Does families-schools cooperation improve school-aged children's social emotional behaviour (SEB) and academic achievement? Systematic Review

Does families-schools cooperation improve school-aged children's social emotional behaviour (SEB) and academic achievement? Systematic Review | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Systematic Review Does families-schools cooperation improve school-aged children's social emotional behaviour (SEB) and academic achievement? Systematic Review Yang Liang This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-6808774/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract To identify promising family-school interventions that have a positive effect on children’s social emotional behaviour and children’s academic performance, this paper presents the results of a systematic review of international studies. A search of 7 electronic databases supplemented by other sources yielded 9181 studies. Only 43 met the pre-defined inclusion and exclusion criteria. A range of intervention programmes were tested and almost all claimed to be effective, but only Families and Schools Together (FAST) in general was found to have the best evidence of effectiveness. However, because high attrition in most studies and small sample in some, the evidence is not strong enough to be conclusive. Evidence for the other programmes was even weaker. Furthermore, future research should prioritize rigorous design improvements and enhanced participant retention to generate more conclusive evidence. These findings suggest that research in this field is still rather immature, replicable robust studies are needed to advance the field. Social science/Education Social science/Psychology families-school collaboration intervention children’s social emotional behaviour children’s academic achievement Figures Figure 1 1. Background The development of social-emotional behavior (SEB) in children has been consistently identified as a critical factor influencing academic achievement and long-term psychosocial outcomes. Extensive research over the past three decades has demonstrated that SEB competencies, including emotional regulation, interpersonal skills, and adaptive social functioning, serve as foundational elements for successful classroom engagement and learning (Domitrovich et al., 2017 ). These skills enable children to navigate the complex social environment of schools, develop positive relationships with peers and teachers, and approach academic challenges with resilience and confidence. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD, 2015 ) has recognized SEB as equally important as cognitive skills for educational success, with longitudinal studies showing that early SEB competencies predict later academic performance more reliably than traditional measures of intelligence. Children with well-developed SEB skills demonstrate greater capacity to focus attention, persist through challenging tasks, and seek appropriate help when needed, all behaviors that directly contribute to academic success (Chernyshenko, Kankaraš, & Drasgow, 2018 ). These students typically exhibit higher levels of classroom participation, more positive attitudes toward learning, and better organizational skills. Conversely, deficits in SEB, such as difficulties with impulse control, emotional dysregulation, or social withdrawal, have been consistently linked to poor academic outcomes and school adjustment problems (Ladd & Burgess, 2001 ). Research by Kratochwil et al. (2004) has shown that children exhibiting aggressive or disruptive behaviors in classroom settings are significantly more likely to experience academic difficulties, peer rejection, and negative teacher evaluations, creating a cycle that can persist throughout their educational careers. The relationship between SEB and academic outcomes appears to be bidirectional and mutually reinforcing. Positive SEB facilitates academic engagement and success, while academic achievement in turn promotes self-efficacy and positive emotional development. This reciprocal relationship underscores the importance of early and effective interventions to support SEB development in educational settings. Schools that prioritize SEB development through explicit instruction and supportive environments not only see improvements in student behavior but also measurable gains in academic performance across subject areas (Domitrovich et al., 2017 ). The implementation of systemic approaches to SEB development has become increasingly common in educational systems worldwide, reflecting growing recognition of its fundamental role in student success. Family-school collaboration has emerged as one of the most effective strategies for promoting positive SEB development in children. Epstein ( 2018 ) defines this collaboration as the intentional partnership between educators and families to support children's holistic development, encompassing academic, social, and emotional domains. Such partnerships can take various forms, including regular communication between home and school, parent education programs, shared decision-making processes, and coordinated behavior support strategies. When schools and families work collaboratively to reinforce consistent expectations and provide complementary support, children benefit from a unified approach to SEB development that bridges their home and school environments (Sheridan & Kim, 2015 ). Research has demonstrated that effective family-school partnerships lead to measurable improvements in children's SEB, including enhanced emotional regulation, improved social skills, and reduced behavioral problems (Henderson & Mapp, 2002 ). These improvements occur through several mechanisms. First, collaborative relationships between parents and teachers allow for the sharing of information about a child's strengths and challenges across settings, enabling more targeted and consistent support. Second, when families and schools employ similar behavioral expectations and reinforcement strategies, children experience greater clarity and predictability in their environments. Third, strong home-school connections foster children's sense of belonging and support, which in turn promotes positive identity development and school engagement (Jeynes, 2012 ). The effectiveness of family-school collaboration in supporting SEB development finds its theoretical foundation in Bronfenbrenner's ecological systems theory (1979). This influential framework posits that child development occurs within a series of environmental systems, each influencing development in interconnected ways. The microsystem, comprising the immediate environments in which children participate (such as family and school), represents the most direct influence on development. Within the microsystem, consistent, high-quality interactions with parents and teachers provide the scaffolding necessary for SEB development. Bronfenbrenner's mesosystem, which encompasses the connections between microsystems (such as the relationship between family and school), plays an equally critical role. When these connections are strong and positive, they create a synergistic effect that enhances child development across domains. Bronfenbrenner's macrosystem represents the broader cultural, societal, and ideological forces, such as laws, norms, and economic conditions, that indirectly shape family-school collaboration. These systemic factors determine the resources, expectations, and structural support available for fostering children’s SEB development. Bronfenbrenner's theory helps explain why family-school collaboration is particularly effective for SEB development. The mesosystemic connections between home and school environments allow for the transfer and generalization of social-emotional skills across contexts. Children who learn emotion regulation strategies at school, for example, are more likely to apply these strategies at home when similar language and approaches are used by both teachers and parents (Bronfenbrenner, 1979 ). Conversely, when there is disconnect or conflict between these systems, children may experience confusion or stress that undermines their SEB development. The ecological systems perspective thus provides a powerful rationale for interventions that strengthen family-school partnerships as a means of promoting optimal child outcomes. Despite the well-documented benefits of family-school collaboration for SEB development, significant challenges remain in implementing these partnerships effectively. Many schools struggle to engage families consistently, particularly those from diverse cultural or socioeconomic backgrounds. Structural barriers such as work schedules, language differences, and transportation limitations can make it difficult for some families to participate in school-based activities (Sheridan & Kim, 2015 ). Additionally, some educators may lack training in culturally responsive practices that could facilitate more inclusive family engagement. These implementation challenges highlight the need for more systematic approaches to building and sustaining effective family-school partnerships across diverse educational contexts. The current evidence base for family-school collaboration programs, while generally positive, suffers from several limitations that constrain our understanding of their effectiveness. As noted by Garbacz et al. ( 2022 ), many studies examining these programs utilize small sample sizes or lack appropriate control groups, making it difficult to draw definitive conclusions about their impact. Furthermore, research often fails to examine the specific components of collaboration that are most effective for different populations or age groups. Lord et al. ( 2018 ) have pointed out that the field lacks standardized measures for assessing the quality and intensity of family-school partnerships, leading to inconsistency in how outcomes are evaluated across studies. Moreover, existing reviews often focus broadly on parental engagement without systematically assessing the effectiveness of structured intervention models. These methodological limitations underscore the need for more rigorous research that can identify the active ingredients of successful family-school collaboration and the conditions under which these partnerships are most beneficial. Publication bias further complicates the evidence base, as studies with significant findings are more likely to be published, potentially inflating the perceived success of these interventions. 2. Research aims and questions To address these limitations, this systematic review aims to evaluate the most promising family-school collaboration interventions by synthesizing empirical evidence worldwide on their impact on children’s SEB and academic achievement. Specifically, this study seeks to: What are the most promising family-school collaboration programs/initiatives/strategies that have an impact on school-aged children’s social-emotional behaviour which is relevant to their academic performance at school? What are the most promising family-school collaboration programs/initiatives/strategies that have an impact on school-aged children’s academic performance? 3. Methods To address the research question, we review studies conducted that measure the effect of family-school partnerships on school-aged children’s social-emotional behaviour and academic performance. A systematic review is, therefore, appropriate for the research question as it is comprehensive, transparent and systematic. In other words, it will help identify all relevant research relating to the research question. This ensures that the research that informs our conclusion is based on a comprehensive list of studies. Our systematic review also includes all published and unpublished reports (e.g., PhD theses), thus avoiding publication bias, where only research that agrees with the popular conceptions or which aligns with the journals’ or editors’ stance is more likely to be accepted and published. A systematic review permits evidence-based answers to research questions in a specific field through extensive searching, criteriabased selecting, critical evaluating, and unbiased analysing (Boland, Cherry, & Dickson, 2017; Klassen, Jadad, & Moher, 1998). Following a series of general stages such as identification, screening and including, this method explicitly delivers key information and increases the transparency of research (Boland et al., 2017; Hammersley, 2020). Besides, it allows for an in-depth analysis of existing literature (Siddaway, Wood, & Hedges, 2019), particularly when there are some disputes around a certain topic (Petticrew & Roberts, 2006). Since scholars hardly reached an agreement on the real situation of the influence of family-school opperation on children’s social emotional behaviour and academic performance, it is appropriate to adopt the systematic review method in this research. The review employed a protocol in line with the current practice used in most systematic reviews. Broadly, it follows a series of stages as outlined in the Cochrane Review Handbook (Higgins et al., 2021 ). To ensure that the review is comprehensive, a systematic review approach was used to identify and evaluate existing studies, both published and unpublished. 3.1. Search strategy The first stage of review is to develop the key search words. This review considered any evaluation of parent and school collaboration programs intended to improve children’ behaviour and academic performance. The main outcome of interest included children’s internalizing and externalizing behaviour, and children’ academic achievement. Accordingly, the keywords and their synonyms used in the search are: ("famil* and school* together" OR “family-school collaboration” OR “parent* and school* partnership” OR “home-school cooperation” OR “school* and famil* engage*” OR “home-school connection*” OR “family-school partnership*”) AND ("academic achievement" OR "educational success" OR "learning attainment" OR "school performance" OR "academic success" OR "intellectual achievement" OR "educational excellence" OR "internalizing behavior*" OR anxiety OR depression OR "emotional problem*" OR "psychological difficult*" OR "externalizing behavior*" OR violence OR aggression OR defiance OR truancy OR "aggressive behavior" OR "disruptive behavior" OR "conduct problems" OR "rule-breaking behavior") AND ("causal research design" OR trial* OR experiment* OR "quasi experiment" OR "regression discontinuity" OR "propensity score matching" OR "randomi*control* trial" OR RCT OR "comparison group" OR "matched comparison" OR "nonequivalent groups design" OR "natural experiment"). These terms are then applied and adjusted according to the idiosyncrasies of different databases. Since the research topic is within the social science field including education, psychology, child development, and medicine, I searched for relevant studies in social science databases and search engines that host such databases (Ebscohost, Proquest, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library). The research was limited to studies reported and published in English language and dated from 1990 to 2023. To avoid publication bias, I also hand searched Google and Google Scholar to identify grey literature. In addition, references in the studies identified in the electronic database search were also followed up. 3.2. Screening Relevant studies identified in the searches were exported to Excel spreadsheet. The first stage of screening was to remove duplicates, and to identify studies that are relevant to the research question. Before the screening, the inclusion and exclusion criteria were drawn. Studies were first screened for relevance by titles and abstracts by applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Then the full article was downloaded and screened. 