Abstract
This study examined the roles and responsibilities of family liaisons working in urban schools with enrollments characterized by high poverty, high mobility, and ethnic diversity. Results indicated that the major responsibilities of the liaisons were creating a trusting and welcoming environment, facilitating parent involvement in the school, keeping parents informed on school-related topics, and connecting parents with resources. During job shadows, family liaisons were primarily observed coordinating parent involvement activities, interacting with students, performing routine office tasks, and carrying out other duties as assigned (e.g., cafeteria supervision). To increase their effectiveness, the liaisons requested greater job clarity, more flexibility in their formal work hours, and less time spent on other duties as assigned. In general, it appeared that the family liaisons investigated in this study placed a stronger emphasis on creating a welcoming environment and establishing trust than has been found in research on family liaisons in more affluent communities.
Results of research on parent involvement in the schools indicate that parent involvement can have a positive impact on student behavior, attitude, and academic performance. In their meta-analysis of parent involvement research, Fan and Chen (2001) found a moderately strong positive relationship between parent involvement and overall grade point average. In a more recent longitudinal study, research conducted by Hill and her colleagues found a complex relationship between parent involvement and academic outcomes where the effect of parent involvement was modified by the parents’ level of education (Hill et al., 2004). Hill and her colleagues reported that involvement of parents with higher levels of education was directly related to fewer behavior problems in middle school and indirectly related to higher grades and higher aspirations in high school. However, the involvement of parents with lower education levels was directly related to higher aspirations but not to school behavior problems or grades. Other researchers have documented the positive impact of parent involvement for specific income, culture, and ethnic groups and have reported similar complexities in their results (e.g., Carranza, You, Chhuon, & Hudley, 2009; Davis-Kean, 2005; Davis-Kean & Sexton, 2009; Halle, Kurtz-Costes, & Mahoney, 1997). Regardless of the nuances, however, research results consistently attest to a positive impact of parent involvement in the education of both elementary and secondary students in urban settings (e.g., Jeynes, 2005, 2007).
Epstein (1995) has provided guidelines for schools on how to involve parents in their children’s education and has indicated that the design of an effective parent involvement program must reflect the unique characteristics and needs of each school’s families. Research has shown that urban schools, in particular, face special challenges in engaging parents due to important demographic characteristics such as a relatively large proportion of families with low socio-economic status, limited English proficiency, and membership in a diverse cultural group (e.g., Howland, Anderson, Smiley, & Abbott, 2006; Sheldon, 2003).
Acknowledging the importance of the family in student learning, New York City Public Schools hired parent coordinators for every school in the district in 2003 (Jacobsen, 2003). This decision is consistent with the growing body of evidence indicating the importance of family involvement in student academic success. An Internet search revealed that many urban districts (e.g., Atlanta, GA; Berkeley, CA; Fairfax County, VA) have followed New York City’s lead and now use family coordinators to bolster parent involvement in the schools.
Very little research exists, however, on how family liaisons in urban communities help parents to connect with their schools. One investigation that highlighted the role of the liaison in an ethnically and racially diverse suburban school district was a qualitative study conducted by Sanders (2008). The district was fairly affluent with a median family income of approximately US$74,000 and only 4% living below the poverty level. Sanders found that the parent liaisons in this district undertook four essential roles that minimized the influence of culture and class differences: Direct services to families placed at risk, support for teacher outreach, support for school-based partnership teams, and data for program improvement. Direct services to families placed at risk were described as supporting low-income families whose children were exhibiting below-grade performance in reading and mathematics by helping them to understand their child’s learning and behavior needs and to communicate with teachers and administrators. Support for teacher outreach referred to assisting teachers with establishing meaningful home–school partnerships by interpreting parent behavior and modeling effective outreach. Support for school-based partnership teams involved assisting in the development and implementation of partnership teams that provided accessible activities designed to increase parents’ involvement with successful student learning (e.g., a family-reading activity held at an apartment building where many students and their families resided). Program improvement data included collection and dissemination of attendance and achievement data for targeted students, demographic data for families and communities, and weekly liaison activity reports. In carrying out their roles, Sanders stated that family liaisons served as cultural interpreters by helping the school to better understand their families and their needs. Would the roles identified by Sanders be the same for family liaisons in schools located in an ethnically diverse urban community with a high proportion of low-income families?
