![[PDF]](/pb-assets/Icons/adobe-pdf-icon-1498649896243.png){kind=icon}
Abstract
This mixed-methods study examined teacher preparation for developing family partnerships. The attitudes and practices of teacher educators and the attitudes and experiences of student teachers were explored in focus groups, documents, and a survey instrument. Results indicated that although partnerships were considered important by faculty and students, both groups were concerned with the difficulties teachers may experience with parents. The subject university is committed to diversity and requires a field experience in a multi-cultural community. Although teacher educators expressed strong concerns about teaching candidates to work with parents from diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds, they voiced doubts regarding their own ability to educate students regarding families from different cultures. The teacher candidates seemed relatively unaware of the importance of engaging diverse families in a partnership. There was evidence that, in the minds of student teachers, whatever problems existed were attributable to the parents. On an item about the beliefs of parent involvement, student teachers appear to have less positive views of diverse parents than do teacher candidates surveyed at the beginning of their preparation. Basically, candidates were focused on giving information to parents and not on creating reciprocal relationships. Results suggest that field experiences in culturally diverse settings are not enough and must be accompanied by class discussion. Graded assignments, and authentic experiences with opportunities to examine beliefs and attitudes toward families from diverse backgrounds in courses and field experiences are needed.
Introduction
Theory and research have demonstrated that dynamic parent–teacher collaboration is a critical factor in both academic achievement and the social-emotional development of students (Epstein, 2011; Graham, 2011; Henderson & Mapp, 2002; Seitsinger, Felner, Brand, & Burns, 2008; Uludag, 2008). More than a decade ago, Katz and Bauch (1999) argued that developing partnerships with families is part of a teacher’s professional role. Carter (2002) reported on a decade of research and concluded that family involvement is a significant factor in student success across the elementary and secondary school years. Jeynes (2007) reported that parental involvement was a significant factor in student achievement at both the primary and secondary levels for children from urban schools, but had a stronger impact on the former.
Despite the importance of a partnership between teachers and families in student outcomes, programs in teacher education institutes have not included specific attention to the preparation of teachers to work effectively with families (Epstein & Sanders, 2006; Hoover-Dempsey, Walker, Jones, & Reed, 2002). In a survey of administrators in 161 teacher preparation programs, Epstein and Sanders (2006) reported that although respondents agreed that involving families was important, few believed that graduating students were fully prepared to do so. Patte (2011) studied preservice teacher candidates and found that although they were aware of the benefits, 40% of junior or senior teacher candidates reported learning no competencies in establishing family–school partnerships. In a review of teacher preparation, Hiatt-Michael (2006) noted that teacher education programs were mainly concerned with the skills needed in classroom teaching. The interpersonal aspects of working with parents and other caregivers were not stressed. Levine (2006) found that most principals did not feel that teachers were prepared to work with parents.
At this time, there is limited information on how teacher candidates themselves perceive their preparation and skills for collaboration with families, especially those from different economic and/or cultural backgrounds and this was a focus of this mixed-methods study. Both primary and secondary education candidates were included as “there is almost a complete absence of research on preparing secondary school teachers for work with families and communities” (Evans, 2013, p. 130).
Parental involvement is an ambiguous concept (Fan & Chen, 2001) and researchers continue to search for a way to describe family involvement that reflects its multidimensional character and the many facets of families and teachers working to support student development (Fan & Chen, 2001; Patrikakou, Weissberg, Redding, & Walberg, 2005). Epstein (1995, 2001, 2011) described home, school, and community as “overlapping spheres of influence,” in which members collaborate to support students’ learning and their social-emotional development. She identified six types of involvement: parenting at home, communicating, volunteering, learning at home, decision making and advocacy, and collaborating with community. This definition emphasized reciprocity, equality, and active participation. For the purposes of this article, the term partnership will be used to imply equity in a collaboration between parents and teachers. Equity is a critical issue when teachers work with families from diverse backgrounds.
In emphasizing the need for specific courses on school, family, and community partnerships, Delgado-Gaitan (2007), Epstein (2006), and Epstein et al. (2009) referenced the benefits of family involvement in student academic and social success and challenged teacher educators to prepare future teachers to partner effectively with families. Epstein (2001) maintained that there should be at least one required course on school, family, and community partnerships in teacher education and that this topic must be considered as important as reading, math, or other subjects.
Consistent with de Acosta’s (1996) advocacy for increased understanding of skills and practices in parental involvement, some success has been reported in pilot programs designed to improve the skills and aptitudes of teacher candidates in working with parents (Bartels & Eskow, 2010; Flannigan, 2007; Symeou, Roussounidou, & Michaelides, 2012; Uludag, 2008). Warren, Noftle, Ganley, and Quintanar (2011) reported on graduate coursework that can impact teacher’s knowledge and skills regarding urban family involvement.
Working With Parents From Diverse Backgrounds
Sanders (2006) suggested that many educators have an inadequate understanding of how to effectively create partnerships in inner-cities that may differ from the communities in which they live. Although teachers may have positive attitudes toward parent involvement in schools (Addi-Raccah & Arviv-Elyashiv, 2008), the Harvard Family Research Project (Shartrand, Weiss, Kreider, & Lopez, 1997) reported that many teachers feel that they do not know how to reach out to parents and there are questions about how teachers from middle-class backgrounds can learn to engage poor urban families in partnerships with schools. Delpit (2006) documented problems when the ethnicity and background of the teachers differed from that of families. In a literature review, Graham-Clay (2005) delineated the barriers to communication between teachers and parents from different cultural backgrounds and discussed some of the negative feelings teachers experienced over interactions with parents. Ingram (2007), Jeynes (2005, 2007), and Sheldon (2002, 2007) maintained that preparation for partnerships with parents is especially important where teachers work in urban communities. Delpit recommended that a school and family partnerships course should prepare teacher candidates to work in urban settings.
