Familycentric School Leadership in Inner-City Schools in Saskatchewan

Abstract

This article presents the findings of a study that examined school-based leadership in a Saskatchewan inner-city elementary school with a high Indigenous student population. In this qualitative study, the researcher utilized the conversational method. Indigenous community members and school staff were invited to share their perspectives on school leadership and the role school-based leaders play in improving the experiences of Indigenous students and families. The findings revealed that multiple barriers hinder family engagement. However, school-based leaders can take specific actions to help overcome these barriers. Promising leadership actions include maintaining a clear focus, leading by example, dedicating time for home visits, challenging biases, developing a broader school leadership team, and being invitational. The paper concludes that school-based leaders’ actions can shift inner-city schools to be more familycentric.

1. Introduction

It is imperative in Saskatchewan inner-city schools that school leaders work to challenge conventional parent involvement practices and begin to work alongside families in more authentic and empowering ways. Powerful forces of poverty, colonization, and racism that plague the province of Saskatchewan are especially acute within older and more central urban neighborhoods, which, over time, have been settled in a manner that has led to a concentration of Indigenous people (Silver, 2016). Schools within these inner-city communities serve mostly Indigenous students and families. Yet, they remain staffed primarily with white educators, forcing Indigenous families to rely on white educators and their schoolcentric norms to support their children’s formal education. Commonly in studies involving Indigenous education, educators raise concerns about the lack of involvement or the seeming lack of caring of Indigenous parents (Agbo, 2007; Jaime & Russell, 2010), and Indigenous parents raise concerns about a lack of being authentically engaged (Jaime & Russell, 2010; Pushor & Murphy, 2010). Systemic barriers unique to Indigenous people based on a history of government and school policies have created significant distrust in schools (Faircloth, 2011; Jaime & Russell, 2010; Pushor & Murphy, 2010). This paper presents results from a study on leadership in inner-city Saskatchewan schools (Jutras, 2022) with a specific focus on barriers to family engagement and the actions of an inner-city school leadership team to shift a school towards a familycentric paradigm. The research questions addressed within this paper are: (1) What barriers inhibit the local school involvement of Indigenous parents and community members living in communities of racialized poverty? (2) How can school leaders more effectively create meaningful family–school partnerships with urban Indigenous peoples who live in communities affected by racialized poverty? This paper follows a conventional structure, beginning with a literature review to provide further context. This is followed by sections on methods, results, discussion, and conclusion. The paper seeks to fill the literature gap on school-based leadership actions to increase familycentricity, specifically within Saskatchewan inner-city elementary schools with a high Indigenous student population.

2. Literature Review

The literature speaks to the positive impacts of authentically engaged parents in their children’s schooling (Goodall, 2017; Henderson et al., 2007; Ishimaru, 2013). The following literature challenges less powerful traditional educator practices. It presents an informed view of how educators, specifically school leaders, can foster family–school partnerships, including those with Indigenous families.

2.1. Schoolcentric Parent Involvement

Researchers level scathing reviews of established schoolcentric educational practices that uphold the power of formal educational institutions and educators at the expense of parent and community engagement (Cranston & Crook, 2020; Goodall, 2017; FitzGerald & Militello, 2016; Pushor & Amendt, 2018). These critiques center on two areas of concern: traditional views of parent involvement and educators looking outward.

Transactional parent involvement practices have long dominated the school landscape (Goodall, 2017; Graue & Hawkins, 2010; Pushor, 2013a; Pushor & Amendt, 2018). Traditional roles assigned to parents by schools can at best be described as passive support (Ishimaru et al., 2016). Parent involvement activities prescribed by schools, such as fundraising, volunteering, and attending parent–teacher conferences, limit how parents can be involved to activities on the periphery of their child’s learning (Henderson et al., 2007; Mapp, 2003; Stelmach, 2005). Pushor (2010) argued that these longstanding parent involvement practices are taken for granted and rarely questioned. However, these practices create hierarchies of power and exclusion that maintain the hegemonic and discursive authority of the school while positioning parents on the periphery of reciprocal and respectful decision-making and engagement.

Schools prescribing passive involvement roles to parents often align with another troubling practice associated with deficit theorizing, looking outward. The term looking outward may be used elsewhere to indicate introspection or seeking solutions outside of one’s sphere. In parent engagement literature, the term indicates educators’ inclination to focus on factors outside of their control. Pushor (2011) stated the following:

As we look outward, we often focus on the challenges that exist out there in families and communities. We attend to who they are (or are not); what they have (or don’t have); and how much they can (or cannot) support the school’s agenda. At times we blame parents for what they are doing.

