Best Practices in Working With

Linguistically Diverse Families

Blanca E. Araujo

Many schools face the challenge of forging partnerships with families from linguistically diverse backgrounds.
Effective communication, funds of knowledge, culturally relevant teaching, and extending and accepting assis-
tance are best practices that have been used successfully by school personnel when working with students who are
identified as English-language learners. These things strengthen teacher communications with linguistically
diverse families and in turn foster academic success among students who are English-language learners. This
article focuses on these dispositional best practices and provides examples of how these practices are used in
schools to promote academic and social success of linguistically diverse children and their families and the many
teachers who support their education.

Keywords:  bilingual issues; linguistic diversities; educational diversities; multicultural diversities; multicul-
tural strategies; partnerships with professionals and families

W ith the increase of students who are English-

language learners (ELL), many schools face the
challenge of forging partnerships with families from
linguistically diverse backgrounds. Many educators
are searching for ways to strengthen communication
with linguistically diverse families to promote family
involvement and student success. A major challenge for
educators is learning to collaborate, academically,
socially, and personally, with linguistically diverse
families. This article focuses on best practices and
strategies for working and colla­borating with these
families. Traditional and nontraditional notions of fam-
ily involvement are discussed by describing four sets of
best practices coupled with teaching strategies that
have proven effective when working with linguistically
diverse families. The best practices include (a) incorpo-
rating funds of knowledge, (b) practicing culturally
relevant teaching, (c) fostering effective communica-
tion, and (d) extending and accepting assistance. This
article is not intended to generalize linguistically diverse
families, nor is it to be taken as a recipe or how-to
manual; rather, the intent is to review the literature that
describes successful practices observed in many schools
to promote academic and social success of linguisti-
cally diverse children and the families and teachers
who support their education.
Author’s Note: The author acknowledges Dr. Rudolfo Chavez Chavez
for his assistance in editing and providing feedback for this article.
Address correspondence to Blanca E. Araujo, Teacher Education,
Room 802, College of Education, UTEP, El Paso, TX, 79968-0574
(e-mail: bearauio@.utep.edu).
Intervention in School and Clinic, Volume 45 Number 2, November 2009 116-123
DOI: 10.1177/1053451209340221 • © 2009 Hammill Institute on Disabilities
http://isc.sagepub.com hosted at http://online.sagepub.com

