Design and Evaluation Tool

Design and Evaluation Matrix for Outreach (DEMO) for Parent Engagement

This matrix is based on the Design and Evaluation Matrix for Outreach (DEMO) (Gale, 2010). It has been modified based on our research to facilitate reflection and evaluation/modification of parent engagement programs aimed at low SES families. To use this matrix, a program manager should rate each characteristic 1 (not addressed), 2 (present/developing) or 3 (present/well-addressed) for their program Like the original DEMO, programs should strive to have breadth and depth, striving to rate highly in both characteristics and strategies. For any characteristics that did not receive a score of 3, an opportunity for reflection and modification is presented.

Assembling resources

• People‐rich: an approach that requires the development of ongoing relationships between parents, their children and those in a position to offer them ongoing guidance which relates to their situation and capacities (James et al 1999, James 2002, James et al 2008, Bok 2010, Gemici et al 2014) and provides a clear reason to engage. Parent peer networks are included (Auerbach 2004, Cooper 2002, Agronick et al 2009)
• Financial support and/or incentives: addressed to particular economic constraints of different cohorts of parents and their students, and which combine with other support strategies (Anderson 1983, 1980)
• Early, long‐term, sustained: an approach to intervention that is designed to work with parents of students in earlier phases of schooling, ideally the primary years, and to continue as their students make the transition through the middle years into senior secondary schooling (Gale et al 2010, Naylor et al. 2013)

Engaging Parents

• Recognition of difference: premised on the perspective that parents of disadvantaged students bring a range of knowledge and learning capacities to supporting their children in formal education that should be recognised and valued as assets. Some have high aspiration but lack relevant contextual experience (Auerbach 2004, Craven et al 2005, James and Devlin 2006, James et al 2008, Bok 2010) while others have limited relevant assets (Auerbach 2004, Gorinski and Fraser 2006). Ensure messages and approaches are culturally appropriate (Gilbert 1996, Auerbach 2004)
• Enhanced academic curriculum: develop parents’ understanding of the schooling required to prepare students for further or higher education and developing a culture of academic socialisation (Emmerson et al., 2012)
• Research‐driven interventions: that engage the research capacities of the university to inform program design, implementation and evaluation, and to support the production and dissemination of knowledge about effective intervention strategies

Working together

• Collaboration: between stakeholders across different sectors and agencies, including industry and government, at all stages of program development and enactment. (Emerson et al 2012)
• Cohort‐based: an approach that engages with cohorts of parents within a school, workplace, community or region, to create ‘college-going’ cultures (Auerbach 2004) as well as supporting individuals (Emerson et al 2012, Gilbert 1996, Agronick 2009)

Building confidence

• Communication and information: about university life and how to get there, using a variety of digital media technologies as well as more traditional means such as parent information sessions, brochures or school visits for parents and their children (Agronick, 2009)
• Familiarisation/site experiences for parents: through a schedule of university visits designed to both inspire and familiarise parents with higher education and what it means to be a student in that context (Gale et al 2010)
• Familiarisation/site experiences: for parents and their children through a schedule of university visits designed to both inspire and familiarise parents and their children with higher education and what it means to be a student in that context (Gale et al 2010)

References

_{Agronick, G., Clark, A., O’Donnell, L., & Stueve, A. (2009). Parent Involvement Strategies in Urban Middle and High Schools in the Northeast and Islands Region. Issues & Answers. REL 2009-No. 069. Regional Educational Laboratory Northeast & Islands. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED505024}

_{Anderson, D.S. & Vervoon, A.E. (1983) Access to privilege: patterns of participation in Australian post-secondary education. Canberra: Australian National University Press.}

_{Anderson, D. S. (1980). Students in Australian higher education : a study of their social composition since the abolition of fees. Canberra : Australian Government Publishing Service.}

_{Auerbach, S. (2004). Engaging Latino Parents in Supporting College Pathways: Lessons From a College Access Program. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 3(2), 125–145.}

_{Bok, J. (2010). The capacity to aspire to higher education: ‘It’s like making them do a play without a script’. Critical Studies in Education, 51(2), 163–178. https://doi.org/10.1080/17508481003731042}

_{Cooper, C. R. (2002). Five Bridges Along Students’ Pathways to College: A Developmental Blueprint of Families, Teachers, Counselors, Mentors, and Peers in the Puente Project. Educational Policy, 16(4), 607.}

_{Craven, R., Australia, Department of Education, S. and Training, & Evaluations and Investigations Programme. (2005). Indigenous students’ aspirations dreams, perceptions and realities. Canberra, A.C.T.: Dept. of Education, Science and Training. Retrieved from http://hdl.voced.edu.au/10707/82002}

_{Emerson, L., Fear. J., Fox, S., & Sanders, E. (2012). Parental engagement in learning and schooling: Lessons from research. A report by the Australian Research Alliance for Children and Youth (ARACY) for the Family-School and Community Partnerships Bureau: Canberra.}

_{Gale, T., Hattam, R., Comber, B., Tranter, D., Bills, D., Sellar, S., & Parker, S. (2010). Interventions early in school as a means to improve higher education outcomes for disadvantaged students. National Centre for Student Equity in Higher Education. Retrieved from http://dro.deakin.edu.au/view/DU:30064931}

_{Gilbert, W. S. (1996). Bridging the Gap between High School and College: A Successful Program That Promotes Academic Success for Hopi and Navajo Students.}

_{Gorinski, R., Fraser, C., New Zealand, Ministry of Education, New Zealand, Ministry of Education, … Pacific Coast Applied Research Centre. (2006). Literature review on the effective engagement of Pasifika parents and communities in education. [Wellington, N.Z.]: Research Division, Ministry of Education.}

_{James, R., Wyn, J., Baldwin, G., Hepworth, G., McInnis, C., & Stephanou, A. (1999). Rural and Isolated School Students and their Higher Education Choices. A re-examination of student location, socioeconomic background, and educational advantage and disadvantage. Commissioned Report No. 62, National Board of Employment, Education and Training Higher Education Council: Canberra.}

_{James, R. (2002). Socioeconomic background and higher education participation: an analysis of school students’ aspirations and expectations. Canberra: Dept. of Education, Science and Training.}

_{James, R. & Devlin, M. (2006). Partnerships, Pathways and Policies - Improving Indigenous Education Outcomes. Conference Report of the Second Annual Indigenous Higher Education Conference. Commonwealth of Australia.}

_{James, R., Bexley, E., Anderson, A., Devlin, M, Garnett, R., Marginson, S. and Maxwell, L. (2008). Participation and equity: a review of the participation in higher education of people from low socioeconomic backgrounds and Indigenous people, Centre for the Study of Higher Education, Melbourne, Vic.}

_{Naylor, R., Baik, C., James, R., & others. (2013). Developing a critical interventions framework for advancing equity in Australian higher education. Retrieved July, 25, 2014.}