Effective Means of Collaboration Between Teachers and Families of Students with Behavioral Challenges: A Review of the Literature

Effective Means of Collaboration Between Teachers and Families of Students with Behavioral Challenges: A Review of the Literature

 

By Katherine M. Guajardo

Students exhibiting extreme behaviors at school are on the rise. Many of these students display the same disruptive behaviors at home, which makes communication and collaboration between school and home imperative. Phone calls and notes from school to home are both helpful in keeping parents and teachers aware of behavioral and other concerns, but sometimes these forms of communication can break down. Phone calls may not be available at a mutually convenient time for both parties, notes can be lost or remain unread, and sometimes parents and teachers have difficulty seeing eye-to-eye when it comes to behavioral concerns. When communication attempts are unsuccessful all parties: teachers, parents, and students, suffer. The focus of this paper is exploring ways to help students with behavioral challenges by improving home-school communication.

Abstract

Students exhibiting extreme behaviors at school are on the rise. Many of these students display the same disruptive behaviors at home, which makes communication and collaboration between school and home imperative. Phone calls and notes from school to home are both helpful in keeping parents and teachers aware of behavioral and other concerns, but sometimes these forms of communication can break down. Phone calls may not be available at a mutually convenient time for both parties, notes can be lost or remain unread, and sometimes parents and teachers have difficulty seeing eye-to-eye when it comes to behavioral concerns. When communication attempts are unsuccessful all parties: teachers, parents, and students, suffer. The focus of this paper is exploring ways to help students with behavioral challenges by improving home-school communication.

Effective Means of Collaboration Between Teachers and Families of Students with Behavioral Challenges: A Review of the Literature

Home-school partnerships, appropriately defined by Sutherland et al. (2022) in their research on caregiver and teacher perspectives on partnerships as “…student-focused approaches where teachers and caregivers work together to coordinate supports across home and school contexts to increase opportunities for students to be successful in academic, social, emotional, and behavioral domains.”  Communication between parents and educators is key, especially when there are academic concerns with the student. When the student has behavioral challenges, communication and collaboration between home and school becomes even more paramount (Fefer et al., 2020). Students who display chronic problem behaviors are at an increased risk for long-term academic, social, and emotional difficulties. In addition, most behavioral challenges cause problems and disruptions both at home and at school, making partnership with parents and teachers imperative (Sutherland et al., 2022). Despite the well-known importance of partnering with parents, however, many educators struggle to develop a positive relationship with families when it comes to communicating about behavioral challenges (Fefer et al., 2020). Although the breakdown in productive two-way communication is not always the fault of the teacher, it is certainly up to the educators to seek out and implement ways to increase and improve the quality of the communication and collaboration with the parents (Houri et al., 2019).

This paper will review seven research studies that examine different aspects of positive and productive collaboration between families (also referred to as caregivers and/or parents) and teachers (also referred to as educators and/or schools) specifically as it relates to students with behavioral challenges. The studies by Fefer et al. (2020), Houri et al. (2019), and Sutherland et al. (2022) explore different aspects of the parent-school relationship, barriers to positive communication, and teacher-implemented ways to improve the relationship. Research completed by Eisenhower et al. (2016) and Bellinger et al. (2016) explores the enhancement of relationships between parents and schools by a third party with the goal of preventing and/or reducing behavioral problems. Finally, the studies by Lopach et al. (2018) and Moore et al. (2016) explore the use of a daily home note with students with behavioral challenges and its impact on student behavior.

Teacher-Implemented Interventions

When it comes to teachers establishing a relationship with parents in order to decrease severe behaviors in students, there are two key aspects to be considered as they relate to communication. One is the amount and the other is the quality of communication. Parents and teachers can talk daily and have a great relationship with each other, but if the conversations do not pertain to the needs of the student they will be of limited value in changing behaviors. On the other hand, if parents and teachers have a wonderful, productive, to-the-point conversation about a particular problem with the student, but this conversation occurs only once during the school year with no follow-up communication it will also be of limited value. Communication needs to occur frequently and should be guided by student needs in order to improve student behaviors (Houri et al., 2019).