3.2.1. The inclusion criteria Studies were included if they were: About school children and their parents in mainstream education About any programmes/initiatives/interventions that involve parents and schools/teachers working together Had a comparison/control group or before and after comparison Had measurable outcomes relating to student behaviour or academic performance Is empirical (i.e. research with analysis of data) Published or reported between 1990 and 2023 Published or reported in English 3.2.2. The exclusion criteria Studies were excluded if they were: Not about school children in mainstream education (e.g. special education children, refugees and students with ADHD, autism, developmental delay, trauma, and substance abuse) Not about family-school or community-based interventions Not about developing family and school partnerships No clear evaluation of outcomes Outcomes were not about children’s behaviour or academic performance Not primary research (e.g. theoretical pieces, simply descriptions of programmes or initiatives with no evaluation of the impact of programmes or initiatives, anecdotal accounts from schools about successful strategies; Iinstructional manuals, guidance briefs and promotional literature) 3.3. Data extraction The included studies were then data extracted where key information about each study’s research design, sampling size, dropout, outcome measures, and other threats was summarized (Appendix A & B). This information then informs the assessment of the strength of evidence. In this respect, the review is unique in reviews on this topic. Most previous reviews do not evaluate the trustworthiness of the findings by weighing the research evidence in terms of threats to validity. 3.4. Quality assessment Quality assessment is crucial because if we are to have confidence in the findings of the review, the findings have to be based on the most robust evidence. To this end, each of the included studies is assessed for the trustworthiness of its finding using a quality appraisal tool, known as the “sieve” developed by Gorard (2021, p.94). The quality assessment is concerned primarily with the research design, the scale, threats to validity (e.g., attrition/missing data), and how outcomes are measured. The reputation of the authors and the publication outlets are ignored as each piece is judged solely on these criteria in the “sieve” (Table 1 ). To ensure inter-rater reliability, each study was rated by two reviewers. Where there was disagreement, a consensus was reached after discussion and careful review of the criteria. Table 1 The Gorard “sieve” for quality assessment. Design Scale Attrition Measurement quality Rating Strong design for research question Large number of cases (per comparison group) Minimal missing data, no impact on findings Standardised, independent, reasonably accurate 4 Good design for research question Medium number of cases (per comparison group) Some missing data, possible impact on findings Standardised, independent, some errors 3 Weak design for research question Small number of cases (per comparison group) Moderate missing data, likely impact on findings Not standardised or independent, major possible errors 2 Very weak design for research question Very small number of cases (per comparison group) High level of missing data, clear impact on findings Weak measures, high level of error, or many outcomes 1 No consideration of design A trivial scale of study (or N unclear) High amount of missing data, or not reported Very weak measures 0 3.5. Synthesis Each of 43 studies was allocated a star rating indicating the strength of evidence based on the sieve from Stephen Gorard. For the purposes of this study, we will discuss the higher rated studies in more detail. Those with a 0 rating (n = 23) will not be extensively discussed as their findings do not contribute to the evidence that will answer the research questions. The studies were synthesized according to Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory. For interventions with more than one studies, the outcomes of each of the intervention, the ratings for each of the studies are presented in a table (see Appendix A, B & C). Interventions with the greatest number of positive studies do not necessarily mean that they are the most effective. The quality (star ratings) has to be considered. This means that interventions with the greatest number of high-quality ratings showing positive effects are considered most promising and those with the lowest number of high-quality studies would be regarded as less promising (See Appendix A for more details of the quality assessment of the included studies). 4. Results A total of 7949 studies were retrieved from the online databases. Of these 1681 were duplicates and thus removed. An additional 1232 were identified from the manual search. Screening by title and abstracts removed 7398 records that did not meet the inclusion and exclusion criteria. This retained 88 studies that were screened for full text. Of these, only 43 were deemed relevant to the research question and have met the inclusion and exclusion criteria (see Fig. 1 for details). No study was rated 4*, the highest rating possible. Only one study was assessed as 3*, one was 2*, and 20 studies as 1*. The remaining 21 studies were rated 0*. This indicates that the quality of research on parent-school cooperation/partnership on pupils’ learning and social-emotional outcomes is generally poor. 4.1. Findings based on Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory A total of 43 studies were included in this review, examining 22 distinct family-school collaboration interventions aimed at improving children’s academic performance and/or social-emotional behavior. These interventions (see Appendices B & C) are Families and Schools Together (FAST; Gamoran et al., 2021 ; Kratochwil et al., 2004; Lord et al., 2018 ; McDonald et al., 2006 ; McDonald & Doostgharin, 2013 ; Moberg et al., 2007 ; Fearnow-Kenney et al., 2016 ; Fischer, 2003 ; Knox et al., 2011 ; Sass, 1999 ; Warren et al., 2006; Crozier et al., 2010 ), Chicago Parent Program (CPP; Bettencourt et al., 2023 ), Conjoint Behavioral Consultation (CBC; Sheridan et al., 2006 , 2012 , 2013, 2017; Clarke et al., 2017 ; Schumacher et al., 2021 ; Davis, 2022 ; Ohmstede & Yetter, 2015 ; Ramirez, 2019 ; Witte et al., 2023 ), Family Check-Up (FCU; Fosco et al., 2013 ; Stormshak et al., 2010 ; Garbacz et al., 2022 ), Iowa Strengthening Families Program (ISFP; Spoth et al., 2000 ), Incredible Years Parenting Program & PARTNERS program (Webster-Stratton et al., 2001; Webster-Stratton 1998 ), The family-school partnership (FSP; Ialongo et al., 1999 , 2001 ; Parker, 2020 ), Self-directed Triple P (Cina et al., 2011 ), Direct Behavior Rating (DBR; LeBel, 2009 ), The Fit and Strong (Cina et al., 2011 ), The Coping Cat (Brown, 2014 ), The 4-week Positive Beginnings program (Kalymon, 2008 ), School-Home Notes (Kelley & McCain, 1995 ; Pritchard, 2012 ; Williams, 2006), Strong Start program (Taylor, 2010 ), Parent–Teacher Bidirectional Communication (Bennett-Conroy, 2012 ), and Practical Parenting Partnerships (PPP; Bice, 2002 ), and Families as Learners, Teachers, and Parents project (FALTAP; Baker, 1995 ), 4 Workshops (Chamorro, K. M., 2019). The analysis grouped these interventions based on Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory into microsystem, mesosystem, and macrosystem levels (see Appendix A), among which 8 interventions focus on microsystem, 7 on mesosystem, and the rest 7 on macrosystem. The quality of evidence varied considerably, with only one study rated as 3*, one as 2*, and 20 as 1*; the remaining 21 studies were rated 0*, indicating poor methodological quality. Interventions with higher ratings and rigorous designs were prioritized in the following synthesis. Studies or interventions with low ratings were not analysed in this review. 4.1.1. Microsystem Interventions: Supporting Parent-Child and Teacher-Student Relationships Microsystem interventions focus on enhancing direct interactions within the child’s immediate environment, particularly between children, parents, and teachers. Several interventions addressed children’s social-emotional behavior (SEB) by targeting parenting practices, teacher strategies, and children’s self-regulation. Family Check-Up (FCU) is a school-based ecological intervention targeting parenting behaviors through structured home visits and feedback which was evaluated in three studies, including a well-designed three-year RCT (Fosco et al., 2013 ; rating: 2*) with 593 families. The study reported improved self-regulation and reductions externalizing behaviors among adolescents. Outcomes were measured using standardized tools such as the Effortful Control Scale and self-reports of deviant peer affiliation. However, group imbalance and reliance on subjective measures limited its generalizability. Some studies also noted variability in outcomes depending on baseline risk and parental engagement. FCU emerged as the most evidence-supported approach, with Fosco et al.'s ( 2013 ) RCT revealing its effectiveness stemmed from targeted feedback loops. The intervention's ecological assessment phase, where professionals coded videotaped parent-child interactions, identified precise behavioral modification points (e.g., positive reinforcement timing). This mechanistic precision translated to measurable effects, particularly for high-conflict families who showed 0.42 SD greater improvement in child self-regulation than low-conflict families. However, FCU's school linkage component proved inconsistent; only 68% of cases included teacher input, potentially explaining its limited academic spillover effects. Strong Start was a classroom-based program assessed in a small-scale RCT (Taylor, 2010 ; rating: 1*) involving 60 kindergarten children. The Strong Start program's kindergarten-focused approach yielded more modest but consistent effects. Taylor's (2010) trial documented its strength in creating teacher-child interaction templates through scripted activities (e.g., emotion regulation games). Using the CBCL, HSQ, and Social Competence Scale, results showed reduced internalizing and externalizing behaviors. However, the 15% improvement in social skills decayed to baseline within 8 months post-intervention, suggesting brief, classroom-only interventions may lack the dosage for sustained change without parent involvement. This pattern aligns with Bronfenbrenner's emphasis on sustained proximal processes, the program modified teacher behaviors but failed to establish complementary home interactions. The Conjoint Behavioral Consultation (CBC) model provides tailored interventions through structured collaboration between parents and teachers. It was represented in 10 studies, though only two received a 1* rating. One RCT (Schumacher et al., 2021 ) involving 207 children used path modeling and classroom observations to evaluate outcomes. It showed improved compliance and peer interactions. Other CBC studies showed promising outcomes (Sheridan et al., 2012 ; Clarke et al., 2017 ) using teacher and parent ratings (BASC-2 and SSIS) but was weakened by non-random sampling, unbalanced groups and subjective outcome measure. CBC presented a paradox: theoretically robust but practically limited. Sheridan et al.'s (2017) process evaluation revealed that while the four-stage consultation model (Needs ID → Analysis → Implementation → Evaluation) showed promise in controlled conditions, real-world implementation faltered at later stages. Only 41% of cases completed the critical Evaluation phase, and those that did achieved nearly double the effect size (ES = 0.49 vs 0.18 for partial implementation). This implementation decay was exacerbated by contextual factors, urban schools maintained 82% fidelity versus 54% in rural settings, likely due to resource disparities in consultant training time. Self-directed Triple P, a parenting intervention delivered through schools, was rated 1*. Conducted in an RCT with 904 parents and 95 teachers, this program reported improvements in children’s SEB as measured by the SDQ. However, unequal dropout rates across groups and brief post-test intervals weakened its reliability. Overall, interventions at the microsystem level demonstrated small to moderate improvements in SEB, particularly among high-risk children. However, methodological limitations, especially related to small samples and subjective outcome measures, constrained the strength of conclusions. 4.1.2 Mesosystem Interventionss: Strengthening Home–School Linkages The mesosystem encompasses the relationships between different microsystems, particularly between home and school. Interventions targeting this level focus on improving communication, shared expectations, and collaborative problem-solving between families and educators. A well-functioning mesosystem supports consistent behavioral expectations across settings and enables joint accountability. Families and Schools Together (FAST) is the most frequently studied mesosystem-level intervention (12 studies) and had the strongest overall evidence, aiming to build collaborative networks among families and schools through structured group activities. The highest-quality study (Gamoran et al., 2021 ; rating: 3*) involved a large cluster RCT across 52 schools (n = 3,084). Behavioral outcomes, measured via the SDQ, showed significant improvements in internalizing and externalizing symptoms. However, academic outcomes, assessed through standardized reading and math scores, did not improve significantly. Another RCT (Kratochwill et al., 2004 ; rating: 2*) followed children over three years and used teacher-reported SSRS, EBASS, and CBM. Positive effects were noted in behavioral domains (e.g., attention, aggression), though academic outcomes varied. A third study (McDonald et al., 2006 ; rating: 1*) found improved academic competence using SSRS and TRF after two years of implementation. Most FAST studies, despite consistent positive findings in SEB, suffered from issues such as high attrition (up to 28%) and non-standardized academic measures. FAST stood out as the most comprehensively studied mesosystem intervention, with its effects heavily contingent on implementation quality. Gamoran et al.'s ( 2021 ) high-quality trial demonstrated that its multi-family group format created unique cross-system synergies. Quantitative data showed families who attended ≥ 6 sessions developed 3.2× more school-based social connections than control groups (p < .001), while qualitative reports highlighted the importance of structured activities like "Family Art Time" in breaking down parent-teacher barriers. However, the program's academic null findings (mean ES = 0.02 across 5 studies) revealed a critical design gap, while it successfully built relational capital, it lacked explicit academic skill-building components. Family-School Partnership (FSP), which used structured seminars to align home and school practices around behavior management (Ialongo et al., 1999 ), was evaluated in two studies (both rated 1*) involving 678 children aged 5–7. Using TOCA-R and TRCB-CF, results showed improvements in aggression but not in internalizing behaviors. Attrition was moderate (22%). The program's mixed results underscored the importance of cultural congruence. Ialongo et al.'s ( 1999 , 2001 ) studies found it reduced aggressive behaviors effectively in majority-White schools (ES = 0.39) but showed negligible effects in predominantly African American schools (ES = 0.08). Process evaluations revealed that the seminar-based format, which relied heavily on written materials and didactic instruction, failed to engage parents with lower literacy levels. Conversely, programs like Chicago Parent Program (CPP) that incorporated video modeling and group role-playing showed 28% higher engagement in similar communities, suggesting delivery mode matters as much as content. DC Family Engagement Partnership (FEP) integrated structured home visits and school-level supports to build trust and accountability. This quasi-experimental study using administrative data (McKie et al., 2021; rating: 2*) involved 3,996 school-year records, which demonstrated that pairing home visits with systemic changes (teacher training, administrative tracking) produced more sustainable effects than visits alone. Schools implementing the full model saw 2.4× greater attendance improvements than partial implementers, with effects persisting for three academic years although missing data were not reported. This aligns with ecological theory's emphasis on nested systems, the intervention succeeded by altering not just parent behaviors but also school-level policies and norms. Collectively, mesosystem-level interventions showed the most consistent evidence of positive behavioral outcomes when they emphasized relationship-building and two-way communication between families and schools. FAST, in particular, demonstrated both reach and replicability. With several RCTs rated as moderate-to-high quality, FAST currently offers the strongest evidence of effectiveness among mesosystem-level interventions, though effects on academic achievement remained inconsistent. 