Home School Communication¶

Strategy · All strategies
Evidence · no claims cited

Description¶

Home school communication is the deliberate design of channels through which teachers and families exchange information about student learning — progress reports, conferences, digital platforms, newsletters, and informal contacts. Effective communication is two-way and learning-focused: families receive actionable information about what their child is learning and how to support it, and educators learn about the child's home context. It is a core component of Epstein's framework of "partnerships" among school, family, and community.

Design Implications¶

Communication that is specific, frequent, and oriented toward learning tasks produces stronger effects than generic praise or deficit-focused reporting [~M]. The mechanism is partly motivational — families who understand expectations can reinforce them at home — and partly informational, since teachers gain context that improves instructional decisions. One-way broadcast communication (newsletters, grade portals alone) shows weaker effects than interactive contact such as conferences, phone calls, or messaging dialogue [~M].

Context¶

Requirements¶

• A predictable cadence (e.g., weekly updates plus event-triggered contact) rather than contact only when problems arise
• Two-way channels: families must be able to respond, ask questions, and share information, not only receive it
• Translation and accessibility for families' home languages and literacy levels (Accessible Vocabulary & Syntax)
• Content focused on specific learning goals and concrete actions, not just behavior ratings

Constraints¶

• Communication framed around deficits or complaints reduces family trust and engagement [-M]; early negative-only contact predicts disengagement
• Digital portals alone do not build partnership; families without reliable access or digital literacy are systematically excluded [-M]
• Over-communication of low-value updates (mass notifications) trains families to ignore messages [~W]
• Effects are weaker in secondary school than elementary, where subject-matter specialization fragments the family-teacher relationship [~M]

Implementation Variability¶

• Teacher-initiated positive contact — brief calls or messages celebrating specific progress; low cost, high trust payoff
• Learning-focused updates — sharing what is being taught with suggested home activities (Epstein's "learning at home" type)
• Two-way journals or apps — platforms such as Seesaw or ClassDojo that let students and families document and comment on work
• Home visits — intensive relationship-building used in programs like the Parent Teacher Home Visits model

Target Learners¶

• Elementary students, where a single teacher-family relationship carries most instructional information [~M]
• Students from families facing language, work-schedule, or access barriers — communication must be adapted, not assumed away
• Students at risk of disengagement, where early and positive contact functions as a Belonging signal for both student and family

Target Learning Goals¶

• Academic achievement support: aligning home reinforcement with school learning goals
• Attendance and engagement: families who are informed are better positioned to act on early warning signs
• Social-emotional development: consistent adult expectations across home and school contexts

Instructions¶

1. Establish a communication plan at the start of the year: channels, cadence, and what families can expect (Clear Structure)
2. Open with positive, specific contact before any problem-focused contact is needed
3. Make each update learning-focused: name the goal, show a sample of work, suggest one concrete home action
4. Provide a low-effort response channel and treat family replies as data about the learner (Check-Ins)
5. Translate and adapt format for accessibility (Accommodations)
6. Use patterns from family responses to adjust instruction, closing the loop like Assessment for Learning

Claims¶

Related Strategies¶

• 5-Minute Writing Conferences — a classroom analog: brief, regular, individualized contact about learning
• Action Planning — family communication can deliver and reinforce student action plans
• Check-Ins — the student-facing counterpart of regular structured contact
• Parents should reinforce on-time attendance, communicate with teachers, and make academics the freshman's top priority
• Use improved communication strategies to drive family involvement and partnerships with schools
• Enable regular, meaningful family engagement through diverse home-language communication, proactive meetings, student-led conferences, and shared decision-making forums

Examples¶

• Parent Teacher Home Visits (https://www.pthp.org) — trained educators visit families at home to build relational trust before academic problem-solving
• Seesaw (https://web.seesaw.me) — student work portfolios shared with families, who can view and comment, making communication artifact-based rather than report-based
• ClassDojo (https://www.classdojo.com) — messaging and photo updates; research reviews caution that behavior-point features can shift communication toward deficit framing
• Epstein's Six Types of Involvement framework — used by district partnership programs to structure communication as one of six family-engagement categories

Key Sources¶

• Epstein, J. L. (2011). School, family, and community partnerships: Preparing educators and improving schools (2nd ed.). Westview Press.
• Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., & Sandler, H. M. (1995). Parental involvement in children's education: Why does it make a difference? Teachers College Record, 97(2), 310–331. doi:10.1177/016146819509700202
• Jeynes, W. H. (2007). The relationship between parental involvement and urban secondary school student academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Urban Education, 42(1), 82–110. doi:10.1177/0042085906293818
• Castro, M., Expósito-Casas, E., López-Martín, E., Lizasoain, L., Navarro-Asencio, E., & Gaviria, J. L. (2015). Parental involvement on student academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 15, 33–46. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2015.01.002