Journal of Education for Teaching

International research and pedagogy

ISSN: 0260-7476 (Print) 1360-0540 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjet20

School, family, and community partnerships in

teachers’ professional work

Joyce L. Epstein

To cite this article: Joyce L. Epstein (2018): School, family, and community
partnerships in teachers’ professional work, Journal of Education for Teaching, DOI:
10.1080/02607476.2018.1465669

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2018.1465669

Published online: 23 Apr 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 5

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cjet20
Journal of Education for Teaching, 2018
https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2018.1465669

School, family, and community partnerships in teachers’

professional work
Joyce L. Epstein 
Center on School, Family, and Community Partnerships, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This article discusses the contributions of the international studies Received 12 March 2018
in this special issue and presents a few emerging topics on school, Accepted 23 April 2018
family, and community partnerships. The studies in Part I confirm
KEYWORDS
that, across countries, future teachers are inadequately prepared to Preservice and inservice
conduct effective partnership programmes with all students’ families. teacher education; school,
Part II reports the results of interventions that provide future teachers family and community
with opportunities to practice the kinds of communications with partnerships; family and
parents that they will use as new teachers. In my and colleagues’ community engagement for
studies, several topics of family and community engagement have student success
emerged that will extend and enrich college courses for future
teachers and school leaders. These include a redefinition of the
‘professional’ teacher; understanding partnerships as a component
of good school organisation; the importance of goal-linked family
and community engagement for student success in school; the role
of the community in partnership programmes; and the connections
of preservice and inservice education for preparing and sustaining
productive connections of home, school, and community.

Several years ago, Mavis Sanders and I conducted a national survey of 161 schools, colleges,
and departments of education (SCDE) that prepared future teachers, administrators, and
counsellors for their professions (Epstein and Sanders 2006). We wanted to know if higher
education programmes in the U.S. offered courses and content to help prospective educators
learn new ways to think about, organise, and conduct programmes of school, family, and
community partnerships. The study, unique at the time, identified contradictory beliefs and
actions.
Specifically, SCDE deans and department leaders strongly agreed that partnership topics
were important for future teachers to study. They knew that proficiencies in family engage-
ment were required by teacher, administrator, and school accreditation organisations, and
that district leaders claimed to prefer to hire new teachers and administrators who were
aware of and committed to family and community engagement. Still, most SCDEs reported
that their graduates were not prepared to conduct effective and equitable partnership
programmes.

CONTACT  Joyce L. Epstein  jepstein@jhu.edu

© 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2   J. L. EPSTEIN

This discrepancy, anecdotally discussed for decades and finally documented with data,
was a call to action to add coursework on family and community engagement to under-
graduate and graduate programmes in teacher education and educational administration.
The gap between recognising the importance of partnerships and ensuring the preparation
of future teachers and administrators to conduct effective programmes and practices was
the reason for my textbook (Epstein 2011). The book of readings, discussion topics, activities,
and projects is designed to enable professors of education to offer a full course on partner-
ships or use selected chapters in various teacher preparation courses.
Although there has been an increase in the U.S. in course coverage of topics of school,
family, and community partnerships, a great deal more needs to be done to prepare all
teachers and administrators to understand family and community engagement as part of
their professional work and as an essential component of good school organisation for
student success in school.
Since 2006, researchers in other countries have raised similar questions (de Bruine et al.
2014; Denneson et al. 2009; Willemse et al. 2015). They wanted to know if undergraduate
and graduate courses were offered in colleges and universities in the Netherlands and
Belgium to prepare future teachers to conduct programmes of family and community
engagement. In Part I of this issue, researchers from England, Finland, Spain, and Switzerland
address similar questions.
There also has been a growing number of studies of hands-on activities that professors
of education may use to supplement lectures and enliven discussions of topics on partner-
ships. In Part II of this issue, researchers from Belgium, Netherlands, and the U. S. present
results of interventions to provide future teachers with opportunities to practise the kinds
of communications with parents that they will use as new teachers.
The articles in Parts I and II of this issue are important additions to the research base on
teacher preparation. In this section, I summarise findings from these studies and introduce
a few related issues emerging from the research and fieldwork that my colleagues and I are
conducting that will update and improve the preparation of future teachers to conduct
effective partnership practices.

