Raising academic achievement in U.S. schools through parental engagement

Schools, Student Achievement, and Parental Engagement

It is no secret that U.S schools are ranked near the bottom of all western countries scholastically. According to Engler (2006) nearly half of tested high school seniors did not possess even basic skill levels in science. This means U.S. schools are graduating students without the basic skill sets to succeed in college let alone compete in life. Although government programs to revive our schools have been instituted and funded with billions, these programs have shown no demonstrative improvement in student academic achievement.

Whenever schools and administrators pursue full engagement with parents and communities, schools improve, student achievement rises, and the community benefits. The problem is that few schools will fully engage parents and communities beyond whatever activities benefit the school’s agenda. There is an invisible wall that keeps parents from substantive involvement in directing the school structure or participating with the school in attempting to boost student achievement.

Full engagement with parents and communities will help to create a working team dedicated to raising student achievement levels. Current research on parent engagement, although limited, has shown that academic achievement increases in schools where parents are involved. Full engagement means that parents, teachers, and administrators partner in the creation of an education system at the local level that works to raise student scores and achievement.

U.S. Schools 2011

In the 20^th Century the U.S. led the way into the high tech world we live in. The current U.S. expenditures on research & development dwarf the closest competitors, so states Engler, (2006). The mere fact that this country has been the prime producer of new and innovative concepts in the past is not a guaranty that it will continue to lead the way into the technological future. Pressures from serious high tech competitors come from locations never before believed possible, China, India, & Russia.

While Engler (2006) still considers the U.S. to be in a leadership role in most areas, many other economic competitors are graduating more engineers than are U.S. schools. What does this mean for the future of U.S. technological innovation? According to Engler (2006) no country will remain great without an innovative manufacturing base. What this should mean is that while political correctness seems to have taken more precedence in our school systems than the sciences and proper communications, political correctness will not economically sustain the U.S. society in the future. The country will lose its competitive leadership and the population will face less prosperity.

China and India in particular have made tremendous expenditures and strides in gaining a foothold in the realm of technological innovation leadership. Etter (2011) went as far as saying it is likely that the U.S. has already lost its leadership in the area of technological innovation. What is the problem? How is it that the country that sent astronauts to the moon; the country that has led the way in medical discovery has suddenly lost its way? The primary reason as stated by Etter (2011) is that the U.S. school system no longer stresses manufacturing and innovation in engineering. There are less and less individuals studying these technological necessities in colleges any more. It could be argued that this is a direct result of the lower science scores from high school seniors. How can students who do not possess the basic science skills in high school go on into engineering programs at the college level?

The U.S. which has led the way into the high tech high lifestyle or the modernized world has gone to sleep. Instead of innovating and developing products that meet or exceed demand, many corporations continue to send the same old tired line of products to the marketplace. Where is the creativity that made the U.S. the greatest nation in the world? One could argue that because our school systems no longer focuses on superior scientific education as it once did, creativity is no longer developed in our students.

In the 1950s and 60s Japanese products were considered by most people to be cheap junk. Today Japanese companies have past U.S. companies in U.S. patents (Moon & Goodrich, 1996). The authors go on to say that that the top three companies in U.S. patents are now Toshiba, Hitachi, and Canon. The U.S had clearly lost ground by 1996. Since the authors’ analysis in 1996, the U.S has not improved in the technological innovation battleground in 2011.

Is economic competition really a battleground? As Thornell (1993) states, the Japanese multinational companies view business competition as a war. He further expands this to show that this is one of the main reasons these multinational corporations have had so much success penetrating foreign markets leading Japan to become a world economic super power. This clearly shows that U.S. competitors consider economic leadership as a battleground. Japan is not the only economic threat the U.S. faces.

The technological battlefield has increased in size. Emerging marketplaces who used to buy U.S. products are now selling products to U.S. citizens and companies alike. These new players are not concerned with our innovative leadership but rather of taking market share away from the U.S. and then selling the new technologies back to the U.S. The U.S. has gone from being the main exporter of new and innovative technologies to one of the main world importers. It could be argued that this is one of the prime reasons why the balance of payments in the U.S. is so out of control. As Mann, (2002) puts it, the current obligations that the U.S. has to pay of principal and interest on the national debt could ultimately effect and reduce the country’s consumption and investment. This means at some point, most likely 2011, the country must rethink the internal consumption of products and services and begin reducing levels. When the U.S. economy led the way into innovation, manufacturing, and exporting, the economy continued to expand and the country was able to also expand its internal consumption and investment both internally and abroad. The U.S. leadership is now eroding at a dramatic pace.