The purpose of the present study was to carry out an in-depth examination of the family liaison position in schools located in an area of one large urban district that was characterized by ethnic diversity, low socio-economic status, and high mobility. In an evaluation of initiatives recently carried out in these same schools, teachers reported that the addition of family liaisons to the school staff was one of several positive changes implemented by the district (Ingram, Kundin, Gibson, & Wahlstrom, 2008). When explaining their responses, teachers mentioned improved communication and building of trust. For example, one teacher commented, “The family liaison really helps us communicate with parents and she’s really good and gets to know the parents that are coming in with questions. The building of trust has been wonderful” (Ingram et al., 2008, p. 35). The liaisons participating in a focus group agreed that gaining the trust of parents was essential for the effectiveness of their position. They also indicated that obtaining parent buy-in was important since parents often have had unsatisfactory experiences with schools. One liaison provided the following comment to illustrate the parents’ experience.
Our families are already going through enough. If they come in and tell the school, my child doesn’t have a uniform because I can’t afford it, or my child doesn’t have a clean uniform because I don’t have any running water, or I’m living in a shelter, they don’t look at it as the school is going to welcome that idea. (Ingram et al., 2008, p. 33)
The present study was undertaken at the request of the district to learn more about the liaisons’ roles and activities at each of the schools. The results were to be used to identify actions that could be taken by the district to make the position more effective. The results of our investigation include detailed information on the day-to-day work of family liaisons, their approaches to working with families, and their recommendations for ways to enhance the position.
Method
Participants
Schools
Data were collected from family liaisons employed in 11 schools located within a large urban school district in the Midwest. The schools had one of five different grade configurations: K-4 (n = 1), K-5 (n = 3), K-8 (n = 4), 5 to 8 (n = 1), and 9 to 12 (n = 2). The percent of students eligible for free- or reduced-price lunch ranged from 70% to 96% (Mdn = 88%), and percent of enrollment comprised students of color ranged from 72% to 99% (Mdn = 96%). The mobility index across schools in the district was approximately 0.37, meaning that during the school year, 37% of total student enrollments were transfers into, out of, or within the district.
Family liaisons
The family liaison position had been established only recently at most of these schools. One of the 11 family liaisons was in the first year of the position, 8 were in their second year, and 2 had been in the position for 3 or more years. Six were Black, 4 were White, and 1 was Asian. Eight of the 11 were females. Four liaisons split their time between the family liaison position and another position assignment at the same school, such as working as an educational assistant or behavior specialist. For the school year under investigation, the family liaison position in the 11 schools ranged from a 50% to a 100% appointment with an average of 71% (see Table 1). The appointment percentages do not include other position assignments.
Family Liaison Percent Appointment.
Data Collection
All data collection took place near the end of the school year in May. Although it would have been desirable to carry out data collection activities earlier, this was not possible due to the restricted time frame. More specifically, the district made its research request at the beginning of the second semester, and all necessary approvals were not received until mid-April. In addition, the district specifically asked that all data collection be completed during that school year so that recommendations could be implemented at the beginning of the next school year.
One focus group session, one individual interview, and five job shadows were conducted with the family liaisons. The individual interview was initially intended to be a focus group session, but due to low attendance, it became an individual interview.
All 11 family liaisons were invited to attend one of two focus group sessions scheduled at the end of their school day. The first focus group took place as scheduled with 5 liaisons in attendance and lasted approximately 1 hr. Attendance at the second focus group was less successful. One liaison was unable to participate due to an appointment conflict, 1 liaison had a last-minute high-priority meeting at school, another was on medical leave, and 2 did not provide a reason for not attending their scheduled session. Consequently, the second focus group had only 1 liaison in attendance and an individual interview was conducted with this liaison using the same questions as used in the group session. The individual interview was completed in 45 min. Both the focus group session and the individual interview were audio-recorded.