Researchers have attempted to clarify the impediments to the development of partnerships with parents from diverse socioeconomic groups. In their review of the research on parental involvement and equity issues, Bequedano-Lopez, Alexander, and Hernandez (2013) indicated that both research and practice has documented a school-centric deficit approach toward students and families who are not from the same socioeconomic segment of the population as the teachers. They demonstrated that the impact of class status on school success is critical to discussions of parents’ involvement. Because family support is frequently seen as essential for student academic success, when parents are perceived as uninvolved, many educators conclude they do not deserve quality schools (Nakagawa, 2000). Delpit (2006) and Valdes (1996) found that educators may blame poor academic success on the students and their caregivers. Blaming parents for the lack of interaction with the school is incorrect and pathologizes parents (Bakker, Denessen, & Brus-Laeven, 2007; Crozier & Davies, 2007), especially socially excluded parents (Tett, 2004). Lareau (2000) described the role of social class in parent involvement and demonstrated that many school practices are suited to middle-class culture and exclude working class parents. Traditional parent involvement activities such as back-to-school night have been criticized as ways that do not engage families of color (Auerbach, 2009). Williams and Sánchez (2011) identified four factors that may limit the involvement of poor African American families: lack of time due to other commitments, difficulty with the location of the school, limited financial resources, and ineffective communication strategies used by schools. In addition, Ryan, Casas, Kelly-Vance, Ryalls, and Nero (2010) pointed out that research has been focused on parents and ignores the role of siblings and others in the inner-city community, thus ignoring the complexities of caregivers in urban life.
To study the effectiveness of efforts to encourage teachers to form partnerships with families, this research examined teacher candidates and faculty attitudes in a public university located in the Northeastern part of the United States that is specifically committed to diversity issues and urban education. Consistent with a university mission statement that emphasizes diversity, all candidates are exposed to multiple school settings in which K-12 students are from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds.
In culminating supervised field experiences, each teacher candidate in this study was required to complete a full semester clinical placement in an urban or culturally diverse school. The purpose of the placement is to develop the skills and attitudes that will help teachers work effectively with diverse families. The importance of placements in diverse communities is supported by findings by Uludag (2008) that teacher candidates’ perceptions about parents were mostly influenced by their field placements, but is a clinical placement enough to build better working relationships with families?
Research Questions
Research Question 1: What do teacher educators and teachers candidates believe about parent involvement in general and involvement of parents from diverse backgrounds?
Research Question 2: Does teacher education that includes a clinical placement in a diverse area, change attitudes toward engaging families in partnerships with teachers?
Research Question 3: Does the teacher education program address student teachers’ concerns about working with parents, including parents from different cultural and linguistic backgrounds?
Method
Design of the Study
This study used a mixed-methods approach to gather data on how a teacher education program purports to prepare teacher candidates to work with urban families, the concept, beliefs and attitudes of teacher candidates and teacher educators about parent involvement, and the feelings of self-efficacy among student teachers regarding working with parents. Data were collected in two phases: first, a document review and focus groups of teacher candidates and teacher educators provided qualitative data; second, a survey with scaled and open-ended questions was administered to teacher candidates at the beginning of their teacher education program and to student teachers. The document review helped the researchers determine if content on working with parents was included in the standards, curriculum, and instruction of teacher candidates. The focus groups of teacher educators and student teachers provided an opportunity to compare the beliefs, practices, and experiences of the two groups concerning preparation for parent involvement. The survey for first-year teacher candidates and student teachers assessed beliefs about parent involvement, thus allowing a comparison between the two groups. In addition, student teachers were asked to reflect on their preparation for parent involvement and their feelings of self-efficacy. Imbedded in the scaled items were questions regarding involvement of parents from diverse cultural groups, with the intent to determine if there were differences between attitudes toward parent involvement in general and attitudes toward working with parents from diverse backgrounds. Independent variables included program (elementary and secondary education candidates) and stage of preparation (candidates in their first and last years of preparation).
Site Selection
Data were collected from students and faculty in a public, 4-year university located near several urban areas with a multicultural population and high rates of poverty. Teacher education programs in pre-school, elementary, secondary, and special education are located in the College of Education, one of five colleges in the university. In 2012-2113, there were 1,257 undergraduate education majors and 97 post-baccalaureate students enrolled in initial teacher preparation programs. The ethnicity of the education majors is listed in Table 1.
|
Table 1. Ethnicity and Race of Teacher Education Majors.
The teacher education program at this university is considered a fairly traditional one, with undergraduate teacher candidates completing a general education curriculum in the first and second years, and a double major in teacher education and the liberal arts. Coursework and field experiences taken in the junior and senior years culminate in a one-semester student teaching assignment. Consistent with the College of Education’s mission statement to prepare “students to participate effectively in a diverse society,” field experience policies dictate that students “must have a range of diverse school experiences . . . that encourage candidates to interact with . . . students from different ethnic, racial, gender, socioeconomic, language and religious groups.” The teacher education program requires a minimum of one observation and one supervised field experience in a community with a high proportion of families with one or more of the following characteristics: (a) English is not the primary language spoken in the home; (b) the income level falls near or below the official poverty level; and/or (c) the family is one of color.
Subject Selection
Two groups of subjects were selected, one for each phase of the data collection. The first group was composed of student teachers and faculty members who taught courses in initial teacher certification. Four male and 17 female student teachers agreed to participate. The age range was from 22 to 36 years. Sixteen were undergraduates and five were post-baccalaureate candidates. Three male and 12 female faculty members agreed to participate. Five were from secondary education and 10 taught in the elementary education program. They ranged in age from 30 to 68 years. Three had earned a PhD, 10 had earned an EdD and two, an MEd. All participants had experience teaching in public schools, several were parents, and one was a member of a board of education.
The second group of subjects was composed of 107 teacher candidates in the beginning of their teacher preparation (first-year candidates) and 50 student teachers. Of the first-year candidates, 28 males and 79 females participated in the study. Seventy were preparing to teach at the elementary level and 37 were preparing to teach at the secondary level. The age range was 19 to 43 with a median age of 21 years. Of the student teachers, 11 males and 34 females participated in the study (five subjects did not indicate a gender). Twenty-four were preparing to teach at the primary level and 25 were preparing to teach at the secondary level (one student did not indicate a grade level). The age range was 20 to 45 years of age with a median age of 23.
Data Collection
In the first phase of the study, data were collected from two sources. First, documents that influenced and defined teacher education curricula at the university were reviewed. These included course descriptions for classes in the early childhood, elementary and secondary teacher education programs, and policy documents. Assignments and curricula that focus on family–school partnerships were logged from course outlines. Policy documents included the state’s standards for teachers, the college of education’s proficiencies for field experiences, and reports submitted to specialized professional associations (SPAs).