Summary part I: ITE programmes across countries

The studies conducted in England, Finland, Spain, and Switzerland confirm that, across coun-
tries, college officials strongly agree that it is important for teachers to understand and
conduct effective practices of family and community engagement. There are some differ-
ences in these reports. Alanko concluded that teacher training on partnerships in Finland
may be more advanced than in other countries. Education policies in Finland require course-
work on partnerships for all teachers through the years of compulsory schooling (students’
age 16). However, initial teacher education (ITE) graduates were described as ‘rather com-
petent’. Lehmann reported that some attention is given to partnerships in the German-
speaking section of Switzerland for those preparing to teach in the elementary grades. In
Spain, coverage of family-school partnerships is considered ‘marginal’. In England, compe-
tence on partnerships is gained by some future teachers, but not others.
In all studies in Part I of this issue, researchers suggest that coverage of topics on part-
nerships is, mainly, up to individual professors of education. Because ITE programmes in
these and other countries are inconsistent in whether and which future teachers take
 JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR TEACHING   3

comprehensive courses, modules, and classes on school, family, and community partner-
ships, many-to-most new teachers feel unprepared to work well with the families of students
in the schools where they are placed.

Summary part II: improving teacher preparation with practice activities

In Part II of this issue, the researchers reported results of studies of interventions that may
enliven ITE courses on family and community engagement. Using videos, simulations, inter-
views, and other strategies, professors of education may help future teachers experience
the kinds of common interactions with students’ parents that they will conduct in most
schools and grade levels.
Early studies revealed that courses on partnerships and hands-on activities increased
future teachers’ knowledge and attitudes about parents as partners in students’ education
(Morris and Taylor 1998). Teachers who felt more competent about their connections with
parents were more likely to conduct partnership activities (de Acosta 1996; Deslandes,
Fournier, and Morin 2008; Evans 2013;  Martinez and Ulanoff 2013; Weiss et al. 2010).
In this issue, researchers tested three designs that professors of education may use or
adapt in their classes on family and community engagement. In Belgium, DeConinck,
Vanderlinde and Valcke developed the measure of Parent Teacher Communications
Competencies (PTCC) to help future teachers become more responsive in parent–teacher
conferences, which most teachers conduct every year.
The researchers created a video that future teachers watch and rate the tone and quality
of a teacher’s discussions with parents. The PTCC yields scores on perceptions, interpretations,
and decision-making to help future teachers consider the quality and purposes of interac-
tions with parents. The instrument may be used as a formative measure to alert future teach-
ers to these issues or as a summative measure for professors of education to judge future
teachers’ perceptive listening skills and responses to parents’ feelings after practising par-
ent–teacher conferencing. The process may be adapted if future teachers are assigned to
create local videos with parents and teachers who vary by race, socioeconomic status, edu-
cation, language, grade level of student, and other factors.
Walker and Legg introduce another approach to simulated conversations that professors
of education may use to enable future teachers to develop skills in communicating with
parents about positive and negative results of students’ achievement tests and other issues.
The researchers studied the power of simulations using two 15-min parent–teacher confer-
ences on the results of students’ assessments. This and related topics concerning students’
work in school may produce anxieties if parents feel that they or their child is being criticised
for low scores. Thus, future teachers can benefit by witnessing and reflecting on these
conversations.
Professors of education may follow similar methods: identify the task, create the simulated
conversation, and evaluate the teacher candidate’s performance. Along with others who
have explored simulations in teacher education (Dotger 2010; Mehlig and Shumow 2013),
Walker and Legg report that this strategy is a powerful learning experience for future teachers
who process their personal reactions to the videos and consider how they would respond
in similar situations.
The studies in Part II of this issue suggest that future teachers will be better prepared if
they practise interactions with parents and become more aware of the tone and vocabulary
4   J. L. EPSTEIN

