident of feeling welcomed in school, a pattern that aligns with the literature on urban parents perceptions and experiences with sch ools. Some 134 of the parents perceived the schools as being unwelcoming and did not visit schools for that reason. For example, Ebony, the mother of two teenage girls who utilized school choice to send her children to a charter school, did not visit the schoo l before sending her children there: If it wasnÕt for this reviewing process, I donÕt think I would have ever stepped into other schools. You know what I am saying. So, I was grateful for that. Because I donÕt think that if I was a parent off the streets coming in, I donÕt think the school would have offered anything to me, you know, versus me being a reviewer. By learning to assess the quality of schools, Ebony developed new expectations and standards for schools. Indeed, all (9 of 9, 100%) of the part icipants reported feeling that they had a better understanding of how to assess the quality of schools. Tanesha, stated: My experience (with the program) was good because it let me know the different rankings as far as they (schools) test scores, cleanlin ess and staff and you know different insight on how to look at some different things when it comes to schools. Like this one may be thriving but this one may not but why this one ainÕt, you know. LetÕs go in and see whatÕs going on. Hattie, the grandmothe r, who utilized school choice to send her granddaughter to a charter school, reported that participation in the program would influence her future methods for making school choice decisions for her granddaughter. Hattie is currently looking for a high sch ool to send her granddaughter to. The current charter school she selected for her daughter is one of the lowest performing schools in the state; she wants to remove her from the school after she finishes eighth grade. Hattie reports that participation in t he program will help tremendously with selecting a high school for her granddaughter: I will use some of the guidelines (from the program). IÕll be looking at the environment. I will be looking at teacher interactions. IÕll be looking at diversity. I know I will be looking at safety, all of the things that are really important..IÕll be looking at a more total picture rather than just narrowing my focus. Participation also caused many parents to reassess their current school choice decisions. When asked if participation in the program influenced the way she sees her childrenÕs schools, 135 Ebony, responded by stating, ÒYes. In a lot of ways. I thought they were doing a fantastic job (her childrenÕs school) but looking at what I saw (during the program) they can do a lot more, a lot better.Ó She went on to state: I should have done more research. I shouldnÕt have took someone elseÕs word for it. I shouldnÕt have been blindsided by the newness (of the school building) and when I saw constant turnover in teachers, I should have asked more questions then. Because now I see that it was something going on with the way they were operating her school. Maria described how participation influenced how she views the school she selected for her son. Going to these other sc hools, it made me like, like see what they have thatÕs a good, like a positive and then seeing what your school doesnÕt have that it should have. Because that school has it and your school should have it too. I think all schools should have certain things . I think all kids are entitled to have a bigger cafeteria, an auditorium, a nice outdoors to relax in, a play area, an area to have their, you know. Maria is considering moving downriver and will soon be searching for another school for her son. She dis cussed that she learned what questions to ask and what to look for during the school visits: If I move, IÕm gonna put him in a school downriver, you know, and I have to be able to ask questions, go in there and see how their setup is...You know, now if I go in there, I know what my questions can be. And what IÕm gonna be looking for. Based on my experience reviewing schools here in Michigan, Detroit. Ebony and MariaÕs quotes describe how participation in the program assisted them to reflect about the scho ols they selected for their children. Ebony did not visit the school she selected for her daughters prior to sending them. She took advice from her daughtersÕ previous school principal and sent them to the school the principal recommended. Participation i n the program gave her a new perspective about the school; she now feels that the school should be doing a better job. Maria visited several schools before selecting a school for her son. She reported being very happy, overall, with her sonÕs current scho ol. However, participation in the program helped her realize that her sonÕs school should have more resources and a better building. Her sonÕs 136 school has a small lunchroom and outdoor play area, and no auditorium. They do not offer extracurricular activiti es, which she thinks should be added. It cannot be said what these parents will actually do going forward, but their comments offer some evidence that the program could empower parents to select better schools for their children and perhaps, place more pr essure on schools. Ebony and MariaÕs descriptions are examples of parent responses to participation in the program. They learned methods for selecting schools for their children. These included checking out their Scorecard information, knowing what quest ions to ask schools, and having some guidelines to help them make better school choices. A community leader who also served as a review team leader believed that through the Scorecard and Community Reviewer Program ÒExcellent Schools Detroit has done a tre mendous job of making this transparent and making the process (of school choice) understandable to parents. And so that there is real choice.Ó Chapter Summary This chapter sought to better understand the experiences of nine program participants and to exa mine how participation influenced their interactions with schools. Specifically, this study wanted to examine whether the program influenced particular knowledge and skills including: their definitions of a good school, involvement behaviors and dispositio ns, self -efficacy, social capital, school choice methods, and other reported knowledge and skills. The findings revealed that all of the parents had a positive experience with the program and gained new knowledge and skills. Acquisition of the new knowledg e and skills influenced their thoughts, dispositions, and in some cases their interactions with their childrenÕs schools. The parentsÕ descriptions and beliefs about a quality school were similar in many ways and aligned to the program rubrics. They believ ed that a good school is Òsafe, clean, welcoming 137 and has good academics or curriculum.Ó However, parents also used additional descriptions and terms to describe other components of a good school that were important to them. Participation in the program did not shift or change parents beliefs, but it did affirm that their definitions, descriptions, and beliefs about quality schools were valid and important. In fact, their definitions aligned closely with the tools and rubrics created by other community revie wers and used during the school visits. Participation did not influence most (5 out of 9, 56%) of the parentsÕ orientations toward at-school involvement or their interactions with their childrenÕs schools. This group of parents reported they were already involved with their childrenÕs schools, and participation in the program did not influence their involvement. However, other parents reported (4 out of 9, 44%) that the program did influence their interactions and involvement with their childrenÕs schools. The program compelled this group of parents to think more deeply about how to be more involved with their childrenÕs schools. They reported that they would like to help and volunteer at their childrenÕs schools more often. In the context of parent involv ement, Hoover -Dempsey and Sandler (1995) define parent self-efficacy as parentÕs belief that they have the skills and knowledge necessary to help their children succeed in school. Although there appeared to be little change in participantsÕ self -efficacy a s a group, there were a few individual parents whose self -efficacy shifted as a result of participation in the program. One component of the program theory of action was to enhance the participantsÕ social capital. Through the bonding capital parents gaine d a shared language for school quality and a new identity as a community reviewer. The program gave them the opportunity to be a part of a collective group of community members who were dedicated to improving Detroit schools. It 138 also provided a pathway to stay involved at the collective level with school improvement in Detroit. New language and other tools gained through the program created bridges to urban educators and schools in new ways for the participants. Participants utilized the new language and to ols in their interactions with their childrenÕs schools to create more informed and positive interactions with the school. One of the most desired outcomes of the program was to empower parents to select better schools and hold schools accountable for stu dent achievement. Participation influenced parentsÕ school choice methods and decisions. All of the participants (9 of 9, 100%) reported that they have a better understanding of how to assess the quality of schools. It cannot be said what these parents wil l actually do going forward, but their comments offer some evidence that the program empowered parents to select better schools for their children and perhaps. This chapter illustrates the multifaceted and complex nature of their experiences with the Commu nity Reviewer Program. The find ings revealed various ways the program influenced participantsÕ orientations and interactions with their childrenÕs schools. The primary finding is that participation positively influenced parentsÕ orientations and interactio ns with their childrenÕs schools. 139 CHAPTER 6: DICUSSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND CONCLUSION The purpose of this case study was to describe the Community Reviewer Program and to examine how participation in the program influenced parentsÕ interactions with scho ols. In this chapter, I revi sit the purpose of the study, the research questions, summarize key findings with respect to the existing literature, and provide implications for practice and future research. Purpose of the Study and Research Questions The C ommunity Reviewer Program was created to generate and increase parent involvement at both the individual and community level by empowering parents to select better schools for their children and to hold the cityÕs schools more accountable for their chronic low achievement. This study described the programÕs logic, its early outcomes , and how participation influenced parentÕs interactions and orientations with schools. Three primary research questions gave direction and provided continued focus during the st udy: 1. What strategies and practices did Excellent Schools Detroit utilize to create the Community Reviewer Program? a. What was the programÕs theory of action and components of the program model? b. What strategies and activities most empowered participants? c. Wha t are the early outcomes of the program? 2. How do parents describe their experience participating in the parent involvement program? a. Does it affect their thinking about what constitutes a good school for their child? b. Does participation in the program affect parentÕs self -efficacy and confidence in being involved with their childrenÕs schools? c. What sorts of knowledge, skills, and dispositions do they report acquiring? 