Migrants are one of the most academically vulnerable groups in the United States, constantly faced with economic, health, and work-related problems that translate into lower academic achievement and higher dropout rates. These hardships make it difficult for schools to effectively negotiate the parental involvement terrain and promote academic success for this group. Because of the paucity of literature on effective parental involvement practices for migrants, we sought to fill this gap in the literature. Using a qualitative approach, interviews and observations were conducted in four effective migrant-impacted school districts throughout a 5-month period. Findings suggest these schools were successful at involving parents because they aimed to meet parental needs above all other involvement considerations. In other words, schools were successful not because they subscribed to a particular definition of involvement, but because they held themselves accountable to meet the multiple needs of migrant parents on a daily and ongoing basis.

Purpose: In this article, the authors highlight three constraints—structural time crisis (Schor, 1991) ideal worker norms (Williams, 2000), and labor and occupational queues (Reskin & Roos, 1990; Strober, 1992)—on the decisions and choices of women seeking to advance to and hold positions in the superintendency. Proposed Conceptual Argument: The authors contribute to and extend the extant body of work by integrating a conceptual framework that emerges from feminist economics theory and feminist organizational theory. The authors use this framework to analyze the current access and representation of women in the superintendency. Conclusions: What exists today is an institutionalized, systemic pattern in the market that is robust and resistant to change. However, this discussion contributes to our understanding of women’s experiences in advancing to administrative positions generally, and the superintendency particularly, and advances the way we organize administration and administrative work to be more representative of women and eliminate constraints on women’s choices.

ThefirstauthorwasaskedtowriteareviewofthefirstthreechaptersoftheHandbook. Rather than approach this task in the conventional way, he decided to involve several others in his department. He asked three of his doctoral students-Gerardo R. López, James W. Koschoreck, and Kanya Mahitivanichcha-and one of his colleagues-James J. Scheurich-to work with him. The five of us then began to discuss how we might do this together.What we decided to do is a kind of structured dialogue. In this dialogue, there are three "blocks." For "Block 1: Introductory Comments," each of us independently read and responded to the first three chapters of the Handbook. This means that none of us knew what the others were writing for Block 1. For "Block 2: Response," each of us continued our response to the first three chapters but also responded to what everyone else had said in Block 1. For "Block 3: Final Comments," each of us, once again, continued to respond to the Handbook's first three chapters as well as respond to what others had said 477