By Hector Navedo, EdD
August 10, 2025

The figure that headlines this piece reveals an uncomfortable truth: school alone is not enough. Family engagement in P–12 public education is not a supplement—it is a core driver of learning and equity. As Dr. Karen L. Mapp (Harvard University) emphasizes, “the goal is not simply to involve families in what schools already do, but to redesign what we do with them” (Mapp & Bergman, 2021, p. 4).

By family engagement, we mean a systemic, relational, and capacity-building approach in which schools and families co-design learning, grounded in reciprocity and shared responsibility—not isolated, compliance-oriented activities often labeled as parental involvement (Mapp & Kuttner, 2013; Mapp & Bergman, 2019, 2021). Unlike involvement, which is often transactional, engagement is transformative, with families recognized as co-educators and agents of change.

Even in high-functioning systems, instructional hours make up only a fraction of a child’s life. A standard school calendar provides approximately 1,086 hours of instruction per year—≈12.4% of the 8,760 hours in a year. The remaining 87.6% unfolds beyond the school walls, in family, community, and digital spaces. While these figures vary by context, the message is clear: the majority of children’s learning time occurs away from formal instruction.

That vast block of time is not an empty gap—it is a critical opportunity to nurture learning in ways that formal schooling cannot. Recent syntheses of leadership research make explicit that student learning is strongly shaped by home–school relationships; effective leadership therefore extends beyond classroom walls (Leithwood et al., 2020). Meta-analyses show that promoting and participating in teacher learning and development has the strongest association with student outcomes (ES ≈ 0.84), followed by planning/evaluating teaching (ES ≈ 0.42) and goal-setting (ES ≈ 0.42) (Robinson et al., 2008). This reinforces that leaders should learn alongside teachers and families.

A robust body of research links strong school–family partnerships with positive outcomes:

• Academic competence: Parental engagement in learning is associated with higher achievement and skill development in intermediate grades (Jabian et al., 2025).

• Socio-emotional growth: Involvement in home learning predicts better socio-emotional outcomes, moderated by cultural values such as collectivism–individualism (Wang & Li, 2024).

• Educator capacity: Professional development for teachers significantly improves family-engagement practices (Sheridan & Smith, 2019).

If nearly 88% of a student’s time occurs away from the teacher, educational leaders must embed family engagement as a systemic, integrated, and sustained priority (Mapp & Bergman, 2019; National Policy Board for Educational Administration [NPBEA], 2015).

Leadership Priorities to Harness the 88%

Leaders can ground their approach in the Dual Capacity-Building Framework’s 4 Cs:

1. Capabilities – Build staff and family knowledge/skills for collaborative learning.

2. Connections – Foster networks of trust among educators, families, and community partners.

3. Cognition – Shift beliefs to see families as equal partners.

4. Confidence – Strengthen self- and collective efficacy in supporting student success (Mapp & Bergman, 2019).

These actions should align with Professional Standards for Educational Leaders (PSEL) Standard 8 on Meaningful Engagement of Families and Community, ensuring coherence with widely adopted leadership expectations (NPBEA, 2015).

Operational imperatives:

• Model and participate in professional learning with teachers and families; research shows this practice yields the largest leadership effect on student outcomes (ES ≈ 0.84; Robinson et al., 2008).

• Plan and evaluate teaching collaboratively with staff and families to align school and home learning (Leithwood et al., 2020).

• Set goals jointly with families and staff that address both academic and socio-emotional development (Jabian et al., 2025).

Measuring progress:
Select validated, culturally responsive tools to assess engagement (Mocho et al., 2025). Track indicators such as quality of two-way communication, co-learning routines at home, participation in decision-making, and family–teacher trust. Link these metrics to student outcomes and school climate data. Integrate engagement measures into continuous improvement cycles, as recommended in PSEL Standard 10 on school improvement (NPBEA, 2015).

Ethical Co-Governance of the 88%

Harnessing the 88% requires ethical frameworks co-designed with families. This includes policies on student data privacy, protocols for safe and respectful technology use, and joint responses to issues like cyberbullying (Shapiro & Stefkovich, 2021). Leadership preparation must equip principals with the ethical reasoning and interpersonal skills to navigate these challenges. Co-governance builds mutual accountability and reinforces trust—without which engagement efforts falter (Mapp & Bergman, 2021).