Five liaisons were selected for job shadows. These five were randomly selected within the constraint of being representative of school type. More specifically, three of the selected liaisons were employed in elementary schools, one in a middle school, and one in a high school. Two investigators conducted the job shadows; one investigator conducted three and the other conducted two. All job shadows were scheduled for a 3-hr time period convenient for the family liaison. Four of the job shadows began in the morning, and one began in the afternoon. During the job shadows, the investigator took observation notes on the specific types of tasks the liaison carried out and noted the clock time. The investigator also asked questions, as necessary, to ensure that tasks were recorded correctly. Some liaisons provided a great deal of unsolicited information relevant to the position, such as tasks perceived to be important that were not observed and suggestions for improving the effectiveness of the position. This information is summarized in the results sections concerning duties and activities of the family liaison and family liaisons’ recommendations. The investigators sent the write-ups of their observation notes to the family liaisons so that each liaison could correct any inaccuracies, add any important omitted information, or otherwise revise the notes so that they presented a complete and accurate record of the day’s activities. One liaison clarified information and one liaison made a revision.
Altogether, data were collected from 9 of the 11 family liaisons. Three liaisons participated only in the job shadow, 3 participated only in the focus group, 1 participated only in an individual interview, and 2 participated in both the job shadow and the focus group.
Analysis Procedures
Responses of the nine liaisons at the focus group interview session, the individual interview, and/or the job shadow were first categorized as descriptions of their duties and activities or recommendations for changes. Within each of these areas, each author first analyzed the responses independently to identify themes that could be used to summarize the data. The themes identified independently by the authors regarding duties and activities were very similar and fit well into four categories: (a) working with parents, (b) approaches for involving families, (c) interactions with teachers and staff, and (d) other duties as assigned. The same procedure was used for summarizing recommendations for ways in which the effectiveness of the family liaison position could be enhanced. Three main themes were identified in the participants’ responses regarding recommendations, and these concerned the following: (a) job clarity, (b) job assignments, and (c) school or district support.
For the job shadows, the five sets of observers’ notes were analyzed to identify categories that could be used to summarize data. The procedure that was used to identify summary categories for the other qualitative data was also used to identify categories for the job shadow data. Based on the analysis of job shadow data, five broad categories of activities were identified: (a) direct parent contact, (b) direct student contact, (c) activity coordination, (d) other duties as assigned, (e) routine office tasks, and (f) providing information to the researcher. A 15-min event sampling procedure was used to tally the observed activities according to the six categories. In other words, for each 15-min interval of the 3-hr job shadow, frequencies were tallied by category. It should be noted that more than one category could occur in a 15-min interval. For example, in one 15-min period, the liaison may have engaged in cafeteria supervision (other duties as assigned) and talked to students (direct student contact). Consequently, across the five job shadows, activity frequencies summed to 82, with 25 associated with the category of providing information to the researcher. This category included observations such as family liaisons providing background information or explanations of tasks that were being performed. For example, a liaison who was coordinating a parent activity explained the purpose of the activity, described how coordinating the activity required interaction with community members, and provided examples of flyers that had been sent to parents about the activity. Some liaisons also gave information about typical tasks that were not being observed on the day the researcher was there. In addition, some liaisons talked to the researcher about changes they felt would make their positions more effective. To present a more accurate picture of the family liaison’s typical workday, the percentages of observed activities are based on 57 rather than 82, excluding the category of providing information to the researcher.
Results
The results of the study are summarized under three topics. The first topic is the duties and activities of the family liaison and includes responses and comments of nine family liaisons at the focus group interview session, the individual interview, and/or the job shadow concerning descriptions and explanations of their duties and activities. The second topic, family liaison observations, includes frequencies of tasks that the liaisons engaged in during the job shadow. The third topic is the family liaisons’ recommendations and includes a summary of suggestions made during the focus group, individual interview, and/or job shadow.