of these common, but important, communications. Practice activities like these may be easily
added to a general course on partnerships or to specific units of work in a course on tests
and measurements.
de Bruine and colleagues tested another approach that professors of education may use
to increase future teachers’ comfort and confidence about conducting family engagement
activities. Following a survey in Netherlands and Belgium that revealed the lack of prepara-
tion of future teachers on partnerships (de Bruine et al. 2014; Willemse et al. 2015), the
researchers developed a ‘small-scale curricular change’ to help professors of education con-
duct an introductory class on family and community engagement for future secondary
school teachers. The protocol required each student to read an article, interview a new
teacher about parental involvement, attend a class lesson and discussion on the topic, and
write a personal reflection on what they learned.
The researchers reported that the short intervention had positive results in increasing
future teachers’ awareness of the importance of family engagement. The researchers were
well aware that one activity does not equal a full course on school, family, and community
partnerships. They noted, for example, that ‘only a few students mentioned they had become
aware of the importance of school-wide approaches and policies [for partnerships]’. The
future teachers also wanted more ‘real-life experiences with parents’.
The article by Miller, Coleman, Mitchell, and Hermanutz expands the preparation of future
teachers by suggesting a course that connects teachers with other professionals who provide
educational and health services for students and families. All teachers work with school
psychologists, school counsellors, social workers, health professionals, specialists in special
education, food specialists, enrichment teachers (e.g. art, music, physical education), and
others to help students succeed in school.
The researchers plan to test the feasibility of an interprofessional course in which teachers
and specialists study and learn together. Given the long-standing avoidance by most ITE
programmes of adding a full partnership course for all future teachers, it will not be easy to
add a required interprofessional course to the curriculum. It might be possible, however, to
incorporate de Bruine and colleagues’ ‘small-scale curricular change’ to add an interprofes-
sional class to a full partnership course in which teachers and interdisciplinary specialists in
student and family services exchange information and conduct relevant inquiries with each
other.
The researchers from Netherlands, Belgium, and the U.S. provided more than bright ideas.
They tested and reported results of creative, hands-on activities for future teachers to learn
about and practise partnership skills. Professors of education may use or adapt these strat-
egies in their existing courses on foundations of education, methods of teaching, tests and
measurement, and family and community engagement.
There are other intriguing interventions to enliven college courses for future teachers.
For example, Family as Faculty (Patterson, Webb, and Krudwig 2009) invites parents of chil-
dren with special needs or other characteristics for a whole-class interview by future teachers.
The parents are prepared to serve as a panel of experts to address questions about how
parents would like to communicate with teachers, help their child at home, and become
involved at school. These interactions may help dispel the stereotypes that some future
teachers hold that parents are unable or unwilling to be engaged in their children’s education
(see also Epstein [2011] for class activities and projects).
 JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR TEACHING   5

New directions: updating ITE content on school, family, and community

partnerships
The studies in this issue provide a base for discussing other important topics for preparing
teachers that have emerged in my and colleagues’ studies and fieldwork on school, family,
and community partnerships. The knowledge base on partnerships has continued to evolve
during the years of neglect of the topic in ITE programmes. This means that courses and
content on partnerships for future teachers of the twenty-first century will need to include
historically important issues (e.g. parent–teacher conferences and communications) and
emerging issues. Here we discuss the redefinition of the ‘professional’ teacher; partnerships
as an essential component of good school organisation; goal-linked partnerships for student
success; including the community as a partner in education; and the link of pre-service with
in-service education.

