University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Urban elementary school leaders as catalysts for culturally responsive engagement: re-imagining parental and family engagement post-COVID 19

(USC Thesis Other)

Urban elementary school leaders as catalysts for culturally responsive engagement: re-imagining parental and family engagement post-COVID 19

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

Urban Elementary School Leaders As Catalysts for Culturally Responsive Engagement:
Re-imagining Parental and Family Engagement Post-COVID 19

by
Maritza Rodriguez-Dortrait

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
Doctor of Education

August 2022

© Copyright by Maritza Rodriguez-Dortrait 2022
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Maritza Rodriguez-Dortrait certifies the approval of this Dissertation

David Cash
Briana Hinga
Cathy Krop, Committee Chair

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2022

iv
Abstract
The positive social and academic outcomes of students whose parents engage with schools
affirm the need to continue engaging families and bridge the school-home connection in
culturally responsive ways. As a result of school closures due to COVID-19, parents and
caretakers have served to support instructional processes beyond the walls of traditional schools.
Using a critical transformative lens, this study sought to identify how school leaders engaged
with parents and families in traditional, emerging, and new ways that fostered equitable
collaboration and address the social and complex power dynamics when designing parent and
family engagement. Furthermore, understanding parents and families’ lived experiences will
serve as a springboard to co-construct and implement culturally responsive engagement
strategies and programs to re-engage parents and families post-COVID-19.
Keywords: Parent/family engagement (PFE), equitable collaboration, culturally
responsive leadership, culturally responsive engagement

v
Dedication
To Aeden, Lucas, and Liam. May you always believe in your power to stretch your own horizon
and always know you are loved for who you are and not what this world wishes you to be. You
are my source of strength and hope for a brighter tomorrow.
To my husband Carlos, thank you for being my biggest fan, even on the days the scoreboard was
not in my favor, you push me to be better and your unconditional love and unwavering support
sustain me.
To my “BIGS” aka “The Wind Beneath My Wings:” Pedro, Carmen, Rick, Sandra, and Bert,
thank you for always modeling courage and resilience. Standing tall in this journey of life facing
every milestone, challenge, and success with quiet yet powerful fearlessness that breathes life
into me day after day. You are God’s way of reminding me I am never alone in the journey of
life.
To the sisters God gifted me along the way: Synn, Gillian and Roxy thank you for your
unwavering love and support throughout this journey.
To my mother and father, “Mis viejitos”, this work is in honor of you and all of the ways you’ve
encouraged me to live life fully, faithfully, and with the utmost humility. Your unconditional
Love will span a million lifetimes. I am because you are.

vi
Acknowledgments
First and foremost, I honor God and all that he has given me. “For I know the plans I
have for you, declares the Lord, “plans to prosper you and not harm you, plans to give you hope
and future” (Jeremiah 29:11). Anchored in his promises this work is a reflection of his grace,
mercy, and conspiracy to guide us beyond our human capacity. Dr. Krop, my dissertation chair,
thank you for your unwavering support and encouragement, your patience and voice of reason
propelled me forward on the days that I could not. Dr. Cash and Dr. Hinga, with infinite
gratitude to the Universe and its conspiracy for aligning our paths in this season. Your poise and
unwavering commitment to this work in the midst of such unprecedented times kept me
grounded. To my cohort who will forever be known as “The Avengers,” thank you for pushing
me, and reaffirming that there are individuals in our world and field living into “Lifelong
Learning” in the words of our very own colleague: “Let’s Keep the Main Thing. … THE MAIN
THING (Rucker, 2020). Keep working towards justice and liberation. None of us are free until
we are all free (Angelou, 2013). Thank you for sharing your truths and teaching me the value of
a “third space” and the power of criticality while embracing the tension that exists when we
commit to building a better tomorrow for our children. Special shout out to Marie M, Michelle
W., Veronica, Krystle, Victoria, Ruby, Kerry, JR, and David. There aren’t enough words in the
English language to articulate my gratitude. For now, I will settle for LOVE all things done with
and through LOVE stretch beyond the unimaginable thank you for uplifting me and sharing your
light with me in this journey.

vii
Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication ........................................................................................................................................v
Acknowledgments .......................................................................................................................... vi
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. ix
List of Figures ..................................................................................................................................x
Chapter One: Overview of the Study ...............................................................................................1
Background of the Problem .................................................................................................3
Statement of the Problem .....................................................................................................6
Purpose of the Study ............................................................................................................8
Research Questions ............................................................................................................11
Significance of the Study ...................................................................................................11
Definition of Terms ............................................................................................................11
Organization of the Study ..................................................................................................14
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature .........................................................................................16
Foundations of Parent and Family Engagement in American Schools ..............................17
The Role of School Leaders in Parental and Family Engagement ....................................28
Re-imagining Forms of Engagement and Parental Involvement Post-COVID-19
Virtual Learning ...........................................................................................................36
Transformative Paradigm: Cultural Wealth, Critical Race Theory, and Counter-
Storytelling Towards Equitable Collaboration ............................................................43
Chapter Three: Methodology .........................................................................................................52
Sample and Population ......................................................................................................54
Instrumentation ..................................................................................................................56
Data Collection ..................................................................................................................58
Data Analysis .....................................................................................................................59

viii
Credibility and Trustworthiness .........................................................................................61
Summary ............................................................................................................................64
Chapter Four: Findings ..................................................................................................................65
Participants .........................................................................................................................66
Results Research Question 1 ..............................................................................................69
Results Research Question 2 ..............................................................................................86
Results Research Question 3 ..............................................................................................94
Summary ..........................................................................................................................107
Chapter Five: Discussion .............................................................................................................110
Findings ...........................................................................................................................113
Implications for Practice ..................................................................................................119
Limitations and Delimitations ..........................................................................................121
Future Research ...............................................................................................................123
Conclusions ......................................................................................................................124
References ....................................................................................................................................127
Appendix A: Semi-structured School Leader Interview Protocol ...............................................142
Appendix B: Parent/Caregiver Focus Group Interview Protocol ................................................150

ix
List of Tables
Table 1: School Leader Participant Profiles 67
Table 2: Focus Group 1 Parent/Guardian Participants 68
Table 3: Focus Group 2 Parent/Guardian Participants 69
Table 4: School Leader Reflections: Parent and Family Engagement During Virtual
Schooling 71
Table 5: School Leader Reflections: Coherent & Transparent Communication towards
Culturally Responsive Engagement 73
Table 6: School Leader Reflections: Forms of Engagement During Virtual Schooling 77
Table 7: School Leadership behaviors modeling Cultural Humility in PFE 80
Table 8: School Leader Reflections of Micro-Moments for Relationship Building 81
Table 9: Parent Focus Group Reflections: Coherent & Transparent Communication 88
Table 10: Parent Focus Group Reflections: Feedback for School Leaders on Ways They
Want to Be Engaged 91
Table 11: Toward Common Ground: School Leader Reflections Intersect with Parent
Reflections 97

x
List of Figures
Figure A1: Conceptual Framework 148

1

Chapter One: Overview of the Study
America’s public school system is at a pivotal moment in our nation’s history.
Cultivating strong relationships and partnerships between parents, families, school leaders and
teachers to design learning communities that meet the needs of the whole child has never been
more critical. As society continues to grapple with the aftermath of a global pandemic, a pressing
economic downturn, and the burning realities of social and racial injustices, a call for collective
action is loud and clear. Since 2001, the promise of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) policy
enacted under the leadership of President Bush was built on the principles of high-quality
education for all students regardless of race, class, gender, or zip code. The narrative of failing
public education became inextricably linked with urban schools working to close the
achievement gap. At the center of the conversation of whole-school reform and the
accountability narrative for the last four decades, parents and community engagement has been
highlighted as a foundational pillar toward improving public education in historically
underserved communities (Anyon, 2011 Milner & Lomotey, 2014). The history of failing
schools and the need for whole-school reform initiatives sparked a wave of programs and
services to fill children’s perceived deficits in urban schools (Ladson-Billings, 1995; Milner &
Lomotey, 2014; Young & Macedo, 1996). Further evolution of the NCLB, now known as the
Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) signed into law in 2015 and revisited in 2018, underscores
the importance of engaging parents in decision-making processes working toward school
improvement.
As mandated by policy, accountability measures for state/district and school leaders rest
in building effective partnerships with parents, caretakers, and families to provide children with
high-quality learning opportunities. The ESSA amplifies the importance of local accountability
2

by inviting parents and community stakeholders to the table in decision-making processes to
foster a collective responsibility in educating our nation’s children. At the same time, these
regulations came with limited guidance on fostering and building those relationships in ways that
would embrace the cultural, racial, linguistic, and socioeconomic differences in diverse
communities (Jeynes, 2005, as cited in Milner & Lomotey, 2014; Li & Fischer, 2017).
Instructional leaders and educators recognize the positive impact of parent, family, and
community engagement in improving student outcomes and overall school reform. Building
strong relationships with students and families creates safe and positive learning environments
and amplifies teaching and learning effects within their school communities (Alameda-Lawson,
2014; Epstein, 2001; Henderson & Mapp,2011). The positive social and academic outcomes of
students whose parents engage with schools affirm the need to examine the forms of engagement
experienced by parents and families in diverse communities. This study sought to understand the
differences and similarities in the lived experiences of diverse families and school leaders in a
mid-size diverse school district located in the Northeast region of the United States. Using a
critical transformative lens, this study examined the forms of engagement pre- and post-COVID-
19 between school leaders, parents, and families. Furthermore, it examined the extent to which
cultural wealth of diverse families can serve to create opportunities for deeper partnerships to
create equitable learning environments in racially, culturally, linguistically, and
socioeconomically diverse communities.
More critically, the study sought to spotlight how school leaders can foster and catalyze
equitable collaboration to address social and complex power imbalances when serving in urban
public schools. Research affirms the evolution of parental and family engagement fosters greater
opportunities for equitable collaboration and a shift from the deficit perspectives of diverse
3

families. Understanding the cultural capital and cultural wealth (Yosso, 2005) that families bring
into a school community can spark opportunities to cultivate culturally responsive environments
in pursuit of equity and excellence in public education (Milner & Lomotey, 2014). Examining
the dynamics between school leadership and parent and family engagement (PFE) will help
identify school leader practices to build future forms of engagement and identify practices that
need to be dismantled in the pursuit of equity and excellence for all children and families
(Herrera et al., 2020; Ishimaru, 2019; Khalifa, 2018) Furthermore, understanding parents and
families’ lived experiences will serve as springboard opportunities to co-construct and
implement culturally responsive engagement strategies and programs.
Background of the Problem
The need for more culturally proficient forms of communication and relationships is
ever-present in society, and America’s public schools must continue to prioritize creating
culturally relevant learning spaces for children, as schools serve as a microcosm of a global
society (Franco et al., 2011; Ishimaru, 2019; Sanders & Epstein, 2005). Historically marginalized
communities experience engagement in ways that continue to center on White middle-class
forms of engagement as normative practices (Ishimaru, 2016; Jeynes, 2005; Ladson-Billings,
1995; Posey-Maddox & Haley-Lock, 2020).
A growing body of research affirms the positive impact of involving parents and families
in the process of education. Researchers have highlighted the positive impact of tapping into
students’ funds of knowledge and home-based learning experiences to serve as a foundation for
all school-based learning (Ladson-Billings, 1995; Moll et al., 2005). Collaborating with families
to catalyze systemic change within schools and practices calls for equitable collaboration and a
bi-directional partnership with families. School leaders at all levels must consider how to invite
4

parents into relationships and partnerships, centering on cultural assets and differences
(Henderson et al., 2007, p.115). This entails leaders and teachers embracing the opportunity to
co-construct the rules and processes of engagement and identify the priority areas and strategies
that best support students’ learning (Auerbach, 2010; Ishimaru et al., 2018; Khalifa et al., 2016;
Mapp & Kuttner, 2013). Stretching beyond traditional models of engagement, school leaders,
parents, and teachers have had to re-imagine education and collaboration to ensure that students
in K–12 settings were provided with support throughout the COVID-19 pandemic’s virtual
learning experience. Early research on the impact of virtual learning provided mixed results
about the experiences of virtual learning, but it highlights the disproportionately negative impact
of school closures on historically marginalized and vulnerable populations (Martinez et al., 2021;
Ogurlu et al., 2020).
Research affirms that policy alone will not address the persistent hierarchical approaches
to relationship building and collaboration between school leaders, schools, and diverse
communities. School leaders are catalysts for a shift in establishing positive parental and
community engagement cultures in their schools (Constantia et al., 2021; Gardiner et al, 2008;
Khalifa et al., 2016). Presently, the responsibility of invitation is placed on school districts,
school leaders, and teachers as they are closest to the children and families in their communities.
Moreover, research suggests that next to teachers, school leaders impact the capacity building of
teacher development and serve as models in teacher practice (Khalifa, 2020, p. 13). With this in
mind, examining how school leaders shape and build the capacity of their teams to engage with
parents, caretakers, and families in diverse communities will help build more equitable and
culturally responsive forms of engagement.
5

To build an understanding of these efforts, research in the area of culturally responsive
leadership reinforces the importance of establishing two-way power dynamics between families
and schools to build deeper relationships (Minkos et al., 2017). Traditional forms of engagement
are often school-centered and limit participation for non-dominant, minoritized families
(Auerbach, 2010; Gay, 2013; Ishimaru, 2014; Li & Fischer, 2017).
The purpose of this study was to explore the lived experiences and perceptions of parents,
caretakers, and elementary school leaders in relation to the element of PFE. This exploration in a
midsize urban school district located in the Northeast region of the United States sought to center
the voices of parents, families, and school leaders in a racially, socioeconomically, and
linguistically diverse community. It captured a snapshot from three elementary schools located in
three distinctive neighborhoods within a district that serves approximately 30,000 students. For
this study, the phrase “school leaders” describes principals and assistant principals. The phrase
“parents, caretakers, and families” is used interchangeably throughout this study to honor diverse
familial and caregivers who engage with school leaders and their teams to support students in
their academic and non-academic journeys. Broadening this lens intentionally embraces the
plurality in the construct and structures of families in an increasingly diverse global society.
Employing cultural wealth with intersecting tenets of critical race theory, specifically
counter-storytelling, to critically analyze the phenomenon of PFE, this study sought to capture
and explore parents’ lived experiences in elementary school settings and their perceptions of the
strategies that their respective school leaders used to engage families in culturally,
socioeconomically, and linguistically diverse communities (Lynn & Dixon, 2013; Solórzano &
Yosso, 2002, 2005).
6

To build an understanding of these efforts, anchored in the belief that learning starts well
before a child’s school enrollment, this study built on research on the relationship between
school and parental and community engagement through school leaders and parents sharing their
experiences in regards to PFE. As a result of the COVID-19 global pandemic, this study also
identified emerging trends and strategies used to engage parents and families during virtual
learning and re-imagine ways to engage families in more culturally responsive and inclusive
ways.
Statement of the Problem
As schools continue to navigate the return to in-person learning, it is critical to engage
with families in ways that honor their lived experience during the COVID-19 crisis as well as
center the impact of the social and racial injustices on their everyday lives. Schools must build
relationships that restore trust, belief, and confidence in their capacity to create inclusive and
equitable learning spaces for all children. Since March 2020, school and district leaders have
grappled with the complexity of keeping students and families safe and designing equitable
opportunities for the most vulnerable students to continue their schooling and education.
Notwithstanding the challenges of the last 3 school years in engaging with students and families,
there is much to be learned and gained from the perspectives of parents and school leaders for
future forms of engagement.
Despite many school-based efforts to engage with parents, guardians, and families,
research affirms that traditional forms of engagement are not sufficient to meet the demands in
realities that students and families face. A critical and reflective lens centers and identifies power
imbalances between school leaders and families to continue to cultivate stronger partnerships
with parents and families (Auerbach, 2010; Jeynes, 2005; Mertens, 2010). To continue
7

developing culturally responsive and equitable learning spaces for students, communities must
consider establishing two-way power dynamics between families and schools, fostering deeper
relationships (Ishimaru, 2012, Henderson & Mapp, 2002). The demographics in America’s
schools have become increasingly more diverse in the last 2 decades. Between fall 2009 and fall
2018, the percentage of public school students who identified as Latinx increased from 22% to
27%. The percentage of public school students who identified as White decreased from 54% to
47%, and the percentage of students who were Black decreased from 17% to 15% (Hussar &
Bailey, 2013). The growing diversity in our schools invites examination of the strategies used to
engage diverse families, as engagement strategies rooted in White middle-class norms may reify
deficit perspectives of racially, culturally, linguistically, and socioeconomically diverse
populations.
Crystalizing how school leaders can collaborate with diverse parents and families is
critical to co-construct new forms of engagement that shift the power dynamics to center the
needs of the families in increasingly diverse schools. Modeling a bi-directional relationship is
critical to multiply, build capacity, and activate parent agency within the school community
(Auerbach, 2010; Ishimaru, 2014; Khalifa et al., 2016). School leaders are catalysts in fostering
culturally responsive parental and community engagement as they have the power to shift their
leadership capacity to include the voices of parents, students, and community stakeholders
(Khalifa, 2018), making it critical to explore the dynamics of this relationship and families and
leadership teams’ lived experiences. The work of building equitable and robust relationships
with families and communities to support children in the public education system needs to
continue, particularly to design opportunities to re-engage students, parents, and families in the
transition back to in-person learning post-COVID-19 school closures (Pattison et al., 2021). This
8

study sought to inform district and school leadership teams on strategies to continue to build
strong working relationships with parents and families to foster safe and culturally responsive
learning opportunities for all students. Moreover, this study sought to serve as a reflective tool
for school leaders and school teams in their practices in the element of PFE.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to explore the impact school leaders have on parental and
community engagement, specifically the extent to which their strategies and practices engage
families in culturally responsive ways. Moreover, this study sought to gather information to
understand the perceptions and lived experiences of families seeking to engage with the school
community in support of their children’s learning journey before and after the COVID-19 school
closures.
A transformative paradigm lens was used to explore how school leaders engage families
within diverse communities. Mapping the strategies implemented to re-engage families during
the virtual school experience and identifying new forms of engagement in the journey to in-
person learning will inform best practices that can potentially be foundational to more equitable,
culturally responsive, and sustaining forms of engagement (Green, 2017; Khalifa, 2020)
The current state of the public education system has centered on the need to re-imagine
PFE. Parents, guardians, and caretakers have had to collaborate with teachers and school leaders
to support the teaching practices beyond the school and traditional models of engagement
(Auerbach, 2010). The disruption to traditional school structures provides an opportunity to co-
construct equitable student and community-centered learning communities for all students.
Statistics highlight that the impact of COVID-19 had disproportionate consequences for
communities with higher rates of Black and Brown residents. They have experienced higher rates
9

of infection, hospitalization, and death, and as a result, students in these communities faced more
complex challenges from closures and distance learning (Bhamani et al., 2020). Moreover, data
gathered in August 2020 revealed that more Hispanic or Latino people (53%) and non-Hispanic
Black people (43%) reported that they had lost a job or taken a pay cut because of COVID-19
compared with non-Hispanic White people (38%). These findings have important implications
for the broader domain of PFE as school leaders and districts work to build new ways to engage
with families and sustain collaborative cultures while creating equitable learning communities
for all students.
The disruption to traditional compulsory schooling has sparked much deeper
conversations around the narrative of the achievement gap by exposing the systemic barriers
historically marginalized communities have faced well before the COVID-19 school closures.
These closures shed light on the stark differences in students’ lived experiences in relation to
quality of life, quality of instruction, and, most critically, impacting historically underserved
communities the most. Early projections claim K–12 students in the United States were on
average 5 months behind in math and four months behind in reading in the school year ending in
2021, further naming predominantly Black and Latino and low-SES children ending the 2021
school year approximately 6 months behind in math and 7 months behind in reading (Dorn et al.,
2021). Beyond the academic statistics, further data revealed the impact of poverty, food
insecurity, mental health, and the safety net services schools provide to mitigate the effects on
the lives of children. The inequities called for collective action to bolster district and school-
based efforts focused on ensuring the health and well-being of minority communities as they
provided low-SES families with extended meal services, technology access, and social-emotional
10

support to address the needs during distance learning and disproportionate COVID-19 impact
(Parolin & Lee, 2021).
Extending the analysis beyond program effectiveness, this study sought to understand
parental engagement, or lack thereof, and how culturally responsive strategies can amplify
collaboration between school leaders and diverse communities. School leader interviews and
parent focus group interviews were used to capture the insights and perspectives of principals
and assistant principals enacting behaviors, methods, and leadership towards culturally
responsive parental and community engagement. Additionally, this study sought to identify new
forms of engagement that emerged during the virtual/hybrid schooling and highlight strategies
that may be promising in building leadership teams’ capacity and raising awareness of practices
in the various communities within the district of study. The goal of identifying practices that
employ PFE in culturally relevant ways builds on the complex work of creating equitable
learning spaces for children in diverse communities.
Equally important, the study invited school leaders and school-based practitioners into
reflective practice about how traditional engagement practices, while well-intended, can
perpetuate, limit, and uphold deficit narratives of diverse families, particularly those serving
predominantly Black and Latinx students and families. With the goal of disrupting these
narratives of caregivers, and diverse families, the study explored new opportunities in the role of
school leaders as catalysts for deeper partnerships and engagement with parents, caretakers, and
families toward more culturally sustaining and bi-directional practices. This deeper dive can shift
the narrative and shape new mindsets and perceptions of school leaders and their role within the
equitable collaboration to cultivate bi-directional relationships with families and communities
(Khalifa et al., 2016; Milner & Lomotey, 2014).
11

Research Questions
The following questions guided this study and served as the foundation for capturing the
experiences of school leaders and parents/guardians:
1. How do elementary school leaders engage parents of diverse communities?
2. How do parents of diverse communities want to be engaged in their children’s
education?
3. How can school leaders sustain, re-imagine, and co-design future parent and family
engagement?
Significance of the Study
This study identified the lived experiences of school leaders and their impact on PFE.
Additionally, understanding parents’ and guardians’ needs provides valuable information to
better serve and bridge the school-to-home connection with families in diverse communities. By
analyzing parents’ perceptions and lived experiences, school leaders can continue developing
culturally responsive parental and community engagement beyond traditional school-based
engagement models. Increasing consciousness regarding school leaders and parents’ power
dynamics will inform dialogue to establish an understanding of the lived experiences of both
parents and school leaders to create a bi-directional relationship and foster more equitable
collaboration. Moreover, exploring how leaders re-engaged families post the COVID-19
pandemic highlighted the emerging strategies that can contribute to building future engagement
methods and fostering equitable forms of collaboration between schools and families.
Definition of Terms
Critical race theory: anchored in the idea that racism is normal or ordinary and not
aberrant in U.S. society and that race is not biological but social (Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995;
12

Lynn & Dixson, 2021). Critical race theory (CRT) is an academic and legal framework that
indicates that systemic racism is part of American society. The theory exposes systemic racism
in education, housing, employment, and healthcare and recognizes that racism is more than the
result of individual bias and prejudice. It is embedded in laws, policies, and institutions that
uphold and reproduce racial inequalities (Lynn & Dixon, 2021).
CRT, counter-storytelling: a tenet of CRT that describes the story from a different
vantage point to create the opportunity for individuals to consider alternatives to their world
views and perceived truths (Ladson-Billings, 2006; Lynn & Dixon, 2021).
Cultural capital theory: The accumulation of knowledge, behaviors, and skills that an
individual can exercise to demonstrate one’s cultural competence and social status, which can
vary by social constructs such as race, gender, nationality, religion, and the intersectionality of
such to reinforce social class differences (Bourdieu, 1986 as cited in Herrera et. al 2020).
Cultural wealth framework: Includes six types of cultural capital that educational leaders
and institutions can use to analyze and guide their interactions with students. Honoring other
forms of social and cultural capital that diverse communities possess from an assets perspective
(Yosso, 2005).
Culturally responsive parental and community engagement: parental involvement and
participation in their child’s educational experiences are not limited to academic activities within
the school community. Culturally responsive includes a consciousness for a socio-political
understanding of a student’s background and lived experiences outside of the school context
(Jeynes, 2007; Milner & Lomotey, 2014).
13

Engagement: In this study, the concept of engagement is defined as actions and activities
that are mutually beneficial to all stakeholders: parents, students, and school leaders (Fenton et
al., 2017)
Deficit narratives: socially circulated and reified stories in society that suppress relevant
details about a person or group with the impact of misrepresenting such a person or group.
Diverse communities: a community populated by people who are racially, culturally, an
economically, linguistically diverse in their lived experiences (Fraise & Brooks,2015).
Dual capacity framework: A systemic approach to create opportunities for a reciprocal
exchange of knowledge and experiences to build effective partnerships to support student
improvement and achievement (Mapp & Bergman, 2019).
Equitable collaboration: Partnership between all stakeholders (school/district leaders,
parents, teachers, students) where all members are co-constructing knowledge, strategies, and
efforts to meet students’ needs within the school community. In this study, the focus is on the
element of equitable collaboration between school leaders and parents/guardians, and school-
2level teams. There is a consciousness about creating bi-directional power dynamics and
knowledge creation and sharing to inform the next steps for action (EI, self-awareness, cultural
humility foundational pillars; Ishimaru, 2014)
School-based parental and family engagement (PFE): activities in school and extension
activities at home to support student learning growth and development.
School leaders: Elementary school principals/assistant principals and may include
individuals temporarily assigned to school leadership (acting principal/acting assistant
principal/supervisor assigned to school setting).
14

Title I: Title I, Part A (Title I) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as
amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESEA) provides financial assistance to local
educational agencies and schools with high numbers or high percentages of children from low-
income families to help ensure that all children meet challenging state academic standards.
Federal funds are currently allocated through four statutory formulas that are based primarily on
census poverty estimates and the cost of education in each state (NCES, 2020).
Transformative research paradigm: a framework for researchers who prioritize social
justice and the furtherance of human rights—emphasizing the co-construction of new knowledge
to address the power imbalances and ensure equitable voice and agency of all stakeholders and
participants. Critically conscious of socio-political capital and leveraging equitable collaboration
to address social/racial justice problems in real-world contexts (Mertens, 2009).
Organization of the Study
Chapter One included an overview of the historical and present status of the critical need
for culturally responsive parental and community engagement to navigate the return to in-person
learning post the COVID-19 health crisis, the purpose of the study, and the research questions
guiding the study. Chapter Two highlights literature on parental and community engagement and
how it supports students and impacts academic achievement and whole-school reform.
Furthermore, the literature identifies culturally responsive practices and the impact on PFE in
diverse communities. Additionally, the literature examines the importance of school leadership
as a catalyst for engaging families, employing equitable strategies to create bi-directional
relationships, and building leaders’ school-level capacity to reconnect with families post the
COVID-19 health crisis. Chapter Three outlines the methods implemented for this research study
and details the selected sample and population, interview instruments, and tools used in the data
15

collection. Chapter Four includes a report of the findings aligned to the research questions
guiding this study. Chapter Five concludes with findings and recommendations for practice and
further research, next steps for capacity building at the school district, and opportunities for
community and leadership co-designing and constructing future forms of engagement post-
COVID-19.