116

Linguistically Diverse Families
By 2007, 11.7% (roughly 33.5 million) of the U.S
population was recorded as being foreign born or not
U.S. citizens at birth. Fifty-two percent (more than
16 million) of those foreign born came from Latin
America (11.2 million from Central America alone), 26%
(8.2 million) from Asia, 10% (3 million) from the
Caribbean, 16% (4.9 million) from Europe, and 8%
(2 million) from other countries (Pew Research Center,
2008). The array of ethnicities and nationalities that
make up the meta-group of linguistically diverse fami-
lies is complex, is multilayered, and continues to increase.
In this regard, drawing on a U.S. Census report, Shin and
Bruno (2003) found that among the 262.4 million people
5 years and older, 47 million spoke a language other than
English at home, double the number reported in 1980.
Spanish was the major language, after English, most
often spoken at home, with just over 14 million Spanish
speakers. The number of Spanish speakers increased by
about 60% between 1990 and 2000. After English and
Spanish, Chinese was the most common language, with
2 million Chinese speakers in the United States; 1.6 mil-
lion people spoke French and 1.4 million spoke German
(Shin & Bruno, 2003). These numbers reflect the increas-
ing numbers of students in schools who may qualify as
ELL students and the increasing need to successfully
collaborate with these students and their families.
English-Language Learners
The ELL student population has increased dramati-
cally over the past several years. Just in the 2004–2005
school year, 10.5% (or 5.1 million) of students were
ELLs (Payan & Nettles, 2008). The western region of the
United States had the largest number of ELL students
entering public schools. The Midwest and the South
experienced an increase in their ELL student populations
as well, while the Northeast experienced a decline in
numbers (Meyer, Madden, & McGrath, 2004; Payan &
Nettles, 2008).
The diversity among ELL students is complex. Accor­
ding to the U.S Department of Education (2007), an
ELL student is (a) 3 to 21 years of age, (b) enrolled or
preparing to enroll in elementary or secondary school,
(c) not born in the United States or speaking a native
language other than English, and (d) because of diffi-
culty in speaking, reading, writing, or understanding
English, not able to meet the state’s proficiency level of
achievement to be successful in English-only class-
rooms or not able to participate fully in society. An
ethnic identifier does not necessarily imply that the
Araujo / Best Practices   117
individuals within the identified group will have similar
experiences. Depending not only on geographic spaces
but also on social class, cultural practices, and linguistic
dialects, an embedded heterogeneity will always be
present. Back­ground experiences, sociocultural prac-
tices, levels of education and literacy, and socioeco-
nomic status all vary across different groups of ELL
students (U.S. Depart­ment of Education, 2007). With
this increase of ELL students in schools, it is imperative
that schools and families work together to achieve edu-
cational success for this population.
Rethinking Our Family and Parental
Involvement Ways of Knowing
Much research has been conducted on the impor-
tance of family and parental involvement in schools,
such as volunteering in school committees and parent
organizations (Menard-Warwick, 2007; Valdés, 1996).
According to Dorfman and Fisher (2002), partnerships
among schools, families, and communities have strongly
and positively affected student achievement. Valdés
(1996) stated that in many schools, parental involvement
entails parents’ receiving information about schools,
working at schools, volunteering at schools, or working
with children at home. According to Menard-Warwick
(2007), it is generally believed that parents who do all or
most of these things contribute to their children’s school
success. Hence, most teachers view parental involve-
ment as the notion of parents receiving training so that
they can work with their children at home (López,
Scribner, & Mahitivanichcha, 2001; Moll, Amanti, Neff,
& Gonzalez, 1992; Valdés, 1996; Villenas, 2001). Knight,
Norton, Bentley, and Dixon (2004) spoke to a more gen-
eral conception of family involvement in which grand-
parents, aunts, uncles, and siblings are involved in the
caring of students and promotion of their academic
success. However, many researchers (Hidalgo, 1998;
Knight et al., 2004; López et al., 2001) view such tradi-
tional involvement practices as particularly challenging
for immigrant and linguistically diverse parents. Hidalgo
(1998) believed that mainstream perspectives on how
parents are supportive negate the infinite numbers of
ways that families, especially linguistically diverse fami-
lies, can be of great support outside of school and out of
sight of what would be perceived as supportive, such as
participating in school functions. For many parents, espe-
cially those from an array of diverse cultures, involve-
ment signifies instilling values, providing and taking care
of their children, talking with them, and sending them to
school clean, rested, and well fed (Knight et al., 2004;
López et al., 2001).
118   Intervention in School and Clinic

