Bibliographic record
Abstract
Five leading researchers of family-school-community partnerships convened a session at the annual convention of the American Educational Research Association in Montreal last month (April, 2005) to throw a lifeline to scholars and practitioners in this field. The age of gold-standard research is upon us, and coin of that specie is rare in family-school-community partnerships. In fact, as the paucity of entries on the Department of Education's Works Clearinghouse website indicates, rigorous evaluation of programs, curricula, and methodologies is scarce throughout the realm of education. For the field of school-home relationships, inadequate evidence of the effects of replicable interventions is a catastrophic deficiency; resources for personnel, programs, and evaluation will be drained away. If the research base for effective teaching practices in mathematics is weak, resources for program design and evaluation will be channeled in that direction. But is not seen as a core purpose of schooling. Rather than applying the new standards of evidence to more focused program design and greater commitment of resources, parental involvement is likely to be cast aside. The point is not to pit curriculum and instruction against parent involvement, but to realize the importance of both and the special vulnerability of the latter. So the stakes are high in Heather Weiss, Joyce Epstein, Kathleen Hoover-Dempsey, Anne Henderson, and William Jeynes proposed in Montreal. Their proposal to reinvigorate the study and practice of school-home relations by giving it greater research standing centers on four sets of questions: 1. Can we change parenting behaviors? If so, which ones should we change? 2. How do we understand the transformation of schools to make parental involvement integral? 3. How can teachers and schools be supported in encouraging parental involvement? What is needed in pre-service preparation of teachers? In-service professional development? 4. How do we educate in we know to improve families, schools, and communities? Without answering the first question, we have no power to move on to the other three. The question itself is refreshingly blunt. It strikes at the heart of frustrations, and by our I mean both educators and family advocates. When educators huddle amongst themselves, disappointed, disgruntled, and besieged, they vent their frustration on the deficiencies and intractability of As one superintendent put it, There simply is no consumer demand for parental involvement. Parents are not lined up at door asking for help. Our efforts are exhausted simply trying to get their attention, hoping they will show up. The ones most in need of help never do. On the flip side, when family advocates assemble, they speak of breaking down barriers, meaning the very schoolhouse doors at which the educators find no queues of parents seeking partnership. This Gordian knot will be broken when we can answer with certainty the question about changing parenting behaviors in ways that will enhance children's learning. The other three questions are moot until the first is answered. They are the how to, procedural corollaries to the central question of knowing what is worth doing. The fourth question, educating community-organizing parents, is asked with exasperation at attempts to change school systems and mentalities. Educating community-organizing parents holds great promise and considerable dangers. Parents would be reached directly and helped to both change parenting practices that will benefit their children and engage their schools in ways that will improve the schools and make them more attuned to productive partnerships. That is good. The danger lies in a misinterpretation of educating community-organizing parents. Well-intentioned organizations can end up causing more harm than good if their purposes are not clearly outlined. …
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.042 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.059 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.010 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.030 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 teacher head, 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".