16

Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
This literature review develops an understanding of the following elements and concepts
foundational to the exploration of how urban elementary school leaders can serve as catalysts for
culturally responsive engagement of parents and their communities: (a) historical foundations of
parent involvement in urban schools; (b) forms of school-based engagement (traditional forms of
engagement, emerging forms of engagement); (c) the role of school leaders (critical reflection-
unlearning to learn, culturally competent leadership, cultural humility, effective communication
and coherence-dialogical practice, capacity building); (d) re-imagining forms of engagement and
parental engagement post-COVID-19; (e) transformative paradigm, CRT, and counter-
storytelling as an equity lens; cultural wealth framework, and (f) equitable collaboration
framework. Focusing on the dynamics among school leaders, parents, and families, the
conceptual framework highlights the role of school leaders as catalysts for culturally responsive
re-engagement as they navigate and lead through the dynamics of in-person learning after the
COVID-19 school closures.
This study draws on research and highlights emerging forms of engagement to explore
the strategies and practices that can be shared and implemented by urban elementary school
leaders to re-engage families in culturally responsive ways within their school communities.
Additionally, the study sought to spotlight emerging characteristics and practices that center
culturally responsive practices and transformative forms of engagement that cultivate equitable
collaboration within diverse communities, activating agency and engagement with non-dominant
families to build more equitable learning spaces for all students.
17

Foundations of Parent and Family Engagement in American Schools
Parents as Foundational Partners in Formal Schooling
Historical accounts of PFE in the U.S. public school system highlight parents’ role as
foundational pillars of a child’s educational trajectory. Founded on Puritan beliefs and ways of
living, parents developed early literacy skills in their children through religious teachings
(Milner & Lomotey, 2014). The concept of PFE evolved throughout the 19th and 20th centuries
as parent responsibilities have shaped systemic decisions about forms of engagement and
participation (Dintersmith, 2018; Tyack, 1974).
The system of schooling transitioned from village, one-room school models that served
large groups of children to compulsory schooling, which delineated groups of children by age
and years of education. Schools aligned with farming labor demands, which called on
predominantly male figures in the home to provide literacy instruction to children in the
household. During farming season, mothers taught children in the home while fathers prioritized
farming demands (Jeynes, 2005, 2007). Compulsory schooling anchored the theory of social
mobility viewing education as an equalizer in society. Furthermore, formal schooling was
founded on principles that placed great emphasis on the mass production of social order and
norms in the process of providing moral education (Milner & Lomotey, 2014)
As technology evolved and the industrial revolution expanded the need for schooling
outside of the home due to growing labor needs that took parents outside of the home, the need
to formalize schools and standardize the process of education by employing a factory model of
education increased. Professionalizing the role of teachers served as a dividing line between the
role of parents and the role of teachers in the context of formal schooling, hence grounding the
development of a working middle class (Dintersmith, 2018; Jeynes, 2005)
18

Long before the establishment of parent-teacher associations (PTAs) and partnerships
with school leaders and teachers to educate children, parents served as foundational teachers in
their children’s learning trajectory. The founding fathers of compulsory public schooling, Horace
Mann and John Dewey, specifically advocated that formal schooling could amplify moral
education and advocated for an extension of home-based teachings (Jeynes, 2005) as cited in
Milner & Lomotey, 2014, p. 150). Contradictory to these principles was the goal to deculturize
students and establish an institution of assimilation anchored in Eurocentric principles, values,
and beliefs to ensure social order (Anderson, 1998; Milner & Lomotey, 2014)
Transitioning to more recent discussions around PFE, school officials align in the belief
that parents are an integral part of the work towards whole-school reform and a critical element
in the pursuit of equity and justice in education (Auerbach, 2010; Epstein, 2005 Fenton et al.,
2017; Ishimaru, 2014; Mapp & Bergman, 2019). Research affirms that PFE has positive effects
on student achievement (Epstein, 2005 Hoover-Dempsey & Whitaker, 2013; Jeynes, 2005,
2007).
A commitment to equity and excellence for students in historically marginalized
communities calls for an interrogation of how current practices perpetuate dominant discourses
about diverse families that are deep-seated in the macro-level socio-political fabric of our
systems (Hochschild, 2003; Yosso, 2005). Present-day policies regarding the inclusion of
families in their children’s education have required school systems to center PFE since 2001 in
compliance with the NCLB. Further amplification of this mandate came through the ESSA of
2015. In accordance with ESSA’s Title I mandates, school leaders are accountable for soliciting
feedback and participation in decision making and school-level needs assessments, inclusive of
parent input and participation at local levels. District-level and school-level leadership teams
19

have developed strategies to engage families in diverse communities to address the achievement
gap as measured by standardized assessments (Ladson-Billings, 2006). The effectiveness of the
policy mandates is measured using parent and family attendance and participation records, which
can exclude and erase other ways parents and families in diverse communities are involved and
engaged in their children’s education (Moorman Kim et al., 2012). Furthermore, the policy
mandates alone will not suffice to create inclusive and culturally responsive learning
environments for students and families in diverse communities. Understanding parents’ beliefs
about PFE and how they want to be engaged in their children’s education can lead to more
culturally responsive partnerships to enhance the educational experience for students (Hoover et
al., 2013).
Given the recent closure of schools due to the global COVID-19 pandemic, parents have
had to assume greater responsibility for the teaching and learning of their children. To ensure the
safety of all, school closures and virtual schooling gave parents and guardians a view into the
instructional and non-instructional demands of traditional schooling models. Parents’ work-from-
home status amplified the variance in support services they could provide directly linked to
instruction to ensure that their children were not left behind. Families managed the dynamics of
virtual schooling at home, supporting both the psychological and structural aspects of education
(Walker et al., 2005). Examining families’ barriers, challenges, and successes in diverse
communities was essential to tailor the services beyond the instructional programming.
Promising benefits stemmed from the conceptualization of PFE as a mutual agreement between
schools and families within a broader community (Posey-Maddox & Haley-Lock, 2020).
Furthermore, contextualizing the learning in the community and the home via virtual
schooling allowed school leaders, teachers, and families to foster relationships beyond the
20

traditional forms of engagement (Iyengar, 2020). Despite the challenges due to social distance
and school closures, teachers and school leaders had to exercise a higher level of emotional
intelligence and collaboration with students, parents, and all stakeholders to navigate the abrupt
transitions to virtual schooling (Constantia et al., 2021). School leaders, teachers, and families
were experiencing more organic and horizontal forms of engagement as a result of the disruption
to traditional schools, which created the prime conditions for vulnerable collaboration and full
transparency and empathy between school leaders, teachers, and families (Pattison et al., 2021)
Traditional Forms of Parent Engagement
Parental and community engagement in schools has traditionally centered around inviting
parents and guardians into school spaces by participating in traditional PTAs, quarterly parent-
teacher conferences, and extracurricular opportunities for engagement (i.e., bake sales,
fundraisers, sports, and assemblies; Warren & Mapp, 2011). The primary agenda of school
leaders and school teams was to inform and engage in ways that celebrated and/or trained and
educated families about strategies for supporting students or as a showcase opportunity for
families to foster their child’s experience in school.
Some might argue that school-based forms of engagement cultivate opportunities for
families to engage with teachers and school leaders where the learning occurs (Epstein, 2006;
Jeynes, 2012). While this can be true, research affirms that schools’ traditional forms of
engagement place parents and guardians as passive recipients of information rather than agents
of the engagement experience (Auerbach, 2010). This disempowerment is especially evident in
non-dominant families (Baqueando-Lopez, 2013; Ishimaru et al., 2018; Herrera et al., 2020).
Often, these experiences are designed to train and foster compliance behaviors to implement and
communicate school and systemic agendas. This places the school system in the position of all-
21

knowing, where a traditional hierarchical power dynamic rather than one of bi-directional
partnership occurs. Examples of these experiences are PTA meetings, curriculum focus nights,
and fundraising initiatives that reify dominant ideology and norms of parent and family
participation (Baqueando-Lopez, 2013; Ishimaru et al., 2018).
Systemic Barriers Impacting Historically Excluded Families
Interrogating the myths rooted in disproportionate perspectives of PFE is pivotal in
dismantling assumptions and biases about non-dominant families. Building toward collective
agency in partnership with families requires a shift in the narrative to center the authentic and
diverse stories and histories of diverse communities (Warren & Mapp, 2011). Furthering this
concept, Lawrence-Lightfoot (2004) exposed the discourse of researchers defining upper-and
middle-class parents as generous contributors to schools and low-income/minority parents as
deficient and disengaged in their child’s education. Consistent with this ideology, traditional
forms of engagement perpetuate narratives of diverse families that do not fit within the
normative frameworks used to measure and evaluate PFE (Auerbach, 2010; Herrerra et al., 2021;
Ishimaru, 2012).
While school-centric strategies via the PTA, school leadership council (SLC), and
school-based committees can enhance public relations between school leaders, teachers and
parents, additional consideration must be given to the complexities associated with public school
marketization and the underlying motives for engagement which are driven by positioning
parents as consumers of public education (Luet, 2017). Individual schools’ strategies for
engagement are informed by the realities and the perceived constraints of a smaller context
within a district which often are driven by hierarchical dynamics internal to the overarching
district priorities rather than community-based needs. That most engagement is initiated by the
22

institutions rather than parents and families speaks to the innate hierarchical dynamic of the
relationship between school leaders, parents, and families. Given the historical exclusion of
racially, linguistically, and socioeconomically diverse families, school-centered initiatives pose
complex challenges for families for a variety of reasons (Barajas-Lopez & Ishimaru, 2020).
Understanding the landscape and lived experiences of families in a school community to
co-design and tailor engagement opportunities helps to address the power-laden realities of non-
dominant families (Goss, 2019; Ishimaru & Bang, 2022). After a qualitative analysis of the
shared experiences of 17 mothers in a Title 1 school, researchers identified that work-family
balance demands pose challenges for families that limit the participation of parents when school-
centric opportunities are the primary space to demonstrate engagement and support of their
children’s academic and non-academic journey in our public schools (Posey-Maddox & Haley-
Lock, 2020). Moreover, in Latinx and African American families, the expectations within the
model for families to provide supplemental resources create perceived deficiencies in
engagement because families are unable to contribute time and money to school-based
initiatives; hence, they are perceived as disengaged. Limited consideration is given to the root
causes of the disengagement, whereas critically reflecting on the Black and Brown experience
with school data reveals that racially, linguistically, and socioeconomically diverse families
contribute to their children’s education in ways that are not captured by conventional models and
strategies (Luet, 2017).
Transformative Forms of Engagement for Diverse Communities
The evolution of parental and community engagement in the last 2 decades has called for
school leaders to engage families in ways that foster building relationships and serve as a bridge
between schools and their communities. Equally important, transformative forms of engagement
23

focalize the structures and boundaries of conventional forms of PFE and intentionally seek to
shift power to non-dominant parents and families in co-designing engagement that is equally
beneficial for all stakeholders (Ishimaru & Takahashi, 2017). Critically examining the PFE
phenomena and its impact on academic achievement, Jeynes (2005) examined 41studies to better
understand the impact of parent involvement in academic achievement. The study highlighted
positive relationships but also confirmed variance in the characteristics defined as parent
involvement was identified as studies included different characteristics and behaviors as
engagement. For example, some studies identified parent volunteer efforts, participation in
school governance committees, and attendance at school open house events as participation;
others discussed ways parents support their children with homework and attending parent/teacher
conferences as participation (Jeynes, 2005, 2007).
Additional analysis of PFE dynamics in recent years places a greater emphasis on power
imbalances caused by social, racial, and cultural contexts and the politics associated with diverse
communities. There is an increased need for culturally relevant and responsive engagement as
schools work to re-engage families during and following a global health crisis and as there is a
reckoning with unjust political, justice, and education systems. Acknowledging the ways parents
and families support students, rather than highlighting ways they do not, begins to shift the
discourse towards broader, more inclusive definitions of effective PFE (Baqueando-Lopez, 2013;
Henderson & Mapp, 2007; Serpell & Mashburn, 2011).
Furthering this conceptualization of PFE, Epstein’s (1995) model of PFE served as
foundational research for the concept of school and family partnerships. Encouraging the
expansion of the conceptualization of behaviors beyond Eurocentric ideology and norms of
engagement, this model affirms that schools must center the needs of the whole child and whole
24

family to provide high-quality and equitable education. Examining Black and Latino families’
actions for engagement, Bower and Griffin (2011) identified that Epstein’s model of engagement
did not capture ways that diverse families contribute to their child’s education because it did not
acknowledge critical and culturally relevant behaviors, such as African American parents
building self-advocacy and independent skills in their children along with independence and
community collaboration as reflected within their church communities. These are critical skills
not acknowledged by the normative model of PFE. Epstein’s model of parent engagement names
the six forms of PFE in schools: establishing a home environment to support student learning at
home, communicating with teachers to support student learning, volunteering, supporting
learning at home (i.e., homework support and extracurricular support), supporting learning in the
community, and decision making (Epstein, 2010). While Epstein’s model promotes bi-
directional engagement, it does so through the PTA and school-based committees, reinforcing
traditional forms of engagement and possibly limiting opportunities for partnership and
engagement (Herrera et al., 2020)
Extending this work, Mapp and Bergman’s (2019) development of the dual capacity
framework centers the bi-directional dynamics necessary for school leaders at all levels to
implement a systemic approach to cultivate the quality of partnerships that support students.
Designed with students and families at the core, the dual capacity framework directly links
parent engagement efforts to student achievement and student performance (Herrera et al., 2020).
The dual capacity framework was affirmed by three case studies within the larger-scale project,
which highlighted the use of parent academies, home visits, and the development of community-
based resource centers. The U.S. Department of Education adopted the framework to support
school districts in their efforts to engage families as mandated by the ESSA. Home visits were
25

implemented in partnership with 18 schools in Washington, DC, to connect with families and
build deeper connections, resulting in positive outcomes towards addressing student truancy.
Additionally, in the larger-scale projects, the development of parent academies established bi-
directional learning opportunities for school communities and parent participants following the
dual capacity model. This effort also created the necessary conditions for deeper forms of
engagement linked to student achievement. Lastly, the community-based resource centers
activated agency in the community and centered parents and community stakeholders as agents
of change in creating resource centers that provided parents, caretakers, and families with
holistic services and supports to address wrap-around needs beyond the school-based settings.
The goal of this systemic approach was to ensure that district-wide initiatives engaged
families in meaningful ways toward whole-school reform in urban school districts. This included
emphasizing a holistic approach to identify and address extended factors impacting student
achievement and closing those gaps for students identified as low performing. In doing so, the
model was designed to foster agency in parents and build their capacity to advocate and support
students academically, shifting the mindsets of districts and their perceptions of the value of PFE
(Mapp & Bergman, 2019).
An evolving body of research highlights the role of school leaders and parents as critical
agents of change in whole-school reform, specifically in historically marginalized communities
where school leaders are creating opportunities for bi-directional relationships and exchanges
with parents and families to amplify local school-based initiatives (Herrerra et al., 2020;
Ishimaru, 2020; Khalifa et al., 2016). Furthermore, collective agency ensures that student and
parent voice and choice are heard and centered in advocacy and decision-making processes
beyond policy mandates and compliance directives. The power dynamics and rules of
26

engagement are consciously shifted to de-center the school leaders and the institution as the
drivers of engagement strategies (Ishimaru, 2019). As noted in the work of Ishimaru, “placing
families in the driver’s seat” creates opportunities for school leaders and families to leverage
each other’s strengths and assets to co-design and identify priorities as a collective. It is
important to recognize that the communities served have unique and authentic histories and,
therefore, their ways of viewing the world may or may not fit into the dominant ideologies
upheld in school-centric spaces (Ishimaru, 2014, 2016, 2019; Khalifa, 2018). These studies shed
new light on the need to examine cultural responsiveness and acknowledge and name the
structures and processes employed to engage parents and families in diverse communities to
drive action towards justice and equity in education (Housel, 2021).
Extending the concept of culturally responsive engagement to center the whole child and
the family’s needs when planning engagement opportunities cultivates and builds strong
relationships to sustain meaningful partnerships that improve student outcomes. Considering
scheduling practices and how structural and systemic planning impacts parent engagement aids
in shifting perspectives and mindsets regarding marginalized communities (Barajas-Lopez &
Ishimaru, 2020). The findings of a study on collective parent engagement highlighted the
positive impact of home visits to increase engagement and de-center school spaces as the central
location for PFE (Alameda-Lawson, 2014).
Additional research on a holistic approach to family engagement focuses on the benefits
of implementing systemic programs to meet the needs of students and families beyond the school
walls that broaden services (Fenton et al., 2017; Warren & Mapp, 2011). Designing
empowerment, agency, and leadership development programs by partnering with community-
based organizations can catalyze authentic culturally responsive engagement with school-based
27

efforts to support the whole child and family (Abdul-Adil & Farmer, 2006). Additionally, efforts
to engage with families in community-based contexts shift the power dynamics in school-based
contexts. Developing the capacity of school leaders, teachers, and parents to bridge their social
and cultural capital in service to the children in the community is an unstoppable force in whole-
school reform (Warren & Mapp, 2011)
Further along with this ideology, honoring diverse families’ social and cultural capital
highlights the importance of designing culturally responsive and affirming opportunities for
engagement to inform future forms of engagement. Further interrogation of the practices and
strategies used to engage families in diverse communities serves as an opportunity to dismantle
negative perceptions of non-dominant families (Barajas-Lopez & Ishimaru, 2020). A clear
example of this is in data from a yearlong study on immigrant families, exposing the need for
leaders and teachers to approach engagement in culturally responsive forms by capturing the
perceptions, lived experiences, and aspirations of students and families in new ways. The co-
construction of Photovoice galleries included six parents who shared their lived experiences and
aspirations for their children with teachers and school leaders. The collaborative process engaged
diverse families while establishing relational trust and cultivating agency in their communities.
The method of data collection considered the linguistic wealth of their students and community
and used the photo galleries as an opportunity to de-center normative models of engagement.
This included engaging in authentic forms to gain a true perspective of immigrant families and
honoring the value of social and cultural capital wealth in diverse communities (Gabriel et al.,
2017; Yosso, 2005).

28

The Role of School Leaders in Parental and Family Engagement
School Leadership Through an Equity Lens
Examining the role of school leaders in parent engagement centers the leadership
behaviors, beliefs, and capacity to multiply the efforts of a school’s teachers and staff members.
Equity-centered leaders must be reflective about whom they serve and practice a continuous
cycle of needs assessments to familiarize, build relationships and identify with students, teachers,
and community needs (Terrell et al., 2018). Furthermore, focalizing school leader practices and
strategies that cultivate and establish collaborative internal and external engagement in the
pursuit of equity and excellence for all children focalizes the transformative impact leaders have
on their schools and community. Moreover, leaders’ understanding of the external community
will enhance their role in collective action and agency. Better comprehending the macro issues,
strengths, and growth opportunities in the communities they serve can multiply their strategy
toward building equitable forms of engagement with parents and families within the community
(Leithwood et al., 2008).
The obstacles leaders face in urban schools are interconnected with the macro-level
issues in society and urban communities. School leaders must grapple with systemic racism,
poverty, organizational and structural barriers, limited resources, and a growing demand for
high-quality teachers and social-emotional support services (Ishimaru, 2013; Darling-Hammond,
2019). Leadership is complex, and its fluidity is, in itself, the greatest challenge. Embracing its
complexity is about understanding the interconnectedness of the broader system and amplifying
efforts to meet the needs of all students in the community collectively. School leaders who
exercise continuous learning motivate their teams to improve and grow and broaden their lenses
via shared leadership (Leithwood et al., 2019).
29

Intentionally decentralizing oneself as a leader to mobilize, empower, motivate and
exercise shared leadership is imperative in the quest to support diverse students and
communities. Moreover, one of the most significant contributions of a school leader to benefit
students is to hire high-quality teachers and develop teachers’ capacity in an ever-changing
climate (Branch et al., 2013). A collective approach also increases shared accountability for the
organizational response to student and community needs. Rather than sole compliance with
policies and the implementation of such, school leaders’ beliefs, actions, and communication
foster and cultivate internal and external accountability (Elmore, 2005).
Whether in virtual, in-person, or hybrid models, the role of leaders is to collaborate with
their teams to provide clarity, focus, and direction to construct the new in the trajectory of public
education. In this new environment, leaders need to model what they expect from teachers;
hence, it is important that leaders first seek to understand the needs of diverse families not
through their personal lens but with the collaboration of parents, families, and communities at
large (Fullan, 2007; Fullan & Quinn 2016; Westover, 2020).
Substantial scholarship acknowledges that school leaders alone cannot meet the needs of
the internal and external community (Spencer, 2009). The equity-focused leader embraces the
fluidity and complexity of engaging all stakeholders to catalyze systemic change. The leader
focuses on educator practice, supports staff contributions, alignment, coherence, and clear
communication of co-constructed vision and mission of PFE (Mapp & Warren, 2011; Spencer,
2009). Furthering this concept, Buchanan and Buchanan (2016) highlighted the importance of
viewing diverse families as essential participants in increasing accountability and closing the
achievement gap. Centering six strategies for leaders to develop within their teams to build their
capacity in their service to educating children, they should focus on knowledge of child and
30

family, teachers taking the lead, shared commitments to the child’s well-being, strengths-based
perspectives, building trust, and reciprocal communication. School leaders, in turn, are guiding
the work of establishing collaborative cultures with a shared understanding of needs and how
each party can contribute to supporting diverse students (Buchannan & Buchannan, 2016).
Amplifying this point, research centering the voices of leaders as agents of change in
schools feeds the knowledge and capacity-building strategies to design and build more equitable
and culturally responsive engagement. The practice of critically reflecting on the cultural
relevance and connections to students, particularly to continue to make the learning relevant to
their daily lives to bolster motivation and engagement, leaders must incorporate this level of
dialogue and discussion into professional learning communities. Research highlights this need to
broaden the lens and filters for cultural relevance and build strong connections with students and
families to incorporate understanding into PFE (Coburn et al., 2009; Colton et al., 2016;
Kennedy, 2019).
Amidst schools’ fluid state, leaders manage crises while collaborating with all
stakeholders to stabilize the school environments enough to sustain and design quality learning
opportunities for students. While student academic growth is important in the arena of PFE, at
this time, studies suggest the focal point for leaders is to ensure student health and well-being
alongside meeting the compounding challenges caused by the COVID-19 crisis and the hesitancy
felt by parents in the re-opening of schools (Pattison et al., 2021).
More critically, studies show student social-emotional well-being as an immediate
concern for children’s future. Allocating federal funds to programs and services that provide
holistic services to students and families will fortify academic and nonacademic objectives set by
school officials (Pattison et al., 2021). New expectations have been established regarding schools
31

as a safety net to address poverty, food insecurity, and mental health needs of students and
families, via the implementation of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act
(CARES). School leaders are also catalytic in re-establishing engagement with families as the in-
person schooling experience continues to evolve. Centering the needs of diverse families and
building stronger relationships with parents and families is a core competency of leadership
responsibilities and capacity-building initiatives. Exercising and developing the characteristics
outlined in the following section, school leaders are models and lead learners for their teachers
and staff (Fullan & Quinn, 2016; Khalifa et al., 2016; Westover, 2020). Furthermore, school
leaders have the moral responsibility to serve as advocates for their school community.
Particularly, they must work to communicate the vision and mission of the school and, most
critically, activate collective agency and shared responsibility for cultivating safe, high-quality,
culturally sustaining, and humanizing learning environments for all students (Khalifa, 2020).
Critical Characteristics of Culturally Responsive Leadership to Foster Parent and Family
Engagement
Leadership is a living and breathing role that develops in the presence of challenge,
complexity, innovation, and dynamic engagement with others (Northouse, 2018). Culturally
responsive leaders embody and practice cultural humility and cultural competence in their ways
of engaging with teachers, students, families, and all stakeholders in their daily interactions
(Khalifa, 2020). Furthermore, having a deep understanding of one’s identity and how it informs
one’s worldview and interpersonal relationships shapes leadership practices and the capacity to
lead in diverse communities. Moreover, studies show the critical need for culturally responsive
practices that honor the lived experiences of historically marginalized communities and, in doing
so, develop the capacity of the organization’s members to co-construct their understanding and
32

practice of cultural competence alongside the communities they serve (Fraise & Brooks, 2015;
Ishimaru & Bang, 2022; Khalifa, 2020; Gaetane et al., 2009). Key competencies for leaders
include self-awareness, emotional intelligence, intercultural communication, and competence.
These, along with cultural humility, ignite agency internally and externally in the community.
Cultivating a sense of purpose and belonging is a foundation for meeting students’ needs
(Khalifa et al., 2016; Tervalon & Murray-Garcia, 1998).
Culture is a living, fluid phenomenon that requires continuous examination and
adaptation. In the context of schools, community leaders must embody culturally sustainable
behaviors and practices. In other words, leaders who model shifting power imbalances to
broaden their lenses create opportunities for a plurality of ontological and epistemological
perspectives (Ishimaru & Bang, 2018; Khalifa et al., 2016). All students and their families,
regardless of race, bring a unique and authentic perspective of culture and lived experience;
therefore, leaders need to facilitate intercultural dialogue and exchanges that foster
communication and relationships within the internal and external school community (Fraise &
Brooks, 2015; Khalifa, 2014).
The work of school leadership requires that leaders serve as the architects and builders of
a new social order to ensure that historically excluded communities have access to the same
opportunities as historically advantaged communities. Neutral stances toward this principle of
equity and excellence for all perpetuate harm in racially diverse communities (Barajas-Lopez &
Ishimaru, 2020; Herrera et al., 2020; Khalifa, 2020). Culturally responsive school leaders
catalyze the co-construction of equitable PFE by acknowledging and amplifying the lived
experience of diverse members of the organization and community via authentic dialogical
practice (Gaetane et al.,2009). Elevating the efforts into academic spheres, leaders must contest
33

deficit narratives about how diverse families support their children academically to truly impact
their communities and activate agency and leadership beyond school walls. Doing so requires
cultural humility, effective communication, coherence-dialogical practice, and capacity building.
Cultural Humility
Understanding the power of lifelong learning as a school leader can intersect with the
concept of cultural humility in the sense that a leader understands they have much to learn from
the diversity and lived experiences of the communities they are privileged to serve (Westover,
2020). A continuous cycle of critical reflection and a commitment to continuous improvement
cultivates humility. Decentering oneself as the “all-knowing” to embrace the cultural assets
students and families bring into school spaces is paramount to cultivating rich learning
environments (Moll et al., 2005; Yosso, 2005). Anchoring into reflective practice as an ongoing
process alongside parents and families will strengthen relationships that sustain school culture in
diverse communities (Fraise & Brooks, 2015; Hockett et al., 2014; Tervalon & Murray-Garcia,
1998). Culturally responsive forms of engagement challenge normative ideologies of
participation, involvement, and engagement and invite leaders to reflect upon strategies that may
limit families’ capacity to contribute to the school community based on systemic designs and
strategies.
Effective Communication and Coherence-Dialogical Practice
Communication as a pillar of all equitable collaboration guides the process of co-
constructing knowledge to dismantle deficit perspectives and narratives of diverse communities.
Understanding parents' perspectives helps shift power and cultivates opportunities for horizontal
and vertical collaboration. Dialogical practice is not synonymous with communication as it
underscores the dynamic of embracing differences of opinion and thought to cultivate
34

opportunities seeking to understand the perspectives of parents and families and build a
reciprocal relationship that informs practice and dispels dominance (Freire et al., 2000; Fullan &
Quinn, 2016).
As school leaders continue to navigate and mitigate the impact and restoration post-
COVID-19, they must not minimize the ongoing racial and socio-political injustices. It is critical
for school leaders to serve as models to create safe and culturally inclusive learning
environments for all students. A central element of this process is building strong relationships
with parents and families by designing more opportunities for school leaders and families to
engage in meaningful dialogue about their experiences and building collective agency in
designing better ways to serve children and families. Dialogical practice is not intended for
domination, censuring and/or restricting other human beings’ lived and embodied experiences;
rather, it is designed to develop the capacity to view problems and challenges from varying
ontological perspectives to transform and redefine collective action (Freire et al., 2000).
Capacity Building
Leadership influences the capacity-building process for transformative forms of parental
and community engagement. School leaders that center the social and cultural capital in the
professional development of their teams spotlight the need for coherence and collaboration in
building equitable and culturally responsive engagements with parents and families as a means to
cultivate inclusive bi-directional relationships (Barajas-Lopez & Ishimaru, 2020; Khalifa et al.,
2016; Khalifa 2018). Measuring effectiveness in the PFE phenomena calls for an integrated
analysis of school-based strategies along with home-based strategies of PFE.
Furthermore, PFE is authentic to every family and reflects normative expectations within
each household and school community. Cultural and family beliefs about their roles in their
35

child’s education play an important role in parents’ perceptions of school-based invitations for
engagement and participation (Hoover-Dempsey & Whitaker, 2013). Understanding that family
dynamics, structures, and forms of engagement vary based on the school’s design strategies and
the participating parents/guardians lived experiences builds the capacity of school leaders and
teams to engage parents and families more effectively. Traditional ways of measuring family
engagement may not account for or value the ways non-dominant families contribute to their
child’s schooling experience. Therefore, leaders must invest time and resources in building the
capacity of their teams to honor and reflect their local students and families’ cultural wealth
stemming from a strengths-based perspective (Khalifa, 2018; Jackson & Feuerstein, 2011)
Capacity-building efforts focused on strategies to build cross-cultural relationships have
proven to increase student and family confidence in public schools. More importantly, it has the
potential to increase student achievement for all students. Foundational to this endeavor are the
elements of continuous dialogue, cultural humility, and compassion between leaders, teachers,
students, and families to establish and sustain engagement from all stakeholders (Willis, 2021).
School leaders must embed culturally responsive pedagogy in their professional development to
model and multiply its understanding and impact on students. More importantly, school leaders
must commit to including community members who can add cultural and communal knowledge
to the professional learning experience for teachers and all school community members (Khalifa,
2018 pp. 160–161). To prepare students for an increasingly global society, school leaders and
teachers must embrace that culturally responsive practices are ongoing and fluid with no final
destination, and they must challenge normalized cultural norms to refrain from reifying deficit
perspectives and othering in the context of PFE (Ladson-Billings, 2021; Willis, 2021).
36

