Abstract
Family–professional partnerships are essential for promoting positive outcomes for students with and without disabilities. However, the extent to which professional preparation standards address skills to cultivate family–professional partnerships is unclear. Without this knowledge, it is challenging to understand the preparation of education professionals in developing partnerships with families. The purpose of this study is to explore the relation between preparation standards and two factors of family–professional partnerships (i.e., enhancing connection and enhancing capacity) for general and special education teachers as well as other education professionals. The authors use expert review to identify and evaluate 159 professional preparation standards from 15 Specialized Professional Associations and the Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium in relation to the two factors. Findings showed no significant differences among the standards in relation to enhancing connection among family–professional partnerships. Standards related exclusively to special education, younger students, or teachers (vs other education professionals) were significantly more likely to reflect enhancing capacity among family–professional partnerships. Implications for future research and practice are discussed.
Keywords
The Importance of Family–Professional Partnerships
Family–professional partnerships (i.e., reciprocal relationships to which families and professionals both contribute and benefit; Haines et al., 2017; Turnbull et al., 2022) are critical for students with and without disabilities. Among students without disabilities, high-quality family–professional partnerships have resulted in improved academic achievement (Jeynes, 2003, 2007), regardless of students’ racial and ethnic backgrounds and socioeconomic status (Jeynes, 2016, 2017). High-quality family professional partnerships influence other factors associated with students with disabilities such as reduced maternal stress (Burke & Hodapp, 2014), improved family quality of life (Summers et al., 2005), and an increased likelihood that Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) will be fulfilled (Fish, 2008). Furthermore, family–professional partnerships are especially relevant to students with disabilities given the mandate promoted by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, the federal special education law). Specifically, IDEA mandates partnerships by requiring parental consent for evaluations and initial receipt of services; IDEA also provides procedural safeguards to families (e.g., due process and mediation).
Unfortunately, high-quality family–professional partnerships are rarely fulfilled. Education professionals consistently report feeling unprepared to partner with families (Sewell, 2012). Markow and colleagues (2013) reported that 70% of teachers indicated that partnering with families is one of the largest challenges they encounter while teaching. Similarly, families also report struggling to partner with professionals. In a national sample of families of children with disabilities, the majority of families reported poor partnerships with school professionals (Burke & Hodapp, 2016). Thus, while family–professional partnerships are critical to student and family outcomes, such partnerships are often not realized.
The Relation Between Professional Preparation and National Standards
One way to improve the likelihood of family–professional partnerships is for professional preparation programs to showcase research-based methods to develop reciprocal relationships with families. However, faculty report an insufficient emphasis on developing family–professional partnerships within their professional preparation programs (D’Haem & Griswold, 2017), leaving education professionals with diminished abilities to initiate and maintain such partnerships (Francis et al., 2021). For example, Kyzar and colleagues (2019) explored four sets of state standards for special education teacher preparation programs. Among these, only 11.4% of standards were related to family–professional partnerships. It is unclear whether this subset of state standards is representative of all teacher preparation standards. Furthermore, while their study provided a launching point, Kyzar and colleagues (2019) used a broad construct of “collaboration” in their examination of state standards—they did not focus on partnership with families specifically. For example, Kyzar and colleagues included the following Texas Standard: “design, implement and evaluate instructional programs that enhance an individual’s social participation in family, school, and community activities” (p. 322). This standard is not unique to partnerships with families. By examining standards specifically related to families, we can better discern the reflection of family–professional partnerships (vs collaboration with stakeholders, including families, more broadly).
National professional preparation standards articulate what constitutes exemplary teaching practices, thus playing an important role in professionalizing the work of education professionals (Garner & Kaplan, 2020; Sinnema et al., 2017). Standards are commonly adopted by universities to guide the design and evaluation of professional preparation programs. As a result, professional preparation standards largely drive university programming, curriculum decisions, and, ultimately, the knowledge and value system of pre-service and in-service education professionals (Darling-Hammond, 2017; Darling-Hammond et al., 2019). There are many professional preparation standards that outline expected education practices at all ages as well as specialized practices for specific learner populations (e.g., students with disabilities), grade levels (e.g., early childhood), and subject areas (e.g., English Language Arts).