Rethinking how to work with linguistically diverse TABLE 1

families is of central importance because this popula- Examples of Best Practices
tion not only is increasing rapidly but will continue to Best Practice Examples for Teachers
increase. Fry (2008) projected that by the year 2020,
Funds of Bridge the world of the students at home to the
children of immigrants who will likely require ELL knowledge school environment:
student services will number 17.9 million. For these (Gonzalez • Cooking
children to be successful, schools must address ways to et al., 2005; Moll • Taking care of siblings
et al.,1992) • Repairing appliances
effectively work with linguistically diverse students and
• Mediating household communication with
their families. There are many ways in which to work outside institutions
toward developing relationships between schools and • Family stories
families. Some of the practices and strategies that have Culturally relevant • Reject deficit views.
teaching • Promote native language instruction.
successfully improved relationships among schools, (Bartolomé & • Be conscious of cultural and ethnic
homes, and communities are discussed next. Trueba, 2000; differences.
Dorfman & • Instill cultural strengths of students within
Fisher, 2002) classroom.
• Include linguistically diverse families in the
Incorporating the Funds curriculum.
of Knowledge Communicating
with linguistically
• Consider the voices, concerns, and ideas of
families.
diverse families • Provide information about the educational
Many students use lessons taught at home to navigate (Liu, 2007; system, parents’ rights and responsibilities,
Lopez et al., and ways parents can support children’s
the school system. Funds of knowledge, such as resil-
2001) learning at home.
iency, strong work ethic, and cooking or taking care of • Be aware of the different ways in which
siblings, are valuable resources that are learned by stu- families are already assisting children at
dents through their lived realities. Funds of knowledge home by knowing the lives of the children
outside of the classroom.
can have many benefits for those who teach and learn with • Communicate through letters, phone calls,
children whose cultural capital is not from a White mid- home visits, and invitations to the class.
dle-class perspective. Funds of knowledge, as defined by Seeking and • Provide information regarding cultural,
extending recreational, academic, health, social, and
Moll and colleagues (1992), constitute knowledge that is assistance other resources that serve families within
learned at home through students’ interactions with other (Anstrom & community.
individuals. This best practice has been successfully used DiCerbo, 1998; • Involve community members in school
Cummins, 1986; volunteer programs, and use family
in schools and in bilingual programs with ELL students,
Huerta-Macias, members as teachers to assist in classroom.
parents, teachers, and communities (Gonzalez, Moll & 1998; National • Collaborate with community agencies.
Amanti, 2005; Moll et al., 1992). Students bring knowl- PTA, 1998; • Ask for assistance from families in
edge such as mediating household communication with Olmedo, 2004). acknowledging, preserving, and respecting
the native language and culture of the home.
outside institutions or repairing appliances as valuable
assets to schools.
Related Research Incorporating
Best Practices Incorporating Funds of Knowledge
Funds of Knowledge
The funds of knowledge are used in the classroom by
The best practice teachers must create is to connect researchers, teachers, and families who, by listening to
the world of the students at home to the school environ- each other, are able to understand the realities of the
ment (Moll et al., 1992). This type of best practice across students. An example that reflects this experience is of
curriculum, knowledge, and parental involvement has a teacher who shifted her deficit views (based on a
been successfully used in schools and in bilingual pro- White middle-class norm) and deconstructed previously
grams and has benefited ELL students, parents, teachers, held stereotypes about households. The teacher, along
and communities (Dorfman & Fisher, 2002; Dworin, with a university-based researcher, visited the homes of
2006). The best practice of using students’ cultural students in order to inform classroom practices. In turn,
resources in the classroom leads to forging partnerships the teacher began to understand the child as a whole
with students and families from linguistically diverse person living in a complex and interrelated cultural and
backgrounds. See Table 1 for best practices examples. linguistic environment and not just as a student who did