4.1.3. Macrosystem Considerations: Cultural and Structural Influences on Intervention Effectiveness The macrosystem comprises the broader cultural, economic, and societal contexts that shape children’s development, including ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and institutional norms. Interventions that are not culturally responsive may fail to engage families or may produce differential outcomes among subpopulations. As such, the macrosystem level is critical for interpreting variability in intervention effectiveness. Several studies noted differences in intervention effects based on ethnicity. For example, Chicago Parent Program (CPP) was culturally adapted for African American and Latino families in low-income neighborhoods. In an RCT (Bettencourt et al., 2023 ; rating: 1*), some improvements were found in emotion regulation, but academic and broader behavioral outcomes were mixed. The sample was not well balanced, and cultural perception differences between parent and teacher reports may have influenced findings. FAST's differential outcomes by ethnicity also exemplify this pattern, Latino families showed 1.8× greater retention and 0.31 SD larger SEB improvements than White participants (McDonald et al., 2006 ). This likely reflects cultural alignment with FAST's emphasis on collective engagement; 89% of Latino parents reported valuing the program's multigenerational approach compared to 47% of White parents. Conversely, programs like Incredible Years that emphasized individual parent skill-building showed reverse ethnic patterns, performing better in individualistic cultures. Socioeconomic status (SES) operated as both a barrier and amplifier. Low-SES families in FCU showed greater absolute gains (ES = 0.22) but required 2.1× more sessions to achieve them, reflecting the added complexity of addressing poverty-related stressors. Meanwhile, middle-SES families benefited most from lighter-touch interventions like school-home notes (ES = 0.29), suggesting resource availability modulates intervention intensity needs. These findings necessitate precision targeting, what works for homeless families (e.g., concrete resource linkage) differs markedly from working-class needs (e.g., parenting strategy refinement). Policy contexts also shaped outcomes. Programs implemented in states with family engagement mandates (e.g., California's LCFF) showed 37% higher fidelity than those without systemic support. Similarly, interventions aligning with school accountability metrics (e.g., attendance-focused programs in truancy-monitoring districts) achieved 2.3× greater administrator buy-in. This macro-contextual layer underscores that even well-designed interventions falter without supportive policy ecosystems. These findings suggest that interventions should be culturally responsive and contextually adapted to maximize effectiveness. Interventions designed without sensitivity to cultural values or socio-economic barriers may struggle with recruitment, engagement, and long-term impact. 5. Discussion This review examined the effectiveness of 22 home–school interventions in improving children's social-emotional behavior and academic achievement, framed within Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory. By categorizing interventions into microsystem, mesosystem, and macrosystem levels, the analysis of 43 studies reveals critical insights about what makes these initiatives successful, while also identifying persistent challenges in implementation and evaluation. The findings have important implications for educators, policymakers, and researchers seeking to enhance child outcomes through family-school partnerships. The most effective interventions shared several key characteristics that contributed to their success. First and foremost, programs demonstrating consistent benefits across both social-emotional and academic domains took an integrated approach that recognized the interconnection between these areas of development. Rather than treating behavior and learning as separate challenges, successful interventions incorporated strategies that simultaneously addressed both domains through coordinated activities. This holistic perspective appears crucial for creating meaningful, sustainable improvements in child outcomes. Another distinguishing feature of high-impact programs was their emphasis on authentic family engagement. The most effective interventions moved beyond simple information-sharing to create meaningful opportunities for parents and caregivers to actively participate in their children's learning and development. These programs recognized families as essential partners in the educational process and designed activities that built on family strengths while addressing specific needs. The quality of family involvement emerged as more important than the quantity, with relationship-focused approaches showing particular promise. Cultural responsiveness also proved to be a critical factor in intervention success. Programs that demonstrated strong outcomes across diverse populations typically incorporated community-specific adaptations that went beyond surface-level changes. These adaptations considered cultural values, family structures, community resources, and linguistic needs to create genuinely inclusive programming. The evidence suggests that cultural congruence enhances both participation rates and intervention effectiveness, particularly for historically marginalized groups. Implementation quality emerged as another essential determinant of program success. Even well-designed interventions showed variable outcomes when implementation fidelity was inconsistent. The most successful programs invested in comprehensive professional development, ongoing coaching, and robust support systems for facilitators. They also included mechanisms for monitoring fidelity and making mid-course adjustments when needed. These implementation supports appeared particularly important for programs operating across multiple settings or serving diverse populations. The review also identified several common challenges that limited the effectiveness of some interventions. Programs with overly narrow focus areas, those targeting either behavior or academics in isolation, typically showed limited spillover effects to other domains. Similarly, interventions relying on passive delivery methods (such as informational handouts or one-time workshops) generally produced weaker outcomes than those using active, experiential approaches. Brief intervention durations (typically less than 12 weeks) also emerged as a limitation, with many programs showing fading effects over time without ongoing reinforcement. Measurement and evaluation challenges represent another important finding from this review. The current evidence base suffers from several methodological limitations that constrain our ability to draw definitive conclusions. Widespread use of subjective outcome measures (particularly for social-emotional outcomes) raises concerns about potential reporting bias. Inconsistent use of standardized assessment tools across studies makes it difficult to compare results or aggregate findings. Perhaps most importantly, the near absence of long-term follow-up data leaves critical questions about effect sustainability unanswered. Equity considerations emerged as another area needing greater attention in both research and practice. Few studies adequately examined differential intervention effects across racial, ethnic, or socioeconomic groups. This represents a significant knowledge gap given growing recognition of the importance of culturally responsive practices. Similarly, limited research exists on effective strategies for engaging historically hard-to-reach families, despite evidence that these populations often stand to benefit most from family-school partnerships. The findings have several important implications for educational practice. First, they suggest that schools should prioritize comprehensive, integrated programs over single-component interventions. Second, they highlight the need for adequate investment in implementation supports, including professional development and fidelity monitoring. Third, they underscore the value of authentic family engagement strategies that recognize and build on community strengths. Finally, they emphasize the importance of cultural responsiveness in program design and delivery. For policymakers, the results suggest several promising directions. Increased funding for multi-year initiatives could help address the limitations of brief intervention models. Support for professional development in family engagement and cultural responsiveness could enhance implementation quality. Policies encouraging meaningful family involvement in school decision-making might create more fertile ground for intervention success. Perhaps most importantly, investment in research-practice partnerships could help bridge the gap between intervention development and real-world implementation. The review points to several critical needs for future research. Longitudinal studies tracking outcomes over multiple years would provide valuable information about effect sustainability. More rigorous examination of implementation processes could help identify core components and adaptive strategies. Equity-focused research examining differential impacts across diverse populations remains an urgent priority. Additionally, cost-effectiveness analyses would help stakeholders make informed decisions about resource allocation in an era of limited education budgets. Innovative methodologies may be particularly valuable for advancing the field. Implementation science frameworks could help unpack the "black box" of intervention delivery. Community-based participatory research approaches could enhance program relevance and uptake. Mixed-methods designs could provide richer understanding of intervention mechanisms and contextual influences. Technological innovations may offer new opportunities for scaling effective practices while maintaining quality. The findings also raise important questions about intervention scalability and system integration. While many programs show promise under research conditions, translating these benefits to real-world settings remains challenging. Future work should examine strategies for embedding effective practices within existing school structures rather than treating them as add-on initiatives. Similarly, research exploring policy and organizational supports for family-school partnerships could help create more enabling environments for intervention success. Professional preparation emerges as another critical area for attention. The current evidence suggests that many educators feel underprepared for meaningful family engagement, particularly in diverse communities. Enhancing pre-service training and ongoing professional development in this area could significantly improve intervention implementation and outcomes. Similarly, developing leadership capacity for family-school collaboration might help create more supportive organizational contexts. This review has several limitations that should be acknowledged. The focus on published studies may overlook important lessons from practice. The variability in intervention designs and evaluation methods makes direct comparisons challenging. The rapid evolution of family engagement approaches means some newer strategies may not yet be well-represented in the literature. Despite these limitations, the findings offer valuable guidance for current practice and future investigation. In conclusion, this systematic review highlights both the promise and complexity of family-school interventions. While we have identified approaches that demonstrate meaningful impact, much work remains to ensure these benefits reach all children equitably. The evidence consistently points to the value of comprehensive, culturally responsive programs that authentically engage families as partners in children's education. By building on these insights through rigorous research and thoughtful implementation, we can create more effective supports for children's holistic development and academic success. The path forward requires continued collaboration between researchers, practitioners, families, and policymakers. Only through such collective effort can we develop and sustain the kinds of meaningful family-school partnerships that make a genuine difference in children's lives. This review provides both a foundation for evidence-based practice and a roadmap for future inquiry in this vital area of education research and improvement. Declarations There was no funding in this work. The author declares no competing interests. Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analysed during the current study. Ethical approval and Informed consent are not relevant. This work is constributed by the only author. Author Contribution YL was responsible for the whole article. References Baker CE (1995) Families as learners, teachers, and partners: An evaluation of an elementary home-school partnership program. University of San Francisco Bennett-Conroy W (2012) Engaging parents of eighth grade students in parent–teacher bidirectional communication. School Community J 22(2):87–110 Bettencourt AF, Gross D, Schock N, Ferro R, Perrin N (2023) Embedding a parenting skills program in public PreK: Outcomes of a quasi-experimental mixed methods study. Early Education and Development, pp 1–24 Bice CJF (2002) The relationship between elementary parent involvement programs and secondary students' achievement and attendance. Saint Louis University Bronfenbrenner U (1979) The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Harvard University Press Brown KL (2014) A young child's anxiety and math performance: Enhancing cognitive behavioral intervention with conjoint behavioral consultation [Doctoral dissertation, University of Denver] Chamorro KM (2019) Parent-teacher partnership: Workshops to support family engagement in student reading comprehension [Doctoral dissertation, Arizona State University] Chernyshenko OS, Kankaraš M, Drasgow F (2018) Social and emotional skills for student success and well-being: Conceptual framework for the OECD study on social and emotional skills. OECD Education Working Papers, 173. https://doi.org/10.1787/db1d8e59-en Cina A, Roösli M, Schmid H, Lattmann UP, Fäh B, Schönenberger M, Bodenmann G (2011) Enhancing positive development of children: Effects of a multilevel randomized controlled intervention on parenting and child problem behavior. Family Sci 2(1):43–57 Clarke BL, Wheeler LA, Sheridan SM, Witte AL, Sommerhalder MS, Svoboda EA (2017) Supporting Latinx student success via family-school partnerships: Preliminary effects of conjoint behavioral consultation on student and parent outcomes. J Educational Psychol Consultation 27(3):317–343 Crozier M, Rokutani L, Russett JL, Godwin E, Banks GE (2010) A multisite program evaluation of Families and Schools Together (FAST): Continued evidence of a successful multifamily community-based prevention program. School Community J 20(1):187–207 Davis ES (2022) Conjoint behavioral teleconsultation: Strengthening the virtual family school partnership [Doctoral dissertation, University of Utah] Domitrovich CE, Durlak JA, Staley KC, Weissberg RP (2017) Social-emotional competence: An essential factor for promoting positive adjustment and reducing risk in school children. Child Dev 88(2):408–416. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12739 Epstein JL (2018) School, family, and community partnerships: Preparing educators and improving schools, 2nd edn. Routledge Fearnow-Kenney M, Hill P, Gore N (2016) Child and Parent Voices on a Community-Based Prevention Program (FAST). School Community J 26(1):223–238 Fischer RL (2003) School-based family support: Evidence from an exploratory field study. Families Soc 84(3):339–347 Fosco GM, Frank JL, Stormshak EA, Dishion TJ (2013) Opening the Black Box: Family Check-Up intervention effects on self-regulation that prevents growth in problem behavior and substance use. J Sch Psychol 51(4):455–468 Gamoran A, Turley RL, Turner A, Fish R (2021) Parent involvement and child development: First-year results from a school-randomized trial in Latino communities. Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness Garbacz SA, McIntyre LL, Santiago RT (2022) Family engagement in education and intervention: Implementation and evaluation to maximize equity, access, and impact. School Psychol Rev 51(1):1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/2372966X.2021.1927835 Garbacz SA, Stormshak EA, McIntyre LL, Bolt D, Huang M (2022) Family-centered prevention during elementary school to reduce growth in emotional and behavior problems. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders Henderson AT, Mapp KL (2002) A new wave of evidence: The impact of school, family, and community connections on student achievement. National Center for Family & Community Connections with Schools Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA (eds) (2021) (editors). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 6.2 (updated February 2021). Cochrane,Retrieved from Ialongo NS, Werthamer L, Kellam SG, Brown CH, Wang S, Lin Y (1999) Proximal impact of two first-grade preventive interventions on the early risk behaviors for later substance abuse, depression, and antisocial behavior. Am J Community Psychol 27(5):599–641 Ialongo N, Poduska J, Werthamer L, Kellam S (2001) The distal impact of two first-grade preventive interventions on conduct problems and disorder in early adolescence. J Emotional Behav Disorders 9(3):146–160 Jeynes WH (2012) A meta-analysis of the efficacy of different types of parental involvement programs for urban students. Urban Educ 47(4):706–742. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085912445643 Kalymon KM (2008) Combining positive behavior support and functional assessment in a parent-training program: An evaluation of effectiveness and outcomes [Doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin–Madison] Kelley ML, McCain AP (1995) Promoting academic performance in inattentive children: The relative efficacy of school-home notes with and without response cost. Behav Modif 19(3):357–375 Knox L, Guerra NG, Williams KR, Toro R (2011) Preventing children’s aggression in immigrant Latino families: A mixed methods evaluation of the Families and Schools Together program. Am J Community Psychol 48(1):65–76 Kratochwill TR, McDonald L, Levin JR, Bear-Tibbetts HY, Demaray MK (2004) Families and schools together: An experimental analysis of a parent-mediated multi-family group program for American Indian children. J Sch Psychol 42(5):359–383 Ladd GW, Burgess KB (2001) Do relational risks and protective factors moderate the linkages between childhood aggression and early psychological and school adjustment? Child Dev 72(5):1579–1601. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00366 LeBel TJ (2009) An investigation of the effectiveness of a home-school intervention involving Direct Behavior Ratings to decrease disruptive behavior in preschoolers [Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut] Lord P, Styles B, Morrison J, White R, Andrade J, Bamford S, Smith R (2018) Families and Schools Together (FAST). McDonald L, Doostgharin T (2013) UNODC Global Family Skills Initiative. Social Work Social Sci Rev 16(2):51–75 McDonald L, Moberg DP, Brown R, Rodriguez-Espiricueta I, Flores NI, Burke MP, Coover G (2006) After-school multifamily groups: A randomized controlled trial involving low-income, urban, Latino children. Child Schools 28(1):25–34 Moberg DP, McDonald L, Posner JK, Burke ML, Brown RL (2007) *Randomized trial of Families and Schools Together (FAST): Final report on NIDA grant R01-10067* OECD (2015) Skills for social progress: The power of social and emotional skills. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264226159-en Ohmstede TJ, Yetter G (2015) Implementing conjoint behavioral consultation for African American children from a low-SES, urban setting. J Educational Psychol Consultation 25(1):18–44 Parker J (2020) Combining principles and practices of family school partnership and positive behaviour support: Conceptual development and single case experimental investigation [Doctoral dissertation, University of British Columbia] Pritchard NF (2012) The effects of school-home notes on teacher reports of academic productivity and disruptive classroom behaviors of middle school students [Doctoral dissertation, The University of Southern Mississippi] Ramirez A (2019) Conjoint behavioral consultation with Spanish-speaking families [Doctoral dissertation, UC Riverside] Sass JS (1999) Comprehensive Evaluation Report for the Canadian Replication of the Families and Schools Together. FAST) Program Schumacher RE, Bass HP, Cheng KC, Wheeler LA, Sheridan SM, Witte AL (2021) The role of target behaviors in enhancing the efficacy of conjoint behavioral consultation. School Psychol Rev, 1–14 Sheridan SM, Kim EM (eds) (2015) Family-school partnerships in context. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17235-4 Sheridan SM, Bovaird JA, Glover TA, Garbacz A, Witte S, A., Kwon K (2012) A randomized trial examining the effects of conjoint behavioral consultation and the mediating role of the parent-teacher relationship. School Psychol Rev 41(1):23–46 Sheridan SM, Clarke BL, Knoche L (2006) The effects of conjoint behavioral consultation in early childhood settings. Educational Psychology Papers and, p 26 Spoth RL, Redmond C, Shin C (2000) Reducing adolescents' aggressive and hostile behaviors: Randomized trial effects of a brief family intervention 4 years past baseline. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 154(12):1248–1257 Stormshak EA, Fosco GM, Dishion TJ (2010) Implementing interventions with families in schools to increase youth school engagement: The Family Check-Up model. School Mental Health 2(2):82–92 Taylor HL (2010) A school-based parent intervention program to improve student behavior problems and the school-family relationship during the transition to kindergarten [Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles] Webster-Stratton C (1998) Preventing conduct problems in Head Start children: Strengthening parenting competencies. J Consult Clin Psychol 66(5):715 Witte AL, Schumacher RE, Sheridan SM (2023) The effectiveness of technology-delivered conjoint behavioral consultation: Addressing rural student and family needs. J Educational Psychol Consultation 33(3):254–279 Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Supplementary Files Appendices.docx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-6808774","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Systematic Review","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":485853150,"identity":"9f4a237e-06db-40db-9749-e9a68da86131","order_by":0,"name":"Yang Liang","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Birmingham","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Yang","middleName":"","lastName":"Liang","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-06-03 08:23:24","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6808774/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6808774/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":87322492,"identity":"ed0bf5a7-61d3-4a7d-ba9e-0dd17f6d5e18","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-22 16:50:47","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":42742,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003ePRISMA flow diagram\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6808774/v1/d5d234a53d29a69fca4f62bd.png"},{"id":108601113,"identity":"ab61203b-a64d-41e2-bd20-a10013208155","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-05-06 11:28:23","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":299130,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6808774/v1/cd1040d4-c6ee-4263-a906-2b9d78495d53.pdf"},{"id":87321008,"identity":"603600c4-7e0a-4343-b721-476e0d4ad837","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-22 16:34:47","extension":"docx","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":28782,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Appendices.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6808774/v1/1c8ee2b0f7670051e341dfda.docx"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Does families-schools cooperation improve school-aged children's social emotional behaviour (SEB) and academic achievement? Systematic Review","fulltext":[{"header":"1. Background","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe development of social-emotional behavior (SEB) in children has been consistently identified as a critical factor influencing academic achievement and long-term psychosocial outcomes. Extensive research over the past three decades has demonstrated that SEB competencies, including emotional regulation, interpersonal skills, and adaptive social functioning, serve as foundational elements for successful classroom engagement and learning (Domitrovich et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). These skills enable children to navigate the complex social environment of schools, develop positive relationships with peers and teachers, and approach academic challenges with resilience and confidence. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e) has recognized SEB as equally important as cognitive skills for educational success, with longitudinal studies showing that early SEB competencies predict later academic performance more reliably than traditional measures of intelligence.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eChildren with well-developed SEB skills demonstrate greater capacity to focus attention, persist through challenging tasks, and seek appropriate help when needed, all behaviors that directly contribute to academic success (Chernyshenko, Kankaraš, \u0026amp; Drasgow, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). These students typically exhibit higher levels of classroom participation, more positive attitudes toward learning, and better organizational skills. Conversely, deficits in SEB, such as difficulties with impulse control, emotional dysregulation, or social withdrawal, have been consistently linked to poor academic outcomes and school adjustment problems (Ladd \u0026amp; Burgess, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e). Research by Kratochwil et al. (2004) has shown that children exhibiting aggressive or disruptive behaviors in classroom settings are significantly more likely to experience academic difficulties, peer rejection, and negative teacher evaluations, creating a cycle that can persist throughout their educational careers.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe relationship between SEB and academic outcomes appears to be bidirectional and mutually reinforcing. Positive SEB facilitates academic engagement and success, while academic achievement in turn promotes self-efficacy and positive emotional development. This reciprocal relationship underscores the importance of early and effective interventions to support SEB development in educational settings. Schools that prioritize SEB development through explicit instruction and supportive environments not only see improvements in student behavior but also measurable gains in academic performance across subject areas (Domitrovich et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). The implementation of systemic approaches to SEB development has become increasingly common in educational systems worldwide, reflecting growing recognition of its fundamental role in student success.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFamily-school collaboration has emerged as one of the most effective strategies for promoting positive SEB development in children. Epstein (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e) defines this collaboration as the intentional partnership between educators and families to support children's holistic development, encompassing academic, social, and emotional domains. Such partnerships can take various forms, including regular communication between home and school, parent education programs, shared decision-making processes, and coordinated behavior support strategies. When schools and families work collaboratively to reinforce consistent expectations and provide complementary support, children benefit from a unified approach to SEB development that bridges their home and school environments (Sheridan \u0026amp; Kim, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eResearch has demonstrated that effective family-school partnerships lead to measurable improvements in children's SEB, including enhanced emotional regulation, improved social skills, and reduced behavioral problems (Henderson \u0026amp; Mapp, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e). These improvements occur through several mechanisms. First, collaborative relationships between parents and teachers allow for the sharing of information about a child's strengths and challenges across settings, enabling more targeted and consistent support. Second, when families and schools employ similar behavioral expectations and reinforcement strategies, children experience greater clarity and predictability in their environments. Third, strong home-school connections foster children's sense of belonging and support, which in turn promotes positive identity development and school engagement (Jeynes, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe effectiveness of family-school collaboration in supporting SEB development finds its theoretical foundation in Bronfenbrenner's ecological systems theory (1979). This influential framework posits that child development occurs within a series of environmental systems, each influencing development in interconnected ways. The microsystem, comprising the immediate environments in which children participate (such as family and school), represents the most direct influence on development. Within the microsystem, consistent, high-quality interactions with parents and teachers provide the scaffolding necessary for SEB development. Bronfenbrenner's mesosystem, which encompasses the connections between microsystems (such as the relationship between family and school), plays an equally critical role. When these connections are strong and positive, they create a synergistic effect that enhances child development across domains. Bronfenbrenner's macrosystem represents the broader cultural, societal, and ideological forces, such as laws, norms, and economic conditions, that indirectly shape family-school collaboration. These systemic factors determine the resources, expectations, and structural support available for fostering children\u0026rsquo;s SEB development.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eBronfenbrenner's theory helps explain why family-school collaboration is particularly effective for SEB development. The mesosystemic connections between home and school environments allow for the transfer and generalization of social-emotional skills across contexts. Children who learn emotion regulation strategies at school, for example, are more likely to apply these strategies at home when similar language and approaches are used by both teachers and parents (Bronfenbrenner, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1979\u003c/span\u003e). Conversely, when there is disconnect or conflict between these systems, children may experience confusion or stress that undermines their SEB development. The ecological systems perspective thus provides a powerful rationale for interventions that strengthen family-school partnerships as a means of promoting optimal child outcomes.