5 ways schools can build trust with families with Emily Markovich Morris

Family engagement is a stated priority across schools and education systems. It appears in strategic plans, policy language, and school improvement goals. But translating that commitment into practice is harder than it sounds. The families who are hardest to engage are often those with the least time, fewest resources, or least familiarity with how school systems work, and those tend to be the families where engagement matters most.

Insights shared here are useful for educators and leaders working to strengthen relationships between schools and families.

The findings are documented in Six Global Lessons on How Family, School, and Community Engagement Can Transform Education, a CUE report based on surveys and conversations with thousands of families, educators, and students across six continents.

Morris’s core argument is simple. Education systems are not failing to engage families because families are not interested. They are failing because they are not designed and resourced to build deep engagement based on the realities of families and communities.

The following five insights are drawn from a conversation with Morris, reflecting where she sees opportunities for schools and education leaders to shift.

1. School communication with families is often one-way

Most schools around the world offer some form of family engagement, such as events, parent organizations, opportunities to volunteer, and guidance on supporting learning at home. Schools communicate with families in different ways, through newsletters, text messages, written communication, and in-person meetings. What is often missing is clarity about what families are expected to do with information sent to families. Much of the communication flows from school to family, leaving little room for families to share what they already know or to share what they need.

Overall, families want to support their child’s learning, but many do not know how, especially as children move into middle and secondary school. Early years settings tend to provide clearer guidance through structured activities. By secondary school, that clarity often fades. Families still care, but they are less sure where they fit.

This is reflected in the CUE research. The report found that 77% of families supported learning at home, the most common form of engagement across all countries studied. However, this form of engagement was often overlooked by educators. Instead of expanding support for learning at home, many schools increase the number of events to boost family engagement, even though lack of time is one of the main barriers families face.

2. Schools are designed for the families who are the easiest to reach

When family engagement is low, the question is often: why are families not participating? Morris suggests a different question: who were these systems designed for.

Families bring different beliefs and experiences into their relationship with schools, including their hopes for their children’s education, their own past experiences, and whether they feel welcome in school spaces. When schools do not take into account the different experiences and beliefs in designing engagement, they may isolate instead of welcome families.

Nearly a third of educators assumed lack of interest was a key barrier to families engaging more with schools. Families and students described structural barriers instead, including time, cost, and access. This perception gap inhibits inclusive design.

When educators see families as unmotivated or disengaged, they risk missing the majority of families who want to be involved but struggle to engage in the ways that family engagement is designed. The barrier is rarely interest. It is how engagement is structured.

3. Trust is a must, not a nice-to-have

The quality of relationships between families, students, and educators often determines whether engagement is meaningful, and the extent to which there is trust.

Trust is easier to build between families, students, and classroom teachers, especially in early grades where there are more interactions and relationships are more direct. Trust in school leadership or systems is slower to develop and more fragile. Many families, particularly those with negative past experiences, start from a position of caution.

CUE’s research shows that educators often report lower levels of trust with teachers, than the reverse. Educators often perceive that families are less trusting of schools than they are.

Students also play an important role. As they get older, they often act as the link between home and school, deciding what to share. Families take cues from them about whether a school or teacher can be trusted.

Students also recognise when their involvement is meaningful and when it is tokenistic. That distinction shapes how trust develops across the system.

4. Trust is more than whether families are attending events

Teachers often informally gauge family engagement by observing whether families are attending events or staying in communication. These informal indicators do not necessarily show whether families feel heard or whether relationships are actually working.

Morris’s team developed measures that focus directly on the quality of relationships between families, students, and educators, capturing trust across all three relationships. These look at whether there is a shared vision for education, and the degree to which families, students, and educators feel there is mutual listening, care, respect, and integrity in their interactions.

Measurement in this area is complex. Most school surveys measure climate broadly; capturing perspectives from teachers, families, and students, but do not comprehensively measure trust itself. What gets captured is a general sense of the school environment, not the specific quality of relationships that trust depends on.

Morris also highlights the “80/20” challenge that school leaders have described. This means that schools are often engaging the same 20% of families, while striving to reach the other 80%, which requires a different level of intentional planning and design. The approaches that work for the families already engaged often do not work for those facing the most challenging barriers, and those tend to be the families where engagement matters most.

A consistent issue is the feedback loop. Families are asked for input into school practice and decisions, but rarely see what changes as a result. This weakens trust. Showing how feedback leads to action is one of the most effective ways to build trust.

5. Belonging must be designed, not assumed

Most schools have formal structures for family involvement, such as parent organizations or committees. These are often open invitations, with participation based on who chooses to attend.

Family engagement cannot be measured solely by who volunteers for organizations and committees, as this does not capture all the families who want to be involved. This is a reflection of who can be involved, and not who wants to be.

Across multiple countries, policy frameworks often define roles for families but do not explain how schools should support them in taking on those roles.

In practice, more inclusive approaches are intentional. Examples include pairing new families with experienced ones at the start of the year and holding school gatherings outside of school, in spaces where they feel more comfortable like sports events or community gatherings.

Tools such as the Global Family, School, and Community Engagement Rubrics provide structured ways for schools to assess inclusion, trust, and partnership, and to track progress over time.