In order for the U.S. to maintain its position let alone increase the country’s leadership role in technological innovation, something must be accomplished to raise the level of academic achievement of U.S. students. The U.S. cannot continue to let student scholastic levels drop or not be competitive and expect to successfully compete in a world economy. The U.S. must begin once again to innovate and create. This requires that the U.S. schools graduate more engineers and scientists.

It is imperative that something is done to make our school systems more competitive on a global level. In the past as the U.S. dominated technology innovation and development the country never had to worry about serious competition to its technological prowess. There were many countries that would take U.S. technology and develop it further into something less expensive and more useful. Japan during the 1950s and 60s is a prime example of a country taking another countries technology and making it cheaper and more accessible. Japan accomplished this even though the U.S remained the prime supplier of the new technologies. This meant the U.S. economy and U.S. citizens would directly benefit from U.S. technological leadership. As other countries begin to eat away at U.S. innovative leadership, the U.S. economy and U.S. citizens will feel the brunt of the changes as we may already be seeing now with the recent flurry of bad economic predicaments.

Today in 2011 the U.S. economy is suffering. After going through one of the largest recessions in history in 2008, the country still suffers three years later. Now, however, the U.S. economy still languishes because of the rest of the world’s financial woes. In year past the U.S. economy could withstand almost any other country’s economic instability. Now, other countries’ economies are causing the U.S economy and industries to suffer immense financial instability and setbacks. The primary reason of U.S. economic vulnerability is the loss of U.S. innovation leadership which in the past has been a stabilizing factor in the U.S. and the world.

The U.S. as an innovator is clearly losing ground in the world economy. Holmes (2003) writes the U.S. aviation industry which has led the world in aviation innovation has lost its lead in the aeronautics and aviation industry to the European Union. What does this portend for the U.S. aviation industry when as Holmes (2003) states the European Union intends to dominate the aeronautics and aviation industry by earmarking tens of billions of Euros for research & development? This means the U.S. cannot continue to lag behind the rest of the world in technological innovation. Competitors are willing to invest whatever is necessary and require whatever is necessary from students in school to take away leadership from the U.S. or any other country. How does this country fight back?

U.S. Schools Must Lead the Way

While there are many reasons and debates about what is the primary cause or causes for the loss of U.S. innovation. There is one simplified answer for the U.S. It is imperative the country bring the scholastic achievement levels of U.S. students up to or better than the competitive levels of other countries in the developed and developing world. While this may seem such a overly simplified answer, academic ability is the foundation for any technical society.

The U.S. government knows this and has been attempting to find ways to raise student achievement through billions of dollars being spent on government programs designed primarily to bring academic achievement up. However, as Gross, Booker, & Goldhaber, 2009 have shown, up to this point no amount of government intervention or subsidies have not demonstrated any academic improvement in U.S. tested schools. The authors go on to say with no significant improvement in academic achievement the U.S. government has abandoned numerous comprehensive programs. As stated previously, the issues are not simple and easily affected by throwing money or rhetoric at them.

While there has been and will continue to be an overabundance of rhetoric and ideological ideas bantered about on how to solve this problem, the U.S .needs to find serious and successful methods that work even if these methods do not meet a specific agenda or ideological perspective. What many politicians and bureaucrats fail to see is that this is not a debate on which political or ideological idea is right, it is a serious problem that must be resolved with research, analysis, and concrete methodologies.

If past government monetary intervention has produced nothing of notable value in increasing student achievement levels, what are some issues that might influence academic achievement in the U.S.? Are there any ideas that are working to realistically improve student achievement? One thing that has proven to positively influence academic achievement is parent and community involvement in the overall school structure and learning processes. Parents and teachers working together to raise the levels of academic achievement has shown success. Harris & Goodall (2008) have shown that a partnership between the parents, the students, and the schools has had a positive effect on learning and on raising student achievement levels.

Most primary school systems up to this point view the parents and school relationship as somewhat adversarial. Parents have been invited to work the bake sales or chaperone an activity, but they have been kept away from actually participating in the actual student learning process. To-date most of the parental input into the school systems in the U.S. has been what will meet the current school pre-determined agendas. If U.S. schools are truly expected to send academically prepared students on into college, then all of the stakeholders in the process must be given equal say in how education takes place at the local levels across the U.S.

Parents in many areas have felt left out of the student’s education even though parents are a major stakeholder in the outcome of the children’s education. Lawsuits have gone all the way to the Supreme Court to decide who is really in charge when it comes to developing good productive citizens out of the country’s children. Some feel that the young in the U.S.do not belong to the parents but rather to the state. “And since the young are both current and future citizens, the state must guard not only their current liberty, but also their future liberty. It thus must deny all others, including parents, the right to deprive the young either of their basic liberty during their immaturity, or their ability to develop the capacity to exercise their future liberty”, (Hamilton, V., 2010). Who decides what the student’s liberties are, the state in this case.