To guide the preparation of pre-service teachers and ongoing professional development, the Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC), sponsored by the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO), developed a set of performance standards for effective teaching knowledge and practices that ensure high-quality learning for all students from preschool through 12th grade (CCSSO, 2013). InTASC standards can serve as a foundational core for the development of comprehensive educator preparation programs. Unlike the foundational, but generalized nature of InTASC standards, Specialized Professional Associations (SPAs) provide standards that address the unique needs of education professional disciplines and learner populations. For example, the National Association for Gifted Children developed national teacher preparation standards that guide high-quality education for gifted and talented students. By characterizing the extent to which InTASC standards and SPA standards reflect family–professional partnerships, we can identify standards with strong links to partnerships as well as target standards that require more content to effectively prepare professionals to facilitate partnerships. Thus, the purpose of this study is to examine the extent to which professional preparation standards reflect family–professional partnerships.
The Relation Between Family–Professional Partnerships and National Standards
Indeed, it is critical to explore the extent to which professional preparation standards (e.g., InTASC and SPAs) reflect the empirical definition of family–professional partnership. Historically, the term “family–professional partnership” has been used to reflect several, similar constructs such as family involvement, parent engagement, and family-school collaboration (Burke, 2012). In this study, we use the term “family–professional partnership” because it reflects the bidirectional relationship between families and professionals in educational decision-making. Although there may be other factors of family–professional partnerships, in this study we focus on two factors that were identified in a national study of family–professional partnerships: enhancing connection and enhancing capacity (Kyzar et al., 2020). Such factors reflect the dimensions of warmth and competence—two dimensions used in social cognition research to reflect the qualities of effective partnerships (Fiske & Taylor, 2013). Enhancing connection (i.e., warmth which may include: using words a family understands, listening without judgment, and treating a child with dignity) reflects forming a meaningful relationship while enhancing capacity (i.e., competence which may include: building on a child’s strengths, being available to families, and providing services that meet the child’s needs) reflects the skills or abilities of the professional to support the student and their family. Before one can determine the types of changes that may be needed for national professional preparation standards, it is important to characterize the extent to which such standards align with each factor.
Finally, it is important to identify patterns of family–professional partnership content in professional preparation standards. For example, the Council for Exceptional Children standards may be more likely to reflect family–professional partnerships because of the implications of IDEA for students with (vs without) disabilities. It may also be that teacher preparation standards which focus on a single content area (e.g., National Council on Teaching Mathematics, in comparison to more general teaching standards) are more likely to reflect enhancing capacity (vs connection) given their focus on content knowledge. By identifying patterns of family–professional partnership content in professional preparation standards, a more targeted understanding of the relation between standards and partnerships can be identified.
Research Questions for This Study
In this study, we explored the relation between professional preparation standards and family–professional partnerships for general and special education teachers as well as other education professionals (e.g., school psychologists). Specifically, our research question was: To what extent do current national preparation standards reflect each factor (connection and capacity) of family–professional partnerships? We also examined patterns across the standards to determine whether standards were more likely to reflect partnerships if the standards were aligned with general or special education; roles of education professionals; or age groups. Given the role of family–professional partnerships in IDEA (2004), we hypothesized that standards related to special education would be more likely to reflect such partnerships. Because early childhood tends to be more family (vs individual) centered (Burke, 2012), we also hypothesized that standards related to young children would be more likely to reflect family–professional partnerships. Finally, given that teachers (vs administrators and related service professionals) often spend the most amount of time with students, we hypothesized that standards reflecting teachers would be more likely to reflect family–professional partnerships.
Method
Identification of the Set of Standards Used in This Study
To identify standards related to family–professional partnerships, we used a standards database that crosswalked more than 5,000 professional standards in the U.S. education system. Similar to other projects which have explored standards (e.g., Carter et al., 2022), the creation of this database involved a team of researchers with expertise reflecting general and special education. Initial internal consensus about which standards to use was achieved. Given that this study focused on exploring how family–professional partnerships were positioned in professional preparation standards, only the SPAs that are recognized by the Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation were included in this study. This inclusion criterion yielded 17 sets of SPAs and InTASC standards. Each set of professional preparation standards usually consists of overarching standards with an accompanying explanation and associated components, indicators, or elements that specify the implementation of each overarching standard. For example, InTASC contains 10 overarching standards and 174 specific standard components. In this study, the unit of analysis was specific standard components, indicators, or elements. Hereafter, the term “standards” refers to standard components, indicators, or elements to ensure consistency in nomenclature.
