Familycentric School Leadership in Inner-City Schools in Saskatchewan
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
2.1. Schoolcentric Parent Involvement
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).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)
2.2. Family Engagement
2.3. Promising Practices
2.4. Indigenous Family Engagement
2.5. Leadership Required
3. Methods
4. Results
4.1. Barriers to Family Engagement
4.1.1. Poverty and Transiency
4.1.2. Electronic Communication and Disempowerment
4.1.3. Physical School Buildings
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.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.
4.1.4. Previous Negative Experiences
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.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.
4.1.5. Strength of Families
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.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.
4.2. PSCS Family and Community Engagement Efforts
4.2.1. Dedicated Time for Home Visits
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.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.
4.2.2. Important Characteristics of Educators
4.2.3. Forming Trust and Relationships
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.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.
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”.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.
4.3. Moving to Deeper Engagement
5. Discussion
5.1. Implications and Actions for School Leaders
- 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
- 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
6. Conclusions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Abbreviations
PSCS | Prairie Sage Community School (a pseudonym) |
References
- Agbo, S. A. (2007). Addressing school-community relations in a cross-cultural context: A collaborative action to bridge the gap between First Nations and the school. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 22(8), 1–14. [Google Scholar]
- Auerbach, S. (2009). Walking the walk: Portraits in leadership for family engagement in urban schools. The School Community Journal, 19(1), 9–31. [Google Scholar]
- Bryan, J., & Henry, L. (2012). A model for building school-family-community partnerships: Principles and process. Journal of Counseling & Development, 90(4), 408–420. [Google Scholar]
- Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2018). Research methods in education (8th ed.). Routledge. [Google Scholar]
- Cranston, J., & Crook, S. (2020). Integrate or assimilate?: How the policy discourse of Manitoba’s school partnerships: A guide for parents, schools, and communities enforces hegemonic understandings of parental involvement on recently-resettled refugees. Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, 193, 2–17. [Google Scholar]
- Cranston, J., & Whitford, R. (2018). Decolonising the ‘big tent’ knowledge base of school leadership. International Studies in Educational Administration: Journal of the Commonwealth Council for Educational Administration and Management, 46(2), 3–25. [Google Scholar]
- Eacott, S. (2019). High-impact school leadership in context. Leading & Managing, 25(2), 66–79. [Google Scholar]
- Evans, M. P. (2013). Educating preservice teachers for family, school, and community engagement. Teaching Education, 24(2), 123–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Faircloth, S. C. (2011). Fostering inclusive educational environments for American Indian parents and families in urban schools and communities. In C. M. Hands, & L. Hubbard (Eds.), Including families and communities in urban education (pp. 119–138). Information Age Publishing. [Google Scholar]
- FitzGerald, A. M., & Militello, M. (2016). Preparing school leaders to work with and in community. School Community Journal, 26(2), 107–134. [Google Scholar]
- Goodall, J. (2017). Learning-centred parent engagement: Freire reimagined. Educational Review, 70(5), 603–621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Graue, E., & Hawkins, M. (2010). “I always feel they don’t know anything about us”: Diverse families talk about their relations with school. In M. Miller Marsh, & T. Turner-Vorbeck (Eds.), (Mis)Understanding families (pp. 109–125). Teachers College Press. [Google Scholar]
- Hallinger, P. (2018). Bringing context out of the shadows of leadership. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 46(1), 5–24. [Google Scholar]
- Hands, C. M. (2014). Connecting to the world beyond the school: Social contexts influencing school leaders’ school—Community collaboration. Journal of Educational Administration and Foundations, 24(1), 41–56. [Google Scholar]
- Henderson, A. T., Mapp, K. L., Johnson, V. R., & Davies, D. (2007). Beyond the bake sale: The essential guide to family-school partnerships. The New Press. [Google Scholar]
- Henhawk, D. A. (2013). My critical awakening: A process of struggles and decolonizing hope. International Review of Qualitative Research, 6(4), 511–525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hubbard, L., & Hands, C. M. (2011). The role of leadership in forging family-school-community relationships. In C. M. Hands, & L. Hubbard (Eds.), Including families and communities in urban education (pp. 41–68). Information Age Publishing. [Google Scholar]
- Hunter, S. (2023). Defining and reclaiming traditional Indigenous child rearing practices [Master’s thesis, University of Manitoba]. Available online: https://mspace.lib.umanitoba.ca/ (accessed on 19 April 2025).
- Ishimaru, A. (2013). From heroes to organizers: Principals and education organizing in urban school reform. Educational Administration Quarterly, 49(1), 3–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ishimaru, A. M., Bang, M., Valladares, M. R., Nolan, C. M., Tavares, H., Rajendran, A., & Chang, K. (2019). Recasting families and communities as co-designers of education in tumultuous times. National Education Policy Center. Available online: http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/family-leadership (accessed on 3 January 2020).