The second source of data was focus group interviews of student teachers and teacher educators conducted by the two principal researchers. The questions pertained to their views on working with parents, the types and extent of family–school partnership content in education courses and field experiences, and perceptions regarding the adequacy of preparation. There were modest re-wordings in questions to reflect the differing roles of instructor and student. Oral responses were written and accepted with no comment to encourage faculty and students to give open and honest opinions that were free from influence. Participants were also asked to answer specific questions about course content and activities related to working with parents. Two focus groups with faculty members were conducted. Each group met for 1½ hr and included from seven to eight participants. Three focus groups of student teachers were conducted. Each focus group met for 45 min to 1 hr with three to 12 participants.
Sample questions for focus groups
What do you think of school–family partnerships; what comes to mind?
What kinds of activities do you include (were included) in classes concerning school–family partnerships?
Do you think our teacher education program adequately deals with the questions and concerns teachers have about parents?
In the second phase of the study, data were collected from surveys administered to the first-year candidates and the student teachers. Based on the responses from the focus groups and the literature review, questions were developed for first-year candidates and student teachers. The survey for the first-year candidates contained 10 items designed to measure attitudes and beliefs about parents’ involvement in their child’s education (Hoover-Dempsey et al., 2002). Examples of statements include “Parent involvement is characteristic of a good school,” and “Parents want to volunteer in school-related activities.” The first-year candidates were asked to rate their level of agreement with each statement on a 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree) Likert-type scale. Included in the survey was one item which related to beliefs about parents from diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds. The item was worded as follows: “Parents always want to communicate with the school, even if there are language or cultural barriers.”
Student teachers’ surveys included the question regarding attitudes and beliefs about parents’ involvement in their child’s education. Two additional questions were asked. One was open-ended: “What did you miss in your teacher preparation about collaboration with parents?” (de Bruïne et al., 2014). The second question was a list of 14 teacher skills (e.g., “I possess the skills to design learning activities for students to complete with parental assistance.” (Garcia, 2000). For each item, student teachers were asked to rate their level of proficiency on a Likert-type scale of 0 (It doesn’t refer to me at all) to 100 (It refers to me 100%). Included in the question were two items relating to working with parents from diverse cultural backgrounds: “I am capable of working with minority parents.” and “I am capable to teach minority parents strategies to help their children at home.”
Results
Document Review
Working with families is a consistent component in documents which define the standards and curriculum of the teacher preparation programs. The state’s administrative code on professional standards includes
Standard 9: Collaboration and Partnerships. Teachers shall build relationships with parents, guardians, families and agencies in the larger community to support students’ learning and well-being. (N. J. A. C. 6A:9-33[a] 9)
The 20 competencies for teacher candidates in field experiences in the College of Education include
18. [The student] Works collaboratively with colleagues and families: C) participates in activities as appropriate to build strong partnerships with parents and community members. (i.e. involving families in school-related activities)
Association for Childhood Education International (ACEI) standards include
5.2 Collaboration with families, colleagues, and community agencies—
Candidates know the importance of establishing and maintaining a positive collaborative relationship with families, school colleagues, and agencies in the larger community to promote the intellectual, social, emotional, physical growth and well-being of children.
Two conclusions were drawn from an analysis of course descriptions at the early childhood, elementary, and secondary education level. First, while 14 of 33 courses included references to aspects of family–school partnerships and 25 courses included content in teaching children from diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds, only two courses combined these two elements to help candidates establish partnerships with parents from diverse groups. In the early childhood program, one course made reference to setting up classrooms that reflect multicultural perspectives with specific suggestions for family involvement. In the subject area certification program, a course and accompanying field experience addressed parent–teacher relationships with emphasis on an exploration of the socioeconomic backgrounds of the parents, and referenced the different social, racial, and ethnic groupings the candidate would encounter. Although other courses included the role of the teacher as a communicator with parents, and instruction in teaching children from diverse cultural backgrounds, these two components were separate topics: There was no reference to working with the parents of children from diverse backgrounds.
Second, there was only one assignment in which students were asked to demonstrate (and were presumably assessed) on their ability to work with parents. There were no assessments regarding interacting with parents from diverse backgrounds. Informal discussion with teacher educators outside of the focus groups revealed that some individual instructors added assignments to their courses aimed at developing skills in working with parents from diverse backgrounds, for example, translating parent letters into different languages, and suggesting multi-cultural books for parents to read with their children.
Focus Groups
The data from the focus groups were analyzed with an emergent design. The researchers used both an independent and collaborative process for interpreting different levels of emerging category themes. First, the two researchers read and coded the focus group comments independently, making separate initial analyses of tentative open-coding patterns. Then the two researchers met to discuss the data collaboratively. They used one session for each source of data. In reviewing the oral responses, the researchers developed what they felt reflected the views of the majority of the group. The responses to some open-ended questions such as “What comes to mind about family–school partnerships” covered a wider range of thoughts and impressions than any other responses, and team members worked together to analyze them carefully. Some items were discarded as not being representative of the faculty or students in general but of individual situations.
Four months later the two researchers met again to review the category themes and made further revisions. In this step, the researchers continued their collaborative process of reviewing, reflecting, and reconfirming as they grouped the open-coding patterns around more salient, second-level axial-coding themes. For the third and final step in the qualitative analysis process, the researchers reviewed the listing of themes from axial coding with an eye on interpreting larger global themes.
Analyses of the responses by teacher educators and student teachers to the open-ended questions identified emergent themes. Seven themes were evident: the importance of and rationale for parent–teacher partnerships; the nature of parent–teacher partnerships; effective strategies for teacher communication to parents; the challenges for teachers of working with parents; impressions of current preparation of education majors for parent–teacher partnerships; concerns about the preparation for working with parents, and recommendations for improvements in preparing education majors for working with parents. Within these themes, patterns of responses emerged and are summarized below (see Table 2).
|
Table 2. Teacher Educators’ and Student Teachers’ Views of Family–School Partnerships.
Importance of and rationale for parent–teacher partnerships
Teacher educators and student teachers were unanimous in identifying parent–teacher partnerships as a critical skill in teaching. Both groups cited these partnerships as an important component in improved student success. Teacher educators noted the connection between positive parent–teacher relations, student success, and the teacher’s reputation within the school and community. Student teachers observed that parent–teacher partnerships are essential to the teaching profession, and a vital role of the teacher, and were more specific in their rationales for the importance of parent–teacher partnerships. They cited a range of benefits, including the sharing of information that leads to better student outcomes, the capacity to improve the attitude of parents for whom schools and education might have negative connotations, and the opportunity to enhance the image of teachers as professionals with the child’s best interests at heart. They believed that sharing of information and the increased engagement of families leads to more accountability for academic outcomes. Continuation of the learning process outside of school was viewed as a benefit. “Learning doesn’t stop at 3:00,” one student teacher noted. An element of parent–teacher partnerships was encouraging parents to share information about their child and events outside the school that can help teachers improve student outcomes. One candidate described parents as the experts for their child and another noted, “It’s like an extension of your arm, it reinforces learning.” One student teacher recalled that he was concerned about a student in his class who fell asleep, but the parents notified him that the student had been up with a sick brother.