The research by Sutherland et al. (2022) adapted aspects of the CARES framework (which falls under BEST in CLASS, a tier 2 intervention, based on the positive behavioral intervention and supports (PBIS) framework, aimed at improving the relationship between teachers and students who display problematic behaviors) to support successful home-school partnerships for students with or at risk of an emotional/behavioral disability (EBD). As a baseline study, the researchers identified six kindergarten, first, or second grade teachers and eleven mothers for participation in interviews about the current level of communication and partnership between home and school. CARES is an acronym for the five aspects that are believed to be crucial to building a positive and productive relationship between parents and teachers. C stands for “connection to practices,” which means the teachers introduce the parents to evidence-based practices (EBP) that are successful in the classroom and could be useful at home as well. The A stands for ‘authentic relationships,” which involves the teachers establishing genuine relationships with families built on trust. The R is for “reflective thinking,” which means the teachers need to reflect on how their own biases, preconceptions, or beliefs may negatively affect the relationship with parents. The E represents, “effective communication,” which includes both ensuring the teachers are clearly communicating the messages they want to convey to parents as well as ensuring they are listening to parents attentively during conversations about the student. Lastly, the S stands for “sensitivity to culture,” which means the teachers need to ensure they are taking the family’s culture into consideration, as well as ensuring they recognize how their own culture may impact the relationship. Researchers created open-ended interview questions for both the parents and teachers based on these five themes, which were delivered in-person in the spring at either the school (for the teachers and some parents) or the parents’ homes. After conducting the interviews, the researchers coded the answers as either displaying the presence or absence of each of the five CARES domains (which were then condensed to four domains, as the R-reflective thinking and S-sensitivity to culture domains were so closely related). Thirteen subthemes were identified across the four domains but will not be explored individually in this paper. The answers to the interview questions often identified both a presence and an absence of an aspect of a domain or sometimes identified neither. Therefore, comparing the results is not as useful as a discussion about the perspectives given by both parents and teachers. In the C “connection to supports” domain, parents appreciated when teachers were humble in offering suggestions, but were much less perceptive when teachers talked down to them or didn’t follow through with the agreed-upon approaches at school. Both parents and teachers agreed that discussing discipline approaches together and providing a united front to the student was helpful. In the A “authentic relationships” domain, parents expressed appreciation when teachers really listened to the challenges the parents were facing and provided advice and/or empathy. Parents also expressed great value in a positive relationship between their child and the teacher, noting that knowing the teacher cared about their child went a long way in establishing trust in the teacher from the parent. Parents who reported an absence in this area, however, were very discouraged when they spent more time talking with others at the school (i.e. principals, guidance counselors, etc.) than the teacher. Also, when the parent felt the teacher did not like their child, or the child obviously did not like the teacher, the parents had little faith in the teacher’s ability to help their child. In the combined R “reflective thinking” and S “sensitivity to culture” domains, the parents who felt the teachers judged them on the basis of age, life situation, and/or income felt this seriously negatively impacted their relationship. One parent reported being told by a teacher that her divorce was negatively impacting her child’s behaviors, which caused the parent to feel stigmatized every time she stepped foot on the school campus from that day forward. However, both parents and teachers reported a strengthening of relationships when the teacher was nonjudgemental and did her best to understand and accommodate the family’s unique situation (i.e. willingness to talk in the evening with a parent who worked during the day, showing an interest in the struggles of the family, etc.). Lastly, in the E “effective communication” domain, parents related positive experiences when they could easily contact teachers, when teachers were prompt in reporting problems at school, and when teachers conveyed frequent positive messages about their child as well. One parent expressed extreme frustration when a teacher only ever called when her child was acting out, which made her feel very frustrated and helpless (she wondered what was she supposed to do on the other end of the phone, at work, while listening to her child scream and throw a fit). Likewise, parents felt as if the teacher didn’t care about their child if the only contact was negative. One parent, whose child had been having a particularly hard time at school for several weeks, was extremely frustrated when the teacher waited over a week to tell the parent about a day where her son had displayed perfect behavior. The parent missed an opportunity to praise and reward her son at home for this good day, while continuing to take away privileges under the assumption that his poor behavior was continuing.

