Family, school and community partnership frameworks in the United States continue to evolve (Evans, 2015). In 2014 the Department of Education released the Dual Capacity Building Framework at the National Family Engagement Conference in Cincinnati, Ohio. In contrast to previous federal policies related to family engagement that were more prescriptive in nature (Rogers, 2006), this new framework was more focused on the conditions that are necessary for effective family engagement. In recognition of the complex and often tenuous relationship between schools and families the framework argues that programs and policies, “must focus on building the capacities of both staff and families to engage in partnerships” (Mapp & Kutter, 2014, p. 12). The new framework is notable in its recognition of mutual accountability and its shift from service-oriented practices to authentic partnership work (Anderson, 2009). It also recognizes that the ability to effectively participate in partnership work is not an inherent skill for most teachers or families. The framework describes four components of an individual’s capacity for partnership work that must be developed: capabilities, connections, cognition, and confidence. Recently, a model for family capacity building referred to as “Parent Universities” has emerged in the United States. The parent university model is distinct from traditional parent education efforts in that the families have agency in determining what types of knowledge they need in order to help their children succeed. The success of early parent university initiatives in cities like Boston and Philadelphia (where thousands of families have participated in classes and workshops) has resulted in new iterations of these programs across the country. There are now an estimated 160 parent universities in the United States (Harvard Family Involvement Network of Educators, 2015). Using an explanatory mixed-method design (Quantitative and Qualitative methods) our research is focused on variations within parent universities with regard to organizational structures, processes and objectives (Creswell, Plano Clark, et al., 2003). Drawing from a national quantitative survey (n=42) representing the first stage of our research we present findings related to demographic participation, curriculum development and organization of parent universities. Findings indicate that there is a desire for family development opportunities that focus on both skills for supporting student success and capacity building related to partnership with school and districts. Implications and recommendations for teacher preparation curricula based on these findings are discussed.

Anderson, G.L. 2009. Advocacy leadership: Toward a post-reform agenda in education. New York, NY: Routledge. Creswell, J. W., Plano Clark, V. L., Gutmann, M. L., & Hanson, W. E. 2003. Advanced mixed methods research designs. Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research, 209-240. Evans, M. P. 2015. The power and potential of community-based educational change. In M. P. Evans & D. Hiatt-Michaels (Eds.). Promising Practices for Community-Based Educational Change. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, 11-17. Mapp, K. L. & Kutter, P. J. 2014. Partners in education: A dual capacity building framework for family-school partnerships. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Rogers, J. 2006. Forces of accountability? The power of poor parents in NCLB. Harvard Education Review, 76(4), 611-641.