Nature of parent–teacher partnerships
Both teacher educators and student teachers put a strong emphasis on one element of parent–teacher relations, the flow of oral and written information from the teacher to the parent regarding the child’s academic progress and behavior, and (to a lesser extent) curriculum and instructional activities. Several student teachers referred to the collaborative nature of parent–teacher partnerships, stating that communication needed to be a two-way street. In a perspective of parent–school partnerships that went beyond teachers giving information to parents, student teachers mentioned interactive homework, and at the elementary level at least, parent assistance with classroom parties and field trips. Student teachers noted what they saw as a trend in education, the increased involvement of parents in their child’s learning activities in school. One candidate noted the transparency in K-12 students’ performance, with parents being kept up-to-date on their child’s progress through technology. Other student teachers described the volume of email between parents and teachers over assignments, behavior, tests, and grades.
Effective communication strategies
Student teachers expanded on the communicative aspect of parent–teacher partnerships by mentioning various methods of school–parent communications. These included the use of regular, frequent communication around routine information on classroom activities, and accomplishments as opposed to communications only over problems. Student teachers also cited the need to defuse conflict when parent–teacher conferences became adversarial.
Challenges for teachers working with parents
This area generated the most discussion among the focus groups. Both teacher educators and student teachers cited apprehension about working with parents. Teacher educators voiced concerns that many student teachers are “afraid” of parents, and student teachers’ comments reflected feelings of stress and even fear about parents. One candidate noted, “No one is prepared when a parent is screaming,” and others expressed awareness that relationships with parents could become adversarial.
The difficulty of helping teachers respond to different cultures was clearly acknowledged by teacher educators, less so by student teachers. One teacher educator alluded to the diversity present in schools obliquely, “We need to work with schools because each school’s needs are unique.” Faculty made a distinction between parents in affluent districts who may be more inclined to find fault with teachers if their child is not experiencing success, and parents from lower socioeconomic groups who may not come to school for parent–teacher meetings. Strongly voiced comments from faculty about the need to prepare student teachers for interactions with parents from different cultures appeared to reflect their perspective that this was a sensitive and challenging area. They reported students’ comments in class discussions that suggested stereotyped and disparaging views of parents from diverse socioeconomic backgrounds.
Student teachers were less direct in describing the challenges of working with parents from diverse socioeconomic backgrounds. A lack of parental support of their child’s education was cited as a challenge, and parent–teacher partnerships were indirectly referenced by a few students in discussing urban schools as being challenging settings in which to work. It was noted, “Our professors are by the book, but the reality of the classroom is a different scenario.” Another student teacher put it more bluntly, stating that “the parents are tough, while [the University] is focused on the fairyland in the text books.” There were several statements by student teachers to the effect that parents in urban areas do not come to the school.
The teacher education faculty and students both mentioned the increasing use of email between teachers and parents. Faculty seemed more concerned about the potential for miscommunication in emails, while student teachers cited the increased demands on the teacher’s time outside the classroom occasioned by the volume of email.
Current preparation of students for working with parents
In line with the emphasis on communication in parent–teacher partnerships, both teacher educators and student teachers observed that most of the preparation in courses was on the teacher giving information to parents. Role-play and lecture were cited as the typical means of disseminating information and practicing skills. Student teachers noted that efforts to prepare them for parent–teacher partnerships were made by some but not all faculty, suggesting that, in the students’ view, curriculum and instruction in this area were at the discretion of the individual instructor.
Concerns about the preparation for working with parents
Teacher educators placed a great deal of emphasis on the need to prepare students for working with families from diverse cultural and socioeconomic backgrounds. Teacher educators appeared aware of the complexity of different cultural backgrounds and the limitations of their own backgrounds. They noted that there were few opportunities to address the stereotyped beliefs of student teachers regarding families from backgrounds other than their own. By faculty report, conversations between teacher candidates and parents from diverse backgrounds were not taking place in the teacher preparation programs. Faculty also questioned their own ability to prepare students in this area. One faculty member asked, “Do we know enough ourselves about parents from different cultures to teach this well?” They also felt that a more intense focus on family–school partnerships was difficult due to other required content. Although faculty members expressed concern about diversity issues and made statements such as, “Teachers must have an ethic of care and accept parents for what they are,” no specific activities for reaching out to culturally diverse families were mentioned by either teacher educators or students.
Faculty stated that there were few if any opportunities for student teachers to interact with parents, a perception with which students typically agreed. Students noted that they were not always allowed to participate in parent–teacher conferences in their field experiences, especially if the conference addressed sensitive situations.
Recommendations for improvements in courses and field experiences
Some student teachers felt there should be more preparation in developing parent–teacher partnerships. A student stated, “Parent communication is not normally taught, but it should be,” and another said, “I could have used it [preparation in parent–teacher partnerships] in back-to-school night.” There were some differing opinions, however. Several students stated that they would learn on the job, or that students themselves should take the initiative to seek out opportunities. One candidate took a middle-of-the-road attitude, “Parent–teacher relationships should be included, but it shouldn’t be too big a deal.” Teacher educators were much more concerned about the need for more content and practice in working with parents from differing socioeconomic backgrounds. Most felt that the university is where these discussions should occur. Student teachers did not identify needs in this area, emphasizing instead the need for curricular elements to help them feel more comfortable with parents, and the opportunity to participate in actual parent conferences. They wanted to learn how partnerships promote learning, how to generate written communication, and how to address sensitive situations with parents. Candidates wanted to know how to deal with abrasive, verbally abusive, defensive, in-denial, and over-involved parents. More specific objectives included the proper ways to address parents, how to help parents feel comfortable in approaching teachers, and how to offer positive feedback. Ideas for activities included simulations of parent–teacher conferences, a parent panel, presentations from K-12 educators, and modeling positive interactions. A practical suggestion was to create a database of teacher candidates who spoke other languages.