Partnerships: a core competency of a professional teacher

From their first day in a school and classroom to the last day of their careers, teachers will
meet children’s parents and other members of the family, seen and unseen. The community,
too, is present in person or in situ. It is imperative for new teachers to understand family
diversities, community resources, student experiences in and out of school, and how to use
all available resources to maximise student learning and success. This knowledge and these
skills are measures of teachers’ professional skills and standing (Epstein 2013).
In their study of teacher preparation in England in Part I of this issue, Mutton, Thompson,
and Burn remind us that family and school partnerships is ‘a core professional skill and
practice which requires development within any programme of initial teacher education’
(Daniel 2011). Other core competencies are regularly addressed in required courses for all
future teachers (e.g. methods of teaching, tests and assessments, and classroom manage-
ment). Historically, family and community engagement has been ignored or avoided, in part
because the topic was not understood as part of every teacher’s professional work.
An early definition of the teacher as a ‘professional’ emphasised the separate and special-
ised work of teachers compared to ‘non-professionals’ (e.g. parents, community members).
Research over the past 30 years, however, redefines ‘professional’ as a teacher who under-
stands that education is a shared responsibility of home, school, and community. A profes-
sional teacher knows how to work effectively with students, parents, other family members,
community partners, and colleagues to promote student learning, positive attitudes, attend-
ance, and other important outcomes. Of course, the professional teacher also retains unique
and valued competencies in subject matter knowledge and teaching skills. The full definition
of ‘professional’ underscores the importance of ITE coursework on partnerships for all future
teachers.

Family and community engagement: an essential component of school

organisation
Just as family and community engagement is a core competency for individual teachers, a
comprehensive, goal-linked programme of school, family, and community partnerships is
at the core of good school organisation (Bryk et al. 2010, 2015; Epstein, Galindo, and Sheldon
2011; Epstein and Sheldon 2006).
6   J. L. EPSTEIN

Along with a challenging curriculum, engaging instruction, and appropriate assessments,

a well-organised school conducts and continually improves a goal-linked programme of
family and community engagement to increase student success in school. The school also
may be guided and supported by district, regional, or state leaders for partnerships and
school improvement (Epstein, Galindo, and Sheldon 2011; Epstein and Sheldon 2016).
Presently, most ITE courses and classes, when available, focus on how each teacher, acting
individually, may communicate with the parents of their own students, especially to solve
academic or behavioural problems. This is important, but not complete. A full course on
partnerships or classes on school organisation and management will help future teachers
learn about the place called school. Teachers need to understand how schools work beyond
their own classrooms, and how school-based teams and committees share leadership to
create a welcoming school for all partners in education.
School-based teams or committees consisting of teachers, administrators, parents, and
others take on a leadership role in order to plan, implement, evaluate, and continually
improve a school-based programme to engage all families and community partners in ways
that increase student learning and success in school (Epstein et al., forthcoming). For exam-
ple, a ‘partnership school’ conducts ambitious and interesting engagement activities
throughout the school year. This may include a theme-oriented family mathematics night
with standards-based activities and games for students at all grade levels and their family
members, and other partnership activities to improve student attendance, reading, health,
science, and other goals for student success (Thomas et al. 2017). In sum, a strong, school-
wide partnership programme reduces the burden on individual teachers to conduct all
family engagement activities alone.

Goal-linked family and community engagement: topics in methods of teaching

courses
Teacher education on partnerships must take future teachers beyond routine communica-
tions with parents and learn to design and conduct goal-linked engagement activities for
student learning in specific subjects. The most frequent requests from parents of practicing
teachers are for information on how to help their child at home. Hundreds of studies across
grade levels and with highly diverse populations confirm that family engagement activities
in specific subjects positively influence student learning in those subjects (Fan and Chen
2001; Jeynes 2012; Sheldon, forthcoming; Van Voorhis et al. 2013).
In ITE programmes, if a full partnership course is not required, methods of teaching
courses in specific subjects are the logical ‘home’ for enabling future teachers to see the
connections between teachers’ classroom lessons and ways to inform and engage parents
with students on subject-specific learning activities. This may include informing parents
about learning standards, homework policies in specific subjects, and how to interact with
their child on homework (Epstein and Van Voorhis 2012).

