Engaging Caregivers in Academic Decision Making Through Progress Monitoring Data

Randi Layne Mitchell

The problem of practice addressed in this study was that the organization aimed to strengthen caregiver engagement in academic decision making by improving caregivers’ understanding of the Student Assessment Report (SAR), fostering meaningful partnerships that support student success and cohesive home–school collaboration. The academic program in the organization represented in this action research served students from across the state who met specific eligibility requirements. Every student in the K–12 academic program had an individualized education plan (IEP). Feedback from leaders and data collection showed that caregivers often misunderstood or overlooked their child’s academic data, especially during transition IEP meetings. This gap in understanding limited their ability to participate meaningfully in educational decisions. Using the human performance technology (HPT) model, I guided the district-level leadership team through performance analysis, intervention selection design, and evaluation to improve caregiver engagement and data comprehension (Van Tiem et al., 2012). Caregiver engagement is essential to student success, especially for specialized K–12 academic programs for students with low-incidence disabilities (Schneider & Arnot, 2018). The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 2004) requires schools communicate and engage caregivers in academic decision making based on their student’s academic progress and accommodations needed. The students in the academic program under study required multiple assessments to determine their present levels of support, and the organization sent progress monitoring data home quarterly with the report card and IEP progress monitoring updates. Despite these efforts, leaders in the organization saw caregivers struggle to interpret the SAR or be aware of progress monitoring data, leaving them dependent on teachers for decision making. This disconnect became especially clear during transition IEP meetings, during which caregivers often appeared surprised by their child’s academic standing. Benner et al. (2021), Schneider and Arnot (2018), and Houri et al. (2019) noted that caregiver involvement positively influences student outcomes. The organization aimed to identify barriers to engagement and implement a solution that empowered caregivers to participate in academic planning. I used the HPT model (Van Tiem et al., 2012) to guide the research, selection, and implementation of interventions. I used the awareness, desire, knowledge, ability, and reinforcement (ADKAR) change management model throughout the HPT model process (Hiatt, 2006; Van Tiem et al., 2012). I collected quantitative data through questionnaires and qualitative insights through focus groups and interviews. Stakeholders included caregivers, teachers, and academic leaders in the organization under study. The central research question of this study was the following: What method effectively enhances caregivers’ comprehension of their child’s present level in the SAR? This central question included four research subquestions (RQs): RQ1: What are the primary performance gaps between current and desired performance levels? RQ2: What are the leading causes of performance gaps in the organization, such as engaging parents in students’ present level of performance? RQ3: What types of interventions are most effective in closing the performance gaps? RQ4: How can the effectiveness of the performance improvement interventions be measured? I used Rothwell’s (2005) six cell gap analysis model to identify gaps between the desired state and current reality of the organization. I used the behavior engineering model and fishbone diagram to identify root causes (Binder, 1998; Watkins et al., 2012). Then, I collaborated with the leadership team to select an intervention aligned with organizational goals and caregiver needs. The intervention was an electronic job aid for SAR communication that outlined the roles, responsibilities, and timelines of the process. I followed Van Tiem et al.’s (2012) intervention selection process, which included three phases: preliminary, survey, and selection. The district-level leadership team brainstormed and prioritized interventions, choosing a strategy that combined instructional and noninstructional elements. The district-level leadership team emphasized family friendly language and multiple communication formats to reduce jargon and increase accessibility. I used surveys and focus groups to gather information to evaluate the intervention. I assessed information sharing, communication, and organizational impact. Teachers provided survey feedback, and leaders shared information through a focus group. The evaluation through formative and summative feedback helped refine the tools and ensure alignment with the objectives. By implementing the HPT model (Van Tiem et al., 2012) to address the problem of practice, the organization improved how it communicated student data to caregivers and teachers. By bridging gaps between actual and desired performance, the intervention enabled caregivers to make informed academic decisions while equipping teachers to support student progress. This work highlighted the importance of strategic, intentional efforts to engage caregivers, especially in settings serving students with disabilities.

Engaging Caregivers in Academic Decision Making Through Progress Monitoring Data

Metrics

Abstract

Files and links (1)

Details

Engaging Caregivers in Academic Decision Making Through Progress Monitoring Data

Metrics

Abstract

Files and links (1)

Details

University of West Florida Social media