Procedures to Extract Potentially Relevant Standards
To extract family-related standards from each SPA and InTASC standards, we generated a list of seven keywords in relation to “family–professional partnership” based on expert evaluation. The keywords included: “famil,” “caregiver,” “parent,” “guardian,” “stakeholder,” “communit,” and “collaborat.” We used the stems of these keywords to capture all possible family- and partnership-related language in standards. For example, the stem “famil” identified “family” and “families” in standards. This process yielded 159 standards from 15 of the SPAs and InTASC standards. No standard related to family–professional partnership was found in two sets of standards created by SPAs including the American Library Association/American Association of School Librarians and the National Council for the Social Studies. See Table 1 for a list of SPAs and InTASC whose standards were included in the analysis.
Names of Included Sets of SPA and InTASC Standards.
Note. SPA = Specialized Professional Associations.
Operational Definitions of the Dimensions of Family–Professional Partnerships
For each standard, we quantified the extent of the relation to family–professional partnerships. Specifically, we used a 3-point Likert-type scale: (1) no relation; (2) some relation; and (3) large relation. In this way, we could discern the extent of the relation between the standard and family–professional partnerships. Prior studies about professional preparation standards have similarly used 3-point Likert-type scales (e.g., Baek & Sung, 2020).
Enhancing Connection
Per Kyzar and colleagues (2019), enhancing connection was defined as the “skills or abilities of the professional to form meaningful relationships with the student and the family” (p. 55). To be of “no relation,” the standard had to mention one or none of the following: skills or abilities of the professional; a focus on relationships; or reference to the student and the family. To be of “some relation,” the standard had to mention two of the following: skills or abilities of the professional; a focus on relationships; or reference to the student and the family. To be of “large relation,” the standard had to mention all of the following: skills or abilities of the professional; a focus on relationships; and reference to the student and the family. For example, to “reference the student and the family” the standard had to mention the student and the family.
Enhancing Capacity
Kyzar and colleagues (2019) defined enhancing capacity as “the skills or abilities of the professional to support the development of knowledge, skills, and outcomes for both the student and the family” (p. 55). To be of “no relation,” the standard had to mention one or none of the following: skills or abilities of the professional; a focus on knowledge, skills, or outcomes; or reference the student and the family. To be of “some relation,” the standard had to mention two of the following: skills or abilities of the professional; a focus on knowledge, skills, or outcomes; or reference the student and the family. To be of “large relation,” the standard had to mention, all of the following: skills or abilities of the professional; a focus on knowledge, skills, or outcomes; and reference the student and the family. For example, for the skills and ability of the professional, the standard had to reference the skills or ability of the professional. To this end, coders looked for keywords (e.g., ability, skills, competency, wherewithal) in each standard.
Inter-Rater Reliability
Before coding all of the standards, two researchers developed a coding system (i.e., the abovementioned operational definitions). Independently, they each coded 50 standards. The Kappa was .78 for the enhancing connection dimension and .90 for the enhancing capacity dimension, indicating excellent reliability (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2012). Accordingly, the researchers coded the remainder of the standards.
Data Analysis
Independently, two researchers evaluated each standard in relation to the two factors of family–professional partnerships. The two researchers entered their scores into Qualtrics. The data were then imported into SPSS, a statistical software program. Descriptive statistics were conducted for each standard. An ANOVA was conducted to examine the extent to which each standard differed in reflecting the family–professional partnerships.
To identify patterns of family–professional partnership content in professional preparation standards, the research team categorized the standards. Specifically, we categorized each standard in relation to the: age of the student population (i.e., early childhood vs all other ages), role of the education professional (i.e., teacher vs administrator vs service provider), and focus on special education (i.e., exclusively focused on special education or not exclusively focused on special education). ANOVAs were conducted to identify any potential patterns between the categories and the standards in relation to the dimensions of family–professional partnerships. Effect sizes (ESs) were calculated using Eta Squared. Follow-up analyses were conducted using Least Significant Differences post hoc tests.