Survey Results
The attitudes and beliefs of the first-year teacher candidates were assessed on a 6-point Likert-type scale. One item in the 10-item survey addressed cultural diversity. Mean ratings for the cultural diversity item and the overall mean for the 10 items scale fell between “agree just a little” and “agree.” The mean ratings for elementary education candidates were above those of the secondary education candidates, and mean ratings on the cultural diversity question were slightly below the overall mean for the 10 items (see Table 3).
|
Table 3. Ratings of First-Year Teacher Candidates on a 6-Point Scale.
Although the difference between the cultural diversity item and the overall attitudes and beliefs is relatively small, a one-sample t test indicates the difference is significant (p < .000). Cronbach’s alpha for the 10 items is .748. If the culturally diverse item is removed, there is a slight diminishing of the alpha (.723), which would suggest that the patterns of responses to the culturally diverse item is similar to the patterns of responses to the other items.
The attitudes and beliefs of the student teachers were assessed on the same 6-point Likert-type scale. Mean ratings for the cultural diversity item fell between “disagree just a little” and “agree just a little” and the overall mean for the 10-item scale fell between “agree just a little” and “agree.” The mean ratings for secondary education candidates were above those of the elementary education candidates, and mean ratings for on the cultural diversity question were well below the overall mean for the 10 items (see Table 4).
|
Table 4. Ratings of Student Teachers on a 6-Point Scale.
A one-sample t test indicates that the difference between the cultural question and the overall attitudes and beliefs is significant (p < .000). Cronbach’s alpha for the 10 items is .726. If the culturally diverse items is removed, there is a slight diminishing of the alpha (.718), which would suggest that the patterns of responses to the culturally diverse item is similar to the patterns of responses to the other items.
The difference on the cultural diversity item between candidates at different stages in their preparation should be noted: First-year candidates’ mean equals 4.23 and the student teachers’ mean equals 3.66. An ANOVA indicates the difference to be significant (F = 6.461, p = .012).
The self-efficacy of the student teachers in working with parents was assessed on a 100-point Likert-type scale. Two of the 14 items related to cultural diversity. Both elementary and secondary education candidates rated their ability to work with parents from culturally diverse groups as stronger than the overall mean for the 14 items. The only two skills which earned higher ratings than the culturally diverse items were setting up parent–teacher conferences, and sending home folders with work for the parents to review. Their ratings of their ability to teach parents from diverse backgrounds strategies to help their children at home were similar to the overall mean for the 14 items (see Table 5).
|
Table 5. Reported Self-Efficacy of Working With Parents on a 100-Point Scale.
One-sample t test indicates that the difference between the two cultural diversity items and the overall feelings of self-efficacy is significant (p < .000).
Student teachers were asked if there was anything they missed in their teacher education program. Almost all the remarks (96%) made reference to practical experience. Forty-eight percent of the remarks by teacher candidates reflected a desire for real-life contact; respondents said they wanted to “Get more one-on-one time with parents” or “I missed actual experience, not just observation.” While there were a limited number of remarks to learning to work with difficult parents, there was no mention of working with parents from culturally diverse backgrounds.
Discussion
This study examined the following questions: What do teacher trainers and teacher candidates believe about parent involvement in general and about involvement of parents from diverse backgrounds? Does teacher education that includes a placement in a culturally diverse area, change attitudes toward engaging parents? Does the teacher education program address concerns student teacher have about working with parents, including parents from cultural and linguistic backgrounds that differ from those of the student teachers? We looked at state and accreditation requirements, College of Education policies at the subject university, and the courses of study in the teacher education programs. We conducted separate focus groups with faculty and students and conducted a survey of teacher candidates in their first and last year of preparation.
In the first phase of the study, four main themes emerged: Teacher educators and student teachers felt parent involvement was important, but held limited views about its scope; both groups expressed ambivalence about working with parents; teacher educators struggle with how to best prepare teacher candidates to work with parents from difference backgrounds; and a significant disparity exists between intent and practice in educating teacher candidates to work with parents.
Teacher Educators and Student Teachers Felt Parent Involvement Was Very Important But Hold Limited Views as to Its Scope
Teacher educators and student teachers placed strong emphasis on communication as the transfer of information regarding the student’s academic achievement and social-emotional development from teacher to parent. Analysis of course-related activities supports the conclusion that giving information to parents is considered the most important aspect of family–school partnerships. There was limited reference to communication as a two-way street, in which information from the parents would be of benefit and there was some mention of parents as volunteers in classroom activities. This appears consistent with Patte (2011) who found similar results when asking education majors to identify a strategy they would use as a new teacher to promote parent involvement. It is important to consider what student teachers and teacher educators did not say. Four of Epstein’s (2011) six types of involvement were not mentioned: parenting at home, learning at home, decision making and advocacy, and collaborating with community. No comments in either the faculty or student focus groups were made regarding discussion with parents about child development, encouraging parents to discuss curricular approaches, or helping parents to access community resources. Encouraging parents to have decision making or leadership roles in the school or classroom did not come up in the focus groups. Epstein’s elements of family–school partnerships emphasize the reciprocity and equality of the relationship. A reciprocal relationship where parents are invited to have input into classroom activities or teachers share ideas about parenting was apparently not part of the image of family–school partnerships that faculty and students hold.
Teacher Educators and Student Teachers Experience Ambivalence About Working With Parents
Both teacher educators and students teachers clearly felt that collaboration between parents and teachers was important; what emerged was a broad consensus that this contributes to the success of the teachers and the students. The teacher educators’ view of success included an emphasis on job security, which could be enhanced by a positive reputation among parents. Both groups correlated parent–teacher partnerships with improved academic achievement, with student teachers offering multiple comments on the importance of two-way communication and the engagement of families to improve the teacher’s ability to understand the child. However, the area in which the most comments by both groups were generated was about the challenges of working with parents. Both groups expressed concerns about parents who were overly controlling and demanding of teachers. Clearly, although student teachers and teacher educators consider working with families important, they are quite concerned about the difficulties teachers may encounter in their interactions with parents. A summary of the focus groups would be as follows: Family–school relationships are important but are fraught with potential hazards. Both teacher educators and student teachers talked about fearing interactions with parents.