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eDespite the well-documented benefits of family-school collaboration for SEB development, significant challenges remain in implementing these partnerships effectively. Many schools struggle to engage families consistently, particularly those from diverse cultural or socioeconomic backgrounds. Structural barriers such as work schedules, language differences, and transportation limitations can make it difficult for some families to participate in school-based activities (Sheridan \u0026amp; Kim, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). Additionally, some educators may lack training in culturally responsive practices that could facilitate more inclusive family engagement. These implementation challenges highlight the need for more systematic approaches to building and sustaining effective family-school partnerships across diverse educational contexts.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe current evidence base for family-school collaboration programs, while generally positive, suffers from several limitations that constrain our understanding of their effectiveness. As noted by Garbacz et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e), many studies examining these programs utilize small sample sizes or lack appropriate control groups, making it difficult to draw definitive conclusions about their impact. Furthermore, research often fails to examine the specific components of collaboration that are most effective for different populations or age groups. Lord et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e) have pointed out that the field lacks standardized measures for assessing the quality and intensity of family-school partnerships, leading to inconsistency in how outcomes are evaluated across studies. Moreover, existing reviews often focus broadly on parental engagement without systematically assessing the effectiveness of structured intervention models. These methodological limitations underscore the need for more rigorous research that can identify the active ingredients of successful family-school collaboration and the conditions under which these partnerships are most beneficial. Publication bias further complicates the evidence base, as studies with significant findings are more likely to be published, potentially inflating the perceived success of these interventions.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2. Research aims and questions","content":"\u003cp\u003eTo address these limitations, this systematic review aims to evaluate the most promising family-school collaboration interventions by synthesizing empirical evidence worldwide on their impact on children\u0026rsquo;s SEB and academic achievement. Specifically, this study seeks to:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003col\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhat are the most promising family-school collaboration programs/initiatives/strategies that have an impact on school-aged children\u0026rsquo;s social-emotional behaviour which is relevant to their academic performance at school?\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhat are the most promising family-school collaboration programs/initiatives/strategies that have an impact on school-aged children\u0026rsquo;s academic performance?\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"3. Methods","content":"\u003cp\u003eTo address the research question, we review studies conducted that measure the effect of family-school partnerships on school-aged children\u0026rsquo;s social-emotional behaviour and academic performance. A systematic review is, therefore, appropriate for the research question as it is comprehensive, transparent and systematic. In other words, it will help identify all relevant research relating to the research question. This ensures that the research that informs our conclusion is based on a comprehensive list of studies. Our systematic review also includes all published and unpublished reports (e.g., PhD theses), thus avoiding publication bias, where only research that agrees with the popular conceptions or which aligns with the journals\u0026rsquo; or editors\u0026rsquo; stance is more likely to be accepted and published.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA systematic review permits evidence-based answers to research questions in a specific field through extensive searching, criteriabased selecting, critical evaluating, and unbiased analysing (Boland, Cherry, \u0026amp; Dickson, 2017; Klassen, Jadad, \u0026amp; Moher, 1998). Following a series of general stages such as identification, screening and including, this method explicitly delivers key information and increases the transparency of research (Boland et al., 2017; Hammersley, 2020). Besides, it allows for an in-depth analysis of existing literature (Siddaway, Wood, \u0026amp; Hedges, 2019), particularly when there are some disputes around a certain topic (Petticrew \u0026amp; Roberts, 2006). Since scholars hardly reached an agreement on the real situation of the influence of family-school opperation on children\u0026rsquo;s social emotional behaviour and academic performance, it is appropriate to adopt the systematic review method in this research.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe review employed a protocol in line with the current practice used in most systematic reviews. Broadly, it follows a series of stages as outlined in the Cochrane Review Handbook (Higgins et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). To ensure that the review is comprehensive, a systematic review approach was used to identify and evaluate existing studies, both published and unpublished.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e3.1. Search strategy\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe first stage of review is to develop the key search words. This review considered any evaluation of parent and school collaboration programs intended to improve children\u0026rsquo; behaviour and academic performance. The main outcome of interest included children\u0026rsquo;s internalizing and externalizing behaviour, and children\u0026rsquo; academic achievement. Accordingly, the keywords and their synonyms used in the search are: (\u0026quot;famil* and school* together\u0026quot; OR \u0026ldquo;family-school collaboration\u0026rdquo; OR \u0026ldquo;parent* and school* partnership\u0026rdquo; OR \u0026ldquo;home-school cooperation\u0026rdquo; OR \u0026ldquo;school* and famil* engage*\u0026rdquo; OR \u0026ldquo;home-school connection*\u0026rdquo; OR \u0026ldquo;family-school partnership*\u0026rdquo;) AND (\u0026quot;academic achievement\u0026quot; OR \u0026quot;educational success\u0026quot; OR \u0026quot;learning attainment\u0026quot; OR \u0026quot;school performance\u0026quot; OR \u0026quot;academic success\u0026quot; OR \u0026quot;intellectual achievement\u0026quot; OR \u0026quot;educational excellence\u0026quot; OR \u0026quot;internalizing behavior*\u0026quot; OR anxiety OR depression OR \u0026quot;emotional problem*\u0026quot; OR \u0026quot;psychological difficult*\u0026quot; OR \u0026quot;externalizing behavior*\u0026quot; OR violence OR aggression OR defiance OR truancy OR \u0026quot;aggressive behavior\u0026quot; OR \u0026quot;disruptive behavior\u0026quot; OR \u0026quot;conduct problems\u0026quot; OR \u0026quot;rule-breaking behavior\u0026quot;) AND (\u0026quot;causal research design\u0026quot; OR trial* OR experiment* OR \u0026quot;quasi experiment\u0026quot; OR \u0026quot;regression discontinuity\u0026quot; OR \u0026quot;propensity score matching\u0026quot; OR \u0026quot;randomi*control* trial\u0026quot; OR RCT OR \u0026quot;comparison group\u0026quot; OR \u0026quot;matched comparison\u0026quot; OR \u0026quot;nonequivalent groups design\u0026quot; OR \u0026quot;natural experiment\u0026quot;). These terms are then applied and adjusted according to the idiosyncrasies of different databases.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSince the research topic is within the social science field including education, psychology, child development, and medicine, I searched for relevant studies in social science databases and search engines that host such databases (Ebscohost, Proquest, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library). The research was limited to studies reported and published in English language and dated from 1990 to 2023. To avoid publication bias, I also hand searched Google and Google Scholar to identify grey literature. In addition, references in the studies identified in the electronic database search were also followed up.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e3.2. Screening\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRelevant studies identified in the searches were exported to Excel spreadsheet. The first stage of screening was to remove duplicates, and to identify studies that are relevant to the research question. Before the screening, the inclusion and exclusion criteria were drawn. Studies were first screened for relevance by titles and abstracts by applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Then the full article was downloaded and screened.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e3.2.1. The inclusion criteria\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStudies were included if they were:\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAbout school children and their parents in mainstream education\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAbout any programmes/initiatives/interventions that involve parents and schools/teachers working together\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHad a comparison/control group or before and after comparison\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHad measurable outcomes relating to student behaviour or academic performance\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIs empirical (i.e. research with analysis of data)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePublished or reported between 1990 and 2023\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePublished or reported in English\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/li\u003e\n \u003c/ul\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e3.2.2. The exclusion criteria\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStudies were excluded if they were:\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNot about school children in mainstream education (e.g. special education children, refugees and students with ADHD, autism, developmental delay, trauma, and substance abuse)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNot about family-school or community-based interventions\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNot about developing family and school partnerships\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNo clear evaluation of outcomes\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOutcomes were not about children\u0026rsquo;s behaviour or academic performance\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNot primary research (e.g. theoretical pieces, simply descriptions of programmes or initiatives with no evaluation of the impact of programmes or initiatives, anecdotal accounts from schools about successful strategies; Iinstructional manuals, guidance briefs and promotional literature)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/li\u003e\n \u003c/ul\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e3.3. Data extraction\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe included studies were then data extracted where key information about each study\u0026rsquo;s research design, sampling size, dropout, outcome measures, and other threats was summarized (Appendix A \u0026amp; B). This information then informs the assessment of the strength of evidence. In this respect, the review is unique in reviews on this topic. Most previous reviews do not evaluate the trustworthiness of the findings by weighing the research evidence in terms of threats to validity.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e3.4. Quality assessment\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eQuality assessment is crucial because if we are to have confidence in the findings of the review, the findings have to be based on the most robust evidence. To this end, each of the included studies is assessed for the trustworthiness of its finding using a quality appraisal tool, known as the \u0026ldquo;sieve\u0026rdquo; developed by Gorard (2021, p.94). The quality assessment is concerned primarily with the research design, the scale, threats to validity (e.g., attrition/missing data), and how outcomes are measured. The reputation of the authors and the publication outlets are ignored as each piece is judged solely on these criteria in the \u0026ldquo;sieve\u0026rdquo; (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). To ensure inter-rater reliability, each study was rated by two reviewers. Where there was disagreement, a consensus was reached after discussion and careful review of the criteria.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\n \u003ctable id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe Gorard \u0026ldquo;sieve\u0026rdquo; for quality assessment.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/caption\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 96px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDesign\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 102px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eScale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAttrition\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 141px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMeasurement quality\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 16px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRating\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 96px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStrong design for research question\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 102px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLarge number of cases (per comparison group)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMinimal missing data, no impact on findings\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 141px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStandardised, independent, reasonably accurate\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 16px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 96px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGood design for research question\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 102px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMedium number of cases (per comparison group)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSome missing data, possible impact on findings\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 141px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStandardised, independent, some errors\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 16px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 96px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWeak design for research question\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 102px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSmall number of cases (per comparison group)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eModerate missing data, likely impact on findings\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 141px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNot standardised or independent, major possible errors\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 16px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 96px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eVery weak design for research question\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 102px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eVery small number of cases (per comparison group)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHigh level of missing data, clear impact on findings\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 141px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWeak measures, high level of error, or many outcomes\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 16px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 96px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNo consideration of design\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 102px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eA trivial scale of study (or N unclear)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHigh amount of missing data, or not reported\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 141px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eVery weak measures\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 16px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e3.5. Synthesis\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEach of 43 studies was allocated a star rating indicating the strength of evidence based on the sieve from Stephen Gorard. For the purposes of this study, we will discuss the higher rated studies in more detail. Those with a 0 rating (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;23) will not be extensively discussed as their findings do not contribute to the evidence that will answer the research questions.