140 3. How might participation in the program influence urban parentsÕ experiences and interaction s with their childrenÕs schools? To gather the information and data needed to answer my research questions, I collected and utilized in -depth interviews, questionnaires , participant observations and document analysis . Figure 6.1 Conceptual Framework and Study Guide Essential Strategies for Urban Parent Involvement Literatures on urban parent involvement have stressed three key qualities and strategies. First, schools and programs must recognize urban parents as assets rather than liabilities. As highligh ted in the literature review, ÒWhen families are engaged in positive ways, rather than labeled as problems, schools can be transformed from places where only certain students prosper to ones where all children do wellÓ (Henderson et al., 2007, p. 3) . Second, programs and involvement initiatives must be designed to meet the specific needs of particular parents and communities. Lopez, Scribner, & Mahitivanichcha (2001) examined four schools that effectively involved migrant parents and found that schools wer e successful at involving parents because they aimed to meet parental needs above all other involvement considerations. The schools and 141 programs were successful not because they subscribed to a particular definition of involvement, but because they held th emselves accountable to meet the multiple needs parents (Henderson & Mapp, 2002; Lopez, Scribner, & Mahitivanichcha, 2001) . Third, alternatives to school -centered parent involvement programs designed to serve school determined interest s are critical to eng aging urban, mino rity, and low -income parents (Henderson & Mapp, 2002). Schools and programs must recognize, value , and utilize more forms o f involvement. Findings from this study underscore the importance of these orientations and strategies and speak to how they mi ght inform programs and schools that seek to involve urban parents. Excellent Schools Detroit and the CRP recognized that Detroit parents and community leaders were key assets to their movement to improve the schools. They c ould have utilized school experts or former educators, but they selected to utilize parent and community members instead . The y rejected deficit assumptions about these parents and empowered them in fundamentally new ways by including them in the formation of the Detroit Sch ool Scorecard and giving them the role of school quality reviewers . Both forms of involvement were significant departures from traditionally recognized school or program -centered parent involvement activities . They empowered parents to make judgments about schools, to indirectly put pressure on schools, rather than to follow and to assist schools as parents or volunteers. ESD leaders also believed better information and active experience as school reviewers could generate new sources and levels of social capital among Detroit parents and community members. Like other parents, parents in Detroit desire that their children attend a good school that prepares them to be successful for life beyond high school. While Detroit parents c ould exercise school choice , there was a lack of transparent information to help them to identify good or better schools and a limited number of good schools to choose from. To meet these specific 142 needs, ESD created the Detroit School Scorecard. The original Scorecard only had acad emic test scores, but parents and community leaders wanted other, additional forms of information. Specifically they wanted more information about climate and culture, on Òsafety, how welcoming the environment is to families, and whether or not students f eel cared for and feel like much is expected of them.Ó Instead of established parent involvement frameworks , the program drew on community organizing methods focused on improving family -school relationships and empowering parents to engage in school impr ovement. Warren & Mapp (2011) argue d that the core processes of community organizing are to Ò build relationships and powerÓ in part by enhancing social capital (p. 24). The community organizing strategies seemed significant to overcoming barriers to urba n parent involvement . CRP created a space where people with high degrees of homogeneity in race, class, culture and social capital could work together to improve education in Detroit. In engaging parents in the Scorecard process and as school reviewers , the CRP generated and brokered opportunities for parents to engage in new relationships and to gain information and knowledge about norms that are valued by schools and differences and variations that did, in fact , exist among Detroit schools. In this, t he program may have achieved some of the social capital influences and outcomes within its theory of action and program model. Individually and collectively, parents gained important forms of knowledge about how schools work, what sort of questions they mi ght ask about schools, what they could or should expect of school s in terms of their order, management, and the climate of hallways and learning spaces, etc. Parent and community members who participated developed new bodies of shared knowledge about the performance realities of Detroit schools; they gained shared language for describing and judging 143 schools. They shared the experience of visiting, observing , and discussing a school with other parents. The Singular Impact of School Review Visits Particip ants reported that the school visits were the most empowering component of the program and their greatest source of high value learning , more than their training days or other activities. Participants were highly motivated to explore the schools personally , to get beyond the negative stories heard, past hearsay, and to learn about Detroit schools for themselves. The program offered them the opportunity to separate fact from fiction, as was clear in MichelleÕ s comment: Ò People really donÕt know the jewels that we have in the city... Because the city gets such a bad rap so I donÕt think that they really know.Ó For many of the se parents, the school visits were the first time they visited any schoo l other than their childrenÕs schools and the schools they att ended. Recall the example of Ebony, the mother of two teenage girls who utilized school choice to send her children to a charter school, but did not visit the school before sending her children there stated, Ò If it wasnÕt for this reviewing process, I don Õt think I would have ever stepped into other scho ols. You know what I am saying. So, I was grateful for that.Ó The visits provided a safe space to practice parent enga gement b ehaviors and activities such as how to engage and interact with school person nel, how to ask school personnel questions about a school, what to look for in the hallways and classrooms, and what questions to ask about the school culture, teaching and student learning. These may be familiar acts for many middle -class parents but sign ificant experiences for urban parents crossing into different social contexts. Importantly, participants reported the school visits as their greatest source for learning. A parent and former community reviewer in the CRP video stated: 144 Going into the Commu nity Reviewer Program and going on school reviews, I learned so much. ItÕs unbelievable of a way that a school should look when you walk in. The way that you are supposed to be greeted when you walk in. ItÕs just certain levels of different things that you should see and that should be there. Conducting school visi ts gave participants an accessible list of standards and guideline s to utilize to assess the quality of schools. They learned how to use a guide of questions and a set of criteria. Hattie shared that participation in the program w ould help tremendously with selecting a high school for her granddaughter: I will use some of the guidelines (from the program). IÕll be looking at the environment. I will be looking at teacher interactions. IÕll be look ing at diversity. I know I will be looking at safety, all of the things that are really important...IÕll be looking at a more total picture rather than just narrowing my focus. School visits also had a direct impact on participantsÕ perceptions of their childrenÕs schools , which they found to be better, worse or some of both when compared with the schools they visited during the program. The school review visits were powerful to the parents in terms of their individual concerns for their children and thei r education but also their motivations and desires to take part in education im provement and change in Detroit more broadly. One participant stated, ÒItÕs like something that had fell asleep in you, woke up and you realized that your voice has power. And you realized that your voices together has even more power.Ó So often, urban parents are not given the opportunity to help improve the ir schools. School reform happens to their childrenÕs schools and education, but their own voices are often unheard or silenced. The opportunity to visit schools, to have a voice in the description and assessment , and to take part in education improvement in Detroit was very meaningful and significant for these parents. 145 ParentÕs Personal Experiences with the Program The studyÕs second set of questions explored how participation influenced participantsÕ individual thinking about what constitut es a good school, their efficacy and confidence in being involved with their childrenÕs schools , and the knowledge, skills, and dis positions they acquired through participation. Defining a Good S chool The study considered whether participation in the CRP would affect parentÕs thinking about what constitutes a good school for their children. In m ost cases, participation in the program did not seem to shift or change parents beliefs about what components create a good school. Rather it affirmed that their definitions, descriptions, and beliefs were valid and important. As discussed in Chapter 3, the timing of data collection from par ents introduced some uncertainties about th is data. Parents did not define good schools exactly the same but their attentions were shaped and informed by the language, tools , and rubrics of the CRP program. Safety was a central quality of a good school f or these parents. For urban parents who often hear about and sometimes experience crime and violence, having a safe school w as centrally important to them. Maria stated: Make sure the school is protected. That was another thing that the school is protecte d. With all these issues going on in the school today, people just walking in there, that frightens me, too. Parents also affirmed that a welcoming school environment was critical. Many described the ir observations and feelings upon entering schools as re viewers . The comments of some parents suggested that their experiences with the program influence d the standa rds and expectations they now have for how they should be tr eated upon entering a school. Hoover -Demsey & Sandler (1997) found that a parents were more likely to become involved if school 146 personnel were inviting and welcoming and argued that schools serving low -income and ethnically diverse families must make greater efforts to welcome families. Findings here confirmed the importance of a welcoming c limate that erases fears of ex clusion for urban parents and willingness to set or voice expectations for civil, professional climate and interactions in their childrenÕs schools . Parents also defined a good school as one with a good academic curriculum. C ontrary to what some believe, these parents believed that academic preparation was a critical factor to their childr enÕs future success. They wanted schools to prepare their kids to b e successful beyond high school. Damon discussed this in saying : I want my child to learn. I want my child to do well, better than where I am. I want him to be topnotch, have everything I didnÕt have. I want him to have the best education he can get, while he can get it, while itÕs free. Tanesha stated, ÒAnd you gotta look for the academics because if a school ainÕt functioning in academics, how can you teach my child so they can succeed in the future?Ó However, the academic qualities of schools were harder for the participants to assess. The CRP provided parents with a web site and other resources to assess the academic outcomes of schools in Detroit , but the program training covered a limited amount of information about how to assess academics outcomes. Academic quality was not a key component of the school review process o r the evaluation form . Parent sÕ comments affirmed that they recognized academics as important, but the program did not necessarily develop thei r capabilities to describe or understand academic programs , standards , or practices. Only a few parentsÕ expecta tions for a good school were enric hed or expanded after participation in the program. Tanesha confessed that she would pay a lot more attention to teacher turnover; Hazel felt she would ask questions about cultur al diversity and awareness. T he 147 primary infl uence of the program on conceptions of a good school seemed much more in developing parent Õs language and confidence to describe a good school and to ask questions about them. Overall, findings here revealed that urban parents want the same t hings that mos t parents want from schools, a safe and welcoming environment where their children are learning and are being adequately prepared for life beyond high school. Confidence and Self -Efficacy A centrally hoped for outcome of the program was that it would positively influence parents confidence and self -efficacy for interacting with schools . Here data from the study is a bit mixed. According to a brief efficacy questionnaire, most (8 out of 9 ) of the participants reported that they felt mostly or completely confident to interact with schools during both the pre- and post questionnaire . This may reflect, again the parent population that CRP targeted and enrolled, parents that were already involved with their childrenÕs schools. Damon, stated, Ò Uh uh. I sta yed the same...I was already doing it (involved at his sonsÕ school) before I knew the program existed. So I always interacted with them (personnel at the school). I still am.