not have what the teacher thought a child should have to
be a good student. By conducting the research, the
teacher realized that the parents cared and supported the
education of their children. The teacher took what was
learned from the research and used the funds of knowl-
edge in her class to create contextually rich cultural and
linguistic opportunities for the students to connect with
in culturally relevant ways. This led to the creation and
implementation of a thematic unit based on candy. The
students were involved in scientific questioning, writing,
and even making candy, taught by one of the parents.
Incorporating Culturally
Relevant Teaching
The underlying axiom to the best practice of culturally
relevant teaching is that teachers cannot underestimate
the importance of incorporating the lives of the students
in the classroom. Many students sit through teacher-
centered lectures about topics that do not take into
consideration these students’ language, culture, or expe-
rience (Beyer & Apple, 1998; Garcia & Guerra, 2003).
According to Rueda (2005), students who come from
homes where English is not the native language are not
receiving an adequate education. Some of the factors that
affect the education of ELL students are (a) inadequate
access to appropriately trained teachers (Ference & Bell,
2004), (b) inadequate professional development for
teachers to address the needs of these students (Rueda,
2005), and (c) intense segregation in schools and class-
rooms that place the students at risk for educational fail-
ure (Orfield & Lee, 2004). These discrepancies result in
ELL students’ placement in remedial and special educa-
tion settings or tracks because of teachers’ tendencies to
view these students from a deficit perspective.
Deficit thinking, as defined by Valencia (1997), is a
pseudoscience in which research is flawed by negative
biases and is oppressive, with lopsided power arrange-
ments between deficit thinkers and poor and culturally
and linguistically diverse (CLD) students. Valencia
found that the false notion of deficits was associated
with genetics, “inferior” culture and class, and inade-
quate familial socialization (p. 10). Bartolomé and
Trueba (2000) argued that these ideologies create nega-
tive consequences for ELL students because teachers
justify their actions in thinking and working with CLD
students from a deficit perspective that in turn minimizes
and disrespects students’ native language and rich cul-
tural capital. Unfortunately, when teachers view CLD
students and their families through a mainstream lens,
the teachers tend to see deficits rather than strengths.
Araujo / Best Practices   119
Best Practices Using Culturally
Relevant Teaching
Bartolomé and Trueba (2000) found that best-
practice characteristics found in successful teachers
of ELL students were their rejection of deficit views
and their refusal to accept an assimilationist stance.
Successful teachers promoted native language
instruction in their classroom and believed that
effective teachers must be conscious of cultural and
ethnic differences and of personal biases. Culturally
relevant teaching instills the cultural strengths of the
students and includes their native language within
classroom activities. Of equal importance is the
inclusion of linguistically diverse families into the
curriculum. Dorfman and Fisher (2002) stated that
bringing families into classrooms has a profound
effect on students. When children see their parents
in the role of educator and leader, this pride trans-
lates into greater confidence and engagement in
their schoolwork. Therefore, schools need to devote
more time and effort into bringing families into
classrooms as educators and leaders to share their
knowledge and expertise.
Related Research Using Culturally
Relevant Teaching
The best practice of culturally relevant teaching is
reflected by a school that attracted linguistically diverse
families into the classroom through a variety of projects
focused on cultural diversity and inclusiveness. For
example, a fairy tale project required students to ask
their parents to tell them a folk story, myth, or fairy tale
from their native country. The student wrote the English
version of the story, and the parent wrote the version in
their native language. The family worked together creat-
ing paper dolls representing the cast of characters in the
story. The student then shared the story and dolls with
the class, and the parent visited the class and presented
the story. The class had the opportunity to listen to all
the students’ stories and to meet all the parents who
visited the class. Students and parents also discussed the
story, the language, and the culture (Dorfman & Fisher,
2002). This is one example of how parents are meaning-
fully involved in classrooms. When educators incor-
porate parents’ language and culture and value the
knowledge and wisdom that families have, families are
more willing to participate in school events and activi-
ties. To meaningfully involve families in classrooms,
however, schools have to effectively communicate with
linguistically diverse families.
120   Intervention in School and Clinic
Communicating With
Linguistically Diverse Families
Communication with students and their families is of
utmost importance to teachers, according to the findings
from a survey of California teachers of ELL students
(Gándara, Maxwell-Jolly, & Driscoll, 2005). According
to these teachers, “The inability to connect with parents,
inform them of standards, expectations, and ways to
help was the most commonly named challenge for those
teaching ELL students in K-6” (p. 6). Lack of commu-
nication, misunderstandings, and miscommunication
between schools and linguistically diverse families are
very common because of stereotypes, assumptions, and
generalizations. Unfortunately, school personnel tend to
undervalue linguistically diverse families (Dorfman &
Fisher, 2002). Often, linguistically diverse families need
information about the educational system in the United
States that most U.S.-born individuals know tacitly.
These parents did not attend school in the United States,
they are unfamiliar with everyday transactions, and thus
the tacit understanding of schooling becomes crucial for
authentic communication. An example of this is that
many parents from countries other than the United States
trust teachers and schools to know what is best for their
children. Many of these parents feel that to question their
child’s educational program can be interpreted as chal-
lenging the teacher’s authority and professionalism;
therefore, parents often just trust the system (Velazquez,
1998). This is misinterpreted by school personnel as a
lack of parental concern and involvement, and they blame
the family for the failure of the student and assume par-
ents do not care about their children’s education.
Orientations or family workshops can be organized in
schools to provide linguistically diverse families with a
range of information. When doing so schools must be
careful not to be paternalistic with linguistically diverse
families through insidious forms of deficit thinking.
Care must be taken not to construct families as “prob-
lem, victim, needy, or lacking” (Villenas, 2001, p. 4).
Best Practices to Communicate
With Linguistically Diverse Families
Parents’ voices, concerns, and ideas must always be
taken into consideration and used when interacting with
them. Information about the educational system, about
how it works, and about parents’ rights and responsi-
bilities should be provided to families. Parents need to
know discipline plans, attendance policies, and ways to
support children’s learning at home (Liu, 2007). Schools
must also be aware of the many different ways in which
families are already assisting children at home and how
to value these in the schools.
It is important to maintain communication through-
out the year. Letters, newsletters, and invitations to the
class that are translated into the native language of the
home should be made available continuously; educa-
tors who speak the family’s native language should
make phone calls and visit the family’s home. If teach-
ers and schools do not maintain communication, teach-
ers will not understand the lived reality of families such
as parents who are always working to make ends meet
or parents who do not attend school functions because
their language is not spoken.
Communication with families means much more than
parents contacting schools when necessary. Successful
parent-involvement programs included several schools
serving migrant children that have been very effective in
getting migrant parents involved in the schools:
1. All of the programs focused on meeting the needs of the
families first.
2. All of the schools connected to the families outside of
the schools, usually through home visits by school
personnel.
3. The schools were all dedicated and committed to the
families by interacting with them on a regular basis, mak-
ing home visits, and getting parents involved in projects
such as sewing and arts-and-crafts workshops in which
parents learned to create things that they could sell to
make money. Parents in these schools clearly understood
that parental involvement is much more than academic
involvement (López et al., 2001).
Related Research to Communicating
With Linguistically Diverse Families
Lack of communication and miscommunication may
lead to deficit thinking, as projected by the following
example described by Jasis and Ordoñez-Jasis (2006) in
a study about a Latino parent-organizing project at a
middle school. Findings from their study revealed that
most school staff identified a lack of parental participa-
tion and interest as a major factor affecting Latino under-
performance at the school. But parents told a very
different story. The parents were tired of listening to the
teachers label their children as lazy and irresponsible.
Parents resented the way their children were mistreated
when they tried to become involved in the schools, which
prevented further participation. The parents also believed
that the staff were not making an effort to know the lives
of the children outside of the classroom. In this case, both
family and school miscommunications created inaccurate
assumptions and misleading expectations.