(pp. 65–66)

Looking outward in this judgmental manner leads to blame being placed on parents, especially parents of a non-dominant background, who do not conform to schoolcentric norms of involvement (Auerbach, 2009; Cranston & Crook, 2020; Ishimaru et al., 2016; Pushor, 2011), and can lead to misinterpreting lack of involvement as lack of support (Jaime & Russell, 2010; Mapp, 2003; Pushor, 2011). Auerbach (2009) noted that it is highly problematic when educators focus on external factors instead of factors under their control. Graue and Hawkins (2010) contended that looking outward leads to one-way communication with parents. They argued that “a one-way relationship isn’t much of a relationship at all” (p. 123).

There is agreement amongst researchers that interrupting problematic dispositions and practices of educators is the foundation for moving towards more authentic engagement of parents (Ishimaru et al., 2019; Mapp & Bergman, 2019) and that school leadership is essential for this to happen (Auerbach, 2009; Pushor & Amendt, 2018). Critically reflecting on one’s biases and position is central to the required stance of working with parents (Evans, 2013; FitzGerald & Militello, 2016; Pushor, 2013b). Across North America, inadequate training is provided to preservice teachers to prepare them to interact meaningfully with parents (Evans, 2013; Ishimaru, 2013; Pushor et al., 2005).

2.2. Family Engagement

The term family engagement identifies a more powerful and collaborative approach to working with families (FitzGerald & Militello, 2016; Goodall, 2017; Ishimaru et al., 2016; Pushor, 2013a; Pushor & Amendt, 2018). Family engagement, as opposed to parent involvement, is familycentric, involves educators looking inwards, and is reciprocal. Familycentricity is founded on the belief that educators are but one piece in the child’s overall development and that family knowledge and support are essential for effective schooling (Ishimaru et al., 2016; Pushor, 2013a; Pushor, 2015; Young et al., 2024). Familycentric educators rely on two-way communication and invite parents into their child’s learning at school in meaningful ways while also centering parents’ knowledge and the child’s learning at home (FitzGerald & Militello, 2016; Ishimaru et al., 2016; Pushor, 2010; Pushor, 2013a).

Another critical element of family engagement is educators shifting their stance to looking inward at their beliefs and actions (Auerbach, 2009; Pushor & Amendt, 2018). Educators who look inwards are likely to change their practices to facilitate authentic partnerships with parents and improve their approaches to communication. Family engagement is relational and reciprocal (Hands, 2014; Henderson et al., 2007; Ishimaru, 2013; Mapp & Bergman, 2019; Smith, 2013; Pushor, 2010; Pushor et al., 2005). Relationships with families must be intentionally built and be based on mutual trust (Henderson et al., 2007; Mapp & Bergman, 2019; Pushor, 2010). Supporting the reciprocal nature of the partnership is the two-way flow of communication and the honoring of each other’s knowledge (Bryan & Henry, 2012; Goodall, 2017; Mapp & Bergman, 2019; Pushor, 2015). The partnerships between parents and educators are enacted to positively impact learning, not dabble on the periphery (Goodall, 2017; Henderson et al., 2007). Parent involvement activities may exist in tandem with deeper family engagement, but importantly purposeful processes must be put in place to ensure movement on a continuum towards a prevalence of more robust learning-centered family–school partnerships (Bryan & Henry, 2012; Goodall, 2017; Mapp & Bergman, 2019). It is important to note that progress may not be on a linear trajectory, as disruptions such as staff and community movement will likely occur, which may complicate matters (Pushor et al., 2005).

2.3. Promising Practices

Several easily actionable steps towards greater family engagement are prominent in the literature. Multiple authors promote the value of home visits to get to know families and build trust (Henderson et al., 2007; Pushor, 2013b; Pushor & Amendt, 2018). Well-thought-out community walks have promise for supporting educators in shifting dispositions (FitzGerald & Militello, 2016; Pushor, 2013b; Pushor & Amendt, 2018). If appropriately scaffolded, authentic learning opportunities in the community with community members may break down stereotypes and challenge assumptions (Faircloth, 2011; FitzGerald & Militello, 2016; Ishimaru, 2013; Pushor & Amendt, 2018). Modifying school environmental factors to create a greater sense of warmth and welcome is also essential (Faircloth, 2011; Hands, 2014; Henderson et al., 2007; Pushor et al., 2005).