The next study, by Houri et al. (2019), sought to increase the level of engagement parents have with their child’s school. The authors pointed out the positive impact on academics and behaviors that is displayed with strong parental engagement in school activities and communication with teachers.  Three schools who were identified by their district as participating in a multi-tiered system of behavioral supports were chosen by the researchers to participate in their intervention. Fifty-one parents of students in third through fifth grade across the three schools were identified as having low levels of engagement with their child’s school. In the late fall, these parents had failed to respond to electronic daily communication (reasons were not identified, although lack of reliable internet access was listed as a possibility), which had been an intervention all parents had agreed to at the beginning of the year. The parents were randomly split into an intervention group (twenty-five parents) and a control group (twenty-six parents). This was a double-blind study; neither the parents nor the teachers knew which parents were in which group, to ensure the teachers did not treat the students differently based on their parents’ status in the study. All parents continued to receive the daily electronic home notes. The intervention group also received one personalized letter from their child’s teacher, which was written following specific guidelines from the researchers. The letters each contained a positive greeting to the parent, a specific reason for the letter (outlining a specific desired student outcome, stated in a positive manner), and the teacher’s belief in the student’s ability to reach this goal, conveying high expectations for the student. The control group received one generic letter, not personalized in any way, from the teachers, in which the teachers reminded the parents to respond to the electronic communications. To ensure the teachers did not know who was in the intervention group, they were instructed to create one of each type of letter for each of the fifty-one students, which were given to a liaison at their school who sent (both via email and through regular mail) the appropriate letter to each student based on their participation status. Three types of data were collected: parental satisfaction with their child’s teacher, student behaviors, and the number of parental responses to the daily electronic home notes. Parental satisfaction with their child’s teacher was collected via a 5-point Likert scale (given at the beginning of the school year and again the week after the intervention). The parents in the intervention group showed a significant increase in post-intervention satisfaction with their child’s teacher on levels of trust, communication, care, and respect over the control group. Additionally, student behaviors from the week before and the week after the intervention (rated on displaying levels of safety, respect, and responsibility) showed a positive increase in all areas for the intervention group, while the control group showed a slight positive increase in most areas, as well as a decrease in a few cases. Lastly, the amount of parental response to the electronic home notes also increased significantly amongst the intervention group, showing an increase in parental involvement after just one positive, personalized letter was sent home.

The third study of this type, conducted by Fefer et al. (2020), explored the use of positive parent contact (PPC) and its impact on on-task student behavior. The intervention was based on research by the authors that identified PPC as being an easy-to-implement intervention that could potentially increase the amount of on-task behavior displayed by students. The premise is that frequent, positive communication from teachers to parents has the capability to increase the engagement of the parents in their child’s school and will motivate the parents to encourage the students to do well in class. Five students (in first, second, or third grade), all reported as needing extra behavioral support at the tier 2 level of PBIS, participated in this study with their respective parents and teachers. Each teacher and parent pair identified their preferred means of communication (which ended up being email for all participants), and the teachers received guidance on identifying specific positive behaviors to look for, which lined up with the schoolwide PBIS goals, and how to include this positive behavior in an email to the parent. The teachers were directed to send a minimum of two emails each week to each participating parent, and were specifically told not to ask for any sort of parental response (keeping the burden on the parents to a minimum). Researchers observed and tracked on-task student behavior for the same time period once-weekly for thirty minutes each time, starting prior to the intervention period and continuing throughout. Over the course of the intervention, which lasted between two and nine weeks (due to several unforeseen circumstances), the teachers followed the guidelines of the intervention. At the end of the intervention a social validity survey was given to both the teachers and the parents in order to rate the impact of the intervention on student behavior. Overall, the impact of the intervention on student behavior was successful, with four out of the five students showing a moderate increase in on-task behavior during the intervention period and the last student showing a slight increase. Additionally, the parents and teachers all expressed satisfaction in the intervention, which required very little effort on the part of the teachers and almost no effort on the part of the parents. As an added bonus, despite the emails not requesting any sort of reply all of the parents responded to at least one of the emails and most of the parents responded to all of them. The authors pointed out that a limitation of their study was not being able to track disruptive behaviors, as they had originally intended when planning this research. An inability to agree on how to measure behaviors resulted in instead relying on tracking on-task behavior, which proved easier to define. A repeated study that tracks disruptive behavior would be a good next step in measuring the effectiveness of the PPC intervention.