To foster collaborative culturally responsive cultures where highly qualified teachers can
thrive and cultivate positive, rigorous, and productive learning experiences for kids, leaders must
serve as lead learners and model the work of continuous growth (Westover, 2020, p. 25). There
needs to be a bi-directional relationship between the leadership teams and teachers to establish
ongoing improvement cycles. Districts and principals need to invest in teachers by creating and
offering high-quality, engaging, and relevant professional development aligned with the schools’
priorities and seek student, parent, and teacher input in unorthodox ways to crystallize the needs
of the internal and external community (Fullan & Quinn, 2016).
Re-imagining Forms of Engagement and Parental Involvement Post-COVID-19 Virtual
Learning
The abrupt school closures and transition to remote learning posed significant changes in
how parents, guardians, and caregivers collaborated with children in the process of schooling and
families during the pandemic. Despite the challenges faced by all stakeholders, school leaders
and their teams have identified some promise in the lessons learned since March 2020. Centering
the needs of the most vulnerable populations, school leaders and districts allocate resources and
funds to mitigate the impact of the pandemic on historically underserved communities (Dynarski,
2020).
Virtual schooling blurred racial and socioeconomic lines, and the need for parental and
family support stretched far beyond the traditional school-based forms of engagement.
Educational leaders, teachers, parents, and families transitioned to virtual learning and relied on
one another to provide instructional and non-instructional support and services to students in the
home contexts external to school buildings. During school closures, districts across the globe
provided students with immediate access to technological tools for online learning, closing the
37

digital divide by ensuring that all students had immediate access to computers, tablets, hotspots,
and Wi-Fi access (Edweek, 2020; Novianti & Garzia, 2020). Crisis management was grounds to
cultivate vulnerable collaboration and de-center the inherent power dynamics among school
leaders, teachers, students, and families. Embracing fail-forward approaches, school leaders
supported teachers in navigating the transition to virtual learning and worked to stabilize the
learning environment for students and parents who were also navigating the situation to support
their children with virtual learning while balancing their work responsibilities (Schechter et al.,
2022). The intensity and disruption propelled school leaders, parents, teachers, and students into
deeper relationships as a portal to more equitable forms of engagement.
Parents’ Lessons and Aspirations for Future Engagement
A national survey conducted by Edge Research consisting of a sample of 3,655 parents
and guardians with children in public school, grades K–12, highlighted the voices of 1,633
elementary school parents, 889 middle school parents, and 1,123 high school parents and
focalized the lived experiences among African Americans and Hispanics parents and guardians,
in both elementary and high schools. The survey spotlighted the perceptions of parents and
guardians, noting that 67% of parents wanted to be more involved in their child’s education
while 70% were aware of the instructional demands placed on their children as a result of the
virtual schooling experience.
Another promising statistic revealed in this research was the demographic similarities in
elementary school parents’ aspirations for their children; 63% of African American parents, 61%
of Latinx parents, and 61% of White parents answered that they had higher academic aspirations
for their children’s academic futures (Edge Research, 2020). This mirroring of demographic
38

similarities dispels the apathy myth of non-dominant parents in school communities serving
diverse students from historically marginalized and oppressed communities (Auerbach, 2010).
The disruption to school and traditional forms of parent engagement exposed inequities in
access to resources, and parents expressed mixed feelings about supporting their children in
virtual learning environments. The variance in parents’ self-perceptions of their ability to support
their children aligned with socioeconomic factors and disproportionate experiences with
technology and lived experiences with work and family balance. Extended collaborative efforts
between parents, school leaders, and teachers resulted in immediate partnerships to navigate the
new normal of virtual schooling (Ogurlu et al., 2020).
Extending the learning beyond the school redefines teaching and learning, leveraging the
spaces within communities that create opportunities for school leaders, teachers, and families to
collaborate in their efforts to educate children and mitigate the impact of the perceived learning
loss. Current research exposed that the abrupt transition to virtual learning had negative effects
on student learning as measured by standardized and benchmark assessments (Pitts et al., 2022).
However, the learning and growth of community-based spaces, which offered students the
opportunity to engage socially, broadened the lens for future possibilities in PFE. Equally
important, the extension of services provided beyond brick-and-mortar schools affirmed the
power of culturally responsive collaboration and engagement necessary to support children and
communities.
Moreover, a critical component of PFE exposed during virtual schooling was the
importance of work and family balance. The merging of schooling and work responsibilities
stretched parents and caretakers, making communication between schools and parents ever more
important to support children academically. As noted in a study conducted in Northern Ireland
39

(Skinner et al., 2021), parents’ survey responses shed light on their hopes that their employers
consider flexible scheduling for at least one parent or caretaker to support the academic
trajectories of their children. Recognizing the academic demands on their children, parents
acknowledged that a more comprehensive and collective approach to educating children would
help mitigate the impact of the COVID disruption and have positive effects overall.
School Leaders and Educator Lessons and Aspirations for Future Forms of Engagement
Digitized instructional resources, pre-recorded supplemental lessons, and on-call teacher
support lines were used to facilitate teaching and learning during virtual schooling (Daniel, 2020;
Novianti & Garzia, 2020). Virtual platforms facilitated engagement and communication between
parents, school leaders, and teachers, broadening the landscape for future possibilities to infuse
technology into PFE. New forms of engagement that cultivate authentic opportunities for diverse
families to engage in bi-directional relationships with school leaders and educators are
foundational to creating equitable learning spaces for all children and diverse families (Iyengar,
2020). Collaborating with families between and within overlapping spheres of influence creates
opportunities to extend the learning experiences bi-directionally between a student’s home,
community, and the classroom. Leveraging students’ cultural knowledge and lived experiences
to increase engagement and achievement activates agency, self-efficacy, and overall sense of
belonging for students in diverse communities (Epstein, 2001; Gay, 2013; Warren & Mapp,
2011; Moll et al., 2005)
Stretching the boundaries of schools into the community by closing the digital divide has
developed technical skills and capabilities that will improve the lives of students and families
beyond academics. The school-based boundaries were non-existent, and school leaders had to
engage with families virtually, expanding their understanding of needs beyond academics
40

(Dintersmith, 2018; Pitts et al., 2022). Hence, new norms of engagement emerged, such as
extended and flexible workday schedules, as parents and leaders relied on email, digital media
and platforms to communicate and engage with families beyond the traditional school hours
(Fenton et al., 2017; Ishimaru, 2014).
The re-opening of schools, rich in opportunities to engage with diverse families, served to
build and cultivate trust and strengthened relationships among leaders, educators, parents, and
families. A survey administered to approximately 7,467 members of the American School Health
Association meeting the criteria of K–12 employees over the age of 18 revealed perceptions of
teachers, leaders, and support teams around the students’ safety and well-being during the school
closures and transition back to in-person learning. An additional focal point presented in the
educator responses centered on the social-emotional wellness of students and families and the
need to provide students with resources and support services as part of the transition back to in-
person learning. Arguably, centering social-emotional learning (SEL) as a foundational element
moving forward is critical to mitigating the impact of COVID-19 on children’s socialization and
overall wellness (Pattison et al., 2021).
The effective implementation of SEL has the potential to reinforce the self-efficacy and
self-regulatory skills necessary for students to engage in and transition to student-centered modes
of learning. Equally important, prioritizing students’ and families’ social-emotional well-being
can build deeper connections and relationships where culturally responsive practices become the
norm (Pattison et al., 2021). Furthering this finding, it is important to highlight the benefits of
implementing SEL in virtual, in-person, and hybrid learning models. As more districts adopt and
implement SEL, it is critical to innovate how to foster these in virtual learning environments
(Kendziora & Yoder, 2016). Continuing to make SEL resources available to families digitally is
41

critical for the health and well-being of students and families in the context of their homes
(Kennedy, 2019).
Comparable to summer learning loss research, extended learning time has positive effects
on student achievement; therefore, future forms of engagement may include extended school day
opportunities to mitigate the loss of instructional time due to school closures (Andersen et al.,
2016). Many school districts have allocated CARES resources to design extended learning
programs and tutoring services to address the learning needs of students. Co-designing these
recovery efforts with parents and families can build more equitable opportunities for students in
historically marginalized communities as the impact of the school closures is more likely to have
negative effects on students in low socioeconomic communities who are also at a greater risk of
experiencing the effects of poverty (Dynarski, 2020).
We are still learning about the various implications of COVID-19 as school districts
across the country are still navigating the fluctuating transition to in-person learning while
grappling with a growing teacher shortage crisis, students’ SEL needs, and the overarching
impact on parents and families. Considerations beyond traditional forms of engagement were
given to families in relation to curriculum access and support. The growing pains of virtual
learning are not completely over, as the return to in-person learning has entailed initiatives to
design and implement plans for learning recovery in all K–12 schools across the nation (Novianti
& Garzia, 2020). Leveraging both synchronous and asynchronous opportunities to engage
students and families in a partnership in instructional tasks and delivery of instruction made
parents and families active participants in the academic sphere beyond traditional forms of
engagement (Daniel, 2020; Pitts et al., 2022). School districts will continue to collaborate with
stakeholders at all levels to ensure that non-dominant families are centered and amplified in the
42

design and implementation of equity-focused strategic plans and maximize resources to meet the
needs of the most impacted communities and populations within our schools (Ishimaru & Bang,
2021; Minkos & Gelbar, 2020).
A grave concern faced by school leaders is teacher attrition (Pressley, 2021). Prior to the
COVID-19 health crisis, research revealed that approximately 8% of teachers were leaving the
profession, and 19% to 30% of new teachers were exiting the profession within the first 5 years
of their careers (Darling-Hammond, 2019). Teacher attrition and burnout increased
exponentially, and many states face growing teacher shortages (Carver-Thomas et al., 2021). As
districts continue to innovate and examine the phenomenon of teacher attrition, given the current
realities, turnover trends in historically marginalized communities and beyond are on a stark
uptick (Darling-Hammond, 2019; Carver-Thomas & Darling-Hammond, 2017) Increased work
demands to meet the needs of students in historically excluded communities’ school districts
have been felt, and leaders are innovating ways to engage parents and families as part of a
promising solution to mitigate the impact of the teacher shortage. Volunteering programs and
school-wide support duty opportunities where parents and families are encouraged to provide
their expertise and services in the school are keeping schools open and stabilizing school
environments.
Extending these efforts, states and districts are developing strategic plans to retain
teachers via bonus incentives and creating teacher pipeline initiatives by investing in teacher
prep programs and allocating stipends to student teachers who otherwise would be unable to
complete the student teaching requirements due to loss of pay barriers (Will, 2022). While these
strategies are still in the early phases of implementation and have received mixed reviews, it
must be noted that activating parent and family agency and establishing teacher pipelines to
43

address teacher attrition may cultivate strong relationships between teachers, school leaders, and
families. Furthermore, inviting the community to become part of the solution is an essential
element of culturally responsive engagement. Broadening the lens by valuing diversity and
embracing the dynamics of difference cultivates a sense of community and common purpose (Gil
& Johnson, 2021; Khalifa, 2018; Terrell et al., 2018).
Transformative Paradigm: Cultural Wealth, Critical Race Theory, and Counter-
Storytelling Towards Equitable Collaboration
Parent and Family Engagement Through the Lens of Cultural Wealth and Critical Race
Theory
Engaging in the work of examining PFE and the impact of school leaders through a CRT
lens is a bold and courageous invitation to name how race, racism, classism, and gender impact
our social interactions and specifically how our identities shape the dynamic between school
leaders and families in the phenomena of PFE. While the literature outlines the tenets in the
scope of PFE, the focus CRT’s tenet employed in this study was counter-storytelling, as it allows
participants to tell of their lived experiences. The origins of CRT stem from the work of legal
scholars Derrick Bell and Kimberlé Crenshaw during the 1970s as a form of resistance and
disruption to the oppressive legal structures limiting policies from their intended purposes of
mitigating and disrupting the impact of racism, oppression, and dehumanizing ideologies
(Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995; Lynn & Dixson, 2021).
Using a critical transformative lens to dive deeper into the lived experiences of all
stakeholders helps to discover some of the possible causes, implications, and possibilities for
PFE. Furthermore, school leaders working to develop their cultural responsiveness and
44

competence cannot do so from a neutral stance in regards to systemic oppression and
marginalization at their schools. Understanding how our own identities impact the way we
engage with parents and families ignites self-critical reflection (Khalifa, 2020). The five tenets of
CRT are racism as normal, Whiteness as property, counter storytelling, intersectionality, and
interest convergence.
Racism As Normal
Viewing racism as normal challenges the neutrality of PFE by racializing the experiences
to center the voices of families in diverse communities that may not fit into the dominant
ideology of effective PFE, which is deeply anchored in White middle-class principles, behaviors,
and beliefs (Ladson-Billings, 2006). Examining the barriers that may limit or discount the ways
racially, linguistically, and socioeconomically diverse families contribute to their children’s
education dispels the perceived deficiencies of diverse families. Extending the boundaries and
definitions of engagement and exploring racial and cultural differences in parent participation,
CRT identifies, disrupts, and dismantles deficit perceptions and oppressive and limiting
structures that place diverse non-dominant families in positions of powerlessness. It shifts the
narrative to activate agency towards re-imagining and co-constructing new forms of engagement.
Furthermore, the narratives captured through the voices of the parents/guardians and school
leader participants in the community serve as a space to learn from their counter-stories to
cultivate collectivism toward more just and equitable forms of PFE (Solórzano & Yosso, 2002;
Yosso, 2005).

45

Whiteness As Property
Harris (1993) “conceptualizes Whiteness as an intangible property interest” (p. 1713),
which inherently ensures protection and access to life-changing privileges that impact the
trajectory of individual and familial attainment. Her grandmother’s story served as an example of
her claims of “White presenting” individuals accessing opportunities and advantages
interconnected with Whiteness:
In ways so embedded that it is rarely apparent, the set of assumptions, privileges, and
benefits that accompany the status of being White have become a valuable asset that
whites sought to protect and that those who passed sought to attain - by fraud if
necessary. Whites have come to expect and rely on these benefits, and over time these
expectations have been affirmed, legitimated, and protected by the law. (Harris, 1993, p.
1713)
Understanding the tenet of Whiteness as property can be used to examine how Whiteness plays
into the power dynamics between school leaders and families. This involves specifically asking
which voices are centered in the process of identifying and addressing the needs of diverse
families and communities and whose participation is validated versus whose voice and presence
are still missing from PFE.
Counter-Storytelling
Applying a critical lens decenters traditional White middle-class norms and expectations
of PFE. Understanding the lived experiences and ways current forms of engagement limit and
enclose PFE allow for reflection and centering the narratives of historically marginalized
communities. Additionally, counter-storytelling centers the complexity of power dynamics
between school leaders, systemic structures, and the families they are privileged to serve. Using
46

a critical lens to analyze the normative forms of engagement and identify how school leaders
may or may not edify Eurocentric normative forms of parents and family engagement can disrupt
systems of oppression and marginalization (Khalifa et al., 2016, 2020). Furthermore, it helps
analyze the systems-designed strategies that may or may not limit parent participation and
engagement to support their child’s educational journey.
Intersectionality
The overlapping intersections of race, class, and gender impact the power dynamics in all
systemic structures that govern daily life. In the context of PFE, the tenet of intersectionality
serves to examine how school leaders’ practices, beliefs, and perceptions communicate and
facilitate engagement with diverse families. Moreover, it helps to understand the impact of their
positionality and their beliefs about the value of PFE, which inform and shape their behaviors.
Additionally, the principle of intersectionality can examine how our positionalities and identities
intersect and impact the power dynamics and relationships in school settings that are inherently
reflective of hierarchical structures (Crenshaw, 1991; Lynn & Dixson, 2021).
Interest Convergence
Exposed in the landmark case Brown vs. Board of Education (1954), the tenet of interest
convergence posits that the decision to desegregate schools was not to ensure better quality
education for Black children in the American public school system but an added benefit in
growing economic development (Bell, 1980). Desegregating schools masked racism and the
inequities faced by Black communities in the South. Furthermore, it gave hope toward
educational justice for Black soldiers returning from World War II (Lynn & Dixson, 2021).
To further extend, there is a tension in policies that invite interrogation about school
leaders’ beliefs and motivations about PFE as they are bound to the policies that explicitly
47

mandate PFE as a strategy for school reform and accountability. From this position, there are
financial implications and motivating factors that may drive school leaders toward more
democratic and inclusive engagement efforts in compliance with policy mandates linked to
financial incentives (ESSA, 2015; NCLB, 2001). Positively presented, this reality can help
school leaders begin to center the needs of the community through the tenet of interest
convergence to interrogate, reflect on, and ensure access for students and families most in need.
However, a growing body of research questions whether the agenda of closing the achievement
gap is, in fact, the ultimate pursuit or, rather, a redress of the agenda to maintain the status quo
(Ishimaru & Takahashi, 2017). Developing culturally responsive forms of engagement calls into
question the ways school leaders identify priorities and the ontological perspectives from which
problems’ solutions are generated (Ishimaru & Bang, 2022).
Cultural Wealth Framework
Yosso’s (2005) community cultural wealth framework reframes cultural capital through
an asset-based lens. Contesting Bourdieu’s conceptualization of cultural social and cultural
capital, Yosso invites a view of cultural capital through a lens that honors the lived experiences
of racially, culturally, linguistically, and socioeconomically diverse communities. To counter the
normative discourses of cultural capital, the author presents asset-based capital that highlights
the strengths and resilience of diverse families (Yosso, 2005)
From a cultural wealth framework, Yosso (2005) named six forms of cultural capital:
aspirational, linguistic, familial, social, navigational, and resistance. In detail, diverse students,
families, and communities hold six forms of capital. For the scope of this study, the use of
aspirational capital, navigational, resistance, and social was prioritized to examine school leader
and participant responses from an assets-based perspective to honor the participants’ lived
48

experiences and center forms of engagement that may be dismissed or erased by frameworks
anchored in White middle-class norms valued by privileged groups in society (Yosso, 2005)
Aspirational capital centers students’ hopes and dreams and the educational aspirations
diverse families have despite the educational inequities they face. Linguistic capital relates to the
language diversity and communication skills students bring into the school community.
Additionally, linguistic capital encompasses cultural elements of language usage such as
storytelling, comedy, dramatic pauses, rhythm, and rhyme, which can serve as strengths to build
upon in school spaces. Familial capital speaks to the social and cultural capital stemming from
their communal and familial environments and networks. Social capital refers to extended
networks through their peers and community that support students in navigating school spaces.
Navigational capital refers to the ways students navigate institutions that exclude and are
unsupportive of their differences, yet they maneuver and excel despite the oppressive structures.
Lastly, resistance capital stems from the ancestral roots of students and their communities fueling
courage and resilience to amplify their voices in the face of adversity and oppression. Moreover,
resistance capital lays a strong foundation to activate self-agency towards social justice and
liberation (Yosso, 2005).
Equitable Collaboration Framework
The elements of equitable collaboration serve as a lens through which to analyze the
current state of engagement, and by re-imagining the emerging and future forms, school leaders
can catalyze this critical relationship. Grounded in CRT, equitable collaboration builds into this
study an element of co-construction and co-design by focalizing the power dynamics between
school leaders and parents as partners. Stretching solutions and ideas for participation, the
equitable collaboration framework seeks to understand how school leaders de-center themselves
49

as all-knowing to activate agency in their communities by broadening their lenses in regards to
the concept of who embodies and holds expertise.
Furthermore, the equitable collaboration framework amplifies diverse communities’
cultural and social capital, decentering normative Eurocentric epistemologies and widening the
lens to new ways of knowing. This includes naming that institutions often measure parents in
diverse communities by standards reflective of White middle-class families. This problematizes
the concept of effective PFE because it limits how parents and families are invited to engage.
Equitable collaboration seeks to engage families of diverse communities by decentering the
institution as the expert and leveraging the strengths of parents and families as leaders driving
reform, linking educational change to the historical and present-day context. This builds the
capacity of school leaders, parents, and families to co-construct future transformative PFE
practices for systemic change honoring community histories, ontological perspectives, and
epistemologies (Freire, 2000; Ishimaru et al., 2016; Ishimaru, 2019; Ishimaru & Bang, 2022).
Equitable collaboration centers the need to develop a bi-directional relationship with
parents, families, and communities, identifying and sharing the cultural assets that families bring
to school communities to cultivate authentic agency and culturally responsive parental and
community engagement (Ishimaru, 2020). School leaders must advocate for their families in
ways that reflect their understanding of their students’ and families’ socio-political realities and
extend their advocacy beyond the school walls (Ladson-Billings, 2021). School leaders need to
foster partnerships within the school that build strong relationships that leverage the social and
cultural capital that families bring into the school community (Yosso, 2005). Acknowledging the
school system as a political space that can address the broader community issues that impact
students within and beyond the school settings, school leaders can activate agency by creating
50

school spaces that invite parents to share and partner with the school beyond the academic vision
and mission. Cultivating bi-directional engagement that intentionally invites horizontal
collaboration opens a window for school leaders and their teams to embrace other ways of
knowing and driving action for problem posing and problem solving (Freire & Macedo, 2000).
Moreover, the centricity of White middle-class norms as the standard for effective PFE is
problematic for leaders who seek to engage families in culturally responsive ways (Ishimaru,
2019; Ladson-Billings, 1995; Moll et al., 2005; Yosso, 2005). Growing evidence suggests there
is value in designing and implementing culturally responsive practices to engage families in
authentic ways which center parents and families as leaders in whole-school reform (Ishimaru &
Bang, 2022). The goals of equitable collaborations focus on systemic change in schools and
systems rather than efforts to remediate students, families, or communities. For example,
viewing difference as an asset, schools must identify forms of engagement that activate
participation by embracing racial, socioeconomic, linguistic, and gender diversity as an additive
to the school community rather than implementing assimilationist and compliance training
approaches to engagement in the attempts to increase communication (Ishimaru, 2019; Parr &
Vander Dussen, 2017).
This literature review explored the element of PFE in diverse communities, generating a
map from a historical perspective to more recent forms of engagement. As noted, recent findings
in the literature highlight the need to engage families in more culturally responsive and
sustaining forms to disrupt and dismantle deficit perspectives of diverse parents and families that
do not fit the normative forms of engagement aligned to White middle-class norms. The COVID-
19 disruption further amplified the importance of PFE and the need for school leaders and school
teams to innovate during the disruption to traditional schooling. This deeper dive into the
51

literature prompted this exploration as more recent studies indicate a shift in the role of parents
and families as partners in the process of educating children.
School leaders are responsible for promoting and cultivating a more fully human world
through their pedagogical practices and catalyzing the capacity building of their teams (Khalifa,
2020). While the task of building more just and equitable worlds does not rest solely on their
shoulders, it requires their commitment to activate agency and engagement in the transformation
and liberation within diverse communities (Del Carmen Salazar, 2013). School leaders are
responsible for identifying and activating all stakeholders in their collective roles to establish a
community of practice towards lifelong learning that uses the students’ cultural universe to
challenge narratives of inferiority and leverage the social and cultural wealth of diverse students
toward justice and equity in education.