Duties and Activities of the Family Liaison
Working with parents
Family liaisons worked with parents in a variety of ways during the school year. Analysis of responses revealed four main types of activities:
Creating a trusting and welcoming environment for parents and families
Facilitating parent involvement in the school
Keeping parents informed on school-related topics
Connecting parents with resources
Creating a trusting and welcoming environment
Most family liaisons (eight of nine) explicitly stated that they strived to actively create and maintain an environment that established a sense of trust and welcomed parents’ involvement. One of the liaisons noted the importance of promoting positive experiences with the school, especially the very first contact in the school year: “We want it to be a positive experience, so they know it’s not just a place to send your child; it’s a place for the family to come to.”
Welcoming families into the school was done in a variety of ways. Family liaisons connected with parents during regularly scheduled school activities, such as an open house or a dinner for families prior to teacher conferences. In addition, the liaisons were involved in organizing special events for families, such as lunches or dinners with the principal, bring-my-parent-to-school night, bingo games, and the like. Home visits were an additional method liaisons used in their work with families. The liaisons reported that these home visits were done with the school social worker, and usually for a purpose related to the social worker’s responsibilities (e.g., school attendance). One family liaison noted the effectiveness of home visits as parent involvement often increased following the visit. Family liaisons also created a welcoming environment by providing school tours for families.
Facilitating parent involvement
Almost all family liaisons (seven of nine) facilitated parent involvement in the school by coordinating volunteer services in classrooms. In addition to assisting with placement of classroom volunteers, some family liaisons also worked creatively to set up convenient ways for parents to be involved outside of the school building. For example, one liaison described the at-home volunteer work of cutting paper shapes for classroom use. Some special events such as dinners and family nights utilized parents as volunteers and liaisons noted that this type of participation seemed to encourage parents’ continued involvement with the school. One family liaison stated that attendance at monthly family nights was excellent and ranged from 75 to 250 people. Liaisons also sent thank you notes and distributed gift cards to parents to recognize their involvement with school activities. In addition to structured activities, one family liaison emphasized the importance of encouraging parents to be actively involved by regularly assisting their children with homework. At times, family liaisons felt they were able to facilitate potentially challenging interactions between the school and a family by helping to establish a positive, caring atmosphere. One liaison noted the ease parents feel with them: “They’re comfortable with what we do.” The liaisons provided a “familiar face” and helped to make parents comfortable about sharing their perspective. The liaisons felt that parents viewed them differently from administrators and behavior specialists and that parents were often less anxious when working with the liaison.
Keeping parents informed on school-related topics
Keeping parents aware of school events and updating them on school-related information was a primary responsibility mentioned by eight of the nine family liaisons. One family liaison noted that equipping parents with information is empowering, so keeping parents up to date is very important. Individual liaisons utilized several types of communication: websites, phone messengers, individual phone calls, emails, newsletters, school marquees, bulletin board displays, flyers, communication in student backpacks, and stickers placed on elementary students’ clothing. In addition to utilizing a variety of communication methods, liaisons noted that they often used multiple means to distribute information. One liaison provided the following description of a communication strategy.
I need to make at least three attempts or efforts to contact the parents with any event that’s going on. I think that will be effective. If they don’t get the flyer, maybe they’ll get the phone call. If they don’t get the phone call, then the child will come home running and happy because they have a sticker on their clothing saying something is going on.
Connecting parents with resources
Most family liaisons (six of nine) gathered information about programs and resources both in the school and the community that might be of value to parents and families. Connecting families to resources was especially emphasized in the work of one family liaison: “I feel like a large portion of my job is connecting the information between the school, the family, and the community.” Another family liaison referred to this activity as “resource mining” and said she was always on the lookout for resources at school and in the community. The school resources mentioned by liaisons included the free-/reduced-price lunch program, bus transportation, and computer access. With respect to community resources, liaisons said they often made information available during events that brought families into the school. For example, during special events such as book fairs and open houses, some liaisons invited community agencies to set up tables with flyers, pamphlets, and other types of descriptive and contact information. Community agencies mentioned by the liaisons included the Young Men’s Christian Association, the Salvation Army, the community library, county services, job assistance organizations, and organizations that provide financial assistance to low-income families to help with home heating costs.
Approaches for involving families
Information obtained from the family liaisons showed considerable agreement regarding effective approaches for involving parents. Three characteristics of effective approaches identified by the liaisons were as follows: (a) personal, (b) convenient, and (c) flexible.