It is clear that some believe the state has the ultimate power in deciding what, when, and how students will learn. This is the genesis of the issues that have been building walls between parents and the schools for decades. As some believe citizenship and tolerance should be regarded above parenthood. While this extremely Orwellian philosophy may look good on paper or in some ideological circles, it has not proved realistic or effective and that is the bottom line of this paper. What will really improve student academic achievement? While it is imperative that students learn to be tolerant of those that are different, that tolerance should not take precedence over the traditional educational issues. The real issues in our schools that foster low academic achievement are not based on a lack of tolerance.

Experience has shown that this altruistic attempt at controlling a problem by government intervention such as setting the priorities in schools to focus on teaching tolerance has not really worked. This subject, tolerance, is one that is best addressed in the family. Families need to be engaged in the learning process as well as students. It is nearly impossible to teach tolerance in the school successfully when the student goes home to an intolerant family. Parents need to learn these important ideas also if the students are to really incorporate them into their lives in the long run. Unless the government plans to take away the children from the parents for the student’s whole adolescent life, the parents will retain more influence on the student’s citizenship outcome in life than the state will.

Ferlazzo (2011) a teacher, believes that the answer lies in creating a partnership between parents and the schools. One method to accomplish Ferlazzo’s ideas would be to open up the schools to potential parental and community scrutiny. The parents cannot control whether the children go to school or not, it is the law. However, the schools do not own the children. The parents are the student’s primary caregivers. No one has a better or stronger stake in the children succeeding than the parents. In a partnership all sides can work together to create, monitor, and structure learning for the students.

With the proper cooperation and coordination parents can influence children’s learning in ways teachers and schools alone cannot. Teachers and schools can influence student’s learning in ways parents alone cannot. The combination of the two different inputs and capabilities becomes synergistic for the students’ learning and academic achievement potential. One thing that will help students to be educated properly would be to be schooled in a creative, dynamic, and active learning environment.

This environment of creative, dynamic, and active learning is called the school climate by Godber (2002). This all encompassing school environment has only been studied from the perspective of the teachers and administrators to-date with some small participation from students. This shows that the parents’ point of view or perspective has been left out or ignored entirely. Considering that parents are a major stakeholder in the students’ overall upbringing and education makes this seem counterproductive or least limited in scope to productive student learning and achievement.

Davis & Lambie (2005) state that a high parental involvement in student learning can affect, in a strong positive manner, every area of concern about student achievement. Students will miss less school, push for higher grades, and ultimately be better equipped to compete at the college or university level than students whose parents are not involved. This means that it should be a high level concern for schools to get parents involved in the process of educating students. The authors further go on to say that a collaborative systemic approach is what is needed to create the most productive learning environment possible (Davis & Lambie 2005).

Parents do believe they have a role in the students learning process. This perceived role goes beyond what the schools have given them credit for in the past. In order to gain the parents support in the overall learning goals for the student, teachers and administrators must address the parent’s perceptions of the educational process for the students involved. As Auerbach (2009) noted, in order to gain the help or partnership of the parents, teachers must understand how the parents conceptualize their role in the education process. What the parents believe is their role, is what they will think and do in regards to participating in the student’s education. To-date the perceptions of what parent’s involvement should like has been dictated by what the schools think the parent’s involvement should be.

The incorrect perception of parental roles in student learning which school administrations now possess, needs to be replaced with a more correct perspective, that incorporates the parent’s viewpoint or at least some form of collaboration. School administrations have in the recent past begun to implement requirements that schools begin to incorporate parents more in the educational process.

While it seems obvious that schools and parents should work together, it is not happening to any significant levels within the U.S. primary school system as of the writing of this paper in spite of administrative directives to the contrary. The upper echelon of leadership within the U.S. school system does talk about parental engagement in the learning systems and processes. That same school system leadership is not mandating, nor pursuing that such parental engagement relationships are actually being undertaken, (Harris & Goodall, 2011). One of the impediments to engaging parents in student learning is that the school systems are biased somewhat against parental involvement and therefore are limited in how they view the issues. This demonstrates there is a leadership void within the schools that would attempt to engage parents. Real effective leadership training in this area is a necessity if anything positive is to be accomplished in the area of parental engagement. However, that leadership training should not come from within the school system due to the obvious bias, but rather this training should be directed by an outside unbiased observer.