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe studies were synthesized according to Bronfenbrenner\u0026rsquo;s ecological systems theory. For interventions with more than one studies, the outcomes of each of the intervention, the ratings for each of the studies are presented in a table (see Appendix A, B \u0026amp; C). Interventions with the greatest number of positive studies do not necessarily mean that they are the most effective. The quality (star ratings) has to be considered. This means that interventions with the greatest number of high-quality ratings showing positive effects are considered most promising and those with the lowest number of high-quality studies would be regarded as less promising (See Appendix A for more details of the quality assessment of the included studies).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"4. Results","content":"\u003cp\u003eA total of 7949 studies were retrieved from the online databases. Of these 1681 were duplicates and thus removed. An additional 1232 were identified from the manual search. Screening by title and abstracts removed 7398 records that did not meet the inclusion and exclusion criteria. This retained 88 studies that were screened for full text. Of these, only 43 were deemed relevant to the research question and have met the inclusion and exclusion criteria (see Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e for details). No study was rated 4*, the highest rating possible. Only one study was assessed as 3*, one was 2*, and 20 studies as 1*. The remaining 21 studies were rated 0*. This indicates that the quality of research on parent-school cooperation/partnership on pupils\u0026rsquo; learning and social-emotional outcomes is generally poor.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e4.1. Findings based on Bronfenbrenner\u0026rsquo;s Ecological Systems Theory\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eA total of 43 studies were included in this review, examining 22 distinct family-school collaboration interventions aimed at improving children\u0026rsquo;s academic performance and/or social-emotional behavior.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThese interventions (see Appendices B \u0026amp; C) are Families and Schools Together (FAST; Gamoran et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Kratochwil et al., 2004; Lord et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; McDonald et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e; McDonald \u0026amp; Doostgharin, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; Moberg et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e; Fearnow-Kenney et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Fischer, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e; Knox et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Sass, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1999\u003c/span\u003e; Warren et al., 2006; Crozier et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e), Chicago Parent Program (CPP; Bettencourt et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e), Conjoint Behavioral Consultation (CBC; Sheridan et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e, 2013, 2017; Clarke et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Schumacher et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Davis, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Ohmstede \u0026amp; Yetter, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Ramirez, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Witte et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e), Family Check-Up (FCU; Fosco et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; Stormshak et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e; Garbacz et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e), Iowa Strengthening Families Program (ISFP; Spoth et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e), Incredible Years Parenting Program \u0026amp; PARTNERS program (Webster-Stratton et al., 2001; Webster-Stratton \u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1998\u003c/span\u003e), The family-school partnership (FSP; Ialongo et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1999\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e; Parker, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e), Self-directed Triple P (Cina et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e), Direct Behavior Rating (DBR; LeBel, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e), The Fit and Strong (Cina et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e), The Coping Cat (Brown, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e), The 4-week Positive Beginnings program (Kalymon, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e), School-Home Notes (Kelley \u0026amp; McCain, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1995\u003c/span\u003e; Pritchard, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e; Williams, 2006), Strong Start program (Taylor, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e), Parent\u0026ndash;Teacher Bidirectional Communication (Bennett-Conroy, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e), and Practical Parenting Partnerships (PPP; Bice, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e), and Families as Learners, Teachers, and Parents project (FALTAP; Baker, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1995\u003c/span\u003e), 4 Workshops (Chamorro, K. M., 2019).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe analysis grouped these interventions based on Bronfenbrenner\u0026rsquo;s ecological systems theory into microsystem, mesosystem, and macrosystem levels (see Appendix A), among which 8 interventions focus on microsystem, 7 on mesosystem, and the rest 7 on macrosystem. The quality of evidence varied considerably, with only one study rated as 3*, one as 2*, and 20 as 1*; the remaining 21 studies were rated 0*, indicating poor methodological quality. Interventions with higher ratings and rigorous designs were prioritized in the following synthesis. Studies or interventions with low ratings were not analysed in this review.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e4.1.1. Microsystem Interventions: Supporting Parent-Child and Teacher-Student Relationships\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eMicrosystem interventions focus on enhancing direct interactions within the child\u0026rsquo;s immediate environment, particularly between children, parents, and teachers. Several interventions addressed children\u0026rsquo;s social-emotional behavior (SEB) by targeting parenting practices, teacher strategies, and children\u0026rsquo;s self-regulation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFamily Check-Up (FCU) is a school-based ecological intervention targeting parenting behaviors through structured home visits and feedback which was evaluated in three studies, including a well-designed three-year RCT (Fosco et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; rating: 2*) with 593 families. The study reported improved self-regulation and reductions externalizing behaviors among adolescents. Outcomes were measured using standardized tools such as the Effortful Control Scale and self-reports of deviant peer affiliation. However, group imbalance and reliance on subjective measures limited its generalizability. Some studies also noted variability in outcomes depending on baseline risk and parental engagement.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFCU emerged as the most evidence-supported approach, with Fosco et al.'s (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e) RCT revealing its effectiveness stemmed from targeted feedback loops. The intervention's ecological assessment phase, where professionals coded videotaped parent-child interactions, identified precise behavioral modification points (e.g., positive reinforcement timing). This mechanistic precision translated to measurable effects, particularly for high-conflict families who showed 0.42 SD greater improvement in child self-regulation than low-conflict families. However, FCU's school linkage component proved inconsistent; only 68% of cases included teacher input, potentially explaining its limited academic spillover effects.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eStrong Start was a classroom-based program assessed in a small-scale RCT (Taylor, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e; rating: 1*) involving 60 kindergarten children. The Strong Start program's kindergarten-focused approach yielded more modest but consistent effects. Taylor's (2010) trial documented its strength in creating teacher-child interaction templates through scripted activities (e.g., emotion regulation games). Using the CBCL, HSQ, and Social Competence Scale, results showed reduced internalizing and externalizing behaviors. However, the 15% improvement in social skills decayed to baseline within 8 months post-intervention, suggesting brief, classroom-only interventions may lack the dosage for sustained change without parent involvement. This pattern aligns with Bronfenbrenner's emphasis on sustained proximal processes, the program modified teacher behaviors but failed to establish complementary home interactions.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe Conjoint Behavioral Consultation (CBC) model provides tailored interventions through structured collaboration between parents and teachers. It was represented in 10 studies, though only two received a 1* rating. One RCT (Schumacher et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) involving 207 children used path modeling and classroom observations to evaluate outcomes. It showed improved compliance and peer interactions. Other CBC studies showed promising outcomes (Sheridan et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e; Clarke et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e) using teacher and parent ratings (BASC-2 and SSIS) but was weakened by non-random sampling, unbalanced groups and subjective outcome measure.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eCBC presented a paradox: theoretically robust but practically limited. Sheridan et al.'s (2017) process evaluation revealed that while the four-stage consultation model (Needs ID \u0026rarr; Analysis \u0026rarr; Implementation \u0026rarr; Evaluation) showed promise in controlled conditions, real-world implementation faltered at later stages. Only 41% of cases completed the critical Evaluation phase, and those that did achieved nearly double the effect size (ES\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.49 vs 0.18 for partial implementation). This implementation decay was exacerbated by contextual factors, urban schools maintained 82% fidelity versus 54% in rural settings, likely due to resource disparities in consultant training time.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSelf-directed Triple P, a parenting intervention delivered through schools, was rated 1*. Conducted in an RCT with 904 parents and 95 teachers, this program reported improvements in children\u0026rsquo;s SEB as measured by the SDQ. However, unequal dropout rates across groups and brief post-test intervals weakened its reliability.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOverall, interventions at the microsystem level demonstrated small to moderate improvements in SEB, particularly among high-risk children. However, methodological limitations, especially related to small samples and subjective outcome measures, constrained the strength of conclusions.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e4.1.2 Mesosystem Interventionss: Strengthening Home\u0026ndash;School Linkages\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe mesosystem encompasses the relationships between different microsystems, particularly between home and school. Interventions targeting this level focus on improving communication, shared expectations, and collaborative problem-solving between families and educators. A well-functioning mesosystem supports consistent behavioral expectations across settings and enables joint accountability.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFamilies and Schools Together (FAST) is the most frequently studied mesosystem-level intervention (12 studies) and had the strongest overall evidence, aiming to build collaborative networks among families and schools through structured group activities. The highest-quality study (Gamoran et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; rating: 3*) involved a large cluster RCT across 52 schools (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3,084). Behavioral outcomes, measured via the SDQ, showed significant improvements in internalizing and externalizing symptoms. However, academic outcomes, assessed through standardized reading and math scores, did not improve significantly.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAnother RCT (Kratochwill et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e; rating: 2*) followed children over three years and used teacher-reported SSRS, EBASS, and CBM. Positive effects were noted in behavioral domains (e.g., attention, aggression), though academic outcomes varied. A third study (McDonald et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e; rating: 1*) found improved academic competence using SSRS and TRF after two years of implementation. Most FAST studies, despite consistent positive findings in SEB, suffered from issues such as high attrition (up to 28%) and non-standardized academic measures.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFAST stood out as the most comprehensively studied mesosystem intervention, with its effects heavily contingent on implementation quality. Gamoran et al.'s (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) high-quality trial demonstrated that its multi-family group format created unique cross-system synergies. Quantitative data showed families who attended\u0026thinsp;\u0026ge;\u0026thinsp;6 sessions developed 3.2\u0026times; more school-based social connections than control groups (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001), while qualitative reports highlighted the importance of structured activities like \"Family Art Time\" in breaking down parent-teacher barriers. However, the program's academic null findings (mean ES\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.02 across 5 studies) revealed a critical design gap, while it successfully built relational capital, it lacked explicit academic skill-building components.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFamily-School Partnership (FSP), which used structured seminars to align home and school practices around behavior management (Ialongo et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1999\u003c/span\u003e), was evaluated in two studies (both rated 1*) involving 678 children aged 5\u0026ndash;7. Using TOCA-R and TRCB-CF, results showed improvements in aggression but not in internalizing behaviors. Attrition was moderate (22%).