52

Chapter Three: Methodology
In March of 2020, the global health crisis COVID-19 disrupted the public education
system. To prevent the spread of COVID-19 and ensure the safety of students and staff, schools
immediately transitioned into a remote learning environment causing a complete halt and
disruption to traditional schooling. These unprecedented times called for a close collaboration
between schools, parents, and families to continue the educational process while addressing the
myriad of intersecting realities for students and families. The COVID-19 crisis exacerbated the
socioeconomic gaps and disparities in service and access, and the racial disparities in educational
services have crystallized (Bhamani et al., 2020; Millett et al., 2020; Ogurlu et al., 2020)
Creating equitable and just schools for students requires those in the education system to
resist the return to normal post the COVID-19 disruption (Iyengar, 2020; Neece et al., 2020;
Pattison et al., 2021). Historical and present-day research affirms the harsh reality that our idea
of normal was not designed to meet the needs of all members of society; hence, a return to
normal would reinforce systemic oppression in marginalized communities and further reify
practices that fail to meet the needs of diverse learners. Furthermore, teachers and school leaders
are in the balance, as current data highlights a persistent problem in relation to the recruitment
and retention of teachers in the public education system (Darling- Hammond, 2017a, 2019b;
Pressley, 2021).
The purpose of this study was to examine culturally relevant PFE practices that re-engage
parents and families after COVID-19-related virtual learning experiences. The data builds on the
complex work of creating equitable forms of PFE in diverse communities and shifting the power
imbalances to reflect equitable collaboration between school leaders, parents, and the school
community (Ishimaru, 2014). Equally important, the data served as a springboard to continue the
work of developing authentic opportunities for school leaders to catalyze positive improvements
53

to enhance the quality of instruction and build equitable partnerships with all stakeholders
(Baqueando-Lopez, 2013; Ishimaru, 2016; Mapp, 2013). The school closures fueled by the
global pandemic created opportunities for teachers, parents, and caregivers to collaborate in the
instructional processes and crisis virtual schooling; serving as rich soil for transformation in the
forms of engagement between school leaders, teachers, and parents as they employed more
personalized forms of communication and collaboration.
Moreover, the research identified practices that emerged during the pandemic to redefine
and de-center normative definitions of PFE. Through the lens of cultural wealth theory and
intersecting counter-storytelling, the research sought to center the lived experiences of parents
and school leaders in PFE to better understand how to build authentic opportunities for parent
and community engagement that fosters bi-directional relationships and cultivates equitable
collaboration (Barajas-Lopez, 2016; Baqueando-Lopez, 2013; Ishimaru, 2019). Additionally, this
study sought to inform school leadership teams about how parents and families experienced
engagement pre- and post-COVID. The aim was to re-imagine PFE by leveraging the emerging
forms of collaboration. Doing so will restore confidence and collaboration between school teams
to share best practices and ideas to support students and families during the school closures.
The role of school leaders is catalytic in developing and sustaining culturally responsive
forms of engagement (Khalifa et al., 2016; Milner & Lomotey, 2014). While noting that the
traditional public education system changed substantially, school-based engagement and virtual
schooling allow opportunities to cultivate more culturally responsive and equitable opportunities
to engage with parents and families. The following research questions guided the study:
1. How do elementary school leaders engage parents of diverse communities?
2. How do parents of diverse communities want to be engaged in their children’s
education?
54

3. How can school leaders sustain, re-imagine, and co-design future parent and family
engagement?
Sample and Population
This qualitative study centered the lived experiences of parents/guardians and elementary
school leaders to understand the forms of engagement they experienced before and during the
remote learning experience. It sought to identify emerging and future forms of engagement that
foster equitable and bi-directional relationships between parents, school leaders, and the school
community. The district of study is located in a large urban city in the Northeast region of the
United States. Serving approximately 28,568 students in grades K–12, the overarching
demographics reflect 38% Latinx students, 26% Black students, 19% Asian students, 15% White
students, and 2% Bi-racial students. Three selected elementary school sites captured the
perspectives of parents and families within three different neighborhoods within the school
district of study. Principals, and Assistant Principals at each of the three schools were
interviewed for a total of six semi-structured interviews (see Appendix B). In addition to the
leader interviews, parents and guardians from the three elementary schools were included in
focus group interviews.
Criteria for Parent/Guardian Focus Group Participation
• member of the school community for a minimum of 2 years
• have a child(ren) attending the school for a minimum of 2 years
• active members of the community that have served as advocates for children in the
school community (Broadening the lens for diverse family support structures)
The sourcing of participants began by obtaining district approval to conduct research in
August 2021. The goal was to capture the voices from at least three schools representing three
55

neighborhoods within the district to capture a macro snapshot of the school leader and parent
perceptions and lived experiences. Once district approval was received, initial emails were sent
out in August to engage with school leaders for preliminary opportunities to review the research
proposal and discuss any questions or concerns related to the study. Honoring school leaders’
responsibility and prioritizing the return to in-person instruction, a second email was sent out in
early October. However, school leader responses were delayed until November 2021. Three
school leader teams responded, of whom three are principals and three are assistant principals,
for a total of six school leader participants. Initial connections to review research proposals and
obtain initial consent for participation were conducted via Zoom and email in early December
2021.
Given the demographics of the district of study, the focus group participants represent a
small sample of the voices within various neighborhoods of the district of study. According to
the district’s 2020–2021 data dashboard, 28,568 students were enrolled in the district, of whom
approximately 22,728 are enrolled in grade PreK–8, reflecting 38% Latinx students, 26% Black
students, 19% Asian students, 15% White students, and 2% bi-racial students. Given the
COVID-19 restrictions still in place during the time of the study, convenience sampling and
snowball sampling were employed to source parent participants. Parents and caretakers were
initially sourced with the support of school leaders and, once initial contact was made, with PTA
representatives. Follow-up contact via email and phone led to snowball sampling of parent
participants for each focus group. The purpose was to capture the perspectives of racially and
socioeconomically diverse families.
In the first focus group, parent/caretaker participants from one neighborhood were
representatives of three K–8 schools from the same neighborhood community. Seven parents
responded, and five met the criteria of having been affiliated with the school for at least 2 years.
56

The second focus group was composed of four parents directly representative of one school in a
different neighborhood in the district. Similarly, parent focus group participants were engaged in
a Zoom virtual meeting to discuss the research proposal and answer preliminary questions prior
to the formal focus group interview. One parent participant engaged in an individual interview in
February as a result of a scheduling conflict with the original focus group interview. Lastly, A
third focus group was in the original design, but only one parent responded to the initial email
invitation and, after an initial review of the study via Zoom, did not respond for further
participation consent. Follow-up questions and clarification of data analysis were solicited as
needed throughout interviews to ensure that the data sets were rich and descriptive and to limit
researcher bias and assumptions (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Instrumentation
This qualitative study captured the lived experiences of school leaders, parents, and
guardians in the context of PFE. Specifically, two qualitative focus group interviews were
conducted to gather the authentic lived experiences of purposefully sampled participants. Given
the reality that all participants have a unique experience within the context of engagement in
their child’s learning journey, implementing a qualitative approach via focus groups gave
participants an opportunity to amplify their lived experiences. Further, the focus group design
allowed participants to connect with other families and gain insight into PFE as a collective. The
semi-structured conversation allowed me to capture a snapshot of the diversity in the school
community and in the perspectives and experiences of participants. Focus groups and school
leader interviews were conducted virtually via the Zoom platform to ensure the safety and well-
being of all participants. Anchored by cultural wealth theory with counter-storytelling, this study
centers the voices of the parents, caretakers, and school leaders from various neighborhoods in
the school district. Cultural wealth, as a lens, extends the theoretical framework to focus on
57

familial, navigational, social, aspirational, and linguistic capital (Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995;
Solorzano & Yosso, 2002; Yosso, 2005), employing tenets of CRT and intersecting elements of
the equitable collaboration framework (Ishimaru, 2014; Maxwell, 2013).
Examining all data through a transformative lens created an opportunity to identify both
vertical and horizontal power dynamics that may reflect power imbalances in the context of PFE.
The data further explored the structures and systems that drive traditional forms of engagement
at the school site level. In addition to understanding the emerging forms of PFE, it is essential to
identify forms of engagement that reflect the power shift as a foundation for equitable
collaboration. Using the intersecting theoretical frameworks of cultural wealth, CRT, counter-
storytelling, and participants’ equitable collaboration narratives, data were coded to identify
themes and patterns.
Internal validity was increased by aligning interview protocols with the theoretical
framework in a series of reflective and research cycles. Additionally, the primary investigator
piloted the semi-structured interviews in April 202 with peer researchers and former school
leader colleagues in June 2021 to tame and reduce researcher bias in question design and
prompts. Aligned with decolonizing research methods, open-ended questions in both school
leader and parent/caretaker focus groups created an opportunity to capture the authentic
responses potential not examined by the semi-structured protocol. Moreover, the transformative
paradigm focuses on the power imbalances and the root causes, such as a way to address social
and racial injustices and work towards forming liberatory and equitable relationships (Ishimaru,
2014). Additionally, I informally reviewed public documents to foster a better understanding of
the district of study as well as the school sites in the varying neighborhoods.
Given the timing of the study, I also reviewed social media and websites affiliated with
parent groups in the district and school-based PTA websites to further familiarize myself with
58

the school community and foster a deeper understanding of the lived experiences of the school
leader and parent caretaker participants prior to engaging in the semi-structured interviews. It
served to better understand the school and parent engagement culture and climate pre- and post-
COVID-19 and foster a deeper understanding of the dynamics between school leaders and the
parent and family stakeholders (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Mertens, 2010; Robinson & Leonard,
2019).
The qualitative data were gathered via school leader interviews and parent focus groups
(see Appendices A and B). As a result of COVID-19 restrictions, all semi-structured interviews
were conducted and recorded virtually via the Zoom virtual meeting platform. In addition to the
Zoom virtual platform, I used the Otter ai application to record and transcribe all interviews. I
implemented Creswell’s (2017) six-step model to organize and analyze the data. Transcripts
were organized and reviewed for initial understanding and review of data. Inductive analysis was
used to identify themes, commonalities, and differences in participant responses. Multiple cycles
of transcript review were conducted to increase accuracy and validity in the interpretation and
analysis of participant responses. It must be noted that the original study design included a
survey instrument that was going to be administered to parents and guardians. However, due to
the transitional demands for school leaders and the fluidity of the return to in-person learning,
school leaders prioritized communication about re-opening plans and ongoing safety protocols.
Hence, there was limited time to administer school-wide parent surveys, leading to the full
qualitative pivot (Lochmiller & Lester, 2017).
Data Collection
In a qualitative approach, the data collection was attained through semi-structured virtual
interviews. School leader interviews took place virtually via Zoom from December 2021 through
January 2022. Several considerations had to be given for scheduling as school leaders and
59

parents were navigating the return to in-person learning post-COVID-19 school closures.
Considerations for timing and availability were built into the schedule as school leaders were re-
establishing PFE practices while the school year and preparations and plans for initial school-
based family engagement opportunities were underway. The first focus group took place in
January 2022, and the second focus group took place in February 2022. Due to the disruption to
traditional forms of engagement and COVID restrictions for parent participation, the original
plan of organizing three focus groups posed a challenge. Therefore, two focus groups were
designed to capture the voices of as many parents as possible from two neighborhoods in the
district.
In the first focus group, parents from one neighborhood were representative of three K–8
settings in the same neighborhood community. The second focus group was composed of parents
directly representative of one school within a different neighborhood in the district. An initial
sent to principals included the research proposal and invitation to participate. School leaders
engaged in an initial review of the study proposal via Zoom to discuss the proposal and answer
any preliminary questions. Parent participants were sourced with the initial support of school
leaders, and once initial contact was made with PTA representatives, contact via email and phone
led to snowball sampling of parent participants for each of the focus groups. Similarly, parent
focus group participants were engaged in a Zoom virtual meeting to discuss the research
proposal and answer any preliminary questions prior to the formal focus group interview.
Data Analysis
Data analysis consisted of semi-structured school leader interviews and two focus groups
(Lochmiller & Lester, 2017; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The review was anchored by the guiding
research questions, a transformative lens of cultural wealth framework, and intersections of
counter-storytelling to critically explore the relationship, forms of engagement, and power
60

dynamics between the parent and school leadership teams (Ladson-Billings,1998; Yosso, 2002).
Reflecting upon the tenets of cultural capital outlined in the cultural wealth framework, I aligned
questions that sought to explore participants’ experiences within the school community to
examine how their cultural capital has shaped their experiences with family engagement. The
questions were designed to challenge normative discourse about what it means to be an engaged
parent and broaden the lens to capture how current models of engagement dismiss or omit the
cultural wealth diverse families bring into their school communities (Tillman, 2002; Yosso,
2005).
The data analysis focused on power dynamics between school leaders and diverse
families and how counterstory telling can disrupt deficit narratives. Questions that enabled a
discussion about parents as partners in decision-making scenarios or participatory engagement in
school-wide initiatives beyond traditional forms of engagement allowed participants an
opportunity to reflect on their engagement and the schools’ invitation strategies. Moreover, the
interviews served to disrupt deficient perspectives of diverse families and better understand
systemic barriers and policies that may or may not limit or facilitate equitable and or culturally
responsive forms of engagement.
Lastly, the equitable collaboration framework was used to analyze forms of engagement
and examine practices that center power dynamics and employ other ways of knowing and co-
construction of knowledge (Ishimaru & Bang, 2022). All participant information was maintained
confidentially in a password-protected digital format, and all interview notes were kept
confidential and cleaned of any personally identifiable information. Interview transcripts were
analyzed and coded using Creswell’s (2017) six-step model to organize, prepare and identify
themes and patterns within the narratives and experiences
61

Transcripts were analyzed in an iterative process. Otter transcription provided initial
words and themes that were frequently used by participants. Starting first with familiarizing
myself with the transcripts and participants’ responses, I reviewed both Zoom recordings and
Otter transcriptions several times to gather the essence of the interview and generate a broader
view of the interview in relation to the overarching research questions. Hard copies of
transcriptions were annotated and color-coded to begin the initial identification of themes and
patterns in participant responses. Additionally, I developed an excel spreadsheet to color-code
themes and patterns identified for each question participant responses were highlighted to align
with overarching research questions. Participant quotes and responses were manually input into
the spreadsheet to continue the process of coding and grouping to identify the frequency of
themes. The frequency of themes and references by participants was highlighted to create a
visual representation and mapping of themes for each research question. Lastly, I employed
continuous researcher reflexivity to tame subjectivity and researcher bias (Creswell, 2017;
Maxwell, 2013).
Credibility and Trustworthiness
Credibility and trustworthiness were focused on ways to center participants’ voices,
particularly the lived experiences of the parent/guardian population. Conducting semi-structured
interviews captured rich descriptive data highlighting the responses and shared narratives.
Capturing this in the most original form served to deconstruct deficit narratives and perceptions
and shifted towards a more humanizing analysis (Tillman, 2002; Yosso, 2002). Moreover, a
transformative and decolonizing approach to the interviews was implemented to honor
participant responses and capture rich and descriptive data. Reflexology was used to de-center
my assumptions and biases and foster a constructivist approach to the analysis (Peshkin, 1988).
Additionally, the data analysis embedded member checks with participants during and after
62

interviews to ensure that captured information and data were accurate and representative of
participants’ responses. Clarifying questions and emails ensured participant responses were
interpreted accurately and reflective of participant voices in ways that reflected cultural
responsiveness and respect towards participants’ experiences. Transcript reviews were conducted
immediately to organize and prepare data for any potential follow-up interview emails as well as
to ensure the accuracy of the information captured.
All research methods and practices were conducted with the highest ethical
considerations in all research design phases and processes (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam, 2016).
Interpretations and inferences were completed with a critical decolonizing lens honoring the
perspectives and narratives shared. Aligned with the transformative paradigm, humanizing
research calls for a decentering of the researchers’ role to create a bi-directional relationship with
participants. The primary investigator cultivated authentic communication and engaged
participants by creating the opportunity to embrace other forms of knowing and honoring the
lived experience of the participants via focus groups (Tillman, 2002; Yosso, 2005).
Documenting detailed interview notes aligned to research questions served as an
additional form of data organizing. Trustworthiness and credibility were addressed via member
checks and reviewing of interview notes with participants for accuracy. The use of Otter
application/software increased credibility and validity as it facilitates with greater accuracy the
identification of themes and patterns within the data sets. Equally important, reflective memos
ensured that I monitored and tamed subjectivity, assumptions, and biases. Reviewing anecdotal
records and notes ensured that the data were descriptive and reflected participant responses and
not my interpretation of their lived experiences (Merriam, 2016; Peshkin, 1988).
63

The administration of open-ended questions during the interview allowed participants to
share information that may have been missed or was authentic to the participants’ experiences.
This approach broadened the research lens to capture the unique experience of all stakeholder
groups, created the possibility for a deeper understanding of the problem, and helped to co-
design strategies to address the problem and align with the overarching research questions.
Participants were encouraged to share any additional narratives or experiences that captured their
experiences but may have been limited by the semi-structured focus groups. Additionally,
participants were offered the opportunity to build on the focus group interviews individually if
they chose to by email and or individual Zoom sessions to honor confidentiality. Aside from the
one individual interview, no participants requested to engage in an individual follow-up
interview. However, parent participants from both focus groups expressed interest in engaging in
future opportunities to build on this study.
Sharing interpretations and findings with participants validated my interpretations and
increased participants’ engagement in the data analysis to ensure an accurate portrayal of
participants’ experiences and increase internal validity. Equally important, creating opportunities
for participants to provide feedback on how the interpretations depicted their lived experiences
shifted the power in the research process to a co-constructive opportunity to crystalize the
participants’ experiences and disrupt deficit discourse about diverse families. Throughout the
interviews and initial interpretation phases, member checks also ensured that participants were
respectfully represented both in action and as reflected by the analysis and reporting (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). Peer review of notes collected was conducted to check for biased language and
establish ongoing reflective cycles about the data set and the phases of interpretation.
64

Summary
This study explored PFE before and after the COVID-19 crisis. The qualitative focus
group interviews centered the voices and lived experiences of parents and guardians and the role
of school leaders in the element of PFE (Mertens, 2009). Furthermore, this study aimed to
promote equitable collaboration practices in the journey towards co-creating new definitions of
what it means to be an engaged parent/guardian in diverse communities, as schools journey back
to in-person learning and work towards building culturally responsive schools for diverse
communities. This study sought to produce data that will enable re-imagining ways to engage
with parents/guardians and families and build on current and emerging methods to cultivate a
more just and culturally responsive community.

65

Chapter Four: Findings
The purpose of this study was to explore the impact school leaders have on parental and
community engagement, specifically the extent to which their practices catalyze PFE in
culturally responsive ways. Centering the lived experiences of school leaders, parents, and
families pre and post the COVID-19 school closures, the data re-imagine, build upon and design
future forms of engagement to meet the needs of diverse families and communities and foster bi-
directional engagement among all stakeholders.
Moreover, this study sought to identify practices that emerged during the pandemic to
redefine new forms of PFE in schools and de-center normative definitions of parental and family
engagement. The study employed a critical transformative lens of CRT, specifically examining
race neutrality in PFE and counter-storytelling as a way to study and disrupt deficit narratives of
diverse families and build on opportunities for PFE that foster bi-directional relationships
towards equitable collaboration (Barajas-Lopez, 2016; Baqueando-Lopez, 2013; Ishimaru, 2019;
Ladson-Billings, 1998).
The research results are organized by research question. Each section includes a brief
review of relevant literature, which attempts to contextualize the content of the findings. Each
section discusses two to three themes that emerged related to the research question, and the
themes will be discussed to ensure honoring the participants’ lived experiences. Three research
questions guided this study:
1. How do elementary school leaders engage parents of diverse communities?
2. How do parents of diverse communities want to be engaged in their children’s
education?

66

3. How can school leaders sustain, re-imagine, and co-design future parent and family
engagement?
Participants
A brief demographic outline of the communities in the district is important to lay a
foundation for understanding the selection criteria of the parent/guardian stakeholder group in
this study. The district of study is located in a large urban city in the Northeast region of the
United States. Serving approximately 30,000 students in grades K–12, the overarching
demographics reflect 38% Latinx students, 26% Black students, 19% Asian students, 15% White
students, and 2% bi-racial students. The study focused on six school leaders from three schools
in three distinctive neighborhoods and two parent focus groups. This sample group sought to
present the various perspectives and lived experiences in relation to PFE to identify patterns in
similarities and differences that may help build toward collective strategies for culturally
responsive and sustaining forms of PFE. Parents selected had to have been part of the school
community for a minimum of 2 years to ensure some familiarity with engagement practices pre-
COVID, as PFE dynamics were impacted by the school closures (Ishimaru, 2019; Ladson-
Billings, 1995).
The school leader sample group was composed of a principal and an assistant principal
from each of the three schools and demographically consisted of one Latinx female, one Asian
female, three Latinx males, and one White male. All of the participants had served at their
respective schools for a minimum of 2 years. Table 1 presents the school leader participants’
profiles.

67

Table 1
School Leader Participant Profiles
School leader,
principals/AP
Race Gender Title Years of service in the
community
L1 Latinx Male Principal 30
L2 Latinx Male Assistant principal 18
L3 Latinx Female Principal 24
L4 Latinx Male Principal 9+
L5 AAPI Female Assistant principal 20
L6 White Male Assistant principal 10

The first parent focus group consisted of five participants. A second focus group
consisted of four participants representing the parent/guardian voice in the community. One
individual interview was conducted to capture the lived experience of a parent/community
member whose children have attended multiple schools in the district of study and who was
originally scheduled to participate in the focus group. His narrative broadened the lens of parent
perspectives as his children have attended multiple schools in the district of study, and he has
engaged with multiple school leaders throughout the district.
The parent focus groups were designed small enough to provide an authentic opportunity
for participants to engage in conversational dialogue about the element of PFE and their
experiences and to create an intimate opportunity to share their personal lens on how schools
have sought to engage them before, during and after COVID-19. Tables 2 and 3 include a brief
description of the focus group participants’ demographics. With the intention to diversify the
focus groups, participants were selected based on the criteria of having been part of the school
68

community or the district for a minimum of 2 years to capture perspectives of PFE pre- and post-
COVID. In the first focus group, parents from one neighborhood were representative of three K–
8 settings in the same neighborhood community. The second focus group was composed of
parents directly representative of one school within a different neighborhood in the district. See
Tables 2 and 3.

Table 2
Focus Group 1 Parent/Guardian Participants
Parent/guardian Race Gender # of children
in K–8
Years in
community
P1 Black Female 3 15+
P2 Black Female 2 25+
P3 Latinx Female 2 9+
P4 Black Male 2 9+
P5 Black Female 2 10+
*P6 Latinx Male 2 30+

*Individual interview

69

Table 3
Focus Group 2 Parent/Guardian Participants
Parent/guardian Race Gender # of children
in K–8
Years in
community
P1 Asian Female 2 19
P2 White Female 1 20
P3 White Female 2 18
P4 Latinx Female 2 13

Results Research Question 1
Research Question 1 asked, “How do elementary school leaders engage parents of
diverse communities? To what extent do they focus on culturally responsive forms of PFE?”
This research question was designed to better understand how school leaders were engaging with
diverse families and was answered based on the six school leader interviews. As a result of
school closures in March of 2020, traditional forms of PFE came to a halt to ensure the health
and well-being of students, teachers, parents, and school leaders. The initial uncertainty and risks
associated with the global health crisis resulted in very limited direct contact with parents and
families. While in-person meetings were prohibited, school leaders served as conduits of
information and lead advocates for their schools and external communities.
Initially, due to the school closures, senior leadership teams at the central office served
as the main headquarters and source of information for the overarching community to stabilize
information and limit misinformation and confusion. School leaders became the voice of their
schools and communities in identifying and advocating for the local needs within their respective
schools. Stretching beyond the traditional school hours, school leaders shared their connection
70

and engagement strategies beyond the school building and conventional work hours. School
leader interviews revealed that their positions on the front lines of the school community
reaffirmed their role as coherence facilitators for their teams and families. Coherence in the
broader context of districts helps align the implementation of strategies and systems. In the case
of PFE, school leaders as coherence facilitators at the school level ensure that, in addition to
alignment with district initiatives, school teams maintain a consistent focus on relationship
building and communication to improve the processes and opportunities to engage with families
in authentic and culturally responsive ways. Emphasizing this point, school leader narratives
presented an evolved and humanized approach to engaging with families. Recognizing the
disruption that halted the policies and protocols aligned with school-centric forms of
engagement, school leaders shared they were working to focus direction, communicate
efficiently and cultivate collaboration between teachers and staff by centering the needs of
students and families. They worked collaboratively with all teachers, support staff, and internal
and external stakeholders to identify needs and opportunities that could positively impact
students and families. Table 4 presents school leaders’ perspectives and experiences as well as
examples of their role in developing collective improvement in PFE.

71

Table 4
School Leader Reflections: Parent and Family Engagement During Virtual Schooling
Communication really boils down to what the school does to keep parents informed and
involved, the real relationship with parents is built at each school. (L1 Interview, 12/16/21)
The PTA has been an active presence in our school since I started so they really helped me
communicate with families through their social media pages and websites, we were all
learning new ways to connect with parents, teachers were using several new platforms to
communicate with students, parents and families. (L6 Interview, 1/31/22)
We extended our partnership with Latinas in STEM to provide families and students with a
virtual experience to continue our hands-on science activities, it was great to see the
parents participate and work with the kids from their homes. (L5 Interview, 1/16/22)
We wanted to get connected with families so we created a cookbook as a school community,
with the PTA and teachers and staff members contributed favorite recipes, we even had a
few grades that participated in a hands-on cooking activity, with parents. (L1 Interview,
12/14/21
The intentionality behind every connection we made with our parents and families left us
feeling hopeful that we can continue to build strong relationships with our students,
parents and families, we didn’t have a road map and figured it out together. (L4 Interview
1/6/22)

When school leader participants were asked to share some of the ways they engaged with
families, three overarching themes emerged from the interviews centered around (a) coherent
and consistent messaging and communication, (b) school-based forms of engagement via the
parent and teachers’ association, SLC, and school-based committees, and (c) foundations for
culturally responsive engagement.
Coherent and Consistent Communication
Communication is at the core of all human interactions and can catalyze the element of
relational trust (Bryk & Schneider, 2002; Herrera et al., 2020). School leaders that seek to honor
cultural differences and establish equitable relationships with families in diverse communities
72

communicate with families consistently, truthfully, and coherently. Time is of the essence in
building relationships, and leaders who continuously seek to engage diverse families in the
designing a collective vision for students, teachers, and families foster bi-directional
relationships with all stakeholders to center and amplify the voices of students and families they
are privileged to serve (Khalifa, 2020; Ishimaru, 2020). Captured by the school leader
interviews, Table 5 focuses on the importance and impact of coherent communication in
designing equitable and culturally responsive collaboration with parents and families in diverse
communities.

