This past week I had the pleasure and honor of speaking to a number of state representatives who are deeply invested in the education of Ohio’s youth. In large part, I was asked to provide these legislators with an update on the research I have been conducting in schools throughout Ohio. My special emphasis has been on what many people call “non-academic barriers to learning,” which includes the impact that families, peers, and other social and emotional factors have on educational outcomes. I will mention two of the most important recent findings from my research efforts here.

First, these non-academic barriers to learning are the most important predictors of credit accumulation for high school-aged youth, and especially for those students who are at risk for dropping out of school. This is an extremely important finding because credit accumulation is a powerful predictor of whether or not a student passes their Ohio Graduation Tests (OGTs).

Second, for middle school aged-youth, these non-academic barriers to learning are strong predictors of many educational factors such as disruptive behavior in the classroom, absenteeism and other threats to academic progress, and learning difficulties. Again, this is another finding of great consequence because these educational factors, in combination with the non-academic barriers, are dominant predictors of Ohio Achievement Test (OAT) scores.

Although I was asked to provide information about my research efforts on families and schools, I also knew that I had to develop some key “takeaway points” that would help these legislators use this information. To keep things brief, I pointed out first that non-academic barriers such as mental health issues, associations with delinquent peers, and gang activity fall outside the purview of schools, and thus require the assistance of partners in the community. While schools can and should seek out these partners, such efforts are not the primary responsibility of the schools. However, because school personnel have immediate access to families, I asserted that giving families a more central role in the educational process can become a key method for schools to increase the academic potential of their students.

I am both hopeful and apprehensive about the reactions that I witnessed from our legislators on this key takeaway point. On the one hand, it was clear to me that these lawmakers did understand the significant role that families play in educational outcomes. On the other hand, it seems as if the dominant message getting to these legislators is that schools face too many obstacles in working with families. As a result, these state representatives seemed more than a bit uncertain about how to proceed.

So I believe that we are left with two related challenges here. First, we must provide schools with proven methods for engaging families. In this regard, studies have demonstrated that family engagement by the schools must be seen as a multi-layered effort that meets family members where they are, instead of expecting families to conform to a predetermined way of having contact with schools. And when these engagement efforts are primarily strength-based in orientation, they will reach a much greater number of families and with more successful results. All too often, and with the best of intentions, school-based efforts to provide help to families have been primarily “problem-focused.” As a result, the numbers of intervention-based professionals in the schools have risen rather dramatically over the years. And yet, is there a school anywhere that can say they really have enough of these professionals to do all of the work on the problems that are identified? The move to a more strength-based focus would allow intervention specialists to re-focus their attention on one of the biggest obstacles of all: the lack of connectedness between schools and families.

Second, we must urge our state representatives to provide increased support for the role that families should be playing in the educational process. In doing so, we should underscore our desire to see these kinds of strength-based efforts become part of what schools are expected to do for families and with families. What does this mean for Ohio? I have some ideas that are strongly supported by evidence from both studies I have conducted and family-based programs I have developed and implemented. I know that others have similar kinds of data and experiences. Legislators simply need to ask for this kind of expertise, and it will appear willingly. And what does this mean for other parts of the United States? Largely you are asking for the same thing, but under a different legislative code, of course. Request that your lawmaker find out more about family engagement activities that are strength-based, and leave the rest to your representatives.

Marilyn von Savant (of “Ask Marilyn” fame) has been quoted as saying that “success is achieved by developing our strengths, not by eliminating our weaknesses.” Truer words have never been spoken! And in this day and age of limited resources, we may help all of our lawmakers begin to position education professionals to more effectively utilize the shrinking public dollars that are made available to support our schools. This is a difference that can really make a difference, for our schools, for our tax dollars and, most importantly, for our youth.