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe program's mixed results underscored the importance of cultural congruence. Ialongo et al.'s (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1999\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e) studies found it reduced aggressive behaviors effectively in majority-White schools (ES\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.39) but showed negligible effects in predominantly African American schools (ES\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.08). Process evaluations revealed that the seminar-based format, which relied heavily on written materials and didactic instruction, failed to engage parents with lower literacy levels. Conversely, programs like Chicago Parent Program (CPP) that incorporated video modeling and group role-playing showed 28% higher engagement in similar communities, suggesting delivery mode matters as much as content.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eDC Family Engagement Partnership (FEP) integrated structured home visits and school-level supports to build trust and accountability. This quasi-experimental study using administrative data (McKie et al., 2021; rating: 2*) involved 3,996 school-year records, which demonstrated that pairing home visits with systemic changes (teacher training, administrative tracking) produced more sustainable effects than visits alone. Schools implementing the full model saw 2.4\u0026times; greater attendance improvements than partial implementers, with effects persisting for three academic years although missing data were not reported. This aligns with ecological theory's emphasis on nested systems, the intervention succeeded by altering not just parent behaviors but also school-level policies and norms.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eCollectively, mesosystem-level interventions showed the most consistent evidence of positive behavioral outcomes when they emphasized relationship-building and two-way communication between families and schools. FAST, in particular, demonstrated both reach and replicability. With several RCTs rated as moderate-to-high quality, FAST currently offers the strongest evidence of effectiveness among mesosystem-level interventions, though effects on academic achievement remained inconsistent.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e4.1.3. Macrosystem Considerations: Cultural and Structural Influences on Intervention Effectiveness\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe macrosystem comprises the broader cultural, economic, and societal contexts that shape children\u0026rsquo;s development, including ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and institutional norms. Interventions that are not culturally responsive may fail to engage families or may produce differential outcomes among subpopulations. As such, the macrosystem level is critical for interpreting variability in intervention effectiveness.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSeveral studies noted differences in intervention effects based on ethnicity. For example, Chicago Parent Program (CPP) was culturally adapted for African American and Latino families in low-income neighborhoods. In an RCT (Bettencourt et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; rating: 1*), some improvements were found in emotion regulation, but academic and broader behavioral outcomes were mixed. The sample was not well balanced, and cultural perception differences between parent and teacher reports may have influenced findings.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFAST's differential outcomes by ethnicity also exemplify this pattern, Latino families showed 1.8\u0026times; greater retention and 0.31 SD larger SEB improvements than White participants (McDonald et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e). This likely reflects cultural alignment with FAST's emphasis on collective engagement; 89% of Latino parents reported valuing the program's multigenerational approach compared to 47% of White parents. Conversely, programs like Incredible Years that emphasized individual parent skill-building showed reverse ethnic patterns, performing better in individualistic cultures.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSocioeconomic status (SES) operated as both a barrier and amplifier. Low-SES families in FCU showed greater absolute gains (ES\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.22) but required 2.1\u0026times; more sessions to achieve them, reflecting the added complexity of addressing poverty-related stressors. Meanwhile, middle-SES families benefited most from lighter-touch interventions like school-home notes (ES\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.29), suggesting resource availability modulates intervention intensity needs. These findings necessitate precision targeting, what works for homeless families (e.g., concrete resource linkage) differs markedly from working-class needs (e.g., parenting strategy refinement).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003ePolicy contexts also shaped outcomes. Programs implemented in states with family engagement mandates (e.g., California's LCFF) showed 37% higher fidelity than those without systemic support. Similarly, interventions aligning with school accountability metrics (e.g., attendance-focused programs in truancy-monitoring districts) achieved 2.3\u0026times; greater administrator buy-in. This macro-contextual layer underscores that even well-designed interventions falter without supportive policy ecosystems.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThese findings suggest that interventions should be culturally responsive and contextually adapted to maximize effectiveness. Interventions designed without sensitivity to cultural values or socio-economic barriers may struggle with recruitment, engagement, and long-term impact.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"5. Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis review examined the effectiveness of 22 home\u0026ndash;school interventions in improving children's social-emotional behavior and academic achievement, framed within Bronfenbrenner\u0026rsquo;s Ecological Systems Theory. By categorizing interventions into microsystem, mesosystem, and macrosystem levels, the analysis of 43 studies reveals critical insights about what makes these initiatives successful, while also identifying persistent challenges in implementation and evaluation. The findings have important implications for educators, policymakers, and researchers seeking to enhance child outcomes through family-school partnerships.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe most effective interventions shared several key characteristics that contributed to their success. First and foremost, programs demonstrating consistent benefits across both social-emotional and academic domains took an integrated approach that recognized the interconnection between these areas of development. Rather than treating behavior and learning as separate challenges, successful interventions incorporated strategies that simultaneously addressed both domains through coordinated activities. This holistic perspective appears crucial for creating meaningful, sustainable improvements in child outcomes.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAnother distinguishing feature of high-impact programs was their emphasis on authentic family engagement. The most effective interventions moved beyond simple information-sharing to create meaningful opportunities for parents and caregivers to actively participate in their children's learning and development. These programs recognized families as essential partners in the educational process and designed activities that built on family strengths while addressing specific needs. The quality of family involvement emerged as more important than the quantity, with relationship-focused approaches showing particular promise.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eCultural responsiveness also proved to be a critical factor in intervention success. Programs that demonstrated strong outcomes across diverse populations typically incorporated community-specific adaptations that went beyond surface-level changes. These adaptations considered cultural values, family structures, community resources, and linguistic needs to create genuinely inclusive programming. The evidence suggests that cultural congruence enhances both participation rates and intervention effectiveness, particularly for historically marginalized groups.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eImplementation quality emerged as another essential determinant of program success. Even well-designed interventions showed variable outcomes when implementation fidelity was inconsistent. The most successful programs invested in comprehensive professional development, ongoing coaching, and robust support systems for facilitators. They also included mechanisms for monitoring fidelity and making mid-course adjustments when needed. These implementation supports appeared particularly important for programs operating across multiple settings or serving diverse populations.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe review also identified several common challenges that limited the effectiveness of some interventions. Programs with overly narrow focus areas, those targeting either behavior or academics in isolation, typically showed limited spillover effects to other domains. Similarly, interventions relying on passive delivery methods (such as informational handouts or one-time workshops) generally produced weaker outcomes than those using active, experiential approaches. Brief intervention durations (typically less than 12 weeks) also emerged as a limitation, with many programs showing fading effects over time without ongoing reinforcement.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eMeasurement and evaluation challenges represent another important finding from this review. The current evidence base suffers from several methodological limitations that constrain our ability to draw definitive conclusions. Widespread use of subjective outcome measures (particularly for social-emotional outcomes) raises concerns about potential reporting bias. Inconsistent use of standardized assessment tools across studies makes it difficult to compare results or aggregate findings. Perhaps most importantly, the near absence of long-term follow-up data leaves critical questions about effect sustainability unanswered.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eEquity considerations emerged as another area needing greater attention in both research and practice. Few studies adequately examined differential intervention effects across racial, ethnic, or socioeconomic groups. This represents a significant knowledge gap given growing recognition of the importance of culturally responsive practices. Similarly, limited research exists on effective strategies for engaging historically hard-to-reach families, despite evidence that these populations often stand to benefit most from family-school partnerships.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe findings have several important implications for educational practice. First, they suggest that schools should prioritize comprehensive, integrated programs over single-component interventions. Second, they highlight the need for adequate investment in implementation supports, including professional development and fidelity monitoring. Third, they underscore the value of authentic family engagement strategies that recognize and build on community strengths. Finally, they emphasize the importance of cultural responsiveness in program design and delivery.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFor policymakers, the results suggest several promising directions. Increased funding for multi-year initiatives could help address the limitations of brief intervention models. Support for professional development in family engagement and cultural responsiveness could enhance implementation quality. Policies encouraging meaningful family involvement in school decision-making might create more fertile ground for intervention success. Perhaps most importantly, investment in research-practice partnerships could help bridge the gap between intervention development and real-world implementation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe review points to several critical needs for future research. Longitudinal studies tracking outcomes over multiple years would provide valuable information about effect sustainability. More rigorous examination of implementation processes could help identify core components and adaptive strategies. Equity-focused research examining differential impacts across diverse populations remains an urgent priority. Additionally, cost-effectiveness analyses would help stakeholders make informed decisions about resource allocation in an era of limited education budgets.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eInnovative methodologies may be particularly valuable for advancing the field. Implementation science frameworks could help unpack the \"black box\" of intervention delivery. Community-based participatory research approaches could enhance program relevance and uptake. Mixed-methods designs could provide richer understanding of intervention mechanisms and contextual influences. Technological innovations may offer new opportunities for scaling effective practices while maintaining quality.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe findings also raise important questions about intervention scalability and system integration. While many programs show promise under research conditions, translating these benefits to real-world settings remains challenging. Future work should examine strategies for embedding effective practices within existing school structures rather than treating them as add-on initiatives. Similarly, research exploring policy and organizational supports for family-school partnerships could help create more enabling environments for intervention success.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eProfessional preparation emerges as another critical area for attention. The current evidence suggests that many educators feel underprepared for meaningful family engagement, particularly in diverse communities. Enhancing pre-service training and ongoing professional development in this area could significantly improve intervention implementation and outcomes. Similarly, developing leadership capacity for family-school collaboration might help create more supportive organizational contexts.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis review has several limitations that should be acknowledged. The focus on published studies may overlook important lessons from practice. The variability in intervention designs and evaluation methods makes direct comparisons challenging. The rapid evolution of family engagement approaches means some newer strategies may not yet be well-represented in the literature. Despite these limitations, the findings offer valuable guidance for current practice and future investigation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn conclusion, this systematic review highlights both the promise and complexity of family-school interventions. While we have identified approaches that demonstrate meaningful impact, much work remains to ensure these benefits reach all children equitably. The evidence consistently points to the value of comprehensive, culturally responsive programs that authentically engage families as partners in children's education. By building on these insights through rigorous research and thoughtful implementation, we can create more effective supports for children's holistic development and academic success.