73

Table 5
School Leader Reflections: Coherent and Transparent Communication towards Culturally
Responsive Engagement
When we identify there are language differences, we need to make sure that we can provide
translation services so that parents feel that they are welcome and we are here to help them
and provide them with accurate information. It’s a partnership and we can leverage bi-
lingual staff members to support. (L5 Interview, 1/16/22)
We created an [English as a second language] parent academy to support linguistically diverse
families with English language classes right here is our school community since this is a
familiar place and we designed them in shorter course offerings to avoid work schedule
conflicts, our internal teachers served as the instructors. (L3, 12/20/21)
Every single day I make it a point to connect with our community liaison to check in and
better understand the existing needs, since she is often in touch with families every day for
attendance and other needs, once I am aware we make sure we provide necessary resources
and support. (L4 Interview, 1/6/22)
We are working with families to understand the parent lens and how they see our school. We
communicate our ideas but also invite parents and families to bring their ideas to the table,
and having those conversations throughout the years has helped shape the direction of our
school some examples are our science initiatives and school garden initiatives. (L2
Interview, 12/14/21)
There is always room for improvement with communication we are trying to make sure that
all parents and families are aware of what’s going on however we also know that
sometimes information in too many places can be confusing and we are trying to create a
platform where we can be consistent and they can get everything they need from one place
to avoid confusion. (L1 Interview, 12/24/21)
Real communication with parents and families happens at the school level. we are the closest
to the community; teachers are closest to parents and families, so it’s important that the
communication is consistent and coherent; if we don’t keep it clear the misinformation
creates more challenges for relationship building. (L3 Interview, 12/20/21)

School leaders discussed the value of making families feel welcome and heard in
actionable ways. School Leader 5 shared how language differences play into how families are
informed and kept abreast of student performance and ways they can support their children, and
74

the critical need to ensure that parents understand the school setting is a safe place that will serve
as a starting point for their children and families. School Leader 4 affirmed this idea by
expressing her daily connection to the school-based community liaison for a check on current
needs and inquiry around resources to support families. She emphasized the importance of
understanding the individual needs of each family and the collaborative approach by the teachers
and principal of keeping this at the forefront of the daily responsibilities of the team.
Additionally, School Leader 2 shared the bi-directional element of communication by
highlighting the importance of embracing ideas brought forth by parents on how to drive change
in schools. He shared, “We need to invite parents to bring their ideas to the table so that we can
keep shaping the direction of the school, looking at what’s important from a parent perspective
as well.”
Placing value on time and context for communication, another school leader’s reflection
shined a light on the school-based context to fortify the communication between families and the
overarching system. School Leader 1 emphasized,
There is always room for improvement in communication, especially when we are trying
to make sure that all parents are aware and informed of what’s going on, but we also want
to make sure that parents don’t feel overwhelmed. We need to be consistent and not have
families trying to surf to many places.
Likewise, School Leader 3 centered the role of school leaders as critical agents in
establishing communication that fosters ongoing relationships for equitable engagement by
highlighting the importance of proximity to the community and families. He stated, “Real
communication happens at the school level since we are closest to the students and families, so
it’s important to make it clear and consistent and coherent.” This further underscored the value of
75

communication to build relationships that withstand the fluidity and challenges that arise in the
daily life of a school community seeking to create culturally responsive spaces for all students
and families. Table 5 presents school leader reflections regarding the importance of coherent and
transparent communication that serves as a foundation for culturally responsive engagement.
To become community leaders within and beyond the school walls, school leaders in this
study sought to create ongoing opportunities to communicate with families and engage in
meaningful needs assessments and equity audits to collectively identify and solve problems to
build and cultivate relational trust. Developing an awareness and understanding of the external
community and its complexities can develop a leader’s capacity for cultural competence (Byrk &
Schneider, 2002; Khalifa, 2020). Next to teachers, school leaders have the greatest impact on
school communities, as coherent and transparent communication catalyzes respect and
collaboration and can foster collective action to shift power dynamics positively towards
culturally responsive PFE.
Parent Engagement via School-Based Contexts: PTA, PTO, and SLC
Understanding how school leaders engaged families pre-COVID captured how school
leaders in the midst of a global health crisis persisted in engaging with families despite the
challenges posed by virtual schooling. When asked to share their strategies and programs for
engagement, school leaders gave several examples that were closely an extension of the on-
campus traditional contexts for engagement through the parents and teachers association or
organization (PTA or PTO), SLC, and school-based committees. These school-based parent
groups were transitioned to virtual platforms for all stakeholders’ safety and well-being. While
participants shared variations of communication strategies to engage parents, many discussed
their enhanced capacity to reach more families by leveraging virtual Zoom meetings, Google
76

Meets, virtual office hours, social media live sessions, Blackboard Connect, and mass messaging
via phone and email.
School leaders discussed the importance of leveraging technology in the element of PFE
and the importance of continuing to close the digital divide that was exposed during virtual
schooling. Leader 5 shared,
One of the biggest challenges was getting students and parents to feel comfortable with
the virtual school experience; however, we have learned so much, and our parents and
teachers have come such a long way we have closed the digital divide and need to
continue to support parents in this space.
Along the same line of thought, School Leader 6 shared that they are going to continue to
offer parents and families virtual office hours to ensure that they are accessible and connecting
with parents, teachers, and families more frequently and leveraging technology to alleviate some
of the structural barriers that have presented themselves in traditional forms of engagement. For
example, families who face scheduling conflicts due to work-family balance may be more
accessible and able to connect via virtual platforms to engage with school leaders, teachers, and
school-based activities in support of their children’s education and social development. Table 6
presents some additional school leaders’ narratives on the forms of engagement during virtual
schooling that amplify the importance of personalizing the communication through the use of
technology to support students and families beyond the traditional school day.

77

Table 6
School Leader Reflections: Forms of Engagement During Virtual Schooling
Virtual office hours served to support families during the day as well as after the traditional
school day hours they served to alleviate any work schedule conflicts for parents. (L5
Interview, 1/16/22)
The teachers on-call program was very helpful to support students and parents in the
instructional process and technology troubleshooting. (L6 Interview, 1/31/22)
Contacting families directly through the community liaison and the guidance counselor
helped us understand the specific needs of families; we were contacting families daily to
check in teachers were also using other apps to make sure families were aware of any
additional resources” (i.e, Class DoJo, Remind App, Google Classroom, Flip Grid). (L4
Interview, 1/6/22)
Although we still have a long way to go in increasing parent engagement, virtual Assemblies
and PTA meetings increased accessibility and parent participation, more families were
connecting to activities because they didn’t have work schedule conflicts. (L1 Interview,
12/14/21)

A pre-COVID example School Leader 3 shared highlighted the school leaders’ power to
value and honor diverse communities’ cultural wealth. In collaboration with teachers, a program
was designed to support parents’ English language development by providing parents and
caretakers with ongoing courses to prepare for and pursue employment opportunities. This built
their social and navigational capital in the internal and external community. As a result of the
school closures, the parent English as a second language classes were halted. However, future
possibilities in a virtual space are possible and may serve more community members.
Extending these forms of engagement into the real-world contexts of families created an
opportunity for school leaders to engage with teachers and families in authentic ways.
Envisioning engaging with families in more organic ways, school leaders discussed the
importance of sharing resources beyond the school community to ensure that students and
78

families were safe and well during the virtual school experience and to support the transition for
families to in-person learning. From instructional support to services and resources to mitigate
food insecurity, health and well-being resources, and extended mental health services, school
leaders shared their experiences in facilitating engagement through school-based contexts such
as PTA/PTO/SLCs and securing access for their students and families. The possibilities
stemming from hybrid forms of engagement and communication seemed promising as they can
extend and fortify bi-directional communication and experiences that build the capacity of both
school leaders, teachers, and families in more culturally responsive ways by increasing the
frequency of communication, as well as opening new avenues for connection and engagement.
Foundations for Culturally Responsive Parent and Family Engagement
When asked to define culturally responsive practices for PFE, school leader responses
included a variety of characteristics and behaviors. Some of the emerging themes and narratives
spoke of the need to build strong relationships with students, teachers, and families. Furthermore,
school leaders highlighted the need to interrogate and explore one’s own implicit and explicit
biases by building continuous cycles of reflective practice (Ishimaru, 2018; Khalifa, 2020;
Tervalon & Murray-Garcia, 2002). Admitting the discomfort of identifying gaps in their
processes to engage families, the school leaders’ responses centered around three foundational
practices towards culturally responsive PFE: cultural humility, critical reflection, and micro-
moments as opportunities.
Cultural Humility and Critical Reflection
Three principles of cultural humility include a commitment to lifelong learning through
critical reflection, recognizing and challenging power imbalances, and, lastly, activating
institutional and systemic practice towards cross-cultural engagement (Tervalon & Murray-
79

Garcia, 2002). When asked to share their experiences with engaging diverse parents specifically
in relation to culturally responsive practices, school leaders shared accounts of seizing
opportunities to honor diverse students in their schools in a variety of ways. School Leader 1
spoke about individual connections with families to discuss resources for mental health supports
and resources to mitigate the impact of food insecurities. Personalizing the outreach and serving
as advocates for their students and families, school leaders leveraged access to internal and
external resources to support families based on their individual needs. Similarly, School Leader 4
mentioned feeling a closer relationship with families transitioning from Afghanistan sharing,
At the precipice of the political strife and conflict, immigrant families are counting on our
support to give them and their children a safe place,” coming from another country is not
easy, and we are here to seek to understand how we can help.
Table 7 presents school leaders’ narratives that also model cultural humility and ongoing
critical reflection in engaging with parents and families. Anchoring into lived experiences of
students and families and placing the importance on servant leadership, school leaders’
reflections highlight the core elements of culturally responsive and sustaining practices by
exercising active listening to understand, critically reflect, and support families and students in
authentic ways.

80

Table 7
School Leadership Behaviors Modeling Cultural Humility in PFE
Having a window into our students’ homes and their lives, and getting to see their parents via
Zoom coming to and from work, getting ready for work gave us all a glimpse of their daily
lives, and that was powerful for all stakeholders. (L5 Interview, 1/16/22)
The most important thing we need to do as leaders is listen, listen to our parents without
trying to give solutions. We can lead by example as leaders by listening and decentering
ourselves when working with our staff to shift how we see things. (L6 Interview, 1/31/22)
Although we are predominantly serving Spanish-speaking [English language learner]
students we have seen an increase in Arabic-speaking new students, and we are leveraging
our translation services beyond the school every day and make sure to check in with them
to support their transition not just to the school but to our community. (L6 Interview,
1/3122)
We also need to learn and reflect about our own beliefs and biases to better understand how
we can serve our parents and families, not from our belief system, but finding common
ground. (L4 Interview, 1/6/22)

The Butterfly Effect: Micro-Moments As Opportunities to Build Relationships
A recurring theme during the school leader interviews highlighted the impact of informal
interactions as opportunities to engage with families in authentic ways. The intensity of the role
and the reality that each day is finite in time to interact with teachers, students and families
creates a sense of urgency to maximize every single second to build relationships with all
stakeholders. In this analysis, school leaders shared micro opportunities to engage with families
that are often dismissed as “small moments” in daily interactions. Several school leaders
expressed that transactional opportunities can also crystalize the school’s vision and mission and
cultivate positive and collaborative cultures. Table 8 includes some of the school leaders’
reflections and narratives that speak to the importance of seizing micro-moments as opportunities
to engage with families in more organic and culturally responsive ways.
81

Table 8
School Leader Reflections of Micro-Moments for Relationship Building
It starts with the leaders, creating opportunities for parents and families to come into school
frequently and give them a seat at the table, by creating a space in the building that they can
operate from when they are planning activities gives us opportunities to interact daily and
build relationships. That takes time. (L1 Interview, 12/14/21)
Small chats with our kids in school take a few seconds each day, getting to know our parents
and families through our interactions with our students is key. When we get to know our
students and genuinely begin to connect with them, we learn a lot about their families,
which helps when we finally get to interact with their parents and families. L4, Interview
(1/6/22)
I am outside in the morning both in the afternoon greeting busses and families and, in the
afternoon, talking and connecting with parents and families. When I reach out to parents
and families over the phone about anything, the fact that there’s a face to the name makes it
a little more personable, and parents seem more receptive. (L6 Interview, 1/31/22)
I also have prior experience with some of our families from my experience as a teacher in the
district. Now that I am in this school, many of the K–5 kids have siblings in the middle
school where I was before, so I remember the families, and they remember me when they
come pick their siblings up after school. (L5 Interview, 1/16/22)

During virtual schooling, a few examples of micro-interactions that personalize and
deepen connections between families and school leaders were instances where parents were
contacted directly to ensure students had resources and support beyond the instructional
materials. Both school leaders and parents referenced the power of these interactions as
opportunities to build community and relationships for future engagements. Furthering this
concept of micro-moments, School Leaders 1 and 4 shared similar stories about instances where
parents would request to come to school for assistance with their personal devices and would
have an interpersonal exchange with school leaders that went beyond the traditional discussions,
expressing gratitude for each other’s collaboration in supporting students and providing
82

additional information regarding local and district-wide services to support students and families.
School Leader 1 stated, “We were trying to seize all interactions as an opportunity to ensure the
safety and well-being of our students and families while also bridging and connecting the
resources provided by the city to assist families during the crisis.” Another example of micro-
interactions was reflected by School Leader 2 when he shared his experience about growing up
in the neighborhood where he now serves and engaging with his students and families while
walking in the neighborhood he once played in as a child. When asked about micro-moments, L2
stated,
Every minute counts. We can better understand one another if we create opportunities to
engage that are not structured in ways that intimidate parents. I grew up in this
neighborhood right around the corner, so I am familiar with the community. Outside of
my role as an administrator, I can walk around here and see kids and families outside of
school. I can chat about the way the neighborhood has changed as well as ways we can
work together to make the school a better experience for all children in the community.
The theme of micro-moments was also reflected in the responses and narratives of other
school leaders, as outlined in Table 8. Reflections were provided by school leaders to highlight
the power of micro-moments in cultivating culturally responsive and sustaining PFE practices.
Extending the idea of micro-moments, the data revealed that to prevent the spread of COVID-19,
parents, school leaders, and school teams are still navigating the return to in-person learning, and
school buildings are still restricted. Therefore, micro-moments are valuable in establishing
connections with families to restore and build trust. Table 8 illustrates school leader examples of
micro-moments pre- and post-COVID that have built relationships with parents and families in
diverse communities.
83

The power of small moments to catalyze culturally responsive parent engagement looks
very different in each school setting for each school leader; however, the evidence suggests there
is no moment too small to engage authentically to foster communication and dialogue with
parents and caretakers that can foster greater opportunities for engagement. Moreover, these
micro-moments can sustain a culture of care and concern, which is a foundational pillar in
reflective and dialogical practice (Freire & Macedo, 2000; Fullan & Quinn, 2016).
Discussion Research Question 1
The COVID-19 crisis stretched the boundaries of the school walls. Therefore, school
leaders had to assume an adaptive and personalized approach to the individual challenges posed
by the crisis. Employing adaptive and servant leadership skills, leaders had to activate and
catalyze agency on their teams alongside parents and families to provide students with the
necessary resources and support for a modified instructional virtual program. Recognizing the
immediate impact on engagement opportunities, the findings captured strategies employed pre-
and post-COVID social distancing regulations. Although the primary focus was to ensure the
safety and well-being of all stakeholders, school leaders leveraged virtual meetings to engage
families, and, in doing so, the greater accessibility increased parent and family participation. The
initial agendas for virtual meetings focused primarily on crisis management and the distribution
of information regarding protocols and procedures to support students and teachers with the
transition to virtual schooling. As the 2020 school year came to a close in June of 2020, school
leaders, teachers, and families prepared for a reset, and School Leader 1 shared,
We were able to exhale and think about how we could be ready for students and
families in the fall of 2020, whether virtual, in-person, or hybrid. We were
thinking about ways we can serve our students and families more effectively.
84

The initial strategies for engagement centered around traditional forms of engagement via
the PTA, SLC, and school-based committees, with school leaders, teachers, and support staff
working collaboratively to connect with parents and families. School leaders reported an increase
in PTA/PTO participation as a result of the virtual accessibility for families. A similar trend was
in the district-wide board meetings and community outreach meetings. The direct contact with
families allowed school leaders to better understand the individual needs of each student and
their family. Given the nature of the remote setting, school leaders employed all school
community members to activate collaborative efforts to connect with families directly to better
understand the community’s needs at a more granular level. The disruption to traditional forms
of communication sparked innovation in the modes of communication, and school leaders tapped
into social media platforms to connect with families and created an opportunity for parents and
families to engage in the instructional process in addition to extracurricular activities.
School leader responses illuminated a need to systematically assess the possibilities for
culturally responsive engagement in schools and district-wide contexts. Furthermore, school
leaders embracing their role as community leaders built upon the strategies established since
March 2020, leveraging the internal school community to continue to seize this time of
disruption as a portal to build and foster relational trust and relationships with parents and
families. This is highlighted by a school leader’s response that recognized their role in leading
learners and members of a larger community beyond the walls of their schools. L5 said,
We have learned so much about our students, teachers, and families. I have learned so
much about myself in this time that I recognize I am a different leader. We have
prioritized and redefined what’s important for our students and families and know we are
closer and need to work together now more than ever L5.
85

The process of school leaders tapping into the power of self-exploration and critical
reflection in the process of designing future forms of engagement was captured by the school
leader interviews. Honoring their own lived experiences and their ability to establish
collaborative cultures of continuous improvement is a promising start towards engaging with
families in more equitable and culturally responsive ways. Further reflections anchored into the
lived realities and perceptions of the role of school leadership today. When asked what value
they saw in creating more meaningful and culturally responsive partnerships with families, many
began the discussion with a broad description of their experiences. School Leader Five shared,
“They are tasked with the responsibility of organizing and mobilizing their teams and
establishing safe spaces for both students and staff.” Further along these ideas, Leader 6 shared,
With curriculum, we want to make sure the students see themselves in the curriculum,
and we as leaders need to support the purchase of materials that are culturally responsive
to cultivate instructional practices that are meaningful to our student support [and]
student success.
While none of the responses completely aligned to the tenets of culturally responsive
practices, there was a strand of thought through all leader responses anchored by the idea that
they serve as models for their school communities and teams and recognize that interrogating
their practices and lived experiences could serve as a starting place for driving a collective
culture toward more culturally responsive and inclusive practices. Leaders are drivers of a school
community, highlighting the interconnectedness among their teams. As leaders become more
aware and critically reflective about who they are, they develop a capacity to engage with their
teams more openly. This cultivates an environment where others can be free to follow, igniting a
86

collective vision and action toward engaging with families in more authentic and bi-directional
ways (Constantia et al., 2021; Leithwood et al., 2019).
Results Research Question 2
Research Question 2 asked the following: How do parents of diverse communities want
to be engaged? A growing body of research affirms the positive impact of PFE on student
achievement. While many discussions on this topic center the voices of the school leaders,
teachers, and students, this question sought to focalize the perceptions of parents and families in
diverse communities. It is worth noting that cultural and family beliefs about their roles in their
child’s education play an important role in parents’ perceptions of school-based invitations for
engagement and participation. Exploration of how parents in diverse communities want to be
engaged may cultivate relationships, crystalize communication, and identify potential next steps
in the work of culturally responsive engagement.
During the semi-structured parent/guardian focus group interviews, participants were
asked to reflect on their individual experiences with parental engagement. A foundational theme
in the narratives focalized the need for better communication between school leaders and parents.
When asked to collectively define “better communication,” participants provided several
examples that spoke to a more coherent and consistent messaging and a desire for a personalized
approach to engaging with families. Moreover, they discussed a focus on the macro strategies at
the district level to engage parents and families. The discussions spotlighted some of the initial
challenges and opportunities for growth in communication between district-level and school-
level teams to facilitate greater PFE at all levels. The three overarching themes that emerged
from the focus groups, as discussed in this section, are (a) coherence for consistent and
transparent communication, (b) beyond surface-level awareness towards authentic relationships
87

with parents and families, and (c) one size does not fit all personalized outreach to foster cultural
responsiveness.
Coherence, Communication, and Transparency
Coherence in PFE is not necessarily a reflection of complete and straight alignment with
a particular initiative or strategy. Within the district, it refers to a school leader’s capacity to
crystalize the school’s vision and mission and provide parents and families with ongoing
opportunities to familiarize themselves with available resources, programs, and ways to activate
agency in addressing the needs of students. School leaders serve as conduits of information for
both district-level communication as well as school community advocacy (Khalifa, 2019). To
cultivate trust and reciprocal ongoing relationships with diverse parents and families, parent
narratives spoke to the importance of coherence, communication and transparency from school
leaders as they are working towards engaging with parents. There seemed to be a general
consensus when Parent 2 in Focus Group 2 expressed,
Sometimes, leaders are not fully aware of district goals and objectives, and information
can get lost in translation, efficiency in messaging also presents distorted bits of
information, so it’s challenging to know how we can support our children and the school.
Similarly, Parent 4 noted, “School leaders need to be on the same page. Sometimes, the
leadership says one thing, and the others in the school, like teachers, security guards, custodians,
will say something different.” Parent 3 shared, “We should be able to connect with other
members of the school and receive the same information and establish rapport with others on the
staff.” Aligned to the value of coherent and transparent communication, School Leader 3 shared
a reflection affirming the parents’ sentiments: “Sometimes, it all boils down to mis-
communication and mis-understandings, and when we take the time to communicate clearly and
88

timely, we can build relationships to better serve students and our families.” Table 9 presents
some of the participant perceptions regarding school leader practices in coherent and transparent
communication. Furthering the importance of communication, Parent 4 in Focus Group 1 shared
that school leaders can build and foster shared leadership environments that open more
opportunities for engagement when they communicate with parents in more personalized ways
that support parents and families. For example, she shared, “I sometimes have a concern or need
help with something and may not be able to connect with the teacher or school leader right away,
but can connect with the guidance counselor or the assistant principal.” Leveraging team
members' strengths, school leaders can activate collective approaches to clear and coherent
communication.

Table 9
Parent Focus Group Reflections: Coherent & Transparent Communication
In the broader sense of the district communication, it may seem that parents are not involved,
but it also shows that the one-size-fits-all mentality does not work for an entire district or a
school. Parents want to know how they can engage and want to know when there are
opportunities for involvement. (P1 FG2 Interview, 2/3/22)
Communication is the most important element of any relationship, we need to have clear
communication so that parents aren’t blindsided by things and initiatives and programs. (P2
FG2 Interview, 1/27/22)
Sometimes the communication is not timely, or it can get mixed and messy, but having an
open door and open communication with families helps get through the challenges and
build relationships and trust. (P3 FG1 Interview, 1/27/22)
Leaders have to model and have the open lines of communication with parents and families,
knowing we are human and making sure that there is communication, especially since our
kids spend most of the day at school, we have to trust them to keep our kids safe when we
aren’t there. (P1 FG1, 1/27/22)
When leaders reach out to parents and the community and ask for our input and involvement
with school projects, that says to us that we are part of the school and community, and we
are working together to make our kids’ schools a better place for all. (P6 Interview, 2/7/22)
89

Moving Beyond Surface-Level Community Awareness to an Authentic Cultivation of
Relationship Building
As districts continue to innovate new approaches to engage with diverse families with
specific considerations for non-dominant families, an examination of the conventional forms can
begin the process of designing strategies that engage families who are excluded as a result of the
structural and design barriers (Posey- Maddox & Haley-Lock, 2020). Traditional forms of
engagement can serve as springboards for deeper engagement. However, research highlights that
school-based forms of engagement can exclude or place non-dominant families in a position of
passive recipients of information (Auerbach, 2010; Ishimaru, 2014). When participants were
asked to share their experiences at their schools, three members of the second focus group
considered themselves privileged to be in school communities where the leader was conscious of
the social and cultural capital they possessed, and they felt their children and families were
honored and embraced by teachers and staff members. Furthermore, school-based committees
led by parents were encouraged and invited to celebrate cultural diversity at the school. On the
other hand, a reflection from other parents sheds light on the need for deeper relationships
between schools and families. During Focus Group 1, Parent 1 shared, “Our school leaders need
to come into our communities and seek to understand our experience by becoming part of the
community beyond our school.” They continued, “There are many parents that would want to
come to activities and now can because of the virtual, but nothing replaces in-person gatherings
to feel like we are building community.” Parent 3 in Focus Group 2 shared her interest in
engaging with other parents and families in the district to cultivate collective PFE to address the
barriers to student achievement and cultivate more personalized and inclusive approaches for
culturally responsive PFE. Specifically addressing the variance in the experiences with parents
90

and families throughout the district, she further expressed that opportunities to connect with
parents from other schools would collectively activate advocacy in the interests of all students.
Furthermore, parents suggested the concepts of engagement through a collective lens
honors the lived experiences of families and will achieve more success in engaging with families
if school leaders collaborate with families to design engagement opportunities. Reflecting
together, Participant 2 in the second focus group stated,” Imagine if we could have these types of
discussions throughout the district by sharing our experiences with one another on a broader
scale.” They acknowledged that opportunities to co-design engagement strategies with parents
and families, especially the families that are excluded from school-centric forms of engagement,
could result in better engagement outcomes.
One Size Does Not Fit All: A Personalized Approach to PFE
Parents and families are critical in creating culturally responsive and equitable learning
communities for diverse students (Auerbach, 2010; Epstein, 2002; Ishimaru et al., 2016). Recent
studies affirm that traditional forms of engagement do not align with the needs of diverse
communities and may exclude forms of engagement that may bolster students’ sense of
belonging at school and positively impact academic achievement (Ladson-Billings, 1995, 2006).
When focus group participants were asked to share how they would like to be engaged in their
children’s education, several participants shared a range of examples and reflections that aligned
with the need for more personalized outreach and engagement opportunities. Table 10 includes
some reflections shared with the following questions from the semi-structured interview
protocol: If you could design a parent engagement strategy, what would you do to encourage
more parents to participate and engage in their child’s education? and What would you suggest
91

to your school leaders as a strategy to engage parents that aren’t captured by traditional forms of
engagement?