2.4. Indigenous Family Engagement

As with most educational practices, traditional notions of parent and community involvement mirror white middle-class values (Cranston & Crook, 2020; FitzGerald & Militello, 2016; Goodall, 2017; Ishimaru et al., 2016; Waters et al., 2024). An emerging literature base examines traditional Indigenous child-rearing (Hunter, 2023; Waters et al., 2024; Ullrich, 2019). This research identifies the intergenerational and community connectedness in traditional Indigenous child-rearing and challenges Western notions of nuclear family structure. This literature also addresses the importance of children developing their identity, culture, and language, and how this learning can be supported interconnectedly by family, community, and the environment. Ishimaru and colleagues (Ishimaru et al., 2016) identified a divide between schools and non-dominant families who often feel they have less currency and/or understanding of the system. Cranston and Crook (2020) challenged hegemonic educational policies that impose middle-class white parenting values onto all families. Literature exists that is specific to developing relationships and partnerships with Indigenous families (Faircloth, 2011; Jaime & Russell, 2010; Pushor & Murphy, 2010; Young et al., 2024).

Educators working with Indigenous children should make extra effort to get to know families (Faircloth, 2011; Jaime & Russell, 2010) and acknowledge broader familiar structures common in Indigenous communities (Faircloth, 2011; Jaime & Russell, 2010), recognize the diversity of Indigenous people (Faircloth, 2011), encourage family voice and agency (Faircloth, 2011; Jaime & Russell, 2010; Pushor & Murphy, 2010), position Indigenous family knowledge as essential to a child’s learning, and practice critical self-reflection and cultural humility (Young et al., 2024).

2.5. Leadership Required

School-based administrators significantly influence their schools (Leithwood et al., 2020; Khalifa et al., 2016). Traditional enactments of school-based leadership have been critiqued for their Eurocentric underpinnings and maintenance of the hegemonic practices (Cranston & Whitford, 2018; Ma Rhae, 2015). To move schools to more familycentric home–school partnerships, there is a need to challenge established power imbalances, especially in schools where these imbalances are amplified due to many families being outside of the dominant cultural group (Cranston & Crook, 2020; Ishimaru et al., 2016). The required shift in educators’ paradigms and actions towards familycentricity must be supported, and often initiated, by school administrators (Auerbach, 2009; FitzGerald & Militello, 2016; Ishimaru et al., 2016; Pushor & Amendt, 2018). Specifically, Pushor and Amendt (2018) stated that a “critical piece in the work to engage parents has been the provision of leadership to facilitate school staffs’ deep and honest examination of their beliefs about parents, and about the place and voice of parents in schools” (p. 203).

Significant literature supports educational leaders in creating and strengthening partnerships with parents and community members (Auerbach, 2009; Hubbard & Hands, 2011; Ishimaru et al., 2019; Mapp & Bergman, 2019). Many issues must be addressed to foster deep learning-centered partnerships with families, including structures, culture, and agency (Henderson et al., 2007; Hubbard & Hands, 2011). Hubbard and Hands (2011) asserted “without the creation of policies and structures designed to promote collaboration among all constituents, any actions aimed at constructing improved academic outcomes and family-school-community relationships will be limited at best” (p. 64).

Leaders may benefit from adopting a promising framework for family–school partnerships advanced by Mapp and Bergman (2019). The Dual Capacity Building Framework for Family-School Partnerships (Mapp & Bergman, 2019) begins with identifying challenges and barriers preventing educators (including lack of exposure to family engagement, lack of training, and deficit mindsets) and parents (including lack of exposure to family engagement, negative past school experiences, and feeling unwelcome or disrespected) from investing deeply in partnership efforts. The model then addresses process (the need to be relational, linked to learning, asset-based, culturally responsive, collaborative, and interactive) and organizational conditions (the need to be systemic, integrated into all aspects of the organization, and resourced appropriately for sustainability). Building from that foundation, policy and program goals can be addressed: building school and family capacity in the 4 C areas: capabilities, connections, cognition, and confidence. The ultimate goal of the framework is to advance partnership to capacity outcomes for educators (including creating welcoming climates, honoring family knowledge, and activating families as co-creators), families (holding diverse roles including co-creators, advocates, and monitors), and school (effective partnerships aimed at improving learning). Notably, Mapp and Bergman state that the framework is not a blueprint to be precisely followed but rather a compass that provides direction through conditions and goals that should be designed for specific school contexts.