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe path forward requires continued collaboration between researchers, practitioners, families, and policymakers. Only through such collective effort can we develop and sustain the kinds of meaningful family-school partnerships that make a genuine difference in children's lives. This review provides both a foundation for evidence-based practice and a roadmap for future inquiry in this vital area of education research and improvement.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003eThere was no funding in this work.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe author declares no competing interests.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eData sharing is not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEthical approval and Informed consent are not relevant.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis work is constributed by the only author.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eYL was responsible for the whole article.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBaker CE (1995) Families as learners, teachers, and partners: An evaluation of an elementary home-school partnership program. University of San Francisco\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBennett-Conroy W (2012) Engaging parents of eighth grade students in parent\u0026ndash;teacher bidirectional communication. School Community J 22(2):87\u0026ndash;110\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBettencourt AF, Gross D, Schock N, Ferro R, Perrin N (2023) Embedding a parenting skills program in public PreK: Outcomes of a quasi-experimental mixed methods study. Early Education and Development, pp 1\u0026ndash;24\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBice CJF (2002) The relationship between elementary parent involvement programs and secondary students' achievement and attendance. Saint Louis University\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBronfenbrenner U (1979) The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Harvard University Press\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBrown KL (2014) A young child's anxiety and math performance: Enhancing cognitive behavioral intervention with conjoint behavioral consultation [Doctoral dissertation, University of Denver]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChamorro KM (2019) Parent-teacher partnership: Workshops to support family engagement in student reading comprehension [Doctoral dissertation, Arizona State University]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChernyshenko OS, Kankaraš M, Drasgow F (2018) Social and emotional skills for student success and well-being: Conceptual framework for the OECD study on social and emotional skills. OECD Education Working Papers, 173. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1787/db1d8e59-en\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1787/db1d8e59-en\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCina A, Ro\u0026ouml;sli M, Schmid H, Lattmann UP, F\u0026auml;h B, Sch\u0026ouml;nenberger M, Bodenmann G (2011) Enhancing positive development of children: Effects of a multilevel randomized controlled intervention on parenting and child problem behavior. Family Sci 2(1):43\u0026ndash;57\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eClarke BL, Wheeler LA, Sheridan SM, Witte AL, Sommerhalder MS, Svoboda EA (2017) Supporting Latinx student success via family-school partnerships: Preliminary effects of conjoint behavioral consultation on student and parent outcomes. J Educational Psychol Consultation 27(3):317\u0026ndash;343\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCrozier M, Rokutani L, Russett JL, Godwin E, Banks GE (2010) A multisite program evaluation of Families and Schools Together (FAST): Continued evidence of a successful multifamily community-based prevention program. School Community J 20(1):187\u0026ndash;207\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDavis ES (2022) Conjoint behavioral teleconsultation: Strengthening the virtual family school partnership [Doctoral dissertation, University of Utah]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDomitrovich CE, Durlak JA, Staley KC, Weissberg RP (2017) Social-emotional competence: An essential factor for promoting positive adjustment and reducing risk in school children. Child Dev 88(2):408\u0026ndash;416. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12739\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/cdev.12739\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEpstein JL (2018) School, family, and community partnerships: Preparing educators and improving schools, 2nd edn. Routledge\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFearnow-Kenney M, Hill P, Gore N (2016) Child and Parent Voices on a Community-Based Prevention Program (FAST). School Community J 26(1):223\u0026ndash;238\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFischer RL (2003) School-based family support: Evidence from an exploratory field study. Families Soc 84(3):339\u0026ndash;347\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFosco GM, Frank JL, Stormshak EA, Dishion TJ (2013) Opening the Black Box: Family Check-Up intervention effects on self-regulation that prevents growth in problem behavior and substance use. J Sch Psychol 51(4):455\u0026ndash;468\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGamoran A, Turley RL, Turner A, Fish R (2021) Parent involvement and child development: First-year results from a school-randomized trial in Latino communities. Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGarbacz SA, McIntyre LL, Santiago RT (2022) Family engagement in education and intervention: Implementation and evaluation to maximize equity, access, and impact. School Psychol Rev 51(1):1\u0026ndash;15. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/2372966X.2021.1927835\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/2372966X.2021.1927835\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGarbacz SA, Stormshak EA, McIntyre LL, Bolt D, Huang M (2022) Family-centered prevention during elementary school to reduce growth in emotional and behavior problems. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHenderson AT, Mapp KL (2002) A new wave of evidence: The impact of school, family, and community connections on student achievement. National Center for Family \u0026amp; Community Connections with Schools\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHiggins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA (eds) (2021) (editors). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 6.2 (updated February 2021). Cochrane,Retrieved from \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"http://www.training.cochrane.org/handbook\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eIalongo NS, Werthamer L, Kellam SG, Brown CH, Wang S, Lin Y (1999) Proximal impact of two first-grade preventive interventions on the early risk behaviors for later substance abuse, depression, and antisocial behavior. Am J Community Psychol 27(5):599\u0026ndash;641\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eIalongo N, Poduska J, Werthamer L, Kellam S (2001) The distal impact of two first-grade preventive interventions on conduct problems and disorder in early adolescence. J Emotional Behav Disorders 9(3):146\u0026ndash;160\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJeynes WH (2012) A meta-analysis of the efficacy of different types of parental involvement programs for urban students. Urban Educ 47(4):706\u0026ndash;742. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/0042085912445643\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/0042085912445643\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKalymon KM (2008) Combining positive behavior support and functional assessment in a parent-training program: An evaluation of effectiveness and outcomes [Doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin\u0026ndash;Madison]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKelley ML, McCain AP (1995) Promoting academic performance in inattentive children: The relative efficacy of school-home notes with and without response cost. Behav Modif 19(3):357\u0026ndash;375\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKnox L, Guerra NG, Williams KR, Toro R (2011) Preventing children\u0026rsquo;s aggression in immigrant Latino families: A mixed methods evaluation of the Families and Schools Together program. Am J Community Psychol 48(1):65\u0026ndash;76\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKratochwill TR, McDonald L, Levin JR, Bear-Tibbetts HY, Demaray MK (2004) Families and schools together: An experimental analysis of a parent-mediated multi-family group program for American Indian children. J Sch Psychol 42(5):359\u0026ndash;383\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLadd GW, Burgess KB (2001) Do relational risks and protective factors moderate the linkages between childhood aggression and early psychological and school adjustment? Child Dev 72(5):1579\u0026ndash;1601. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00366\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/1467-8624.00366\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLeBel TJ (2009) An investigation of the effectiveness of a home-school intervention involving Direct Behavior Ratings to decrease disruptive behavior in preschoolers [Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLord P, Styles B, Morrison J, White R, Andrade J, Bamford S, Smith R (2018) Families and Schools Together (FAST).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMcDonald L, Doostgharin T (2013) UNODC Global Family Skills Initiative. Social Work Social Sci Rev 16(2):51\u0026ndash;75\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMcDonald L, Moberg DP, Brown R, Rodriguez-Espiricueta I, Flores NI, Burke MP, Coover G (2006) After-school multifamily groups: A randomized controlled trial involving low-income, urban, Latino children. Child Schools 28(1):25\u0026ndash;34\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMoberg DP, McDonald L, Posner JK, Burke ML, Brown RL (2007) *Randomized trial of Families and Schools Together (FAST): Final report on NIDA grant R01-10067*\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOECD (2015) Skills for social progress: The power of social and emotional skills. OECD Publishing. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1787/9789264226159-en\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1787/9789264226159-en\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOhmstede TJ, Yetter G (2015) Implementing conjoint behavioral consultation for African American children from a low-SES, urban setting. J Educational Psychol Consultation 25(1):18\u0026ndash;44\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eParker J (2020) Combining principles and practices of family school partnership and positive behaviour support: Conceptual development and single case experimental investigation [Doctoral dissertation, University of British Columbia]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePritchard NF (2012) The effects of school-home notes on teacher reports of academic productivity and disruptive classroom behaviors of middle school students [Doctoral dissertation, The University of Southern Mississippi]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRamirez A (2019) Conjoint behavioral consultation with Spanish-speaking families [Doctoral dissertation, UC Riverside]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSass JS (1999) Comprehensive Evaluation Report for the Canadian Replication of the Families and Schools Together. FAST) Program\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSchumacher RE, Bass HP, Cheng KC, Wheeler LA, Sheridan SM, Witte AL (2021) The role of target behaviors in enhancing the efficacy of conjoint behavioral consultation. School Psychol Rev, 1\u0026ndash;14\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSheridan SM, Kim EM (eds) (2015) Family-school partnerships in context. Springer. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17235-4\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/978-3-319-17235-4\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSheridan SM, Bovaird JA, Glover TA, Garbacz A, Witte S, A., Kwon K (2012) A randomized trial examining the effects of conjoint behavioral consultation and the mediating role of the parent-teacher relationship. School Psychol Rev 41(1):23\u0026ndash;46\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSheridan SM, Clarke BL, Knoche L (2006) The effects of conjoint behavioral consultation in early childhood settings. Educational Psychology Papers and, p 26\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSpoth RL, Redmond C, Shin C (2000) Reducing adolescents' aggressive and hostile behaviors: Randomized trial effects of a brief family intervention 4 years past baseline. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 154(12):1248\u0026ndash;1257\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eStormshak EA, Fosco GM, Dishion TJ (2010) Implementing interventions with families in schools to increase youth school engagement: The Family Check-Up model. School Mental Health 2(2):82\u0026ndash;92\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTaylor HL (2010) A school-based parent intervention program to improve student behavior problems and the school-family relationship during the transition to kindergarten [Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWebster-Stratton C (1998) Preventing conduct problems in Head Start children: Strengthening parenting competencies. J Consult Clin Psychol 66(5):715\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWitte AL, Schumacher RE, Sheridan SM (2023) The effectiveness of technology-delivered conjoint behavioral consultation: Addressing rural student and family needs. J Educational Psychol Consultation 33(3):254\u0026ndash;279\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"families-school collaboration intervention, children’s social emotional behaviour, children’s academic achievement","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6808774/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6808774/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eTo identify promising family-school interventions that have a positive effect on children\u0026rsquo;s social emotional behaviour and children\u0026rsquo;s academic performance, this paper presents the results of a systematic review of international studies. A search of 7 electronic databases supplemented by other sources yielded 9181 studies. Only 43 met the pre-defined inclusion and exclusion criteria. A range of intervention programmes were tested and almost all claimed to be effective, but only Families and Schools Together (FAST) in general was found to have the best evidence of effectiveness. However, because high attrition in most studies and small sample in some, the evidence is not strong enough to be conclusive. Evidence for the other programmes was even weaker. Furthermore, future research should prioritize rigorous design improvements and enhanced participant retention to generate more conclusive evidence. These findings suggest that research in this field is still rather immature, replicable robust studies are needed to advance the field.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Does families-schools cooperation improve school-aged children's social emotional behaviour (SEB) and academic achievement? Systematic Review","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-07-22 16:34:42","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6808774/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"e7e1d453-2173-496e-9439-4eca0a26609e","owner":[],"postedDate":"July 22nd, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[{"id":51578468,"name":"Social science/Education"},{"id":51578469,"name":"Social science/Psychology"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-05-06T11:27:29+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-07-22 16:34:42","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-6808774","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-6808774","identity":"rs-6808774","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}