Ó At the same time, data from the interviews suggest many ways in which participa tion did increase their c onfidence and sense of efficacy. However, t he potential influence of this type of program on a wider sample of urban parents confidence , particular less involved parents, is unclear here. New Knowledge, Skills and Dispositions, New Social Capital Through participation in the program, participants reported several forms of new or enhanced knowledge, skills, and dispositions. Noted above, parents gained some new understandings about the performance trends and outcomes of the Detroit schools and about resources and reporting sy stems that track those trends. The school review visits also introduced 148 parents to new schools and, in some cases, new neighborhoods. They helped parents d evelop language and categories for describing schools and asking questions of them. Participation in the program also facilitated new experiences and relationships with o ther parents, community members, program staff , team leaders and education specialist s. Through all of these new resources and connections , participation in the program did seem to leverage new forms of bondin g capital among these parents. They developed identities as school reviewers and as members of a community working to improve the Detroit schools. The experiences and connections allowed parents to feel less alienated and more familiar with schools and more confident about visiting and asking questions about them. Opportunities to connect with new people and groups, less familiar parents, community organi zers and program leaders, also a ssisted with bridging capital. In this context, however, the more distant or dissimilar group to connect with would be school leaders and teachers. The absence of formal processes to interact with edu cators in the school and the exclusion of teaching and learning indi cators from the s chool reviews limited and made uneven shifts in bridging capital. While parents felt more bridged to schools, there was little evidence that the program was working to help educators feel more co nnected or bridged to the par ents and community members . New School Choice and Involvement Behaviors An important outcome for the program was for parents to feel more skilled and empowered to make more informed school choice decisions. As noted above and in previous chapters , paren ts reported acquiring changed ideas and new skills for making school choice decisions moving forward . When asked if participation in the program influenced the way she sees her childrenÕs schools, Ebony, responded by stating, ÒYes. In a lot of ways. I tho ught they 149 were doing a fantastic job (her childrenÕs school) but looking at what I saw (during the program) they can do a lot more, a lot better.Ó She went on to state: I should have done more research. I shouldnÕt have took someone elseÕs word for it. I shouldnÕt have been blindsided by the newness (of the school building) and when I saw constant turnover in teachers, I should have asked more questions then. Because now I see that it was something going on with the way they were operating her school. Mari a, who was considering moving downriver and w ould be searching for another school for her son, discussed what questions she would now ask and what she would look for : If I move, IÕm gonna put him in a school downriver, you know, and I have to be able to ask questions, go in there and see how their setup is...You know, now if I go in there, I know what my questions can be. And what IÕm gonna be looking for. Based on my experience reviewing schools here in Michigan, Detroit. This is a small sample of eviden ce, overall, but important to understanding the potential of new forms of parent involvement and the types of knowledge and experiences that urban parents find helpful and empowering. T he c hallenge of following through on these new thoughts is not small. This study was not able to follow these participants forward to now assess how much staying power these new ideas and commitments would have . This is a challenge to any program and most program studies. The parents also reported feeling new dispositions toward involvemen t with their childrenÕs schools. Again, most of the parents reported that they were involved with their childrenÕs schools in some way prior to program. But several shared that participation has encouraged them to think about how their involvements might grow or change. They were asking themselves new questions about how they might become more involved with their childrenÕs schools. Michelle stated: I also see areas that need support that I probably wouldnÕtÕve typically thought abou t supporting... Maybe spearheading, IÕve always wanted to do this, spearheading a, Éteacher appreciation week or something, something to appreciate the teachers that will go a week long. Where they may have people in the building that may do a movie with 150 the 5 th grade so the teachers can go and get a hand massage. You know, having little gifts that may have been donated so they can take little tokens home. Just something to get them excited. Here again, how much follow through on these ideas developed is not known, and how a wider set of parents might be influenced is an impo rtant question going forward. The Potential of the C ommunity Reviewer Program Strategy and Model The involvement of up to 500 parent and community reviewers argues that the program succeeded in motivating and engaging a great many urban parents who might, going forward, become involved in other parent involvement activities, including more recognized in -home and at-school activities, and/or activities that pressure schools to improve . Findings from the study suggest that the approach to p arent involvement adopted by ESD and the CRP might work as both a welcoming yet powerful gateway to parent involvement in schools. Data from the study sample of parents suggests that the program succ eeded in developing a stronger orientation to learn more about their childrenÕs schools and a greater sense of empowerment about asking questions of schools and making school choices. Additionally, the involvement of community leaders in the CRP led to th e development of other, local, neighborhood and citywide programs of parent involvement and school improvement, adding to the total possible influences and outcomes of the program. These new understandings and capabilities meant that parents also gained s kills for navigating school choice processes Ð an important and intended outcome. The CRP was a resource that parents could utilize to better understand school quality and the school choice process in Detroit. The program provided parents with access to tr ansparent information, a set of guidelines, questions, and standards to utilize when assessing school quality and making school choice decisions 151 In the Making School Choice Work report , the Center on Reinventing Public Education (CRPE) (2014) found that parents in Detroit struggled to navigate the cityÕs education marketplace due to Òa lack of information, confusing paperwork, and transportation gapsÓ (p. 5). Parents reported that ÒYou have to be a fighterÓ if you want to find a good school in Detroit because no one was there to help. This aligns with the experiences of participants in this study and is the primary reason that ESD created the Detroit Scorecard and the C ommunity Reviewer Program . A community leader in Detroit described the school choice p rocess as overwhelming for parents due to the lack of school performance information: One of the challenges for a Detroit family raising children in this city is a lack of transparency around school performance...ItÕs going to be much more critical for p arents to be able to get credible information now that we have lots of charters coming in and we have public schools chartering schools, and we have the statewide school district. A parent in the Community Reviewer Program promotional video stated, ÒItÕ s a little scary, especially for a parent, if you want to find the best school, you want to have options but you are not always sure.Ó Alternatively, it is right to consider ways in which the Program may not have significant effects. A possibility here is that, in its opening years of operation, the program did not actually generate and grow parent involvement as much as it effectively organized and harvested existing involved and engaged parent s. ESD recruited a specific type of community member for the program : We are looking for parents and community members who care about education, who want to be a part of a longer -term movement to create great schools in Detroit, and who have already demonstrated leadership or whose leadership and talents you would like to develop (ESD, 2012, p. 1). Most of the parents who participated in this study described thems elves as already involved in schools, some of them extensively involved. A profile of their education and income levels show 152 them above the city averag e. In questionnaire data, many reported that their confidence a nd sense of efficacy for interacting with schools had not changed (though their interview data strongly suggested otherwise.) As ESD and CRP has not developed reliable data on the parents who have participated as reviewers, it cannot be known how many of the participating parents are already quite involved, such as Tanesha, and ho w many are very new to most kind s of involvement, such as Ebony. The study also found that options for developing more bridging capital, specifically, more activity and connections between educators and parents, was a weak spot in the program. There were reasons to not involve educa tors in the program Ð it was reported that educators often felt defensive and in confl ict with parents; leaving educators out of the program was perceived by some as critical to engaging parents and allowing them to develop new skills and more confidence. The downside was that the program did not create spaces for e ducators and parent and community reviewers to talk and collaborate. The lack of direct experiences with educators might mean that parents find it more difficult to follow through on their ideas and commitments outside the structures of the program and on their own with their ch ildrenÕs school leaders and teachers. Implications for Practice A Note to Parent Involvement Programs Observations and findings from this study suggest that programs and schools seeking to engage urban parents or other groups of racially diverse pa rents must first recognize that all parents, no matter their race, class, education, language, or culture, are assets and can contribute in positive ways. This should be a value and belief when working with urban parents and 153 creating involvement programs. Traini ng and support should be provided for staff that lacks the ability to recognize this essential value. Second, schools and programs must expand their beliefs about parental involvement. As discussed in the literature review and found in this study, urban p arents often engage in forms of parent involvement that are not recognized by schools and school personnel. The urban parents in this study engaged in community -organizing, a type of at -school involvement that is not often recognized by schools. Additional ly when asked how they would like to be involved with schools, many of the parents described alternative forms of involvement. The parents did not simply want to volunteer and attend parent teacher conferences and meeting s, but they wanted to be involved i n other ways. Urban school s must recognize and value the other ways that urban parents engage in their studentÕs education. Next , urban schools must recognize the needs of their parents and create programs and initiatives that are designed to meet those specific needs. Schools and programs might, for example, conduct focus groups with their targeted groups of parents to learn more about their strengths and needs. Additionally, parents from the targeted group should also be identified to support the progra m staff with the planning and implementation of the program. The parents should not act as advisors to the program, but should share responsibility for the planning and implementation with the program staff. These parents should be involved with the progra m from the early stages. Sharing responsibility is also a component of successful programs that engage diverse groups of parents (Henderson & Mapp, 2002; Henderson et al, 2007). By allowing parents the opportunity to help create the program, programs will create avenues for shared power and responsibility between programs and families. As previously discussed, existing research affirms 154 that programs that successfully engage diverse groups of parents hold themselves accountable for meeting the needs of thos e parents and create spaces where programs and parents share responsibilities and power (Henderson & Mapp, 2002; Henderson et al, 2007; Lopez, Scribner, & Mahitivanichcha, 2001). For programs and schools in suburban and rural school districts that wish to replicate this program, the same critical components should be utilized. They should also focus more heavily on involving schools in the program by creating process es that ensure that school s and parents communicate and collaborate to utilize the particip ants Õ recommendation to improve the schools. This will create a mechanism for addressing and improving bridging capital between parents and schools. This was weakness of the Community Reviewer Program that must be addressed when replicating the program. A Note to Excellent Schools Detroit and the Community Reviewer Program Data Collection and Program E valuation The Community Reviewer Program, or programs that seek to replicate it in some fashion, should develop ongoing data on school reviewers and school s that participate . There is a large gap in the data collection for the program that makes it difficult to evaluate whether the program is successful and reaches its goals. Additionally, ESD should complete a program evaluation to see if the program is reac hing its intended goals. After three years of operating the program, there was very little documentation of participation rates and whether the program met its intended goals. 