3. Methods

Given the research questions and the research being conducted in a highly Indigenous inner-city setting, the study utilized a qualitative methodology of the conversational method that adhered to Indigenous research principles of respect, reciprocity, relationality, and responsibility (Kovach, 2009, 2018). Kovach (2009, 2018) explained that the conversational method is fully compatible with Indigenous ways as it is “rooted in Indigenous ways of knowing and being” (Kovach, 2018, p. 226) and “is relational at its core” (Kovach, 2009, p. 40). Protocols for conversations aligned with the principles of the conversational method (Kovach, 2009, 2018). These included offering an item of cultural significance (e.g., tobacco, tea), starting the conversation with small talk to build connection, and allowing for a natural flow of conversation. The opening prompt was a request for the participants to introduce themselves. Beyond participant introductions, there was no formal order to the conversation. Participant introductions always offered interesting insights that naturally launched conversation into topics the participant presented. The questions asked of each participant were similar yet differentiated based on their role within the school and community. Questions were asked in an order that flowed within the conversation. Participants were asked specifically about inner-city communities and schools, barriers that students and families faced, thoughts on family and community engagement, and promising teaching and leadership practices.

Within this study, I acknowledge that I am paradoxically both knowledgeable and unenlightened. My experience as a principal of two inner-city schools in Saskatchewan provided me with an emic view of inner-city schools and their functioning. I acknowledge, however, that as a settler, I am working from my Western understandings and biases. I, therefore, assumed an etic view for this study by stepping back from my privileged knowledge and instead grounded the study on an Indigenous paradigm. This required both a high level of critical awareness as well as ongoing reflexivity (Henhawk, 2013; Martin & Mirraboopa, 2003; Stelmach, 2009). As a non-Indigenous researcher utilizing Indigenous principles, a primary concern was establishing the trustworthiness of findings from the perspective of the Indigenous participants. A group of Indigenous cultural advisors guided the methods of the study, provided relationship support within the community, guided the understanding of cultural protocols and ceremonies, and ensured that the analysis included extensive reflexivity. The advisory circle initially comprised five individuals with whom the researcher had previous relationships. Once the school site was established, two additional advisors from that school community were invited to support the study. Communication with cultural advisors during the progression of the research was utilized to help check my assumptions and to center tribal knowledge. The project received approval from the University of Saskatchewan Behavioural Research Ethics Board in March 2020 (Application ID 1740).

Conversations were held with six participants from an inner-city school and community assigned the pseudonym Prairie Sage Community School (PSCS). There were four criteria for the selection of a school site. First, the school had to be located within one of Saskatchewan’s largest five urban centers. Secondly, the school had to be situated in a neighborhood that is economically disadvantaged. Third, the school was required to have most of its population be Indigenous students. Finally, the school had to be an elementary school. PSCS met all four criteria, and the administrative team consented to the study. The PSCS school community participants included an Elder, a Kokum (grandmother), a principal, a vice principal, a language and culture teacher, and a health nurse. Five additional participants from the school division and the broader urban community included a superintendent and four Indigenous educators, each with significant leadership experience. Participants were selected using a snowball method where study supporters helped connect with potential participants. The COVID pandemic impacted the study’s initial design, which included focus group conversations with PSCS parents. The lack of parent voice within the study is a known limitation.

Descriptive coding (Cohen et al., 2018; Saldaña, 2015) was undertaken using NVivo 12. Codes were assigned to transcription passages. Codes were examined and clusters of codes were identified, which became themes (Saldaña, 2015). To establish trustworthiness, themes were shared with cultural advisors. A second round of conversations with participants occurred for the purpose of member checking (Cohen et al., 2018; Saldaña, 2015) and seeking enhancement of ideas. After supplemental data collection was complete, additional rounds of descriptive coding were conducted. The additional round of coding ultimately led to the development of themes.

4. Results

The study identifies multiple barriers to family engagement in Saskatchewan inner-city schools. Participants challenged deficit narratives about inner-city families by discussing the strength of these families. The PSCS school leadership team and staff utilized important actions to enhance family engagement and shift the school to become familycentric. These actions are presented.

4.1. Barriers to Family Engagement

Although they will only be briefly discussed here, barriers to family engagement were a significant study theme. An Elder spoke to the importance of inner-city schools working differently to support families and create a new approach to supporting them through the roadblocks they faced. The most frequently raised barriers to family engagement included poverty, transiency, electronic communication, disempowerment, the physical school buildings, and parents’ own experiences with school. Participants also discussed the strength of families in the face of these barriers.

4.1.1. Poverty and Transiency

Participants frequently identified poverty as a critical barrier in inner-city neighborhoods. Participants shared that there are a host of associated ills that come with poverty and that the concentration of complex poverty within inner-city neighborhoods is the root of many additional barriers. Closely associated with poverty was another significant barrier addressed by many participants—housing insecurity and the resultant transiency of students. Both administrators of PSCS addressed concerns with families moving. They shared that many of their families have attended the school for a prolonged period but that it is common for students to move to and from the school due to housing instability. They shared that many students who arrive at PSCS have experienced many school changes, often in a relatively brief period. An Elder stressed the importance of relationships with students and families and advocated for school personnel to quickly embrace new students and families and to support students and families who needed to move.