The obvious leader in a full engagement program should be the teacher because the teacher interfaces with the student, the administration, and the family. The teacher by the inherent role they occupy in the learning process is automatically placed in the role of a collaborative leader or at least coordinator or arbiter. Someone needs to be able to coordinate the input and potential influence individual or individuals will have on the academic achievement of the student. The teacher is in a unique position to lead. However, they have not been trained in the essential skills to lead this team of diverse opinions and strategies. The training has not been sufficient to include leadership of parents as well as students. This must change if our schools are to meet the increased government scrutiny as well as the competitive economic pressure the future will present for the U.S. student base. A fully engaged team of stakeholders should direct the student’s learning and achievement.

One of the more significant recent initiatives the government has undertaken is the No Child Left Behind, NCLB Act of 2001. Mangin & Stoelinga (2010) believe the increased scrutiny and oversight of this legislation is one of the most pressing issues guiding school systems to push for greater academic leadership within U.S. schools. The standardized testing that is required and now takes place due to this legislative action, requires all students to meet specific levels of academic ability throughout the U.S. This means varied and low levels of academic achievement can no longer be tolerated. The schools must bring up the level of scholastic ability of the students if the schools are to meet the requirements of the legislation.

Once again, as in the past, government intervention is no panacea. As Scott (2004) believes the current regulations of the NCLB are based on previously flawed educational templates. The author goes on to state that NCLB does nothing to close the racial achievement gap, RAG (Scott, R., 2004). It is beyond debate that government and regulation is not the solution to the academic problems in U.S. schools. This is a far broader and deeper problem than can be rectified by simply requiring grades to be higher through regulations. More is needed to be done to resolve these issues. While efforts should be supported by the government, direction and management should come from the local level with full parental engagement. What is needed for the ultimate resolution should be decided by the primary stakeholders the teachers, the students, and the parents and not the federal or state governments.

However, due to the previous methods utilized to direct education, new procedures need to be developed for teachers, administrators, and now parents to be guided by. While there are some school systems embracing full parental engagement, there are no set procedures or guidelines to direct schools on how to engage parents properly and effectively. Someone needs to take leadership in this new paradigm of education. However, no one on a global level at this particular juncture is trained to take on such a role.

In order to bring up the levels of education and achievement better leadership training must be undertaken for teachers and administrators. As stated previously though, this training should come from outside sources and not form within the school hierarchy. Mangin and Stoelinga (2010) state that the future of leadership training for teachers should include training on leading parents as well as students in bettering the school systems in the U.S. This means the focus of schools in the U.S. should move away from a closed system which includes decisions on education by only those within the system to an open system that includes parents and the community allowing input at all levels of education. The only realistic method for teachers and administrators to understand and implement these new leadership concepts is if outside instructive input, non-school leadership instruction, is utilized in the school leadership training programs. If teachers are to lead properly in future schools proper leadership instruction must be undertaken for all teachers and school administrators moving away from prior preconceived biases.

Lest sight is lost on what is really important in doing whatever is necessary to bring academic achievement up in U.S. schools, it should be understood that business has as much at stake as do teachers, parents, and students. If U.S. businesses are to compete globally those companies will need to best most innovative workers the U.S. schools are capable of delivering. Therefore, U.S. businesses whether in the local communities or on a national level should also be working towards being a solution to the problem. Many companies offer scholarships to college for the scholastic high achievers in schools. However, more needs to be done to bring the overall level of the majority of students’ scholastic abilities up also. Students need to be helped to be better ready for what colleges and universities will expect them to be able to accomplish.

Business social responsibility is a new idea. There is a debate among business leaders as to whether business should really have any social responsibility or not. In Kraft, K. & Singhapakdi, A. (1995) the authors discuss that there has been little research on the issues of social responsibility in the real world practices in corporate organization productivity and decision making. However, it should be noted that working toward higher educational levels in schools is not just social responsibility. It is also a good business plan for long term success in the world economy.

Business in the U.S. is operated by people just as it everywhere else in the world. Many of these people have growing children who are in school too. If business wants motivated employees one thing that can be done is to help the employees prepare children to be better able to meet employment needs of the future. Employees of a company that is heavily involved helping the employees prepare children educationally will most likely be very motivated to work hard for such an employer. So it is not only socially responsible it is just plain smart for numerous reasons for business to get involved helping the schools in the U.S. prepare students to be competitive.

Business can work to support school activities that promote better education. Businesses can also offer work programs for students. Another aspect of help could be through apprenticeships or on-the-job training in specific areas of business for students. Business leaders might get involved with local school systems to help those stakeholders of education to design school programs that will meet the business needs of the future. All stakeholders, including business in the U.S., have a interest in seeing that U.S. students achieve more academically in the future.