It is imperative that school personnel work with
parents and families to support their children by reach-
ing out to them with a sense of love, compassion, and
engaged caring and by providing ways to fully under-
stand how their children will be successful in school.
Seeking and Extending Assistance
For families to be involved, social, economic, and
physical needs of families must be addressed (López
et al., 2001). Community resources should be used to
strengthen collaboration between families and schools.
Asian parents, for example, appreciate any information
about resources that they can use that will benefit their
children and themselves (Lui, 2007).
Just as schools need to extend assistance to linguisti-
cally diverse families, school personnel need to seek
assistance from families. For example, school personnel
should ask parents to preserve their native language and
to recognize the importance of knowing and maintaining
more than one language and speaking their native
language with their child. Positive effects on academic
success have been recorded when native language oppor-
tunities are fostered within the classroom (Anstrom &
DiCerbo, 1998).
Best Practices for Seeking and
Extending Assistance
The National Standards for Parent and Family
Involvement Programs (National PTA, 1998) found that
successful programs implement some of the following
best practices:
1. Distribute information regarding cultural, recreational,
academic, health, social, and other resources that serve
families within community
2. Involve community members in school volunteer programs
3. Collaborate with community agencies to provide family
support services and adult learning opportunities
4. Enable parents to more fully participate in activities that
support education
5. Inform staff members of the resources available in the
community and strategies for using those resources
(National PTA, 1998)
Best practice also means knowing the intricacies of
English-language acquisition by ELL students. Teachers
must inform themselves and provide information about
how the process of acquiring a second language works.
The teacher should explain to parents and families that
a second language is developed through building a
strong foundation in the native language (Cummins,
Araujo / Best Practices   121
1976). Teachers should ask for assistance from parents
in acknowledging, preserving, and respecting the native
language and culture of the home. This alone will con-
nect parents to the school and to the teachers who work
with their children.
There are many other ways in which schools can ask
for assistance from parents, such as organizing cultural
enrichment activities based on families strengths, using
parents as teachers (Huerta-Macias, 1998), and adopting
grandparents to assist in the classroom (Olmedo, 2004).
Related Research to Seeking
and Extending Assistance
Using community resources can assist school person-
nel to be successful with ELL students. Two Nicaraguan
immigrant mothers provide a lucid example of how lin-
guistically diverse families use community resources to
assist their children in being successful in schools. Both
women supported their daughters in school by attending
school meetings and volunteering in the classroom, but
they also made sure that they themselves were commit-
ted to their own English literacy by enrolling in adult
English-second-language (ESL) classes and by also
improving their Spanish language literacy through Bible
studies. Both women used the public libraries exten-
sively to obtain reading material and to gain computer
access. By writing to their own mothers who lived far
away, they communicated to their daughters the impor-
tance of writing. These mothers were drawing on com-
munity resources to help their daughters develop their
own literacy in both English and Spanish (Menard-
Warwick, 2007).
Another example of how schools seek and extend
assistance is a school in a rural Indian reservation that
invites members of helping agencies, including tribal
members, to work alongside teachers and families as cul-
ture and language teachers. Another school also located
in a rural Indian reservation holds a yearly back-to-school
barbecue in the community where most of their CLD
students live. Because the school is not in the same town,
teachers who know little about the region and its native
people get a chance to visit and to learn about the com-
munity in a relaxed setting. The school also holds monthly
meetings in which tribal representatives, all of the local
Indian education committees, and school administration
and staff give and receive feedback about what the com-
munity wants and needs (Dorfman & Fisher, 2002).The
visits to the community and the monthly meeting give
both teachers and families an appreciation for each other
and facilitate collaboration.
122   Intervention in School and Clinic
Summary
In addition to reviewing the best-practice literature
that speaks to the many dispositions, approaches, and
methods that bring academic and social success for all
children (see Zemelman, Daniels, & Hyde, 2005), this
article addressed directly the dispositions, approaches,
and general methods that teachers and schools should
implement when working with the ever-increasing ELL