Personal
Family liaisons noted the importance and effectiveness of personal contact with families. For example, individual phone calls and home visits were considered especially effective and generally more effective than mass mailings or website announcements. Liaisons said they felt the unspoken message parents received from individual personal contacts was that someone at the school genuinely cared about their family. In addition, liaisons noted that information delivered via personal contact was guaranteed to reach the parents. In contrast, they said it was likely that much of the bulk communication, such as flyers and information placed in student backpacks, did not reach parents. One liaison estimated that 50% of the information sent home in student backpacks was never received by parents.
Convenient
Family liaisons said that it was important that meeting locations be convenient for the parents. Since the school was usually located in the parents’ neighborhood and child care was often provided for school events, family liaisons said they have learned to connect with parents during planned school activities such as parent–teacher conferences. In addition, the liaisons pointed out that piggy-backing on school activities made more efficient use of parents’ time because it decreased the number of trips parents needed to make to the school.
Flexible
Family liaisons pointed out the importance of flexibility in accommodating the needs of individual families. For example, the liaisons noted that some parents were available to meet only during school hours, while others were only available during evening hours. In addition, some parents were initially uncomfortable meeting individually with school personnel but were at ease attending group-based activities such as family dinners. Some liaisons also described the necessity of carrying out their responsibilities beyond official work hours. For example, when liaisons ran into parents in the neighborhood grocery store or library, they often found that the parents expected them to take time right then to discuss school-related matters. During unplanned encounters like these, the liaisons considered it essential to interact with the parents and to take note of their concerns.
Interactions with teachers and staff
Family liaisons indicated that they worked with teachers and staff in a variety of ways. Specific activities liaisons engaged in with teachers and staff included attending parent–teacher meetings, participating in site leadership team meetings where both parents and teachers were present, checking on substitute teachers, obtaining parent volunteers for classrooms, keeping teachers informed of relevant family information (e.g., a family crisis), providing co-leadership for student groups, and supporting classroom activity (e.g., checking a student’s homework completion).
Other duties as assigned
Nearly every family liaison described additional responsibilities not specifically related to the family liaison position such as supervising the cafeteria, monitoring school buses, answering office phones, writing or editing documents, and maintaining the school website. Some of these responsibilities (e.g., writing, website maintenance) were assigned to a family liaison because of the specific skills and knowledge the individual possessed. Some responsibilities such as cafeteria supervision were assigned on a rotating basis to all professional staff. Other assignments resulted from the need for a staff member to provide coverage until other arrangements could be made. Since the family liaison’s schedule was less fixed than that of many other school staff, liaisons stated that they were often called on to fill in when office or instructional staff were absent and to carry out tasks such as answering office phones or monitoring a class until the substitute teacher arrived.
Family Liaison Observations
The primary purpose of the job shadow was to obtain information about the liaison’s work via observation. Results of the job shadows are summarized in Table 2.
Frequency of Family Liaisons’ Activities Observed in the Job Shadows.
The 3-hr job shadow observations are summarized by the type of activities observed during each of twelve 15-min intervals.
Direct parent contact
Although the family liaisons considered working with parents to be the heart of their jobs, minimal parent contact was actually observed during the job shadow. Only 4% of the observed activities were in the direct parent contact category. However, liaisons were observed coordinating activities that would result in substantial direct contact with parents (see activity coordination below). During the job shadow, some liaisons did point out that structured activities involving direct parent contact were more likely to happen during after-school events or earlier in the school year than in May when the job shadows took place.
Direct student contact
Direct student contact occurred in 18% of the observed activities. This contact varied from brief and informal one-on-one interactions to leading formal student groups. Family liaisons mentioned that student contact was important because it often led to establishing meaningful relationships with the parents.
Activity coordination
During the job shadows, three of the five liaisons were involved in organizing and coordinating events such as a family night, and overall, activity coordination occurred in 28% of the observed activities. Coordination of these events often required liaisons to work not only with parents but also with school staff, student groups, and community organizations. Some family liaisons also assisted with coordination of activities that were not specific to the family liaison job (e.g., class field trips and graduation ceremonies), although the activity itself often provided an opportunity for the liaison to interact directly with parents.