The community: a partner for student success

In this issue, the topic of interest is called family-school partnerships. In our research and
fieldwork with districts and schools, we call this school, family, and community partnerships
(Epstein 2011; Epstein et al., forthcoming). Including the community as a partner in education
 JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR TEACHING   7

dramatically increases the resources available to teachers to support students, families,

teachers, and the school (Sanders, forthcoming).
Labels for research, fieldwork, and the education of future teachers on partnerships in
education have evolved over time. The early term of parent involvement put the burden on
parents whether or not, as well as how, to get involved in their child’s education at school
and at home. Our studies indicated that school, family, and community partnerships was a
more comprehensive term, encompassing involvement, engagement, democratic partici-
pation, shared leadership, and other aspects of the collaborative efforts of school, home,
and community in children’s education and development from preschool through high
school. The full label includes the community -- a rich and, often, untapped source of support
and information, even in high-poverty locations.
Miller and colleagues in Part II of this issue take this extension to another level. They argue
that the school community includes many professionals across departments and beyond
school walls. Important services are provided to students, families, teachers, and to the
school as a whole by school psychologists, social workers, nurses, and many others. By pre-
paring future teachers to use and understand the term school, family, and community part-
nerships, they will be primed to connect with parents and other partners in students’
education.

A required sequence: pre-service and in-service education

Several researchers in this issue raised the important point that even if college coursework
on family and community engagement were updated and required for all future teachers,
practising educators will still need in-service education (professional development and
on-going technical assistance) to conduct effective partnership programmes in the schools
in which they work.
New teachers may be able to use some ideas from college courses, but they must be
ready to customise or redesign activities and approaches to reflect the populations and
conditions in the schools in which they work. Practices of partnerships will differ across
schools based on grade levels, school goals, students’ prior learning, family constraints and
talents, and other factors. In addition, as noted above, new teachers must be prepared to
work with colleagues on teams and committees to strengthen and sustain whole-school
partnership programmes.
For example, in a college course, future teachers may learn that they need to know about
family backgrounds, the dreams parents have for their children, and how to communicate
with parents using different technologies and approaches. Once placed in a school, they
must learn these facts about their students’ families, including their racial, cultural and lin-
guistic backgrounds, whether translators or interpreters are needed at parent–teacher con-
ferences, and other required strategies for school, family, and community partnerships.
The question can be raised: if in-service education will be needed by teachers in all
schools, why worry about ITE courses and content on school, family, and community part-
nerships? The answer is the same as for all topics in teacher preparation. ITE courses prepare
new teachers to understand fully their professional work. For example, a comprehensive
course on tests and measurements prepares future teachers for the inevitable, but different,
assessments that will be conducted in the school in which they work. Similarly, a compre-
hensive course on partnerships will prepare new educators to be ready to work productively
8   J. L. EPSTEIN

with students’ parents. In both examples, teachers use college-knowledge as the base on
which to build.
Like pre-service education, in-service education on family and community engagement
has been side-lined in most schools and across countries. There are, typically, only a few days
scheduled for continuing education, and the available time may be mandated for teachers
to learn new instructional strategies, new assessment requirements, and other policy initi-
atives. Schools must make time for in-service education on partnership programme devel-
opment to ensure that future teachers’ initial knowledge about partnerships is not lost when
they become professionals in practice.