155 Target a Different Group of Community Members Our Schools is now filling th e gap for building the education capacity of community leaders and creating collective power among those members. Their target audience is community leaders, parents, and community organizations. Their website states: We are neighborhood organizations, par ents, and youth committed to ensuring that all Detroit children have access to an excellent education, regardless of their race or socioeconomic status. Together, we are building power to make systemic change and win educational justice for our communitie s. Due to Our Schools focus, ESD should shift its target audience and try to engage urban parents who are not community leaders and who have not effectively been involved and engaged with their childrenÕs schools. This population of parents can benefit g reatly from the program and truly become more empower and more involved with their childrenÕs schools. Share Power and Responsibility with P articipants Although the program gives parents the opportunity to gain more power and a voice in education reform in Detroit, it still does not share power and responsibility with participants. Former participants and team leaders should have the opportunity to assist the program staff with the planning and implementation of the program going forward. These groups hav e frontline experience with the schools, neighborhoods, and other community members that can help improve the program and assure that it reaches its goals. Additionally their participation will help ensure that the program continues to be geared toward mee ting the needs of the community. Also, ESD should eventually allow a few of the stronger community organizations to conduct and run the program. This will allow the program to truly be a product of the Detroit community and empower the community to have a true voice, power, and responsibility in education reform in Detroit. 156 Improve Bridging C apital The bridging capital in the CRP was not very strong due to the lack of genuine involvement by school personnel. It could be improved if the program involve d school personnel more and created spaces for school personnel and community reviewers to exchange dialogue and collaborate. The collaboration could be about the suggestions for improvement that community reviewer s made during schools visits. Community re viewers and school personnel could work collaboratively to make the improvements in the schools. This will enhance the programÕs bridging capital and allow for better partnerships and relationships between urban parents and urban schools. Combat the Schoo l Choice M arketplace in Detroit In order to address the immediate need of helping parents navigate the chaotic school choice marketplace in Detroit, ESD could strengthen the program around this need. In this case, the program could seek to engage parents who are actively in the process of making school choice decisions. The revised program could continue to train parents to assess the quality of schools and conduct school reviews. However, it could also add a one -on-one guiding component that helps parents create a list of their top schools then use the same model to train parents to assess the quality of those schools. It should also add a section to the rubric that is speci fic to the parentÕs needs such transportation, special education, sports , and other extracurricular activities. Implications for Further Research Urban Parents are Diverse Groups The diversity among families in urban schools is often a schoolÕs greatest challenge and greatest strength. Unfortunately , when we read about urban parents in education literature, many 157 researchers describe them as a uniform group who has very few differences. The assumption is often that urban parents are poor, minority, and do not value education. However, few studies examine the diversity that exists within groups of urban parents. It i s critical that future research examines these diverse g roups of urban parents and tell their stories and give them a voice and a space in education literature. The Untold Counter -Stories Urban parents are often characterized as parents who do not value education and are not involved with their childrenÕs schools. Through this study, I discovered several cases of urban parents from different education and income levels who are very involved with their childrenÕs schools. Howeve r, few studies actually profile and discuss urban parents who are poor, minority, and very involved with their childrenÕs schools or urban parents who are middle class, minority, and involved with their childrenÕs schools. Critical race theory can be used as framework to examine these group Õs experiences and to tell their counter stories. Critical race theory provides a space to conduct and present research grounded in the experiences and knowledge of people of color (Solorzano & Yosso, 2002). Current pare nt involvement literature upholds deficit, racialized notions about people of color. As previously stated, the grand narrative of urban parent involvement is that they are not involved with in their childrenÕs education. Critical race methodology provides a tool to ÒcounterÓ this deficit narrative and storytelling (Solorzano & Yosso, 2002). Critical race methodology in education challenges traditional research paradigms, texts, and theories used to explain the experiences of people of color. It exposes defi cit-informed research and methods that silence and distort the experiences of people of color and instead creates a space for and focuses on their experiences as sources of strength and solutions (Solorzano & Yosso, 2002). 158 One critical race method present ed by Solorzano & Yosso (2002) t hat can be utilized are counter stories. Counter -stories are methods of telling stories of people whose experiences are not often told because they are marginalized by society. It is a tool for exposing, analyzing, and chall enging the majoritarian theories and stories (Yosso, 2007). Counter -stories need to be created only as a response to majoritarian stories. Within the histories and lives of people of color, there are numerous unheard counter -stories including those of urb an parents who are heavily involved with their childrenÕs schools. Fut ure studies should examine the counter -stories of urban parent involvement. Conclusion This descript ive, embedded case study examined a novel parent involvement program in Detroit that has successfully engaged over 500 parents and community members. Specifically, this study described the Community Reviewer Program and examined how participation in the program influenced parentsÕ interactions with schools. The study collected and utilized in-depth interviews, questionnaires, participant observations, and document analysis as sources of data. The Community Reviewer Program reflected a theory of action and program model where transparent information, new experiences with schools, and new re lationships and interactions with others build paren tÕs social capital and empower s them to m ake more informed school choice decision s and pressure schools to be more responsive and accountable. The program only met one of its two primary goals . It succes sfully improved how parents make school choice decisions, but it did not successfully force schools to be more responsive and accountable to the Detroit community. Although early findings reveal that parents and community leaders have formed a formal netwo rk to continue community organizing and to begin to hold schools more accountable . It is too early to determine what the activities and 159 impact of the Our Schools network will be. Therefore, during this study th e program only partially met the second, commu nity level goal of creating a powerbase of parents to hold schools accountable for low achievement. Although there is a formal new powerbase of parents, Detroit schools are still not accountable or under more pressure to perform better. Therefore it can be concluded that the program did not cause schools to be held more accountable to improve. Findings reveale d that the program was successful at engaging over 500 community reviewers because it recognized urban parents as assets rather than liabilities, was designed to meet the specific needs of the Detroit community, and expanded beyond school -centered involvement techniques. Unfortunately, most schools and parent involvement programs do not have these characteristic and struggle to effectively engage urban parents. Lastly, it was found that the Community Reviewer Program did not improve parentsÕ traditional involvement activities such as volunteering at the school or attending PTA meetings . Only one parents reported that they visited the school more frequen tly as a result of participation in the program. However, it did enhance other useful knowledge and skills that participants can utilize when interacting with schools. Specifically, participation confirmed participantsÕ beliefs and definitions of a good sc hool and enhanced their social capital and dispositions for involvement. If the program truly desires to increase urban parent involvement, a major shift needs to occur. To do this, the program should involve parents and community members who are not curr ently engaged and involved in Detroit. By reaching and engaging this population , the program will be better able to accomplish the goal of increasing urban parent involvement at schools. Although CRP did not accomplish all of its goals, the program still s uccessfully engaged 160 over 500 parents and community leaders in Detroit. In the program video, the CEO of ESD stated: These were everyday average Detroiters from the faith community, to the corporate community, to parents whose kids are in school to former e ducators...This is the Detroit community coming together to take ownership of our schools not for the purpose of defending them from outsiders and critics. Rather, this is Detroiters taking ownership of our schoo ls because we love our children. 