Other duties as assigned
Other duties as assigned was the most frequently occurring category, with a relative frequency of 30%, and, during the job shadow, all family liaisons engaged in other duties as assigned. These duties often were related to school situations that required adult supervision such as greeting student buses, monitoring hallways, and monitoring students in the cafeteria during lunch time.
Routine office tasks
Most liaisons were observed carrying out routine office tasks such as reading and answering emails and making photocopies. Twenty-one percent of the observed activities were categorized as routine office tasks.
Family Liaisons’ Recommendations
During the job shadows, the focus group, and the interview, family liaisons described ways in which the effectiveness of the family liaison could be enhanced. These recommendations primarily concerned job clarity, job assignments, and school or district support.
Job clarity
Family liaisons indicated they appreciated clearly defined duties and responsibilities particularly for working with parents. While some liaisons stated they had a very specific written job description prepared collaboratively with the principal, others said they had considerable latitude in determining the duties that comprised their positions and how they go about fulfilling their responsibilities. In general, even with a written job description, the liaisons seemed to agree that they were defining their jobs as they went along. It should be noted that, at the time this study was being conducted, the district was waiting for approval of its family liaison position description. Because the district was undergoing a compensation examination, the position description could not be formally approved until the examination was concluded.
Job assignments
Liaisons indicated that the family liaison position could be made more effective by limiting their involvement in other duties as assigned. Liaisons noted they were often involved in activities such as monitoring the cafeteria and filling in for staff who were absent. Given that most liaisons were less than full-time (see Table 1), these additional responsibilities further reduced the amount of time available during the school day to carry out tasks directly related to their family liaison roles. However, it needs to be pointed out that the liaisons also stated quite emphatically that they enjoyed these duties and that these other duties gave them valuable opportunities to form personal connections with students and school staff and to play an integral part in the school community and its routine activities. Therefore, the liaisons did not ask that these duties be eliminated entirely. Rather, they requested that reasonable limits (e.g., no more than 1 hr a day) be established.
School or district support
Family liaisons asked for support in the form of training, flexible schedules, adequate office space, and visibility. Details regarding each of these areas are provided below.
Training
Some of the family liaisons said they felt they were hired primarily because of their networking skills and their connections with families and the community rather than their formal training. They acknowledged the importance of their community connections but expressed a desire for ongoing training to help them develop a best practice model and be more effective in their positions. In addition, liaisons wanted their position to be more than a “goodwill ambassador.” They wanted to cultivate ongoing positive relationships and to support meaningful parent interactions with the school. In addition to their own training, liaisons specifically mentioned a need for training the teaching staff on how to work with the family liaison. Liaisons noted that training for the teaching staff would be beneficial since teachers often appeared to be unfamiliar with the role of the family liaison and the ways in which the family liaison could help improve teacher–family communications and relationships.
Flexible schedules
Some liaisons requested a flexible schedule that would allow them to meet the needs of parents. Family liaisons indicated that they were frequently unable to meet with parents before school or immediately after school, because these were the times that they were usually asked to help with bus duty. In addition, because many parents were only available for meetings in the evenings or on weekends, the liaisons wanted official working hours at these times also.
Adequate office space
Liaisons frequently shared office space with other staff members and, in some cases, rotated among different office locations throughout the week. Liaisons indicated that they would prefer a private space that was both easily accessible and consistent. Liaisons’ experience was that parents were not comfortable sharing personal information in a public space. In addition, assignment to office locations that were not easily accessed or that kept changing decreased the opportunities for spontaneous interactions with parents who had come to the school for another purpose.
Visibility
Three of the liaisons noted that high visibility was important for the effectiveness of their positions. To increase their visibility, they specifically asked to be included in all meetings held with parents as well as other meetings that involved home–school relations or community–school relations.