Table 10
Parent Focus Group Reflections: Feedback for School Leaders on Ways They Want to Be
Engaged
We have to try to build community outside of school with other families, maybe planning a
family/ school family day outside of the school where we can get to know each other
outside of our roles as parents, teachers, and school administrators. (Parent FG Interview,
1/27/22)
Now, after COVID, we need to get our kids and families out in the community. Maybe we
can plan for an outdoor fair in a local church or community center so that we can
reconnect. Some parents may be able to make it on the weekend if they know in time.
(Parent FG Interview, 1/27/22)
Maybe now, with virtual options, parents can still connect to kids in the classroom to find out
about what they are doing in the classroom; up until virtual school, I really didn’t know
what was going on in the classroom now I have an idea of what the school day and
learning looks like. (Parent FG Interview, 2/3/22)
Maybe if we plan something in the different neighborhoods, we can get to connect with
families from other schools and we know we are privileged because we are here and know
it’s not like this everywhere in the district. (Parent FG Interview, 2/3/22)

92

Parents in the focus group spoke of designing opportunities for families to engage with
school leaders and teachers in the community external to school spaces, highlighting the
importance of developing a shared understanding of the lived experiences students and families
bring into the school spaces. The importance of building community with non-dominant families
unable to attend PTA meetings and school-based activities was stressed. Extending this narrative,
Parent 4 shared, “Our church has hosted several activities outdoors to reconnect with families.
Sometimes, we need to see each other outside of our work environment to understand how we
can support each other.” Similarly, Parent 1 said,
When we think about family engagement, we have to realize that our district has such a
huge diverse community where we need to honor that culture and different experiences
play such an important role in the way we learn and engage with each other, how can we
create more opportunities where we can begin to interact with one another beyond the
walls of our schools and beyond the academics.
Building relationships in the community spaces opens the opportunity for power dynamics to
shift. Parents’ reflections in Table 10 also highlight the importance of co-designing engagement
among diverse communities.
Discussion Research Question 2
Overall, the parent focus group data reflected parent desires to engage with schools and
extend their engagement with students in the area of instruction. With a greater understanding of
the curricular expectations and the initiatives to address the perceived gaps caused by the
disrupted learning, parents are interested in connecting with teachers to support students in the
instructional component. Participants also expressed the importance of keeping parents informed
93

of additional programs and services available to mitigate the impact of COVID on families, such
as extended day programs and services that may be readily available to students.
Moreover, the results help to cultivate culturally responsive forms of engagement.
Participants recognized that one size does not fit all and broad strategies may not meet diverse
families’ needs. Focalizing non-dominant families or families who are not currently engaged,
parents shared their interest in collaborating with school leaders to increase parent participation
and engagement. They further named how traditional school-centric forms of engagement may
limit participation due to structural barriers. During the school closures and increased
accessibility and participation, several local and statewide parent organizations transitioned their
meetings to a virtual setting, which amplified their presence and advocacy by engaging families
throughout the district. During Focus Group 2, Participant 3 shared her connection to an external
overarching parent organization that organized parents from other schools in the district and
local districts to increase advocacy and drive parent-led initiatives for school funding reform.
She noted, “When we connect with culturally and linguistically diverse parents, we try to make
sure that we provide translation services to ensure that they are aware of the information we are
presenting, designing or learning about.”
Furthering this connection to external organizations, Parent 1 from Focus Group 1 shared,
“There is a need for leaders and teachers to build with and alongside community-based
organizations to extend the work that is happening in our schools into the community.”
References to external support structures were a hopeful insight to capture and bring to the
forefront of this study as it seems to be connecting families with external agencies and
cultivating collective PFE in the overarching community. Exploring and engaging with parent
and community-led initiatives gave school leaders additional opportunities to establish
94

meaningful partnerships external to the school and move the overarching school district towards
more culturally sustaining and equitable practices in the element of PFE. Furthermore, engaging
with external stakeholders cultivates a sense of community and ownership of the responsibility
of educating children.
Results Research Question 3
Research Question 3 asked, “How can school leaders sustain, re-imagine, and co-design
future parent and family engagement?” School leadership teams recognize a return to normal
requires some examination of the systemic structures and services at the school and district levels
to continue to support all stakeholders in this new era of education. The long-term impacts of
COVID school closures are still unknown. However, when asked to re-imagine PFE, school
leaders shared ideas about the value of health and life and, more critically, a shift in their
perceptions around the purpose of schooling. Moreover, the data indicate school leader and
parent perceptions of diverse families in the element of PFE have been crystalized and can
disrupt deficient perspectives. The window into students’ lives and the lives of school teams and
communities created a rich opportunity to humanize and strengthen relationships between all
stakeholders, giving school leaders a greater purpose to establish strong partnerships with parents
and families to ensure the success and well-being of students beyond the walls of the school.
School leaders and parents have had the opportunity to enhance collaboration to support
students in their learning and overall health and well-being. School leaders and parents expressed
having a better understanding of systemic barriers and policies that may prevent families from
engaging in more equitable and culturally responsive ways. They have analyzed forms of
engagement and highlighted practices where other ways of knowing and co-construction of
knowledge go beyond traditional forms of engagement and invite all stakeholder groups to
95

exercise agency in meeting the needs of students and the community. Two focus themes emerged
from the data from school leaders and the parent focus groups related to Research Question 3, as
will be discussed in the following section.
Towards Common Ground: School Leaders As Catalysts for Capacity Building in
Culturally Responsive PFE
Principals alone will not be able to address the internal and external needs of the
community and single-handedly cultivate culturally responsive and equitable forms of
engagement. School leaders that see themselves as lead learners seek opportunities to grow their
capacity and exercise ongoing reflective practice to establish cultures of improvement not limited
to instructional practices to enhance their practices in all areas of school leadership (Khalifa,
2020; Westover, 2020; Spencer, 2009). When asked to reflect on the value of culturally
responsive and equitable collaboration with families, parent reflections centered around the need
to design opportunities for families to engage within community-based spaces. Parent 3 in Focus
Group 2 shared this to honor the aforementioned value of culturally responsive forms of
engagement,
When we share our cultural differences, we are able to learn about our similarities which
can serve to bring us to some common grounds about what it means to belong in a space
and community when we understand that our experiences may or may not be the same we
begin to develop a true appreciation for difference as a strength.
Moreover, there was an emphasis on the role of school leaders as community leaders
beyond the school walls. Parents expressed the desire to engage with families from other schools
to connect to build awareness of schools’ programs and offerings and ultimately foster collective
agency and advocacy for students across the district. Furthering this idea, a few parents also
96

expressed concern regarding the social isolation and restrictions all stakeholders experienced.
This may be reason enough to seek and build community-based opportunities to engage with
school leaders, teachers, and other families.
Parent 2 in Focus Group 1 shared concerns about children’s social-emotional states and
well-being: “Our kids will need some time to re-adjust. We need to get together and provide
opportunities for our children and families to build community in outdoor spaces, or schools
eventually.” Similarly, School Leader 4 reflected on how teachers and families will need to
continue to work together to mitigate some of the impact due to learning loss and the quarantine
experiences, stating, “We are happy to be back in person, and we are not sure what the next few
months are going to look like, but we need to continue to work together with parents to support
our kids and teachers.” Building on this idea, Table 11 includes some reflections that point
toward possible opportunities for parents, school leaders and teachers to begin the dialogue and
communication towards ways to co-design culturally responsive and sustaining practices in the
element of PFE.

97

Table 11
Toward Common Ground: School Leader Reflections Intersect With Parent Reflections
We have to try to build community outside of school with other families, maybe planning a
family/ school family day outside of the school where we can get to know each other
outside of our roles as parents, teachers and school administrators”- P1-FG1 Interview
(1/27/22)
Now after COVID, we need to get our kids and families out in the community maybe we can
plan for an outdoor fair in a local church or community center so that we can reconnect
some parents may be able to make it on the weekend if they know in time. (P2 FG1
Interview, 1/27/22)
Maybe now with virtual options parents can still connect to kids in the classroom to find out
about what they are doing in the classroom; up until virtual school I really didn’t know
what was going on in the classroom now I know have an idea of what the school day and
learning looks like. (P1 FG2 Interview, 2/3/22)
Maybe if we plan something in the different neighborhoods we can get to connect with
families from other schools and we know we are privileged because we are here and know
it’s not like this everywhere in the district. (P3 FG2 Interview, 2/3/22)
We increase our engagement with families through the classroom connections made with
teachers, we work together and encourage our teachers to really get to know our students
and their backgrounds, honoring that we are a very diverse community want everyone to
feel their voices matter. (L1 Interview, 1/16/22)
Leaders can definitely be the spark in this work. When they set the tone, it starts from the
leadership when they invite others to engage in ways that honor differences they are
creating a safe space and sense of belonging in the school community. (P3 FG2 Interview,
2/3/22)
We are a community that has many new families not just from the state but from other parts
of the world that have totally different expectations for schools and ways we can and want
to contribute, we need to find more ways to understand how they too can partner with the
school to support their children. (P4 FG2 Interview, 2/3/22)
We have to come to a common understanding about what is the goal we want to achieve for
children, and that takes an understanding of the parents’ perspective and our perspective as
leaders, we can’t expect the child to produce something we aren’t on the same page about.
(L3, Interview, 12/20/21)

98

When asked to define culturally responsive engagement, school leader responses varied
and spoke of characteristics that anchored into embracing diversity and creating inclusive spaces
for diverse students and families. School Leader 1 spoke of having participated in professional
development on culturally responsive pedagogy several years ago as part of a district-wide
initiative to develop his understanding and capacity on culturally responsive practices for
instruction. Anchoring into the principles of building trust and relationships with students and
families, he further addressed the need to build strong relationships as foundational to navigating
the complexities of culturally responsive pedagogy and capacity building. School Leader 1
shared, “To truly move towards more culturally responsive and sustaining practices, we must
have strong enough relationships with our students’ families, we need to build trust, and that
takes time.”
The element of time to build the capacity of school teams alongside families was also a
noteworthy strand in this exploration. Leveraging support from community liaisons, school
leaders’ and parents’ responses converged in their ideas around the collaborative work between
all stakeholders during the virtual school experience and discussed how they “became more
aware of potential opportunities to engage with teachers and school leaders” stemming from
observing the daily realities school leaders and teachers managed during traditional in-person
school days. Sharing her experience, Parent 1 of Focus Group 2 shared she was not fully aware
of the instructional components of her children’s day until the virtual school experience. Now
that she is aware, she is better equipped to ask questions, support the teacher and instructional
process, and, most importantly, “has a better understanding of her children as students.” Parent 3
expressed similar sentiments as she reflected,
99

I was able to see my child’s strengths and weaknesses and got the opportunity to learn
about ways to use technology to access resources that would help me support my child
better, I was also able to connect with the teacher immediately to ask her questions or
make her aware of any challenges we were having.
Contextualizing the idea of time, parents referenced the increased accessibility as a result
of virtual meetings creating possible opportunities for additional engagement with parents and
families whose work and family schedules conflict with conventional school-based forms of
engagement. Parent two in focus group one shared she was able to engage with her children’s
teachers in multiple schools during the virtual open house and also enjoyed being able to attend
all PTA meetings virtually because she did not have to drive across town during a time she was
trying to support her children with homework or sports activities. These structural barriers can
mislead school leaders and teachers into believing that parents are not interested in supporting
their children, impacting how school leaders and teachers perceive these parents.
Extending the discussion around time invested in the community, the school leader
participants served at their respective schools for a minimum of 2 years. However, four of the six
school leaders interviewed had been leading their schools or affiliated with their schools for 14
or more years. This detail speaks to longevity in the community, the quality of the knowledge
base, and relationships among the staff and the overarching school community. Parents spoke of
the need to extend engagement to local community-based spaces coupled with the strategies for
outreach and invitations for authentic engagement. Additionally, school leaders shared
opportunities for parents to engage in district-wide committees as representatives of the school
community to enhance advocacy and agency beyond the school walls. As noted by School
Leader 4,
100

Each school has a representative that attends the Title I committee meeting and special
education committee and captures the information to be shared within the school
community. Usually, they share with me and the PTA so that we can share with the rest
of the community.
The district-wide committees have been a longstanding opportunity for parents and families to
engage in district-wide initiatives as an extension of their local neighborhood school. A
reflection during a parent focus group interview sparked some insights into PFE through cultural
wealth and the counterstory lens. Parent 3 in Focus Group 2 indicated that the PTA had been
brainstorming ways to engage parents that do not normally attend meetings. She noted, “It’s
really the same group of parents that usually attend the meetings, and although the virtual
meetings had a slightly better turn out, it was still not reflective of our school demographic and
population.”
Aligned to this reflection, School Leader 3 shared sentiments around the composition of
the PTA board in his school, highlighting that his school demographics are 76% Latinx, but his
school’s PTA executive board is composed entirely of White mothers. Naming the absence of
the Latinx population’s voice in parent organization leadership sheds light on the tension in the
implementation of school-based forms of engagement. In the reflective narrative, he shared his
interrogation regarding the composition of the executive board and shared it as a “starting point
to think about how we can begin to have all voices at the table.” Moreover, it highlighted the
ways in which social capital and cultural capital can be amplified by honoring diverse families’
cultural wealth by creating opportunities to acknowledge and understand their navigational,
aspirational, familial, and linguistic capital to disrupt deficit perspectives and dispel
disengagement myths and perceptions of diverse families.
101

Further discussion about ways to capture the participation of parents not captured in the
focus groups with parent participants led to some insights into potential systemic barriers to
engagement. During the individual interview, Parent 6 shared insight and perceptions as to why
linguistically and culturally diverse families are limited in their participation, stating,
It’s hard for parents to get to school in the evenings when they are working, and by the
time they get home, they have to get dinner on the table and help kids with homework
and anything else they may need for school the next day.
He also expressed the need for translation services at meetings and cited that there were
often Spanish-speaking parents who could receive translation services, but the increasing Arabic-
speaking population would be limited in their understanding, so they did not attend meetings as
frequently. He further shared that he has lived in multiple neighborhoods throughout the city, and
his children have attended multiple schools where school leaders, including at his current school,
have been intentional about seeking parent participation and have designed opportunities for
parents to partner with the school. When asked for some examples of such engagement, he
shared examples of conventional forms of engagement, stating, “We get invited to the monthly
PTA meetings and activities such as the fall festival and holiday celebrations. Now that they are
online, more parents can attend and not miss work.”
Parent 6 further shared that the school received a grant to design a community garden,
and he was invited to participate in the designing and brainstorming sessions. However, he did
express his long-standing participation in the school community has amplified his presence and
privilege in the school:
I have been a member of the community for over 30 years, so kids and families know me
well. I have seen many principals come through this school; and other parents know I am
102

here to help and support them in any way that I can. I come to the school and contact the
principal if I need to support other parents. I am here.
Highlighting the essence of community leadership, Parent 6 felt a sense of ownership and
responsibility and agency in the school community and expressed his partnership with the school
leadership team as a way to support all children, not just his own. He stated, “I make sure to
support this school leader by informing parents, and when there are activities, I invite parents
and encourage them to participate. I also reach out to other families that aren’t the usual families
attending so that they feel welcome too.” The idea of parents engaging parents as a catalytic
force is noted in Participant 6’s responses.
The first focus group was reflective of Black and Latinx families as the group was
composed of parents from various schools in a predominantly Black neighborhood, and their
reflections on the demographics of their children’s schools shed light on racialized experiences
in schools. Some of the children reflected in the first focus group attended magnet programs
housed in a school in this neighborhood. When asked how they see their family reflected in the
school community, Parents 3 and 4 stated that their children did not have many Black or Latinx
classmates, and they grappled with a sense of belonging, especially since they transitioned from
predominantly Black and Latinx schools. Parent 4 stated,
They don’t see themselves because they are actually the minority in the program, but they
are learning about other cultures, and we are growing from the experience. We talk about
differences being a growth opportunity.
In relation to PFE, they referenced the initial orientation programs and weekly
connections with school leaders and teachers as a form of engagement. At the same time, they
also shared that because students reside in different neighborhoods, it is more challenging to
103

engage with other parents as a school community or an extension of their residential community.
Because of the variance in proximity, for many of the students, it can create the same feel as a
“commuter school,” making it more complex to establish a sense of shared community.
Co-designing Parent-Led Initiatives
Data captured from the school leader interviews and parent focus groups highlighted a
combination of conventional forms of PFE initiatives and some forms of engagement that
counter the normative ideologies of school-centric, school-led activities. The narratives of both
school leader interviews and parent focus group interviews reflected the inherent power
dynamics in PFE. However, both school leaders and parents shared the value of leveraging each
other’s strengths to build bi-directional relationships and forms of engagement that center the
children and entire school community in their vision and mission. School Leader 2 noted,
“Parents are a key component to truly designing high-quality learning experiences for children.”
He discussed their support of a STEM science program that gave students hands-on opportunities
to engage in project-based learning. Similarly, School Leader 1 expressed, “Our parents know it
is their right and responsibility to advocate for all children in our schools, and we owe our
success to the teachers and the partnerships with parents in our community.” Extending this idea
of co-design with parents and families, School Leader 1 discussed the development of an
afterschool enrichment program that expanded their programing through outside performing arts
companies. He shared,
The parents supported this initiative by raising funds and to ensure that all students,
regardless of their socioeconomic status, were able to participate. They weren’t too happy
with the limited offerings of the aftercare program, so we worked together to enhance the
extracurricular experience for all students.
104

Centering all students’ needs, the collaboration between the school leaders and the PTA
led to creating an afterschool program available to all students. Despite the need for additional
funding, all stakeholders understood that access to the programs would be equitable. Parent 4 in
Focus Group 1 shared her ideas about creating opportunities for parents, school leaders, and
teachers to engage in health and wellness activities to center health and well-being while also
building community. She shared, “I participated in an outdoor Zumba exercise class, and we had
a great time.” Similarly, Parents 1 and 4 in the first focus group shared their participation in
PTA-designed family nights and holiday celebrations to engage and honor all cultures in the
school community. Parent 4 shared,
It’s great when parents are creating activities to engage other parents, and it's wonderful
when school leaders and teachers bring their families to the events. We feel a sense of
community and connection beyond the role and title of our jobs.
When asked to share how school leaders and parents can continue to build upon the
learnings from virtual schooling and the transition back to in-person schooling, both school
leaders and parents shared similar sentiments about the accessibility created by virtual platforms.
Parent 3 in Focus Group 1 shared,
We really appreciated connecting with teachers virtually and being able to log into
school activities without having to miss work or request time off. It was great to be able
to connect with teachers in a Zoom as part of the teacher on-call program. It should
continue so that parents can support their children at home with the support of teachers.
Along similar lines, Parent 3 in Focus Group 2 shared her advocacy for a continuation of virtual
options for meetings and assemblies not as a replacement for in-person experiences but more so
to give parents choice and accessibility options. Further, she noted that participation can look
105

very different moving forward into future forms of culturally responsive engagement. Also
noting the need for human connection, she shared, “While accessibility is great and important,
we also want to keep the connectedness of in-person meetings.” Highlighting how both in-person
and virtual opportunities can foster and build culturally sustaining and responsive forms of
engagement, all school leader and parent interviews allowed for an authentic telling of lived
experiences to inform future forms of PFE in diverse communities.
When specifically asked about the elements of culturally responsive PFE, Parent 4 in
Focus Group 2 anchored into the idea of representation in leadership positions and teaching
positions. She stated, “Until we start to see more diversity in positions of leadership, it is going
to be challenging to see safe spaces to have these discussions and conversations.” Counter to that
point, Parent 1 shared, “Representation matters, yes, but it doesn’t mean if you are White, you
aren’t able to be more culturally responsive. It requires leaders to understand their responsibility
to make school a safe space for all members of the community.” Although this reflection does
not directly answer Question 2 or 3, noting the need to diversify our leadership teams and
teaching profession was a noteworthy finding for this study as it highlights the importance of
developing school leaders’ cultural competence to impact capacity-building efforts among
teachers and the entire school community in relation to culturally responsive and sustaining
practices (Khalifa, 2020, p. 162).
Discussion Research Question 3
Research Question 3 focused on the opportunities school leaders can seize to build and
sustain more equitable and culturally responsive forms of PFE. It is important to note that
answers to Question 3 identified areas of convergence of both parent and school leader responses
to build future possibilities for PFE in diverse communities. School leaders’ responses shed light
106

on the need to center the overall health and SEL needs of students. Re-establishing trust and
relationships with families in school settings, school leaders discussed centering the role of
parents as advocates and agents of change in designing and implementing culturally responsive
opportunities for engagement.
Related to the need to establish relational trust with parents and families, similar themes
emerged from parent responses as they expressed a desire to engage with other families and
school leaders to build community at their schools and externally in the district. This collective
agency can catalyze true partnerships between school leaders, teachers, and families and have a
greater impact on students at each school rather than individual schools. Understanding the needs
of all students throughout the district can activate collective agency and elucidate the need to
provide equitable instructional and nonacademic services for all students.
As leaders and parents shared, inherent power dynamics can be disrupted by cultivating
more coherent and transparent communication among all stakeholders to align and leverage both
school leaders’ and parents’ strengths. Present in both school leader and parent responses, there
is a need to examine current forms of engagement to design more equitable forms with a focus
on non-dominant families. School leaders and parents shared similar sentiments around engaging
families in more personalized ways, naming that one-size-fits-all approaches may exclude some
families and not consider the structural barriers inhibiting their engagement and participation.
Furthering this idea, the data captured the value of time in the work of establishing culturally
responsive and equitable partnerships with families as school leaders shared the need for time to
build relationships with internal and external stakeholders. School Leader 1 said, “This work
takes time, and relationships are not built overnight.” Similarly, School Leader 2 shared,
“relationships with families at our school are a product of leaders before me setting the
107

groundwork with teachers and families to cultivate connections that withstand the test of time.”
Highlighting the importance of longevity in his reflection underscores time as a critical element
in building relational trust. The parent narratives and school leaders’ narratives mirrored the idea
that culturally responsive and equitable collaboration with parents and families is more than just
activating agency to support individual children. It is about building bi-directional relationships
with all families, which will disrupt deficit narratives and center all children’s needs.
Summary
Research Question 1 focused on school leaders’ lived experiences and strategies they
have used to engage families in diverse communities. The findings highlighted that the school-
based forms of engagement via the PTA and school-based committees are still a dominant
strategy for PFE. Additionally, school leaders have been able to connect with families in more
personalized ways as a result of school closures and the impact of COVID-19. Virtual forms of
engagement have served to engage more parents, families, and community members. New forms
of engagement in virtual spaces have also humanized both school leaders and families by giving
all parties a window into the lived realities outside of the school. School leaders, teachers, and
parents have had to engage in more direct and authentic ways to support students in the process
of learning. Furthermore, leaders have been able to work with families outside of the boundaries
of traditional school spaces and have decentered themselves as the institution’s all-knowing
figure to a lead learner position for all members of the school community. School leaders shared
the partnerships with school-based teams, teachers, and community liaisons to connect with
families and build collective agency towards establishing and co-designing more culturally
responsive and equitable forms of PFE.
108

Research Question 2 focused on the parents’ perspective on the forms of engagement
they have experienced before, during, and after COVID-19. Findings reflected a consistent
pattern of experiences with participation and engagement stemming from PTAs, PTOs, and
school-centric committee meetings and activities sponsored by the school hosted at the school.
Parents perceived school-based strategies as beneficial for families whose parents have the
flexibility to engage in traditional forms of engagement and highlighted the importance of
personalizing the outreach strategies so that school leaders and teachers can better understand the
needs of diverse families. Findings from parents’ responses also included a positive perception of
virtual accessibility as a strategy to engage with more parents and the need to innovate strategies
to engage parents who cannot participate in traditional engagement forms. A noteworthy finding
for Question 2 was reflected in parents’ responses that highlighted the need to diversify
leadership teams and school teams in pursuit of culturally responsive engagement. Parent 3
stated,
If we are really trying to create culturally responsive communities, we need to think
about how we can get more leaders that are diverse and teachers that are diverse, that
speak the languages, and can communicate with our families in deeper ways.
Lastly, research question three focused on the future possibilities based on school leader
and parent responses. Findings indicated that parents recognize that school leaders alone will not
be able to fuel the initiatives to build more culturally responsive engagement. However, they
expressed that school leaders are models and foundational to engaging with families. Parent three
in the second focus group expressed, “School leaders are equally responsible for establishing and
modeling the work of engaging with diverse families, they are the ones who get the team
together, and their teams include parents and all members of the community.” Future forms of
109

engagement, whether in the school or virtual settings, can leverage racial, socioeconomic, and
linguistic differences as assets to the school community and propel school-wide diversity and
inclusion strategies to create learning communities that embrace the whole child and whole
family. Emerging from both parent responses and school leader responses was the
acknowledgment of missing voices of non-dominant families.
Both parents and school leaders shared their reflections about the need to tap into
personalized approaches to engaging with families that are not actively participating in school-
centric PFE activities and committees. Parent 3 in Focus Group 1 shared, “I need to be more
intentional about talking and building deeper relationships with families, actually stepping
outside of my comfort zone and introducing myself and making connections beyond the PTA.”
Co-signing her sentiments, Parent 6 shared,
We need to welcome families into the community as parents and support the principals in
making the school community a welcoming place for all families, seeing their racial and
language differences as something that adds such beautiful value and experiences for our
students.
Cultivating the environments that honor the social and cultural capital that all families bring into
school spaces was central to both parent and school leader responses.

110

Chapter Five: Discussion
Chapter Five summarizes findings and implications for practice related to PFE.
Prominent findings and implications for practice are discussed to guide school leaders, parents,
and all stakeholders toward more culturally responsive and sustaining forms of engagement. The
focus themes emerged from six semi-structured school leader interviews, two parent/caretaker
focus groups, and one independent parent interview. This chapter will highlight the prominent
findings for each research question and connect the findings to the literature. Table 12 represents
the eight themes that emerged from the data analysis. This chapter highlights themes aligned to
each overarching question, which can help leaders continue to cultivate a more equitable and just
partnerships alongside students and families in racially, linguistically, and socioeconomically
diverse communities.