161 APPENDICES 162 APPENDIX A Epstein's Framework of Six Types of Involvement and Sample Practices Table A.1 Epstein's Framework of Six Types of Involvement and Sample Practices Type 1: Parenting Helping all families establish home environments to support children as students . Sample Practices ¥ Parent education and other courses or training for parents (e.g., GED, college credit, family literacy). ¥ Family support programs to assist families with health, nutrition, and other servic es. ¥ Home visits at transition points to pre -school, elementary, middle, and high school. Type 2: Communicating Designing effective forms of school -to-home and home -to-school communications about school programs and children's progress. Sample Practices ¥ Conferences with every parent at least once a year. ¥ Language translators to assist families as needed. ¥ Regular schedule of useful notices, memos, phone calls, newsletters, and other communications Type 3: Volunteering Recruiting and organizing parent hel p and support. Sample Practices ¥ School and classroom volunteer program to help teachers, administrators, students, and other parents. ¥ Parent room or family center for volunteer work, meetings, resources for families. ¥ Annual postcard survey to identify all available talents, times, and locations of volunteers. Type 4: Learning At Home Providing information and ideas to families about how to help students at home with homework and other curriculum -related activities, decisions, and planning. Sample Practic es ¥ Information for families on skills required for students in all subjects at each grade. ¥ Information on homework policies and how to monitor and discuss schoolwork at home ¥ Family participation in setting student goals each year and in planning for colleg e or work. 163 Table A.1 (contÕd) Type 5: Decision Making Including parents in school decisions, developing parent leaders and representatives. Sample Practices ¥ Active PTA/PTO or other parent organizations, advisory councils, or committees for parent lea dership and participation. ¥ Independent advocacy groups to lobby and work for school reform and improvements. ¥ Networks to link all families with parent representatives. Type 6: Collaborating with Community Identifying and integrating resources and services from the community to strengthen school programs, family practices, and student learning and development. Sample Practice ¥ Information for students and families on community health, cultural, recreational, ¥ social support, and other programs or services. Information on community activities that link to learning skills and talents, including summer programs for students. ¥ Service to the community by students, families, and schools (e.g. recycling, art, music, drama, and other activities for seniors or others ). 164 APPENDIX B Excellent Schools Detroit Scorecard Methodology Table A.2 Excellent Schools Detroit Scorecard Methodology 165 APPENDIX C Participant Recruitment Flyer Interest in Being a Participant You are being asked to participate in a researc h study that seeks to understand parentÕs experiences with their childrenÕs schools. The purpose of this research study is to better understand how to engage parents in their childrenÕs schools. You will be asked to participate in 2 one hour and a half int erviews and answer questions about your experiences with your childÕs school. Name__________________________________________________________________ Email__________________________________________________________________ Primary Phone_____________________ ______________________________________ Secondary Phone_________________________________________________________ Is this your first time participating as a reviewer in the Community Reviewer Site Visits? YES NO Are you currently raising children under age 18? YES NO Grade What city is the school in? Child 1 Child 2 Child 3 Child 4 Child 5 Child 6 Child 7 What dates and times are you ava ilable for an in terview ? The interview will last for about an hour and a half. Why did you want to become a community reviewer for ESD? 166 APPENDIX D Research and Interview Question Matrix Table A.3 Research and Interview Question Matrix Research Questi on !"#$%&'$()*+$,#'-" )How does participation in the program influence urban parentsÕ experiences and interactions with their childrenÕs schools? ¥ Tell me about yourself. o Where are you from? What schools did you attend? o Would you describe yourself as someo ne who liked school? ¥ Can you describe your childrenÕs social and academic experiences in schools? o What schools do your children attend? o How old are your children? o What grades are they in? o What schools do they attend? o How and why did you select those school s? How does participation in the program influence urban parentsÕ experiences and interactions with their childrenÕs schools? )¥ What are your interactions like with your childÕs school? ¥ How would you describe your involvement in your childÕs education? o Des cribe your involvement at home. o Describe your involvement at school. ¥ Can you describe to me the last interaction you had with a teacher? An administrator? Does it affect their thinking about what constitutes a good school for their child? )¥ Describe what y ou believe a good school is, or a good school for their children is? ¥ Would you like to be more involved at your childÕs school? If so, can you explain what types of involvement interest you and why? o What steps do you think you would have to take in order t o be involved in this way? o Are you satisfied with your childÕs school? o What types of knowledge and experiences do they feel will support them to be more a) interested and b) comfortable c) involved Does participation in the program affect parentÕs intere st and confidence in being involved with their childrenÕs schools? )¥ Would you like to be more involved at your childÕs school? If so, can you explain what types of involvement interest you and why? o What steps do you think you would have to take in order t o be involved in this way? Does participation in the program affect parentÕs interest and confidence in being involved with their childrenÕs schools? ¥ What barriers and/or supports influence your involvement with your childÕs schools? ¥ Do you think people at this school see you as someone who can be involved and contribute? 167 Table A.3 (contÕd) How do parents describe their experience participating in the parent involvement program? !¥ What are your initial thoughts about the School Quality Review process? ¥ Prior to your participation in the School Quality Review process, what did you expect to learn? o What did you want to gain from the experience? What sorts of knowledge, skill and dispositions do they report acquiring? ¥ .-)/-+)0$$1)/-+)23'"$4)"$()5"-(1$42$)3 "4),5'11,)0%-6)#7$) $89$%'$":$;))!0),-<):-+14)/-+)4$,:%'=$)#7$)#/9$,)-0)5"-(1$42$) 3"4),5'11,)/-+)0$$1)/-+)23'">)) "#$%%!&'$(!&)!*&+!),-.!&)!+-.!/)0 !¥ Do you feel you gained new points of view or new dispositions from the experience? Can you describe them to me ? !o Can you think about what parts of the experience most helped you develop new knowledge, skills or dispositions? !How do parents describe their experience participating in the parent involvement program? !¥ What are your initial thoughts about the School Q uality Review process? ¥ Prior to your participation in the School Quality Review process, what did you expect to learn? o What did you want to gain from the experience? ¥ )What sorts of knowledge, skill and dispositions do they report acquiring? ¥ .-)/-+)0$$1)/ -+)23'"$4)"$()5"-(1$42$)3"4),5'11,)0%-6)#7$) $89$%'$":$;))!0),-<):-+14)/-+)4$,:%'=$)#7$)#/9$,)-0)5"-(1$42$) 3"4),5'11,)/-+)0$$1)/-+)23'">)) "#$%%!&'$(!&)!*&+!),-.!&)!+-.!/)0 !¥ Do you feel you gained new points of view or new dispositions from the experience? Ca n you describe them to me? !o Can you think about what parts of the experience most helped you develop new knowledge, skills or dispositions? !How do parents describe their experience participating in the parent involvement program? ¥ What did you most want t o know about the schools you visited? Why? ¥ What did you find yourself noticing most about the schools? o What questions/topics were the most important to you? ¥ What most surprised you about the schools you visited? ¥ What surprised you most about your reactio ns? ¥ What challenged you most as a community reviewer? Does it affect their thinking about what constitutes a good school for their child? ¥ Describe what you believe a good school is, or a good school for their children is? (Read their description from the prior interview and ask if it has changed) 168 Table 4.3 (contÕd) Does participation in the program affect parentÕs interest and confidence in being involved with their childrenÕs schools? ¥ Did the experience change the way you feel about your children Õs schools? If so, can you explain these changes to me o Did it change the way you feel about yourself in relation to the schools? o Do you feel more comfortable and confident interacting with leaders and teachers in schools and other parents? Does particip ation in the program affect parentÕs interest and confidence in being involved with their childrenÕs schools? ¥ Did the experience change the way you feel about your childrenÕs schools? If so, can you explain these changes to me o Did it change the way you feel about yourself in relation to the schools? o Do you feel more comfortable and confident interacting with leaders and teachers in schools and other parents? ¥ ?00':3:/),:31$ ) How does participation in the program influence urban parentsÕ experiences and interactions with their childrenÕs schools? )¥ Do you think this experience will help you overcome the barriers you described in your previous interview? (If applicable) ¥ What do you think the next steps should be for you and for schools? o Would you like to be more involved with schools? If so, how? 169 APPENDIX E Pre -and Post Interview Questions Pre-Interview Questions: Life History/ Background 1. Tell me about yourself. a. Where are you from? What schools did you attend? b. Would you describe yourself as som eone who liked school? 2. Can you describe your childrenÕs social and academic experiences in schools? a. What schools do your children attend? b. How old are your children? c. What grades are they in? d. What schools do they attend? e. How and why did you select those scho ols? Interactions with Schools 1. What are your interactions like with your childÕs school? 2. How would you describe your involvement in your childÕs education? a. Describe your involvement at home. b. Describe your involvement at school. 3. Can you describe to me t he last interaction you had with a teacher? An administrator? 4. Would you like to be more involved at your childÕs school? If so, can you explain what types of involvement interest you and why? a. What steps do you think you would have to take in order to be involved in this way? 5. What barriers and/or supports influence your involvement with your childÕs schools? 6. Do you think people at this school see you as someone who can be involved and contribute? 7. Are you satisfied with your childÕs school? Community Reviewer Program 1. Why did you apply to be a community reviewer? 2. Can you describe your experience as a community reviewer? a. Discuss the community reviewer training. b. Discuss your interactions with ESD staff. 3. What do you most want to learn/know about schools in Detroit? a. What questions would you like to have answered? Community Reviewer Program Participation 1. What are your initial thoughts about the School Quality Review process? 2. Prior to your participation in the School Quality Review process, what did you expect to learn? a. What did you want to gain from the experience? 3. Can you describe your experience as a community reviewer? a. What schools did you go visit? b. Who was your team leader? 170 c. What types of interactions did you have with the school staff? d. What types of interactions did you have with the other community reviewers? 4. What did you most want to know about the schools you visited? Why? 5. What did you find yourself noticing most about the schools? a. What questions/topics were the most important to you? 6. What most sur prised you about the schools you visited? 7. What surprised you most about your reactions? 8. What challenged you most as a community reviewer? 9. What was missing from schools and/or the School Quality Review that you wanted to see? 10. Did the experience change the way you feel about your childrenÕs schools? 11. What benefits did you gain from the experience? a. Did it change the way you feel about yourself in relation to the schools? b. Do you feel more comfortable interacting with schools? 12. Do you think this experience w ith help you overcome the barriers you described in your previous interview? (If applicable) 13. What do you think the next steps should be? a. Would you like to be more involved with schools? If so, how? Post Interview Questions: 1. Prior to your participation in the School Quality Review process, what did you expect to learn? a. What did you want to gain from the experience? b. What did you most want to know about schools in Detroit? 2. What are your initial thoughts about the School Quality Review process? 3. Can you descri be your experience as a community reviewer? a. What schools did you go visit? i. What did you like/dislike about the schools? ii. Can you tell me a positive story about the schools you visited? iii. Can you tell me a negative story about the schools you visited? b. Who was your team leader? What were your interactions like with your team leader? c. What types of interactions did you have with the school staff? i. Can you tell me about a positive interaction you had with school staff? ii. Can you tell me about a negative interaction y ou had with school staff? d. What types of interactions did you have with the other community reviewers? i. Can you describe a positive interaction you had with the other community reviewers? ii. Can you describe a negative interaction you had with the other communi ty reviewers? 