Conclusion and recommendations

This is an exceptional collection of studies on school, family, and community partnerships.
It is rare for cross-national studies, as reported in Part I, to be conducted and reported con-
currently. It also is rare for researchers, as in Part II, to report in one publication the results
of studies on activities that professors of education may choose, use, or adapt to enliven
their courses and build skills of future teachers on family and community engagement.
Across countries, the researchers in this issue agree that leaders of ITEs must be agents
of change to better prepare their graduates to understand and conduct effective practices
of school, family, and community partnerships. This includes requiring a full course on part-
nerships (e.g. covering theory, research, and applications in practice) or systematically
addressing key partnership topics in other required courses (e.g. foundations of education,
school organisation and management, methods of teaching specific subjects, tests and
measurements, the community, equality of educational opportunities). These improvements
will enable future teachers to work, individually, with their own students’ families and com-
munities and, collectively, with their colleagues (e.g. principals, colleagues, parents, and
community members) to strengthen and sustain school-wide programmes of family and
community engagement. With these important, indeed imperative, changes, the next gen-
eration of teachers will be prepared for their professional work.
Beyond boundaries it is beyond time to improve undergraduate and graduate education
of future teachers by providing comprehensive, up-to-date courses and classes on school,
family, and community partnerships. Lack of attention to the requirements, documented
and discussed throughout this issue, leaves future teachers unprepared to connect with
parents and community partners in goal-linked ways that contribute to student success in
school. Without teachers’ efforts on partnerships, many parents will continue to be limited
in whether, and how, they motivate and guide their children’s learning and development at
every grade level. Most importantly, without teachers and parents working in partnership,
many students will continue to be denied the support and encouragement for education
that has been shown for decades to influence student success in school.
It is very clear. Practices of family and community engagement are part of every teacher’s
professional work and an essential component of the organisation of every school. ITEs must
choose a path for pedagogy that includes a path to partnerships.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
 JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR TEACHING   9

ORCID
Joyce L. Epstein   http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3032-6613

References
de Acosta, M. 1996. “A Foundational Approach to Preparing Teachers for Family and Community
Involvement in Children’s Education.” Journal of Teacher Education 47: 9–15.
de Bruine, E. J., T. M. Willemse, J. D’Haem, P. Griswold, L. Vloeberghs, and S. van Eynde. 2014. “Preparing
Teacher Candidates for Family–School Partnerships.” European Journal of Teacher Education 37:
409–425.
Bryk, A. S., L. M. Gomez, A. Grunow, and P. G. LeMahieu. 2015. Learning to Improve: How America’s Schools
Can Get Better at Getting Better. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Bryk, A. S., P. B. Sebring, E. Allensworth, S. Luppescu, and J. Q. Easton. 2010. Organizing Schools for
Improvement: Lessons from Chicago. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Daniel, G. 2011. “Family-School Partnerships: Towards Sustainable Pedagogical Practice.” Asia-Pacific
Journal of Teacher Education 39: 165–176.
Denneson, E., J. Bakker, L. Kloppenburg, and M. Kerkhof. 2009. “Teacher-Parent Partnerships: Preservice
Teacher Competences and Attitudes during Teacher Training in the Netherlands.” International
Journal about Parents in Education 3: 29–36.
Deslandes, R., H. Fournier, and L. Morin. 2008. “Evaluation of a School, Family, and Community
Partnerships Program for Preservice Teachers in Quebec, Canada.” Journal of Educational Thought
42: 27–52.
Dotger, B. H. 2010. “‘I Had No Idea’: Developing Dispositional Awareness and Sensitivity through a
Cross-professional Pedagogy.” Teaching and Teacher Education 26: 805–812.
Epstein, J. L. 2011. School, Family, and Community Partnerships: Preparing Educators and Improving
Schools. 2nd ed. Boulder, CO: Westview.
Epstein, J. L. 2013. “Ready or Not? Preparing Future Educators for School, Family, and Community
Partnerships.” Teaching Education 24: 115–118.
Epstein, J. L., C. Galindo, and S. B. Sheldon. 2011. “Levels of Leadership: Effects of District and School
Leaders on the Quality of School Programs of Family and Community Involvement.” Educational
Administration Quarterly 47: 462–495.
Epstein, J. L., and M. G. Sanders. 2006. “Prospects for Change: Preparing Educators for School, Family,
and Community Partnerships.” Peabody Journal of Education 81: 81–120.
Epstein, J. L., M. G. Sanders, B. S. Simon, K. C. Salinas, N. R. Jansorn, F. L. Van Voorhis, C. S. Martin, B.
G. Thomas, and M. D. Greenfield. Forthcoming. School, Family, and Community Partnerships: Your
Handbook for Action. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Epstein, J. L., and S. B. Sheldon. 2006. “Moving Forward: Ideas for Research on School, Family, and
Community Partnerships.” In SAGE Handbook for Reach in Education. Engaging Ideas and Enriching
Inquiry, edited by C. G. Conrad and R. Serlin, 117–137. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Epstein, J. L., and S. B. Sheldon. 2016. “Necessary but Not Sufficient: The Role of Policy for Advancing
Programs of School, Family, and Community Partnerships.” Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the
Social Sciences 2 (5): 202–219.
Epstein, J. L., and F. L. Van Voorhis. 2012. “The Changing Debate: From Assigning Homework to Designing
Homework.” In Contemporary Debates in Child Development and Education, edited by S. Suggate and
E. Reese, 263–273. London: Routledge.
Evans, M. P. 2013. “Educating Preservice Teachers for Family, School, and Community Engagement.”
Teaching Education 24: 123–133.
Fan, X., and M. Chen. 2001. “Parental Involvement in Students’ Academic Achievement: A Meta-analysis.”
Educational Psychology Review 13: 1–22.
Jeynes, W. 2012. “A Meta-analysis of the Efficacy of Different Types of Parental Involvement Programs
for Urban Students.” Urban Education 47: 706–742.
Martinez, E., and S. H. Ulanoff. 2013. “Latino Parents and Teachers: Key Players Building Neighborhood
Social Capital.” Teaching Education 24: 195–208.
10   J. L. EPSTEIN