Results
Relation Between SPAs and the Dimensions of Family–Professional Partnerships
Enhancing Connection
The scores relating to “enhancing connection” of family–professional partnerships ranged from means of 1.50 (Association for Middle Level Education and American School Counselor Association) to 3.00 (National Council of Teachers of English). Overall, there were no significant differences across the SPAs and InTASC with respect to enhancing connection (F = 1.26, ns).
Enhancing Capacity
The scores relating to “enhancing capacity” of family–professional partnerships ranged from 1.67 (American School Counselor Association) to 3.00 (National Council of Teachers of Mathematics-Middle and National Council of Teachers of Mathematics-Secondary). Overall, there were significant differences in relation to enhancing capacity across the SPAs (F = 2.14, p = .02, ES = .12). Specifically, the Council of Exceptional Children and the National Association of School Psychologists each demonstrated significantly greater scores in comparison to five other SPAs (i.e., American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages, Association for Middle Level Education, American School Counselor Association, National Association for Gifted Children, Society for Public Health Education). The InTASC standards demonstrated significantly greater scores in comparison to four SPAs (i.e., American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages, American School Counselor Association, National Association for Gifted Children, and Society for Public Health Education). For example, specific InTASC standards describe that teachers should integrate perspectives of families into instructional strategies (e.g., 2d; 2m) and seek opportunities to collaborate with families to ensure learner growth (e.g., 10d; 10g). Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Early Interventionists/Early Childhood Special Educators, and National Educational Leadership Preparation-Building SPAs each demonstrated significantly greater scores in comparison to two SPAs (i.e., American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages, American School Counselor Association). Conversely, the American School Counselor Association and American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages demonstrated significantly lower scores in comparison to six SPAs (i.e., Council for Exceptional Children, Early Interventionists/Early Childhood Special Educators, InTASC, National Association of School Psychologists, National Educational Leadership Preparation-Building, Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages). The National Association for Gifted Children demonstrated significantly lower scores in comparison to three SPAs (i.e., Council for Exceptional Children, InTASC, and National Association of School Psychologists). Finally, the Society for Public Health Education demonstrated significantly lower scores in comparison to two SPAs (i.e., Council for Exceptional Children, Interstate New Teacher Assessment, and Support Consortium). See Table 2.
SPAs in Relation to Enhancing Connection and Capacity.
Note. SPA = Specialized Professional Associations; ACTFL = American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages; AMLE = Association for Middle Level Education; ASCA = American School Counselor Association; CEC = Council for Exceptional Children; ES = effect size; EI/ECSE = Early Interventionists/Early Childhood Special Educators; NAGC = National Association for Gifted Children; NASP = National Association of School Psychologists; NCTE = National Council of Teachers of English; SHAPE = Society of Health and Physical Educators; SOPHE = Society for Public Health Education; TESOL = Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages.a Only one standard was included in this SPA for this study.
p < .05. **p < .01.
Patterns of Family–Professional Partnership Content and the SPAs
There were several significant patterns in relation to enhancing capacity. SPAs focusing on teachers (vs service providers and administrators) demonstrated significantly greater scores in relation to enhancing capacity (F = 3.67, p = .03, ES = .06). SPAs that only reflected early childhood (vs SPAs that did not exclusively focus on early childhood) demonstrated marginally significantly greater scores in relation to enhancing capacity (F = 3.61, p = .06, ES = .03). SPAs which reflected special education exclusively (vs SPAs that did not specifically focus on special education) demonstrated marginally significantly greater scores in relation to enhancing capacity (F = 3.32, p = .07, ES = .03). There were no significant patterns with respect to enhancing connection (see Table 3).
Differences by Professional Role, Student Age, and Special Education Focus.
ES= effect size.
p < .05.
Discussion
Given the importance of professional standards in shaping preparation programs, it is important to examine the extent to which family–professional partnerships are reflected in different sets of SPAs and InTASC standards. In this study, we examined the prevalence and patterns between family–professional partnership content and professional preparation standards. We had three main findings.