All three of these interventions required very little effort on the part of the teachers, yet all three yielded positive results in the strengthening of parent-teacher relationships and the improvement of student behaviors. As pointed out by Fefer et al. (2020), practices that improve the school-family relationship are in great need right now. These practices need to engage both teachers and families, which will lead to positive student outcomes. Even something as quick and easy as sending ONE positive, personalized letter to a parent can increase the parent’s trust in their child’s teacher and go a long way to improving the family’s relationship with the school (Houri et al., 2019). The most promising of these three studies is the Sutherland et al. (2022) study which guided teachers to ensure their communication with parents all focused on six domains aimed to ensure the communication was productive, positive, culturally sensitive, and focused on the student’s needs.

Outside Programs

The next two research articles focused on the utilization of a third-party in order to facilitate collaboration between families and schools. In both studies, Bellinger et al. (2016) and Eisenhower et al. (2016), mental health providers partnered with parents and teachers to address student behaviors and collaborate to find solutions. Psychological problems which contribute to disruptive behaviors, such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), oppositional defiant disorder (ODD), and conduct disorder (CD) are often identified by schools, and without intervention the behaviors behind these disorders are likely to continue. Linking parents of students displaying disruptive behaviors to mental health providers may increase the likelihood of these students being diagnosed and receiving the help they need (Eisenhower et al., 2016). As Bellinger et al. (2016) mentions in their article, less than half of the estimated 21% of school-aged children who have a mental health disorder ever receive treatment from a pediatrician or mental health provider.

According to Eisenhower et al. (2016), there are two types of students who enter kindergarten and display disruptive behavior problems (DBP). One type has already been displaying disruptive behaviors, and the other type begins to display disruptive behaviors during the transition to kindergarten. The authors stress the importance of intense early intervention in the first few months of kindergarten to help children with DBPs as students who display externalizing behaviors at four years of age are at a high risk of continuing to display these behaviors at ten years, and at a medium risk of continuing to display them at fourteen years. Their study explored the effectiveness of the Starting Strong in Kindergarten (Starting Strong) program, which focuses on strengthening student-teacher and parent-teacher relationships, and reducing disruptive behaviors. The program is utilized during the first four months of kindergarten, a critical time as outlined above. Additionally, the program aims to ensure the interventions are feasible for teachers and families, ensuring nothing is too burdensome to be implemented. Ninety-seven students/families and thirty-three teachers participated in the study, with a maximum of five students per teacher allowed. All students were identified at displaying disruptive behaviors. For parents, the intervention required attending ten weekly group meetings and two individual meetings with group leaders (comprised of clinical psychology PhD students with specific training in the program, and under guidance of a licensed psychologist). During these meetings the importance of strong relationships between parents and the school were stressed and parents were given guidance on child development, strategies for addressing challenging behaviors, and ways to talk to the teacher to strengthen their relationship. Teachers attended four group meetings that focused on building strong student-teacher relationships, addressing the challenging behaviors in a positive manner, and collaborating with families to address student behaviors. The intervention did not facilitate meetings between parents and teachers directly, but both were given guidance on communication and collaboration with each other. At the end of the four months there was a significant drop in both classroom-reported and home-reported behavior problems across the participants. Additionally, on a social validity survey at the end of the intervention almost all of the parents and teachers (98%+ for each area) expressed satisfaction with the program, reported an increase in their confidence working with the school/parents (as applicable), and said they would recommend the program to others.