Mehlig, L. M., and L. Shumow. 2013. “How is My Child Doing? Preparing Preservice Teachers to Engage
Parents through Assessment.” Teaching Education 24: 181–194.
Morris, V. G., and S. I. Taylor. 1998. “Alleviating Barriers to Family Involvement in Education: The Role of
Teacher Education.” Teaching and Teacher Education 14: 219–231.
Patterson, K. B., K. W. Webb, and K. M. Krudwig. 2009. “Family as Faculty Parents: Influence on Teachers’
Beliefs about Family Partnerships.” Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and
Youth 54: 41–50.
Sanders, M. G. Forthcoming. “School-community Partnerships: The Little Extra That Makes a Big
Difference.” Chap. 1.2 in School, Family, and Community Partnerships: Your Handbook for Action, edited
by J. L. Epstein, M. G. Sanders, B. S. Simon, K. C. Salinas, N. R. Jansorn, F. L. Van Voorhis, C. S. Martin,
B. G. Thomas, and M. D. Greenfield. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Sheldon, S. B. Forthcoming. “Improving Student Outcomes with School, Family, and Community
Partnerships: A Research Review.” Chap. 1.3 in School, Family, and Community Partnerships: Your
Handbook for Action, edited by J. L. Epstein, M. G. Sanders, B. S. Simon, K. C. Salinas, N. R. Jansorn, F. L.
Van Voorhis, C. S. Martin, B. G. Thomas, and M. D. Greenfield. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Thomas, B. G., M. D. Greenfeld, R. T. Ames, M. G. Hine, and J. L. Epstein. 2017. Promising Partnership
Practices 2017. Baltimore, MD: National Network of Partnership Schools at Johns Hopkins University.
Van Voorhis, F. L., M. F. Maier, J. L. Epstein, and C. M. Lloyd. 2013. Impact of Family Involvement on
the Education of Children Ages 3–8: A Focus on Literacy and Math Achievement Outcomes and Social-
emotional Skills. New York: MDRC.
Weiss, H. B., H. Kreider, M. E. Lopez, and C. M. Chatman-Nelson. 2010. Preparing Educators to Involve
Families: From Theory to Practice. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Willemse, T. M., L. Vloeberghs, E. J. DeBruine, and S. Van Eynde. 2015. “Preparing Teacher for Family-
School Partnerships: A Dutch and Belgian Perspective.” Teaching Education 27: 212–228.