Conclusion

Prior acceptance of lower standards of academic achievement has to be revised to reflect the competitive nature the U.S. students will face in the real world of global economic marketplace. Teachers need to be trained in areas beyond specific technical areas of expertise in order to make learning more effective and comprehensive. Students too must also work raise the personal level of academic learning that has existed prior to 2011. Parents must be given the opportunity to be fully engaged and involved in the school and student learning processes. It will be a total makeover of the lack luster learning process the U.S. has fallen into over the past few decades.

The economic world environment and the emergence of aggressive and technologically capable competitive countries gives the U.S. an unforgiving economic future if changes are not undertaken now and with great effort to improve our students’ abilities. There is no room for mediocrity in this process. The U.S. needs to abandon political correctness in regards to education and begin to mandate the proper technical education and student achievement goals for the near and long term future in the school systems. The U.S. can no longer tolerate low levels of academic achievement for students if this country is to stay at the top of innovation and technological breakthroughs.

The pace of change is astronomic in the technological world environment. No country can rest on past accomplishments to stay competitive and economically prosperous. In the future innovation and techno-creativity will dictate which countries rise to the top of the economic mountain. It is time that all the interested parties, the government, the schools, the parents, and the business community come to together to work out a real world solution to the problem of low academic achievement levels in U.S. schools. How well students accomplish the task of learning will affect every aspect of society in this country at some point in the future.

No one goes home to another planet. All people reside here and it is everyone’s responsibility to be aware of the real issues and work together toward effective solutions. This is a solvable problem if people can lay aside the agendas that have done little to nothing to resolve the issues of poor achievement in U.S. schools. There is no question that the U.S. government needs to invest more heavily in U.S. schools.

The U.S. needs to invest not just heavily but more accurately in good education. However, that does not mean blindly throwing billions into black hole programs created through some agenda that accomplishes nothing. Research needs to be completed on more promising ideas like full parental and community engagement. Consider for a moment the idea of parents, teachers, and the business communities working together to educate, train, and then potentially employ productive students. Washington is a long way from Main Street no matter how much rhetoric is stated to the opposite. These issues are better addressed by individuals more likely to be able to directly affect the outcomes. Funding form governmental sources should be sent in large measure to the local levels to be used by and at the stakeholders’ direction.

Much more research must be accomplished to ascertain what will impact student academic achievement positively for future U.S. student throughout the country. The research should be grounded with a lack of bias or agenda which from a governmental perspective is probably difficult. What is now seen instead of relationship building is wall building, or creating a buffer between the school and the parents which only allows parent involvement in what supports the school’s current agenda.

References

Auerbach, S. (2009). Walking the walk: Portraits in leadership for family engagement in urban schools. The School Community Journal, 19(1), 9-31.

Davis, K.M., & Lambie, G.W. (2005). Family Engagement: A Collaborative, Systemic Approach for Middle School Counselors. Professional School Counseling, 9(2).

Engler, J. (2006). Sleepwalking schools are failing U.S. industry. Plant Engineering, 60(9).

Etter, D. (2011). Has the U.S. lost its technical edge? Mechanical Engineering, 133(5), 36-37.

Ferlazzo, L. (2011). Involvement or Engagement?. Educational Leadership, 68(8), 10-14. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Godber, Y. E. (2002). School climate: Understanding parent perspectives to strengthen family-school relationships. University of Minnesota: Author.

Gross, B., Booker, T. K., & Goldhaber, D. (2009). Boosting student achievement: The effect of comprehensive school reform on student achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 31(2), 111-126.

Hamilton, V., (2010). Immature citizens and the state.Brigham Young University, Reuben Clark Law School, 2010(4).

Harris, A., & Goodall, J. (2008). Do parents know they matter? Engaging all parents in learning. Educational Research, 50(3), 277-289.

Holmes, K. (2003). U.S. aviation R&D under pressure. (2003). Mechanical Engineering, 125(5), 28-28.

Kraft, K. & Singhapakdi, A. (1995). The relative importance of social responsibility in determining organizational effectiveness: Student responses II: JBE. Journal of Business Ethics, 14(4).

Mann, K. (2002). Perspectives on the U.S. current account deficit and sustainability. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 16(3).

Moon, H., Goodrich, J. (1996). Making U.S. industry more competitive: Myths and realities. Review of Business. 17(3).

Scott, R. (2004). Educational Quagmire: The high cost of ignoring biophysical and ecological factors. The Journal of Social, Political, and Economic Studies. 33(3).

Thornell, M. (1993). Not just ‘Japan Inc.’. CMA Magazine, 67(10).