population. Effective communication, funds of knowl-
edge, culturally relevant teaching, and extending and
accepting assistance are dispositional best practices
that school personnel must learn and practice. The
bonds teachers create to deeply understand the many
hidden factors of families that go beyond the traditional
approaches of how parents should participate are cru-
cial to the success of ELL students. Educators must
consider the life circumstances of families and value
other traditional ways of learning and parent involve-
ment. To work successfully with linguistically diverse
families, schools and school personnel need to ensure
that communication is an interchange of ideas and
mutual respect about their common bond: the success of
ELL students. ELL student success depends on this
mutual collaboration. Reaching out and valuing the dif-
ferent cultural values, languages, and knowledge that
diverse students and families bring to schools will pay
unforeseen dividends, such as increased graduation rates
and academic success of ELL students (Reis, Quintanar,
& Cabral, 2008). Pro­moting academic and social success
among the ever-increasing ELL student population will
give teachers the opportunity to renew the calling of all
caring teachers whose sincere, driving desire is to see all
learners succeed.
About the Author
Blanca E. Araujo, PhD, is an assistant professor at the University of Texas
at El Paso. The focus of her research lies in the areas of bilingual and ESL
education, immigration, migrant students, and family and community advo-
cacy within teacher education.
References
Anstrom, K., & DiCerbo, P. (1998). Preparing secondary education
teachers to work with English language learners: English lan-
guage arts [NCBE resource collection series]. Washington, DC:
National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education.
Bartolomé, L., & Trueba, E. (2000). Beyond the politics of schools
and the rhetoric of fashionable pedagogies: The significance of
teacher ideology. In E. Trueba & L. Bartolomé (Eds.), Immigrant
voices in search of educational equity (pp. 277-292). Lanham,
MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Beyer, L., & Apple, M. (1998). The curriculum: Problems, poli-
tics, and possibilities. Albany: State University of New York
Press.
Cummins, J. (1976). The influence of bilingualism on cognitive
growth: A synthesis of research findings and explanatory hypoth-
eses. (Report No. FL 007 902-905). Ontario, Canada: The
Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 125311).
Dorfman, D., & Fisher, A. (2002). Building relationships for student
success school–family-community partnerships and students
achievement in the Northwest. Portland, OR: Creating Com­
munities of Learning and Excellence.
Dworin, J. (2006). The family stories project. Reading Teacher, 59,
510-520.
Ference, R., & Bell, S. (2004). A cross-cultural immersion in the
U.S.: Changing preservice teacher attitudes toward Latino ESOL
students. Equity & Excellence, 37, 343-350.
Fry, R. (2008). The role of schools in the English language learner
achievement gap. Washington, DC: Pew Hispanic Center.
Gándara, P., Maxwell-Jolly, J., & Driscoll, A. (2005). Listening to
teachers of English language learners: A survey of California
teachers challenges, experiences, and professional development
needs. Santa Cruz, CA: Center for the Future of Teaching and
Learning.
Garcia S., & Guerra, P. (2003). Do we truly believe “all children can
learn”? Implications for comprehensive school reform. Adelante,
4, 1-5.
Gonzalez, N., Moll, L., & Amanti, C. (2005). Funds of knowledge:
Theorizing practice in households, communities and classrooms.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hidalgo, N. (1998). Toward a definition of a Latino family research
paradigm. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Edu­
cation, 11, 103-120.
Huerta-Macias, A. (1998). Learning for Latinos: The sociocultural
perspective. In M. Gonzalez, A. Huerta-Macias, & J. Tinajero
(Eds.), Educating Latino students (pp. 29-46). Lancaster, PA:
Technomic.
Jasis, P., & Ordoñez-Jasis, R. (2006). Convivencia to empowerment:
Latino parent organizing at La Familia. High School Journal, 32,
1-13.
Knight, M., Norton, N., Bentley, C., & Dixon, I. (2004). The power of
Black and Latina/o counterstories: Urban families and college-
going processes. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 35, 99-120.
Liu, P. (2007, September/October). Working with Asian and Asian
American parents of English learners. NABE News, pp. 9-11.
López, G., Scribner, J., & Mahitivanichcha, K. (2001). Redefining
parental involvement: Lessons from high-performing migrant-
impacted schools. American Educational Research Journal, 38,
253-88.
Menard-Warwick, J. (2007). Biliteracy and schooling in an extended
family Nicaraguan family household: The sociohistorical con-
struction of parental involvement. Anthropology and Education
Quarterly, 8, 119-137.
Meyer, D., Madden, D., & McGrath, D. (2004). English language
learner students in U.S public schools: 1994 and 2000. Education
Statistics Quarterly, 6, 1-3.
Moll, L., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of
knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect
homes and classrooms. Theory Into Practice, 31, 132-141.