- Ishimaru, A. M., Torres, K. E., Salvador, J. E., Lott, J., Williams, D. M. C., & Tran, C. (2016). Reinforcing deficit, journeying toward equity: Cultural brokering in family engagement initiatives. American Educational Research Journal, 53(4), 850–882. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jaime, A., & Russell, C. (2010). Reaching Native American families to increase school achievement. In M. Miller Marsh, & T. Turner-Vorbeck (Eds.), (Mis)Understanding families (pp. 145–161). Teachers College Press. [Google Scholar]
- Jutras, M. (2022). Decolonizing leadership practices in inner-city schools affected by complex poverty [Doctoral dissertation, University of Saskatchewan]. Harvest. [Google Scholar]
- Khalifa, M. A., Gooden, M. A., & Davis, J. E. (2016). Culturally responsive school leadership: A synthesis of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 1272–1311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kovach, M. (2009). Indigenous methodologies: Characteristics, conversations, and context. University of Toronto Press. [Google Scholar]
- Kovach, M. (2018). Doing Indigenous methodologies: A letter to a research class. In N. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (5th ed., pp. 214–234). SAGE Publications. [Google Scholar]
- Leithwood, K., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2020). Seven strong claims about successful school leadership revisited. School Leadership & Management, 40(1), 5–22. [Google Scholar]
- Ma Rhae, Z. (2015). Leading and managing Indigenous education in the postcolonial world. Routledge. [Google Scholar]
- Mapp, K. L. (2003). Having their say: Parents describe why and how they are engaged in their children’s learning. School Community Journal, 13(1), 35–64. [Google Scholar]
- Mapp, K. L., & Bergman, E. (2019). Dual capacity-building framework for family-school partnerships (Version 2). Dual Capacity. Available online: www.dualcapacity.org (accessed on 12 February 2025).
- Martin, K., & Mirraboopa, B. (2003). Ways of knowing, ways of being and ways of doing: A theoretical framework and methods for Indigenous re-search and indigenist research. Journal of Australian Studies, 76, 203–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pushor, D. (2010). Are schools doing enough to learn about families? In M. Miller Marsh, & T. Turner-Vorbeck (Eds.), (Mis)Understanding families (pp. 4–16). Teachers College Press. [Google Scholar]
- Pushor, D. (2011). Looking out, looking in. Educational Leadership, 69(1), 65–68. [Google Scholar]
- Pushor, D. (2013a). Bringing into being a curriculum of parents. In D. Pushor, & The Parent Engagement Collaborative (Eds.), Portals of promise: Transforming beliefs and practices through a curriculum of parents (pp. 5–19). Sense Publishers. [Google Scholar]
- Pushor, D. (2013b). Planning and living a curriculum of parents. In D. Pushor, & The Parent Engagement Collaborative (Eds.), Portals of promise: Transforming beliefs and practices through a curriculum of parents (pp. 21–55). Sense Publishers. [Google Scholar]
- Pushor, D. (2015). Conceptualizing parent knowledge. In D. Pushor, & The Parent Engagement Collaborative II (Eds.), Living as mapmakers: Charting a course with children guided by parent knowledge (pp. 20–41). Sense Publishers. [Google Scholar]
- Pushor, D., & Amendt, T. (2018). Leading an examination of beliefs and assumptions about parents. School Leadership and Management, 38(2), 202–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pushor, D., & Murphy, B. (2010). Schools as protectorates: Stories two Mi’kmaq mothers tell. Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, 114, 25–45. [Google Scholar]
- Pushor, D., Ruitenberg, C., & co-researchers from Princess Alexandra Community School. (2005). Dr. Stirling McDowell foundation for research into teaching. Available online: http://www.mcdowellfoundation.ca (accessed on 5 January 2021).
- Saldaña, J. (2015). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Sage. [Google Scholar]
- Silver, J. (2016). Solving poverty. Fernwood. [Google Scholar]
- Smith, S. (2013). Would you step through my door? Educational Leadership, 70(8), 76–78. [Google Scholar]
- Stelmach, B. (2009). Research or in-search? A non-Aboriginal researcher’s retrospective of a study on Aboriginal parent involvement. First Nations Perspectives, 2(1), 35–56. [Google Scholar]
- Stelmach, B. L. (2005). A case study of three mothers’ experiences in the Alberta initiative for school improvement: Having a voice versus getting a hearing. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 8(2), 167–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. (2015). Truth and reconciliation commission of Canada: Calls to action. Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. [Google Scholar]
- Ullrich, J. S. (2019). For the love of our children: An Indigenous connectedness framework. AlterNative: An International Journal of Indigenous Peoples, 15(2), 121–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Waters, S. F., Richardson, M., Mills, S. R., Marris, A., Harris, F., & Parker, M. (2024). Beyond attachment theory: Indigenous perspectives on the child–caregiver bond from a northwest tribal community. Child Development, 95(6), 1829–1844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Young, L., Linklater, V. J., & Pushor, D. (2024). Walking alongside: A relational conceptualization of Indigenous parent knowledge. In The Routledge international handbook of equity and inclusion in education (pp. 416–430). Routledge. [Google Scholar]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Jutras, M. Familycentric School Leadership in Inner-City Schools in Saskatchewan. Educ. Sci. 2025, 15, 579. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15050579
Jutras M. Familycentric School Leadership in Inner-City Schools in Saskatchewan. Education Sciences. 2025; 15(5):579. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15050579
Chicago/Turabian StyleJutras, Mickey. 2025. "Familycentric School Leadership in Inner-City Schools in Saskatchewan" Education Sciences 15, no. 5: 579. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15050579
APA StyleJutras, M. (2025). Familycentric School Leadership in Inner-City Schools in Saskatchewan. Education Sciences, 15(5), 579. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15050579