The next study, by Bellinger et al. (2016) explored conjoint behavioral consultation (CBC), a family partnership model, and its effects on disruptive student behaviors. In the CBC model, parents and teachers work together to help a mutual student with academic, social, and/or behavioral needs. Both parents and teachers are expected to take responsibility for helping the student. Previous studies on the CBC model yielded much better results in changing difficult behaviors than interventions administered solely by either parents or teachers alone. This study identified three families to participate, all with a child in first or second grade who was in a general education classroom but displayed at least one period daily with less than 60% compliance both at home and at school. The families and teachers went through six phases during the intervention, which included meetings with an outside mental health consultant, jointly developing a plan to help the student, and trainings on how to implement the plan at home and at school. Data were collected in-person by the researchers in the school setting and via a video camera in the home. At the end of the intervention, the effect size for increase in compliant behaviors both at home and at school was large for all three participants. Both parents and teachers rated the intervention as being successful, with the families expressing more satisfaction than the teachers. As promising as this is for the future of collaboration between families, teachers, and outside mental health providers, the authors caution that this program might not be feasible for widespread use. To reduce the burden of the study on the teachers, the mental health consultant had to travel to each school multiple times, which might not be possible in all cases. Additionally, the consultant spent an average of one hour per week meeting with either the teacher or the family, which may not be covered by insurance companies.

Both of these studies help address the serious problem of mental health issues, which are frequently the cause of disruptive behaviors in students. When students receive outside mental health services, teachers are often left on their own to navigate how to help the student at school with the parents, at best, serving as a liaison between outside care and school (Bellinger et al., 2016). Bringing the three together makes sense, but as Bellinger et al. (2016) pointed out, this may not always be a feasible option. Seeking partnerships with local universities may be an option for schools that is mutually beneficial. Schools would benefit from the new, research-based interventions provided by the universities, and the universities could conduct their applied-research in the schools (Eisenhower et al., 2016). Not mentioned in either of these articles, but worth noting, is the lack of research on collaboration between families, teachers, and mental health professionals when the student is receiving services in a self-contained classroom for students with emotional/behavioral disabilities. Collaboration with parents, special education teachers, and mental health professionals would certainly be advantageous when multiple students in the classroom display severe behaviors.

Daily Home Notes

The last two articles explore the use of daily home notes as a means of facilitating parent-teacher communication with the goal of reducing disruptive behaviors. Daily home notes have been used for decades as a means of communication between home and school, and their effectiveness in improving academic performance and reducing problematic behaviors has long been established (Lopach et al., 2018). With a daily home note, teachers rate the student on targeted behavioral and/or performance areas, usually with an established scale of points for each area. The teacher sends the note home each day for the parent to review, sign, and return. Students generally receive an incentive at school for desired performance, and may or may not be rewarded (or punished) at home as well (Moore et al., 2016).

The Moore et al. (2016) article outlines the use of daily report cards for students with ADHD. The authors mention their ease of use, and the general acceptability by teachers and families, as well as mention some limits and downsides to their use. As a strategy for reducing the externalizing behaviors that frequently accompany ADHD, daily report cards are more effective when used alongside other interventions. When used as a communication tool between school and home, and when the daily report card reflects behaviors in a positive way, they can keep parents informed and make them feel more connected to their child’s day. Some downsides noted in the article are the possible stigma attached to a student carrying a daily report card back and forth each day, the need for teachers to be consistent in filling them out, and the need for parents to read and sign them each day.

