Creating inclusive parent engagement practices: lessons learned from a school community collaborative supporting newcomer refugee families
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Parental engagement in education has proven to be important to children's academic success. Research suggests that when parents are involved in their children's schooling, children tend to be motivated learners, have high educational aspirations, get good grades, and experience a sense of school belonging (Cheung & Pomerantz, 2012; Hill et al., 2004; Kuperminc, Darnell, & Alvarez-Jimenez, 2007). Research also shows that the advantages of parental involvement benefit all students, including minority and immigrant students (Jeynes, 2003). In light of globalization, schools in many Western countries such as Canada and the United States receive large numbers of immigrant and refugee students each year. As a result of these demographic shifts, ways to engage culturally diverse parents are gaining increased attention in the literature. Interest in best practices and models of working with culturally diverse families is growing. This article seeks to contribute to this body of knowledge by reporting on a case study of refugee parent engagement. Specifically, this article reports on how inclusive parent engagement was understood and facilitated in the context of a multi-agency program for refugee families in an urban center in Western Canada.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".