4.1.2. Electronic Communication and Disempowerment

Multiple participants shared that forms of electronic communication utilized in many schools, such as email and texting, cannot be taken for granted in inner-city schools. Tied to the challenge of communication is the barrier presented by the lack of empowerment felt by many Indigenous families. A Knowledge Keeper shared that there are still many Indigenous families that do not question educators because of an ingrained disempowered stance of “white is right”. Many participants also spoke to a generations-long lack of trust in governments and public institutions.

4.1.3. Physical School Buildings

A clear physical reminder of why distrust in educational institutions has been earned is the physical school buildings in inner cities. The legacy of residential schools is tangible in inner-city schools. An Indigenous educator addressed the problematic look of many inner-city schools:

Just the look of them is enough if you are dealing with families who have intergenerational experiences with residential schools, my gosh, like these buildings are exactly like what they would imagine, so it is hard to overcome the outer perspective to even come into the schools.

Another Indigenous educator similarly shared that “these castle schools are historical reminders of places that are not good”. He further argued that the older school buildings, like PSCS, that primarily serve Indigenous students are clear examples of sub-par facilities and infrastructure that would not be tolerated by non-Indigenous communities, further evidence of Indigenous family disempowerment.

4.1.4. Previous Negative Experiences

Related to the earned lack of trust in schools is the barrier presented by family members’ negative school experiences. An Indigenous educator reflected on his childhood in the inner-city:

I know from my own personal experiences that the school could have tried to move the mountains to get my mom to come to school and my mom would never come. My mom never came for a single Christmas program, parent teacher interview, nothing. Her baggage was such that school was probably the most threatening place for her.

The vice principal shared that he “fear(s) that a lot of people who haven’t had positive experiences in the education system in the past, have that mindset that teachers aren’t all that good”. The PSCS administrative team knew that their staff needed to be purposeful in showing community members that they were, in fact, caring people and that the school, despite its facade, was a safe place.

4.1.5. Strength of Families

While participants used deficit language around the complex barriers that many families living in inner-city communities faced that prevented parents from engaging with schools about the complex issues, they also stressed the strengths of these families. An Indigenous educator imparted the following:

I think that the strengths of our kids and our families in these schools are really the sense of family, they are the generosity that often times our families are challenged financially and although people might see that as a whole piece of poverty as a weakness, it sometimes becomes a strength in that we learn to do a whole lot with very little. And even with how little you might have you are always willing to give, that is what I saw with our families in every Community School that I have been in. No matter how little they have they were always willing to give; that sense of generosity.

An Elder shared an analogy of a bag of rocks and that no two rocks in the bag were the same. This was to impart that schools must get to know families well and support and work with families in a manner that works for the family. She also stressed the importance of the school supporting families. She suggested that inner-city educators should be asking families questions like “tell me how things are going?” and “did you get that taken care of?” She also envisioned school leaders not just as leaders for the school staff and students but also as potential mentors to parents.

4.2. PSCS Family and Community Engagement Efforts

The study illuminated multiple positive examples of leadership actions undertaken by the PSCS administrative team. Practices included ensuring dedicated time for staff to connect with families and initiating professional learning efforts to challenge biases and develop dispositional traits to enhance work with families.

4.2.1. Dedicated Time for Home Visits

The importance of home visits was frequently asserted. When speaking of positive actions taken by schools to build relationships with families, an Indigenous educator stated the following:

I think about the visits, like we don’t wait for people to come to us, when we are in these schools, we go out and we see them and we meet them for coffee at Tim Hortons if we have to or we do what we need to do to engage with those families in a place where they are comfortable.

An Elder spoke about the value of home visits for teachers and administrators in building relationships and trust with students and families. She also shared how she witnessed administrators newly placed in inner-city schools quickly develop relationships and trust with students and families through home visits. Two participants, who had worked in inner-city schools and schools on First Nations, shared that home visits are vital and a common element of teaching in Indigenous communities.

PSCS staff shared at length their efforts to build relationships with families. The principal and vice principal addressed the importance of home visits for PSCS. Before the pandemic, the PSCS administrative team provided staff with time during professional development days and staff meeting time to conduct home visits. Amid the pandemic, time was allotted for regular phone calls. The principal shared that allocating time for family connection was part of an overall attempt to center the importance of families. She was also purposeful in her language, which included renaming ”Meet the Teacher Night” to ”Meet the Family Night”. The principal also shared the importance of ensuring that families felt welcome in the school on regular school days and discussed how a room in the school was established as a families’ room.