4. What did you most want to know about the schools you visited? Why? 5. What did you find yourself noticing most about the schools? a. What questions/topics were the most important to you? 6. What most surprised you about the schools you visited? Why? 7. What surprised you most about your reactions? 8. What challenged you most as a community reviewer? Why? 171 9. What was missing from the School Quality Review that you wanted to see? 10. Do you feel you gained new knowledge and skills from the experience? If so, could you describe the types of knowledge and skills you feel you gain. (Tell them to its okay to say no) 11. Do you feel you gained new points of view or new dispositions from the experience? Can you describe them to me? a. Can you think about what part s of the experience most helped you develop new knowledge, skills or dispositions? 12. Did the experience change the way you feel about your childrenÕs schools? If so, can you explain these changes? a. Did it change the way you feel about yourself in relati on to the schools? b. Do you feel more comfortable and confident interacting with leaders and teachers in schools and other parents? 13. Do you think this experience will help you overcome the barriers you described in your previous interview? (If applicable) 14. What do you think the next steps should be? a. For yourself? b. For the schools? c. Would you like to be more involved with schools? If so, how? 15. Describe what you believe a good school is, or a good school for their children is? (Read their description from the prio r interview and ask if it has changed; use it only if I need to) 16. Did your involvement with your kids education change or will it change? Do you see yourself doing things differently with your kidÕs education at home and at school? a. Describe your current inv olvement at home. b. Describe your current involvement at school. 17. Did your involvement with community organizations change or will it change? 18. Will your methods change for making decisions about what schools to send your children to? 19. Will you continue to send your children to the same schools? Please explain why or why not. 20. If you had to do it again, would you send your children to their current schools? 172 APPENDIX F Community Reviewer Application Form Name: Email: Phone Number: Home Address: The best way to contact you is: ___Phone ___Email Tell us about you!!! 1. Birth Year (optional) _____________________________ 2. Race (optional) ____________________________________ 3. Who are you? ___Parent or guardian of a child who has or is currently atten ding school in Detroit ___Grandparent of a child who is currently attending school in Detroit ___Employee of a Detroit -based organization ___Volunteer of a Detroit -based organization ___None of the above 4. How far did you go in school? ___Some high school , did not complete ___GED ___High school diploma ___Some College, did not complete ___AssociateÕs Degree ___BachelorÕs Degree ___MasterÕs or above 5. The high school you attended was (please circle one) Public Private Charter High School Name: _____________ _______________________ City __________________________ 6. Have you ever worked at a school in Detroit? YES NO If yes, which school(s)? _____________________________________________________________________ During which years ________________________________ __________________________________________ 7. Have you ever volunteered at a school in Detroit? YES NO If yes, which school(s)? _____________________________________________________________________ During which years ________________________________________ _________________________________ 8. Do you think Detroit has (please choose one): ___Lots of quality schools ___About half bad schools, half good schools ___Mostly bad schools with a few good ones 9. What do you think are the TWO most important components of a strong school? ___Effective leaders (principals and school leadership teams) ___Collaborative teachers ___Involved families and community ___Safe and supportive school environment ___Ambitious curriculum 173 10. Do you have reliable access to a car? YES NO Tell us about your kids!!! The kids who are still in school: Child #1: Age ________ School _____________________________________________ Child #2: Age ________ School _____________________________________________ Child #3: Age ________ School __________ ___________________________________ Child #4: Age ________ School _____________________________________________ Child #5: Age ________ School _____________________________________________ Child #6: Age ________ School ______________________________________ _______ The kids who already graduated: Child #1: Year graduated __________ School ________________________________________ Child #2: Year graduated __________ School ________________________________________ Child #3: Year graduated __________ School ____ ____________________________________ Child #4: Year graduated __________ School ________________________________________ Child #5: Year graduated __________ School ________________________________________ Child #6: Year graduated __________ School ________ ________________________________ Or, if you are an active grandparent, tell us about your school -age grandchildren: Grandchild #1: Age ________ School _____________________________________________ Grandchild #2: Age ________ School _______________________ ______________________ Grandchild #3: Age ________ School _____________________________________________ Grandchild #4: Age ________ School _____________________________________________ Grandchild #5: Age ________ School ____________________________________ _________ Grandchild #6: Age ________ School _____________________________________________ 174 APPENDIX G Sample Detroit School Scorecard Percentage of 11th graders meeting and exceeding state standards on the Michigan Merit Examination (MME):0%20%40%60%80%100%WMathScienceSocial StudiesSTUDENT PERFORMANCE GROWTHThis year, we can only report if students are meeting state standards or not. In the future, we will report how much students progress. Every student should progress one entire grade level each year. But sometimes, students progress a lot and still are not meeting state standards because they started the year so far behind. We think it is important to show which schools are helping students progress, even if their students are not yet meeting standards.COMING IN 2013How Well Does This School Prepare Students for College? 2012 SCHOOL REPORT FOR PA RENTSEXCELLENT SCHOOLS DETROITUniversity of Michigan: 31Michigan State University: 26Wayne State University: 21AVERAGE ACT COMPOSITE SCORE FOR ADMISSION, SPRING 2011Graduated from this school on timeEnrolled in collegeFinished a year of collegeGraduated college on timeOf every 10 students who started 9th grade É COMING IN 2013SPRING 2011SchoolState Improved over four years Declined over four years Remained the sameSchoolState Improved over Þve years Declined over Þve years Remained the sameFOUR-YEAR GRADUATION RATE, 2011 0%20%40%100%48%45%68%76%66%67%Female30%Male55%Low income45%Homeless35%Special education0%20%40%60%80%100%75%45%68%76%66%All Students45%Female30%Low income45%Homeless35%How Is This School Doing Academically? Demographics 0918273618.2 19.917.617.4Female19.8 Male19.4Homeless17.1Special education0918273620.119.920.319.217.6All Students19.6Female19.8 Male19.4Low income18.5Homeless17.1SCHOOL AVERAGE ACT COMPOSITE SCORE, SPRING 2011School trend, 2008Ð12School trend, 2008Ð12School trend, 2007Ð11COLLEGE ENROLLMENT AND PERFORMANCE, CLASS OF 20099.48.88.2Nearestbusstop:2nd&Henryonroute23HamiltonBusrouteswithin0.5miles:16Dexter,18Fenkell60%freeandreducedpricelunch2%specialeducation8%Englishlanguagelearners63%63%20%10%24%19.894%ALLSTUDENTSALLSTUDENTSSCHOOLMISSION:ReadingWritingMathScienceSocialStudies74%19.6GRADES9Ð12¥2,191STUDENTS¥DPS2501SECONDAVENUE¥DETROIT,MI48201CassTechnicalHighSchool56%49%29%26%41%www.detroitk12.orgPhone:313Ð263Ð2000Fax:313Ð263Ð2001Hours:8:00a.m.Ð3:15p.m.Principal:LisaPhillipslisa.phillips@detroitk12.org!!!!!Black89%Latino3%White3%Asian4%Other0% Figure A.1 Sample Detroit School Scorecard 175 Figure A.1 (contÕd) How Does This School Support Well-Rounded Development? Extracurricular activities help students explore their interests and apply what they learn in school to the real world. Examples of these activities at this school include: ARTS AND CULTU REHow Does This School Help Students Students may have learning disabilities, struggle with their behavior, or face challenges outside of school that affect their academic performance. This school provides the following programs to help students overcome such challenges:2012 SCHOOL REPORT FOR PA RENTSEXCELLENT SCHOOLS DETROITStrongly disagreeDisagreeNeither agree nor disagreeAgreeStrongly agreePHYSICAL E NVIRONMENTThe school exterior makes a good Þrst impression.There are procedures in place to ensure school safety and security. Physical facilities are well maintained and in good repair. CULTUR E OF ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENTStudent progress and achievement are recognized.Information about college is clearly displayed.Information about careers and technical training is clearly displayed.COMMUNITY A ND RELATIO NSHIPSThe school has a clear mission or vision statement.Teachers appear to have positive relationships with the students. Students appear to be following the schoolÕs code of conduct.The school calendar lists activities and programs and is available to staff, students, parents, and the community. Get more information and download additional school reports at www.excellentschoolsdetroit.org. Parents and community members visited this school unannounced to observe the learning environment and school culture. This is what they saw that day:Is This School Organized for Improvement? The University of Chicago surveyed teachers and students at this school. The results below show if the school is on a path to improvement. 0100 0100 EFFECTIVE LEADERSPrincipals and teachers implement a shared vision for success. 0100 COLLABORATIV E TEACHERSTeachers collaborate to promote professional growth.0100 INVOLV ED FAMILI ESThe entire staff builds external relationships. 0100 SUPPORTIVE ENVIRONMENTThe school is safe, demanding, and supportive. AMBITIOUS INSTRUCTIONClasses are engaging and challenging.WELLNESS AND FITNESS ACADEMIC What Are the SchoolÕs Admission Requirements and Deadlines? Not yet organizedPartially organizedModerately organizedOrganizedWell organizedWhat Is the School Environment Like? Overcome Challenges to Learning? 4660626080¥ArtsAndCommunicationCassTechnicalHighSchoolisanexamhighschool.Parentsshouldcontacttheschoolforadmissionsdatesanddeadlines.OverallScore:4WellorganizedRESPONSERATE:75%Teachers82%StudentsCassTechnicalHighSchool 176 APPENDIX H School Visit Observation Forms Community Reviewer Notetaker ____________________________________________________________________________________ School Name ____________________________________________________________________________________ Review Data ____________________________________________________________________________________ Team Number ____________________________________________________________________________________ Community Reviewer Name (first and last) ____________________________________________________________________________________ Community Reviewer Number 177 School Surroundings What is your impression? What did you see, hear and smell? Is this evidence related to one of the following? ! Safe & Caring Environment ! High Expectations for Learning ! Welcoming School Community ! Safe & Caring Environment ! High Expectations for Learning ! Welcoming School Community ! Safe & Caring Environment ! High Expectations for Learning ! Welcoming School Community ! Safe & Cari ng Environment ! High Expectations for Learning ! Welcoming School Community ! Safe & Caring Environment ! High Expectations for Learning ! Welcoming School Community Checklist YES NO N/A The parking lot is free of trash. The main entrance is clearly indi cated. The schoolÕs outdoor signs are visible and in good repair. The school grounds are well maintained. The school exterior is in good repair. 