Need for Preparation in Working With Families From Different Backgrounds
Teacher educators were especially concerned about student teachers engaging with families from different cultural and socioeconomic backgrounds. It appeared that one of the causes for their concern is comments in class by some education majors that stereotype parents from diverse backgrounds. The educators felt there was limited opportunity to examine stereotyped beliefs in the current teacher preparation program. This concern on the part of the teacher educators seemed to be deeply felt. This was evidenced in two ways: Faculty brought up this need at different intervals and in response to different questions in the focus groups, and often in an animated tone. However, the frequency and intensity of the response about the importance of preparing teacher candidates to work with socioeconomically and culturally diverse students contrasted with how infrequently this topic is included in the curriculum or in activities reported by the faculty. The review of course outlines appears to support this conclusion; while many course outlines referred to working with K-12 students from diverse backgrounds, and with working with parents, only one course outline from the elementary and secondary education programs merged these topics. No specific activities were mentioned that could address techniques or practices to help preservice teachers establish partnerships with parents from diverse groups and no specific processes for evaluating student teachers’ ability in this area were mentioned.
In addition to concerns about where activities for family–school partnerships could be squeezed in, an additional barrier emerged; at least some faculty questioned their own ability to provide meaningful instruction and learning activities: As one respondent put it, “How can we teach something we don’t know ourselves?”
In contrast to the importance that the teacher educators placed on this topic and the field experiences in an urban school, this issue was not brought up by student teachers other than references that urban schools are tough places in which to work and a statement that some parents never come to the school. This latter observation was made without elaboration, suggesting that in the students’ minds, the potential for developing family–school partnerships did not need to be explored beyond this “fact.”
There Is a Gap Between Curricular Goals and Instruction
Data suggest a disparity between what policy makers believe should be the content in teacher education programs and what is actually implemented. The beliefs of teacher educators and student teachers regarding the importance of working with parents are closely aligned with the standards enumerated by the SPAs, the state’s licensing code, and the College of Education’s proficiencies for teacher candidates in field experiences. Many of the course outlines in the teacher education program mention working with parents as part of the course content. However, the student teachers only recalled a small number of learning activities centered on parent–teacher partnerships, suggesting a minimal and somewhat variable emphasis. Activities were limited mostly to practice in writing letters to parents and role-playing of parent conferences. Teacher candidates’ performance was not formally assessed. Student teachers reported that in field experiences, they attend routine parent events, like back-to-school nights, but their participation in parent–teacher conferences, particularly those of a sensitive nature, is restricted.
In summary, there were many areas of agreement between teacher educators and teacher candidates. They agreed on the importance of family–school involvement and emphasized one aspect, communicating information to parents. Both groups expressed anxiety over working with parents and deplored the lack of opportunity for authentic practice in family–school partnerships. The differences that emerged were largely in priorities in preparation. Teacher educators voiced concerns about preparing students to work with parents from diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds more frequently and more in depth than did student teachers. When asked for recommendations for changes in teacher preparation, student teachers emphasized authentic practice and practical tips in communicating with parents.
Data from the second phase tended to confirm and refine impressions obtained in the first phase. Student teachers do not appear to question their preparation for working with diverse groups of parents. Their confidence level in working with diverse parents was at or above their overall confidence level of skills in facilitating partnerships with parents. When asked about what they missed in their preparation, student teachers did not mention curriculum and practice in working with diverse parents. The student teachers in this study seemed relatively unaware of the sensitivity needed and the challenges that working with diverse parents can present. There was evidence that, in the minds of student teachers, whatever problems existed were attributable to the parents. On an item about the beliefs of parent involvement, student teachers appear to have less positive views of diverse parents than do teacher candidates surveyed at the beginning of their preparation. When asked if parents always want to communicate with the school, even if there are cultural or linguistic barriers, student teachers’ ratings of agreement were significantly lower than those of first-year teachers. Although these data are not longitudinal, it would suggest an increasingly negative perceptions of diverse parents as teacher candidates proceed through the program. The concern is that a field experience in a culturally diverse school community may be lessening teacher candidates’ motivation to develop productive relationships with diverse parents. Teacher educators need to adjust to this by encouraging discussion about the factors which may make diverse parents less open to traditional school–parent interactions. Strategies for promoting partnerships with parents must be introduced in the coursework and the seminars that accompany field experiences.
Limitations of the Study
This mixed-methods study was conducted by collecting data in the College of Education in one university. Its limitations included the small sample size. An expanded study to include other schools of education would extend our knowledge and understanding of how consistent these findings are across the spectrum of teacher education programs. Longitudinal data would help document the changes in teacher candidates’ beliefs, attitudes, and skills over time.
Implications for Action and Further Study
Four directions for additional discussion and analysis are raised by the data. The first, working with families from diverse backgrounds, presents challenges that must be addressed and overcome. Faculty felt strongly about preparing students to engage parents from culturally different backgrounds. Despite a semester in an urban field placement, the fear is that many student teachers do not view working with diverse parents as a particular concern. They seem to have simply accepted in its entirety the White middle-class view of parents and schools as the norm and do not question its validity for families from different economic and/or cultural backgrounds. Evidence for the faculty’s view can be found in student teachers’ statements that parents from urban areas do not come to school. These statements were offered without explanation or elaboration, suggesting that student teachers view this absence as precluding any further attempts at developing family–school partnerships. Additional evidence for this was found in student teachers’ relatively low ratings of agreement with a statement about diverse parents’ willingness to communicate with the school.
What is needed is a more nuanced perspective on parents from all backgrounds and an understanding of the needs, values, and challenges which drive parent behavior. We would argue that the dialogue and examination of views must begin in the university. University classes are the place where new ideas can safely be examined and biases can be revealed and reconsidered. For student teachers to view their experiences with family–school partnerships through a lens other than that of their own background, a broader view of the lives and circumstances of family must be introduced. This could be fostered with more hands-on experiences, something that the student teachers asked for in their focus groups. An example of an assignment in diversity would be to interview a parent from a different socioeconomic background about their expectations of the school and their goals for their children. This would help dispel stereotypes held by student teachers about parents from different cultures and hopefully be an enabling experience for working with all families in the community.
In addition to coursework, teacher candidates need authentic experiences in teacher–parent activities in urban areas. Placing students in urban settings, although a necessary first step, does not seem in and of itself sufficient to develop insight into candidates’ personal stereotypes or issues faced by urban parents. Teacher candidates must be challenged to examine their own experiences and their attitudes about parents, especially those who they perceive as different; otherwise, the clinical experience loses much of the growth that could take place. In addition, teacher candidates need opportunities in the university classrooms to discuss what they have seen and heard in their field experiences. This will enable them to refine their own perspective on parent interactions in a setting where there is a commitment to exploring the benefits of productive parent–teacher relationships. Teacher candidates also need to be exposed to the strategies and activities which improve communication and foster participation of families from diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds.