111

Table 12
Research Questions Emerging Themes
Research question Theme 1 Theme 2 Theme 3
How do school
leaders engage
parents in diverse
communities?
Coherent and
consistent
communication
School-based forms
of engagement via
PTA, SLC, AND
school-based
committees
Foundations for
culturally
responsive
engagement
How do parents in
diverse
communities want
to be engaged?
Coherent and
transparent
communication
Beyond surface-level
engagement toward
authentic
relationships with
parents and families
One size does not
fit all:
Personalizing
outreach to
foster and
sustain culturally
responsive PFE
How can school
leaders sustain, re-
imagine and co-
design future parent
and family
engagement?
Towards common
ground school
leaders as catalysts
for capacity
building in
culturally
responsive PFE
Co-designing parent-
led-initiatives

As highlighted in Chapter Two, a growing body of research on PFE has exposed the
historical exclusion and intentional erasure of forms of engagement and participation of racially,
socioeconomically, and linguistically diverse families who are not captured in frameworks
anchored in the normative paradigm reflective of White middle-class standards (Baqueando-
Lopez, 2013). Deficit perspectives of culturally diverse, socioeconomically disadvantaged, and
linguistically diverse families mean that despite many school-based, school-centric efforts to
engage with parents, caretakers, and families, traditional forms of engagement may not capture
opportunities to involve culturally diverse communities. In fact, in some cases, traditional forms
112

of engagement perpetuate deficit narratives of non-dominant families and historically excluded
families (Auerbach, 2010; Ishimaru, 2020; Mapp, 2002; Epstein, 2006; Baqueando-Lopez,
2013). As communities return to school after the COVID-19 school closures, it is ever more
important to re-imagine and redesign PFE to honor racial, cultural, and social capital, better
understand lived experiences during the health crisis, and consider the impact of the nation’s
racial and social climate. Understanding the complexities students and families faced can build
relationships and restore trust, belief, and confidence in the public school system to create
inclusive and equitable learning spaces for all students.
Examining how school leaders collaborate with diverse parents helps to co-construct and
re-imagine new forms of engagement. Frameworks designed to cultivate bi-directional
relationships aid in multiplying, building capacity for, and activating parent agency in school
reform. This will help shift the hierarchical power structures that may limit the participation of
families who do not fit the normative ideologies of engagement anchored by White middle-class
norms of engagement and participation in schools (Auerbach, 2010; Ishimaru et al., 2019;
Khalifa et al., 2016). This study informs district and school leadership teams on strategies to
continue to build deeper relationships with parents, families, and caretakers to foster safe and
culturally responsive learning opportunities for all students. The following questions guided this
study:
1. How do elementary school leaders engage parents of diverse communities?
2. How do parents of diverse communities want to be engaged in their child’s
education?
3. How can school leaders sustain, re-imagine and co-design future parent and family
engagement?
113

Findings
Examining how school leaders collaborate with diverse parents and families is critical to
co-construct and re-imagine new forms of engagement. Frameworks designed to cultivate a bi-
directional relationship are critical to multiply, build capacity, activate parent agency in the
school community, and, most critically, activate parent agency in school reform. The findings
highlight opportunities to shift the hierarchical power structures that limit the participation of
families who do not fit the normative ideologies of engagement as measured by school-centric
norms of engagement (Auerbach, 2010; Ishimaru, 2019; Khalifa et al., 2016). At the core of the
findings, elements of relationships and relational trust elucidated participants’ aspirations for
future possibilities to co-design new forms of engagement. Data revealed that school leaders
alone cannot drive action to cultivate and grow more culturally responsive and sustaining
practices. However, they are catalytic in creating a vision and mission to work toward a
collective approach to build, sustain, and re-imagine new forms of engagement (Fullan & Quinn,
2016; Leithwood, 2003; Northouse, 2018). These findings outlined eight themes that emerged to
address the three overarching research questions.
Research Question 1
Research Question 1 explored how school leaders engage parents and families in diverse
communities. This question served to capture the voices and lived experiences of six elementary
school leaders via semi-structured interviews. School leaders are essential members of the
community and, hence, their leadership in the school can impact the external community beyond
the walls of their school buildings (Khalifa, 2020). The first theme that emerged pertained to
coherent and transparent communication. Communication is at the core of all human interactions
and can catalyze the element of relational trust (Bryk & Schneider, 2002; Herrera et al., 2020).
114

Contextualizing the principles of coherent and transparent communication, all six school leaders
interviewed articulated in some form the critical value of communication and transparency in
building and sustaining trust with parents and families (Bryck & Schneider, 2002; Ishimaru,
2013).
The importance of clear and coherent communication about how schools were navigating
the return to school was a clear emphasis. School leaders expressed they were navigating
uncharted waters and, therefore, needed to continue to keep parents, caregivers, and teachers
informed of day-by-day changes to the overarching plans. Embracing the disruption and
dismantled policies and protocols aligned with school-centric forms of engagement. School
leaders shared they were still working to focus direction, communicate efficiently, and cultivate
collaboration between teachers and staff by centering the needs of students and families (Fullan
& Quinn, 2016; Westover, 2020). As lead learners (Fullan & Quinn, 2016; Westover, 2020)
modeling cultural humility and coherent communication with parents and families, school
leaders shared they wanted to stay connected with families to continue to build upon the various
modes of communication that emerged during the pandemic. Traditional forms of engagement
via PTAs, SLCs, and school-based committees emerged with an emphasis on greater
accessibility to parents and families that may have been excluded as a result of previous
structural and scheduling barriers and were now able to engage with school leaders virtually.
The second finding that emerged from research question one centered on the potential
that exists in school leaders, developing and exercising cultural humility and critical reflection to
catalyze a shift in the power imbalances between institutions and parents and families and to
cultivate opportunities for bi-directional relationships (Tervalon & Murray-Garcia, 1998).
Affirming the need to develop culturally responsive environments for students, it is increasingly
115

necessary for school leaders to exercise cultural humility to engage with parents in more
authentic ways that de-center the institutional knowledge above the cultural embodied capital
(Bourdieu, 1984; Yosso, 2005) and honors knowledge families bring into the learning
community. Understanding the lived experiences of diverse families and the historical impact of
systemic oppression on marginalized populations is critical to becoming more critically
conscious and culturally responsive (Anyon, 2011; Freire & Macedo, 2000; Herrera et al., 2020).
Along these lines, school leader responses articulated cultural humility in working with teachers
to activate agency and foster collaborative cultures to build more equitable and just learning
environments in diverse communities, decentering themselves as all-knowing to embrace ideas
from all members of the internal and external stakeholders. School leader responses tapped into
the idea of critical reflection as a strategy to cultivate and build strong relationships between
internal stakeholders and external stakeholders. Exercising coherent and transparent
communication serves to grow the practices of PFE in more culturally responsive and sustaining
ways (Green, 2017; Khalifa et al., 2016; Warren & Mapp, 2013).
The third finding stemming from Research Question 1 is centered around a recurring
theme of micro-moments as opportunities to build relationships, naming the value of informal
interactions as opportunities to engage with families in authentic ways. The intensity of the role
and the reality that each day is finite in time to interact with teachers, students and families
creates a sense of urgency to maximize every single second to build relationships with all
stakeholders. School leaders shared micro-opportunities to engage with families that are often
dismissed as “small moments” in daily interactions but have the potential to cause a “butterfly
effect” in catalyzing relational trust with parents and families. Several school leaders expressed
transactional opportunities that can also crystalize the school’s vision and mission and cultivate
116

positive and collaborative cultures that shift the power imbalances that may exist in the element
of PFE. Transitioning back to in-person learning has made these small moments more valuable
as school leaders recognize they have limited opportunities to engage with families in the context
of the school.
Research Question 2
Research Question 2 inquired, “How do parents of diverse communities want to be
engaged in their child’s education?” This question centered parents’ and caretakers’ perspectives.
Building equitable and robust relationships with families and communities to support children in
the fluid and evolving educational environment of the public education system needs to continue,
particularly as schools design opportunities to re-engage students, parents, and families in the
transition back to in-person learning post-COVID-19 school closures (Herrera et al., 2020;
Ishimaru, 2016; Warren & Mapp, 2011; Pattison et al., 2021). It is worth noting that cultural and
family beliefs about their roles in their child’s education play an important role in parents’
perceptions of school-based invitations for engagement and participation. The cultural capital
with which families walk into school spaces can serve as powerful assets to all school reform
efforts and, more importantly, serve as foundational to creating culturally responsive learning
communities (Ladson-Billings, 2021; Posey-Maddox & Haley-Lock, 2020). Exploring how
parents in diverse communities want to be engaged can foster and crystalize communication to
identify and design action steps toward more meaningful engagement with parents and families
in diverse communities (Hoover-Dempsey & Whitaker, 2013; Khalifa, 2020).
The findings for this question converged with the research that affirms the need to move
beyond school-centric approaches to engaging with families to dive deeper and better understand
the students and families in the school community. Family background and constructs such as
117

race, class, and gender influence how we perceive and are perceived in educational spaces
(Ishimaru, 2020; Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995). Parents shared reflections about the structural
and systemic barriers that limit their participation and may present challenges for non-dominant
families when invited to engage. Posing work and family demands as a root cause of
disengagement, participants shared promising stories about how the virtual accessibility during
the school closures, while challenging, gave parents access to participate during virtual PTA
meetings and virtual assemblies and engage with teachers and school leaders more frequently.
Furthering this idea and opportunity to view the curriculum and instructional processes,
participants shared that their interest in engaging in more instructional elements to support their
children was present before but now has been amplified by the virtual schooling experience.
A focus on engaging non-dominant families was also brought to the forefront as parents
discussed that reaching out to parents directly to establish relationships between other families
could support increasing participation. Reflections from focus group participants centered on the
efforts parents could make to step out of their social networks to connect with new families,
expand their social capital, and exercise their navigational capital. School leaders also
highlighted the importance of communicating with families directly and leveraging the
relationships between teachers and families as a starting point to create more frequent and
personalized opportunities to engage with families.
Research Question 3
Research Question 3 asked, “How can school leaders sustain, re-imagine and co-design
future forms of parent and family engagement?” This question attempted to converge both parent
and school leader reflections and shared narratives to explore possibilities to sustain, re-imagine
and inform future forms of engagement. Findings indicated that parents recognize school leaders
118

alone will not be able to fuel the initiatives to build more culturally responsive engagement.
However, they expressed that school leaders are models and foundational to engaging with
families and building the capacity of teachers in culturally responsive practices in the classroom,
which in turn can serve as a springboard to employ the practices to engage with parents,
caretakers, and families. Both parents and school leaders shared their reflections about the need
to tap into personalized approaches to engaging with families who are not actively participating
in school-centric PFE activities and committees. The need to collectively dive deeper to discover
and examine possible barriers and reasons non-dominant families are not engaging is important
to address some of the gaps. At the core of creating more culturally responsive opportunities to
engage with families is the need to engage with parents and families in spaces that stretch far
beyond the school walls and reach into the community. Decentering the inherent power
structures and dynamics that may impact how families perceive and experience engagement,
both parents and school leaders expressed a desire to learn from and with the community how to
continue to co-design more culturally responsive forms of engagement (Barajas-Lopez &
Herrera et al., 2020; Ishimaru, 2018; 2020; Khalifa et al., 2016, 2020). Furthermore, linking the
findings regarding all three research questions, there is a need to cultivate relationships with
families in personalized ways that humanize differences and foster collective agency to cultivate
environments that honor the social and cultural capital that all families bring into education
spaces.
All participants also called for co-designing opportunities for future forms of
engagement, as parents are central in advocacy for school-based needs. Both parents and school
leaders named the importance of actively working together to advocate for the needs of all
students. Parent-led initiatives were still predominantly activated through the PTA; however,
119

parent participants in Focus Group 2 discussed their partnership with local community-based
parent advocacy groups as a hopeful seed for future possibilities in building more culturally
responsive and sustaining PFE practices.
Implications for Practice
This study examined PFE to capture the experiences and perceptions of participants and
the forms of engagement enacted to engage diverse families pre- and post-COVID-19. The
study’s findings provide guidance for future efforts as school leaders play a critical role in
activating and promoting agency among their teams and communities. The themes that emerged
from the data analysis led to implications for practice for elementary school leaders to build
culturally responsive PFE. Furthermore, the findings highlight the role of school leaders as
advocates for their school community with inherent power to influence their school
communities’ internal and external culture and climate (Anderson, 1998; Anyon, 2011; Fraise &
Brooks, 2015).
Coherent and Clear Communication
The first implication for practice emphasizes the importance of coherent and transparent
communication in building relationships and relational trust with parents and families. Grounded
in the themes identified in both Research Questions 1 and 2, leaders must center communication
as foundational to building relationships with all stakeholders to cultivate a welcoming and
inviting. Extending communication into communal spaces and local community-based spaces
also engages parents beyond the traditional methods and shifts the power dynamics for more
equitable forms of engagement (Ishimaru,2019; Henderson & Mapp, 2011). Findings also
highlighted the virtual accessibility being an additional lever to pull to improve and personalize
communication for more authentic PFE.
120

Foundations for Culturally Responsive Parent and Family Engagement
The second implication centers the emerging understanding of culturally responsive
practices. Both parent and school leader responses perceive culturally responsive engagement as
interconnected and beneficial to bolstering a student’s sense of belonging to enhance their
overall experiences at school. A theme emerged from Research Question 1 that captured
foundations for culturally responsive engagement centering the importance of exercising cultural
humility as a foundation for cultural competence and culturally responsive leadership (Khalifa,
2016; Tervalon & Murray-Garica) and the need for school leaders and teams to develop their
understanding of culturally responsive practices. Investing in job-embedded culturally responsive
pedagogical strategies in addition to a culturally responsive leadership framework could help
prepare leaders in foundational principles to embark on the journey of supporting teachers in the
transition towards more culturally relevant practices in the classroom, which can amplify PFE
strategies.
The last implication by school leaders addresses the value of decentering the school
institution as all-knowing to establish authentic partnerships with local grassroots organizations
to build a two-way dynamic of mutual capacity building. Engaging with grassroots organizations
taking the position of learners rather than the experts imparting knowledge would help co-
construct strategies for engagement that are equitable and tailored to center the needs of the
students and families served (Warren & Mapp, 2011). Examples of such include local safety and
community coalitions, religious coalitions, neighborhood block associations, and local and
county parent advocacy groups. Learning about the community through various lenses prepares
school leaders to work from a stance of service. These strategies also cultivate relational trust
and build stronger relationships with all stakeholders in the community. This includes
121

establishing systemic ways to continue partnerships and collaborative relationships with
community-based organizations, such as parent advocacy groups internal and external to the
district, and those that extend education and provide wrap-around services (i.e., mental health,
mitigate the impact of food insecurity, and community safety). These also broaden the lens for
school leaders and teachers to understand the overarching priorities and quality of life concerns
of the community to better serve students and families while garnering external support for
school-wide initiatives.
Limitations and Delimitations
The limitations of the study reside in generalizability and transferability. The school
leader and parent/caregiver reflections are personal and contextualized to their respective
schools, which serve families of diverse backgrounds in the same school district. Therefore, the
findings may not be generalizable or transferable. The intention of this study, however, was not
to generalize but to identify themes in the data that could help build on, re-imagine and co-design
forms of culturally responsive engagement post-COVID-19. Similarly, the parent focus groups
captured the lived experiences and perceptions of a small sample in the midsize district, which
poses a threat to generalizability. Some limitations in this study are the potential variance and
truthfulness of the participants as it relates to the ways their families were impacted by the global
pandemic. Given the timing of the interviews and focus groups, the current priorities post-
COVID school closures may have affected the participants’ responses. Moreover, the use of
focus groups as a qualitative tool to collect the lived experiences of parents and guardians may
have influenced and biased their responses. Furthermore, the ambiguity of the focus group
discussions produced additional opportunities to support families in the transition as their
122

authentic responses reflect new possibilities for engagement, which was one of the goals of this
study.
A delimitation presents itself in the strategies used to source participants for the parent
focus groups. Given the timing of the study, school leaders served as conduits of the initial
dissemination of the study’s invitation to participate and consent information. This may have
created possible participant bias and limited the selection of parents for the focus group since
some parents may not be active participants in the school’s PTA. Inherent power dynamics may
have influenced participants’ responses, although the participants were reminded that all data
would be reported aggregately and not reflective of individual school sites. The distance from the
school leaders created an opportunity to capture their perceptions and lived experiences that
could not be influenced or correlated to the school leader’s responses. In addition, all
parent/caretaker participants were considered actively engaged in their schools; therefore, the
representation of non-dominant parents and caretakers could not be substantially centered within
the interviews.
Additional consideration was given to the criteria for participants by broadening the lens
of parent/guardian participants, and some participants may not categorize as a parent despite
fulfilling the responsibilities of supporting and caretaking for children. Family members, such as
grandparents and aunts/uncles, who reflect diverse familial structures and ecologies of support,
were considered eligible participants (Alameda-Lawson, 2019; Fraise & Brooks, 2015).
Moreover, parents and families who participate in PTAs and are active in traditional forms of
engagement may already have established relationships with the school leaders, teachers, and
other parents in the community, which may have influenced their responses. Concurrently,
conducting interviews allowed for more authenticity in participants’ responses and generated
123

opportunities within the semi-structured format to tailor the interview and center the participants’
lived experiences at each of the school sites. Lastly, the timing of this study during the return to
school post-COVID-19 school closures may have impacted participant responses and focused on
the element of PFE in the context of virtual schooling.
Future Research
To establish and foster culturally responsive and equitable learning spaces for students,
research must first consider how current strategies and systems to engage with families reflect or
limit bi-directional communication and uphold or balance power dynamics between families and
schools (Henderson & Mapp, 2007; Ishimaru, 2012; Khalifa, 2020). There are future
opportunities to explore and build upon this study’s findings on PFE. First, future research could
expand this exploration to better understand PFE at the macro district level by conducting a
mixed-methods longitudinal study of PFE at various district sites to capture both qualitative and
quantitative data and fortify the generalizability in strategies and practices to engage parents and
families. Additionally, building a more comprehensive picture of the parents’ lived experiences
at selected sites could help design a system-wide approach to understanding the elements of PFE
and the practices that may reflect culturally responsive and sustaining practices (Green, 2016).
Furthermore, the element of cultural responsiveness could be better captured within a
longer window of time as relational trust may be stronger between the school community,
parents, and caretakers. Furthermore, identifying longitudinal trends and patterns in parent and
school leader responses could also enhance capacity-building strategies by giving school leaders
additional data and time to co-design more culturally responsive and sustaining practices for PFE
in their schools. Embedding critical reflection into all action steps would enrich and add value to
the data toward developing strategic plans (Fullan & Quinn, 2016; Westover, 2020) and validate
124

and enhance school leaders’ capacity to cultivate bi-directional communication with families.
Another possible exploration would be to mirror a similar study, expanding the data collection
capturing teacher interviews to strengthen the findings. Including teacher stakeholders would
produce a subset of data to analyze the phenomena of PFE closest to the students’ classroom
experience. Furthermore, capturing the teachers’ perspectives could be an opportunity for school
leaders to gain greater insight into the lived experiences of parents and families through the
parent-teacher dynamic. This could serve as an opportunity to identify culturally relevant
strategies or lack thereof, serving as a needs assessment to begin the capacity-building efforts for
teachers and staff within the school and possibly the overarching district.
Lastly, future research could be cultivated within the external community by co-
designing participatory action research with participants from various schools (Ishimaru et al.,
2018). This could entail designing mixed focus groups representative of the various
neighborhood schools, including parents, teachers, school leaders, and students, to collectively
explore the element of parent and community engagement. Examining PFE on a macro level can
activate action-based possibilities for future forms of engagement centering the needs of the
whole child, family, and community. Most importantly, it would create an opportunity for all
district- and school-level stakeholders to engage in valuable dialogue about their experiences to
catalyze strides towards systemic improvement (Ishimaru & Bang, 2021; Herrera et al., 2020;
Ishimaru, 2020)
Conclusions
This study underscored the growing need for school leaders to exercise their agency and
leadership to continue to establish and build strong relationships within their internal and
external communities. Prominent findings from this study illuminate the importance for leaders
125

to establish relational trust with parents and families as they continue to build equitable and
culturally sustaining learning communities for diverse students (Bryk & Schneider, 2002).
Findings confirmed the need for school leaders to expand traditional forms of engagement by
exploring new forms of PFE in community-based contexts. Parent responses amplified the need
for school leaders to invest in developing the capacity of teachers in culturally relevant practices
and strategies to complement the school’s efforts in the realm of PFE. Further analysis revealed
school leaders expressed foundational understandings of culturally relevant practices. However,
they articulated the value of building cultural competence in their practice and emphasized the
importance of communication and transparency as foundational pillars of school reform and
strategic design.
Leveraging emerging forms of PFE post-COVID-19, this study exposed the benefits of
virtual accessibility as a promising seed to connect with more families by casting a wider net in
the school community, with a particular strength identified in the opportunities to communicate
with greater frequency and the capacity for personalized conversations, participation, and
dialogue via virtual platforms. School leader and parent narratives yielded another promising
finding by centering the need to expand and personalize outreach strategies to engage non-
dominant families more intentionally.
Given systemic historical truths, these findings inspire hope in a journey towards a more
just and equitable future for all children and families in diverse communities. Evaluating how
current and past forms of engagement have upheld the status quo and perpetuate deficient
perspectives of historically marginalized communities serves to ignite action towards more
critically conscious and culturally responsive practices in our schools. Going beyond first-order
changes to address the systemic barriers to PFE, the findings in this study highlight the
126

promising power of creating opportunities to engage with parents in diverse communities to
transform and co-design future forms of engagement. It is imperative that we seize this
opportunity post-COVID-19 to unlearn historically deficient strategies and re-imagine new forms
of engagement that center the cultural wealth diverse families bring into our schools. In the
words of Arundhati Roy (2020).
Historically pandemics have forced humans to break with the past and imagine their
world anew. This is no different. This time can serve as a portal between one world and
the next. We can choose to walk through it dragging the carcasses of our prejudice and
hatred, our avarice, our data banks and dead ideas. Or, we can walk through lightly, with
little luggage, ready to imagine another world and ready to fight for it. (p. 191)
Despite the challenges of this work, public education is at a critical juncture. Serving as
microcosms of society, schools are the heart of a community. With this in mind, school leaders,
parents/caretakers, and teachers must continue to leverage their interconnectedness to foster
students’ development, success, and well-being. Working towards more equitable and culturally
sustaining practices invites all stakeholders into inward reflection about the role and impact they
have in the broader context of educating America’s children and, most importantly, the impact
they make in creating more just societies for future generations.
127

References
Abdul-Adil, J. K., & Farmer, A. D., Jr. (2006). Inner-city African American parental
involvement in elementary schools: Getting beyond urban legends of apathy. School
Psychology Quarterly, 21(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1521/scpq.2006.21.1.1
Alameda-Lawson, T. (2014). A pilot study of collective parent engagement and children’s
academic achievement. Children & Schools, 36(4), 199–209.
https://doi.org/10.1093/cs/cdu019
Andersen, S. C., Humlum, M. K., & Nandrup, A. B. (2016). Increasing instruction time in school
does increase learning. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United
States of America, 113(27), 7481–7484. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1516686113
Anderson, G. L. (1998). Toward authentic participation: Deconstructing the discourses of
participatory reforms in education. American Educational Research Journal, 35(4), 571–
603. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312035004571
Angelou, M. (2013, August 28). Angelou: ‘No one of us can be free until everybody is free’
[Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UxkTd6BFL1o
Anyon, J. (2011, August 2). Review of advocacy leadership: Toward a postreform agenda in
education by Gary L. Anderson. Education Review, 14.
http://www.edrev.info/reviews/rev1108.pdf
Auerbach, S. (2010). Beyond coffee with the principal: Toward leadership for authentic school-
family partnerships. Journal of School Leadership, 20(6), 728–757.
https://doi.org/10.1177/105268461002000603
128

Baquedano-López, P., Alexander, R. A., & Hernandez, S. J. (2013). Equity issues in parental and
community involvement in schools: What teacher educators need to know. Review of
Research in Education, 37(1), 149–182. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X12459718
Barajas-López, F., & Ishimaru, A. M. (2020). “Darles el lugar”: A Place for Nondominant
Family Knowing in Educational Equity. Urban Education, 55(1), 38–65.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085916652179
Bell, D. A. (1980). Brown v. Board of Education and the Interest-Convergence Dilemma.
Harvard Law Review, 93(3), 518. https://doi.org/10.2307/1340546
Bhamani, S., Makhdoom, A. Z., Bharuchi, V., Ali, N., Kaleem, S., & Ahmed, D. (2020). Home
Learning in Times of COVID: Experiences of Parents. Journal of Education and
Educational Development, 7(1), 9–26. https://doi.org/10.22555/joeed.v7i1.3260
Bower, H. A., & Griffin, D. (2011). Can the Epstein Model of Parental Involvement Work in a
high-minority, high-poverty elementary school? A Case Study. Professional School
Counseling, 15, 2156759X1101500. Advance online publication.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2156759X1101500201
Branch, G. F., Hanushek, E. A., & Rivkin, S. G. (2013). School leaders matter: Measuring the
impact of effective principals. Education Next, 13(1), 62.
Bryk, A., & Schneider, B. (2002). Trust in schools: A core resource for improvement. Russell
Sage Foundation.
Buchanan, K., & Buchanan, T. (2016). Relationships with families: Have educators overlooked a
critical piece of the puzzle? Improving Schools, 20(3), 236–246.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1365480216674622
129

Capotosto, L., Kim, J. S., Burkhauser, M. A., Oh Park, S., Mulimbi, B., Donaldson, M., &
Kingston, H. C. (2017). Family support of third-grade reading skills, motivation, and
habits. AERA Open, 3(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858417714457
Carver-Thomas, D., Leung, M., & Burns, D. (2021). California teachers and covid-19: How the
pandemic is impacting the teacher workforce. https://doi.org/10.54300/987.779
Carver-Thomas, D. & Darling-Hammond, L. (2017). Teacher turnover: Why it matters and what
we can do about it. Palo Alto, CA: Learning Policy Institute.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2020). COVID-19 Racial and Ethnic Disparities.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-
ncov/community/health-equity/racial-ethnic-disparities/disparities-illness.html
Coburn, C., Toure, J., & Yamashita, M. (2009). Evidence, interpretation, and persuasion:
Instructional decision making at the district central office. Teachers College Record,
111(4), 1115–1161. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146810911100403
Colton, A., Langer, G., & Goff, L. G. (2016). The collaborative analysis of student learning:
Essential features and benefits. ASCD. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483394442
Constantia, C., Christos, P., Glykeria, R., Anastasia, A. R., & Aikaterini, V. (2021). The Impact
of COVID-19 on the Educational Process: The Role of the School Principal. Journal of
Education. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/00220574211032588
Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence
against Women of Color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241.
https://doi.org/10.2307/1229039
Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2017). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing
Among Five Approaches (4th ed.). SAGE Publications, Inc.
130

Daniel, S. J. (2020). Education and the COVID-19 pandemic. Prospects, 49, 91–96.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11125-020-09464-3
Darling-Hammond, L. (2019). Investing for student success: Lessons from state school finance
reforms. Learning Policy Institute.
Del Carmen Salazar, M. (2013). A Humanizing Pedagogy. Review of Research in Education,
37(1), 121–148. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X12464032
Dintersmith, T. (2018). What school could be: Insights and inspiration from teachers across
America. Princeton University Press.
Dorn, E., Hancock, B., & Sarakatsannis, J. (2021). Covid-19 and education: The lingering effects
of unfinished learning. McKinsey & Company.
https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/education/our-insights/covid-19-and-education-
the-lingering-effects-of-unfinished-learning
Dynarski, S. (2020, May 7). The school year really ended in March. Abrupt closures have stalled
the learning of millions of students. US education, needs a rescue, an economist says, and
it won’t be cheap. The New York Times.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/07/business/school-education-online-money.html
Edge Research, 2020 https://r50gh2ss1ic2mww8s3uvjvq1-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-
content/uploads/2020/05/LH_2020-Parent-Survey-Partner-1.pdf
Elmore, R. F. (2005). Accountable leadership. The Educational Forum, 69(2), 134–142.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00131720508984677
Epstein, J. L. (1995). School/family/community partnerships. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(9), 701.
Epstein, J. L. (2010). School/family/community partnerships: Caring for the children we share.
Phi Delta Kappan, 92(3), 81–96. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172171009200326
131

Fenton, P., Ocasio-Stoutenburg, L., & Harry, B. (2017). The power of parent engagement:
Sociocultural considerations in the quest for equity. Theory into Practice, 56(3), 214–
225. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2017.1355686
Fraise, N. J., & Brooks, J. S. (2015). Toward a theory of culturally relevant leadership for
school-community culture. International Journal of Multicultural Education, 17(1), 6.
https://doi.org/10.18251/ijme.v17i1.983
Freire, P., Ramos, M. B., & Macedo, D. (2000). Pedagogy of the Oppressed, 30th Anniversary
Edition (30th Anniversary ed.). Continuum.
Fullan, M. (2007). Leading in a culture of change. Jossey-Bass.
Fullan, M., & Quinn, J. (2016). Coherence: The right drivers in action for schools, districts, and
systems. Corwin.
Gabriel, M. L., Roxas, K. C., & Becker, K. (2017). Meeting, knowing, and affirming Spanish-
speaking immigrant families through successful culturally responsive family engagement.
Journal of Family Diversity in Education, 2(3), 1–18.
https://doi.org/10.53956/jfde.2017.93
Gaetane, J-M., Normore, A. H., & Brooks, J. S. (2009). Leadership for social justice: Preparing
21st century school leaders for a new social order. Journal of Research on Leadership
Education, 4(1), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/194277510900400102
Gardiner, M. E., Canfield-Davis, K., & Anderson, K. L. M. (2008). Urban school principals and
the ‘No Child Left Behind’ Act. The Urban Review, 41(2), 141–160.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11256-008-0102-1
Gay, G. (2013). Teaching to and through cultural diversity. Curriculum Inquiry, 43(1), 48–70.
https://doi.org/10.1111/curi.12002
132