178 Main Entrance & Main Office What is your impression? What did you see, hear and smell? Is this evidence related to one of the following? ! Safe & Caring Environment ! High Expectations for Learning ! Welcoming School Community ! Safe & Caring Environment ! High Expectations for Learning ! Welcoming School Community ! Safe & Caring E nvironment ! High Expectations for Learning ! Welcoming School Community ! Safe & Caring Environment ! High Expectations for Learning ! Welcoming School Community ! Safe & Caring Environment ! High Expectations for Learning ! Welcoming School Community Checklist YES NO N/A The outside of the main entryway appears well maintained. The main entryway is staffed or has an electronic entry system. The inside of the main entryway appears well maintained. Visitors are greeted and directed in a polite manner up on immediate entry or being Òbuzzed inÓ. Upon entering, there are immediately visible signs (or a person) that direct visitors toward the office. The school office and reception area are orderly and free of clutter. 179 The main office is clearly i dentified. The main office has copies of the most recent parent newsletter or parent information sheets. The most recent parent newsletter/info sheet was published within the last 3 months. Upon request, visitors are provided information about student achievement. Parent materials are provided in multiple languages. Common Areas (Hallways, Restrooms, Cafeteria, Auditorium) What is your impression? What did you see, hear and smell? Is this evidence related to one of the following? ! Safe & Caring Environment ! High Expectations for Learning ! Welcoming School Community ! Safe & Caring Environment ! High Expectations for Learning ! Welcoming School Community ! Safe & Caring Environment ! High Expectations for Learning ! Welcoming School Community ! Saf e & Caring Environment ! High Expectations for Learning ! Welcoming School Community ! Safe & Caring Environment ! High Expectations for Learning ! Welcoming School Community Checklist YES NO N/A Stairways and hallways are well maintained (adequately lit, in good repair, and free of graffiti and litter). Lockers are clean and in good repair. Food provided in cafeteria appears nutritious and well prepared . 180 Food service areas appear clean and tidy. Restrooms are clean, functional, accessible, and adequately stocked with supplies. Drinking fountains are clean, functional, and accessible. A space is dedicated to address family or community needs (community closet, parent room, bulletin board, health clinic, section of library, etc. ). The re are public displays of student work (other than standardized testing scores). There are images of role models and cultural works. Shared Learning Spaces (Library, Media Center, Art/Music Room, Science Lab) What is your impression? What did y ou see, hear and smell? Is this evidence related to one of the following? ! Safe & Caring Environment ! High Expectations for Learning ! Welcoming School Community ! Safe & Caring Environment ! High Expectations for Learning ! Welcoming School Community ! Safe & Cari ng Environment ! High Expectations for Learning ! Welcoming School Community ! Safe & Caring Environment ! High Expectations for Learning ! Welcoming School Community ! Safe & Caring Environment ! High Expectations for Learning ! Welcoming School Community Checklist YES NO N/A Periodicals in the library or media center include issues from within the last 3 months. 181 Books and materials in the library/media center are in reasonable condition. Computers appear to be in working order. There is a space f or fine -arts instruction There is a gym available to students There is at least one science lab The library or media center provides college -going resources (e.g., lists of colleges, college majors, scholarships, etc. ) The library or me dia center provides age -appropriate career guidance (books, resources, information). Classroom #1 (if invited) What is your impression? What did you see, hear and smell? Is this evidence related to one of the following? ! Safe & Caring Environment ! High Expectations for Learning ! Welcoming School Community ! Safe & Caring Environment ! High Expectations for Learning ! Welcoming School Community ! Safe & Caring Environment ! High Expectations for Learning ! Welcoming School Community ! Safe & Caring Environment ! High Expectations for Learning ! Welcoming School Community ! Safe & Caring Environment ! High Expectations for Learning ! Welcoming School Community 182 Checklist YES NO N/A The temperature is within normally accepted ranges Classroom is free of clutter Classroom furniture is in good repair Classroom displays examples of student work Classroom prominently displays the current dayÕs/periodÕs activities The teacherÕs degrees or college information are posted inside or immediately outsi de the classroom. Classroom #2 (if invited) What is your impression? What did you see, hear and smell? Is this evidence related to one of the following? ! Safe & Caring Environment ! High Expectations for Learning ! Welcoming School Community ! Safe & Caring Environment ! High Expectations for Learning ! Welcoming School Community ! Safe & Caring Environment ! High Expectations for Learning ! Welcoming School Community ! Safe & Caring Environment ! High Expectations for Learning ! Welcoming School Community ! Safe & C aring Environment ! High Expectations for Learning ! Welcoming School Community Checklist YES NO N/A The temperature is within normally accepted ranges 183 Classroom is free of clutter Classroom furniture is in good repair Classroom displays examples of student work Classroom prominently displays the current dayÕs/periodÕs activities The teacherÕs degrees or college information are posted inside or immediately outside the classroom. Classroom #3 (if invited) What is your impr ession? What did you see, hear and smell? Is this evidence related to one of the following? ! Safe & Caring Environment ! High Expectations for Learning ! Welcoming School Community ! Safe & Caring Environment ! High Expectations for Learning ! Welcoming School Community ! Safe & Caring Environment ! High Expectations for Learning ! Welcoming School Community ! Safe & Caring Environment ! High Expectations for Learning ! Welcoming School Community ! Safe & Caring Environment ! High Expectations for Learning ! Welcoming School C ommunity Checklist YES NO N/A The temperature is within normally accepted ranges Classroom is free of clutter Classroom furniture is in good repair Classroom displays examples of student work 184 Classroom prominently displays the c urrent dayÕs/periodÕs activities The teacherÕs degrees or college information are posted inside or immediately outside the classroom. 185 APPENDIX I The Community Reviewer Final Rubric Figure A.2 The Community Reviewer Final Rubric 186 Figure A.2 (contÕ d) 187 Figure A.2 (contÕ d) 188 Figure A.2 (contÕ d) 189 APPENDIX J Research Participant Information and Consent Form -Survey You are being asked to participa te in a research project. Researchers are required to provide a consent form to inform you about the study, to convey that participation is voluntary, to explain risks and benefits of participation, and to empower you to make an informed decision. You should feel free to ask the researchers any questions you may have. Study Title: Involving Low -Income, Minority Parents in Schools: An Examination of a Parent Involvement in Program in Detroit Researcher and Title: Ashley Johnson, Doctoral Candidate Departm ent and Institution: Department of Education Administration , Michigan State University Address and Contact Information: 555 Brush St, Detroit, MI 48226 Sponsor: Bets Ann Smith, Ph.D. PURPOSE OF RESEARCH You are being asked to participate in a research st udy of parentÕs experiences and participation with schools. The purpose of this research study is to better understand how to engage parents in their childrenÕs education. Particularly, this study examines the experiences of parents who participate in Exce llent Schools DetroitÕs Site Visit Process. You have been selected as a possible participant because you are a participant in the Excellent Schools Detroit Site Visit program. From this study, the researcher hopes to learn about parentÕs perspectives regar ding parental involvement with schools. Your participation in the surveys will take about 30 minutes for each survey. WHAT YOU WILL DO You will complete two surveys in which you will be asked to talk about your personal experiences with schools and wit h your childÕs schools. The first survey will occur during Site Visit program training and the second survey will occur after the program is complete, during the program debriefing. You will also be asked to talk about your experiences with Excellent Schoo ls DetroitÕs Site Visit Process. The surveys will be completed for research purposes only, and the results will not be shared with anyone except the researcher and the participant. POTENTIAL BENEFITS You will not directly benefit from participation in this study. However, your participation in this study will contribute to the understanding of the different experiences parents have when participating with schools. Your participation will also contribute to the understanding of factors that are relat ed to parental involvement in schools. This research, along with future research, may increase our knowledge about ways to support parent and school relationships that can potentially benefit children, families, and schools in the future. POTENTIAL RISKS This study poses a minimal risk for you as a participant. You will be asked to answer questions about your thoughts and feelings about schools. Answering some of the questions may cause you to experience some discomfort or distress. You can skip any ques tion that you do not want to respond to. Additionally, you may discontinue participation in the interview at anytime. PRIVACY AND CONFIDENTIALITY 190 The data for this project will be kept confidential. No one will be able to link data to you or your child. With your permission, the interview will be recorded for future examination. After you complete the survey, an identification number will be assigned to the survey and your name will be removed from all paperwork. The surveys will be kept in a locked file cabinet, only accessible to the researcher. All documents will be destroyed three years after completion. The results of this study may be published or presented at professional meetings, but the identities of all research participants will remain anonymo us. It will not be possible for readers to know who participated in the study. YOUR RIGHTS TO PARTI CIPATE, SAY NO, OR W ITHDRAW Participation in this research project is completely voluntary. You have the right to say no. Refusal to participate will inv olve no penalty or loss of benefits to which you are otherwise entitled. You may change your mind at any time and withdraw from the study. Your withdraw will result in no penalty or loss of benefits to which you are otherwise entitled. You may also choose not to answer a specific question or stop participating at any time. Choosing not to participate or withdrawing from this study will not make any difference in the quality of services that you will receive from Excellent Schools Detroit. COSTS AND COMPEN SATION FOR BEING IN THE STUDY It does not cost anything to participate in this study. If you choose to participate in the survey you will be eligible to receive a $20 gift card for participating in this study. CONFLICT OF INTEREST The researcher is an employee of Excellent Schools Detroit. However, this research is not affiliated with Excellent Schools Detroit and will not be shared with Excellent Schools Detroit in any way that will reveal your identity. Choosing not to participate or withdrawing f rom this study will not influence the quality of services that you will receive from Excellent Schools Detroit. CONTACT INFORMATION FOR QUESTIONS AND CO NCERNS If you have concerns or questions about this study, such as scientific issues, how to do any part of it, or to report an injury, please contact the researchers: Ashley Johnson 662-380-6522 555 Brush St Detroit, MI 48226 John3253@msu.edu BetsAnn Smith 517-353-8646 409 Erickson Hall East Lansing, MI 48824 bas@msu.edu If you have questions or concerns about your role and rights as a research participant, would like to obtain information or offer input, or would like to register a complaint about this study, you may contact, anonymously if you wish, the Michi gan State UniversityÕs Human Research Protection Program at 517 -355-2180, Fax 517 -432-4503, or e-mail irb@msu.edu or regular mail at 202 Olds Hall, MSU, East Lansing, MI 48824. 