4.2.2. Important Characteristics of Educators

Participants identified characteristics they have observed in inner-city educators who have successfully created strong relationships with families and community members. An Indigenous educator shared that educators having a warm and caring demeanor is essential and that first impressions can have a substantial positive or negative impact. The importance of cultural responsiveness and educators learning more about Indigenous peoples and cultures was asserted by most participants. Multiple examples of purposeful culturally responsive efforts at PSCS were shared (e.g., an Elder supporting the school, Cree culture and language programming, and culture camps). An Elder shared a story illustrating that inner-city educators must be welcoming and responsive. She shared how turned off she had been by an encounter with a white educator and summarized that “this is one of those people who’s just being a stickler for the rules and exercising his power”. Educators who are vulnerable and share about themselves, their families, and their experiences were thought to create better relationships and trust. Other critical attributes for developing relationships with families and community members included consistency, patience, and excellent listening and communication skills. The administrative team at PSCS shared that their staff had committed significant time over the past few years to helping shift staff dispositions through anti-oppressive professional learning aimed at supporting staff with challenging their biases and assumptions and allowing them to identify and replace damaging norms and practices.

Staff and community members repeatedly mentioned two staff members for their positive impact on relationships with families. The administrative assistant was celebrated for her warm demeanor and connection with families. The community school coordinator was a great communicator who ensured that community members always felt invited and welcome. Simply being present at important events was also identified as being important. Multiple participants highlighted the importance of educators engaging in cultural and community events to develop relationships and trust with community members.

4.2.3. Forming Trust and Relationships

Throughout the study, stories showcased PSCS leaders’ knowledge of and connection with families. A Kokum excitedly told how the principal had approached her to use her talents to create regalia for the school’s dance troop. The Kokum enthusiastically shared “oh my gosh, I just felt so overwhelmed and happy that I was going to do something at least for the community you know. And I felt honoured at being able to help these little children”. The principal shared a second story about a family that COVID-19 had impacted. Many children from the home attend PSCS, and the staff became aware that one of the adults in the home had tested positive and had to enter isolation. Given what PSCS staff knew about the family, they could contact a partner agency and secure a significant gift card to support the family. The principal shared about the non-isolating parent’s emotional response and the gratitude the family expressed to the staff. An Elder shared the importance and potential benefit of the school supporting families in this manner:

that was a big priority for them to ensure that the parents have access to resources to help them in those ways… I think that’s when you see how effective the school-to-home direction is…and that helps that other direction, home-to-school. That draws the parents closer to their community school when the school is responsive to the parents’ needs. And the parents use reciprocity to come and help the school…they become more effective partners when they see that the partnerships goes both ways.

Further, the Elder shared that ensuring that families know that the school values them will help break cycles of Indigenous parents feeling unwanted at the school. She contended that some actions or inactions by schools can effectively put up signs “no parents allowed. Or even worse, no Native parents allowed”. She saw the actions taken by leaders and staff of PSCS as taking these figurative signs down.

An Indigenous educator indicated that there appears to be a cumulative effect when relationships and trust are built:

Word gets around. I think that is part of the other piece is that our families talk and often they are related to each other, like that whole actual family relations not just that feeling of family. Actual kinship ties are there and so then you start to do some good work with a family, other families start to hear that and that is how the trust and the faith and all those things get built is through that kind of work.

Given the importance placed on building relationships at PSCS, it is no surprise that all PSCS staff involved in the study shared their commitment to working with families. As a result, an Elder and Kokum shared the warm welcome they received daily at PSCS as multiple staff members, including the administrative team, greet them at or outside the door each day. A Kokum summed up her relationships with members of the PSCS staff in one word, “beautiful”.

4.3. Moving to Deeper Engagement

Despite the apparent effort made by PSCS leaders and staff to create a warm and welcoming environment for families, participants were clear that there was more work to do. When speaking specifically about PSCS culture camps, which present a possible opportunity for parent involvement in planning and teaching, a language and culture teacher shared that parent involvement is limited. He saw a real chance to activating “parents and utilizing what they have, what they can do, what they can share”. An Indigenous educator wondered about creating relationships that went beyond families attending events to a deeper engagement and school leadership asking, “how do you build that co-governance and that co-relationship with parents, and community, and family? That’s so important”. He shared that moving a school towards authentic family and community voice would take time and courage. Both PSCS administrators shared that there was a need to find better ways to engage families in sharing their voices and advising the school.