First, special education SPAs (namely Council for Exceptional Children) were significantly related to enhancing capacity in family–professional partnerships. The results suggest that having an emphasis on special education may bolster the likelihood of reflecting family–professional partnerships. Such a finding aligns with the policy expectation that special education teachers should partner with families of children with disabilities (IDEA, 2004). This finding also reinforces the relation between strong family–professional partnerships and positive family and student outcomes (e.g., Burke & Hodapp, 2014; Fish, 2008; Summers et al., 2005). While not all SPAs focus on special education, the Council for Exceptional Children standards may serve as a model for other SPAs to embed content related to family–professional partnerships in their own standards.
Notably, this finding was only in relation to enhancing capacity—not enhancing connection. Indeed, none of the SPAs or InTASC standards were significantly different in reflecting enhancing connection within family–professional partnerships. This finding aligns with extant research showing that educators feel unprepared to partner with families (Markow et al., 2013) and families often have negative experiences in their partnerships with educators (Burke & Hodapp, 2016). The distinction of only reflecting one dimension (capacity) may suggest that professional preparation standards value competence in developing skills, knowledge, and outcomes over facilitating meaningful relationships. The exclusion of standards related to enhancing connection is problematic as it is only through enhancing capacity and connection that families demonstrate significantly improved quality of life (Kyzar et al., 2020). Furthermore, the absence of a significant relation between special education SPA and enhancing connection is surprising given that such dispositional skills (e.g., being respectful and being warm) are deemed critical to the effectiveness of special education teachers (Woolf, 2019). By understanding the extent to which enhancing connection and capacity are addressed by each professional preparation standard, we can provide targeted suggestions to improve standards to reflect both dimensions of family–professional partnerships.
Second, SPAs focused on teachers (vs SPAs focused on other education professionals) were significantly more likely to reflect enhancing capacity within family–professional partnerships. The most illustrative example of this finding relates to InTASC. Comprised of 174 standards organized around core teaching areas, the InTASC standards are for teachers across subject areas and grade levels addressing the importance of content areas and pedagogical knowledge while highlighting adaptive expertise in applying such knowledge (Whitford & Villaume, 2014). In addition, the InTASC standards are consistent and compatible with certification and accreditation standards for various subject areas (CCSSO, 2013). Because family–professional partnerships transcend all academic areas, it seems appropriate that the InTASC standards (and other SPAs focused on teachers) would reflect enhancing capacity.
A notable exception to this finding relates to the National Association of School Psychologists. Similar to the InTASC and Council for Exceptional Children standards, the National Association of School Psychologists standards consistently reflected enhancing capacity. However, unlike the InTASC and Council for Exceptional Children standards, the National Association for School Psychologists standards relate to school psychologists—not teachers. Although unexpected, it is understandable that school psychologists would value family–professional partnerships as school psychologists have the potential of serving all students-both those with and without disabilities. In addition, for students with disabilities, school psychologists are often required IEP team members and integral participants in administering and interpreting evaluations. Notably, the National Association for School Psychologists standards were recently revised in 2020 which may have helped reflect the contemporary need for improving family–professional partnerships (Haines et al., 2017).
Yet another potential reason that the National Association for School Psychologists standards align with family–professional partnerships is the structure of the standards themselves. Most SPAs introduce an overarching standard and then break the standard into numbered components. This approach allows professional preparation programs the opportunity to measure aspects of the overarching standard individually. For instance, the Council for Exceptional Children standard 1: Engaging in Professional Learning and Practice within Ethical Guidelines contains three numbered sub-components (i.e., 1.1. 1.2. 1.3). The National Association for School Psychologists, however, present their standards in paragraph form with bulleted points that are not numbered. Ultimately, this shows that their standards are comprehensive, yet the structure of standards led to higher rates of alignment with family–professional partnerships.
Third, age matters in relation to the standards. Specifically, SPAs that focused on younger children (i.e., the Early Interventionists, Early Childhood Special Educators SPA) were significantly more likely to reflect the enhancing capacity factor of family–professional partnerships. Conversely, SPAs that focused on middle-grade education (e.g., Association for Middle Level Educators) were significantly less likely to reflect family–professional partnerships. This finding underscores the extant literature which suggests that family–professional partnerships (and, for that matter, family-centeredness) are more common in the earlier grades (Burke, 2012). Family–professional partnerships may change while the student is in elementary school as academic demands shift, standardized testing begins, and services are more student- (vs. family-) centered. As the student transitions from elementary to middle school, family–professional partnerships again may change (Seyfried & Chung, 2002) due to students entering adolescence and spending less time at home (Germain & Bloom, 1999).