The second article on daily home notes explores research on the use of an electronic version, which is emailed to parents daily. Lopach et al. (2018) enlisted four students in fourth and fifth grade who displayed lower levels of on-task behavior and performance on math tasks than their peers. The teachers were given, and trained in how to use, an electronic home note package which included several options for rewarding students, as well. Parents also received a short training course on accessing the electronic home notes, which would be emailed to parents daily, as well as ways to praise and reward their child at home for meeting daily goals. Data were collected before, during, and after the intervention concluded on rate of on-task behavior. Baseline data showed an average rate of on-task behavior of 40%. During the intervention the average rate rose to 73%, and three weeks after the intervention concluded the average rate was 59%. For increasing on-task behaviors, the electronic home note proved successful. In addition, the parents, students, and teachers all reported appreciating the ease of use, and parents reported feeling more connected to their child’s teacher, although they also indicated they would have appreciated more detailed and personalized feedback.

As pointed out by Moore et al. (2016), one of the drawbacks of daily home notes is the possibility of parents not reviewing them. In order to be effective in changing behavior parents need to actually look at the note and talk to their child about it, with a reward or consequence being the ideal reinforcement between home and school. The use of an electronic home note would seem to increase the possibility that parents would at least read the note, even if they still did not review it with their child. As a tool for data collection, the electronic version would seem to be more reliable than a paper version going back and forth between school and home, where they could be destroyed and/or altered by the student (Lopach et al., 2018).

Conclusion

As evidenced by all seven of these articles, communication and collaboration between parents and teachers is extremely important, especially when the student displays disruptive behaviors. As with all interventions, the earlier the better. Students who begin to display disruptive behaviors in preschool and kindergarten have the best chance of being successful academically when their parents and teachers work together and when they form positive relationships with both (Eisenhower et al., 2016). Involving mental health professionals may also be key to helping students with disruptive behaviors, as data show that unresolved disruptive and externalizing behaviors often leads to lower academic performance, lower test scores and grades, and even higher rates of school dropout, substance abuse and incarceration (Bellinger et al., 2016). Truly, families and schools need to work together to help these children throughout their school years.

References

Bellinger, S. A., Lee, S. W., Jamison, T. R., & Reese, R. M. (2016). Conjoint Behavioral Consultation: Community–School Collaboration and Behavioral Outcomes Using Multiple Baseline. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 26(2), 139–165. doi.org/10.1080/10474412.2015.1089405

Eisenhower, A., Taylor, H., & Baker, B. L. (2016). Starting strong: A school-based indicated prevention program during the transition to kindergarten. School Psychology Review, 45(2), 141–170. https://doi.org/10.17105/spr45-2.141-170

Fefer, S. A., Hieneman, M., Virga, C., Thoma, A., & Donnelly, M. (2020). Evaluating the effect of positive parent contact on elementary students’ on-task behavior. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 22(4), 234–245. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300720908009

Houri, A. K., Thayer, A. J., & Cook, C. R. (2019). Targeting parent trust to enhance engagement in a school–home communication system: A double-blind experiment of a parental wise feedback intervention. School Psychology, 34(4), 421–432. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000318

Lopach, L., Jenson, W., Davis, J., Knorr, J., & O’Neill, R. (2018). The Electronic Home Note Program: An effective intervention package to improve parent program participation, on-task behavior, and academic performance. Contemporary School Psychology, 22(4), 488–502. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40688-018-0197-7

Moore, D. A., Whittaker, S., & Ford, T. J. (2016). Daily report cards as a school?based intervention for children with attention?deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Support for Learning, 31(1), 71–83. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9604.12115

Sutherland, K. S., Wu, E. G., Washington-Nortey, M., McKnight, K. W., McLeod, B. D., & Conroy, M. A. (2022). Caregiver and teacher perspectives on home–school partnerships within a tier 2 intervention. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 31(3), 219–232. https://doi.org/10.1177/10634266221130053