5. Discussion

The PSCS example highlights the significant impact that school leaders can have in shifting a school to become more familycentric. Participants in the study acknowledged the presence of barriers to family engagement (Ishimaru et al., 2019; Mapp & Bergman, 2019; Pushor & Amendt, 2018) as well as the immense importance of family engagement (Goodall, 2017; Henderson et al., 2007; Pushor, 2010, 2015). The study has significant implications for the leadership of inner-city Saskatchewan schools and policy, system-level leadership, and leadership preparation programs. The discussion concludes by exploring opportunities for further research.

5.1. Implications and Actions for School Leaders

Research has identified school leaders’ critical importance in moving their staff beyond traditional parent involvement models (FitzGerald & Militello, 2016; Ishimaru, 2013; Ishimaru et al., 2016; Pushor & Amendt, 2018). The study illuminated necessary actions for school-based leaders to support their schools’ becoming more familycentric. Six leadership actions that supported PSCS in becoming more familycentric are addressed. The leadership actions described appear supportive of moving staff members beyond challenges and into the essential conditions, described by Mapp and Bergman (2019), that will allow for greater family–school partnerships to flourish. These leadership actions should be considered by inner-city school leaders seeking to shift their schools towards familycentricity.

• Clear focus on family engagement: School leaders must be able to articulate to their staff and community a clear vision for family–school partnerships (Hands, 2014; Ishimaru et al., 2019; Mapp & Bergman, 2019; Pushor & Amendt, 2018). The PSCS leadership team maintained a clear focus on family engagement. The administrative team and school staff of PSCS were aware of family engagement research and were striving to create a welcoming climate with clear two-way communication and collaboration more in line with the familycentric paradigm (Ishimaru et al., 2016; Pushor, 2013a; Pushor, 2015). The PSCS example provides evidence of school leaders’ clear commitment and messaging of the importance of family engagement and community members’ acknowledgment of the school staff’s work.
• Leading by example: The PSCS example demonstrates a leadership team personally committed to enhancing familycentricity and actively modeling interactive behaviors. Stories shared (e.g., response to a family’s COVID isolation; asking a Kokum to make regalia) indicate the leadership team’s knowledge of families and desire to build supportive and reciprocal relationships. A Kokum’s professed adoration of the principal and how well she interacts with community members underscores the principal’s efforts to get to know and build trust with community members. PSCS leaders modeled dispositions of relationship and trust building with families. Leadership commitment and modeling appear to be an excellent way to achieve process conditions (Mapp & Bergman, 2019) and create a favorable climate for staff members to engage more deeply with parents. Allocating time for home visits during professional learning blocks is further evidence of PSCS leaders leading following their clear family engagement focus.
• Dedicated time for home visits: The importance of home visits for making connections, building trust, and establishing two-way communication with families identified in the literature (Henderson et al., 2007; Mapp & Bergman, 2019; Pushor, 2010) was also recognized in the study. Leaders and staff of PSCS placed great emphasis on relationship building and creating trust as the foundation of their work with families. The PSCS administrative team valued two-way communication with families (Bryan & Henry, 2012; Goodall, 2017; Pushor, 2015) and provided time and expectations for staff to engage in home visits. Both study participants and previous research suggest that the practice of home visits is well-positioned to address the inadequacies (access and parent disempowerment) of traditional school–home communication (Henderson et al., 2007; Pushor, 2010; Pushor & Amendt, 2018). Participants in the study placed significant value on home visits for relationship building and trust but also based on the difficulty in communicating with many PSCS families through traditional means such as newsletters, email, and texting.
• Challenging biases: The need to interrupt dispositions and practices that impeded the engagement of families has been repeatedly advanced (Graue & Hawkins, 2010; Mapp & Bergman, 2019; Pushor & Amendt, 2018). Pushor and Amendt (2018) suggested a significant barrier to more systemic parent engagement efforts was the lack of leadership imploring critical reflection on beliefs about parents’ roles in their children’s education. PSCS leaders worked with staff to undertake anti-oppressive professional learning, which may have further enhanced their abilities to look inward (Auerbach, 2009; Pushor & Amendt, 2018) when working with families by examining their own biases and practices. It is notable that multiple participants outright rejected deficit narratives about families and instead spoke about the strength, generosity, and resiliency of families. In addition to challenging their biases, PSCS staff made considerable effort to ensure that interactions with families were culturally appropriate.
• Developing a broader school leadership team: For family engagement efforts to be sustainable, it is essential to build a team of leaders comprising staff and community members. A collaborative approach adds power to the work (Mapp & Bergman, 2019) and helps mitigate the impact of the departure of any single leader (Pushor et al., 2005). The PSCS example provides clear insights into the development of a team of leaders working together to increase familycentricity. The two school administrators were both pivotal to the school’s efforts, but both were also clear on the vital roles of other leaders from the staff and community. A key community leader of the school’s familycentric work was an Elder who was a mainstay at the school and provided support for school staff and families. Staff leadership was also provided by the community school coordinator who worked closely with staff and families, and multiple staff members who helped facilitate professional learning to challenge staff biases.
• Being invitational: PSCS leaders and staff took significant action to purposefully break down barriers to family engagement and to be invitational. Two clear efforts to be invitational to families were creating a parent space within the school and renaming “Meet the Teacher Night” to “Meet the Family Night”. Staff actions were also identified in the study as adding to the sense of welcome at the school. These included having school leaders and staff members welcoming students and families at or outside the front door at the beginning and end of the school day, the secretary’s warm demeanor and connection with families, and the community school coordinator ensuring that families were aware of events and invitations were extended to all. This invitational approach served to take down the figurative “no Native parents allowed” signs and to create “beautiful” relationships between family members and school staff.