Limitations
Although a launching point to understanding the relation between family–professional partnerships and professional preparation standards, there were a few limitations in this study. For example, we used expert review to identify the SPAs included in this study. However, there could have been other SPAs that may be relevant to professional preparation programs. Furthermore, the term “family–professional partnership” and related keywords have varied over time (Haines et al., 2017). It is possible that we did not include relevant key terms thus reflecting an under-estimate of the SPAs reflecting family–professional partnerships.
Another limitation of this study is the sets of included standards. Many SPAs have initial education preparation standards and support these standards with additional guidance that can be embedded in instruction. For instance, the Council for Exceptional Children has initial standards and then multiple sets of guidance (e.g., Initial Common Specialty Items) that support the initial educator preparation standards. These specialty items may contain further language on preparing educators to engage with families; however, these items fell outside of the scope of this study due to the inclusion criteria and focus on preparation standards approved by the Council on the Accreditation of Educator Preparation. Future research should include specialty items to provide the most comprehensive understanding of preparation programs.
Directions for Future Research
Future research may consider using different operational definitions and factors of family–professional partnerships to analyze standards. Regarding the former, prior research has used different terms (e.g., family engagement, parent involvement, collaboration) to characterize family–professional partnerships (Turnbull et al., 2022). Such terms include different activities (and correspondingly, factors) to represent family–professional partnerships. Thus, with respect to the latter, other factors of family–professional partnerships should also be used to analyze standards. Future research may consider using different operational definitions and related factors to characterize the standards.
Future research may also consider including additional data sources to examine the extent to which professional preparation standards relate to family–professional partnerships. The scope of the current study was limited to the extent to which family–professional partnership knowledge and skills were addressed in standards. Research is needed to understand how family–professional partnerships are characterized and the types of knowledge and skills that are being promoted in personnel preparation programs. For example, it may be worthwhile to examine coursework, practica, teacher certification requirements, and course syllabi (Oliver & Reschly, 2010; Schaaf et al., 2015; Styron & LeMire, 2009). By including more data sources, there could be a more holistic understanding of the extent to which family–professional partnerships are reflected in professional preparation programs. Furthermore, if there is a misalignment across data sources, it would allow targeted interventions to be developed to address the disjunct. For example, if the standards reflect family–professional partnerships but course syllabi do not reflect content about facilitating partnerships, then targeted efforts should be directed to faculty developing syllabi for coursework.
Implications for Practice
This study suggests that there is room for improvement in standards to address family–professional partnerships. SPA developers may consider looking at the findings in this study to improve the extent to which their standards reflect family–professional partnerships. For most SPAs, this may include addressing both dimensions—connection and capacity—of family–professional partnerships. For other SPAs, this may entail focusing more on a specific dimension (likely enhancing connection) among family–professional partnerships.
In addition, practitioners who inform and develop standards may consider reviewing the standards in this study to identify a “model” for standards in their field. For example, while the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages had low scores in relation to both dimensions of family–professional partnerships, the Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages had moderately higher scores. As both SPAs relate to foreign language professionals, it may be easier and more closely connected to the context of the field if the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages developers refer to Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (vs other SPAs) for a model to improve their standards. Notably, caution must be exercised when using other SPAs as models as each SPA relates to a unique type of professional, subject area, and/or age group. Thus, choosing a SPA as a model must be considered only in the context of the model SPA and whether that context can be generalized to another SPA.
Furthermore, practitioners themselves may reflect on their own practices of cultivating connection and capacity with families. Based on the results of this study, practitioners may especially consider how they connect with families. For example, they may identify whether they are conducting certain actions (e.g., using words a family understands, listening without judgment, and treating a child with dignity, Kyzar et al., 2020) that would enable them to better connect with the families of their students. After self-reflection, practitioners may make targeted efforts to form relationships with families.
In conclusion, some standards were significantly more likely to relate to enhancing capacity among family–professional partnerships. Specifically, standards related exclusively to special education, younger students, or teachers (vs other education professionals) were significantly more likely to reflect enhancing capacity.
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) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