191 DOCUMENTAT ION OF INFORMED CONS ENT ! Yes, I would like to participate in this research study ! No, I do not want to participate in this research study ________________________________________ _____________________________ Signature Date You will be given a c opy of this form to keep. 192 APPENDIX K Self-Efficacy Questionnaire Directions: To what extent do you agree with the following statements? Please circle the applicable response. Please use the following scale to assess the statements: Not at all, Somewhat, M ostly or Completely. !!!!!Question Not at all, !Somewhat, !Mostly !Completely !1. I feel confident that I know how to help my child do well in school. !!!!2. I feel confident that I make a significant difference in my childÕs school performance. !!!!3. I feel confident when communicating with my childÕs teachers. !!!!4. I feel confident when communicating with my childÕs principal. !!!!5. I feel confident when communicating with other parents at my childÕs school. !!!!6. I feel confident that my childÕs school values my involvement. !!!!7. I feel confident that I know how to identify a good school for my child. !!!!8. I feel confident that the school I selected for my child to attend is a great school. !!!!9. I feel confident about how to become involved at my childÕs school. !!!!10. I feel confident about voicing my opinion about my childÕs school or other schools in Detroit. !!!!11. I feel confident about making suggestion for improvement for my childÕs school or other schools in Detroit. !!!! 193 REFERENCES 194 REFERENCES Abrams, L. S., & Gibbs, J. T. (2002). Disrupting the logic of home -school relations parent involvement str ategies and practices of inclusion and exclusion. Urban Education , 37(3), 384-407. Bandura, A. (2006). Guide for constructing self -efficacy scales. Self -efficacy beliefs of adolescents , 5(307-337). Barton, P. E. & Coley, R. J. (2007). The Family: America 's Smallest School. Princeton, NJ: 2, 193-218. Bourdieu P . (1986). The forms of capital. Cultural theory: An anthology , 81-93. Brantlinger, E. (2003). Dividing classes: How the middle class negotiates and rationalizes school advantage . Routledge Cochran , M., & Henderson, C.R., Jr. (1986). Family matters: Evaluation of the parental empowerment program. A summary of a final report to the National Institute of Education. Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Jou rnal of Sociology , 94 (Suppl.), 95 Ð120. Committee for Academic Excellence Cutler, William W. (2000) Ð Parents and Schools: The 150 year struggle for control in American Education. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Data Drive Detroit (2012). State of the Detroit child 2012 report . The Skillman Foundation de Carvalho, M. E. (2001). Rethinking family school relations: A critique of parental involvement in schooling. New York: TeacherÕs College Press. Delgado -Gaitan, C. (1991). Involving parents in th e schools: A process of empowerment. American Journal of Education. 100(1), 20Ð46. Development Laboratory: Austin, TX. Dika, S. L., & Singh, K. (2002). Applications of social capital in educational literature: A critical synthesis. Review of educational r esearch , 72(1), 31-60. Epstein, J. L. (1995). School/family/community partnerships: Caring for the children we share. Phi Delta Kappan. 76(9). 701-712. 195 Epstein, J.L. (1996). Perspectives and previews on research and policy in school, family, and commun ity partnerships. Family -school links: How do they select educational outcomes? Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Epstein, J. L. (2001). School, family, and community partnerships: Preparing educators and improving schools. Boulder, CO: West view Press. Epstein, J. L., & Sanders, M. G. (2006). Connecting home, school, and community. In Handbook of the sociology of education (pp. 285-306). Springer US. Erb, R., & C. Dawsey. (2009, December 09). Detroit students score a record low on national test. Detroit Free Press. Retrieved from http://freep.com/ Excellent Schools Detroit. (2013). Team Leader and Education Specialist Handbook. Detroit, MI. Excellent Schools Detroit. (2012). What is a Community Reviewer? Roles and Responsibilities. Detroit, MI. Excellent Schools Detroit. (2010a). About the Detroit 2010 Scorecard. Detroit, MI. Excellent Schools Detroit. (2010b). Detroit 2010 Scorecard Frequently Asked Questions. Detroit, MI. Excellent Schools Detroit. (2010c). Overview of 2010 Detroit Scorecard Measures. Detroit, MI. Excellent Schools Detroit. (2010d). 2011 Community Reviewer Program Recruitment Flyer and Application. Detroit, MI. Excellent Schools Detroit. (2012). What is Community Reviewer? Detro it, MI. Excellent Schools Detroit. (2015). Scorecard Overview. Retrieved from Excellent Schools Detroit website: http://www.excellentschoolsdetroit.org/en/k12/school -quality -review Excellent Schools Detroit. (2014). Excellent Schools Detroit Scorecard R ulebook. Retrieved from Excellent Schools Detroit website: http://www.excellentschoolsdetroit.org/sites/default/files/esd_k12_rulebook_march2014_ 0.pdf Freire, P. (1993). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. 1970. New York: Continuum . Georgiou, S. N. (2007). Parental involvement: Beyond demographics. International Journal about Parents in Education , 1(0), 59-62. 196 Gonzalez -DeHass, A. R., & Willems, P. P. (2003). Examining the underutilization of parent involvement in the schools. School Community Journal , 13(1), 85-99. Grenfell, M., & James, D. (2 004). Change in the field Ñchang ing the field: Bourdieu and the methodological practice of educational research. British Journal of Sociology of Education , 25(4), 507-523. Halpern, D. (2005). Social Capital. Cambridge: Polity Press. Henderson, A. T. (2004). The case for parent leadership. Lexington, KY: Prichard Henderson, A. T., and Berla, N. (1994). A New Generation of Evidence: The Family is Critical on Student Achievement. Washington, DC: National Committee for Citizens in Education. Henderson, A.T., and Mapp, K.L. (2002). A new wave of evidence: The impact on school, family, and community connections on student ac hievement. Southwest Educational Development Laboratory: Austin, TX. Henderson, A. T., Johnson, V., Davies, D., & Mapp, K. L. (2007). Beyond the bake sale: The essential guide to family -school partnerships. Hesse-Biber, S. N. (2010). Mixed methods resear ch: Merging theory with practice . Guilford Press. Hiatt, D. B. (1994). Parent involvement in American public schools: An historical perspective 1642Ð1994. The School Community Journal , 4(2), 27-38. Hiatt-Michael, D. B. (2001). Schools as learning communi ties: A vision for organic school reform. School Community Journal , 11(2), 113-127. Hong, S. & Ho, H.Z. (2005). Direct and Indirect Longitudinal Effects of Parental Involvement on Student Achievement: Second -Order Latent Growth Modeling Across Ethnic Gro ups. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97 (1), 32-42. Involvement in the Schools. Hoover -Dempsey, K. V., & Sandler, H. M. (1997). Why do parents become involved in their childrenÕs education?. Review of Educational Research , 67(1), 3-42. Huntsinger, C . S., & Jose, P. E. (2009). Parental involvement in children's schooling: Different meanings in different cultures. Early Childhood Research Quarterly , 24(4), 398-410. Jackson, B., & Cooper, B. (1989). Parent choice and empowerment: New roles for parents. Urban Education , 24(3), 263Ð286. 197 Jackson, K., & Remillard, J. T. (2005). Rethinking parent involvement: African American mothers construct their roles in the mathematics education of their children. The School Community Journal, 15 (1) 51-73. Jehl, J., Blank, M.J. & McCloud, B. (2001). Education and community building: Connecting two worlds. Washington, DC: Institute for Educational Leadership. Jordan, C., Orozco, E., & Averett, A. (2001). Emerging Issues in School, Family, & Community Connections. Annu al Synthesis 2001. National Center for Family and Community Connections with Schools Keith, T., Keith, P. B., Quirk, K. J., Sperduto, J., Santillo, S. & Killings, S. (1998). Longitudinal effects of parent involvement on high school grades: Similarities an d differences across gender and ethnic groups. Journal of School Psychology, 35, 335-363. Khalifa, M. (2010). Validating social and cultural capital of hyperghettoized at -risk students. Education and Urban Society , 42(5), 620-646. Lareau, A. (1987). Home Advantage Social and Parental Intervention in Elementary . Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Lareau, A. (2001). Linking Bourdieu's concept of capital to the broader field: The case of family -school relationships. In B. J. Biddle (Ed.), Social class, povert y, and education: Policy and practice (pp. 77 -100). New York: Routlege/Falmer. Lareau, A. (2003). Unequal childhoods: Class, race, and family life . Berkeley: Univ. of California Press . Lareau, A., & Horvat, E. M. (1999). Moments of social inclusion and e xclusion race, class, and cultural capital in family -school relationships. Sociology of education , 37-53 Lazar, A., & Slostad, F. (1999). How to overcome obstacles to parent -teacher partnerships. The Clearing House , 72(4), 206-210. Lee, J., & Bowen, N.K. (2006). Parent involvement, cultural capital, and the achievement Lin, N. (2001). Social capital: A theory of social structure and action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 198 Lopez, G. R., Scribner, J. D., & Mahitivanichcha, K. (2001). Redefining par ental involvement: Lessons from high -performing migrant -impacted schools. American Educational Research Journal , 38(2), 253-288. Making School Choice Work study, the Center on Reinventing Public Education (CRPE) (2014) http://www.crpe.org/sites/default/fi les/CRPE_MakingSchoolChoiceWork_Report.pdf Mapp, K. L. (2003). Having their say: Parents describe why and how they are engaged in childrenÕs learning. School Community Journal, 13(1), 35 -64 Maxwell, J. A. (2005). Qualitative research design (Vol. 41). Applied social research methods series. McDermott, P., & Rothenburg, J. J. (2000). Why urban parents resist involvement in their childrenÕs elementary education. The Qualitative Report ,5(3), 1-16. McGee, Stephen (Producer and Director) (2012). Excellent S chools Detroit: Detroit School Visit Program. Detroit, MI. McNeal, R. B. (1999). Parental involvement as social capital: Differential effectiveness on science achievement, truancy, and dropping out. Social Forces , 78(1), 117-144. Miles, M. B., & Huberman , A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook . Sage. Mitchell, C. (2008). Parent Involvement in Public Education: A Literature Review May 2008. Noguera, P. A. (2001). Transforming urban schools through investments in the social capita l of parents. Psychology , 16, 725-50. Ottebjer, L. (2005). Bourdieu, Coleman and Putnam on Social Capital. Applications in literature and implications for public health policy and practice (Doctoral dissertation, Thesis for Master of Science in Public Heal th, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm Sweden. Available at: http://ki. se/content/1/c6/04/38/49/Linda% 20Ottebjer. pdf). Perna, L.W. & Titus, M. A. (2005). The relationship between parental involvement as social capital and college enrollment: An examinati on of racial/ethnic group differences. Journal of Higher Education , 76(5), 485-518 Polkinghorne, D. E. (2005). Language and meaning: Data collection in qualitative research. Journal of counseling psychology , 52(2), 137. 199 Portes, A. (1998). Social capital: Its origins and applications in modern sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 1Ð24. PTA, National. (2005). About PTA. Retrieved from www.pta.org Putnam, R. D. (1993). The prosperous community. The American prospect ,4(13), 35-42. Putnam, R. (1997). The prosperous community: social capital and public life. Frontier Issues in Economic Thought , 3, 211-212 Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon and Schuster. Putnam, R. (2001). Social capita l: Measurement and consequences. Canadian Journal of Policy Research , 2(1), 41-51. Seidman, I. (2006). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education and the social sciences (p. 162). New York: Teachers college press. Sheldon, S. B. (2002). ParentsÕ social networks and beliefs as predictors of parent involvement. The Elementary School Journal , 301Ð316. Smith J. G. (2006). Parental Involvement in Education Among Low -Income Families: A Case Study. The School Community Journal . 16 (1). 43-56. Solorzano, D. G., & Yosso, T. J. (2002). Critical race methodology: Counter -storytelling as an analytical framework for education research. Qualitative inquiry , 8(1), 23-44. Stanton -Salazar, R. D., & Dornbusch, S. M. (1995). Social capital and the reproduction of inequality: Information networks among Mexican -origin high school students. Sociology of Education, 68, 116Ð135. Warren, M. R., & Mapp, K. L. (2011). A match on dry grass: Community organizing as a catalyst for school reform . Oxfor d University Press, USA. Yin, R. (2003). Case study research: design and methods . Sage publications . Yosso, T. J. (2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community cultural wealth. Race ethnicity and education , 8(1), 69-91.