5.2. Additional Implications

In addition to implications for inner-city Saskatchewan school leaders, this study also raises implications for policy, leadership from system-level leaders, and leadership preparation programs.

• Policy: The Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada’s Calls to Action (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, 2015), Call 10.vi. requires new legislation that enables Indigenous parents’ full participation in their children’s education (p. 2). A clear implication of this study is the need for such legislation and supporting policies to be drafted. One such supportive policy would be the development of leadership standards that focus specifically on familycentric leadership actions such as those noted previously. Another supportive policy could be created to purposefully break down the disempowered stance of Indigenous families in schools by creating parent steering committees for schools that are affirming of Indigenous ways of being.
• System-level leaders: Without leadership from the top of school systems, familycentric leadership appears likely to live exclusively in schools fortunate enough to have informed and passionate educators. Mapp and Bergman (2019) addressed organizational factors in their model that would enable family–school partnerships to become systemic. Ensuring a coherent focus on familycentric leadership that spans school systems will require significant support from system-level administrators. These senior leaders will require deep knowledge of and commitment to familycentric leadership. Familycentric leadership may become systemic if senior-level leaders have a clear focus and lead by example. This may include dedicating time and resources to developing school-based leaders, challenging their own biases, building system-level leadership teams focused on family–school partnerships, and creating systems that are invitational to Indigenous families.
• Leadership preparation programs: Across North America, teachers and school leaders receive inadequate training to prepare them to interact meaningfully with families (FitzGerald & Militello, 2016; Ishimaru, 2013; Pushor & Amendt, 2018). There is a need for leadership preparation programs to recalibrate and include a clear focus on familycentric leadership.

5.3. Future Research

The COVID pandemic hindered the recruitment of parent participants. Further research within Saskatchewan inner-city settings should include significant engagement with parents through interviews or focus groups or more participatory community-based methods. Pushor and Amendt (2018) suggested a substantial barrier to more systemic parent engagement efforts was the lack of leadership imploring critical reflection on beliefs about parents’ roles in their children’s education. Future research could identify schools where this critical reflection is being purposefully led and examine family and staff perceptions.

The natural progression of scholarship in educational leadership is to focus on contextual enactments of leadership (Eacott, 2019; Hallinger, 2018). This study explored leadership in the particular context of an inner-city Saskatchewan elementary school. There appears to be ample opportunity to examine contextual enactments of leadership aimed at improving family–school partnerships in other contexts.

6. Conclusions

This paper contributes originally to the literature by exploring the critical intersection of school leadership and familycentric schooling in Saskatchewan’s inner-city school setting. The importance of achieving a familycentric engagement paradigm has been theorized (Ishimaru et al., 2016; Pushor, 2013a; Pushor, 2015). Likewise, the need for school leaders to lead in a manner conducive to creating conditions for this form of deep learning-centered two-way engagement has also been argued (Ishimaru et al., 2016, 2019; Pushor & Amendt, 2018). The findings of this study provide support for ensuring that parent engagement in its more profound and meaningful familycentric form should be included as a central component of leadership in inner-city schools in Saskatchewan to break down family and educator barriers to deeper engagement purposefully. The findings of this study support the model of family–school partnerships proposed by Mapp and Bergman (2019), specifically that there are challenges that must be overcome both for families and educators and the need for conditions and goals to move partnerships beyond traditional schoolcentric paradigms. The example provided by this study illustrates a positive example of school leaders’ impact on shifting a school to become more familycentric. The results of this study serve as a call to action for Saskatchewan policymakers and educational leaders to intentionally advance familycentric practices in inner-city schools.