Send an Annotation from the Connection Collection by E-mail

This page opened in a new window. Use the form below to send this citation by e-mail or close this window if you wish to return to the Connections Collection.

Send Citation and Annotation by E-mail Enter the e-mail address to which you would like to send this citation/annotation, and click the "send e-mail" button.

Citation:

Nakagawa, K., Stafford, M. E., Fisher, T. A., & Matthews, L. (2002). The Òcity migrantÓ dilemma: Building community at high-mobility urban schools. Urban Education, 37(1), 96-125. EJ660349.

Annotation:
This study compares schools with different levels of student mobility to examine how schools with higher levels of mobility attempt to Òbuild communityÓ with programs and practices to reach out to families. Researchers found that high mobility schools did not differ dramatically from other kinds of schools in terms of the student services they offered, although they were more likely to have special classes for new students. They had more opportunities for meeting the needs of families, such as adult education classes, but fewer opportunities for parents to get to know the school. Schools with higher mobility rates were more likely to report that they were reaching outside the school to build community partnership. Schools with higher mobility provided as many or more opportunities for parent involvement as lower mobility schools. However, fewer higher mobility schools reported that the majority of teachers sent information home or created opportunities for at-home learning, and fewer reported that they regularly called parents or invited them to school. Although high mobility schools reported parent involvement efforts, the levels of parent involvement at these schools remained low. Data were collected by surveying principals of elementary schools in the Phoenix area. Of the 360 surveys sent out, 174 were returned and utilized for the study. Questions covered principalsÕ perceptions about the extent, causes, and effects of mobility at their schools. Principals were also asked to report on programs and services offered at their schools, and the amount and kind of parent involvement occurring at their school. Case studies were also conducted with three high mobility schools. Results should be interpreted with some caution, since the information is based only on the school principalÕs perception of the activities taking place, rather than documenting actual activities. Also, parent involvement measures only focused on Òat-schoolÓ involvement, so they may not capture ways parents are supporting education at home. This study provides some interesting information for schools with high mobility rates that are trying to involve parents in the school. The author concludes that the schoolÕs efforts to create a stable ÒcommunityÓ will only be successful if familiesÕ other needs, such as housing and employment, are also addressed.