Other findings in this two-phase study bear a special relevance in developing parent involvement among diverse groups. For example, teacher educators and student teachers view family–school partnerships in light of the teacher managing the flow of information between the school and the home. What factors help explain this tendency? Uncertainty and anxiety over interactions with parents may push the teacher candidate toward the view that interaction with parents should be controlled as much as possible. This would mean giving information in the area where the teacher’s knowledge is at its highest point, and avoiding areas where they feel uncertain or where they perceive a potential for conflict. It also would be a lot to expect of teachers to engage in the reciprocal relationships with parents that Epstein (2011) suggests, given that there is no opportunity to learn about or practice them in their teacher education programs. Limiting communication with parents to information that is in the teacher’s comfort level has special implications for diverse parents, First, it does little to empower the parents and help them feel they have much to contribute to this partnership with teachers. Second, it restricts the openness which must exist if parent and teacher are to understand and appreciate each other’s circumstances and viewpoints.
A second example is the ambivalence toward family–school partnerships, and the lack of instruction and practice in this area. Student teachers’ ambivalence focused on parents they perceived as angry or intrusive. Although teacher candidates did not express the same reservations about working with diverse parents, it seems likely they may experience a range of negative feelings as novice teachers: passivity, dismay, frustration, and\or confusion. They will need skills to communicate and partner with diverse parents. What is promising is that consistent with the findings of Uludag (2008), teacher candidates appear to embrace the findings in the literature that parent–teacher partnerships are an important aspect of student success. Consistent with the recommendations of Epstein (2005), the student teachers in our study were clearly concerned about working with families and asked that both content and practice in addressing sensitive issues with parents be included in instructional activities. They called for less theory and more hands-on experiences, such as increased participation in actual parent conferences and practice in addressing sensitive issues with parents.
The question then arises, where and how to include the content and practice in family–school partnerships that the students are asking for. Epstein (2001) has proposed a separate course on family–school partnerships; however, there are so many required courses in teacher education programs that adding another class is difficult, especially with the current emphasis on finishing in 4 years at the university where this study was conducted. We recommend that family–school partnerships be infused into existing education courses, including those which explore methods in teaching reading, math, science, and social studies. Most importantly, to be given the emphasis in teacher training programs that it deserves, student understanding and skills in working with parents must be assessed; otherwise, it will never be taken seriously. This is too important to be left to the discretion of the instructor.
Student teachers who are fearful of working with parents will not easily embrace an expanded role in parent–teacher interactions whether with parents in general or parents from diverse groups. Student teachers’ fears and concerns must be addressed before important change can take place. However, the concerns in the four areas cited in the Discussion section have one positive aspect. With increased emphasis on instruction and practice in parent involvement, the results should be manifest in all four areas. Student teachers will come to believe that student learning is a shared responsibility (Epstein, 2005) and become more active in promoting equality and reciprocity in family–school partnerships. In addition, teacher candidates will become more comfortable and knowledgeable in developing productive relationships with parents, including those from cultural backgrounds which differ from their own. The gap between policy and practice will be reduced in teacher education programs. The goal is to develop an awareness of the limitations and strengths of families, and the role parents can play in the decision making about the education of their children.
In line with de Acosta’s (1996) recommendations, further research is needed to determine effective assignments and assessments. Some pilot programs demonstrated improved skills and aptitudes among teacher candidates in working with parents (Bartels & Eskow, 2010; Flannigan, 2007; Uludag, 2008). Faculty must be more proactive and partner with public schools to develop curriculum and experiences that promote learning in this area (Epstein, 2005). It is hoped that in the future, family–school partnerships will occupy a place in teacher preparation equivalent to that of pedagogy and content knowledge, and that performance will be defined by assessment of student learning outcomes. Without assessment that measures skills in family involvement, change is unlikely to happen.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
References
|
Addi-Raccah, A., Arviv-Elyashiv, R. (2008). Parent empowerment and teacher professionalism: Teachers’ perspective. Urban Education, 43, 394-415. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
Auerbach, S. (2009). Walking the walk: Portraits in leadership for family engagement in urban schools. The School Community Journal, 19(1), 9-31. Retrieved from http://www.adi.org/journal/ss09/AuerbachSpring2009.pdf Google Scholar | |
|
Bakker, J., Denessen, E., Brus-Laeven, M. (2007). Socio-economic background, parental involvement, and teacher perceptions of these in relation to pupil achievement. Educational Studies, 33, 177-192. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Bartels, S. M., Eskow, K. (2010). Training school professionals to engage families: A pilot university/state department of education partnership. The School Community Journal, 20(2), 45-71. Google Scholar | |
|
Bequedano-Lopez, P., Alexander, R., Hernandez, S. (2013). Equity issues in parental and community involvement in schools: What teacher educators need to know. Review of Research in Education, 37, 149-182. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
Carter, S. (2002). The impact of parent/family involvement on student outcomes: An annotated bibliography of research from the past decade. Eugene, OR: Consortium for Appropriate Dispute Resolution in Special Education. Google Scholar | |
|
Crozier, G., Davies, J. (2007). Hard to reach parents or hard to reach schools? A discussion of home-school relations, with particular reference to Bangladeshi and Pakistani parents. British Educational Research Journal, 33, 295-313. doi:10.1080/01411920701243578 Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
de Acosta, M. (1996). A foundational approach to preparing teachers for family and community involvement in children’s education. Journal of Teacher Education, 47, 9-15. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
de Bruïne, E. J., Willemse, T. M., D’Haem, J., Griswold, P. C., Vloeberghs, L., van Eynde, S. (2014). Preparing teacher candidates for family–school partnerships. European Journal of Teacher Education, 37, 409-425. doi:10.1080/02619768.2014.912628 Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Delgado-Gaitan, C. (2007). Fostering Latino parent involvement in the schools: Practices and partnerships. In Susan, J. P., Herbert, J. W. (Eds.), Issues in children’s and families lives. Narrowing the achievement gap (Vol. 1, pp. 17-32). New York, NY: Springer. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Delpit, L. (2006). Other people’s children: Cultural conflict in the classroom (2nd ed.). New York, NY: The New Press. Google Scholar | |
|
Epstein, J. L. (1995). School/family/community partnerships. Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 701-712. Google Scholar | ISI | |
|
Epstein, J. L. (2001). Introduction to the special section. New directions for school, family, and community partnerships in middle and high schools. NASSP Bulletin, 85(627), 3. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | |
|
Epstein, J. L. (2005). Links in a professional development chain: Preservice and inservice education for effective programs of school, family, and community partnerships. The New Educator, 1, 125-141. doi:10.1080/15476880590932201 Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Epstein, J. L. (2006). Families, schools, and community partnerships. YC Young Children, 61(1), 40. Google Scholar | |
|
Epstein, J. L. (2011). School, family, and community partnerships: Preparing educators and improving schools (2nd ed.). Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Google Scholar | |
|
Epstein, J. L., Sanders, M. G. (2006). Prospects for change: Preparing educators for school, family, and community partnerships. Peabody Journal of Education, 81, 81-120. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Epstein, J. L., Sanders, M. G., Simon, B., Salina, C., Jansorn, N., Van Voorhis, F. (2009). School, family, and community partnerships: Your handbook for action (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Google Scholar | |
|
Evans, M. P. (2013). Educationg preservice teachers for family, school and community engagement. Teaching Education, 24, 123-133. doi:10.1080/10476210.2013.786897 Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Fan, X., Chen, M. (2001). Parental involvement and student’s academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 13, 1-22. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Flannigan, C. (2007). Preservice teachers to partner with parents and communities: An analysis of college of education faculty focus groups. The School Community Journal, 17(2), 89-109. Google Scholar | |
|
Garcia, D. (2004). Exploring connections between the construct of teacher efficacy and famiy involvement practices: Implicatons for urban teacher preparation. Urban Education, 39, 290-315. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
Graham, D. (2011). Family-school partnerships: Towards sustainable pedagogical practice. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 39, 165-176. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Graham-Clay, S. (2005). Communicating with parents: Strategies for teachers. The School Community Journal, 15(1), 117-129. Google Scholar | |
|
Henderson, A. T., Mapp, K. L. (2002). A new wave of evidence: The impact of school, family and community connections on student achievement. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. Google Scholar | |
|
Hiatt-Michael, D. (2006). Reflections and directions on research related to family-community involvement in schooling. The School Community Journal, 16(1), 7-30. Google Scholar | |
|
Hoover-Dempsey, K., Walker, J., Jones, K., Reed, R. (2002). Teachers involving parents (TIP): Results of an in-service teacher education program for enhancing parental involvement. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 843-867. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Ingram, M. (2007). The role of parents in high-achieving schools serving low-income, at-risk populations. Education and Urban Society, 39, 479-497. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
Jeynes, W. H. (2005). A meta-analysis of the relation of parental involvement to urban elementary school student academic achievement. Urban Education, 40, 237-269. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
Jeynes, W. H. (2007). The relationship between parental involvement and urban secondary school student academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Urban Education, 42, 82-110. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
Katz, L., Bauch, J. P. (1999). The Peabody Family Involvement Initiative: Preparing preservice teachers for family-school collaboration. The School Community Journal, 9(1), 49-69. Google Scholar | |
|
Lareau, A. (2000). Social class and the daily lives of children: A study from the United States. Childhood, 7, 155-172. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
Levine, A. (2006). Educating school teachers. Retrieved from http://www.edschools.org/pdf/Educating_Teachers_Report.pdf Google Scholar | |
|
Nakagawa, K. (2000). Unthreading the ties that bind: Questioning the discourse of parent involvement. Educational Policy, 14, 443-472. doi:101177/0895904800144001 Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
Patrikakou, E. N., Weissberg, R. P., Redding, S., Walberg, H. J. (2005). School-family partnerships: Enhancing the academic, social, and emotional learning of children. In Patrikakou, E. N., Weissberg, R. P., Redding, S., Walberg, H. J. (Eds.), School-family partnerships for children’s success (pp. 1-17). New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Google Scholar | |
|
Patte, M. (2011). Examining preservice teacher knowledge and competencies in establishing family-school partnerships. The School Community Journal, 21(2), 143-159. Google Scholar | |
|
Ryan, C. S., Casas, J. F., Kelly-Vance, L., Ryalls, B. O., Nero, C. (2010). Parent involvement and views of school success: The role of parents’ Latino and White American cultural orientations. Psychology in the Schools, 47, 391-405. doi:10.1002/pits.20477 Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Sanders, M. G. (2006). Building school-community partnerships: Collaboration for student success. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Seitsinger, A., Felner, R., Brand, S., Burns, A. (2008). A large-scale examination of the nature and efficacy of teachers’ practices to engage parents: Assessment, parental contact, and student-level impact. Journal of School Psychology, 46, 477-505. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI | |
|
Shartrand, A. M., Weiss, H. B., Kreider, H. M., Lopez, M. E. (1997). New skills for new schools: Preparing teachers in family involvement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Google Scholar | |
|
Sheldon, S. B. (2002). Parent’s social network and beliefs as predictors of parent involvement. The Elementary School Journal, 102, 301-316. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Sheldon, S. B. (2007). Improving student attendance with school, family, and community partnerships. Journal of Educational Research, 100, 267-275. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Symeou, L., Roussounidou, E., Michaelides, M. (2012). “I feel much more confident now to talk with parents”: An evaluation of in-service training on teacher-parent communication. The School Community Journal, 22(1), 65-88. Retrieved from http://www.schoolcommunitynetwork.org/SCJ.aspx Google Scholar | |
|
Tett, L. (2004). Parents and school communities in Japan and Scotland: Contrasts in policy and practice in primary schools. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 23, 259-273. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Uludag, A. (2008). Elementary preservice teachers’ opinions about parental involvement in elementary children’s education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 3, 807-817. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Valdes, G. (1996). Con respeto: Bridging the distances between culturally diverse families and schools: An ethnographic portrait. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Google Scholar | |
|
Warren, S., Noftle, J., Ganley, D., Quintanar, A. (2011). Preparing urban teachers to partner with families and communities. The School Community Journal, 21(1), 95-112. Google Scholar | |
|
Williams, T. T., Sánchez, B. (2011). Identifying and decreasing barriers to parent involvement for inner-city parents. Youth & Society, 45, 54-74. doi:10.1177/0044118X11 Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI |
Author Biographies
Jeanne D’Haem is an associate professor of special education at William Paterson University, Wayne, NJ. Her areas of expertise are behavior management, positive behavior support, disability law, and the inclusion of children with disabilities in general education programs. Her research focuses on the use of simple interventions that prevent problem behaviors, working with parents, and inclusion of children with developmental disabilities.
Peter Griswold is an associate professor of special education at William Paterson University, Wayne, NJ. His areas of expertise are learning disabilities and teaching strategies for inclusive classrooms. His research focuses on family–school partnerships with a particular interest in the relationship between parents of children with disabilities and the school.