Discussion and Conclusion
Overall, the family liaisons expressed a high level of commitment to their work. They indicated that their primary responsibilities were creating a trusting and welcoming environment for families, facilitating parent involvement in the school, keeping parents informed on school-related topics, and connecting families with resources. The liaisons found individual personal contact to be especially effective for establishing strong, meaningful relationships with families. During the job shadows, family liaisons were primarily observed coordinating parent involvement activities, interacting with students, performing routine office tasks, and carrying out other duties as assigned (e.g., cafeteria supervision). To a lesser extent, liaisons were observed directly interacting with parents. It should be noted that the unique dynamics of the family liaison position presented a challenge to obtaining generalizable data from the job shadows. More specifically, the liaisons reported that their duties often changed from day-to-day as well as throughout the school year. For example, one family liaison related that her schedule was designed to focus on organization and paperwork 2 days per week and on family involvement the other 3 days. Other liaisons pointed out that family needs fluctuated from month to month and their involvement with families varied accordingly. It is also important to note that the job shadows took place in May near the end of the school year as this timing may have influenced the type of activities that were observed. A job shadow done at a different time of the year, a different day of the week, or even at a different time of the day may have produced very different results.
With respect to recommendations, the liaisons generally felt that the effectiveness of their positions could be enhanced by increasing the specificity regarding job expectations, decreasing time spent on other duties, and establishing an acceptable balance between structure and flexibility. Although they wanted their duties and responsibilities to be clearly stated and focused on family involvement, the liaisons indicated that doing work not specifically related to their position (e.g., cafeteria supervision) provided the opportunity to form positive relationships with students that could subsequently lead to positive relationships with parents. Family liaisons also expressed a need for flexibility in meeting the needs of families who were often unavailable during the regular school day or work week. Achieving and maintaining the necessary balance can be a challenge in school districts with set policies for all personnel. Nevertheless, the efficacy of the family liaison position relies, in part, on the success of finding an appropriate balance between structure and flexibility.
The family liaisons indicated a need for professional development on best practices for effectively carrying out the responsibilities of their positions. In addition to formal training sessions on topics related to the work of the family liaison, professional development that provides opportunities to connect with and learn from one another could further enhance the effectiveness of the position. For example, professional development could take the form of observations, collaborations, or mentoring relationships. Large group sessions might include opportunities for liaisons to describe strategies they had personally found to be effective or to share information about valuable community resources. During the focus group session that we conducted, we noted that some liaisons asked for another’s contact information so that they could obtain additional information about specific strategies or resources that had been described. This indicates a desire on their part to network with one another and to strengthen their professional relationships.
The roles taken on by the family liaisons who participated in the present study were very different from the four essential liaison roles identified by Sanders (2008). Sanders’ essential roles emphasized parent involvement that would help increase their children’s academic achievement. In contrast, the family liaisons we investigated placed strong emphasis on their roles regarding creation of a welcoming school environment, establishing a sense of trust, facilitating parent involvement in the school, and connecting families with school and community resources. We believe the differences between our results and those of Sanders are primarily due to the socio-economic status of the communities in which the family liaisons were employed. Sanders investigated family liaisons working in an affluent community, whereas the liaisons we studied were working in schools where a very large proportion of the student enrollment was eligible for free- or reduced-price lunch. It seems very plausible that a stronger emphasis needs to be placed on the establishment of trusting, positive school–family relationships in lower socio-economic status communities than in wealthier communities. Furthermore, in schools characterized by high mobility, the establishment of positive school–family relationships is a task that likely continues throughout the entire school year. In addition, it also seems that connecting families with community resources is more important in high-poverty communities than in more affluent settings. Thus, two ongoing essential roles of family liaisons in high-poverty schools may well be establishing a trusting, welcoming environment and connecting families with resources.
In light of the findings, the relative newness of the family liaison position, as well as its complexities, additional research is warranted. A study that highlights the work of exemplary liaisons in high-poverty urban educational settings might provide useful information for developing best practice models. Other valuable areas of future research are the different roles of the family liaisons in elementary and secondary urban schools, and the importance of liaisons’ community membership, cultural knowledge, and language proficiency. Finally, research that examines the impact of the family liaison on school image, parent involvement, and student success would be informative for districts that are considering the addition of a family liaison to their school staffs.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The research on family liaisons was partially funded by Minneapolis Public Schools as one component of the Evaluation of the North Side Initiative.