National PTA. (1998). National standards for parent/family involve-
ment programs. Chicago: National PTA.
Olmedo, I. (2004). Storytelling and Latino elders: What can children
learn? In E. Gregory, S. Long, & D. Volk (Eds.), Many pathways
to literacy: Young children learning with siblings, grandparents,
peers, and communities (pp. 76-87). New York: RoutledgeFalmer.
Orfield, G., & Lee, C. (Eds.). (2004). Brown at 50: King’s dream or
Plessy’s nightmare? Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, Civil
Rights Project.
Payan, R., & Nettles, M. (2008). Current state of English-language
learners in the U.S. K-12 student population. Princeton, NJ:
Educational Testing Service. Retrieved October 9, 2008, from
http://www.ets.org/potal/site/ets
Pew Research Center. (2008). Statistical portrait of the foreign born
population in the United States. Washington, DC: Pew Hispanic Center.
Reis, N., Quintanar, R., & Cabral, L. (2008, January/February).
Teaching English learners: Best practices for schools and teach-
ers. NABE News, pp. 19-22.
Rueda, R. (2005). Preparing bilingual teachers. Urban Education, 2,
29-32.
Araujo / Best Practices   123
Shin, H., & Bruno, R. (2003). Language use and English-speaking
ability: 2000. Census 2000 summary file 3. Retrieved July 11,
2008, from factfinder.census.gov
U.S. Department of Education. (October, 2007). Framework for high
quality English language proficiency standards and assessments.
Retrieved July 5, 2008, from http://www.ed.gov
Valdés, G. (1996). Con respeto: Bridging the distances between culturally
diverse families and schools. New York: Teachers College Press.
Valencia, R. (1997). The evolution of deficit thinking, educational
thought and practice. Bristol, PA: Falmer.
Velazquez, L. (1998). Migrant and seasonal farm workers and drop-
ping out. In R. F. Kronick & C. Hargis (Eds.), Dropouts: Who
drops out and why and the recommended action (pp. 141-152).
Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.
Villenas, S. (2001). Latina mothers and small-town racisms: Creating
narratives of dignity and moral education in North Carolina.
Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 32, 3-28.
Zemelman, S., Daniels, H., & Hyde, A. (2005). Best practice:
Today’s standards for teaching and learning in America’s schools
(3rd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.