Context-Sensitive Leadership in Latin America and the Caribbean

Evidence from Argentina, Chile, and Uruguay shows that leadership conditions, resources, and collaboration patterns vary significantly (Vaillant & Mancebo, 2020). Barriers include teacher individualism, competitive cultures, bureaucratic pressure, and overly hierarchical leadership (Leiva-Guerrero & Polanco, 2022). Implementation of engagement strategies must begin with a diagnostic of local conditions, negotiated time for collaboration, and distributed leadership structures that empower both teachers and families.

Leadership Look-Fors for the 88%

1. Trust foundations: Deep listening to families, regular positive news, bias reflection, and relationship-building grounded in respect, competence, integrity, and personal regard (Mapp & Bergman, 2021).

2. Collaborative learning: Co-design of learning plans with families, clear discussion of student data without jargon, and evidence of instructional adjustments informed by family insights (Sheridan & Smith, 2019).

3. Community presence: Leaders visible in community spaces, leveraging cultural and social capital for student learning (Vaillant & Mancebo, 2020).

4. Power-sharing: Families actively engaged in decision-making and school improvement teams (Mapp & Kuttner, 2013).

Implementation Timeline

• Within 90 days: Conduct an audit of current engagement practices against the Dual Capacity-Building Framework’s 4Cs and PSEL Standard 8; select 3–5 validated indicators for tracking.

• Within 6 months: Launch sustained professional development with co-learning between leaders, teachers, and families, focusing on the practices with the highest effect sizes on student outcomes (e.g., ES≈0.84).

• Within 12 months: Publicly report engagement indicators linked to student learning outcomes and school climate; adjust plans accordingly.

References

Jabian, L. A. Q., Rollo, C. R., Libdan, I. E., & Buscano, J. D. (2025). Parental involvement and academic competence of intermediate learners in Landan Elementary School. Psychology and Education Journal, 33(6), 636–656. https://doi.org/10.70838/pemj.330603

Leiva-Guerrero, P., & Polanco, M. (2022). Trabajo colaborativo: Limitaciones de implementación en establecimientos escolares. Revista Internacional de Investigación en Educación, 15(1), 1–18.

Leithwood, K., Sun, J., & Schumacker, R. A. (2020). How school leadership influences student learning: A test of “The Four Paths” model. Educational Administration Quarterly, 56(4), 570–599.

Mapp, K. L., & Bergman, E. (2019). Dual capacity-building framework for family–school partnerships (Version 2). U.S. Department of Education. https://www.dualcapacity.org

Mapp, K. L., & Bergman, E. (2021). Embracing a new normal: Toward a more liberatory approach to family engagement. Carnegie Corporation of New York.

Mapp, K. L., & Kuttner, P. J. (2013). Partners in education: A dual capacity-building framework for family–school partnerships. U.S. Department of Education.

Mocho, H., Martins, C., dos Santos, R., Ratinho, E., & Nunes, C. (2025). Measuring parental school involvement: A systematic review. European Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology and Education, 15(6), 96. https://doi.org/10.3390/ejihpe15060096

National Policy Board for Educational Administration. (2015). Professional standards for educational leaders 2015. Author. https://www.npbea.org

Robinson, V. M. J., Lloyd, C. A., & Rowe, K. J. (2008). The impact of leadership on student outcomes: An analysis of the differential effects of leadership types. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(5), 635–674. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X08321509

Sheridan, S. M., & Smith, T. E. (2019). The effects of teacher training on teachers’ family-engagement practices: A meta-analysis. Early Childhood Education Journal, 47(3), 289–305.

Shapiro, J. P., & Stefkovich, J. A. (2021). Ethical leadership and decision making in education: Applying theoretical perspectives to complex dilemmas (5th ed.). Routledge.

Vaillant, D., & Mancebo, M. E. (2020). School leadership in Latin America: Lessons from Argentina, Chile, and Uruguay. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 23(4), 469–487. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2018.1562098

Wang, Y., & Li, L. M. W. (2024). Relationships between parental involvement in homework and learning outcomes among elementary school students: The moderating role of societal collectivism–individualism. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(3), 881–896. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12692