Gil, E., & Johnson, A. (2021). “We, as parents, do have a voice”: Learning from community-
based programs effectively engaging parents in urban communities. Urban Education.
https://doi.org/10.1177/00420859211068466
Gonzalez, N., Moll, L. C., & Amanti, C. (2005). Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practices in
households, communities, and classrooms (1st ed.). Routledge.
Green, T. L. (2016). Community-based equity audits. Educational Administration Quarterly,
53(1), 3–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X16672513
Grissom, J. A., Egalite, A. J., & Lindsay, C. A. (2021). How principals affect students and
schools: A systematic synthesis of two decades of research. The Wallace Foundation.
http://www.wallacefoundation.org/principalsynthesis
Harris, C. I. (1993). Whiteness as property. Harvard Law Review, 106(8), 1707.
https://doi.org/10.2307/1341787
Henderson, A. T., Mapp, K. L., Johnson, V. R., & Davies, D. (2007). Beyond the bake sale: The
essential guide to family-school partnerships. New Press.
Herrera, S. G., Porter, L., Barko-Alva, K., & de Oliveira, L. C. (2020). Equity in school-parent
partnerships: Cultivating community and family trust in culturally diverse classrooms.
Teachers College Press.
Hill, N. E., & Tyson, D. F. (2009). Parental involvement in middle school: A meta-analytic
assessment of the strategies that promote achievement. Developmental Psychology, 45(3),
740–763. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015362
Hochschild, J. L. (2003). Social class in public schools. The Journal of Social Issues, 59(4), 821–
840. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0022-4537.2003.00092.x
133

Hockett, E., Samek, L., & Headley, S. (2014). Cultural humility: A framework for local and
global engagement. George Fox University.
http://digitalcommons.georgefox.edu/soe_faculty/13
Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., & Sandler, H. M. (1995). Parental involvement in children’s education:
Why does it make a difference? Teachers College Record, 97, 310–331.
https://doi.org/10.1177/016146819509700202
Hussar, W.J., and Bailey, T.M. (2013). Projections of education statistics to 2022 (NCES 2014-
051). U.S. Department of Education.
Ishimaru, A., & Bang, M. (2022). Designing with families for just futures. Journal of Family
Diversity in Education, 4(2). https://doi.org/10.53956/jfde.2022.171
Ishimaru, A. M., & Takahashi, S. (2017). Disrupting racialized institutional scripts: Toward
parent-teacher transformative agency for educational justice. Peabody Journal of
Education, 92(3), 343–362. https://doi.org/10.1080/0161956x.2017.1324660
Ishimaru, A. M., Torres, K. E., Salvador, J. E., Lott, J., Williams, D. M. C., & Tran, C. (2016).
Reinforcing deficit, journeying toward equity. American Educational Research Journal,
53(4), 850–882. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831216657178
Ishimaru, A. (2012). from heroes to organizers. Educational Administration Quarterly, 49(1), 3–
51. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161x12448250
Ishimaru, A. M. (2014). When new relationships meet old narratives: The Journey towards
Improving parent-school relations in a district-community organizing collaboration.
Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education, 116(2), 1–56.
https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811411600206
134

Ishimaru, A. M., Lott, J. L., Torres, K. E., & O’Reilly-Diaz, K. (2019). Families in the driver’s
seat: Catalyzing familial transformative agency for equitable collaboration. Teachers
College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education, 121(11), 1–39.
https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811912101108
Ishimaru, A. M. (2019). From family engagement to equitable collaboration. Educational Policy,
33(2), 350–385. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904817691841
Ishimaru, A. M., & Banks, J. A. (2019). Just schools: Building equitable collaborations with
families and communities (Multicultural Education Series). Teachers College Press.
Ishimaru, A. M., Rajendran, A., Nolan, C. M., & Bang, M. (2018). Community design circles:
Co-designing justice and wellbeing in family-community-research partnerships. Journal
of Family Diversity in Education, 3(2), 38–63. https://doi.org/10.53956/jfde.2018.133
Jackson, Y., & Feuerstein, R. (2011). The pedagogy of confidence: Inspiring high intellectual
performance in urban schools (5th ed.). Teachers College Press.
Jeynes, W. (2012). A Meta-Analysis of the Efficacy of Different Types of Parental Involvement
Programs for Urban Students. Urban Education, 47(4), 706–742.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085912445643
Jeynes, W. H. (2005). A meta-analysis of the relation of parental involvement to urban
elementary school student academic achievement. Urban Education, 40(3), 237–269.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085905274540
Johnson, R. B., & Christensen, L. B. (2017). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and
mixed approaches (6th ed.). Sage.
135

Kendziora, K., & Yoder, N. (2016). When districts support and integrate social and emotional
learning (SEL): Findings from an ongoing evaluation of districtwide implementation of
SEL. Education Policy Center at the American Institutes for Research.
Kennedy, K. (2019). Centering equity and caring in leadership for social-emotional learning:
Toward a conceptual framework for diverse learners. Journal of School Leadership,
29(6), 473–492. https://doi.org/10.1177/1052684619867469
Khalifa, M., Iv, R. M. H., & Delpit, L. (2018). Culturally Responsive School Leadership (Race
and Education). Harvard Education Press.
Khalifa, M. A., Gooden, M. A., & Davis, J. E. (2016). Culturally Responsive School Leadership.
Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 1272–1311.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316630383
Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). But that’s just good teaching! The case for culturally relevant
pedagogy. Theory into Practice, 32, 159–165.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00405849509543675
Ladson-Billings, G. (1998). Just what is critical race theory and what’s it doing in a nice field
like education? International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education: QSE, 11(1), 7–
24. https://doi.org/10.1080/095183998236863
Ladson-Billings, G. (2006). From the achievement gap to the education debt: Understanding
achievement in U.S. schools. Educational Researcher, 35(7), 3–12.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x035007003
Ladson-Billings, G. (2021). Culturally relevant pedagogy: Asking a different question. Teachers
College Press.
136

Lawrence-Lightfoot. (2004). Building bridges from school to home: meeting the challenge of the
positive, productive parent-teacher relationship. Instructor, 114(1), 24–.
Leithwood, K., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2008). Seven strong claims about successful school
leadership. School Leadership & Management, 28(1), 27–42.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13632430701800060
Leithwood, K., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2019). Seven strong claims about successful school
leadership revisited. School Leadership & Management, 40(1), 1–18.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13632430701799718
Li, A., & Fischer, M. J. (2017). Advantaged/Disadvantaged School Neighborhoods, Parental
Networks, and Parental Involvement at Elementary School. Sociology of Education,
Lochmiller, C.R. & Lester, J. N. (2017). An introduction to educational research: Connecting
methods to practice. Sage Publications.
Lynn, M., & Dixson, A. D. (2021). Handbook of critical race theory in education. Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351032223
Malloy, C. (2011). Moving beyond data: Practitioner-led inquiry fosters change. Phi Delta
Kappa International, 6(4), 1–20.
Mapp, K. L., & Bergman, E. (2019). Dual capacity-building framework for family-school
partnerships (Version 2). www.dualcapacity.org
Martinez, J. A., Amick, L. R., & McAbee, S. (2021, May 31). The reopening of a school during
the COVID-19 pandemic: An administrative lens. Research in Educational
Administration & Leadership.
https://eric.ed.gov/?q=Degree%2Bof%2BAdministrative%2BDelegation&id=EJ1306780
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Sage.
137

Merriam, S., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation
(4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Mertens, D. M. (2010). Transformative mixed methods research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(6),
469–474. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800410364612
Millett, G. A., Jones, A. T., Benkeser, D., Baral, S., Mercer, L., Beyrer, C., Honermann, B.,
Lankiewicz, E., Mena, L., Crowley, J. S., Sherwood, J., & Sullivan, P. S. (2020).
Assessing Differential Impacts of COVID-19 on Black Communities. Annals of
Epidemiology, 47, 37–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annepidem.2020.05.003
Milner, R. H, & Lomotey, K. (2014). Handbook of urban education. Routledge.
Minkos, M. L., Sassu, K. A., Gregory, J. L., Patwa, S. S., Theodore, L. A., & Femc-Bagwell, M.
(2017). Culturally responsive practice and the role of school administrators. Psychology
in the Schools, 54(10), 1260–1266. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22072
National Center for Education Statistics. (2020). State nonfiscal survey of public elementary and
secondary education, 2009–10 and 2018–19. Digest of Education Statistics 2020, Table
203.50. U.S. Department of Education.
Neece, C., McIntyre, L. L., & Fenning, R. (2020). Examining the impact of Covid‐19 in
ethnically diverse families with young children with intellectual and developmental
disabilities. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, Article 12769. Advance online
publication. https://doi.org/10.1111/jir.12769
Northouse, P.G. (2019). Leadership: theory and practice. Sage.
Novianti, R., & Garzia, M. (2020). Parental Engagement in Children’s Online Learning During
COVID-19 Pandemic. Journal of Teaching and Learning in Elementary Education, 3(2),
117. https://doi.org/10.33578/jtlee.v3i2.7845
138

Ogurlu, U., Garbe, A., Logan, N., & Cook, P. (2020). Parents’ experiences with remote
education during COVID-19 school closures. American Journal of Qualitative Research,
4(3). Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.29333/ajqr/8471
Parolin, Z., & Lee, E. K. (2021). Large socio-economic, geographic and demographic disparities
exist in exposure to school closures. Nature Human Behaviour, 5(4), 522–528.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01087-8
Parr, M. M., & Vander Dussen, M. (2017). Family-school (dis)engagement: Understanding what
it is, what It’s not, and what to do about it. Language and Literature, 19(1), 48.
https://doi.org/10.20360/G26G6F
Patel, L. (2015). Decolonizing educational research: from ownership to answerability.
Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315658551-2
Pattison, K. L., Hoke, A. M., Schaefer, E. W., Alter, J., & Sekhar, D. L. (2021). National Survey
of School Employees: COVID ‐19, school reopening, and student wellness. The Journal
of School Health, 91(5), 376–383. https://doi.org/10.1111/josh.13010
Peshkin, A. (1988). In search of subjectivity—One’s own. Educational Researcher, 17(7), 17–
21. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X017007017
Pitts, C., Pillow, T., Dusseault, B., Lake, R. (2022 January). Virtual Learning, Now and Beyond.
The Center on Reinventing Public Education.
Posey-Maddox, L., & Haley-Lock, A. (2020). One size does not fit all: Understanding parent
engagement in the contexts of work, family, and public schooling. Urban Education,
55(5), 671–698. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085916660348
139

Pressley, T. (2021). Factors contributing to teacher burnout during COVID-19. Educational
Researcher, 50, 325–327. Advance online publication.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X211004138
Rothstein, R. (2004). Class and schools: Using social, economic, and educational reform to
close the Black-White achievement gap (1st ed.). Economic Policy Institute.
Roy, A. (2020). Azadi: Freedom. Fascism. Fiction. Penguin.
Sanders, M. G., & Epstein, J. L. (2005). School-family-community partnerships and educational
change: International perspectives. In A. Hargreaves (Ed.), Extending educational change
(pp. 202–222). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-4453-4_10
Schechter, C., Da’as, R., & Qadach, M. (2022). Crisis leadership: Leading schools in a global
pandemic. Management in Education. Advance online publication.
https://doi.org/10.1177/08920206221084050
Serpell, Z. N., & Mashburn, A. J. (2011). Family-school connectedness and children’s early
social development. Social Development, 21(1), 21–46. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
9507.2011.00623.x
Skinner, B., Hou, H., Taggart, S., & Abbott, L. (2021). Working parents’ experiences of home-
schooling during school closures in Northern Ireland: What lessons can be learnt? Irish
Educational Studies, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/03323315.2021.1964566
Solórzano, D. G., & Yosso, T. J. (2002). Critical race methodology: Counter-storytelling as an
analytical framework for education research. Qualitative Inquiry, 8(1), 23–44.
https://doi.org/10.1177/107780040200800103
140

John Spencer (2009) A ‘new breed’ of principal: Marcus Foster and urban school reform in the
United States, 1966–1969, Journal of Educational Administration and History, 41:3, 285-
300, DOI: 10.1080/00220620903072543
Terrell, R. D., Terrell, E. K., Lindsey, R. B., & Lindsey, D. B. (2018). Culturally proficient
leadership: The personal journey begins within (2nd Rev. ed.). Corwin.
Tervalon, M., & Murray-García, J. (1998). Cultural humility versus cultural competence: A
critical distinction in defining physician training outcomes in multicultural education.
Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved, 9(2), 117–125.
https://doi.org/10.1353/hpu.2010.0233
Tillman, L. C. (2002). Culturally sensitive research approaches: An African-American
perspective. Educational Researcher, 31(9), 3–12.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X031009003
Tyack, D. (2007). Seeking common ground: Public schools in a diverse society. Harvard
University Press.
Tyack, D. B. (1974). The one best system: A history of American urban education (Vol. 95).
Harvard University Press.
Walker, J. M. T., Wilkins, A. S., Dallaire, J. R., Sandler, H. M., & Dempsey, H. (2005). Parental
Involvement: Model Revision through Scale Development. The Elementary School
Journal, 106(2), 85–104. https://doi.org/10.1086/499193
Warren, M. R., & Mapp, K. L. (2011). A match on dry grass : community organizing as a
catalyst for school reform. Oxford University Press.
Westover, J. (2020). Districts on the move: Leading a coherent system of continuous
improvement. Corwin.
141

Willis, A. S. (2021). Teachers’ cultural, social and emotional capabilities: How teacher
compassion and humility is an antecedent to student confidence. Pedagogy, Culture &
Society, 1–18. Advance online publication.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14681366.2021.1884122
Will, M. (2022, March 15). “How bad could it get?” State and district leaders work to combat
teacher shortages. Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/leadership/how-bad-could-
it-get-state-and-district-leaders-work-to-combat-teacher-shortages/2022/03
Willis, A. S. (2019). A foot in both camps: Lessons learned about without-prejudice teaching and
Learning from cross-cultural experience. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in
Education : QSE, 32(4), 429–445. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2019.1597212
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.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1361332052000341006
Young, P. A., & Macedo, D. (1996). Literacies of power: What Americans are not allowed to
know. The Journal of Negro Education, 65(2), 241. https://doi.org/10.2307/2967318

142

Appendix A: Semi-Structured School Leader Interview Protocol
Interview Date: ____________
Researcher: _______________________________ Location: Virtual Interview______
Participant(s):_________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________

Contact Information: __________________________________________________________

Start Time: ________________________ End Time: __________________________

Introduction: Introduce yourself and affiliation to USC.

Thank you for your time and participation in this conversation today. The information collected
will serve to better understand the role and lived experience of school leaders in the element of
parent and family engagement pre and post COVID-19 school closure. Additionally, this study
seeks to explore the impact of COVID-19 in parent and family engagement and to what extent if
any emerging forms of engagement serve to foster and build more equitable and culturally
responsive engagement. Your participation is voluntary and the information you provide will not
be directly linked to you or your school.

ICE BREAKERS:
How long have you served as the school leader in this school community?
What are some things you love about your community?
If you had to share a “Glow” & “Grow” in the time you have served this community, what would
you share?

Equitable Collaboration/Culturally Responsive Engagement

1. How would you define equitable collaboration between schools and families?
2. How would you define culturally responsive parent/family engagement?
3. As a school leader what if any do you see as the value of culturally responsive
engagement?
4. What if any are some strategies that reflect your definition of equitable collaboration?
5. What strategies, if any, have you implemented in your school community to increase
parent/family engagement?
6. Please share a time you’ve invited parents/families to participate in school
improvement initiatives.
143

7. In your opinion what role could culturally responsive engagement play in
strengthening parent/family engagement in your school community.

Covid 19 Virtual School/ Support Services and Communication

How has your school/district addressed the concerns of the parent/guardian community in
regards to the following:

• Safety
• Nutrition,
• Distance Learning/Hybrid Services
• Technology Access
• Academic programing/ SPED Services
• School Re-opening post-COVID-19?

8. What did your district/school do to gather input and feedback from the community?
9. How did your district/school meet the nutritional needs of students during the
pandemic?
10. What, if any, technological tools did your district/school provide to families?
11. How long did it take to provide working technological tools to families for distance
learning?
12. What, if any, socio-emotional supports/resources did your district/school provide
students?
13. What, if any, social-emotional support/resources did your district/school provide
families?
14. What, if any, kind of health and safety measures were put in place for students?
15. What, if any, kind of health and safety measures were put in place for families?
16. In what ways did the district/school support the academic needs of your students?
17. In what ways did the district/school support the academic needs of your most
vulnerable students?
18. Please share some resources or relationships that have been particularly helpful to you
during the pandemic? Did these relationships emerge during the pandemic or were
existent prior?
19. What have been some emerging trends and strategies to engage with parents/families
during the virtual/hybrid school experience?

144

Conclusion: This concludes my interview questions. I want to give you the opportunity to add
anything you feel I may have missed in my questions and remind you once again that all
information will be kept confidential. If you have any questions or concerns regarding this
interview or information shared my contact information is dortrait@usc.edu.
I also want to ask your consideration and consent to follow-up with you in event that I need
clarification or have further questions during my analysis. I want to make sure that my notes and
recording accurately, honestly reflect your shared information and experience. Thank you again
for your time and participation in this work as it will serve to inform and improve how leaders
can continue to serve their children and families and build equitable partnerships with parents
and guardians to improve the learning experience for all children.

145

How do you see your family reflected in the school community?
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________
146

COVID-19 Virtual School, Support Services, and Communication

COVID- impacted the ways schools engaged with families… here we would like to talk about
your experiences with the goals of better understanding how to build our capacity to foster
relationships with our parents and caretakers to meet the needs of students…re-imagining
future forms of engagement and ways school leaders and school teams can engage with
families leveraging what has been learned.

• All things considered in relation to COVID related restrictions how would you
describe the efforts made by your school leadership team (Principal/AP) to engage
with diverse families throughout to support students learning during the pandemic.
• In your experience were there any other staff members that served to support school
leaders in the work of engaging with families during this time?
• During the Pandemic what where some of the forms of engagement between school
leaders and parents/families.
• Where there other forms of engagement you would have liked to have seen
implemented to facilitate, communication, participation and responsiveness.
• Did the new forms of engagement meet the needs of your family?

How has your school leader addressed the concerns of the parent/guardian community in
regards to the following:

• Safety
• Nutrition
• Distance Learning/Hybrid Services
• Technology Access
• Academic programing/ SPED Services
• School Re-opening post-COVID-19?

5. What did your district/school do to gather input and feedback from the community?
6. How did your district/school meet the nutritional needs of students during the
pandemic?
7. What, if any, technological tools did your district/school provide to families?
8. How long did it take to provide working technological tools to families for distance
learning?
9. What, if any, socio-emotional supports/resources did your district/school provide
students?
147

10. What, if any, social-emotional supports/resources did your district/school provide
families?
11. What, if any, kind of health and safety measures were put in place for students?
12. What, if any, kind of health and safety measures were put in place for families?
13. In what ways did the district/school support the academic needs of your students?
14. In what ways did the district/school support the academic needs of your most
vulnerable students?
15. Please share some resources or relationships that have been particularly helpful to
you during the pandemic? Did these relationships emerge during the pandemic or
were existent prior?
16. How were you invited to engage in part of the solutions to challenges?
17. What have been some emerging trends and strategies to engage with
parents/families during the virtual/hybrid school experience?

Figure A1
Conceptual Framework

148
149

Research affirms parental and community engagement’s positive impact on a student’s
academic trajectory and overall school experience. Furthermore, the traditional modes of
engagement place parents and families at the receiving end of information and knowledge rather
than in a reciprocal relationship with our schools, district and state (Epstein, 2001; Ishimaru,
2019; Jeynes, 2005; Mapp 2007).
In this conceptual framework I focalize the relationship between school leaders and the
parents and guardians as a bridge that fortifies the cycle of potential opportunities for equitable
collaboration. Existing within a broader system of policies and strategies districts, are
responsible for communicating and implementing strategies and programs that align with state
policies on a broader scale. In the flow of communication and implementation systemic
initiatives can marginalize populations in a school context.
The framework is anchored by a transformative paradigm employing cultural wealth
framework, CRT, counter-storytelling and equitable collaboration framework to examine the
dynamics between school leaders and parents in a school community. Furthermore, the
interconnected use of these frameworks served to disrupt historically rooted deficit perspectives
of diverse communities. (Lynn & Dixson, 2013; Ishimaru, 2019; Yosso & Solórzano, 2002;
Yosso, 2005) Understanding the lived experiences, beliefs and practices of parents and school
leaders will help build stronger relationships that can cultivate a climate of trust as the
foundation for more authentic and culturally responsive engagement. Embracing students and
families’ cultural wealth can catalyze the development of more just and equitable communities.

150

Appendix B: Parent/Caregiver Focus Group Interview Protocol

Interview Date: ____________
PI: ____________________ Location: __ZOOM Session
ID:_______________________
Participant(s):_______________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________

Contact Information:
__________________________________________________________

Start Time: _____________ End Time: _____________

Introduction and affiliation to USC Rossier School of Education.

Thank you for your time and participation in this conversation today. The information
collected will serve to better understand the role and lived experience of parents/guardians in
the element of parent and family engagement pre and post Covid 19 school closures.
Additionally, this study seeks to explore the impact of Covid 19 in parent and family
engagement and to what extent if any emerging forms of engagement serve to foster and build
more equitable and culturally responsive engagement. Your participation is voluntary and the
information you provide will not be directly linked to you or your school.

Review Consent information with Participants and include Consent to Record and Video
Participants that wish to leave cameras off during Zoom/Names on Zoom changed to Initials &
Role: i.e Parent/Guardian/Caretaker

Review Norms for Discussion/Confidentiality and Approximate time of Focus Group
Interview(45-60 min.)

Start with QUOTE for collective reflection:
“Communities have collective histories, experiences, and memories, and therefore have a
unique way of viewing the world, and school.”-Khalifa, 2020
151

ICE BREAKERS:
How long have you been a part of this school community?
What are some things you love about your community?
If you had to share a “Glow” & “Grow” in the time you have lived in or served this
community, what would you share?

Equitable Collaboration/Culturally Responsive Engagement

1. How would you define Collaboration between schools and families?
2. How would you define Parent/Family Engagement?
3. As a Parent/Guardian/Caretaker what if any do you see as the value of celebrating
diversity and cultural differences in your school community?
4. What strategies/programs have been implemented in your school community to
increase parent/family engagement?

What are some activities or skills you possess and would like to share with your child’s school
community?
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

What are some ways you believe parents/guardians could/should contribute to the school
community?
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________

152

How do you see your family reflected in the school community?
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________
COVID-19 Virtual School/ Support Services and Communication

COVID- impacted the ways schools engaged with families … here we would like to talk about
your experiences with the goals of better understanding how to build our capacity to foster
relationships with our parents and caretakers to meet the needs of students…reimagining future
forms of engagement and ways school leaders and school teams can engage with families
leveraging what has been learned.

• All things considered in relation to COVID related restrictions how would you
describe the efforts made by your school leadership team (Principal/AP) to engage
with diverse families throughout to support students learning during the pandemic.
• In your experience were there any other staff members that served to support school
leaders in the work of engaging with families during this time?
• During the Pandemic what where some of the forms of engagement between school
leaders and parents/families.
• Were there other forms of engagement you would have liked to have seen
implemented to facilitate, communication, participation and responsiveness.
• Did the new forms of engagement meet the needs of your family?

How has your school leader addressed the concerns of the parent/guardian community in
regards to the following:

• Safety
• Nutrition
• Distance Learning/Hybrid Services
• Technology Access
• Academic programing/ SPED Services
• School Re-opening post COVID 19?

5. What did your district/school do to gather input and feedback from the community?
6. How did your district/school meet the nutritional needs of students during the
pandemic?
7. What, if any, technological tools did your district/school provide to families?
153

8. How long did it take to provide working technological tools to families for distance
learning?
9. What, if any, socio-emotional supports/resources did your district/school provide
students?
10. What, if any, social emotional supports/resources did your district/school provide
families?
11. What, if any, kind of health and safety measures were put in place for students?
12. What, if any, kind of health and safety measures were put in place for families?
13. In what ways did the district/school support the academic needs of your students?
14. In what ways did the district/school support the academic needs of your most
vulnerable students?
15. Please share some resources or relationships that have been particularly helpful to
you during the pandemic? Did these relationships emerge during the pandemic or
were existent prior?
16. How were you invited to engage in part of the solutions to challenges?
17. What have been some emerging trends and strategies to engage with
parents/families during the virtual/hybrid school experience?

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

School disciplined reimagined: centering Black students in discipline policies

PDF

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals

PDF

Using culturally relevant pedagogy to increase access and engagement in STEM for historically underrepresented and marginalized populations

PDF

Leadership matters: the role of urban school principals as transformational leaders in influencing parent engagement to disrupt educational inequities

PDF

Power-sharing in co-constructed community-school partnerships: examining values, opportunities, and barriers around community engagement in New York City school leadership teams

PDF

Remote learning and parent engagement during a crisis

PDF

Preservice teacher perspectives: impact of culturally responsive pedagogy and implications of Eurocentric, whitewashed roots on United States education

PDF

The fourth industrial superintendent: transforming public school systems beyond 21st-century mindsets

PDF

In search of the Black superintendent

PDF

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals

PDF

Adolescent mental health disorders and school-based supports pre- and during COVID-19

PDF

An examination of factors that potentially impact anxiety levels in high school students in an international school

PDF

Academic, social, and emotional supports for high school students in online schools

PDF

Digital literacy: teacher pedagogy and practices among upper elementary students with growing interest in social media

PDF

School leader impact on equitable grading practices to support middle school English learners

PDF

Science as white property: BIPOC elementary teachers’ science experience and its impact on their pedagogy

PDF

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K-12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals

PDF

Latina superintendents take center stage in California's rural school districts: a model for culturally responsive school leadership

PDF

Culturally responsive principal leadership and its influence on teachers in urban settings.

PDF

“Black at”: a study of Black girls in predominantly White independent K–12 girls’ schools

Asset Metadata

Creator Rodriguez-Dortrait, Maritza (author)

Core Title Urban elementary school leaders as catalysts for culturally responsive engagement: re-imagining parental and family engagement post-COVID 19

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Educational Leadership (On Line)

Degree Conferral Date 2022-08

Publication Date 06/21/2022

Defense Date 04/29/2022

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag cultural wealth,culturally responsive engagement,culturally responsive leadership,equitable collaboration,OAI-PMH Harvest,parent/family engagement (PFE)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Krop, Cathy (committee chair), Cash, David (committee member), Hinga, Briana (committee member)

Creator Email dortrait@usc.edu,mdortrait20@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC111345300

Unique identifier UC111345300

Legacy Identifier etd-RodriguezD-10776

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Rodriguez-Dortrait, Maritza

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20220622-usctheses-batch-948 (batch), University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright. The original signature page accompanying the original submission of the work to the USC Libraries is retained by the USC Libraries and a copy of it may be obtained by authorized requesters contacting the repository e-mail address given.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu