Current Issue

VOLUME
31
School
ISSUE Community
2
Journal
A FREE, PEER-REVIEWED,
ONLINE JOURNAL
ACADEMIC
SINCE 1991 DEVELOPMENT

INSTITUTE
ADI
Inge
www.schoolcommunitynetwork.org/scj.aspx
Academic Development Institute
nu
it
© ACADEMIC DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE a EST 1984

y
nd
Se
rvic
e
School Community Journal
Fall/Winter 2021 Lori G. Thomas, Executive Editor
Volume 31, Number 2 Grace Sheley, Editor
School Community Journal Advisory Board
Paul J. Baker Arti Joshi
Illinois State University (Emeritus) The College of New Jersey
Normal, Illinois Ewing, New Jersey
Alison A. Carr-Chellman Hazel Loucks
University of Dayton National Education Association
Dayton, Ohio Edwardsville, Illinois
James P. Comer Karen L. Mapp
Yale Child Study Center Harvard Graduate School of Education
New Haven, Connecticut Cambridge, Massachusetts
Rollande Deslandes Denise Maybank
Universite du Quebec a Trois-Rivieres City University of New York
Quebec, Canada New York, New York
Patricia Edwards Toni Moynihan-McCoy
Michigan State University Corpus Christi Independent School District
East Lansing, Michigan Corpus Christi, Texas
Joyce L. Epstein Eva Patrikakou
Johns Hopkins University DePaul University
Baltimore, Maryland Chicago, Illinois
Patricia Gándara Janice M. Rosales
UCLA Graduate School of Education Educational Consultant
Los Angeles, California Villa Park, Illinois
Raquel-Amaya Martínez González Lee Shumow
Universidad de Oviedo Northern Illinois University (Emeritus)
Oviedo, Spain DeKalb, Illinois
Anne T. Henderson Loizos Symeou
Annenberg Institute for School Reform European University-Cyprus
Washington, DC Nicosia, Cyprus
Esther Sui-Chu Ho Herbert J. Walberg
The Chinese University of Hong Kong Hoover Institution at Stanford University
Hong Kong SAR, China Chicago, Illinois
Kathleen V. Hoover-Dempsey Heather Weiss
Peabody College, Vanderbilt University Global Family Research Project
Nashville, Tennessee Boston, Massachusetts
William H. Jeynes
California State University, Long Beach
Witherspoon Institute, Princeton, NJ
SCHOOL COMMUNITY
JOURNAL
Fall/Winter 2021
Volume 31, Number 2
Academic Development Institute

ISSN 1059-308X
©2021 Academic Development Institute
Cover design by Emily Sheley
Business and Editorial Office
School Community Journal
121 N. Kickapoo Street
Lincoln, IL 62656 USA
Phone: 217-732-6462
Email: editor@adi.org
Requests for Manuscripts
The school can function as a thriving community. The School Community Journal includes
articles related to the school as a community of teachers, students, parents, and staff. Family–
school relations, site-based management, homework, sociology of education, systems theory,
the classroom community, and other topics concerning early childhood and K–12 education
are covered. SCJ publishes a mix of: (1) research (original, review, and interpretation), (2)
essay and discussion, (3) reports from the field, including descriptions of programs, and (4)
book reviews. The journal seeks manuscripts from scholars, administrators, teachers, school
board members, parents, and others interested in the school as a community.
Editorial Policy and Procedure
School Community Journal is committed to scholarly inquiry, discussion, and reportage of
topics related to the community of the school. Manuscripts are considered in the four catego-
ries listed above. Note: The journal generally follows the format of the APA Publication Manual,
7th Edition; when online sources appear in the reference list, we prefer direct links. Please make
sure electronic links cited are accurate and active. Use italics rather than underlining. Do not
use tabs to format paragraphs or tables; please use the Insert Table function for tables and the
First Line Indent function for paragraphs. Color for tables or figures is acceptable.
Contributors should send the following to editor@adi.org, via email attachments (in Word):
1. The blinded manuscript, including an abstract of no more than 250 words in the
same file, plus any tables or figures; and
2. A one paragraph description (each) of the author(s) and a mailing address, phone
number, and email address where each author can be reached.
The accompanying email cover letter should state that the work is not under simultaneous
consideration by other publication sources. A hard copy of the manuscript is not necessary.
As a refereed journal, all submissions undergo a blind peer review as part of the selection
process. Therefore, please include the author’s description and other identifying information
in a separate electronic file. Further submission instructions may be accessed on our website:
http://www.schoolcommunitynetwork.org/SCJ.aspx
Subscription to the School Community Journal
School Community Journal has been published twice annually since 1991—Spring/Summer
and Fall/Winter. School Community Journal is now a free, open access, online-only publication.
Therefore, we are no longer accepting subscriptions. If you would like to receive a free email
notice when new journal issues are posted online, contact editor@adi.org and ask to be add-
ed to journal notices. Please include your mailing address, also. The searchable archives of the
journal may be accessed (free) at http://www.schoolcommunitynetwork.org/SCJ.aspx
Contents
Comments from the Executive Editor Emeritus: Not to Drop a Name..........7

Sam Redding
Factors Impacting Positive School–Home Communication: A Multiple

Case Study of Family–School Partnership Practices in Eight Elementary
Schools in Hawaiʻi.........................................................................................9
Jacquelyn Chappel and Katherine Ratliffe
Stress Among Korean Immigrant Parents of Children With Diagnosed

Needs Amid the COVID-19 Pandemic........................................................31
Joo Young Hong, Shinwoo Choi, Grace L. Francis,
and Hyejoon Park
“Having That Place to Just Be and Not Separated by What You Can Afford”:
A Case Study of Socioeconomic Integration at an Urban Preschool.............53
Ciara Nestor, Andrew Cavanagh, and
Louis Hamlyn-Harris
The Use of the World Café Process to Foster Parent–School

Engagement in Culturally Rooted Early Childhood Montessori
Programs: A Participatory Process................................................................77
Annamarie Brennhofer Pleski, Fanny Jimbo Llapa,
Shannon Pergament, Say Vang, Bao Lee, Jordan
Webber, Octavia Webber, Terri Strom, Nora Springer,
and Mary O. Hearst
Examining the Effects of HOME WORKS! The Teacher Home Visit

Program on Student Academic Outcomes....................................................99
Lauren Scher and Sherri Lauver
High School Home Visits: Parent–Teacher Relationships and Student

Success.......................................................................................................131
Nathan E. Soule and Heidi L. Curtis
Contents continued next page

School Community Involvement to Address Student Decision-
Making Regarding Personal Health............................................................155
Sylvie Barma, Rollande Deslandes,
E. Alexander Cooper, and Samantha Voyer
The Power of the Collective: How a Black Parent Group’s Initiative

Shaped Children’s Educational Experiences and Excellence........................181
Raquel M. Rall and Alea R. Holman
Español, el Idioma Que Nosotros Hablamos: A Collective Case Study of Home

Language Use and Literacy Practices of Mexican American Families..........213
Anne M. García, Rong Zhang, Annamarie King,
and Trish Morita-Mullaney
Parents’ Perceptions of a K–3 Formative Assessment..................................239

Cristina Gillanders, Iheoma U. Iruka, Cindy Bagwell,
and Tobi Adejumo
Critical Community Building in Teacher Education: Rethinking

Classroom Management.............................................................................267
Jeannette D. Alarcón and Silvia Cristina Bettez
From School Exclusion to Provisional Access: Possibilities and

Limitations of a Critical Class-Conscious Parent Engagement Program
in Rural Upstate New York........................................................................293
Marguerite Anne Fillion Wilson, Ada Robinson-Perez,
and Denise Gray Yull
From Crisis to Opportunity: Family Partnerships with Special

Education Preservice Teachers in Remote Practicum During the
COVID-19 School Closures......................................................................325
Seung Eun McDevitt and Maria Paula Mello
Book Review on Adolescents in the Internet Age..........................................347

Eva N. Patrikakou
Book Review of Inclusive Education: A Systematic Perspective......................353

Margo Collier
Comments from the Executive Editor Emeritus: Not to Drop a Name
Sam Redding
I have been accused of name dropping on occasion. In fact, there may be some
truth to the charge. Have I told you about my lunch with Goldie Hawn? Lovely
lady. I hope I drop names sparingly and with a degree of sincerity. By the way, I
had a great chat with Peter Yarrow; sorry Paul and Mary couldn’t be there. Name
dropping is probably a sign of insecurity. That makes sense. Kathleen Kennedy
Townsend is as gracious as she is intelligent. Bobby’s daughter, you know. While
we are on the subject of the Kennedys, meeting Tim Shriver reminded me that
his father gave the commencement address at my university, many years ago. I
hope I don’t force names into unrelated conversations for purposes of self-aggran-
dizement. As I was saying to Stedman, you know, Oprah’s significant other, well,
never mind. The Buffets, by the way, are as generous as they are rich, and Angela
Duckworth is the very image of grit. Yes, of course, I have met them, but enough
about me.
Now to my point. Every name dropped above is someone I brushed by in life,
through my friendship and professional relationship with Roger Weissberg. If ever
I dropped one of their names (and I am sure I did), it would have been prefaced
by the name of Roger Weissberg, the man who not only brought people togeth-
er but actually knew them personally. Not that Roger was a collector of notables;
rather, he was a magnet for good people who shared his interest in the well-being
of children. The range of good people drawn to Roger was tremendous, and some-
how being drawn to him and to his quest for social and emotional learning made
them even better people. Teachers, social workers, and counselors rolled up their
sleeves and marched beside Roger. Also parents and business leaders, scholars, and
all manners of folks of good will. When they were together, Roger bending into
the microphone, smiling broadly, happy to see them, introducing them to one an-
other with his patent charm and gentle wit, you could sense their hearts softening,
melding into a righteous cause.
Roger Weissberg, after nearly three years battling a vicious cancer, left us. Roger
and I became acquainted through our mutual friend, Herb Walberg, some quar-
ter century ago, and our interests overlapped in our work with Margaret Wang
at the Laboratory for Student Success at Temple University. We co-edited books
and contributed chapters to each other’s books. Roger joined the national adviso-
ry board of our School Community Journal, and I joined his committee to develop
the nation’s first social and emotional learning standards for the State of Illinois.
A smile comes to my lips, remembering my lunches with Roger and Herb at the
Ritz-Carlton in Chicago, Herb’s home, just down the hall from Oprah Winfrey.
Not to drop a name.
Roger leaves his wife Stephanie, daughter Elizabeth, son Ted, a strong CASEL
organization, social and emotional learning triumphant as a national priority, and
an army of recruits to pursue it. A life well lived.
Editorial Review Board
Jeffrey A. Anderson Catherine Hands Oliver Moles
Indiana University, Bloomington Brock University, St. Catharines, Consultant
Kimberly R. Avila Ontario, Canada Sandy Spring, MD
George Mason University, Shana Haines Shadrack Msengi
Fairfax, VA University of Vermont, Burlington Southern Illinois University,
Ji-Hi Bae Diana Hiatt-Michael Edwardsville
Sungshin Women’s University, Pepperdine University, Mary Heather Munger
Seoul, Korea Malibu, CA University of Findlay, OH
Pamela Hudson Baker Amy Hilgendorf Judith Munter
George Mason University, University of Wisconsin–Madison San Francisco State University, CA
Fairfax, VA Tim Jay Marilyn Murphy
Brian R. Beabout Loughborough University, Temple University,
University of New Orleans, LA Loughborough, United Kingdom Philadelphia, PA
Philip E. Bernhardt Hui Jiang Mary M. Murray
Metropolitan State University of Ohio State University, Columbus Bowling Green State University, OH
Denver, CO Arti Joshi Professor Emeritus
Michael L. Boucher, Jr. The College of New Jersey, Ewing Osamha M. Obeidat
Texas A&M University, San Antonio Sol Bee Jung Hashemite University, Jordan
Davin Carr-Chellman Johns Hopkins Univeristy, MD Reatha Owen
University of Dayton, Ohio Kate Gill Kressley Illinois Association of School
Mary L. Cavey NYU Metro Center for Research Boards, Springfield
Chicago (IL) Public Schools on Equity & Transformation Reyes Quezada
Cheng-Ting Chen Kara Lasater University of San Diego, CA
Chung Yuan Christian University, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville Cynthia J. Reed
Taiwan Yvette Latunde Kennesaw State University, GA
Margo Collier University of La Verne, CA Timothy Rodriguez
University of New Mexico, Robert Leier University of Toledo, OH
Albuquerque U.S. Department of State/ Mavis Sanders
Susan DeMoss Georgetown University English University of Maryland,
School Administrator, Language Fellow Baltimore County
Oklahoma City, OK Lusa Lo Steven B. Sheldon
Tina Durand University of Massachusetts, Johns Hopkins University, MD
Boston University, MA Boston Martha Strickland
Jody L. Eberly Vera Lopez Penn State Capital College,
The College of New Jersey, Ewing Arizona State University, Tempe Middletown, PA
Karen Estep Angela Louque
Loizos Symeou
Grand Canyon University, California State University,
Phoenix, AZ European University,
San Bernadino
Margaret Ferrara Nicosia, Cyprus
Pamela Loughner
University of Nevada–Reno Consultant, Huntingdon Laura Szech
(Emeritus) Valley, PA University of North Carolina–
Laureen Fregeau Wilmington, NC
Marga Madhuri
University of South Alabama, University of La Verne, CA Elise Trumbull
Mobile Independent Consultant,
Charmaine Mangram
Claudia Galindo San Rafael, CA
University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa
University of Maryland, Patricia Willems
Kyle Miller
College Park Florida Atlantic University,
Illinois State University, Normal
Alyssa R. Gonzalez-DeHass Davie, FL
Regina Mistretta
Florida Atlantic University, Jianzhong Xu
St. John’s University, Queens, NY
Jupiter, FL Mississippi State University, MS
Factors Impacting Positive School–Home
Communication: A Multiple Case Study of
Family–School Partnership Practices in Eight
Elementary Schools in Hawaiʻi
Jacquelyn Chappel and Katherine Ratliffe
Abstract
Studies show that effective partnerships between schools and families im-
prove students’ academic outcomes. Schools often struggle to implement
effective strategies with low-income families, however. This multiple case study
examines family–school partnership activities at eight demographically diverse
schools in the state of Hawaiʻi and examines successful family outreach strate-
gies that cut across socioeconomic status. Drawing from interview transcripts,
which were selectively coded, the study identified successful modes of com-
munication as identified by participants. Overall, participants reported that
personalized, informal, and face-to-face communications were the most ef-
fective modes of communication. These findings have implications for K–12
teachers’ online communication with families.
Key Words: family–school–community partnerships, family engagement, case

study, socioeconomic status, school–home communication, Hawaiʻi
Introduction
Over the past 20 years, numerous studies have shown that effective part-
nerships among families, teachers, administrators, and community entities
improve students’ social, behavioral, and academic outcomes (Abrams &
School Community Journal, 2021, Vol. 31, No. 2 9

Available at http://www.schoolcommunitynetwork.org/SCJ.aspx
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL
Gibbs, 2002; Fan & Chen, 2001; Henderson & Mapp, 2002; Henderson et
al., 2007; Jeynes, 2007; Pomerantz et al., 2007; Serpell & Mashburn, 2012;
Sheldon, 2003; Sui-Chu & Willms, 1996). They also improve student atten-
dance, motivation, and self-esteem (Fan & Williams, 2010). However, schools
often struggle to design and implement effective strategies to promote part-
nerships, especially with minority and low-income families (Daniel, 2015;
Emerson et al., 2014; Schmitz, 1999; Soutullo et al., 2016). This may be relat-
ed to teachers’ perceptions of parents as lacking knowledge (Guo & Kilderry,
2018). It may also be related to the link between poverty and other factors
including stress, crowded housing, unemployment, limited access to transpor-
tation and cultural resources, illness, and isolation that make parenting harder
and more stressful (Schmitz, 1999). This stress has been shown to compromise
parent and child relationships (Van Oort et al., 2011).
Although parents from minority and low-income backgrounds might have
the will and understanding of the need to engage, they sometimes lack the con-
fidence, capacity, and resources of middle class parents (Curry & Holter, 2019;
Ratliffe & Ponte, 2018). They may also be alienated by school practices, par-
ticularly if they come from minority or immigrant cultures (Rothstein-Fisch
et al., 2001; Valdès, 1996), or they may have different understandings of the
responsibilities of schools versus parents based on cultural expectations (Gon-
zalez et al., 2013; Trumbull et al., 2001).
Finally, discourses around parents from low-income backgrounds as “in-
competent” or “in need of help,” often based on middle-class values, reinforce
existing educational inequalities (Sime & Sheridan, 2014). Relationships may
be shaped by teachers’ deficit assumptions that minority and low-income par-
ents place a low value on education (Bryan, 2005; McAlister, 2013; Yamauchi
et al., 2008). Parents may have different understandings of the responsibilities
of parents and teachers (Ratliffe, 2010), or they may not understand the behav-
iors of school personnel (Trumbull et al., 2001). Studies have shown that these
biased preconceptions can be overcome when teachers interact with parents
(Yamauchi et al., 2008) and when they include cultural perspectives in their
interactions (Ryan et al., 2010).
Differential access to online technology has further stymied educators’ abil-
ities to reach out to minority and low-income families. The digital divide,
referring to the gap between those who have and do not have consistent digi-
tal access, has been identified as a key obstacle to family involvement (Dolan,
2016; Guernsey, 2017; Noguerón-Liu, 2017). According to one study, 33% of
low to moderate income families do not have high-speed home internet access
(Guernsey, 2017). This digital divide has the potential to further erode family
partnerships and students’ educational progress.
10
POSITIVE COMMUNICATION IN HAWAIʻI
Researchers have taken varied approaches when studying partnerships around

education. Epstein’s (2011) seminal work in the 1980s and 90s identified ways
that parents could participate in their children’s schools. She developed six types
of involvement that ranged from parenting, learning at home, and communicat-
ing to volunteering, decision making, and collaborating with the community.
Although her early work has been criticized as being too schoolcentric (Auer-
bach, 2012) and for ignoring the importance of culture (Trumbull et al., 2003),
these typologies help to operationalize parent involvement and remain widely
used by many researchers who study family–school partnerships (Yamauchi et
al., 2017). This article focuses on the dimension of communication.
Recently, researchers have moved beyond school-managed structural op-
portunities for parent involvement to a focus on the quality of relationships
among teachers, parents, and administrators and on more collaborative part-
nerships in educational decision making (Kim et al., 2012; Sheridan et al.,
2012). Structural forms of family engagement include those activities that can
be measured quantitatively without an examination of the quality of actual re-
lations. While structural activities provide one measure of family engagement,
they sometimes fail to capture the extent to which families feel they can com-
municate with the school, how well families understand what is going on at
school, or how happy they are with the school.
Researchers have identified communication as one of the most import-
ant variables in promoting positive family–school relations (Gartmeier et al.,
2016; Park & Holloway, 2018), and studies show that students do better in
school when parents and teachers communicate frequently (Learning Coali-
tion, n.d.). Open, two-way, or transactional communication has been found to
best support student success (Kim et al., 2015), particularly for migrant families
(Schneider & Arnot, 2018). School communication, whether written or oral,
succeeds when it is welcoming and positive (Christenson & Sheridan, 2001)
and makes families feel valued (Learning Coalition, n.d.). In addition, research-
ers have noted the importance of formal and informal communications and
recommend that schools create opportunities for both in order to build trust
(Christenson & Sheridan, 2001). Given that communication is central to pro-
moting family–school partnerships, Bakker et al. (2007) suggested that further
research on parent engagement is needed for a better understanding about what
actually happens between teachers and parents during their communications.
Scholars have found that while face-to-face communication can be critical
when relaying personal, sensitive information (Kupritz & Cowell, 2011), both
online and face-to-face communication have advantages and disadvantages
(Qiu & McDougall, 2013). Although scholars agree on the importance of bi-
directional communication in forging family–school partnerships, research on
11
the relative importance of face-to-face versus online communication has not

been explored in scholarship on school–family relations or in K–12 education.
Our study sought to understand the types of communications that promote
quality partnerships between schools and parents.
The importance of school–family online communication has only increased
as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic when most schools were forced to move
to instruction online. The sudden move online “intensified concerns about the
digital divide” (Jibilian, 2020, para. 4); students who did not have their own
mobile devices or who lived in homes without broadband access experienced
difficulties getting access to school. Meanwhile, parents were asked to shoul-
der more educational responsibilities than ever before, increasing the need for
communication with their children’s teachers.
Research Questions
We sought to understand the following:
1. According to stakeholders, how important is face-to-face communication in
establishing quality relations between families and schools?
2. How effective do stakeholders perceive online communication to be in pro-
moting quality relations between families and schools?
3. What family–school partnership communication strategies are perceived to
be effective in both high and low socioeconomic contexts?
In seeking to understand which modalities best promoted quality relations,
this study examined stakeholders’ perceptions of various modes of communi-
cation and sought to understand the relative importance of face-to-face versus
virtual exchanges.
Theoretical Lens
This study is rooted in Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory (Bron-
fenbrenner, 2007), which called for understanding individuals in their larger
social contexts, including their schools, families, cultures, and nations, all of
which contribute to the growth of children. Rather than attempting to under-
stand individual students based only on their immediate circumstances in a
certain time or place, Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological systems theory posit-
ed that a complex system of dynamic factors influences each child. His theory
described the microsystem, which is the child’s immediate surroundings such
as family and school. The mesosystem describes how those contexts interact
with each other and includes family and school interactions. The exosystem
includes contexts with indirect effects on children such as parents’ workplaces
and larger influences such as government and culture. Finally, the chronosys-
tem includes time, recognizing that children grow and contexts change. While
12
all of these contexts are important to children’s development, the microsystem

of family and school affects children most intimately. Family partnerships fall
into the mesosystem and affect how the family and the school work together
to support each child. Bronfenbrenner’s work highlighted the importance of
working with families without portraying families in a deficit manner (Rosa &
Tudge, 2013).
Methods
This qualitative multiple case study draws from (a) interviews of three dif-
ferent types of stakeholders, (b) observations of various school events, and (c)
existing, publicly available data about each school to examine how the schools
developed their partnerships with families. In order to corroborate and increase
the accuracy of our findings, we calculated the frequency of certain responses,
documented the regularities and peculiarities of responses, and rated the inten-
sity of responses (Reams & Twale, 2008).
Setting
All schools in the study were located in Hawaiʻi, a state with a high pro-
portion of immigrant and multilingual families and a high disparity among
socioeconomic status (SES; U.S. Census Bureau, 2018). In addition, a greater
proportion of Hawaiʻi’s families send their children to one of the 97 private
schools in the islands, over 16% versus 10% nationally (Council for American
Private Education, 2021; Hawaii Association of Independent Schools, 2021;
Lee, 2021). Hawaiʻi is unique in that it is the only state with one unified public
school district that covers eight islands and includes around 290 diverse public
and charter schools with over 180,000 students (Hawaii State Department of
Education, 2019).
School Characteristics
Our study focused on elementary schools because family engagement tends
to be greatest as children start school (Henderson & Mapp, 2002; Park & Hol-
loway, 2018; Shumow & Schmidt, 2014). Schools were selected to represent
a diversity of sizes, geographies (i.e., rural vs. urban), governance (i.e., private,
public, charter), and community SES. Our cases included a total of eight ele-
mentary schools: two private, two charter, and four public schools. Of the four
public schools, two served urban and two rural communities. The two charter
and two private schools were in urban areas, and one of the private schools was
religiously affiliated. All of the schools except one were on the island of Oʻahu,
the most populous island. School sizes varied from 60 to 1,250 students. All
13
public schools were Title I schools, indicating low community SES. The ethnic
compositions of families at individual schools, when available, are included in
the school descriptions that follow. Some demographic data were not available
for private or charter schools. Table 1 provides a list of the schools in order of
community SES, measured by the percentage of students receiving some type
of financial aid. Figures were rounded to protect confidentiality, and all names
are pseudonyms. Schools were identified as high (H), medium (M), or low (L)
SES based on the percentage of students receiving financial aid. A brief descrip-
tion of each of the schools follows. To anonymize schools, their names were
replaced with pseudonyms based on colors in the Hawaiian language.
Table 1. School Characteristics

#Stu- %Fin % % % %
School SES Type Grade
dents Aid LA MA Haw White
ʻUlaʻula High Private 200 NA PK–6 NA NA NA NA
ʻAhinahina High Charter 500 NA PK–5 60 65 NA 25
ʻOmaʻomaʻo Mid Charter 60 20 K–12 70 37 NA 20
Melemele Mid Private 350 25 PK–12 NA NA NA NA
ʻAkala Low Public 400 65 K–5 45 40 10 <5
‘Alani Low Public 1200 65 K–6 45 50 5 <5
Polu Low Public 950 100 K–6 30 25 55 10
Poni Low Public 350 100 PK–6 15 5 35 10
Notes. %FinAid = Percent either receiving financial aid (private schools) or receiving free or reduced
lunch (public schools); %LA = percent meeting Language Arts proficiency; %MA = percent meet-
ing Math proficiency; %Haw = percentage Native Hawaiian ancestry; NA = not available.
ʻUlaʻula Elementary School. ʻUlaʻula is a small, private school serving 200

prekindergarten (PreK)–Grade 6 students. The school’s mission, as stated in its
handbook, includes an explicit commitment to family/school/community part-
nerships. The school has a strong alumni network and alumni participation.
ʻAhinahina Public Charter School. ʻAhinahina serves approximately 500
PreK–Grade 5 students. Drawing from families with above average incomes
and education levels, the high-SES school focuses on student-centered learning
and has progressive attitudes toward assessment and evaluation. Family engage-
ment is an explicit part of the school’s mission.
ʻOmaʻomaʻo Charter School. A small, urban, mid- to high-SES charter school,
ʻOmaʻomaʻo serves approximately 1,000 PreK–Grade 12 students. As a charter
school, it recruits students from a variety of ethnic and SES backgrounds.
14
Melemele School. A mid-SES, private, parochial, same-sex school, Mele-

mele serves about 1,000 PreK–Grade 12 students, 70% of whom go on to
four-year colleges. The elementary school, located on the same campus as the
high school, serves approximately 350 students through Grade 6, including
many children of alumni.
ʻAkala Elementary School. A small, low-SES urban school with multilin-
gual families, ‘Akala Elementary School serves approximately 400 students
from PreK–Grade 5, almost 60% of whom are of Chinese American or Fili-
pino American ethnicity. Of students, 65% qualify for free lunch, and almost
30% have limited English proficiency. The local median income is somewhat
below the state average, and college graduation levels are on par with the state,
about 30%.
ʻAlani Elementary School. A large, low-SES public school with multilin-
gual families, ʻAlani serves 1,300 K–Grade 6 students. A Title I school, 56%
of the school’s student body receives free or reduced lunch. The school serves
families that are predominantly Filipino American and has a large group of En-
glish language learning students.
Polu Elementary School. A low-SES, rural school, Polu Elementary School
serves approximately 900 students from PreK–Grade 6, over half of whom are
Native Hawaiian. Of their students, 75% qualify for free or reduced lunch,
and proficiency levels on mathematics and language arts assessments are sig-
nificantly lower than the state average at all grade levels. The school is working
to increase parent engagement in the school.
Poni Elementary School. A small, low-SES rural school with multilingual
families, Poni Elementary School serves approximately 350 students from
PreK–Grade 5, 35% of whom are Native Hawaiian, and 30% of whom are Mi-
cronesian. Of all students, 93% qualify for free or reduced lunch, and almost
30% have limited English proficiency. In addition to low academic achieve-
ment levels, the school struggles with chronic absenteeism.
Participants
At each of the eight elementary schools, we interviewed between 8–25
stakeholders including teachers, administrators, and parents. We talked with
56 teachers, 37 parents, and 19 administrators across the eight schools for a to-
tal of 112 participants. On average there were 14 participants from each school
(range: 8–25), including seven teachers (range: 3–16), five parents (range: 1–8),
and two administrators (range: 1–4). Using mostly snowball sampling, partic-
ipants were identified through multiple means including referrals from other
stakeholders, word of mouth, face-to-face invitations, invitations from the re-
searchers or principals through email, and referrals from school personnel. We
15
sometimes recruited teachers through the parents in their homerooms or asked

the Parent Coordinator or teachers to refer them. Additional parent partici-
pants were often referred by other parents. All participants volunteered and
signed consent forms.
Data Sources
We collected interviews, observations, and documents from each school.
The data for this study comes primarily from interview transcripts. See the
Appendix for the interview questions, listed by participant groups. We inter-
viewed all participants in English at times and places of their convenience.
We contacted them by email or telephone to set up appointments. Most par-
ticipants were interviewed at their schools; we interviewed a small number of
parents at their homes or community locations such as coffee shops. Interviews
generally took between 20 and 60 minutes and were audiorecorded and tran-
scribed with participants’ permission.
Data Analysis
We used grounded theory to analyze the data (Corbin & Strauss, 2015).
We triangulated interview transcripts, from which our coding derived, against
school observations and publicly available data. Following open coding, which
included an interrater reliability test among team members, we selectively cod-
ed data to identify positive modes of communication.
Following selective coding, we quantified the number of positive mentions
of certain modes of communication. Through this process of data conversion,
qualitative data were counted to ascertain the frequency of certain responses
and rate the intensity of responses. Organizing the data along a spectrum from
non-face-to-face to face-to-face communication, we identified the modes of
communication participants found most successful.
Open Coding
Following an interrater reliability test with a sample batch of five tran-
scripts, team members identified eight broad categories that were applied to all
schools. All interviews were transcribed and coded by at least two of the three
researchers. Team members coded the transcripts separately and then discussed
the codes. The eight categories are:
• Barriers (506 references)
• Communication (425 references)
• Opportunity for parental engagement (335 references)
• Quality relations (203 references)
• Teacher support for parents (140 references)
16
• Community engagement (61 references)

• Parent support for academics at home (59 references)
• Definition of family, school, and community partnerships (112)
The category of Communication, the second largest category, included 16

communication categories that participants independently identified.
Modes of Communication
• General (123 references)
• Face-to-face (47 references)
• Digital communication (44 references)
• On-campus events (39 references)
• Newsletter (32 references)
• Phone (27 references)
• Parent/cultural liaison (26 references)
• Events (21 references)
• Surveys (15 references)
• Positive messages (12 references)
• Board of Directors (10 references)
• Parent–teacher conferences (9 references)
• Letters (7 references)
• Communication folder (6 references)
• Report cards (6 references)
• Syllabus (1 reference)
• TOTAL (425 references)
These mentions were not necessarily positive statements about the mode of
communication. To identify successful modes of communication, we conduct-
ed a second round of coding.
Selective Coding
The second round of coding sought to further elucidate modes of commu-
nication and identify those communication strategies independently identified
by participants as successful or “positive.” Positive references included phras-
es such as “really well,” “really good,” “like,” “love,” “appreciate,” “successful,”
“important,” or “effective.” Less overtly positive mentions including phrases
such as “better,” “easy,” “quick,” “expectation,” “trying to,” or “I think” were
not included. Individual participants sometimes made multiple references to
the same mode of communication. The successful modes of communication
included the following (the number in parentheses indicates the number of
positive mentions):
17
Successful Modes of Communication

• Informal before or after school (23)
• School events (14)
• Letters/communication log (13)
• Phone call (12)
• Talking (10)
• Cultural Liaison (8)
• Newsletter (8)
• Beginning of year (7)
• Texting (6)
• Web portal (3)
• Formal meeting (3)
• Voice recording (2)
• Governance (2)
• Survey (1)
• TOTAL (112)
We divided the larger category of Digital Communication into Texting,

Email, and Web portal. We then merged communication folders (such as notes
in student notebooks) and emails to form the broad category of Letters. We
renamed or recategorized other categories for uniformity. Mentions of general
positive communications, such as “call me or email” that referenced more than
one mode of communication, were added to multiple columns.
We organized data along a spectrum of non-face-to-face to face-to-face
communication (see Figure 1). Nonpersonalized communication included sur-
veys, newsletters, and web portals. Face-to-face communications included both
informal and formal exchanges such as school events, formal meetings like par-
ent–student conferences, and participation in school governance. Personalized
communication included notes or emails, phone calls, or conversation.
Results
Although individual participants said they preferred a wide variety of modes

of communication, three important themes emerged:
1. Personalized (one-to-one) versus nonpersonalized (mass) communications,
2. Face-to-face versus non face-to-face communication, and
3. Formal versus informal communication.
Overall, participants reported that personalized, face-to-face, informal com-
munication best supported positive family–school partnerships.
18
Figure 1. Positive References to Communication Modes
l
oo
r)
ch
pe
rs
lo
pa
o )
te
m
oj
or
af
om
d
s
re
or
al
ss
r
rc
ea
tu
g
gi
la
re
an g
on
in
rm of y
lo
ic
in
(c
di
fo
t
rd
/p
ho ais
en
et
ce
ai
r(
be
pp
al
co
go me
g
m
ev
te
i
rt
in
ll
a
al
/e
re
et
po
ra
rn
g
nn
ey
ol
al
rs
sl
in
in
e
ll
ltu
ve
rm
rv
tte
gi
ic
eb
ca
fo
xt
lk
SES
su
ne
vo
be
cu
sc
fo
te
ta
in
le
w
a
Non-personalized H 1 1 3
(X 1:1) M 1 4 2 1
L 1 1 3 2 2
Personalized H 3 2 1
(1:1) M 2
L 1 8 10 5 3
Face-to-Face H 3 1 9 2 2
(f2f) M 1 5 2 2
L 9 8 10 1
TOTAL 1 3 8 6 2 13 12 10 7 23 8 14 3 2
Personalized Versus Nonpersonalized Communication

Surprisingly, one of the factors that emerged as most salient was not wheth-
er communication occurred face-to-face but rather that communication was
personalized. Including some face-to-face communication which were also
personalized, there were 88 positive mentions of personalized communication
and only 22 positive mentions of nonpersonalized communication (see Fig-
ure 1). These personalized modes of communication included notes or emails,
phone calls, conversations (modality not specified), and face-to-face talks be-
fore or after school. Personalized communication in the forms of letters and
talks at school events were mentioned by all SES groups.
Face-to-Face Versus Other Forms of Communication
Face-to-face exchanges garnered 55 positive references compared with 57
positive mentions of non-face-to-face communication (see Figure 1). Talking in
person before or after school (23 references) and at school events (14 referenc-
es) was identified by the greatest number of participants as their preferred mode
of communication for all SES groups. The preference for informal face-to-face
talks before or after school is supported by qualitative data in which certain
participants repeated the importance of face-to-face interactions for them per-
sonally. One parent at ʻUlaʻula, for example, repeated the following sentiment
three times, “For me, I gotta be face-to-face.” A teacher at ʻOmaʻomaʻo, a
mid-SES school, agreed, saying, talks before school “were our best communi-
cations.” But not all face-to-face communication promoted good relations. As
explained below, formality emerged as an important third factor.
19
Formal Versus Informal Communication

The relative formality of the exchange emerged as a third important fac-
tor not captured on Figure 1. While participants overwhelmingly identified
talking in person (before or after school and at school events) as a successful
mode of communication, high stakes face-to-face meetings such as parent–
teacher conferences did not garner a high number of mentions. The formality
of the exchanges emerged as a salient factor. A parent at ʻUlaʻula, a high-SES
school, shared that when she gets “random emails [or] when we see them on
campus…‘She [child] did this today. She’s talking about this.’…I feel like they
love my child. They love my child.” Like this mother, many participants said
that the mode of communication was less important than the relative formality
of the exchange; they appreciated low stakes, informal exchanges. One parent
at ʻOmaʻomaʻo, a mid-SES school, shared, “One-to-one stuff off the cuff…
[is] so much richer than every open house and every parent–teacher confer-
ence, which are completely constrained.” Another teacher at Poni Elementary,
a low-SES school, similarly emphasized the importance of communication,
“especially in more informal settings.”
Informal communications helped parents feel connected. One principal at
a low-SES school commented that the use of texting apps such as “Remind”
or “Class Dojo,” which facilitated mass informal texting, had proven highly
successful at their school. “The parents just cannot believe how accessible the
teacher feels to them,” this principal said.
The Role of SES
Low-SES schools reported greater challenges to engaging families who were
sometimes unable to attend school events due to work during the hours after
school or who did not speak English as a first language. Meanwhile, at high-
SES schools, oftentimes parents who did not work had time to be involved
in governance and curriculum. For these reasons, low-SES schools used less
traditional methods of communication when partnering with families. For
example, low-SES schools, which often served a greater proportion of mul-
tilingual families, reported success reaching out to families through cultural
liaisons, the use of translators (including electronic translators) during parent–
teacher meetings, mass voicemail messages (as opposed to written emails or
letters), and home visits. These methods of communication were not reported
at all schools in the study but were reported to be particularly successful among
the low-SES schools.
Cultural Liaison
Cultural liaisons are school staff of the same ethnicity as parents and who
speak their language. These individuals played an important role in bridging
20
cultural and linguistic differences between the school and its families at Poni
Elementary School, a school with a large population of families who spoke the
same language. Three school stakeholders independently identified the cultural
liaison eight times as key to the school’s family outreach. Because the cultur-
al liaison spoke the language of many families at the school and lived in their
neighborhood, informal exchanges in person before or after school paved the
way for positive family engagement. According to the cultural liaison, “just
talking to them…personally, one on one” was the most effective way to forge
partnerships. He served as a point person for teachers having difficulty with
particular students and for family members. Because of his position as a mem-
ber of the community, the cultural liaison was able to make home visits, talk
to parents at church, and sometimes gave students who had missed the school
bus a ride to school. The cultural liaison readily engaged in positive, informal
exchanges afforded to him by his position in the community and was identified
as integral to family partnerships at this school.
Scheduling Events Convenient for Families
Holding events off campus closer to families also appeared to be success-
ful for Poni Elementary. Faculty held off campus parent–teacher conferences
and reading nights. These special events allowed for personalized, face-to-face
interactions and drew parents who were not able to go to the school due to
transportation difficulties. Similarly, two participants at ʻAkala and ʻAlani El-
ementary Schools mentioned successful coffee hours held on campus in the
morning; these coffee hours accommodated parents who couldn’t make it to
events after school.
Voice Recording
To communicate with families at ʻAlani, a large school with many English
language learners, the administrators used mass voicemail messages, which the
school found “really effective with reminders.” The effectiveness of the mass
voicemails suggests that some parents may have been more comfortable with
oral English communication than with written communication. Unlike a note
or newsletter home which might get lost or go unread, mass voicemails allowed
the school to quickly communicate using a modality that worked for parents.
Discussion
Overall, we found that participants differed with regard to the type of com-
munication they found successful. This is in keeping with other researchers
who have found that a one-size-fits-all home communication strategy does not
work for many (Schneider & Arnot, 2018).
21
How important is face-to-face communication in establishing quality rela-

tions between families and schools?
With regard to our first research question, we found that face-to-face com-
munication was the preferred mode of communication for many. Although
it proved to be the most popular mode of communication across all SES
groups, not all face-to-face communication elicited positive mentions. Infor-
mal face-to-face interactions elicited the most positive mentions. Furthermore,
face-to-face communication was not necessary to promote positive relations.
Personalized, one-to-one communication through notes, emails, or phone calls
also were identified as positive across all SES groups.
How effective is online communication in promoting quality relations be-
tween families and schools?
We found that online communication did promote quality school–home
relations. While not as popular as informal face-to-face communication, partic-
ipants across SES groups identified newsletters (including digital newsletters)
as a successful mode of communication. Similarly, written communications
(online and on paper) comprised one of the most popular modes of commu-
nication (see Figure 1). Online communication used effectively, for example
to share pictures of students on a class website, was extremely popular among
some parents. By using the class websites as a place to share pictures, the teach-
ers at one school created an online space that was informal in that the exchanges
were low stakes.
What family–school partnership communication strategies were effective in
both high- and low-socioeconomic contexts?
We found that websites, newsletters, notes/emails, informal conversations
before or after school, and talks at school events were identified by participants
at high-, medium-, and low-SES schools as positive modes of communication
(see Figure 1). These modes of communication included formal non-face-to-
face communication (websites and newsletters), personalized non-face-to-face
communications (e.g., notes and emails), and informal face-to-face talks.
Among these, however, face-to-face communication proved most popular. Un-
scheduled chats before or after school, including unscheduled conversations at
school events, proved to be the most popular method of communication by far.
This was true in both low- and high-SES contexts.
While many of the same modes of communication proved successful across
SES groups, schools serving lower SES communities often faced a greater pro-
portion of multilingual families, who were more difficult to communicate with
as a result of language barriers. As a result, communication with these families
22
required greater flexibility, and the schools needed additional resources includ-
ing translators, cultural liaisons, and voicemail messaging systems. Addressing
these language barriers helped to make school accessible for parents, facilitate
bidirectional communication, and created a welcoming environment. For ex-
ample, although mass voicemails did not allow for two-way communication,
this strategy demonstrated creativity, flexibility, and responsiveness to parents’
communication needs at ‘Alani Elementary School, which had a large popula-
tion of parents who did not speak English well.
Relationships
Bidirectional communication, important to forging family–school part-
nerships (Kim et al., 2012; Sheridan et al., 2012), occurred most naturally
in one-on-one, informal exchanges. These informal exchanges made room for
communicating about topics other than problems, which has been identified
as key to a positive relationship (Bourke-Taylor et al., 2018). Informal emails,
for example, were sometimes transformational. One teacher at a high-SES
school shared,
I wrote his mother about something wonderful he had done. She wrote
me back, “To tell you the truth, when I saw your name on the email,
[I thought] what has he done now?” The year before, she called me [at]
home and was threatening to take him out of school because of some-
thing I said.
This exchange speaks to the importance of reaching out to parents to build
rapport and establish trust before a high stakes event occurs.
Other teachers at Polu Elementary similarly shared the importance of low
stakes interactions. These teachers said that introducing themselves at the
beginning of the year in “a non-intimidating way” “to make [parents] feel com-
fortable” sometimes led to increased contact later on in the year. This idea of
low stakes interactions is related to the idea of “positive” and “open” com-
munication widely encouraged in literature on family–school–community
partnerships (Henderson & Mapp, 2002; Ramirez, 2002).
Campus Spaces
The importance of informal face-to-face communication on campus also
points out the importance of providing physical spaces for parents on campus.
Access to schools physically and socially is important for family members to
feel welcome and invited to collaborate, a cornerstone of family–school–com-
munity partnerships. While this study points out the possibilities of informal
personalized remote communication, our study also reinforces research that
23
has suggested that “schools need to create spaces to learn from…families. By

creating these spaces, schools may also foster trust and share power with fami-
lies” (Pavlakis, 2018, p. 1067).
Similar to other studies, our findings reiterate the importance of holding
events at locations and at times convenient for families (LeRocque, 2013).
Scheduling partnership events in geographic locations or at times that are more
convenient for families can increase family attendance. These activities pro-
vide opportunities for school personnel to see families in their own contexts,
learn more about their strengths, deepen relationships (Baquedano-López et
al., 2013), and broaden definitions of parent engagement (Ferrara, 2009).
Online Communication
Finally, although this study stemmed from an interest in engaging fami-
lies, it offers insights for engaging parents in a distance learning environment,
which became more normalized after the school closures resulting from the
COVID-19 pandemic. Online communication to support K–12 education-
al outcomes has been shown to be effective (Blanco & Blanco, 2011; Yang et
al., 2020). Participants’ responses in this study show that while face-to-face
communication remains important for building beneficial relationships, pos-
itive relations can be forged remotely through written exchanges, especially
informal and one-on-one communication. These communications occurred
through personalized positive emails, pictures posted on class websites, and
even texting apps such as “Remind” and “Class Dojo,” which allowed teachers
to text parents brief updates and allowed for quick informal communication
between teachers and parents.
Limitations/Future Studies
It bears repeating that different populations and different individuals may
prefer different modes of communication for different purposes and occasions.
While this study points to the importance of informal, personalized, face-to-
face communications across a range of very different schools and demographics,
these findings will not apply to all individuals or all school populations.
While this study investigated the characteristics of different modes of com-
munication, we did not explore the content of those communications, recently
identified as an important next step in research (Bakker et al., 2007). Our case
studies, whose data collection spanned years, illustrate the difficulty of explor-
ing the content of parent–family communications. Because many important
school–family communications occur informally, they are difficult to capture.
Finally, our analysis is limited by the complex nature of most communi-
cations, which have overlapping characteristics. Communications can be
24
non-face-to-face and yet personalized, as in many online communications.

They can be face-to-face and formal as in a school event. The overlapping na-
ture of these characteristics makes it difficult to identify unique factors that are
salient in promoting positive engagement.
In addition, because the modes of communications were self-identified by
participants themselves, the nature of the communication in our study was
sometimes vague—for example, “talking” or “random emails [or] when we see
them on campus.” While this study offers insights into school stakeholders’
self-identified preferences for communication, using questionnaires for data
collection in future studies may allow researchers to better explore the pre-
ferred modes of communication and their salient characteristics. The modes of
communication detailed here provide a useful starting point to develop such a
questionnaire.
References
Abrams, L. S., & Gibbs, J. T. (2002). Disrupting the logic of home–school relations: Parent
involvement strategies and practices of inclusion and exclusion. Urban Education, 37(3),
384–407.
Auerbach, S. (2012). School leadership for authentic family and community partnerships: Research
perspectives for transforming practice. Routledge.
Bakker, J., Denessen, E., & Brus-Laeve, M. (2007). Socio-economic background, parental in-
volvement, and teacher perceptions of these in relation to pupil achievement. Educational
Studies, 33(2), 177–192.
Baquedano-López, P., Alexander, R. A., & Hernandez, S. J. (2013). Equity issues in parental
and community involvement in schools: What teacher educators need to know. Review of
Research in Education, 37(1), 149–182.
Blanco, H., & Blanco, J. (2011). Proposal to save the family literacy program using distance
education. Distance Learning, 8(2), 37–44.
Bourke-Taylor, H., Cotter, C., Johnson, L., & Lalor, A. (2018). Belonging, school support,
and communication: Essential aspects of school success for students with cerebral palsy in
mainstream schools. Teaching and Teacher Education, 70, 153–164.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and de-
sign. Harvard University Press.
Bryan, J. (2005). Fostering educational resilience and achievement in urban schools through
school–family–community partnerships. Professional School Counseling, 8(3), 219–227.
Christenson, S., & Sheridan, S. (2001). Schools and families: Creating essential connections for
learning. Guilford Press.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2015). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for
developing grounded theory. Sage.
Council for American Private Education. (2021). Private school statistics at a glance. https://
www.capenet.org/facts.html
Curry, K., & Holter, A. (2019). The influence of parent social networks on parent perceptions
and motivation for involvement. Urban Education, 54(4), 535–563.
25
Daniel, G. (2015). Patterns of parent involvement: A longitudinal analysis of family–school

partnerships in the early years of school in Australia. Australasian Journal of Early Child-
hood, 40(1), 119–128.
Dolan, J. E. (2016). Splicing the divide: A review of research on the evolving digital divide
among K–12 students. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 48(1), 16–37.
Epstein, J. L. (2011). School, family, and community partnerships: Preparing educators and im-
proving schools (2nd ed.). Westview Press.
Emerson, B., Leichter, H. J., Perkins, B., Block, C., & Yorks, L. (2014). Perceptions of contin-
uation of family, community, and school partnership between the Kibbutz Shomrey Ha Shalom
and the Brotherhood School of Dimona, Israel. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.
Fan, X., & Chen, M. (2001). Parental involvement and students’ academic achievement: A
meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 13 (1), 1–22.
Fan, W., & Williams, C. M. (2010). The effects of parental involvement on students’ academic
self-efficacy, engagement, and intrinsic motivation. Educational Psychology, 30, 53–74.
Ferrara, M. M. (2009). Broadening the myopic vision of parent involvement. School Commu-
nity Journal, 19(2), 123–142. https://www.adi.org/journal/fw09/FerraraFall2009.pdf
Gartmeier, M., Gebhardt, M., & Dotger, B. (2016). How do teachers evaluate their parent
communication competence?: Latent profiles and relationships to workplace behaviors.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 55, 207–216.
Gonzalez, L. M., Borders, L. D., Hines, E. M., Villalba, J. A., & Henderson, A. (2013). Paren-
tal involvement in children’s education: Considerations for school counselors working with
Latino immigrant families. Professional School Counseling, 16(3), 185–193.
Guernsey, L., & Levine, M. H. (2017). How to bring early learning and family engagement into
the digital age: An action agenda for city and community leaders. Joan Ganz Cooney Cen-
ter at Sesame Workshop. https://www.newamerica.org/education-policy/policy-papers/
how-bring-early-learning-and-family-engagement-digital-age/
Guo, K., & Kilderry, A. (2018). Teacher accounts of parent involvement in children’s educa-
tion in China. Teaching and Teacher Education 69, 95–103.
Hawaii Association of Independent Schools. (2021). Private school enrollment report: 2020-
2021. https://www.hais.us/Customized/Uploads/ByDate/2021/March_2021/March_12th_
2021/2020-2021%20Enrollment%20Report_Final28055.pdf
Hawaii State Department of Education. (2019). Connect with us. https://www.hawaiipublic-
schools.org/ConnectWithUs/Pages/Home.aspx
Henderson, A. T., & Mapp, K. L. (2002). A new wave of evidence: Impact of school, family, and
community connections on student achievement. SEDL.
Henderson, A. T., Mapp, K. L., Johnson, V. R., & Davies, D. (2007). Beyond the bake sale: The
essential guide to family–school partnerships. The New Press.
Jibilian, I. (2020, December 24). U.S. Congress approves $7 billion or aid on internet bills
and efforts to close the digital divide, as part of the larger COVID-19 stimulus package.
Business Insider. https://www.businessinsider.in/politics/world/news/congress-approves-7-
billion-for-aid-on-internet-bills-and-efforts-to-close-the-digital-divide-as-part-of-the-larg-
er-covid-19-stimulus-package/articleshow/79932335.cms
Jeynes, H. (2007). The relationship between parental involvement and urban secondary school
student academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Urban Education, 42(1), 82–110.
Kim, E. M, Coutts, M. J., Holmes, S. R., Sheridan, S. M., Ransom, K. A., Sjuts, T. M., &
Rispoli, K. M. (2012). Parent involvement and family–school partnerships: Examining the
content, processes, and outcomes of structural versus relationship-based approaches. Nebraska
Center for Research on Children, Youth, Families and Schools. https://cyfs.unl.edu/re-
sources/downloads/working-papers/CYFS_Working_Paper_2012_6.pdf
26
Kim, E. M., & Sheridan, S. M. (2015). Foundational aspects of family–school connections:

Definitions, conceptual frameworks, and research needs. In S. M. Sheridan & E. M. Kim
(Eds.), Foundational aspects of family–school partnership research, Vol. 1 (pp. 1–14). Springer
International.
Kupritz, V., & Cowell, E. (2011). Productive management communication: Online and face-
to-face. International Journal of Business Communication, 48(1), 54–82.
Learning Coalition. (n.d.). Activating educators’ focus on family engagement as central to teaching.
https://affect.coe.hawaii.edu/
Lee, S. (2021, March 30). Hawaii’s private schools see enrollment drop more than 20% for pre-
schoolers. Civil Beat. https://www.civilbeat.org/2021/03/hawaiis-private-schools-see-enroll-
ment-drop-more-than-20-for-preschoolers/
LeRocque, M. (2013). Addressing cultural and linguistic dissonance between parents and
schools. Preventing School Failure, 57(2), 111–117.
McAlister, K. T. (2013). Why community engagement matters in school turnaround. Voices in
Urban Education, 36, 35–42.
McWilliams, M. S., Maldonado-Mancebo, T., Szczepaniak, P. S., & Jones, J. (2011). Sup-
porting Native Indian preschoolers and their families: Family–school–community partner-
ships. Young Children, 66(6), 34–41.
Noguerón-Liu, S. (2017). Expanding notions of digital access: Parents’ negotiation of school-
based technology initiatives in new immigrant communities. Equity & Excellence in Edu-
cation, 50(4), 387–399.
Park, S., & Holloway, S. (2018). Parental involvement in adolescents’ education: An examina-
tion of the interplay among school factors, parental role construction, and family income.
School Community Journal, 28(1), 9–36. https://www.adi.org/journal/2018ss/ParkHollo-
waySpring2018.pdf
Parrett, W. H., & Budge, K. (2012). Turning High-Poverty Schools into High-Performing Schools.
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Pavlakis, A. E. (2018). Reaching all families: Family, school, and community partnerships amid
homelessness and high mobility in an urban district. Urban Education, 53(8), 1043–1073.
Pomerantz, E. M., Moorman, E. A., & Litwack, S. D. (2007). The how, whom, and why of
parents’ involvement in children’s academic lives: More is not always better. Review of Ed-
ucational Research, 77(3), 373–410.
Qiu, M., & McDougall, D. (2013). Foster strengths and circumvent weaknesses: Advantages
and disadvantages of online versus face-to-face subgroup discourse. Computers & Educa-
tion, 67, 1–11.
Ramirez, A. Y. F. (2002). How parents are portrayed among educators. School Community Jour-
nal, 12(2), 51–62. http://www.adi.org/journal/fw02/Ramirez%20Fl%2002.pdf
Ratliffe, K. (2010). Family obligations in Micronesian cultures: Implications for educators.
International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 23(6), 671–690.
Ratliffe, K., & Ponte, E. (2018). Parent perspectives on developing effective family–school
partnerships in Hawaiʻi. School Community Journal, 28(1), 217–247. https://www.adi.org/
journal/2018ss/RatliffePonteSpring2018.pdf
Reams, P., & Twale, D. (2008). The promise of mixed methods: Discovering conflicting reali-
ties in the data. International Journal of Research and Method in Education, 31(2), 133–142.
Rosa, E. M., & Tudge, J. (2013). Urie Bronfenbrenner’s of human development: Its evolution
from ecology to bioecology. Journal of Family Theory and Review, 5(4), 243–258.
Rothstein-Fisch, C., Quiroz, B., Trumbull, E., & Greenfield, P. M. (2001). Bridging cultures
between home and school: A guide for teachers with a special focus on immigrant Latino fami-
lies. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
27
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 ori-
entations. Psychology in the Schools, 47(4), 391–405.
Schmitz, C. (1999). Collaborative practice in low income communities: University, agency,
public school partnerships. Social Thought, 19(2), 53–67.
Schneider, C., & Arnot, M. (2018). Transactional school–home–school communication: Ad-
dressing the mismatches between migrant parents’ and teachers’ views of parental knowl-
edge, engagement, and the barriers to engagement. Teaching and Teacher Education, 75,
10–20.
Serpell, J. N., & Mashburn, A. (2012). Family–school connectedness and children’s early so-
cial development. Social Development, 21(1), 21–46.
Sheldon, S. B. (2003). Linking school–family–community partnerships in urban elementary
schools to student achievement on state tests. Urban Review, 35(2), 149–65.
Sheridan, S. M., Kim, E. M., Coutts, M. J., Sjuts, T. M., Holmes, S. R., Ransom, K. A., &
Garbacz, S. A. (2012). Clarifying parent involvement and family–school partnership inter-
vention research: A preliminary synthesis. Nebraska Center for Research on Children, Youth,
Families, and Schools. http://www.cyfs.unl.edu/resources/downloads/working-papers/
CYFS_Working_Paper_2012_4.pdf
Shumow, L., & Schmidt, J. (2014). Parent engagement in science with ninth graders and with
students in higher grades. School Community Journal, 24(1), 17–36. https://www.adi.org/
journal/2014ss/ShumowSchmidtSpring2014.pdf
Siampou, F., Komis, V., & Tselios, N. (2014). Online versus face-to-face collaboration in
the context of a computer-supported modeling task. Computers In Human Behavior, 37,
369–376.
Sime, D., & Sheridan, M. (2014). ‘You want the best for your kids’: Improving educational
outcomes for children living in poverty through parental engagement. Educational Re-
search, 56(3), 327–342.
Soutullo, O. R., Sanders-Smith, S. C., & Navia, L. E. (2016). Discouraging partnerships?
Teachers’ perspectives on immigration-related barriers to family–school collaboration.
School Psychology Quarterly, 31(2), 226–240.
Sui-Chu, E. H., & Willms, J. D. (1996). Effects of parental involvement on eighth-grade
achievement. Sociology of Education, 69(2), 126–141.
Trumbull, E., Greenfield, P., Rothstein-Fisch, C., & Quiroz, B. (2001). Bridging cultures be-
tween home and school: A guide for teachers. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Trumbull, E., Rothstein-Fisch, C., & Hernandez, E. (2003). Parent involvement in schooling:
According to whose values? School Community Journal, 13(2), 45–72. https://www.adi.
org/journal/fw03/Trumbull,%20et%20al.pdf
U.S. Census Bureau. (2018). The supplemental poverty measure: 2018. https://www.census.gov/
content/dam/Census/library/publications/2019/demo/p60-268.pdf
Valdés, G. (1996). Con Respeto: Bridging the distances between culturally diverse families and
schools: An ethnographic portrait. Teachers College Press.
Van Oort, F. V. A., Van Der Ende, J., Wadsworth, M. E., Verhulst, F. C., & Achenbach, T. M.
(2011). Cross-national comparison of the link between socioeconomic status and emo-
tional and behavioral problems in youths. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology,
46(2), 167–172.
Yamauchi, L. A., Lau-Smith, J., & Luning, R. J. I. (2008). Family involvement in a Hawaiian
language immersion program. School Community Journal, 18(1), 39–60. https://www.adi.
org/journal/ss08/YamauchiLau-SmithLuningSpring2008.pdf
28
Yamauchi, L. A., Ponte, E., Ratliffe, K. T., & Traynor, K. (2017). Theories that frame re-
search on family–school community partnerships. School Community Journal, 27(2), 9–34.
https://www.adi.org/journal/2017fw/YamauchiEtAlFall2017.pdf
Yang, H. H., Kwok, L. F., & Yang, X. (2020). Home-based learning during COVID-19 out-
break: Feedback from Chinese parents. Teachers College Record. https://www.tcrecord.org/
Content.asp?ContentID=23295
Jacquelyn Chappel serves an instructor in the University of Hawaiʻi system and

previously worked as a middle school and high school teacher for 10 years. She recently
served as the Treasurer/Secretary for the American Educational Research Association’s
Family–School–Community Partnerships Special Interest Group. Her research focus-
es on literacy education with diverse learners. Correspondence concerning this article
may be addressed to Jacquelyn Chappel via email: jchappel@hawaii.edu
Katherine Ratliffe is a professor of educational psychology at the University of Ha-
waiʻi’s College of Education. She has widely published on issues related to working
with special needs students, family–school–community partnerships, and the Micro-
nesian community.
Appendix. Interview Questions
Teachers:
1. What is your age, gender, ethnicity, age(s) of child(ren)? How long have you
been in Hawaiʻi? Years at current school?
2. What is your definition of family, school, and community partnerships?
3. What do you do now to partner with the school?
4. How effective are you in partnering with the school?
5. What have you done in the past to partner with the school?
6. What barriers do you find when you try to partner with the school?
7. What have you found to be successful when partnering with the school?
8. What does your child’s teacher do to support partnerships with you?
9. What does the school do to support partnerships with you?
10. What does the principal do to support partnerships with you?
11. What do you perceive as the role of the principal in establishing the climate for
family, school, and community partnerships in your school?
12. What do you perceive as the role of the teachers in establishing the climate for
13. What do you perceive as the role of families in establishing the climate for fam-
ily, school, and community partnerships in your school?
14. What kinds of supports do you feel that you need to partner better with the
school?
Family Members:
1. What is your age, gender, ethnicity, age(s) of child(ren)? How long have you
been in Hawaiʻi? Years attended current school?
29

3. What do you do now to partner with the school?
4. How effective are you in partnering with the school?
5. What have you done in the past to partner with the school?
6. What barriers do you find when you try to partner with the school?
7. What have you found to be successful when partnering with the school?
8. What does your child’s teacher do to support partnerships with you?
9. What does the school do to support partnerships with you?
10. What does the principal do to support partnerships with you?
14. What kinds of supports do you feel that you need to partner better with the
school?
Principals:
1. What is your age, gender, ethnicity, years of teaching/administrative experience,
years in HIDOE, years at this school?
3. What do you do now to partner with parents?
4. How effective are you in partnering with families?
5. How effective is your school in partnering with families?
6. What strategies have you tried in the past to partner with families?
7. What barriers exist to partner with families?
8. What have you found to be successful when partnering with families?
12. What kinds of supports do you feel that you need to partner better with fami-
lies?
13. What kinds of supports do teachers need to partner better with families?
14. What kinds of supports does your school need to better partner with families?
30
Stress Among Korean Immigrant Parents of
Children With Diagnosed Needs Amid the
COVID-19 Pandemic
Joo Young Hong, Shinwoo Choi, Grace L. Francis, and
Hyejoon Park
Abstract
This study examines difficulties amid the COVID-19 pandemic in raising

children and meeting their educational needs among Korean immigrant par-
ents of children with disabilities, giftedness, and/or limited English proficiency
living in the U.S. The Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regression analysis exam-
ined the associations between the 48 participants’ perceived difficulties meeting
their children’s educational needs, parental stress, and parents’ resilience and
social support. Additionally, basic interpretive qualitative analysis was con-
ducted for the 18 survey participants who provided data via an open-ended
survey response. Results determined that participant difficulties in assisting
with their children’s educational needs were associated with increased parental
stress. Participants also described lack of resources and support, language and
communication barriers, internal family conflicts, and developmental concerns
about the child. Implications for practice and future research are discussed.
Key Words: Coronavirus disease, COVID-19, pandemic, Korean, immigrant,

disability, giftedness, limited English proficiency, children, education, resil-
ience, social support, parental stress

Introduction
Since December 2019, the Coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) has sig-
nificantly threatened global society, economics, and public health—including
mental health. Several studies report parental and psychological distress amid
the COVID-19 pandemic in various countries. For example, in Canada, re-
search indicated that parents of children aged birth through eight years were
at risk for mental health problems, including anxiety and depression, amid the
pandemic (Cameron et al., 2020). Another study in Spain found that parent-
ing children under 16 years old and parents’ increased psychological distress
amid the pandemic were positively associated (Gomez-Salgado et al., 2020).
Further, parents of children between two and 14 years old in Italy reported in-
creased difficulties and stress associated with quarantine during the pandemic
(Spinelli et al., 2020).
Response to COVID-19 in U.S. School Systems
In response to COVID-19, the United States (U.S.) implemented several
exercises informed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
to mitigate the spread of COVID-19, including mandated use of face covers/
masks and hand sanitizer in public and the observation of social distancing,
or individuals maintaining a minimum of six feet from others (CDC, 2021).
Many U.S. cities also called for shelter-in-place or shutdown orders, including
closing public and private schools. As a result, schools across the nation ad-
opted fully online or hybrid instruction to minimize face-to-face interactions
during the pandemic, with no or little preparation for educators, families, or
students (Schaeffer, 2020). As rates of COVID-19 cases continued to ebb and
flow, schools continued to adopt and adapt various educational options for stu-
dents, including partial or full in-person instruction and hybrid or fully remote
instruction, depending orders placed by the states, school districts, and/or local
public health authorities (Education Week, 2020).
The inconsistency in instructional models and other ramifications of the
pandemic (e.g., job loss, lack of childcare, family illness) placed a strain on
parents of school-aged children as they attempted to support their children,
navigate school systems, and provide academic support (Brown et al., 2020).
Moreover, immigrant families living in the U.S. encountered additional strains
due to language differences in communicating with schools (Lazarin, 2020).
Further, families and educators of children with special needs (e.g., disabili-
ties, emerging bilingual, gifted) struggled to meet student educational needs
during the abrupt shift to online instruction as a result of COVID-19 (Schaef-
fer, 2020), resulting in exacerbated parental stress (NAGC, 2020), including
stress among Korean immigrants.
32
KOREAN PARENTS IN U.S. IN PANDEMIC
Korean Immigrants in the U.S.

Korean Americans comprise the fifth largest Asian American subgroup in
the U.S. (U.S. Census Bureau, 2018), consisting of approximately two million
foreign-born and U.S.-born Korean Americans (O’Connor & Batalova, 2019).
Many Korean immigrants began to move to the U.S. looking for better educa-
tion, employment, and life opportunities in the latter part of the 20th century
(Boston Korean Diaspora Project, n.d.; O’Connor & Batalova, 2019). There-
fore, most Korean immigrants who recently immigrated to the U.S. are likely
to have higher income and educational levels compared to other immigrant
groups and other U.S. citizens (O’Connor & Batalova, 2019). Further, Korean
immigrant parents, along with other Asian Americans, are likely to have high-
er educational expectations for their children compared to other ethnic groups
(Shin, 2004). English proficiency of Korean immigrants, however, is likely to
be lower than other immigrant groups (O’Connor & Batalova, 2019).
Like many immigrant families, Korean immigrants experience parenting
challenges while adjusting to a new culture in the host country where language
barriers and social isolation frequently occur (Fung & Lau, 2010; Jambu-
nathan et al., 2000). Unsurprisingly, these parents experience linguistic and
cultural gaps when they meet their children’s teachers (Lee et al., 2018), gaps
that are exacerbated in the case of children with special needs. For example,
immigrant parents of children with disabilities often state that cultural and lin-
guistic differences result in difficulties navigating appropriate educational or
medical services, building effective relationships with professionals, and mak-
ing individualized education program (IEP) meetings meaningful (Khanlou et
al., 2015; Park & Turnbull, 2001). Immigrant parents of children with gifted-
ness also report lacking educational resources and information due to limited
English proficiency (Harris et al., 2009; Wiles, 2014). However, little is known
about the experiences of Korean immigrant parents who have school-aged chil-
dren with special needs.
Further, family resilience (e.g., the ability to cope with adversity, trauma,
and stress) is an important factor in immigrant parents’ ability to effectively
serve in caregiving roles, seek help when needed, and maintain a positive men-
tal health (Chang & Ng, 2002; Ornelas et al., 2009; Zechella & Raval, 2016).
Given reported barriers and stressors, parent resilience is particularly important
for immigrant families when navigating American educational systems, espe-
cially when their children have special needs such as disabilities (Su, 2008).
Despite the importance of resilience, again, little is known about resilience
strategies of Korean American immigrant parents, outside of the importance
of social support in relieving parental stress and promoting acculturation in
33
the host country (Levitt et al., 2005; Liu et al., 2020). That said, this line of
research does not offer robust descriptions of the experiences of Korean Amer-
ican immigrants who have school-aged children with special needs.
To our knowledge, research focusing on the impact of COVID-19 on immi-
grant families of school-aged children with special needs, including those living
in the U.S., has yet to be published. This research is critical, given the stressful
circumstances immigrant parents often experience as their children progress
through school systems (e.g., language barriers, meeting educational needs; Lee
et al., 2018). Moreover, investigating the experiences of Korean immigrants
raising children with special needs (i.e., disabilities, giftedness, English lan-
guage learners) is important given that Koreans are one of the fastest growing
immigrant groups in the U.S., but also one of the most understudied popula-
tions, particularly Korean immigrants who have children with special needs.
To respond to this perceived gap in the research, this study examined Ko-
rean immigrant parents’ stress in raising school-aged children with disabilities,
giftedness, and/or limited English proficiency. Research questions included:
(1) What are the rates of parents who experienced difficulties meeting their
children’s education needs in general, who experienced language barriers when
trying to meet their children’s educational needs, and who experienced difficul-
ties using online learning tools when trying to meet their children’s educational
needs, amid the COVID-19 pandemic?; (2) Is there an association between ex-
periencing difficulties meeting children’s educational needs and parental stress
amid the COVID-19 pandemic?; (3) Do parents’ resilience level and social
support have direct effects in parental stress amid the COVID-19 pandemic?;
and (4) What are COVID-19 pandemic-related parenting difficulties?
Methods
Procedures
U.S. Korean immigrants were recruited to take an online survey between
May 2020 and June 2020 to explore their COVID-19-related well-being out-
comes. The research team engaged in convenience and snowball sampling by
posting invitations describing the nature of the study, targeting foreign-born
and U.S.-born Korean immigrant respondents on popular online communities
for Korean immigrants in the U.S. (e.g., missyusa.com). The team also dis-
tributed invitations by email via various Korean organizations (e.g., religious
organizations with which the researchers were familiar), asking individuals to
further distribute the survey to other Korean immigrants. The researchers then
used the following criteria to engage in purposive selection of participants for
this study: participants needed to (a) reside in the U.S. regardless of their visa
34
or citizenship status, (b) have or be of Korean descent, (c) be over the age of
18, and (d) be the parent of a school-age child or children with disabilities, gift-
edness, and/or limited English proficiency (referred to collectively as children
with special needs in this article). A total of 48 participants were selected using
these criteria. The sample characteristics and participant demographics of this
study are provided below. Data were treated and analyzed anonymously to pro-
tect participant confidentiality.
Participants
Quantitative Sample
Table 1 presents the sample characteristics of the final sample of partic-
ipants (N = 48). The mean age was 41.43 (range: 30–55, Std. Dev: 5.56);
64% were female, and 35.4% were male. Regarding educational background,
8.3% had at least high school diploma, 27.1% had some level of college
education, 37.5% had bachelor’s degree, and 42.8% had graduate degree. Re-
garding current employment status, 35.4% were employed full-time, 14.6%
were employed part-time, and 50.0% were not in the labor force. In terms of
household income, 12.5% of the sample earned below $34,999, 12.5% earned
$34,999–$49,999, 47.9% earned $50,000–$99,999, and 27.1% earned above
$100,000 per year. In terms of parental stress, the mean score of the sample was
47.65 (Std. Dev: 11.96).
Qualitative Sample
Several (N = 18) survey participants also provided written responses on the
survey regarding additional difficulties experienced raising and educating their
child with special needs during COVID-19. Table 2 displays disaggregated
demographic information for these participants. Participant age among this
sample ranged from 32–52 years, and 11 of the 18 reported their gender as fe-
male. All but one participant reported some degree of college attendance (some
college–graduate school) and employment ranged from student (n = 1), to
part-time employment/freelance work (n = 3), full-time employment (n = 5),
and homemaker (n = 8). One participant also reported a leave of absence from
work. The length of time living in the U.S. ranged from 1 to 27 years (mean
of 11.3 years), and current areas of residence reflected nine U.S. states. House-
hold income ranged from less than $10,000/year to more than $100,000 a
year, with the majority of participants (n = 5) reporting an average household
income of $50,000–$74,999.
35
Table 1. Characteristics of the Study Sample

All sample All sample
Variables Variables
(N = 48) (N = 48)
Dependent Variable Sociodemographic Variables
Parental Stress
Age (years)
(range: 18–90)
Std. Dev: Mean:
Mean: 47.65 Min: 30
11.96 41.43
Std. Dev:
Independent Variable Max: 55
5.56
Difficulty Child Education Education
Yes 84.8% High school diploma or less 8.3%
Some level of college
No 15.2% 27.1%
education
Lang Barrier Child Edu Bachelor’s degree 27.1%
Yes 71.7% Graduate degree 37.5%
No 28.3% Employment Status
Tech Diff Child Edu Employed full-time 35.4%
Yes 41.3% Employed part-time 14.6%
No 58.7% Out of labor force 50.0%
Coping Variables Household Income
Resilience (range: 0–40) < $34,999 12.5%
Std. Dev:
Mean: 23.71 $35,000–$49,999 12.5%
6.26
Social Support
$50,000–$99,999 47.9%
(range: 3–15)
Std. Dev:
Mean: 12 >= $100,000 27.1%
2.07
Years in U.S. Sex
Mean:
Min: 1 Male 35.4%
13.28
Std. Dev:
Max: 40 Female 64.6%
8.15
Notes. Lang Barrier Child Edu = Language Barriers Assisting in Child's Education;
Tech Diff Child Edu = Technical Difficulties Assisting in Child's Education
36
Table 2. Demographic Information for Open-Ended Question Respondents
Partici- Years in Educational # of Children Child(ren) Child(ren)’s
Age Sex State Employment Family Annual Income
pant U.S. Attainment With Needs Age in Years Needs
1 40 M MA 16 Some college Part-time $50,000–$74,999 1 10 ADHD, LD, & ESL
2 38 F VA 13 College Homemaker $50,000–$74,999 2 11 & 9 Giftedness
3 N/R F CA 10 College Homemaker $75,000–$99,999 2 6&4 ELL
4 32 M NJ 1 Grad school Full-time $50,000–$74,999 2 6&4 ELL
5 43 M CA 5 Grad school Leave of absence $50,000–$74,999 2 12 & 9 ELL
6 37 F IL 7 Grad school Part-time $75,000–$99,999 1 4 ELL
ELL (1st, 2nd) &
7 34 F TN 14 Some college Homemaker $50,000–$74,999 3 11, 7, & 4
Speech delays (3rd)
8 39 M VA 27 Some college Full-time $75,000–$99,999 2 11 & 7 ELL
9 36 M CA 2 Grad school Student $35,000–$49,999 1 7 ELL
10 42 F CA 6 Comm col Full-time $15,000–$24,999 2 8&5 ELL
11 44 M PA 8 Grad school Full-time $75,000–$99,999 1 10 Giftedness
12 39 F FL 13 College Homemaker >$100,000 1 8 Giftedness
13 37 F FL 7 College Homemaker <$10,000 1 6 Physical disability
ADD, LD, &
14 41 F NJ 16 College Freelancer >$100,000 1 9
apraxia
15 49 F CA 19 High school Homemaker $15,000–$24,999 1 10 ADHD
ADHD (1st) &
16 52 F CA 22 Some college Homemaker $35,000–$49,999 2 19 & 14
ADD (2nd)
Developmental de-
17 30 F OH 4 College Homemaker $15,000–$24,999 1 2
lay & ASD
37
Community Developmental de-
18 49 M CA 14 Full-time $35,000–$49,999 1 12
college lay & ASD
Participants’ number of children with special needs ranged from 1 to 3

within single family units, with the majority of participants (56%) report-
ing having only one child with a special need. Reported ages of children with
special needs ranged from 2 to 19 years. Child diagnoses ranged, with four par-
ticipants indicating that their child had more than one diagnosis (see Table 2).
However, the most frequently reported diagnoses were (a) English Language
Learner (ELL; n = 10), (b) Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD;
n = 3), and (c) Giftedness (n = 3).
Measurements
Parental stress, resilience, and social support were measured by existing
scales (see following sections). For the items without existing scales (e.g., dif-
ficulty in meeting children’s educational needs amid COVID-19 pandemic),
the research team developed questions in English and Korean. All items in the
survey were cross-checked and back-translated by bilingual researchers reitera-
tively, and external bilingual reviewers also confirmed the cultural competency
and linguistic accuracy of the questions included in the survey.
Sociodemographic Factors
Respondents’ age and gender were included in the analyses as control vari-
ables. See Table 1 for further information.
Parental Stress
Parental stress level was measured by the 18-item Parental Stress Scale
(PSS; Berry & Jones, 1995). The PSS Cronbach’s alpha reliability is 0.83, and
test–retest reliability of the scale is 0.81. Respondents to the scale indicate
their feelings about and perception of their parenting experiences based on
the relationship with their child(ren), for example, “Caring for my child(ren)
sometimes takes more time and energy than I have to give”; “I enjoy spending
time with my child(ren).” Participants indicate how much they agree or dis-
agree with each statement using the 5-point Likert-type scale, from 1 being
strongly disagree to 5 being strongly agree. A possible total score (18–90) was
treated as a continuous variable.
Difficulties in Meeting Children’s Educational Needs Amid a Pandemic
There were three researcher team-developed items in the survey that
measured participants’ perceptions of their difficulties/challenges amid the
COVID-19 pandemic in trying to meet their children’s educational needs.
These yes/no questions included: (1) “Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, I am
struggling to meet the needs of my child(ren)’s education and activities;” (2) “I
am experiencing a language barrier in helping with my children’s schoolwork
and activities during the COVID-19;” and (3) “I am experiencing difficulties
38
in helping with my children’s schoolwork and activities using online instruc-

tional tools.” All three items were used as dichotomous variables.
Resilience
The Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale–10 (CD-RISC–10; Campbell-Sills
& Stein, 2007) was used to measure participants’ level of resilience. The scale is
composed of 10 items on a 5-point Likert scale (0 = not true at all to 4 = true
nearly all the time) and has high reliability (Cronbach’s alpha of 0.85). CD-
RISC–10 has been used in various linguistic and cultural contexts assessing
individuals’ level of resilience. Examples of items included from the scale are
“I can deal with whatever comes my way” and “I am not easily discouraged by
failure.” A total score (range from 0–40) was used as a continuous variable for
data analysis.
Social Support
Participants’ perceived social support was measured by the Social Interac-
tion Scale (Schuster et al., 1990). Three items were selected from the scale
to specifically measure the perceived level of emotional support an individual
receives from their family, friends, or relatives, especially when in a difficult sit-
uation. The three items included: (1) “I have friends, family, or others whom
I can open up and rely on;” (2) “I have friends, family, or others who will pro-
vide support if I have a serious problem;” and (3) “I am in close contact with
my friends, family, or others.” Participants responded via a 5-point Likert scale
(1 = very dissatisfied to 5 = very satisfied). A possible total score of from 3–15
was used as a continuous variable.
Open-Ended Question for Qualitative Measurement
In addition to quantitative questions, the survey also included the follow-
ing open-ended question: “Please note any additional difficulties you have
experienced in raising and educating your child because of the COVID-19
pandemic.” The team used basic interpretive analysis (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016) to analyze this open-ended response.
Quantitative Data Analysis
SPSS 26.0 was used for data analyses. In order to handle missing values,
list-wise deletion was used if the remaining cases were large enough. Next, data
were cleaned for analysis purposes. Authors performed descriptive statistical
analyses to establish the distribution of all study variables and to answer the first
research question. Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regressions were conducted
to answer the second and third research questions about the associations be-
tween difficulties meeting children’s educational needs amid the COVID-19
pandemic and parental stress, resilience, and social support.
39
Qualitative Data Analysis

The first, second, and fourth author first collaborated to translate partici-
pant responses from Korean to English by back translation processes (Brislin,
1970). The first author is a Korean immigrant special education researcher in
U.S., fluent in both English and Korean. The second author is a Korean Cana-
dian, fluent in English and Korean, and a faculty member in social work in the
U.S. The fourth author is a U.S. Korean immigrant social work scholar, and
fluent in English and Korean. During this time, they discussed any disagree-
ments related to translation (e.g., screen time vs. time for playing video games),
as well as instances when a direct translation from Korean to English would not
accurately represent participant intent. For example, the direct translation of
편식 to English is “unbalanced diet,” but the team agreed that participants in-
tended what would be referred to as “a picky eating habit” when they used it.
Once data were translated, the first and third author (a White, En-
glish-speaking, female, American researcher with interest in partnerships
between educators and families with members who have disabilities) inde-
pendently reviewed participant data and conducted an initial thematic analysis
of the data by reviewing each written statement and assigning it a descriptive
label (e.g., parents indicated their children’s skill regression). The authors then
discussed the labels they assigned to the data, including questioning similar-
ities and differences in labels (e.g., concerns related to skill regression) before
agreeing on finalized interpretations of the data (e.g., agreement that the labels
accurately represented participant intent).
Results
Meeting Children’s Educational Needs Amid COVID-19
Table 1 presents descriptive statistics related to the first research question
about the level of parental stress for Korean immigrant parents of children
with special needs. Among the 48 participants, 84.8% reported that they were
experiencing difficulty trying to meet their children’s educational needs amid
the COVID-19 pandemic, while 15.2% reported that they did not experience
difficulties. Of the sample, 72% experienced language barriers when trying to
meet their children’s educational needs amid the pandemic, and 28.3% did
not. Further, 41% of the sample reported that they were experiencing difficul-
ties in trying to use online learning tools while trying to meet their children’s
educational needs, and 58.7% of reported the opposite.
40
Meeting Children’s Educational Needs and Parental Stress

Results from the OLS regression is presented in Table 3. Regression anal-
yses were conducted to examine the associations between difficulty trying to
meet children’s needs amid the COVID-19 pandemic and the participants’ pa-
rental stress level. In the first model, the given associations were tested while
controlling for participants’ sociodemographic factors. In the second model,
participants’ two types of coping mechanisms were added into the model.
Table 3. Ordinary Least Square (OLS) Regression Model on Parental Stress

B S.E 95% CI
First Model
Diff Child Education Needs .505**** (4.540) [6.893, 25.275]
Age .221 (.307) [-.149, 1.093]
Sex .223 (3.373) [-1.389, 12.269]
Second Model
Diff Child Education Needs .437*** (4.321) [5.145, 22.673]
Age .246* (.291) [-.066, 1.114]
Sex .150 (3.203) [-2.818, 10.175]
Coping Factors
Social Support .168 (.827) [-.725, 2.629]
Resilience -.417*** (.295) [-1.421, -.226]
Notes. Categories in parentheses are reference groups.
*p ≤ .1. **p ≤ .05. ***p ≤ .01. ****p ≤ .001.
In the first model, a significant association was found between participants’

difficulties in trying to meet their children’s education needs and their paren-
tal stress (B = .505, p ≤ .001; 95% CI [6.893, 25.275]). Age and sex were
not significant control variables in this model. In the second model, effects of
social support and resilience were examined. Again, in this model, perceived
difficulties to meet their children’s educational needs constituted a significant
variable affecting participants’ level of parental stress (B = .437, p ≤ .01; 95%
CI [5.145, 22.673]). For sociodemographic factors, age was significantly asso-
ciated with parental stress (B = .246, p ≤ .1; 95% CI [-.066, 1.114]), with older
participants reporting higher parental stress level. Last, among the coping fac-
tors, resilience was significantly associated with participants’ level of parental
stress (B = -.417, p ≤ .01; 95% CI [-1.421, -.226]); participants’ with higher
41
levels of resilience showed statistically significant lower levels of parental stress.

In summation, the association between perceived difficulties in trying to meet
their children’s educational needs amid the COVID-19 pandemic and parental
stress was significant in both models.
Parent Stressors
Participants who completed the opened-ended question provided four pri-
mary factors resulting in enhanced levels of stress: (a) lack of resources and
support, (b) communication barriers, (c) internal family distress and conflict,
and (d) concerns related to child development and skills.
Lack of Resources and Support
Many participants felt “very satisfied with the face-to-face” education pro-
gramming and instruction prior to “everything shifting to online instruction
with little preparation for the school,” noting that they “see that the school
works really hard to provide good quality education.” However, participants
reported that the “very sudden” nature of school closures left them feeling un-
able to “educate [children] effectively at home.” This was especially true among
participants who were “fairly new” to U.S. schools or special service programs.
In general, participants noted that they were “not confident” in meeting their
children’s needs “due to a lack of knowledge and resources.”
In addition, participants reported a “need for teacher help,” as well as sup-
port from “various therapies” which were “deferred” or moved to “telehealth”
due to COVID-19. A lack of support exacerbated participant concerns related
to their children’s behavior, disability “symptoms,” and “physical, emotion-
al, and social development.” However, participants did not feel “confident”
“openly communicating regarding [their] child’s education and development
in Korean” with school staff and/or did “not want to bother” school profession-
als because the teachers “struggle with online instruction as well.”
Further, a lack of resources and support resulted in participants feeling
overwhelmed and discontentedly allowing their children “to watch YouTube
videos” and “too many games” because they could not “care for my child while
working part-time”: “I know it’s not good for him to have that much screen
time, but I do not know what else I can do.” Other participants felt burdened
teaching their children with special needs while also maintaining other roles:
“Since the beginning of online instruction, I get a lot of stress and am always
running out of time because I have to work full time and help my children’s
education at the same time.” Further, participants with family members who
were emerging English speakers especially felt stressed in fulfilling multiple
roles during online schooling: “Helping my child’s online education is sole-
42
ly my responsibility as my wife speaks little English. I am extremely busy and

tired because of my own graduate school work as well as assisting my child’s
online education simultaneously.” This left participants feeling exhausted, as
they were unable to “take time for [themselves]” because they were “stuck with
my children’s educational needs all day long…I am so tired and exhausted, ex-
periencing psychological distress.”
Communication Barriers
Participants noted numerous ways in which communication breakdowns
between themselves and educators resulted in stress and diminished student
outcomes. In particular, participants who were “not fluent in English” or who
had “very little information about child education in the U.S.” felt stressed
and uncomfortable supporting their children. Participants also felt “hesitant to
contact teachers because of limited English,” which exacerbated parental stress.
Further, several participants noted that they did not have “close friends or fam-
ilies in the States” to help clarify information provided in English, leaving them
unsure “where and how to start…to get some help from teachers and profes-
sionals.” One participant also described the toll that negative communication
with her child’s teachers took on her and her family:
When I communicate with teachers regarding my child’s remote in-
struction during the COVID-19 pandemic, I feel unwelcomed and am
not treated as an equal partner for my child’s education. I have many
questions regarding my child’s education, but I am hesitant to contact
teachers because of such negative experiences as well as my lack of En-
glish proficiency…I do not have sufficient information because of a lack
of effective communication with the teachers. I feel discouraged and so
sorry for my child.
Internal Family Distress and Conflict
Participant stress “about meeting child needs” resulted in “family conflicts,
probably because every member of my family is stressed out.” One participant
described feeling as though she was “fighting a war…becoming easily angry
and impatient” with her children due to transitioning to caring for “three wild
children all day long” during the pandemic. In general, participants reported
feeling “very tired physically and get easily angry with my family” when trying
to take on the responsibilities of work, parenting, and remote learning. Partic-
ipants described “fighting,” “shouting,” and “screaming” at their children due
to this stress, resulting in their children “losing interest in studying” and be-
coming “unwilling to learn through online instruction.” These “conflicts and
arguments” resulted in family relationships “get[ting] worse and worse.”
43
Concerns Related to Child Development and Skills

Participants noted numerous interrelated concerns related to their children’s
development amid the pandemic. Academically, participants reported that
their children “suffered” from the move to online instruction (e.g., “The vir-
tual speech therapy seems to be more difficult for my youngest to concentrate
on, compared to the face-to-face session.”). Participants observed their children
“quickly lose concentration,” become “less motivated,” and “perform poorly in
their learning because of the distance learning format, I think.” One partici-
pant noted: “I think there is little learning effectiveness in online instruction
as compared with face-to-face….My impression is that my child’s school has
lacked a systematic curriculum and support for online instruction since the
beginning of the COVID-19 outbreak.” Similarly, another participant shared
their dissatisfaction and skepticism of the effectiveness of virtual instruction:
After switching to online instruction, the length of class sessions becomes
shorter. My impression is that class is finished quickly without many
learning opportunities for my children. I was satisfied with the face-
to-face curriculum, including the ELL program before the COVID-19
pandemic, but I doubt that the virtual program is really effective for the
education of my children who may need additional support because of
their low English proficiency.
Concerns related to physical activity, primarily such as “seriously lack[ing]
exercise” revolved around excessive “screen time” and participants “avoid[ing]
going outside” due to COVID-19. This was especially problematic among par-
ticipants with children with diagnoses such as ADHD who required physical
movement to do well in school and self-regulate (e.g., “I am still worried that
his ADHD worsens because of a lack of exercise and irregular life patterns
during the COVID-19 pandemic.”).
Emotional concerns also emerged as a primary theme across participants
(e.g., “I try to comfort my oldest child, because he is too nervous about the
COVID-19 pandemic;” “My child stays at home because of the COVID-19
pandemic and spends most of his time on the Internet and playing online
games. So, I am worried about his eyesight and other developmental delays
physically, emotionally, and socially.”). Other participants shared similar sen-
timents, with their children’s fear and anxiety increasing with lifestyle changes
during the pandemic: “As he hardly sees other people than our own family
during the pandemic, he has been terrified of strangers.” Another participant
noted, “My children are frustrated and depressed as they had to stop learning
musical instruments and doing outdoor activities, which they very much like
to do, due to the COVID-19 pandemic.”
44
Finally, participants also held concerns related to regression of behavior and

language/social skills amid online learning (e.g., “As he stays with our family all
day long, he has become more stubborn and is not likely to listen to the par-
ents.”). Participants also felt “worried” that their children’s “English language
skills have decreased since school shifted to remote instruction,” and relatedly,
their children’s “social skills decreased because of the lack of face-to-face peer
interaction during the pandemic.” Although this theme emerged across par-
ticipants of children with varying diagnoses (e.g., English language learners,
physical disabilities, autism, giftedness), participants with children who receive
English language services noted particular concern “about whether my child
will get along with his peers when he returns to brick-and-mortar school be-
cause of his poor English skills.”
Discussion
This study examined difficulties and associated parental stress of U.S. Ko-
rean immigrant parents of children with disabilities, giftedness, and/or limited
English proficiency when trying to meet their children’s educational needs
amid the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition, this study investigated the re-
lationship between resilience/social support and parental stress. Finally, this
study explored the pandemic-related parenting difficulties of the parents
through an open-ended survey question. Approximately 85% of participants
reported experiencing difficulty educating their children during COVID-19.
Additionally, the association between perceived difficulties with trying to meet
their children’s educational needs and parental stress was significant. In other
words, study participants experienced difficulties with their children’s educa-
tional needs, and it had a significant impact, increasing their parental stress.
The results of this study are commensurate with research on parental dif-
ficulties and stress during COVID-19 among parents raising children with
special needs (Alhuzimi, 2021; Bentenuto et al., 2021; Sahithya et al., 2020;
Ueda et al., 2021) For example, Sahithya and colleagues (2020) found that
parents of children with developmental disorders in India had significantly
higher parental stress compared to parents without such children during the
pandemic. Similarly, Alhuzimi (2021) noted that the pandemic negatively im-
pacted parental stress and emotional well-being of parents of children with
autism in Saudi Arabia. Additionally, home confinement due to the pandemic
increased parental stress of parents of children with neurodevelopmental disor-
ders in Italy and Japan (Bentenuto et al., 2021; Ueda et al., 2021).
The current study also found a significant association between Korean immi-
grant parents’ level of resilience and their parental stress. Specifically, when the
45
participants had lower levels of resilience, they experienced significantly higher

parental stress. According to the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-
RISC) manual, which analyzed research studies that used the CD-RISC–10
measurement, the participants’ resilience level in the current study was lower
than that of general populations. Instead, the resilience levels of these partici-
pants were compatible with those of individuals who experienced trauma such
as wars, earthquakes, and hurricanes (Davidson, 2018). In other words, par-
ticipants in the current study indicated lowered resilience level in the presence
of the unexpected and unprecedented COVID-19 pandemic. As a result, they
were likely to experience increased parental stress during the pandemic.
Notably, 72% of participants in the quantitative analysis reported lan-
guage barriers when trying to meet their children’s educational needs. In the
qualitative analysis, participants indicated language barriers were critical and
challenging in communicating with educators and supporting their children’s
educational needs. Language barriers and being “recent” immigrants were the
most commonly discussed barriers to receiving adequate support and resources
from teachers, schools, and communities which exacerbated the parental stress
of the participants. The results are compatible with previous studies in regard to
immigrant parents’ language and communication struggles in supporting their
children’s educational needs, including challenges to productive IEP meetings
(Khanlou et al., 2015; Park & Turnbull, 2001). Effective communication and
collaboration between school staff and parents are considerably limited with-
out appropriate cultural and linguistic support (Cheatham et al., 2012).
Participants also addressed concerns about their children’s development and
regression in various skills because their children could neither receive adequate
support/services nor have meaningful social interactions with others during
the pandemic. These results are consistent with previous studies on children
with autism or neurodevelopmental disorders and their parents’ stress amid the
pandemic. Alhuzimi (2021) indicated that frequent and useful ASD support
decreased parental stress, while a child’s severe behavioral issues increased pa-
rental stress during the pandemic. Similarly, Bentenuto and colleagues (2021)
stated that the decreased therapies and rehabilitation sessions of children with
neurodevelopmental disorders increased their externalizing behaviors, which
increased parental stress.
Implications
The results of this study have several implications. First, providing needed
support and intervention programs for immigrant parents of children with diag-
nosed needs are critical in order to increase parents’ resilience level and decrease
parental stress in preparation for a challenging time, such as the COVID-19
46
pandemic. Community service providers, immigrant communities, and/or local

schools could provide effective programs that reflect needs specific to differing
immigrant groups. Examples of intervention foci include effectively locating
parental resources (Su, 2008), improving English language skills (Ornelas et al.,
2009), and resolving family conflicts in consideration of the ethnic and cultural
diversity of immigrant families. Schools can take a particularly important role
in supporting these families’ language barriers by providing them educational
resources in their native language or with translator/interpreter services and by
implementing effective partnership strategies with bilingual families who prefer
using English (Cheatham & Lim-Mullins, 2018).
Second, the effective use of telehealth programs, virtual counseling sessions,
and online learning tools should be introduced and implemented for immi-
grant parents of children with special needs, focusing on the area of needs of
the families. As earlier studies on telehealth services amid COVID-19 showed
positive effects on patients (Layfield et al., 2020; Matheson et al., 2020), effec-
tive telehealth and virtual counseling programs are expected to relieve parental
stress during the pandemic particularly when their children have physical/
mental health concerns and skill regressions. For the child’s education, schools
should actively inform immigrant parents of the U.S. school systems and on-
line learning tools in their preferable language, as effective online instruction
requires a considerable amount of parental involvement and parent–teacher
collaboration (Smith et al., 2016).
In addition, this study adds to a paucity of literature on the influence of
COVID-19 on the stress of families of children with special needs, as well as
contributes to literature examining the experiences of U.S. Korean immigrant
populations of school-age children. Future studies can investigate educational
challenges and parental stress of other ethnic and cultural immigrant families
of children with diagnosed needs. For example, the internal family conflict
may differ from other populations (Gilbert, 2004). Also, studies on how varied
socioeconomic status (SES) and immigrant status (e.g., voluntary/involuntary
and documented/undocumented immigrant status) of immigrant populations
affect educational challenges and parental stress would give rich information
about diverse needs of different immigrant groups in the U.S. and enable
school staff to provide support based on the specific needs of the populations.
Limitations
There are several limitations in the current study. First, the study sample
does not represent all Korean immigrant parents of children with special needs.
The online survey format used in the study may not be accessible to some Ko-
rean immigrants who cannot afford to or are unfamiliar with Internet access.
47
Therefore, the participants in this study were likely to have higher SES. Sec-
ond, the small sample size limited the usage of various statistical analyses that
require a bigger sample size. Future studies can recruit a bigger sample which
will allow conducting more advanced statistics while controlling for more so-
ciodemographic factors such as respondents’ SES. Third, this study used data
collected at the earlier stage of the COVID-19 pandemic and cannot provide
insight into the long-term effects of parental stress. Finally, some of the vari-
ables of this study indicated insignificant results because the valid and reliable
measurements for parental stress during devastating and unprecedented times
are limited. Nonetheless, this study gives some insights to understand parental
stress of U.S. Korean immigrant parents of children with special needs when
they support their children’s education needs amid the COVID-19 pandemic.
Conclusion
This study investigated difficulties amid COVID-19 in raising children and

meeting their educational needs among Korean immigrant parents of children
with disabilities, giftedness, and/or limited English proficiency living in the
U.S. Study participants experienced increased parental stress when meeting
their children’s educational needs, and the level of resilience of the parents
was also associated with parental stress. Additionally, participants frequently
faced language/communication barriers and child development concerns when
trying to assist their children’s educational needs. The results of this study indi-
cate the importance of providing resilience intervention programs and virtual
health and education support programs for immigrant families. The current
study contributes to the growing number of studies on parental experiences of
parents of children with special needs during COVID-19 by examining U.S.
Korean immigrant parents’ stress in supporting the education of their children
with diagnosed needs.
References
Alhuzimi, T. (2021). Stress and emotional well-being of parents due to change in routine for
children with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) at home during COVID-19 pandem-
ic in Saudi Arabia. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ridd.2020.103822
Bentenuto, A., Mazzoni, N., Giannotti, M., Venuti, P., & de Falco, S. (2021). Psychologi-
cal impact of COVID-19 pandemic in Italian families of children with neurodevelop-
mental disorders. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ridd.2020.103840
Berry, J. O., & Jones, W. H. (1995). The parental stress scale: Initial psychometric evidence.
Journal of Social and Personal Relationship, 12, 463–472.
48
Boston Korean Diaspora Project. (n.d.). History of Korean immigration to America, from 1903
to present. Boston University School of Theology. http://sites.bu.edu/koreandiaspora/is-
sues/history-of-korean-immigration-to-america-from-1903-to-present/
Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, 1(3), 185–216. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/135910457000100301
Brown, S. M., Doom, J. R., Lechuga-Peña, S., Watamura, S. E., & Koppels, T. (2020). Stress
and parenting during the global COVID-19 pandemic. Child Abuse & Neglect. https:/doi.
org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2020.104699
Cameron, E. E., Joyce, K. M., Delaquis, C. P., Reynolds, K., Protudjer, J. L. P., & Roos, L. E.
(2020). Maternal psychological distress & mental health service use during the COVID-19
pandemic. Journal of Affective Disorders, 276, 765–774. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.
2020.07.081
Campbell-Sills, L., & Stein, M. B. (2007). Psychometric analysis and refinement of the Con-
nor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC): Validation of a 10-item measure of resilience.
Journal of Traumatic Stress, 20(6), 1019–1028. http://doi.org/10.1002/jts.20271
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2021). Things you need to know. https://www.
cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/your-health/need-to-know.html
Chang, H. H., & Ng, K. S. (2002). The perception of resiliency mechanism in Chinese Amer-
ican families: Implications for family therapy. Family Therapy, 29(2), 89–100.
Cheatham, G. A., Duran, L. K., & Hong, J. Y. (2012). Voices from the field: Famililes of dual
language learners. In R. M. Santos, G. A. Cheatham, & L. K. Duran (Eds.), Supporting
young children who are dual language learners with or at-risk for disabilities (pp. 51–60).
Council for Exceptional Children Division for Early Childhood.
Cheatham, G. A., & Lim-Mullins, S. (2018). Immigrant, bilingual parents of students with
disabilities: Positive perceptions and supportive dialogue. Intervention in School and Clinic,
54(1), 40–46. https:/doi.org/10.1177/1053451218762490
Davidson, J. R. T. (2018). Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC) manual. https://www.
cd-risc.com/user-guide.php
Education Week. (2020, September 23). Map: Where are schools closed? https://www.edweek.
org/ew/section/multimedia/map-covid-19-schools-open-closed.html
Fung, J. J., & Lau, A. S. (2010). Fctors associated with parent–child (dis)agreement on child
behavior and parenting problems in Chinese immigrant families. Journal of Clinical Child
& Adolescent Psychology, 39(3), 314–327.
Gilbert, R. M. (2004). The eight concepts of Bowen theory. Leading Systems Press.
Gomez-Salgado, J., Andres-Villas, M., Dominguez-Salas, S., Diaz-Milanes, D., & Ruiz-Fru-
tos, C. (2020). Related health factors of psychological distress during the COVID-19 pan-
demic in Spain. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(11).
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17113947
Harris, B., Plucker, J. A., Rapp, K. E., & Martínez, R. S. (2009). Identifying gifted and tal-
ented English language learners: A case study. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 32(3),
368–393.
Jambunathan, S., Burts, D. C., & Pierce, S. (2000). Comparisons of parenting attitudes
among five ethnic groups in the United States. Journal of Comparative Family Studies,
31(4), 395–406.
Khanlou, N., Haque, N., Sheehan, S., & Jones, G. (2015). “It is an issue of not knowing
where to go”: Service providers’ perspectives on challenges in accessing social support and
services by immigrant mothers of children with disabilities. Journal of Immigrant and Mi-
nority Health, 17, 1840–1847. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10903-014-0122-8
49
Layfield, E., Triantafillou, V., Prasad, A., Deng, J., Shanti, R. M., Newman, J. G., & Rajase-
karan, K. (2020). Telemedicine for head and neck ambulatory visits during COVID-19:
Evaluating usability and patient satisfaction. Journal of the Sciences and Specialties of the
Head and Neck, 42(7), 1681–1689.
Lazarin, M. (2020). COVID-19 spotlights the inequities facing English learner students, as non-
profit organiztions seek to mitigate challenges. https://www.migrationpolicy.org/news/covid-
19-inequities-english-learner-students
Lee, S. H., Rocco Dillon, S., French, R., & Kim, K. (2018). Advocacy for immigrant parents
of children with disabilities. Palaestra, 32(2), 23–28.
Levitt, M. J., Lane, J. D., & Levitt, J. (2005). Immigration stress, social support, and adjust-
ment in the first postmigration year: An intergenerational analysis. Research in Human
Development, 2(4), 159–177.
Liu, S., Zhai, F., & Gao, Q. (2020). Parental stress and parenting in Chinese immigrant fam-
ilies: The mediating role of social support. Child & Family Social Work, 25(S1), 135–148.
https:/doi.org/10.1111/cfs.12734
Matheson, B., Bohon, C., & Lock, J. (2020). Family-based treatment via videoconference:
Clinical recommendations for treatment providers during COVID-19 and beyond. The
International Journal of Eating Disorders, 53(7), 1142–1154.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementa-
tion (4th ed.). Jossey Bass.
National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC). (2020). Supporting your gifted child during
COVID-19. https://www.nagc.org/sites/default/files/Publication%20PHP/NAGC_TIP-Sheet_
COVID-19_With%20Strategies%20by%20Development%20Level_April%202020.pdf
O’Connor, A., & Batalova, J. (2019). Korean immigrants in the United States. https://www.
migrationpolicy.org/article/korean-immigrants-united-states-2017
Ornelas, I. J., Perreira, K. M., Beeber, L., & Maxwell, L. (2009). Challenges and strategies
to maintain emotional health: Qualitative perspectives of Mexican immigrant mothers.
Journal of Family Issues, 30(11), 1556–1575.
Park, J., & Turnbull, A. P. (2001). Cross-cultural competency and special education: Percep-
tions and experiences of Korean parents of children with special needs. Education and
Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 36(2), 133–147.
Sahithya, B. R., Kashyap, R. S., & Roopesh, B. N. (2020). Perceived stress, parental stress, and
parenting during COVID-19 lockdown: A preliminary study. Journal of Indian Association
for Child & Adolescent Mental Health, 16(4), 44–63.
Schaeffer, K. (2020, April 23). As schools shift to online learning amid pandemic, here’s what we
know about disabled students in the U.S. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.
org/fact-tank/2020/04/23/as-schools-shift-to-online-learning-amid-pandemic-heres-
what-we-know-about-disabled-students-in-the-u-s/
Schuster, T. L., Kessler, R. C., & Aseltine, R. H. (1990). Supportive interactions, negative in-
teractions, and depressed mood. American Journal of Community Psychology, 18, 423–438.
Shin, H. (2004). Parental involvement and its influence on children’s school performance: A com-
parative study between Asian (Chinese and Koreans) Americans and Mexican Americans [Un-
published doctoral dissertation]. Columbia University, New York, NY.
Smith, S. J., Burdette, P. J., Cheatham, G. A., & Harvey, S. P. (2016). Parental role and sup-
port for online learning of students with disabilities: A paradigm shift. Journal of Special
Education Leadership, 29(2), 101–112.
Spinelli, M., Lionetti, F., Pastore, M., & Fasolo, M. (2020). Parents’ stress and children’s psy-
chological problems in families facing the COVID-19 outbreak in Italy. Frontiers in Psy-
chology, 11(1713). http:/doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01713
50
Su, Y. R. (2008). Parenting in a foreign land: The lived experience of Taiwanese immigrants with dis-
abled children. http://digitallibrary.usc.edu/cdm/ref/collection/p15799coll127/id/544535
U.S. Census Bureau. (2018). Asian alone or in any combination by selected groups.
Ueda, R., Okada, T., Kita, Y., Ozawa, Y., Inoue, H., Shioda, M., Kono, Y., Kono, C., Nakamu-
ra, Y., Amemiya, K., Ito, A., Sugiura, N., Matsuoka, Y., Kaiga, C., Kubota, M., & Ozawa,
H. (2021). The quality of life of children with neurodevelopmental disorders and their
parents during the Coronavirus disease 19 emergency in Japan. Scientific Reports, 11(1),
1–8. http:/doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-82743-x
Wiles, K. E. (2014). Newcomers: Portraits of immigrants raising academically achieving gifted
children [University of Denver]. Electronic Theses and Dissertations, 704. https://digital-
commons.du.edu/etd/704
Zechella, A. N., & Raval, V. V. (2016). Parenting children with intellectual and developmental
disabilities in Asian Indian families in the United States. Journal of Child and Family Stud-
ies, 25(4), 1295–1309. https:/doi.org/10.1007/s10826-015-0285-5
Joo Young Hong is a consultant and researcher in special education. Dr. Hong has
worked at Houghton College and University of North Florida. Her research interests
include family–professional collaborations, professional development, and instruc-
tional strategies for culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) students with or at risk
for special needs. Correspondence concerning this article may be addressed to Joo
Young Hong, Ph.D., by emailing jooyoung.hong98@gmail.com
Shinwoo Choi is an assistant professor of social work at Texas State University. Her
research interests include diversity and inclusion, immigrant families’ well-being, ra-
cial discrimination and coping mechanisms, and natural disasters and resilience.
Grace L. Francis is an associate professor of special education at George Mason
University. Her research interests include transition to adulthood and family support
policies and practices that result in a high quality of life for individuals with signifi-
cant support needs.
Hyejoon Park is an associate professor of social work at Western Michigan Univer-
sity. Her research interests include welfare policy analysis, youth program evaluation,
and community/public health.
51
52
“Having That Place to Just Be and Not
Separated by What You Can Afford”: A Case
Study of Socioeconomic Integration at an
Urban Preschool
Ciara Nestor, Andrew Cavanagh, and Louis Hamlyn-Harris
Abstract
Schools in the United States are highly segregated by socioeconomic group.

Segregation is pervasive throughout all levels of the school system but partic-
ularly prevalent in early childhood environments. Increased racial/ethnic and
socioeconomic diversity in classrooms and schools has been shown to lead to
positive developmental and social outcomes for all students. The current ar-
ticle presents a case study of one urban program’s experience integrating its
tuition-paying and Head Start students into a single cohesive program. The
program’s goals in undertaking this initiative were to enhance the sense of
community within the program by providing equal access to resources and
to promote positive child development for all students. Data was collected by
examining student assessments, surveying parents, and interviewing program
staff. Key takeaways from this program’s experience include: (1) combining
programs with complementary theories and providing high levels of support
to teachers can help to create high quality, highly diverse classrooms; (2) pro-
grams must address potential issues with integration early and by engaging
stakeholders in open, honest conversations; (3) fostering relationships between
children in classrooms can be accomplished by embracing the diversity in the
classroom, but more targeted efforts may be necessary to create a strong com-
munity of families.

Key Words: socioeconomic integration, diversity, case study, prekindergarten,

Head Start, urban preschool, early childhood education, parental income
Introduction
Historically, early childhood education (ECE) in the United States has been
inherently segregated, as access depends on families’ ability to pay tuition for
private preschools or to meet income eligibility requirements for public pro-
grams (Potter, 2016). Inequity in the quality of early learning environments
creates a pipeline that siphons the most disadvantaged students into the most
underresourced schools (Ayscue et al., 2016). Successful policies to decrease ra-
cial/ethnic and socioeconomic segregation in schools have shown that learning
environments where students come from diverse backgrounds strengthen all
students’ academic and social skills well into high school by providing equita-
ble access to resources and creating communities of students and families with
diverse perspectives who can learn from one another (Feddes et al., 2009; Reid
& Kagan, 2015; Schechter & Bye, 2007). In contrast, integration policies that
fail to address systemic barriers for the most disadvantaged families tend to per-
petuate racial/ethnic and socioeconomic segregation (Campbell et al., 2017).
Despite an abundance of evidence indicating the benefits of early exposure to
peers who come from diverse backgrounds, less understood is how ECE pro-
grams can implement successful integration policies to create classrooms that
are economically, racially, and ethnically diverse. The current study presents a
descriptive, mixed methods case study of one ECE program’s internal assess-
ment of socioeconomically integrating its prekindergarten (PreK) classrooms
by merging Head Start and tuition paying students into a single program.
A Segregated Education System
In 2017, 40% of all children from families with a low socioeconomic status
(SES)—approximately 10 million students across the United States—attend-
ed schools with poverty rates of 75% or higher (Boser & Baffour, 2017). ECE
environments may be even more segregated than elementary or secondary
schools; evidence suggests that ECE classrooms are twice as likely as K–12
classrooms to be 100% Black or Hispanic (Fram & Kim, 2012; Frankenberg,
2016; Greenberg & Monarrez, 2019). Given what is known about the negative
influences of segregation on students’ achievement, its pervasiveness through
every level of the school system is concerning for families, practitioners, and
researchers alike.
Much of the research on the topic of school segregation considers only the im-
pact of racial/ethnic segregation or combines racial/ethnic and socioeconomic
54
PRESCHOOL ECONOMIC INTEGRATION
segregation. However, some research suggests that the race/ethnicity and socio-
economic achievement gaps are both best explained by disparities in schools’
average poverty rates, irrespective of schools’ racial/ethnic makeup (Bohrnstedt
et al., 2015; Reardon, 2016). Previous research investigating the influence of a
school’s average socioeconomic makeup on student achievement has indicated
that the overall socioeconomic background of all students attending a school is
more influential on students’ achievement than any individual student or fami-
ly characteristic (Bohrnstedt et al., 2015; Borman & Dowling, 2010; Reardon,
2016; Rumberger & Palardy, 2005). Overall, evidence suggests that low diver-
sity in classrooms, schools, and neighborhoods is most detrimental to students
in environments where low-SES and minority students are the majority of the
student population, as these schools are most likely to be underfunded and un-
derresourced (Angioloni & Ames, 2015; Flink et al., 2013).
In addition to inequities in school resources, peer interactions in class-
rooms are also an important factor in understanding the impact of diversity on
students (Pettigrew, 2008; Reid, 2014; Reid & Kagan, 2015). As part of the
income achievement gap, children from disadvantaged families tend to enter
school with lower language and math skills than their more privileged peers
(Reid, 2014). Interactions between children in the classroom may facilitate
learning from each other through modeling of more advanced behaviors and
language (Reid & Kagan, 2015). The role of peers may be particularly salient
in preschool where students engage in more unstructured play, interacting di-
rectly with their peers (Gaias et al., 2018). Research suggests that students from
disadvantaged backgrounds make significantly greater gains in language ac-
quisition during preschool when they attend economically diverse classrooms
(Schechter & Bye, 2007). These gains are further increased when children’s
classrooms are both economically and racially diverse (Reid, 2014).
Diverse learning environments do not only provide benefits to students
from disadvantaged backgrounds. While the research in this area is limited,
what is available indicates that early exposure to peers from diverse back-
grounds increases all students’ social and cultural competencies, regardless of
individual background (Garda, 2011). Integrated environments are likely par-
ticularly influential early in life, as negative out-group biases have been shown
to develop by age five (Feddes et al., 2009; Frankenberg, 2016). The cognitive
and academic abilities of all students may also be improved through increased
diversity. Interacting with peers who have different ways of thinking can help
students cognitively by increasing creativity, critical thinking, and problem
solving abilities (Wells et al., 2016).
55
Policies to Reduce School Segregation

Local and national policies have been implemented to attempt to address
the high levels of race and income segregation seen in schools across the coun-
try (Camera, 2019). A 2016 report by Potter et al. of the Century Foundation
identified over 100 school districts serving 4.4 million students across the
U.S. that had implemented some policy to attempt to reduce socioeconomic
segregation within their schools. One of the most common types of policies
implemented to combat school segregation falls under the label of school
choice. Numerous studies have found that many school choice policies per-
petuate current levels of segregation and may lead to even more economic and
racial/ethnic segregation in schools (Bifulco et al., 2009; Koedel et al., 2009;
Phillips et al., 2015; Saporito, 2003). For example, a report examining New
York City public schools found that if no choice was available to families and
all students attended their zoned public schools, schools across the city would
actually see a slight decrease in levels of racial/ethnic and socioeconomic segre-
gation (Morse et al., 2018).
One reason school choice policies do not always increase school diversity is
that they fail to adequately address barriers disadvantaged families face within
school systems. In a study of 18 cities across the country with school choice
policies, low-SES families were least likely to exercise choice when choosing
a school for their children due to a lack of information about school choice
from trusted sources (Campbell et al., 2017). Lack of information is not only
an issue for disadvantaged families; parents from all backgrounds report con-
cern about the lack of information provided to them regarding choosing a
school for their child (Ayscue et al., 2016; Campbell et al., 2017; Neild, 2005).
Creating a strong community of parents with diverse backgrounds could be a
potential avenue to alleviate this barrier with parents serving as trusted sources
of information for one another (Ayscue et al., 2016).
Desegregation efforts to decrease inequality in schools have typically focused
on older grades (Ayscue et al., 2016). However, gaps in achievement based
on students’ backgrounds can been seen as early as kindergarten (Reardon,
2016; Reid, 2012). School districts that have successfully used socioeconom-
ic integration to create diverse schools and classrooms can be found all across
the country in both urban and rural settings (Bazelon, 2008; Schwartz, 2012;
Williams, 2012). Research on the outcomes of students from these districts
indicates that socioeconomic integration can effectively reduce the income
achievement gap in both language and math skills (Schechter & Bye, 2007;
Schwartz, 2012). While informative, these findings concern elementary and
high school students; less is currently known about integration and its effects
on younger children.
56
The Current Study

Despite near consensus in the research literature on the benefits of provid-
ing economically integrated learning environments, less is known about what
integration policies for ECE look like in practice. Of particular interest to this
article is how programs can effectively create diverse communities of students
and families, as well as the challenges that may occur through this process.
Using data collected from parents, staff, and program leadership, this article
provides a mixed methods, descriptive case study of a socioeconomic integra-
tion strategy at a preschool in New York City, including a description of the
program’s approach to integration, challenges the program faced throughout
the process, and potential solutions to these challenges. Two questions guid-
ed the project’s design, data collection, and analysis: (1) How were teachers,
parents, and children impacted by integration? (2) What challenges related to
integration arose throughout the year, and what solutions were implemented
or could be implemented in the future?
Method
The Program
Located in a racially and economically diverse neighborhood in New York
City, the preschool site of interest to the current study has been in operation
since 2014. Prior to the 2018–19 school year, the program operated a tui-
tion-based private preschool for infants to five-year-olds alongside a federally
funded Head Start program for students of the same age. Despite being located
within the same building, these programs had separate administrative models,
staff, educational philosophies, and were housed on different floors. To com-
bat this segregation, the program implemented an integration strategy for the
2018–19 school year which assigned students to classrooms regardless of their
entry into the program as Head Start or tuition funded. All 72 four-year-old
Universal PreK (UPK) students were placed into four classrooms, mixing stu-
dents who were Head Start-eligible and tuition-paying together.
The impetus for the two programs to merge and create a cohesive, economi-
cally integrated program was a sense by leadership and staff that the segregation
of ECE classrooms by family income did not align with the program’s mission to
ameliorate economic disparities in the community. The program embarked on
this effort in order to achieve two main goals: (1) enhance the sense of commu-
nity among children, families, and staff by providing equal access to resources
and supports and reducing economic, linguistic, and administrative barriers for
families; and (2) promote positive child development by providing an enriching
and progressive learning environment for all students in its UPK classrooms.
57
Participants
Across the four UPK classrooms, 54 (75%) students were Head Start eligi-
ble, and 18 (25%) were tuition paying students. School was in session five days
a week, and all students were at least full-day with some students participat-
ing in an extended day program. Demographic information was not collected
at the individual classroom level, but program wide, 42.5% of students were
Asian, 22.4% were White, 22.2% were Black, and 13% were Multiracial;
39.1% of students were Hispanic or Latino. Regarding home languages, 33.8%
of families reported that their primary language is Chinese, 51.3% English, and
12.8% Spanish. Enrolled Head Start children needed to meet at least one of the
following criteria per federal guidelines in order to be eligible: family lives in
temporary housing, child is in foster care, family is receiving public assistance,
or family income is below federal poverty guidelines. Prior to integration, year-
ly tuition was charged to private pay families based on a sliding scale, ranging
from $15,000–$31,000 based on family income. In accordance with New York
City’s PreK for All initiative, regardless of previous enrollment, no PreK stu-
dents were charged tuition for regular day services. Generally, tuition-based
families represented shifting neighborhood demographics, while Head Start
families represented groups who were long-time residents of the neighborhood.
In order to staff the new program, all current teachers in the Early Child-
hood Program were given the opportunity to apply for 13 teaching positions
in the four integrated UPK classrooms for the 2018–19 school year. Teachers
from across the organization were invited to “opt in” to the new integrated pro-
gram using a standard application form which sought teacher’s opinions on the
value of integration and ideas for family engagement. The program director,
who is also the third author, interviewed and conducted a classroom observa-
tion with each applicant before making final hiring decisions. Due to the high
Chinese-speaking population in the school, leadership placed a particular em-
phasis on recruiting Chinese-speaking teachers and support staff. Applications
were opened to the public with job postings shared with local universities and
small businesses in the community. Ultimately, six former private preschool,
four former Head Start, and three external teachers were hired.
The Process of Integration
The integration process described here represents the program’s experience
during the first year of a three-to-five year planned process to integrate the
entire program. In order to make best use of program resources, the decision
was made to start the first year of integration with four-year-old PreK class-
rooms and in subsequent years integrate younger classrooms. Many students
in the PreK classrooms were continuing students from the program’s preschool
58
classrooms. Like the rest of the program up to this point, younger classrooms
were separated into students who were paying tuition and those enrolled in
federally funded Head Start programs. In preparation for integration, the
program director facilitated group tours, drop-in meetings, and “town hall”
sessions for returning families. These sessions were used to emphasize the value
of integration for all children, share information about the program’s progres-
sive teaching philosophy, and answer parent questions and concerns.
Program leadership worked with the organization’s finance team to devel-
op a standardized allocation formula for shared expenses based on the number
of children receiving each funding source. Whereas in previous years access to
resources had been restricted by funding source, this shared formula enabled
expenses for professional development, classroom materials, and support staff
to be easily shared and gave all families unrestricted access to program offerings
and supports. Program leadership also worked with partners in city and feder-
al government to gain approval for a “braided” funding model which funded
increased social work and mental health supports, free extended day for Head
Start eligible families with childcare needs, and salary equity for teachers.
Much planning and professional development was required so that Head
Start compliance could be ensured while remaining faithful to the school’s
Reggio Emilia-inspired philosophy. The Reggio Emilia approach to ECE in-
volves a child-driven, inquiry-based curriculum in which children are seen as
active participants in constructing their own educational trajectory (McNally &
Slutsky, 2017). It was determined that the Head Start Performance Standards,
which emphasize differentiated instruction and nurturing environments, were
compatible with this approach. Head Start also requires formal assessment of
children’s development at defined checkpoints throughout the year using an
approved assessment system, which was new to the Reggio Emilia-inspired pri-
vate preschool.
Teacher Preparation
Prior to the start of school, teachers assigned to the integrated classrooms
attended two professional development retreats, consisting of four workshops
that each addressed an area of priority for the program as detailed below. The
retreats were held on two Saturdays in the month of August and ran for approx-
imately five hours each. In addition to the retreats, teachers had four days of
professional development and planning time in the week before school started.
1. Emergent curriculum and the role of assessment. Teachers in the integrated
classrooms were coming from both private and Head Start classrooms and
held potentially divergent teaching philosophies. In order to merge these
perspectives, program leadership shared examples of teachers successfully
59
embedding PreK learning concepts in authentic and meaningful long-term

project work inspired by children’s questions, theories, and prior knowledge.
2. Supporting social–emotional development and viewing children in context.
With a focus on children’s mental health and the role of family systems in
children’s social–emotional development, this retreat encouraged teachers
to consider how the environments children experience outside of school
impact their functioning at school as well and discussed strategies for em-
bedding social–emotional learning in classroom transitions, routines, and
caregiving rituals.
3. Nurturing bilingual learners and families. This workshop taught teachers,
particularly those who did not speak a second language, how to transcend
immersion-based models of language development by incorporating teach-
ing materials in other languages and shared strategies for encouraging home
language development and facilitating parent communication (see the Ap-
pendix for a resource on classroom strategies provided to teachers).
4. Anti-bias education. An independent partner organization was invited to give
this workshop that focused on implementing a social justice and antiracism
lens in the classroom and invited staff at all levels to consider how systems
of bias and exclusion manifest in the school setting.
The goal of the workshops was to ensure that all teachers felt supported in
all areas of their classroom practices. Each of the above workshops contributed
meaningfully throughout teachers’ experiences in the classroom.
Research Materials and Procedure
The organization’s internal evaluation team was involved throughout the
school year in order to document the process of economic integration. The
team employed a mixed methods approach, collecting data from teacher focus
groups, child assessment, and a parent survey.
Teacher Focus Groups
Two focus groups of one hour each were conducted by the second author
with a total of eight UPK teachers in the spring of 2019. The first focus group
included 5 teachers from multiple classrooms and discussed how teachers
prepared to teach in an integrated classroom, how the integrated classroom
differed from previous teaching experiences, successes and challenges that
arose across the year, and recommendations for how to improve the process
in the future. Teachers were also asked about their impressions of their stu-
dents’ language development and behavior with the classroom. The second
focus group was conducted with three teachers from one classroom that had
intentionally focused on incorporating multiples languages into everyday in-
struction. The questions in this second focus group aimed to understand how
60
children’s various home languages played a role in the integration process. In

both groups, the facilitator made clear that what teachers said was confidential
and that the information would be primarily used to make improvements to
the program in the future.
Teaching Strategies Gold (TSG)
Teaching Strategies Gold (TSG) is an ongoing, observation-based teacher
evaluation system designed for use with children from infancy to kindergarten
and widely used in Head Start programs (Kim et al., 2013). Teachers observe
and assess children throughout the school year and enter the information they
gather about each child and domain into the instrument at three checkpoints
throughout the year. The first checkpoint occurred in late November, the
second in early March, and the third in late May. TSG domains include: social–
emotional, physical, language, cognitive, literacy, and mathematics. Teachers
rate children on each of these domains on a scale of 0 (not yet accomplished)
to 9 (shows progress beyond expectations). For many of the teachers involved in
the integrated UPK program, particularly those who previously taught in the
tuition-funded-only classrooms, the 2018–19 school year was their first expe-
rience using the TSG assessment tool. In the week prior to school opening, the
program’s Assessment Coordinator led a four-hour orientation for all teachers
on using TSG in a Reggio Emilia-inspired classroom.
Parent Survey
At the end of the program year, parents were asked to complete a survey
about their and their children’s experience in an integrated classroom over the
course of the previous year. The survey consisted of three open-ended questions
asking parents to describe (1) their children’s experience in a socioeconomical-
ly integrated program, (2) their families’ experience in the program, and (3)
what, if anything, could be done to improve that experience in future school
years. The survey was available in Chinese, English, and Spanish. Program staff
approached parents while they were dropping their child off and explained the
purpose of the survey to them; parents were then able to take the survey on an
iPad provided by the program staff. The English version of the survey was also
available through a link emailed to all parents. Of parents, 28 (approximately
39% of families enrolled in the program) completed full surveys.
Data Analysis
Two guiding questions for the assessment of integration were articulated by
the program directors and the research team: (1) How were teachers, parents,
and children impacted by integration? (2) What challenges arose throughout
the year, and what solutions were implemented or could be implemented in
61
the future? For this descriptive single case study, data analysis methods were in-
formed by two seminal texts in in case study research (Stake, 1995; Yin, 2017),
as well as coding methods from qualitative content analysis (Baxter & Jack,
2010) to build a narrative that was representative of teachers’ and families’
experiences. Following collection of data from all three sources, the first and
second author reviewed the qualitative responses from the teacher focus groups
and parent surveys. Through a process of applying codes to small segments of
the transcripts, similar constructs within these responses were identified and
defined. Constructs related to the guiding questions identified during coding
emerged as themes through further discussion between the research team and
reexamination of transcripts.
In addition to qualitative data from the focus groups and parent surveys,
quantitative assessment results were also included to supplement the teacher
and parent reports about children’s experiences. The child assessment data from
TSG was first analyzed to understand how teachers adapted to using an assess-
ment system that some teachers had extensive experience with and others were
using for the first time. This was accomplished by comparing assessment data
from the 2018–19 school year to data from the 2017–18 school year, when
only Head Start students were assessed using TSG. If the assessment data was
confirmed to be used in a manner consistent with previous years’ data, it would
then be used to determine how children’s development was impacted by inte-
gration. Finally, the research team engaged the two program directors, one of
whom is the third author, in multiple discussions about the findings to deter-
mine whether the conclusions were reflective of their experience and to provide
important context to the results.
Positionality
The authors are all employed by the same nonprofit organization, dedicated
to providing the community with services that help individuals and families
overcome social barriers. Part of this strategy is to provide children with high
quality education and adult family members with services such as parenting
classes, employment services, college guidance, and ESOL classes. The au-
thors employ a strengths-based research approach that presupposes all families
should have access to services to help them build upon the strengths inherent
in every person. The goal of this research project is to effectively tell the story
of the program’s teachers and families by authentically reporting their experi-
ences in a socioeconomically integrated program. All three authors are White,
hold socially liberal political perspectives, are between 25–35 years old, and
come from middle to upper class backgrounds. Each has worked in various
educational settings, focusing on early childhood. These characteristics and
62
prior experiences may have impacted the study design and interpretation of
the results. The second author, who conducted the teacher focus groups, was
known to some of the teachers in his role as head of the research and evaluation
team. This author is not connected to teachers within the agency’s organiza-
tional chart, does not supervise any educational staff, and has no influence in
staff-related decision-making within the early childhood program. In an ef-
fort to protect anonymity, teachers had the opportunity to review focus group
transcripts and a draft of the evaluation report prior to it being shared with
program leadership. In an effort to assess potential influences of the authors’
positionality on interpretation of findings, the report was shared with a range
of stakeholders both internal external to the agency—including researchers,
practitioners, and policy analysts.
Results
Teaching Practices
A fundamental step in the integration process was ensuring high quality and
welcoming environments that aimed to foster a positive community for stu-
dents and their families. In the teacher focus group, teachers were asked about
their impressions of the quality of the classrooms and instruction for students.
Teachers felt that “the quality of the classroom was really high,” reflecting on
significant efforts to maintain high standards of practice through observations,
team meetings, professional development, and regular reporting to administra-
tion. Teachers also reported hearing from parents that their children’s classrooms
were more welcoming and had more resources than previous years.
Integration provided a setting for students of different cultural and econom-
ic backgrounds to interact. One of the most successful teaching practices for
successful integration was embracing diversity in the classroom. This primarily
occurred through teachers encouraging the use of students’ home language in
addition to English. Languages spoken across the UPK classrooms by students
and teachers throughout the year included Chinese, Dutch, English, Hebrew,
and Spanish. One teacher noted the positive influence this multilingual con-
text had on the classroom community:
Our class doesn’t feel like a weird monoculture like it did the past few
years when there was little or no diversity. It felt so weird before, teaching
in a little bubble in this neighborhood that is so incredibly diverse.
Another teacher identified language use as a catalyst for fostering community
in the classroom:
Once we dug into the work on languages, we really saw integration.
Kids who came from [tuition-based] preschool all came from one class,
63
so that was one group of friends. Languages helped them branch out
and make new friends. In the beginning of the year when we weren’t so
focused on language, there were small groups of friends who only played
with each other.
All classrooms incorporated some multilingual classroom practices, though
the extent of this use varied across classrooms. In one classroom, teachers
frequently used their Chinese and Spanish language skills and encouraged stu-
dents to ask questions and speak to each other in their language of preference.
Teachers used morning meetings as a setting to introduce new concepts and
develop routines in Chinese. Other practices included creating visuals of words
in multiple languages, providing direct translations, and regularly infusing
multiple languages into classroom dialogue. Teachers were intentional about
using multiple languages throughout the course of the year and wanted to
make sure students felt comfortable using their own language in the classroom,
noting that it provided students “permission to be who you are.” Though there
was concern among some parents that speaking other languages might lead to
a regression in children’s English skills, teachers believed this practice led to a
stronger community among students and saw students express desire to learn
more words and phrases in new languages. Teachers reported that their biggest
indicator of success was seeing students spontaneously using different languag-
es while playing with one another.
As a part of Head Start requirements, teachers conducted a home visit with
each student in their class at least once over the course of the year. Two to three
teachers attended each home visit and were given questionnaires to fill out with
the families. Teachers did not receive a formal training prior to conducting the
home visits. Teachers from the previously tuition-based classrooms viewed this
requirement as a positive addition. Teachers felt that the practice was a good
way to meet parents in the beginning of the year and to observe each child in
their home learning environment. Though logistics and planning were chal-
lenging, teachers noted that they learned information about each student that
would not have been available to them in a classroom context. Teachers sug-
gested that clear guidelines from administration on when and how long these
visits occur for would be helpful in facilitating the home visit process.
Families’ Experiences
In the parent survey, families were given the opportunity to provide
open-ended feedback on their experiences in the program for the previous
year, as well as recommendations for improving the process of integration.
Parent feedback was positive in a number of areas: parents consistently praised
the quality of teachers, showed an appreciation of diversity in the school, and
64
described a belief that diversity enhanced the quality of their experience. One
parent commented: “I have found the program to be diverse and offer many
different learning modalities. I love the extra activities and programs available.
It offers creativity and plenty of exposure for my son.” Teachers referenced
multiple examples of students forming close bonds that transcended socioeco-
nomic status. One teacher commented:
We had kids from different economic backgrounds really click. One stu-
dent is on one end of the income spectrum, and one on the other, and
they’re like soulmates. Having that place to just be and not separated by
what you can afford is super important.
Parents reported feeling their children had been positively challenged during
their time in the program and that their children’s confidence in their own abil-
ities had grown as a result: “She has grown tremendously socially and has been
challenged mentally. She is confident of her place in this world and in her com-
munity.” When asked to discuss their children’s experience in the program over
the course of the year, parents generally reported that their children loved their
experience and felt that they had learned many new, important skills. Parents’
sense of their children’s positive development was reflected in TSG assessment
results. At the end of the school year, 100% of PreK students were meeting or
exceeding TSG developmental benchmarks in literacy and social–emotional
skills, while 95–98% were meeting or exceeding benchmarks in the cognitive,
language, math, and physical domains.
Challenges and Solutions
Communication
Teachers identified communication as one of the main challenges to inte-
gration. Teachers voiced a desire to have clear directives about the program’s
approach to learning, pedagogy, and assessment. While acknowledging that
program leadership encouraging an “everyone is learning as we go” mindset
was effective, substantive questions regarding pedagogy remained unanswered
until after the school year began. This challenge was particularly significant for
former tuition-based teachers in light of the volume of Head Start-approved
resources, which teachers found helpful but also extremely time consuming
to thoroughly review. Frequent team meetings with administration early in
the year were the most helpful resource in addressing these challenges, as were
the professional development sessions prior to the school year. The teachers
discussed how identifying support systems in their area of need improved
communication between the classroom and the administration. The length of
time to identify sources of support varied across different teachers with some
65
identifying support within a few weeks of school beginning and others taking
several months to do so.
An additional communication-related challenge came in the classrooms,
where teachers with different backgrounds and educational philosophies were
teamed together for the first time. Pedagogical differences between teachers
affected collaboration between co-teachers from different programs in the
beginning of the school year. Teachers were not the only ones who felt the
impact of these differences. In the parent survey, when asked about their fami-
ly’s experience, one parent responded that “The teaching team felt disjointed.”
The program sought to pair teachers from different backgrounds in the same
classrooms, and while this goal aligned with efforts to entirely integrate the
program, teachers had little preparation for negotiating differences in philoso-
phy and practice. Issues of pedagogy were largely addressed by the end of the
year through team meetings and discussions with program leadership.
Assessment
Child assessment emerged as a consistent challenge in the focus group,
with teachers describing the process as arduous, time consuming, and rarely
reflective of student developmental trajectories. Teachers commented that the
amount of time needed to complete assessments at three time points during
the year (in alignment with Head Start compliance standards) took time away
from facilitating learning for students. This feeling seemed to be strongest for
teachers previously in the tuition-based preschool, whose teaching philosophy
most closely aligned with a more holistic, Reggio Emilia-inspired approach.
Analysis of child assessment data revealed large differences in the Fall to
Spring growth scores of Head Start students from the 2018–19 school year,
compared to the previous year. Independent samples t-tests were conducted
comparing TSG scores of Head Start students in the 2017–18 and 2018–19
school years in each TSG domain. In all domains except literacy and math, Fall
TSG scores in the 2018–19 cohort were found to be significantly higher than
in the 2017–18 cohort. Similarly, Spring TSG scores were significantly higher
for all domains for the 2018–19 cohort. Comparing growth in scores from Fall
to Spring repeated this pattern with significantly larger changes in growth for
the 2018–19 cohort in all domains except literacy. See Table 1 for individual
test results.
66
Table 1. TSG Scores, 2018–19 Head Start Students Compared to 2017–18

Head Start Students
Measure- 2017–2018 (n 2018–2019 (n =
Construct
ment = 69) 54)
M SD M SD t
Fall 368.80 39.81 398.48 51.65 3.60**
Socio-
Spring 416.36 72.47 505.15 61.93 7.18**
emotional
Growth 47.56 64.32 106.67 63.08 5.10**
Fall 419.22 43.30 461.93 51.67 4.99**
Cognitive Spring 460.86 74.03 598.74 76.93 10.08**
Growth 41.64 78.31 136.81 73.33 6.87**
Fall 358.41 49.20 402.69 63.10 4.37**
Language Spring 432.61 90.79 515.93 81.71 5.28**
Growth 74.20 85.41 113.24 84.87 2.53*
Fall 570.71 57.81 589.48 54.54 1.83
Literacy Spring 618.17 95.35 675.35 46.63 4.04**
Growth 47.46 88.05 85.87 54.50 2.81*
Fall 372.23 48.81 385.81 55.30 1.45
Math Spring 411.75 74.31 470.07 57.69 4.75**
Growth 39.52 67.27 84.17 42.50 4.25**
Fall 505.68 43.69 554.93 66.13 4.96**
Physical Spring 586.49 101.66 698.81 108.56 5.90**
Growth 80.81 97.05 143.89 100.46 3.52**
*p < .01; **p < .001
Community Building
Overall, program staff reported that integration appeared to increase par-
ents’ and children’s comfort levels in the program, as both groups were able
to see the entire building and program as a place for them, rather than feeling
like an outsider in particular spaces. Kindergarten admissions events, designed
to encourage families of all backgrounds to visit and consider a wide variety
of high performing public schools, including dual language Chinese/English
programs and progressive schools following a project-driven approach, were
highly attended and well received. In the second month of the school year,
parents were invited to volunteer as “UPK Classroom Parent Representatives.”
Parent representatives met monthly with program leadership to share feedback
and consult on programming decisions, with a focus on building community
67
among families. Projects pursued by program leadership and parent represen-

tatives included a monthly parenting series, focusing on crowd-sourced topics
such as screen time and limit-setting; breakfasts and weekend playdates open to
all families; monthly community singalongs; open sessions for families in the
art center; and kindergarten admissions sessions including parent panels, visits
from DOE partners, workshops for families of children with special needs, and
group tours of high-performing local schools.
However, despite these initiatives, community building among the parent
body was not as successful as anticipated. In the teacher focus group, teach-
ers were asked how parents had been impacted by integration. Friendships
between students from different backgrounds were formed within in the class-
room; however, teachers did not see similar relationships form between parents.
Teachers advocated for more program structure to introduce and encourage di-
alogue between parents: “We have children in our class who are best friends,
but their parents never talk, and that should really change.” This sentiment
was repeated by at least one parent who suggested creating more planned op-
portunities to bring families of different backgrounds together outside of the
classroom.
Table 2. Challenges Faced During the Integration Process

Challenge Description Solution Future Steps
Social network analysis
Implementing new
Identifying support of teachers to identify
teaching practices
systems networks of support
Commu- and standards
within the program
nication
Pedagogical differ- Team meetings and Increased preparation &
ences between teach- discussions with pro- emphasizing communi-
ers in the classroom gram leadership cation between teachers
Teachers reported Increased support for
TSG as time-con- teachers for whom Moving to a more holis-
suming TSG was new tic assessment approach,
Assess- Caution was taken which is less time
ment using results as indic- consuming and more
Score inconsistencies indicative of children’s
ative of child devel-
across school years progress
opment or program
success
Despite success in-
Expanding integration
Com- tegrating students,
Increased parent into younger grades to
munity parent interaction
engagement integrate entire program
Building between groups was
community
less common
68
Discussion
The current study described one urban program’s experience socioeconom-

ically integrating its preschool classrooms. This initiative was undertaken with
the intention to create classrooms that reflected the diversity of the commu-
nity, to provide families with equitable access to resources, and encourage
positive development for all students. The program saw success in integration
within the classroom, particularly in exposing its students to a diverse group
of peers. The program also ensured parents had equal access to resources in-
cluding home literacy promoting programs, social workers, and mental health
supports. Importantly, the program was able to identify key areas for improve-
ment and growth, particularly regarding communication, assessment, and
community building.
High Quality Education and Exposure to Diversity
The most encouraging result for program leadership was the sense from
teachers and parents that classrooms were high quality and highly resourced.
Program leadership expressed that it was imperative to integrate programs with
complementary theories and practices. Children and staff from the holistic
Reggio Emilia-inspired program were combined with the family- and com-
pliance-focused Head Start program. Each of these programs had strengths
that supported the other. Reggio Emilia fostered a student-based environment
that allowed students the freedom to learn through exploration (McClow &
Gillespie, 1998; McNally & Slutsky, 2017; Schneider et al., 2014). Mean-
while, Head Start requirements brought the addition of services for the whole
family and encouraged teachers to consider children in the context of both
their home and school environments.
Almost all students in the program were meeting or exceeding develop-
mental expectations (95–100% across all constructs). This result should be
interpreted cautiously given teacher-reported concerns over using this new sys-
tem for the first time. While it was hypothesized that students’ development
and abilities would be positively impacted by integration, the significantly
higher differences seen in Fall scores from the 2018–19 school year compared
to the 2017–18 school year, as well as the large magnitude of growth from Fall
to Spring for the 2018–19 school year, raise concerns about the validity of the
scores. These large differences are likely more attributable to teachers’ lack of
familiarity with the assessment system, rather than a direct impact of the inter-
vention. Though teachers received professional development training on using
the assessment system, its complexity and requirements for teachers to attend
intensive training to achieve various levels of proficiency proved to be a signif-
icant challenge.
69
Despite concerns about validity, assessment results are promising in sug-

gesting that integration did not hamper students from successfully reaching
developmental milestones. Less clear from this case study and the literature
is specifically how ethnically and socioeconomically diverse classrooms ben-
efit students. Prior research suggests that interactions between students from
diverse backgrounds may be the mechanism by which integration provides
benefits to all students (Reid, 2014; Reid & Kagan, 2015). However, this mech-
anism has not been directly tested. Future research that identifies the means by
which diverse classrooms lead to positive outcomes would assist teachers and
administrators in implementing classroom practices that will lead to improved
developmental outcomes for all students. While the Head Start assessment re-
quirements created some challenges, when paired with adequate support for
teachers in completing assessments, the requirement allowed the program to
track all children’s progress towards developmental milestones. This was a valu-
able addition to the more holistic Reggio Emilia approach to help ensure that
all students are on track for successful development. Program leaders needed to
provide high levels of support to teachers to assist them in juggling assessment
requirements in concert with their many other responsibilities.
Program Support for Teachers
Teachers were on the front line of integration in the program, both in fos-
tering relationships between students and interacting with families. During
the summer leading up to the 2018–19 school year, teachers attended multi-
ple professional development sessions focused on preparing them to teach in
a socioeconomically integrated program. However, even with this preparation,
teachers faced challenges related to integration, particularly in communicat-
ing differences of practice in the classroom. Support by program leadership
in the form of classroom visits and discussions at team meetings were key to
addressing these challenges. In addition to frequent leadership visits, mental
health and social work supports were embedded in the classroom and avail-
able to all families, regardless of funding source. Mental health services in the
form of counseling, support groups, and play therapy were advertised to fami-
lies, and teachers could also refer families to the mental health team if they felt
it would be beneficial. Social workers consulted with teachers to help develop
a trauma-informed lens for planning classroom activities and communicating
with children and their families. Through professional development, classroom
observations, and informal coaching, social workers encouraged teachers to de-
velop culturally responsive and trauma-informed strategies and to reflect on
how current classroom practices may serve as triggers for some children and
families. Access to services such as counseling, support groups, and play therapy
70
reduces environmental stress for children, strengthens family systems, and ame-
liorates the effects of trauma, crisis, and toxic stress (Cappella et al., 2012).
Program support was also essential to helping teachers foster integration in
the classroom. While the integration process did not lead to a strong sense of
community for parents, potentially due to difficulty overcoming language bar-
riers, integration within the classroom was successful. Teachers reported that
students developed friendships with peers from diverse backgrounds. Teachers
were integral to fostering classroom community, bringing together groups of
students who may not have interacted otherwise, particularly by embracing
the diversity of languages represented within the classroom. This aligns with
the literature surrounding culturally responsive teaching practices highlighting
the importance of intentional community building in diverse settings (Bennett
et al., 2018; Henderson & Lasley, 2014). Based on this literature, providing
intentional opportunities for parents to be exposed to families from different
backgrounds may be a potential strategy to increasing the sense of community
parents feel within the program. In other studies, parents have reported obtain-
ing information about choosing schools for their children mainly from social
interactions, most frequently with other parents and school staff (Ayscue et al.,
2016; Neild, 2005). Therefore, fostering a strong sense of community within
the program is important as it could help parents identify resources for choos-
ing a school. As well as helping parents with decisions related to their children’s
education, a stronger school family community could help build diverse social
networks through which parents could increase family social capital so that
families are better supported and have access to more opportunities (Briggs,
1998; Lukasiewicz et al., 2019).
Limitations and Future Research
Unfortunately, the response rate to the parent survey was relatively low
(39%), and therefore a clear parent perspective on the program’s communi-
ty building efforts is not available. Future research will aim to reach a larger
proportion of parents and to provide more in-depth opportunities for parent
feedback, such as conducting focus groups with parents. Program leadership
has hypothesized that implementing integration in earlier age groups will be
critical to building community and trust among families over time, as the first
years of parenting present many opportunities for families to bond over shared
experiences and challenges. To this end, the program shifted its timeline for in-
tegrating the entire program, and as of the 2020–21 school year, all classrooms
in the program were socioeconomically integrated.
As often occurs in applied research working with practitioners, the evalua-
tion presented here was planned as an internal assessment to inform program
71
development. However, as the research team began to document the process

of integration during the school year, they recognized that this was a relatively
novel initiative and that the results may help to inform other ECE programs.
As a result, the majority of the data presented above was collected at the end
of the school year. In addition, TSG scores were revealed to be an imperfect
metric by which to measure children’s development. Going forward, the re-
search team has begun to design data collections to occur at multiple time
points throughout the year, and the program has implemented a new assess-
ment system. As the process of integration continues, future research will shift
its focus to short-term outcomes that also help to describe the experiences of
participants, including a project using social network analysis to more fully
understand the types of community that exist between teachers, parents, and
children within the integrated program.
References
Angioloni, S., & Ames, G. (2015). Racial diversity and school performance: A school location
approach. The Review of Regional Studies, 45, 253–277.
Ayscue, J. B., Siegel-Hawley, G., Woodward, B., & Orfield, G. (2016). When choice fos-
ters inequality: Can research help? Phi Delta Kappan, 98(4), 49–54. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0031721716681777
Baxter, P., & Jack, S. (2010). Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and imple-
mentation for novice researchers. Qualitative Report, 13. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-
3715/2008.1573
Bazelon, E. (2008, July 20). The next kind of integration. New York Times. https://www.ny-
times.com/2008/07/20/magazine/20integration-t.html
Bennett, S. V., Gunn, A. A., Gayle-Evans, G., Barrera, E. S., & Leung, C. B. (2018). Cultur-
ally responsive literacy practices in an early childhood community. Early Childhood Educa-
tion Journal, 46(2), 241–248. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-017-0839-9
Bifulco, R., Ladd, H. F., & Ross, S. L. (2009). The effects of public school choice on those
left behind: Evidence from Durham, North Carolina. Peabody Journal of Education, 84(2),
130–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/01619560902810104
Bohrnstedt, G., Kitmitto, S., Ogut, B., Sherman, D., & Chan, D. (2015). School composition
and the Black-White achievement gap (pp. 1–36). National Center for Education Statistics.
https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/subject/studies/pdf/school_composition_and_the_
bw_achievement_gap_2015.pdf
Borman, G., & Dowling, N. M. (2010). Schools and inequality: A multilevel analysis of Cole-
man’s equality of educational opportunity data. Teachers College Record, 112, 1201–1246.
Boser, U., & Baffour, P. (2017). Isolated and segregated: A new look at the income divide in our
nation’s schooling system. Center for American Progress. https://www.americanprogress.org/
issues/education-k-12/reports/2017/05/31/433014/isolated-and-segregated/
Briggs, X. de S. (1998). Brown kids in White suburbs: Housing mobility and the many faces
of social capital. Housing Policy Debate, 9(1), 177–221. https://doi.org/10.1080/1051148
2.1998.9521290
72
Camera, L. (2019, July 25). Racial and economic segregation reinforced by school district
boundaries. U.S. News and World Report. https://www.usnews.com/news/education-news/
articles/2019-07-25/racial-and-economic-segregation-reinforced-by-school-dis-
trict-boundaries
Campbell, C., Heyward, G., & Gross, B. (2017). Stepping up: How are American cities deliver-
ing on the promise of public school choice? Center on Reinventing Public Education. https://
eric.ed.gov/?id=ED578178
Cappella, E., Hamre, B. K., Kim, H. Y., Henry, D. B., Frazier, S. L., Atkins, M. S., & Scho-
enwald, S. K. (2012). Teacher consultation and coaching within mental health practice:
Classroom and child effects in urban elementary schools. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 80(4), 597. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027725
Cunningham, J. (2013). Comprehensive school choice policy: A guide for legislators. National
Conference of State Legislatures.
Feddes, A. R., Noack, P., & Rutland, A. (2009). Direct and extended friendship effects on
minority and majority children’s interethnic attitudes: A longitudinal study. Child Develop-
ment, 80(2), 377–390. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2009.01266.x
Flink, I. J. E., Prins, R. G., Mackenbach, J. J. P., Jaddoe, V. W., Hofman, A., Verhulst, F. C.,
Tiemeier, H., & Raat, H. (2013). Neighborhood ethnic diversity and behavioral and emo-
tional problems in 3-year-olds: Results from the Generation R Study. PLoS ONE, 8(8),
e70070. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0070070
Fram, M. S., & Kim, J. (2012). Segregated from the start: Peer context in center-based child
care. Children & Schools, 34(2), 71–82. https://doi.org/10.1093/cs/cds011
Frankenberg, E. (2016). Segregation at an early age (pp. 1–50). Penn State. https://cecr.ed.psu.
edu/sites/default/files/Segregation_At_An_Early_Age_Frankenberg_2016.pdf
Gaias, L. M., Gal, D. E., Abry, T., Taylor, M., & Granger, K. L. (2018). Diversity exposure in
preschool: Longitudinal implications for cross-race friendships and racial bias. Journal of Ap-
plied Developmental Psychology, 59, 5–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2018.02.005
Gándara, P. (2015). Rethinking bilingual instruction. Educational Leadership, 72(6), 60–64.
Garda, R. A. (2011). The white interest in school integration. Florida Law Review, 63, 599–
660.
Greenberg, E., & Monarrez, T. (2019). Segregated from the start. Urban Institute. https://www.
urban.org/features/segregated-start
Henderson, M. C., & Lasley, E. (2014). Creating inclusive classrooms through the arts. Di-
mensions of Early Childhood, 42(3), 11–17.
Kahlenberg, R. D. (Ed.). (2012). The future of school integration: Socioeconomic diversity as an
education reform strategy. Century Foundation Press.
Kim, D.-H., Lambert, R. G., & Burts, D. C. (2013). Evidence of the validity of Teaching
Strategies GOLD® assessment tool for English language learners and children with disabil-
ities. Early Education & Development, 24(4), 574–595. https://doi.org/10.1080/1040928
9.2012.701500
Koedel, C., Betts, J. R., Rice, L. A., & Zau, A. C. (2009). The integrating and segregat-
ing effects of school choice. Peabody Journal of Education, 84(2), 110–129. https://doi.
org/10.1080/01619560902810096
Lukasiewicz, K., Bahar, O. S., Ali, S., Gopalan, P., Parker, G., Hawkins, R., McKay, M., &
Walker, R. (2019). Getting by in New York City: Bonding, bridging and linking capital
in poverty–impacted neighborhoods. City & Community, 18(1), 280–301. https://doi.
org/10.1111/cico.12373
73
McClow, C. S., & Gillespie, C. W. (1998). Parental reactions to the introduction of the Reg-
gio Emilia Approach in Head Start classrooms. Early Childhood Education Journal, 26(2),
131–135.
McNally, S. A., & Slutsky, R. (2017). Key elements of the Reggio Emilia approach and how
they are interconnected to create the highly regarded system of early childhood education.
Early Child Development and Care, 187(12), 1925–1937. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004
430.2016.1197920
Morse, K., Hemphill, C., Mader, N., Cory, B., Vargas, K., Abbas, Q., Quiroz, M., & Sant’an-
na Costa, A. C. (2018). The paradox of choice: How school choice divides New York City ele-
mentary schools. The New School Canter for New York City Affairs. http://www.centernyc.
org/the-paradox-of-choice
Neild, R. C. (2005). Parent management of school choice in a large urban district. Urban
Education, 40(3), 270–297. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085905274538
Pettigrew, T. F. (2008). Future directions for intergroup contact theory and research. Inter-
national Journal of Intercultural Relations, 32(3), 187–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijin-
trel.2007.12.002
Phillips, K. J., Larsen, E. S., & Hausman, C. (2015). School choice & social stratification:
How intra-district transfers shift the racial/ethnic and economic composition of schools.
Social Science Research, 51, 30–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2014.12.005
Potter, H. (2016). Diversity in New York City’s Universal Pre-K classrooms. The Century Founda-
tion. https://tcf.org/content/report/diversity-new-york-citys-universal-pre-k-classrooms/
Reardon, S. F. (2016). School segregation and racial academic achievement gaps. RSF: The
Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences, 2(5), 34–57. https://doi.org/10.7758/
RSF.2016.2.5.03
Reid, J. L. (2012). Socioeconomic diversity and early learning. In R. Kahlenberg (Ed.), The
future of school integration: Socioeconomic diversity as an education reform strategy (pp. 67–
125). Century Foundation Press.
Reid, J. L. (2014). The racial and ethnic composition of pre-kindergarten classrooms and chil-
dren’s language development. Penn State Law Review, 119, 645.
Reid, J. L., & Kagan, S. L. (2015). A better start: Why classroom diversity matters in early ed-
ucation. The Century Foundation and The Poverty and Race Research Action Council.
https://tcf.org/content/report/a-better-start/
Roda, A., & Wells, A. S. (2013). School choice policies and racial segregation: Where White
parents’ good intentions, anxiety, and privilege collide. American Journal of Education,
119(2), 261–293. https://doi.org/10.1086/668753
Rumberger, R. W., & Palardy, G. J. (2005). Does segregation still matter? The impact of
student composition on academic achievement in high school. Teachers College Record,
107(9), 1999–2045.
Saporito, S. (2003). Private choices, public consequences: Magnet school choice and segre-
gation by race and poverty. Social Problems, 50(2), 181–203. https://doi.org/10.1525/
sp.2003.50.2.181
Schechter, C., & Bye, B. (2007). Preliminary evidence for the impact of mixed-income pre-
schools on low-income children’s language growth. Early Childhood Research Quarterly,
22(1), 137–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2006.11.005
Schneider, B. H., Manetti, M., Frattini, L., Rania, N., Santo, J. B., Coplan, R. J., & Cwinn, E.
(2014). Successful transition to elementary school and the implementation of facilitative
practices specified in the Reggio Emilia philosophy. School Psychology International, 35(5),
447–462.
74
Schwartz, H. (2012). Housing policy is school policy: Economically integrative housing pro-
motes academic success in Montgomery County, MD. In R. Kahlenberg (Ed.), The future
of school integration: Socioeconomic diversity as an education reform strategy (pp. 27–65).
Century Foundation Press.
Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Sage.
Wells, A. S., Fox, L., Cordova-Cobo, D., & Kahlenberg, R. D. (2016). How racially diverse
schools and classrooms can benefit all students. Education Digest, 82(1), 17.
Williams, S. M. (2012). The politics of maintaining balanced schools: An examination of three
districts. In R. Kahlenberg (Ed.), The future of school integration: Socioeconomic diversity as
an education reform strategy (pp. 257–282). Century Foundation Press.
Yin, R. K. (2017). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). Sage.
Ciara Nestor was a doctoral student in applied developmental psychology at Ford-

ham University and a research associate at the Educational Alliance while working on
this project. She has since graduated and begun an evaluation fellowship. Dr. Nestor’s
research interests include the influence of parent–child relationships on children’s
academic and social outcomes, as well as the intersection of the school and family en-
vironments and their influence on children’s development.
Andrew Cavanagh is the director of research and evaluation at the Educational Al-
liance, located on the Lower East Side in New York City. His research interests include
education reform and contexts that support development across the lifespan. Corre-
spondence concerning this article may be addressed to Dr. Andrew Cavanagh, 197 E
Broadway, New York, NY, 10002 or email acavanagh@edalliance.org
Louis Hamlyn-Harris is executive manager for Early Childhood Australia of Be
You, Australia's national mental health in education initiative. He was previously se-
nior director of Early Childhood at Manny Cantor Center, a part of the Educational
Alliance in New York City.
Appendix. Supplemental Materials

Classroom Strategies—Promoting Language
1. Systematic presentation of vocabulary
• Presenting vocabulary thematically helps children make associations
• Categories and themes make retrieval of word easier
• Multiple exposures to words
• Read-alouds
• Dramatic play organized around familiar theme or book theme
2. Small group work
• Provide frequent opportunities (daily experiences) to share books in small
groups
• Great opportunity to utilize family volunteers, community, aides
3. Child’s interests guide curriculum decisions
• A child’s engagement in an activity promotes attention and regulation
4. Feedback and encouragement
• Comes in the context of social interaction
75
• Pairing ELL’s with strong English-language users

• Provide verbal models that child can use in real-time interaction
• Open-ended q’s or q’s with multiple answers helps expand phrase length
5. Structure the routine, structure the classroom space
• Predictable routines allow child to anticipate what will happen, language
• Carrier phrases invite verbal/non-verbal responses
• Consistent physical environment can cue a child on activity and behavior
6. Encourage continued development in dominant language
• Home book reading; schedule rotation of books or weekly book loan
• Incorporate home language in classroom when possible; this also gives ELL
a change to “lead” their friends
7. Keep language “rich”
• Rich, expansive language promotes oral language better than simplified
language
• Classroom provides a natural context to support meaning
• Supplement with gesture or pictures
Classroom Strategies: Promoting Literacy
1. Many literacy skills transfer
• For a child who has developed first language literacy skills, easer to develop
same skills in English
• Encourage family to use home language to teach rhyme/song, play word
games, share books
• Book-loaning system of books in child’s dominant language
2. Book Acting
• Use props
• Repetitive dialogue
• Acting out in groups gives a natural support
• Volunteer to read story in home language; support child’s retelling in home
language
3. Develop Alphabet Knowledge
• Toolbox alphabet sorting
• Other letter recognition games
4. Phonological Awareness Games
• Recognize rhyming words
• Recognize syllables within words
• Recognize beginning sounds in words
5. Encourage a Love of Print
• Interactive book read
• “pretend” reading and writing
• Act-outs of song, nursery rhyme, poems
• Dedicated independent book reading (later on, retell)
76
The Use of the World Café Process to Foster
Parent–School Engagement in Culturally
Rooted Early Childhood Montessori Programs:
A Participatory Process
Annamarie Brennhofer Pleski, Fanny Jimbo Llapa, Shannon
Pergament, Say Vang, Bao Lee, Jordan Webber, Octavia
Webber, Terri Strom, Nora Springer, and Mary O. Hearst
Abstract
Parent engagement is one approach to decrease the opportunity gap for

Black, American Indian, and all children of color. This report from the field
describes the use of the World Café participatory approach to support par-
ent engagement in five early childhood, culturally embedded Montessori
programs. Serving the Whole Child (SWC) is a community–university part-
nership between St. Catherine University, Montessori Center of Minnesota,
five early childhood Montessori schools, and school parent leaders. Using a
participatory approach, parent leaders from each school codesigned the de-
velopment, implementation, and analysis of the World Café. The World Café
asked school parents what was working and what parents needed help with
related to three topics: parent well-being, caring for a young child, and school–
community connection. Each World Café was tailored to honor the school’s
unique community, cultural values, and family needs. Parent leaders synthe-
sized and coordinated with schools to develop offerings to meet the priorities
of the recommendations and key topics. World Café is a participatory process
that may increase parent leadership and school engagement in ways that sup-
port caregiving and child success.

Key Words: parent engagement, school–parent relationship, World Café, early

childhood education programs, Montessori, culturally diverse families
Introduction
This report from the field describes the use of a World Café process to
increase parent engagement at five culturally embedded early childhood ed-
ucation programs. Parent engagement at school is one approach to decrease
the opportunity gap for Black, American Indian,1 and all children of color, yet
parent engagement for low-income, immigrant, and/or populations of color
remains limited. This report describes the use of a World Café to build par-
ent/community dialogue and parent engagement in a participatory, culturally
centered, and strengths-based manner. This report begins by describing the op-
portunity gap present for low-income families of color and immigrant families;
the importance and diversity of parent engagement for positive child educa-
tional outcomes; the community–university partnership created to address this
gap; and the participatory process of conducting World Café’s at five early
childhood programs. Finally, this report provides a summary of key learnings
and suggestions for future efforts.
Background
Parent (inclusive of parents, fictive kin, and other household decision mak-
ers) engagement at school early in a child’s formal education is a key element
needed to reduce the opportunity gap for Black, American Indian, and all
children of color. The opportunity gap, “unequal or inequitable distribution
of resources and opportunities” (Glossary of Education Reform, 2014, para.
2) exists across multiple indicators including preschool enrollment, standard-
ized test scores, and graduation rates, an indicator of poor performing schools
and social context (Amselem, 2014). Preschool enrollment rates were highest
for Asian 3–4-year-old children nationally (56%), followed by Black (53%),
White (50%), American Indian (45%), Hispanic (43%), and Pacific Islander
children (39%; National Center for Education Statistics, 2021). Standardized
test scores, which of themselves are examples of structural and social inequi-
ties (Camara & Schmidt, 1999), are 30 points lower among American Indian/
Alaska Native students, 26 points lower among Black students, and 23 points
lower among Hispanic students compared to White students across the U.S. (de
Brey et al., 2019). High school graduation rates remain disparate at 88.7% for
non-Hispanic White youth and 72.8% for students of color (Amselem, 2014;
Minnesota COMPASS, 2020). Early intervention to prevent opportunity gaps
are cumulative. For example, low-income, African American children showed
78
PARENT ENGAGEMENT VIA WORLD CAFÉ
stronger intellectual development and academic achievement from preschool

intervention compared to elementary school intervention (Campbell & Ra-
mey, 1994). In addition, early childhood education programs have been clearly
linked to improved graduation rates, lower pregnancy rates in high school, and
less involvement in the justice system (Duncan et al., 2014; Grunewald & Rol-
nick, 2003; Reynolds et al., 2007; Reynolds et al., 2001).
Parent engagement at school is, in our usage, an inclusive and diverse mod-
el where parents have multiple ways to be involved in their child’s educational
experience (Baker et al., 2017; Walker et al., 2010). Parent engagement in their
child’s education is independently associated with higher educational attain-
ment, language skills, social competencies, income, health insurance rates, and
lower justice involvement and substance abuse (Grolnick & Slowiaczek, 1994;
Hill & Taylor, 2004; Reynolds et al., 2011) for all children (Ma et al., 2016).
Since parent engagement shows such substantial opportunities to improve
long-term outcomes for children, why is parent engagement not universal?
Walker et al. (2010) described a model of parent engagement that describes
why parents get involved, the forms of involvement, and how parent involve-
ment influences both proximal and distal child outcomes. Parent engagement
should represent an inclusive model where parents have multiple ways to be
involved in their child’s educational experience including instilling their val-
ues, goals, aspirations and expectations, home-based activities, parent–teacher
communication, and passive school engagement (volunteering) or active en-
gagement including decision making roles related to their child’s education at
the school (Baker et al., 2017; Walker et al., 2010). These types of engagement
are predicated on parent beliefs, perceptions of invitations from the school,
and perceived life context (Walker et al., 2010). Parents who have low incomes
may have competing demands and urgency of meeting basic needs (Arnold
et al., 2008; Baker et al., 2017; Lamb-Parker et al., 2001; Mendez, 2010)
while parents of children who come from immigrant families may have cul-
tural expectations around school engagement and language barriers (Cheung
& Pomerantz, 2012; Johnson et al., 2016). For example, parent engagement
in school can be restricted by social and structural barriers for low-income
families including a general lack of financial resources, difficulty with trans-
portation, stress related to living conditions, and employment stressors (Hill &
Taylor, 2004; Povey et al., 2016).
The challenge is hardly simple. Systemic racism interferes with equitable
learning opportunities among Black, American Indian, and children of color.
African American, Latino, and low-income students are twice as likely to be
taught by inexperienced and unqualified teachers (Flores, 2007). School dis-
tricts educating a large population of African American and Latino students
79
receive less local and state funding compared to school districts serving a low
number of students of color (Flores, 2007). Additionally, people of color are
more likely to live in racially and economically segregated neighborhoods. Ra-
cial residential segregation is associated with limited opportunities for high
quality education and adequate employment and with a lack of access to
quality health care (Bailey et al., 2017). Parent engagement, including family
support in early education settings, is crucial for mitigating opportunity gaps
for Black, American Indian, and families and children of color (Povey et al.,
2016; Reynolds et al., 2011).
There are several approaches to increase parent engagement aimed at ad-
dressing educational inequity. Strengths-based strategies (Rubin et al., 2012),
culturally responsive practices and programming (Griner & Stewart, 2013),
and participatory approaches with community members (Rubin et al., 2012)
all share a similar approach of shared ownership with stakeholders in a skill
building and collaborative process to jointly contribute to the development,
implementation, and evaluation of educational practice. The World Café is
an approach that can be strengths-based, culturally responsive, and participa-
tory while increasing parent motivation to engage and encouraging potential
future involvement (Walker et al., 2010). Briefly, World Café is a conversa-
tional process with key systemic principles used to encourage participatory
and collaborative dialogue (Thompson et al., 2014). The World Café process is
adaptable and has been successfully implemented in a variety of circumstanc-
es and settings across the globe (Brown & Isaacs, 2005). Previous applications
of World Café have been used for community engagement and program de-
velopment. Jor’dan et al. (2012) adapted the World Café method to provide
peer-to-peer learning, discussion, and self-reflection around protective factors
as part of a child abuse and neglect prevention initiative. Hechenbleikner et al.
(2008) utilized the method to increase community engagement in local im-
provement plans in the city of Reading, Massachusetts.
This report from the field describes the implementation of a participato-
ry, strengths-based approach to increase parent engagement in low-income,
culturally centered early childhood Montessori education programs (Mon-
tessori Center of Minnesota, n.d.) using a parent-led World Café. Volunteer
parent leaders from each of the five early childhood education programs (89%
Black, American Indian, and children of color; 80% qualify for free or re-
duced lunch) participated in a flexible process to cultivate Black, American
Indian, and person of color parent voice and engagement. The World Café ap-
proach was tailored to fit the school setting and cultural context of the families
and community. The parent project, Serving the Whole Child, is a commu-
nity–university partnership connecting health, early Montessori education,
80
and social services to optimize life opportunities for Black, American Indian,
and children of color attending high quality, culturally focused Montessori
early education programs. This report from the field will describe the project
and partnership, the process of training parent leaders, the World Café imple-
mentation process and participation, and recommendations for use in school
settings.
Serving the Whole Child
The Serving the Whole Child (SWC) community–university partnership

and project began in 2013 between Montessori Partners Serving All Chil-
dren (MPSAC) and St. Catherine University. See Figure 1 for an overview
of SWC’s structure. MPSAC is an outreach initiative of the Montessori Cen-
ter of Minnesota (MCM) made up of a group of independent Montessori
schools throughout the Twin Cities metro area, greater Minnesota, and South
Dakota. Through this collaborative, partner schools provide high quality, com-
munity-led early childhood Montessori education for their culturally rooted
communities and receive training, technical assistance, start up, and guidance
for sustainability support from MCM (Montessori Center of Minnesota, n.d.).
Montessori early education programs have demonstrated effectiveness in foster-
ing noncognitive skills including self-discipline, critical reasoning and problem
solving, improved bilingual language acquisition, increased preacademic and
behavior skills with advantages in academic achievement in core subjects years
after leaving the Montessori program (Debs & Brown, 2017).
Of the MPSAC collaborative, five independent, culturally rooted early
childhood Montessori schools in St. Paul and Minneapolis, Minnesota opted
to participate in SWC. The five schools included the cultural communities of
Siembra Montessori, a Spanish/English dual-language program serving Latine2
children (Centro Tyrone Guzman, 2019); Bright Water Montessori, an inten-
tionally diverse school in North Minneapolis with 60% of students identifying
as student of color and 40% identifying as White (Bright Water Montessori
School, 2019); Montessori American Indian Childcare Center (MAICC),
serving American Indian children (MAICC, 2013); Hmoob Toj Siab Chil-
dren’s House, a bicultural Hmong–English program serving Hmong children
(Hmong American Partnership, 2020); and Cornerstone Montessori serving
diverse children in East St. Paul (Cornerstone Montessori Elementary School,
2020). Each school had representation of the school lead and school guides
(classroom teachers) on the SWC Advisory Board and were actively engaged
in all program activities. St. Catherine University representation included pub-
lic health, occupational therapy, social work (including St. Thomas University,
81
formerly a joint social work program with St. Catherine University), physician
assistant, and nursing faculty and students over the course of the program.
Figure 1. Serving the Whole Child Structure
External
Montessori Center of Evaluators:
Minnesota: • Shannon
• Community Social Workers Pergament
• Staff • Maira Rosas-Lee
Montessori Partners and Parent Participating Departments:
Leaders: • Public Health
• Siembra Montessori Children’s House • Occupational Therapy
• Cornerstone Montessori • Nursing
• Hmoob Toj Siab Children’s House • Social Work
• Brightwater Montessori • Physician Assistant
• Montessori American Indian Childcare
Center
Partnership Advisory Board
Parent Panning Committee (PPC)
SWC’s primary impact statement is “our children, families, and com-

munities are physically, emotionally, intellectually, culturally, and spiritually
strengthened to achieve their goals.” In order to achieve the desired impact,
the Advisory Board—comprised of MSPAC leaders, administration, parent
representatives of each partner school, and St. Catherine/St. Thomas Univer-
sity faculty—collaboratively established goals and activities from an ecological
framework (McLeroy et al., 1988). These include, (a) high quality early child-
hood Montessori education, early childhood assessment, screening, and early
intervention; (b) parent agency, leadership, and engagement; and (c) improving
the skills of future professionals by involving St. Catherine University students
in early childhood screening, interprofessional collaborative practice, and dia-
logue of cultural humility.
Part of the SWC programming, parent enrichment activities were identi-
fied as a key to increasing parent agency, leadership, and engagement. Prior to
Fall 2017, the approaches used to identify topics and implement events did
82
not include parents’ collaboration. In Fall 2016, rather than rely on the school
representatives to identify opportunities for parents, parents were invited to
join the Advisory Board, recognizing there was a need to include representa-
tion of parent voices in designing and leading parent enrichment activities for a
more responsive and reflective partnership. Up to two parents from each school
volunteered to join the SWC Advisory Board. Parents received a modest hon-
orarium for each meeting, plus childcare, transportation support, and a meal
were provided. Parents participated in an orientation to SWC prior to attend-
ing the first advisory board meeting.
The World Café Process
A participatory approach led by school parents in partnership with schools

was deemed best practice for parent engagement. A participatory World Café
process can reduce barriers for parents who are from historically underserved
communities (Rubin et al., 2012; Griner & Stewart, 2013) and allow them
to engage in decision making in school offerings and processes (Baker et al.,
2017), a key element in parent engagement (Walker et al., 2010).
World Café is a conversational process with key systemic principles used
to encourage participatory and collaborative dialogue (Brown & Isaacs, 2005;
Thompson et al., 2014). The World Café method employs seven guiding prin-
ciples including: (1) setting the context; (2) creating hospitable space; (3)
exploring questions that matter; (4) encouraging everyone’s contribution; (5)
connecting diverse perspectives; (6) listening together for patterns and insights;
and (7) sharing collective discoveries. The process begins with an overarching
theme or question to be explored. In general, participants move through various
rounds of café-style discussion in small groups of four or five people, physical-
ly rotating to the other tables and questions over the course of the session. A
“table host” serves to communicate the topic of discussion from one group to
the next, while other participants carry with them key themes and questions
between the various conversations. Through the subsequent rounds of discus-
sion, the themes and ideas begin to develop into a single, larger connected
conversation. The conclusion of a World Café includes a period of town hall
meeting-style conversation with the larger group to identify collective patterns,
ideas, and potential areas for action (The World Café Community Foundation,
2005; Thompson et al., 2014). A World Café conversation is based on the as-
sumption that communities have within them the wisdom and creativity to
confront even the most difficult challenges (Brown & Isaacs, 2005).
83
Parent Planning Committee Process

The Parent Planning Committee (PPC) included one to two parent leaders
from each of the five schools (total of seven parent leaders), two university part-
ners, and two MCM partners, and it was facilitated by two external partnership
evaluators. The external partnership evaluators were part of the Advisory Board
and were invited to be part of this process based on their past experience with
facilitating World Café events. The PPC met twice per month for five months,
for two to three hours per meeting, to plan and implement the activities for
the World Café events. An interpreter was present when needed. Principles
of community-based participatory practice were adhered to throughout the
PPC process, including building trust across the team, and engaging in mutu-
al respect, shared decision-making, shared power, and co-learning (Israel et al.,
1998). Parent leaders were paid a modest stipend for their involvement, and
dinner and childcare were provided at all PPC meetings.
The parent leaders were given an in-depth overview of the World Café ap-
proach and planned the content of the World Café events, including the World
Café agenda, roles, topics, and questions. Parent planning team members were
given a World Café host training, and they practiced facilitation of the World
Café questions by role-playing with fellow PPC team members as facilitators,
notetakers, and participants. The team developed recruitment strategies and
recruitment materials for their individual schools and collaborated with their
school leadership to recruit, set event dates, and work through logistics.
Each school held one World Café during the spring/summer lasting up to
three hours including a meal. The main structure (see Figure 2) for the World
Cafés included three key topics (1 per table), and two key questions per table.
Parent participants rotated through three initial discussion rounds where the
topic at each table was either (1) parent well-being, (2) parenting your young
child, or (3) school–community connection. The topics were determined by
the PPC intentionally to give parents voice to the type and nature of parent
engagement activities. At each table, parents were asked to discuss two key
questions for the topic at that table. The key questions were (1) What is work-
ing well for you? and (2) What do you need help with? The first question was
designed to identify existing parent and school assets that could potentially be
built upon as a way for parents and schools to learn from each other. The sec-
ond question was intended to identify how the schools and SWC could build
a parent program that meets parents’ self-identified needs.
During the fourth round, participants stayed at their current table, reviewed
the full body of notes taken during Rounds 1–3, and answered the following
three additional questions about future parent engagement activities at their
school: (1) Of all the ideas generated at this table on this topic, what should
84
be offered? (2) Who should be offering it? (3) How should it be offered? Af-
ter Round 4, the parents convened in a large group and summarized the ideas
generated at each table. All of the notes taken throughout the event by par-
ents and the summarized ideas were collected and transcribed by both parent
leaders and coordinators, approximately two hours per school. This served as
qualitative data from the World Café for the PPC. A week after each event, a
debriefing meeting was scheduled between parent leaders and coordinators to
reflect on the event and add to the recommendations as appropriate. Finally, all
of the qualitative data was brought back to the PPC for analysis (see Figure 2).
Figure 2. World Café Approach
Process of World Café & Data Collection

Round 1-3
Table 1: Caregiver Well Being
1. What is working?
2. What do you need help with?
Table 2: Caregiving your Round 4

young child
Introduction/Overview 1. What should be offered? Compiling recommendations
1. What is working?
2. Who should be offering it?
2. What do you need help with? 1. Recommendations were typed
3. How should it be offered?
2. Debriefing meeting between

Table 3: School-Community parent leader and project
Connection
coordinator
1. What is working? Large Group Share-Back
2. What do you need help with?
Process for Collaborative Analysis of World Café Dialogues

Analysis of the World Café discussions took place over two months (12
hours total) and utilized a collaborative analysis approach in which all mem-
bers of the PPC team analyzed the qualitative results together. PPC team
members read the qualitative data (notes and summaries) and identified over-
arching topics for each school independently and across all schools (see Table 1
for topics across all schools). The analysis and interpretation happened in real
time using flip charts and marker boards to identify topics. Topics were final-
ized by group consensus and prioritized. Prioritization was done by the PPC
by consensus and responding to three questions: (1) Which are the priorities/
areas that multiple schools share? (2) Is the priority urgent? If not urgent, how
long can it wait? (3) How do the recommendations map onto the goals of the
SWC partnership?
85
Table 1. Common Topics Identified by Parents Across Schools From the World
Café Events
School–Community
Parent Well-Being Parenting a Young Child
Connection
• Offer opportunities for • Nutrition and meal
parent/family social planning
• Increase school–
connectedness/Me time • Engaging children in
parent communi-
• Increase communication activities
cation
and/or information about • Montessori 101 for
variety of resources parents
Once the findings were analyzed and prioritized, the external evaluators
drafted summaries of the results for the PPC to review and finalize prior to
presenting it back to the Advisory Board (1 month). The PPC then generated
five key questions for the Partnership Advisory Board to consider (2 hours).
Of each of the prioritized topics identified for each school site, the following
questions were created:
1. What is feasible or doable? Is something like this already happening at a
school (that could be replicated)?
2. How do each of the recommendations align with the partnership goals?
3. Which are themes the partnership could sponsor (provide resources for)?
4. Which are themes the schools could sponsor without SWC support?
5. How will these be implemented and evaluated?
The Advisory Board reviewed the prioritized topics from the school sites and
identified key strategies and action steps with each school. The final action plan
for each school included original parent recommendations from the World
Cafés, analysis, prioritization from the PPC, and input from the Partnership
Advisory Board.
Tailoring the World Café
To honor each school’s unique community, parent leaders tailored the World
Café approach to fit their cultural values and families’ needs. One parent leader
from each school was asked to respond to two questions via email including
details about their outreach, recruitment, set-up, and culturally responsive ad-
justments of the event, facilitation, and implementation. The two questions
included: (1) What did you do? and (2) Why did you do it that way? Specific
reasons given related to cultural traditions, how many people were there, and
practices or processes that were already created at their school (see Table 2 for
parent leader responses). All five schools participated. Attendees of the World
86
Café events included seven parent leaders, five partnership volunteers to as-
sist with logistics, and 58 school parents. Parent leaders described their World
Café event process and how the event was tailored to meet the needs of the
parents and school. The World Cafés were held in the common language of the
participants with additional interpreters provided as necessary. Recruitment
varied from sending a flyer to one-on-one invitations to parents as they picked
up their child. Two schools chose to use an already scheduled family meeting
night. Implementation differed by school. Two schools chose to facilitate the
World Café in one group, rather than three small tables, as was consistent with
their collectivistic cultural practices. Parent leaders explained the process, in-
troduced the topics and discussion questions, and clarified questions parents
posed about the process.
What Were the Main Messages From Parents?
Consistently, all five schools indicated a positive response from the parents
including the value that each parent was not alone in their struggles, as well
as the need for additional programming and an increase in attendance at fu-
ture school-sponsored events. These responses are consistent with key models
of parent engagement including parent motivation and opportunities for op-
tions for involvement described by Walker et al. (2010) and creating learning
communities that are “family friendly” as described by Epstein (2010). Parent
leaders shared their own reflections of their experiences and the World Café
process as summarized in Figure 3. These reflections were gathered from the
two questions answered via email. Parent leaders also shared common barriers
faced across schools including challenges in finding a time for parents to attend
the World Café and general challenges in getting the word out to parents.
The parent notes and recommendations from the World Café were com-
piled based on the topics presented at the event. Common topics identified
across schools after the analysis are displayed in Table 1. Again, the topics align
with parent desire for more and better communication from the school, a va-
riety of engagement opportunities with the school, and improving parenting
skills and resources while acknowledging life context (Walker et al., 2010). The
common topics were then prioritized for each school community, and after
input received from the Partnership Advisory Board, each school developed
enrichment events in response to the results gathered from the World Café
events. A total of 20 parent enrichment events were hosted with an average of
four events per school. Some schools chose to design a series of parent events
such as “Nutrition Series,” “Parent Wellness,” “Self-Compassion: Taking care
of ourselves so we can keep being great parents,” and “Traditional Indian Par-
enting.” Additional topics included “Social–Emotional Development,” “Parent
Me Time Spa Day,” “Food Making,” and “Minnesota Hmong Day.”
87
Table 2. Parent Leader Descriptions of Tailoring Café Approach to Each School

“We started working with teachers to plan for World Café, got dates on calendar. We
decided on a Friday afternoon.” -Siembra
“With a strong focus on families, we decided to put on the World Café to see how
the families in our school were doing with everyday challenges that surround parent-
ing, in the hopes to identify opportunities the school could best support parents, and
in doing so, ways that would be more meaningful. In the World Café, my role was to
plan and coordinate and host. I coordinated with school administration to pick and
choose the event date, marketed, and worked with supporting staff to finalize other
Outreach & Recruitment
details regarding supplies and catering. We were right. The World Café event that was
rescheduled for the beginning of the next school year was a success. We had approxi-
mately 9–12 RSVPs. We decided to have the starting time for the event immediately
after picking up time, so parent wouldn’t have to leave and return; we knew traffic
would be one of the biggest issues.” -Cornerstone
“We passed out the final questions that the collaborative effort came up with to
parents who could not attend. We did this in order to involve their voices in this pro-
cess.” -MAICC
“My husband helped, he created the flyers. Learned how to draw parents, what
methods worked, what did not work. I found out that before the World Café parents
did not know what was going on. During the World Café parents said that was the
most effective method: personal, one-on-one invitation. During the round table,
parents were not shamed, they were vulnerable, they shared their needs, shared being
overwhelmed. I was surprised in a good way. I was really honored to be on board.”
-Brightwater
“We conducted the World Café because we wanted to understand the needs of our
families. When the opportunity of the World Café was presented, although I did not
know how it was going to work, we were excited to do it, and it was done. It was
done that way because we were from different cultures and different races. It was the
Set-Up & Culturally Responsive Adjustments
best way to connect as a family.” -Siembra

“We chose to host the World Café during one of our regularly scheduled monthly
Parent Nest events. We hosted the event as a Talking Circle to gather information
from parents about their ideal needs and wants regarding parent leadership, partici-
pation, programming, and activities.” -MAICC
“A traditional World Café model involves individuals switching tables every 15 to 20
minutes and getting introduced to a topic of discussion at their new table by a ‘table
host.’ We chose to do a circle discussion for our small group instead. Hmoob Toj
Siab’s parent representatives and staff came together to plan for and facilitate a World
Café at the school and to collect data that would be used to prioritize parent engage-
ment activities themed to address the needs of the school and families.” -HTS
“We chose the lunchroom for the food which ended up being where our childcare
was and worked out perfectly being that it could quickly convert to a Gym! The
room we chose for the parents to convene was one of the largest rooms due to the
initial amount of RSVPs. Also, the beauty and natural lighting of the room as well….
The room was a classroom which was perfect since the parents could see the beautiful
Montessori environment their children spend each day in. There were no cultural
reasons, only beauty, relaxed natural sunlight through the large windows, beautiful
Montessori materials all around, and the space accommodation.” -Brightwater
88
Table 2, Continued
“During the World Café families began to say what they needed and what they didn’t
need. First, the questions were presented. It was very frustrating for us to answer the
questions because we did not know how to answer. When we saw the confused faces
of each person, we reviewed the questions with them one more time and that, how
it was done. Step by step, families felt good answering the questions step by step, al-
though there was not enough time. But we were able to get answers to the questions
which were very good answers. It was interesting to see; all the answers to all the
needs were taken into account. These were the most important for us and our chil-
dren, and that made us feel that we were important for the school. This process let us
talk and express the feelings of each one even though we were one of the schools that
asked for bigger things like adding more grade levels to the current school or pro-
viding busing services. We all know that it is not impossible that over time it will be
done….I observe parents were open to share their feelings. Questions were hard for
them. They asked themselves, ‘Am I really serving my child as a whole?’ We touch the
Facilitation/Implementation
center of their heart. They started talking and connecting with each other. We were
in confidence and were able to overcome their fear of speaking up.” -Siembra
“I was a bit anxious with the thought of hosting, at first. As parents arrived, my anx-
iety subsided. All the parents were amazing and engaged in the event from beginning
to end. Everyone had great ideas. They were very receptive to the thought of the
event and wanted to know what more they could do.” -Cornerstone
“We chose the Talking Circle over the World Café process, because it is a deeply root-
ed traditional practice in the Native American community. A Talking Circle begins
with saging oneself and/or a prayer. Members sit in a circle to consider a problem or
a question. The tradition Circle invites a respectful environment that encourages in-
clusion and participation.” -MAICC
“Unfortunately, we had a small group (7 parents and 3 staff in attendance only) for
our first World Café event and felt it would have been more efficient to use a circle
communication style rather than moving from table to table. To put it into perspec-
tive, the World Café (circle communication style) that HTS used involved parents
who sat in a circle for topic discussions. The discussion topics were led by two hosts
who took turn hosting: one was an HTS staff, and the other was a parent represen-
tative. Instead of moving from one table to the next, the circle discussions went in
order from one topic to the next while sitting in a circle. Any suggestions or recom-
mendations that came out of the discussions were written on a sticky note and posted
on the wall for each topic. Names were not written or mentioned on any of the sticky
notes, so parents didn’t feel voicing their opinions were limited or constricted in any-
way.” -HTS
89
Figure 3. Parent Leaders’ Reflections of World Café Experience and Process

“My experience was successful….We had more parents participating than any other events,
but it was more work. It helped me gain trust with other parents. I have decided to continue
in this partnership and the school, even if my kids are moving to another school. I am proud
and have motivated other parents to participate in WC and other projects….But what ex-
cites me most [are] things that were promised in the World Café are already [being] done.
For instance, there is more information about health and other issues. For us, it makes us feel
that we are important and are listened to. The work was not put aside, and we were able to
express our needs and continue on the project so that we have everything we asked for. We
know that it is not easy, but everything will take place just as time goes by, and there will be
opportunities to accomplish each need expressed during the World Café.” -Siembra
“During our practice WC, I learned I am not alone on my struggles being a parent. My
school supports me, and the partnership support the school. I am not alone, and my fear
of my kids’ future. The school and the partnership care too much, money goes into this
partnership and toward my families. Good to know my voice matters. The data we got, first-
hand, it was from the parents mouth; it’s not secondary research data. This is coming from
home, and there is going to be done something about it.” -Cornerstone
“I am new to this; I did not know what to expect. I learned that it brought families together
and brought topics we should not be ashamed of talking about.” -MAICC
“Hosting HTS’s first World Café has allowed the school to increase parent involvement on
so many levels. We saw our monthly parent engagement events go from 5 to 7 parents at-
tending in the past to now 16–20 parents attending. This number is great considering HTS
only serves up to 30 families at any given time. The parent representatives talked about how
being involved in the World Café process has given them an opportunity to hone their pub-
lic speaking skills and communication skills. The children look forward to spending quality
time with parents during parent engagement events and have such a great attitude towards
learning. Overall, the parent-to-school relationship has become more of a community and
stronger than previous years.” -HTS
“What went well at the World Café was the parents were very appreciative of a venue in
which to have a voice. There was plenty of food. Free childcare was provided with plenty of
space for children to decide amongst the different activities, whether it was drawing, scoot-
ers, or simply shooting some hoops. The parents were very enthusiastic as they participated
in rotated table discussions. When asked what drew them, they said a live person’s warm in-
vitation. Being that I was that person, I replied, ‘it was like going fishing,’ and they all burst
into laughter. They said, ‘it worked thank you!’” -Brightwater
Considerations for Parent Engagement Using a World Café

Approach
The World Café was a successful process for both developing parent leaders
and providing an opportunity for parent voice in enhanced parent engage-
ment in early childhood Montessori programs. The strengths of this approach
included the participatory process, schools’ adaptability to the recommenda-
tions, and tailoring for each school site to accommodate cultural preferences.
90
Schools were able to effectively use the findings to implement school program-
ming and parents felt positive about the approach and offerings.
There are barriers and limitations to the project presented. Participatory
processes are time intensive, from the trainings to the implementation and
through the analysis. The process took nine months, given the complexities of
arranging meetings and collaborative development and analysis. Committed
school leadership is necessary to encourage parents to hold the events and in-
tegrate the plans into the school calendar within the school’s budget and time
constraints. Schools implementing on their own will likely be more expedient;
however, schools do need to allow adequate time. One school faced additional
barriers because the school had undergone a series of rapid turnover in leader-
ship resulting in gaps in the administration which occupied the capacity of the
school leadership. Two schools included both early education programs and
elementary Montessori schools. When specifically tailoring to early childhood,
these two schools were concerned about offering programming for a specific
age range that was not open to all parents given resource constraints. Research
shows parent engagement in the preschool years is even more effective than in
the elementary years (Campbell & Ramey, 1994). Whatever school activities
occur, it is vital to have targeted programming for children in early childhood
or preschool programming.
Another barrier to engagement is parent capacity. Two of the five schools
indicated difficulties in arranging the World Café and having adequate parent
interest. Specifically, low-income parents, parents of color, and American Indi-
an families may face additional barriers, including resources and mental health
(Arnold et al., 2008; Baker et al., 2017; Lamb-Parker et al., 2001; Mendez,
2010). The literature consistently highlights scheduling conflicts being a signif-
icant barrier to parent engagement activities (Arnold et al., 2008; Lamb-Parker
et al., 2001; Mendez, 2010). Surprisingly, the same authors reported parents
feeling depressed or stressed, yet scheduling was considered a more substantial
barrier to engagement than their reported mental health (Arnold et al., 2008;
Lamb-Parker et al., 2001; Mendez, 2010). Schools must collaborate with par-
ent leaders to strategize approaches and offer a variety of options for parents to
be engaged.
Schools also face barriers to providing comprehensive parent engagement
opportunities, including budget, priorities, and time. Schools need a systematic
process like the World Café to understand what is going well for children, par-
ents, and schools and to identify what gaps exist. Inclusive parent engagement
includes four key features: (1) parent engagement is reciprocal, not merely fill-
ing a need the school requests; (2) parent engagement is relational, and trust is
required for parents to speak and be heard; (3) parent engagement is culturally
91
and linguistically responsive; and (4) parent engagement if responsive to the

needs and encompassing of the strengths of the families (Georgis et al., 2014).
The MPSAC schools have excelled at the relational and culturally/linguisti-
cally responsive elements. The schools are culturally centered, and the staff
represents the families’ communities. The use of World Café allows the schools
to hear from parents about ways they can engage and build upon community
strengths to meet self-identified needs. In addition, it provides an opportunity
for the school to listen—not that parents are unable to learn, but perhaps the
school’s communication approach is ineffective (Baker et al., 2017).
Finally, early childhood programs with the strongest long-term outcomes
provide a range of services and support. Many programs provide parent edu-
cation sessions to increase skills, build social support, build relationships with
the school/teachers, and guide parents on how to educationally support their
child (Arnold et al., 2008; Mendez, 2010; Reynolds et al., 2011). Parents from
historically marginalized communities may require other resources including
housing, food, healthcare access, or other basic human needs. Social workers at
the schools can provide those resources and referrals. SWC was intentionally
designed to provide comprehensive health, education, and community support
services to families. To complement this support, the use of the World Café has
the potential to enhance parent engagement and parent–school communica-
tion with the long-term goal of reducing the opportunity gap.
The World Café process had several limitations. It is impossible to correlate
the successful implementation of the World Café to any changes in parent
agency, participation in engagement activities, or changes in overall parent en-
gagement because there were only a small proportion of parents that engaged
in leadership and attended the events. There is also no information on the
success or impact of the parent engagement events in terms of perceptions, at-
titudes, knowledge, or behaviors that may have changed due to this process or
on parents’ ability to effectively support children at the school and at home.
The participatory process of the World Café did provide voice and leadership
opportunities to the parents who participated, but this was limited to only a
few parents. The facilitation of the World Café may have inadvertently limited
the solutions to focus on parent engagement rather than broader opportunities
including governance. This process also does not address the social and struc-
tural factors that influence the opportunity gap. Given repeated iterations of
the World Café, it is possible that parents will strive to make larger social and
structural changes for the parent enrichment activities, including advocacy,
organizing, or information on influencing policy development. Finally, SWC
was grant funded, providing financial support for incentives, meals, transpor-
tation, and childcare. However, schools can do a World Café on a very limited
92
budget, using creative strategies such as potluck meals, rotation of childcare

volunteering, and ride-shares.
The continued opportunity gap for Black, American Indian, and children
of color is intolerable. Schools, parents, community organizations, and other
institutions need to build partnerships using participatory processes to identify
strengths, needs, and solutions to address the seemingly intractable challenges.
The World Café is a participatory strategy that can support parent leadership
and engagement. The World Café balances power and decision-making while
being flexible to meet the cultural values and practices of the school. School
administrative support is necessary to encourage the World Café process, inte-
grate ideas into school calendars, and to provide resources in terms of space and
supplies at a minimum. Although in this particular case, parent engagement
was largely limited to parent- and child-centered practices, the World Café
process has the potential to tackle the structural and social factors that underlie
the opportunity gap. Future research should focus on assessing child, parent,
community, and system change that results from such participatory approaches
using rigorous design to strengthen the evidence for this approach.
Endnotes
1
MAICC has chosen to self-identify as American Indian. For this reason, American Indian will
be used throughout the paper to honor and respect the community’s choice.
2
Centro Tyrone Guzman has chosen to use “e” in place of the Spanish language masculine “o”
to include all people.
References
Amselem, M. C. (2014). Barriers to high school completion create barriers to economic mo-
bility. The Heritage Foundation. https://www.heritage.org/education/report/barri-
ers-high-school-completion-create-barriers-economic-mobility
Arnold, D. H., Zeljo, A., Doctoroff, G. L., & Ortiz, C. (2008). Parent involvement in pre-
school: Predictors and the relation of involvement to preliteracy development. School Psy-
chology Review, 37(1), 74–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2008.12087910
Bailey, Z., Krieger, N., Agénor, M., Graves, J., Linos, N., & Bassett, M. (2017). Structural rac-
ism and health inequities in the USA: Evidence and interventions. The Lancet, 389(10077),
1453–1463. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(17)30569-X
Baker, T. L., Wise, J., Kelley, G., & Skiba, R. J. (2017). Identifying barriers: Creating solutions
to improve family engagement. School Community Journal, 26(2), 161–184. https://www.
adi.org/journal/2016fw/BakerEtAlFall2016.pdf
Bright Water Montessori School. (2019). 2017–18 annual report. https://02afb103-9ec1-45f3-
836f-eb223ff35909.filesusr.com/ugd/aabf70_ee76d0592f8a422cbbd0982f03b43a10.pdf
Brown, J., & Isaacs, D. (2005). The World Café: Shaping our futures through conversations that
matter. Berrett-Koehler.
93
Camara, W. J., & Schmidt, A. (1999). Group differences in standardized testing and social strat-
ification (Report No. 99–5). College Entrance Examination Board.
Campbell, F. A., & Ramey, C. T. (1994). Effects of early intervention on intellectual and aca-
demic achievement: A follow-up study of children from low-income families. Child Devel-
opment, 65(2 Spec No), 684–698. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1994.tb00777.x
Centro Tyrone Guzman. (2019). Centro Tyrone Guzman – Since 1974. Retrieved March 26,
2020 from https://centromn.org/about
Cheung, C. S. S., & Pomerantz, E. M. (2012). Why does parents’ involvement enhance chil-
dren’s achievement? The role of parent-oriented motivation. Journal of Educational Psychol-
ogy, 104(3), 820. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027183
Epstein, J. L. (2010). School/family/community partnerships: Caring for the children we
share. Phi Delta Kappan, 92(3), 81–96. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172171009200326
Cornerstone Montessori Elementary School. (2020). Cornerstone Montessori Elementary
School: About. Retrieved March 26, 2020, from http://www.cornerstone-elementary.org/
de Brey, C., Musu, L., McFarland, J., Wilkinson-FLicker, S., Diliberti, M., Zhang, A., Branstet-
ter, C., & Wang, X. (2019). Status and trends in education of racial and ethnic groups 2018.
(NCES 2019–038). National Center for Education Statistics.
Debs, M., & Brown, K. S. (2017). Students of color and public Montessori schools: A review
of the literature. Journal of Montessori Research, 3(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.17161/jomr.
v3i1.5859
Duncan, G. J., Kalil, A., & Ziol-Guest, K. M. (2014). Early childhood poverty and adult
productivity and health. In A. J. Reynolds, A. Rolnick, & J. A. Temple (Eds.), Health and
education in early childhood: Predictors, interventions, and policies (pp. 52–65). Cambridge
University Press.
Flores, A. (2007). Examining disparities in mathematics education: Achievement gap or oppor-
tunity gap? The High School Journal, 91(1), 29–42. https://doi.org/10.1353/hsj.2007.0022
Georgis, R., Gokiert, R., Ford, D., & Ali, M. (2014). Creating inclusive parent engagement
practices: Lessons learned from a school community collaborative supporting newcomer
refugee families. Multicultural Education, 21(3–4), 23–27.
Glossary of Education Reform. (2014). Opportunity gap. https://www.edglossary.org/oppor-
tunity-gap/
Griner, A. C., & Stewart, M. L. (2013). Addressing the achievement gap and disproportion-
ality through the use of culturally responsive teaching practices. Urban Education, 48(4),
585–621. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085912456847
Grolnick, W. S., & Slowiaczek, M. L. (1994). Parents’ involvement in children’s schooling: A
multidimensional conceptualization and motivational model. Child Development, 65(1),
237–252. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1994.tb00747.x
Grunewald, R., & Rolnick, A. (2003). Early childhood development: Economic development
with a high public return. FedGazette.
Hechenbleikner, P., Bilburg, D., & Dunnell, K. (2008). Reading’s World Café: Increasing
community engagement in planning for the future. Public Management, 90, 6–10, 12.
Hill, N. E., & Taylor, L. C. (2004). Parental school involvement and children’s academic
achievement: Pragmatics and issues. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13(4), 161–
164. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0963-7214.2004.00298.x
Hmong American Partnership. (2020). Hmoob Toj Siab Children’s House. https://www.hmong.
org/hmoob-toj-siab-childrens-house/
Israel, B. A., Coombe, C. M., Cheezum, R. R., Schulz, A. J., McGranaghan, R. J., Lichten-
stein, R., Reyes, A. G., Clement, J., & Burris, A. (2010). Community-based participatory
94
research: A capacity-building approach for policy advocacy aimed at eliminating health dis-
parities. American Journal of Public Health, 100(11), 2094–2102. https://doi.org/10.2105/
ajph.2009.170506
Israel, B. A., Schulz, A. J., Parker, E. A., & Becker, A. B. (1998). Review of community-based
research: Assessing partnership approaches to improve public health. Annual Review of
Public Health, 19, 173–202. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.publhealth.19.1.173
Johnson, S. B., Arevalo, J., Cates, C. B., Weisleder, A., Dreyer, B. P., & Mendelsohn, A.
L. (2016). Perceptions about parental engagement among Hispanic immigrant mothers
of first graders from low-income backgrounds. Early Childhood Education Journal, 44(5),
445–452. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10643-015-0728-z
Jor’dan, J. R., Wolf, K. G., & Douglass, A. (2012). Strengthening families in Illinois: Increas-
ing family engagement in early childhood programs. Young Children, 67(5), 18–23.
Lamb-Parker, F., Piotrkowski, C. S., Baker, A. J. L., Kessler-Sklar, S., Clark, B., & Peay, L.
(2001). Understanding barriers to parent involvement in Head Start: A research–com-
munity partnership. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 16(1), 35–51. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/S0885-2006(01)00084-9
Ma, X., Shen, J., Krenn, H. Y., Hu, S., & Yuan, J. (2016). A meta-analysis of the relationship
between learning outcomes and parental involvement: During early childhood education
and early elementary education. Educational Psychology Review, 28(4), 771–801. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9351-1
Magnuson, K. A., & Waldfogel, J. (2005). Early childhood care and education: Effects on
ethnic and racial gaps in school readiness. The Future of Children, 15(1), 169–196. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1353/foc.2005.0005
McLeroy, K. R., Bibeau, D., Steckler, A., & Glanz, K. (1988). An ecological perspective on
health promotion programs. Health Education Quarterly, 15(4), 351–377. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1177/109019818801500401
Mendez, J. L. (2010). How can parents get involved in preschool? Barriers and engagement in
education by ethnic minority parents of children attending Head Start. Cultural Diversity
and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 16(1), 26–36. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016258
Minnesota COMPASS. (2020). High school graduation rates. https://www.mncompass.org/ed-
ucation/high-school-graduation#1-6083-d
Montessori American Indian Childcare Center. (2013). Montessori American Indian Childcare
Center. http://www.americanindianmontessori.net/
Montessori Center of Minnesota. (n.d.). About Montessori partners. https://www.montessori-
centermn.org/montessori-partners/about-montessori-partners/
National Center for Education Statistics. (2021). Enrollment rates of young children. https://
nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/cfa
Povey, J., Campbell, A. K., Willis, L.-D., Haynes, M., Western, M., Bennett, S., Antrobus, E.,
& Pedde, C. (2016). Engaging parents in schools and building parent–school partnerships:
The role of school and parent organisation leadership. International Journal of Educational
Research, 79, 128–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2016.07.005
Reynolds, A. J., Temple, J. A., Ou, S. R., Arteaga, I. A., & White, B. A. (2011). School-
based early childhood education and age-28 well-being: Effects by timing, dosage, and
subgroups. Science, 333(6040), 360–364. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1203618
Reynolds, A. J., Temple, J. A., Ou, S. R., Robertson, D. L., Mersky, J. P., Topitzes, J. W.,
& Niles, M. D. (2007). Effects of a school-based, early childhood intervention on adult
health and well-being: A 19-year follow-up of low-income families. Archives of Pediatric
and Adolescent Medicine, 161(8), 730–739. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpedi.161.8.730
95
Reynolds, A. J., Temple, J. A., Robertson, D. L., & Mann, E. A. (2001). Long-term effects of
an early childhood intervention on educational achievement and juvenile arrest: A 15-year
follow-up of low-income children in public schools. Journal of American Medical Associa-
tion, 285(18), 2339–2346. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.285.18.2339
Rubin, C. L., Martinez, L. S., Chu, J., Hacker, K., Brugge, D., Pirie, A., Allukian, N., Rodday,
A. M., & Leslie, L. K. (2012). Community-engaged pedagogy: A strengths-based approach
to involving diverse stakeholders in research partnerships. Progress in Community Health
Partnerships: Research, Education, and Action, 6(4), 481–490. https://doi.org/10.1353/
cpr.2012.0057
The World Café Community Foundation. (2005). A quick reference guide for hosting World Café.
Thompson, W. T., Steier, F., & Ostrenko, W. (2014). Designing communication process for
the design of an Idea Zone at a science center. Journal of Applied Communication Research,
42(2), 208–226. https://doi.org/10.1080/00909882.2013.874570
Walker, J. M., Shenker, S. S., & Hoover-Dempsey, K. V. (2010). Why do parents become in-
volved in their children’s education? Implications for school counselors. Professional School
Counseling, 14(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/2156759X1001400104
Williams, T. T., & Sánchez, B. (2011). Identifying and decreasing barriers to parent in-
volvement for inner-city parents. Youth & Society, 45(1), 54–74. https://doi.org/10.11
77/0044118X11409066
Authors’ Notes: We want to thank the parents who participated in the World Café
events, the schools for supporting parent engagement, the Montessori Center of Min-
nesota for supporting the Montessori Partners Serving All Children initiative, and the
Better Way Foundation for its funding support. Thank you to Guisela Dominguez,
Yulonda Hayes, Charlene Rock, Laura Trujillo, Maira Rosas-Lee, and Walter Novillo
for their contribution in this project.
Annamarie Brennhofer Pleski is a former research assistant at St. Catherine Uni-

versity. Brennhofer Pleski’s research interests focus on maternal and child health issues,
health equity, and early childhood education.
Fanny Jimbo Llapa is a first-generation, non-Black Hispanic-Latine community
member. Her community work focuses on health prevention and promotion in the
Latine community, health equity, early childhood education, and community based
participatory research.
Shannon Pergament is an evaluation consultant with research interests in com-
munity based participatory research and health equity/racism as a public health issue.
Say Vang is a former administrative manager at Hmoob Toj Siab Children’s House,
a program supported by Hmong American Partnership in St. Paul, Minnesota. Ms.
Vang’s work focuses on supporting education and parent engagement.
Bao Lee is a former parent leader at Hmoob Toj Siab Children’s House. Her inter-
ests include supporting education and cultivating parent engagement.
Jordan Webber is a former parent representative at Bright Water Montessori. As a
leader, he cares about supporting education and parent engagement.
Octavia Webber is a former parent leader at Bright Water Montessori. Her work
includes supporting education and fostering parent engagement in her community.
96
Terri Strom is a former community social worker at Montessori Center of Minne-

sota. Strom’s interests are community social work and parent engagement.
Nora Springer is a community social worker at Montessori Center of Minnesota.
She cares about community social work and parent engagement.
Mary Hearst is a professor in the public health department at St. Catherine Uni-
versity. Her work and research interest focuses on optimizing life chances through
integrated interventions in early life, addressing differential exposures due to so-
cial and structural factors, community engaged research, and advancing assessment
methodology. Correspondence concerning this article may be addressed to Dr. Mary
Hearst, St. Catherine University, 2004 Randolph Ave., Saint Paul, MN 55105 USA,
or email mohearst@stkate.edu
97
98
Examining the Effects of HOME WORKS!
The Teacher Home Visit Program on Student
Academic Outcomes
Lauren Scher and Sherri Lauver
Abstract
HOME WORKS! The Teacher Home Visit Program (HOME WORKS!)

aims to bridge the gap between school and home, build relationships, reverse
distrust, and foster partnerships between teachers and families to improve suc-
cess at school. This evaluation used a blocked, cluster randomized controlled
trial (RCT) design to examine the effects of the HOME WORKS! intervention
on student academic outcomes. The version of the home visiting model exam-
ined in this study includes two home visits per student per year and two family
dinners (at school) per school per year. It was implemented through a part-
nership between a not-for-profit and participating school districts. Concentric
Research & Evaluation, and its partner, Synergy Enterprises Inc., assessed the
impact of HOME WORKS! in 11 schools in St. Louis Public Schools (Mis-
souri) during the 2017–18 school year. Study findings revealed that teachers
implementing HOME WORKS! reported creating strong connections with
families, but also experienced challenges in implementing the program with
fidelity. More than 80% of participating teachers reported that their first home
visit enabled them to improve their relationship with the student’s family. They
also mentioned other perceived benefits, including a better understanding of
academic challenges, the ability to discuss student growth and progress, and
beneficial discussions about student behaviors. At the end of the year, students
in HOME WORKS! and comparison classrooms did not differ significantly
on academic outcomes and behaviors as measured by available school admin-
istrative records data.

Key Words: teacher home visiting intervention, home visit, RCT, impact eval-
uation, family engagement, parent engagement, family–school partnerships
Introduction
This study used a blocked, cluster randomized controlled trial design (RCT)
to examine the effects of a home visiting intervention called HOME WORKS!
The Teacher Home Visit Program (hereafter referred to as HOME WORKS!),
which has been operating in St. Louis, Missouri and its surrounding communi-
ties since 2007. The primary goals of HOME WORKS! are to increase parent/
guardian and teacher engagement, improve student achievement and atten-
dance, and reduce negative classroom behaviors.
History, Goals, and Potential of Home Visiting Programs
Teacher home visiting programs have become increasingly popular in urban
school districts as part of school reform efforts funded largely by the U.S. De-
partment of Education (e.g., through Title I of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965, amended and known as the Every Student Succeeds
Act of 2015 [ESSA]). ESSA authorizes funding for family engagement pro-
grams that “lead to improvements in student development and academic
achievement.” A review funded by the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services (2019), based on evidence from 50 home visiting models, suggests
that home visiting programs help support the health, development, and early
learning skills of children who are not yet of school age. Decades of research
on Title I parental involvement suggests that when low-income families are
meaningfully involved in schools, their children demonstrate gains in academ-
ic achievement, behavior, and attendance (Bryk et al., 2010; Dearing et al.,
2006; Henderson & Mapp, 2002; Sheldon & Jung, 2018). Yet data from the
National Household Surveys suggest that family engagement among particular
subgroups, such as minority parents, parents with lower educational attain-
ment, and parents who do not speak English at home, remains substantially
lower than that of their peers in White, English-speaking, and affluent house-
holds (Child Trends, 2018). Developing trust and communication among
parents, teachers, and school leaders may be important to students’ long-term
success (Bryk et al., 2010; Stetson et al., 2012). Home visits give teachers an
opportunity to establish positive relationships with families and gain greater
insights into families’ strengths and challenges. An RTI International study
showed that home visits may decrease implicit bias that can negatively impact
students’ school experience by improving partnerships between educators and
families to support student success and shift teachers’ mindsets toward more
equitable relationships. (McKnight et al., 2017).
100
HOME WORKS! HOME VISITS
Recent quasi-experimental and descriptive studies suggest that home vis-

iting programs may yield positive academic, behavioral, and attendance
outcomes. A quasi-experimental study by Sheldon and Jung (2015) found that
students whose families received home visits using the Parent Teacher Home
Visit (PTHV) model in Washington, D.C. were more likely to achieve or ex-
ceed grade-level reading comprehension, having 1.55 times higher odds of
scoring Proficient on the Text Reading Comprehension assessment. They also
reported that students receiving home visits were absent, on average, 2.7 fewer
days than nonparticipants (Sheldon & Jung, 2015). A multi-level large-scale
study by Sheldon and Jung (2018), with controls at the student and school
levels and representing 33,000 students in three large urban school districts
across the country, found that attending a school systematically implementing
the PTHV model was associated with 35% higher odds of scoring Proficient
on standardized English language arts (ELA) assessments and 21% lower odds
of being chronically absent than nonparticipants. Another quasi-experimen-
tal study of teacher home visiting for 7,362 students in a K–12 charter school
system in Texas found that students whose families received home visits had
significantly higher positive reward system scores, grades in mathematics and
ELA, and a significantly higher number of log-ins to the school system’s parent
portal (Wright et al., 2018). The results of this study should be reviewed with
caution, as student background characteristics were not taken into account
when comparing the treatment and comparison groups.
One widely used evidence-based program is Families and Schools To-
gether (FAST). The FAST model offers a more comprehensive set of services
than HOME WORKS!, including the creation of an afterschool, multifamily
support group of parents and teachers with home visits and eight weekly, mul-
tifamily sessions where families share meals, communicate, and play together.
An experimental study of the FAST program found statistically significant
positive differences for teacher-reported measures of academic performance
for youth in Grades 1 through 4; at a two-year follow-up, students who were
assigned to FAST had stronger teacher-reported measures of academic perfor-
mance and social skills than students in the comparison group (McDonald et
al., 2006). An experimental evaluation of FAST with 400 students and fami-
lies in New Orleans showed that parents involved in FAST were more likely to
volunteer at school or be in a school leadership position one year after FAST
ended; however, it did not show any impact on students’ behavior or academic
performance as evaluated by their teachers (Layzer et al., 2001).
In recent years, HOME WORKS! commissioned a quasi-experimental, ret-
rospective study to examine the effects of its programming on student academic
outcomes. Using administrative records data for over 2,700 students across
101
four school districts in and around St. Louis, the study found that students
who received at least one home visit scored 5% higher on the STAR literacy
assessment, were 13% less likely to miss at least two weeks of school, and had
similar levels of disciplinary referrals as students attending the same schools
who did not receive a home visit. The differences were more pronounced for
students who received two home visits versus those who did not participate in
HOME WORKS! (Concentric Research & Evaluation & EMT, 2016).
How Previous Studies Informed the HOME WORKS! Evaluation
Design
While the emerging evidence is promising, these findings should not be
overstated. In HOME WORKS! (and many home visiting programs for
school-age youth, such as PTHV), teachers and families participate voluntari-
ly. It is therefore quite possible that any effects observed reflect underlying
differences between those who choose to engage in the program and those
who do not. For example, an academically motivated teacher may choose to
implement the program, and a parent may choose to participate, resulting in
differences between home visiting recipients and non-recipients that may be
less due to participation in home visits and family dinners than to underlying
motivation and connection to school. The current study’s RCT design aims to
remove this concern by focusing only on teachers who were motivated to sign
up for the program, half of whom were assigned at random to participate in
programming during the 2017–18 school year while the other half continued
with regular parent outreach practices. School records for all students of these
HOME WORKS! and comparison teachers were analyzed, regardless of teach-
er interest in HOME WORKS!.
A Partnership to Evaluate HOME WORKS! in the St. Louis
Public Schools
Through a Low-Cost, Short-Duration Evaluation grant from the U.S. De-
partment of Education’s Institute of Education Sciences (IES), the research
team partnered with HOME WORKS! and St. Louis Public Schools (SLPS)
to examine the effects of the intervention on student academic outcomes and
behaviors. The primary aims of the evaluation were to understand whether stu-
dents enrolled in HOME WORKS! classrooms (relative to classrooms assigned
at random to programming as usual) scored higher on 2018 standardized
reading assessments, missed fewer days of school, and experienced fewer disci-
plinary incidents over the course of the 2017–18 school year than students in
non-HOME WORKS! classrooms.
102
The evaluation used administrative data obtained by the school district and
from teacher logs collected by HOME WORKS! to estimate program impacts,
explore variation in participation rates, and gain an understanding of the chal-
lenges and perceived promise of program participation. Data from parents and
students were not included due to budget considerations.
The HOME WORKS! “2+2” Model
During the 2017–18 school year, HOME WORKS! operated in 27 pre-
kindergarten through high schools in nine Missouri school districts and one
charter school, including 15 SLPS schools (14 elementary schools and one
high school). To achieve its mission to “partner families and teachers for chil-
dren’s success,” the HOME WORKS! organization has developed several home
visit model variants. The current study focused on the most commonly used
model at the time, the “2+2” model, which encourages two home visits per
student and participation in two family dinners at school over the course of
the school year.
The HOME WORKS! program operates as a partnership between the
HOME WORKS! not-for-profit organization and participating school dis-
tricts. While the HOME WORKS! organization provides the funding for
trainings, family dinners, and site coordinators, schools must pay half of the
extra pay provided to school personnel for each home visit. HOME WORKS!
staff work with school and district staff to ensure appropriate record keeping
and data collection and to make sure the program is implemented with fidelity.
HOME WORKS! Theory of Change
Based on the HOME WORKS logic model (see Figure 1), a successful
home–school partnership encourages ongoing communication and trust,
empowers parents to engage with their children’s education, fosters student
engagement, and sharpens teaching practice. The underlying theory is that
mutual respect and communication will improve school attendance, reduce
negative in-school behaviors, and increase academic achievement. The HOME
WORKS! program was modeled on the PTHV Project (http://www.pthvp.
org), which was created by parents in a low-income neighborhood of Sacra-
mento, California, in 1998.
103
Figure 1. Logic Model for HOME WORKS! The Teacher Home Visit Program
Note. From HOME WORKS! Website: https://www.teacherhomevisit.org/wp-content/up-

loads/2017/11/HOME-WORKS-2017-18-Logic-Model.pdf
Two Home Visits per Year per Student

Under the “2+2” model, two members of the school’s faculty and staff
(typically the child’s teacher and another school staff member such as anoth-
er teacher, paraprofessional, school nurse, or counselor) meet families in their
homes at the start of the school year to discuss grade-level expectations and
build rapport. Parents’ primary language is taken into consideration when vis-
itors are assigned to the home visit. Teachers and parents discuss supporting a
home environment and expectations for learning, nurturing responsibility for
homework and daily reading, and the parents’ views on the child’s educational
needs. Finally, the visit gives the teacher the opportunity to discuss the child’s
academic progress. By the second visit, a teacher continues to strengthen the
104
relationship and can also discuss with parents or caregivers the student’s aca-
demic strengths, challenges, and specific strategies to increase success. Because
most second visits occur in spring, teachers also often make recommendations
for summer enrichment activities or make referrals to social service agencies.
Due to potential staff time constraints, HOME WORKS! allows some
flexibility in the timing of visits, and teachers prioritize students who may
benefit most from two visits. The priority characteristics as defined by HOME
WORKS! include low academic performance, behavioral and social–emotional
concerns, English language learner, high absenteeism or tardiness rates, home-
work completion concerns, and low parent engagement. Also, students are
prioritized if parents request a visit.
Two Family Dinners, Hosted by the School and HOME
WORKS!, for All Participating Teachers and Families
The two family dinners, which generally occur in each semester of the school
year, provide an opportunity for school personnel, students, and their families
to “break bread” in an informal setting. Dinners, donated by a restaurant or
purchased by HOME WORKS!, occur in the school cafeteria, and anywhere
from 35 to 400 family members (e.g., parents and siblings) attend these events.
Teachers, other school staff members, and volunteers also attend these events
and circulate among families to engage them in conversation. In a prior eval-
uation, 97% of families stated that the dinners made them feel more welcome
and connected to school (Evaluation, Management, and Training Associates,
Inc., 2018).
Staff Training for Home Visits
Teachers, other school staff, and school administrators who participate in
home visits attend two staff trainings per year held at the beginning of the year
and then again later in fall or winter. The trainings stress the importance of par-
ent engagement, cultural competency, the goals of each home visit, and give
staff an opportunity to practice common scenarios that may be encountered
during a visit and to practice using the online database where they log their
home visit. Experienced teachers who have conducted home visits also attend
trainings to share successful strategies for outreach and recommendations to
work around logistical barriers. During the second training, teachers have op-
portunities to discuss successes and challenges and get recommendations for
upcoming visits.
105
Study Design and Methods
The current study was implemented over the course of the 2017–18 school
year. Eleven Title I eligible elementary schools in the St. Louis Public Schools
participated in the study. The district enrolls approximately 23,000 students.
The research team worked in partnership with SLPS and HOME WORKS!
staff to implement the study design and carry out data collection activities.
Design
The study employed a blocked, cluster randomized controlled trial (RCT)
design in which volunteer teachers in Grades 1–3 were randomly assigned
within schools and grade level blocks to implement the HOME WORKS!
program or to continue with typical parent outreach. Block randomization by
school and grade level ensured equal sample sizes of groups based on these vari-
ables, while cluster randomization by classroom allowed all students within a
particular classroom to be assigned to the same condition (HOME WORKS!
or comparison).
Study Recruitment
In the spring through summer of 2017, school district leaders, HOME
WORKS! staff, and the research team organized meetings with elementary
school principals and staff to discuss the program and the study design. To be
eligible to participate in the study, school leaders and a majority of teachers in
the focal grade levels (Grades 1–3) needed to express interest in participating.
District leaders restricted recruitment to schools that had stable leadership and
were not taking on any other major new initiatives. Schools that were already
implementing HOME WORKS! were also excluded from the study, as the
program was already broadly available to all teachers. Two additional elemen-
tary schools that were part of this study had previously participated in HOME
WORKS! under different leadership but had not participated within the prior
three school years.
Random Assignment
Random assignment occurred in August and September of 2017. HOME
WORKS! encouraged home visits to begin early in the school year (including
before the school year officially began). For this reason, and for logistical pur-
poses, most schools requested professional development training prior to the
first day of the school year. The research team conducted random assignment
as close to the training as possible, using the most updated teacher and student
classroom rosters. HOME WORKS! program staff provided a list of interested
106
teachers in each school. Within each school and grade level block (when there
were multiple volunteer teachers per grade level), the research team randomly
assigned these interested teachers’ classrooms to the HOME WORKS! or com-
parison conditions using a random number generator.
Study Sample
The 11 schools participating in the study served over 3,200 students, of
whom 84% were African American, 12% were White, and 3% were of Hispan-
ic descent. According to data provided by SLPS, approximately 9% of students
in participating schools were designated as English learners, and 13% received
special education services through an Individualized Education Program (IEP).
Approximately 39% of the district’s third grade students were not meeting
grade-level standards in ELA during the 2017–18 academic year (Missouri De-
partment of Education, 2017). The participating schools predominantly served
students in PreK through Grades 5 or 6, with one school serving students
through Grade 2 (see Table 1). Average attendance rates over the 2017–18
school year for students in the focal grade ranges for this study ranged from
92% to nearly 96%. Across the participating schools, the percentage proficient
in reading varied substantially, ranging from 0% to nearly 57% of students
scoring at Proficient or Advanced levels on the ELA assessment of the Missouri
Assessment Program (MAP) test.
Table 1. Characteristics of Participating Schools, 2017–18

Grades K–12 En- Attendance Rate % Proficient or Advanced on
School
Served rollment (%) Grades 1–3 Grade 3 ELA MAP Test
1 PK–6 285 93.4 10.0
2 PK–5 380 94.3 16.7
3 PK–6 191 92.1 0.0
4 PK–5 551 94.0 26.4
5 PK–5 220 92.3 6.5
6 PK–6 420 95.7 56.9
7 PK–5 231 92.1 17.4
8 PK–6 273 93.4 14.6
9 PK–6 337 93.8 0.0
10 PK–2 462 94.7 N/A
11 PK–5 332 93.2 29.7
Because randomization and assignment occurred before the school year

began, instances of not-unexpected attrition occurred. These were caused by
107
teacher reassignments, lower-than-anticipated student enrollment in focal

grades, inability to schedule training, and three schools that decided to opt out
of participating. In total, 74 teachers in 14 schools were randomly assigned to
the HOME WORKS! or comparison conditions (38 HOME WORKS! and
36 comparison teachers). Following random assignment, three schools left the
study and did not participate in any HOME WORKS! programming. Within
the remaining schools, two additional classrooms were removed from the study
because they were disbanded due to lower-than-expected enrollment. The re-
maining baseline sample included 56 study classrooms (27 HOME WORKS!
and 29 comparison). After additional sample attrition due to missing stu-
dent-level data, 49 classrooms remained in the research sample (25 HOME
WORKS! and 24 comparison) across 11 schools (see Figure 2).
Students were eligible for inclusion in the analyses if they were enrolled in
one of the participating classrooms at the time the official enrollment counts
were submitted to the district. Across the 56 classrooms that took part in the
study, 1,132 students were eligible for inclusion in analyses, including 589
students enrolled in 27 HOME WORKS! classrooms and 543 enrolled in
29 comparison group classrooms. The focal sample used in primary analyses
excluded all students with missing baseline or outcome data. This resulted in a
final analysis sample of 361 students within 25 HOME WORKS! classrooms
and 302 students within 24 comparison group classrooms (see Figure 3). The
initial baseline sample sizes within these remaining 49 classrooms (prior to
sample loss due to missing data) included 563 HOME WORKS! students and
509 comparison students.
Data Collection
The study relies on administrative records provided by HOME WORKS!
(teacher logs) and SLPS school data, which included demographics and out-
comes (attendance rates, test scores, disciplinary referrals). These data were
provided by the school district at the beginning and end of the 2017–18 aca-
demic year.
The research team also received student- and classroom-level program
administrative data that was collected regularly by the HOME WORKS! or-
ganization through teacher training and family dinner attendance forms and
online teacher logs. At the teacher level, HOME WORKS! administrative data
included attendance at the two training sessions and the number of first and
second home visits conducted. At the student level, the HOME WORKS!
administrative data included information about each home visit, including
the timing of the home visit, as well as participation in family dinners. These
data were purged of students’ identifying information and merged with the
108
deidentified student-level data from the school district prior to delivery to

the research team for analysis. These data were used to present participation
rates and to examine the characteristics of students who took part in HOME
WORKS! programming. The descriptive analysis also discussed the character-
istics of home visits, including where visits took place, duration of the visit,
whether students participated in the visits, topics covered, and teachers’ per-
ceptions of the benefits of the home visits.
Figure 2. Classroom-Level Sample Flow
Classrooms were eligible for random assignment if teachers volunteered to imple-

ment HOME WORKS! and were assigned to teach Grades 1–3 in the 14 elementary
schools that expressed interest in the program. Random assignment occurred during
August and September 2017.
Classrooms randomized (n = 74 within 14 schools)
Assigned to HOME WORKS! (n = 38) Assigned to Comparison (n = 36)
Remained in sample after school attrition Remained in sample after school attrition
(n = 29 classrooms in 11 schools) (n = 29 classrooms in 11 schools)
• One school agreed to be in the study but declined • One school agreed to be in the study but declined
soon after due to logistics (n = 4 classrooms). soon after due to logistics (n = 3 classrooms).
• Two schools had substantial staffing and classroom • Two schools had substantial staffing and classroom
composition changes in the first month (n = 5 class- composition changes in the first month (n = 4 class-
rooms). rooms).
Remained after classrooms disbanded in first Remained after classrooms disbanded in first
month (n = 27 classrooms, 11 schools) month (n = 29 classrooms, 11 schools)
• One teacher transferred schools due to low enroll- • No sample loss due to enrollment fluctuations early
ment in grade level. in the year.
• One teacher moved to non-study grade-level.
Retained in complete case analysis sample (n = 25 Retained in complete case analysis sample (n = 24
classrooms in 11 schools) classrooms in 10 schools)
• Two classrooms had no test score data (one grade • Five classrooms had no test score data (two grade
K–2 self-contained classroom; and one school did K–2 self-contained classrooms; one school did not
not report test scores in Grade 1). report test scores in Grade 1; and two classrooms
had low enrollment in focal grade levels).
109
Figure 3. Student-Level Sample Flow

Youth were eligible for inclusion in the study if they were enrolled in participating
classrooms no later than the official district enrollment count provided to the school
district (called the “September count”). This chart focuses on students enrolled in
the 56 classrooms that remained in the sample following school-level attrition and
after classrooms disbanded.
Students randomized
(n =1,132 students)
Assigned to HOME WORKS! Assigned to Comparison

(n = 589 students within 27 classrooms) (n = 543 students within 29 classrooms)
Complete case analysis analytic sample Complete case analysis analytic sample
(n = 361 students within 25 classrooms) (n = 302 students within 24 classrooms)
Data Sources and Instruments

All outcome measures included in this study are ones regularly collected
by the participating school district. These outcomes were collected at base-
line (from the 2016–17 school year) as well as at follow-up (at the end of the
2017–18 school year). In addition, the study team obtained school admin-
istrative records data required for the analysis; these included demographic
information (gender, race and ethnicity, grade level) as well as baseline mea-
sures of English learner status, gifted status, and receipt of special education
services. End-of-year 2017–18 measures of English learner status, gifted status,
and receipt of special education services were also obtained to explore whether
there were differences between HOME WORKS! and comparison students;
however, these analyses are considered exploratory as the study was not initial-
ly designed to examine these impacts. This study focused on outcomes in three
main domains: reading achievement, attendance, and student behavior. The
data sources for each are described here.
Reading Achievement–STAR Reading Assessment (Grades 1–3)
The primary outcome examined in this domain was the STAR reading as-
sessment, which was administered at all study schools in all focal grade levels
(Renaissance Learning, 2019). STAR is a well-established, computer-adaptive
literacy and numeracy assessment that measures concepts such as understand-
ing of print, phonological awareness, phonics and word recognition, fluency,
and vocabulary acquisition and use. The STAR tests are the most widely used
assessments in K–12 public schools.
110
Reading Achievement–Missouri Assessment Program (MAP) (Grade 3

only)
For the smaller subsample of students in Grade 3, the study examined
state-level Missouri Assessment Program (MAP) English language arts (ELA).
MAP testing begins in Grade 3. The research team considered a student to be
proficient in a subject if the student received a rating of Proficient or Advanced
on the ELA assessment. A student was not considered proficient if they received
a rating of Basic or Below Basic. The MAP assessment data are considered to be
exploratory, as they focus on less than one-third of the analysis sample.
Attendance and Chronic Absenteeism
The primary outcome of interest for this analysis was a measure of chronic
absenteeism, defined as missing more than 10% of the school year (roughly 18
school days). The study also examined effects on overall attendance rates.
Disciplinary Referrals
Schools are mandated to collect and report the number of disciplinary re-
ferrals as part of state reporting. Because the frequency of disciplinary referrals
for in-school and out-of-school suspensions is quite low for students in this age
range, the study focused on an outcome measuring any reports of any suspen-
sions as the primary measure of disciplinary referrals. This study also looked for
HOME WORKS! effects on number of days of student suspensions.
Analytic Approach
In addition to the descriptive analysis, the research team conducted two

other types of analyses. An intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis was used to estimate
the effects for students enrolled in HOME WORKS! classrooms on academic
outcomes. A treatment-on-the-treated (TOT) analysis was used to estimate the
effects for students who received at least one home visit.
Intent-to-Treat Analyses
The benchmark analysis for this study focused on three primary research
questions:
1. Do students enrolled in classrooms assigned to HOME WORKS! score
higher on spring 2018 standardized reading assessments than students in
non-HOME WORKS! classrooms?
2. Are students enrolled in classrooms assigned to HOME WORKS! less like-
ly to be chronically absent than students in non-HOME WORKS! class-
rooms over the course of the 2017–18 school year?
111
3. Do students enrolled in classrooms assigned to HOME WORKS! expe-

rience fewer disciplinary incidents over the course of the 2017–18 school
year than students in non-HOME WORKS! classrooms?
Under the ITT framework, students were considered to be in the interven-
tion condition to which their classrooms were originally randomly assigned.
Students who moved to a different classroom remained in the sample in their
original classification; however, those who joined study classrooms after the
September count were excluded from the analysis. This report presents results
from a complete case analyses (663 students) that excludes students with any
missing baseline or outcome data. The research team also conducted a sensitivi-
ty analysis that incorporated information from the full research sample (1,132)
by using multiple imputation techniques to account for missing data. The re-
search team also explored effects for subgroups of students who fit into the key
categories that teachers were instructed to focus on when prioritizing families
to be visited, including those who were chronically absent, demonstrated low
reading achievement, or had prior disciplinary actions.
For all analyses, multilevel mixed-effects models were employed in which
students (the unit of analysis) were nested within classrooms (the unit of ran-
dom assignment) that were nested in grade levels within schools. The analyses
included random assignment blocking characteristics (grade level and school)
as fixed effects and adjusted standard errors for clustering at the classroom level
(the level of random assignment). Additional student-level control variables in-
cluded race and ethnicity, gender, baseline measures of the primary outcomes,
and baseline measures of special education status, English learner status, and
gifted status. Baseline measures were based on data from the 2016–17 school
year. Classroom-level covariates (classroom averages of percent female, White,
and Hispanic) were also included in the models to control for differences in the
demographic composition of classrooms.
Treatment on Treated (TOT) Analyses
The TOT analysis examined how students who received home visits fared
in terms of academic achievement in comparison to similar students in the
comparison group. The research team employed two-stage least squares (TSLS)
analytic methods to obtain the complier average causal effect (CACE) esti-
mates of program effects. This analysis measured the effect for students whose
family took part in at least one home visit.
In determining the analytic strategy, the research team conducted diagnos-
tics to assess whether there was sufficient indicator strength—in other words,
whether there was a strong association between treatment assignment and pro-
gram participation rates. A first-stage F statistic was estimated, then adjusted
112
for clustering, to determine instrument strength, following What Works Clear-

inghouse standards (U.S. Department of Education, 2019). All TOT analyses
included only the sample members with non-missing baseline and outcomes
variables (complete case analysis sample). Among this analytic sample, 180 out
of 361 students in the HOME WORKS! condition received a home visit and
were considered “compliers” for the purposes of the TOT analysis. Three hun-
dred out of 302 comparison students with non-missing baseline or outcome
data complied with their assigned status (i.e., did not receive a home visit).
Study Findings
This study examined the impact of HOME WORKS! in a real-world set-

ting of an urban, high-needs school district. This section first describes the
characteristics of the participating schools, teachers, and students. Information
from the teacher logs was used to describe the characteristics of the home visits
and teachers’ perceptions of the benefits of these visits. The next discussion ad-
dresses the results from the impact analysis that estimated program effects on
student academic outcomes.
HOME WORKS! Implementation
Teacher Participation in Professional Development and Home Visits
All study teachers who remained in their assigned classrooms at the be-
ginning of the school year participated in HOME WORKS!. Although all
teachers attended the professional development sessions and participated in
home visits, the number of visits completed was fewer than anticipated. The
principal and site leader at each school set a goal for the total number of home
visits to be completed (Table 2). These ranged from 17 to 60, with the aver-
age student goal per teacher ranging from 6.25 to 20. Of the 11 participating
schools, six met their student goals. One school significantly exceeded its goal
of 25 by completing 70 visits.
During visits to schools in the spring of 2017, site leaders noted various rea-
sons for low numbers of visits, including (1) family nonresponse or “no-shows”
for both visits and the family dinners, (2) teachers’ concerns for their personal
safety after dark, (3) lack of teacher release time, (4) competing priorities and
time constraints, (5) teachers living far from the students they taught, and (6)
understaffing due to illness (two staff members were required per visit). Site
leaders also mentioned that teachers showed interest in conducting home visits
prior to the school year when there was plenty of time and daylight, but class
rosters were not available until just as the school year began. With other family
113
obligations and events, teachers were mostly not available to conduct visits
on weekends. Some sites allowed teachers to leave the building during their
preparation periods or personal lunch breaks to complete visits, but many were
reluctant to do so.
Table 2. Visit Goals and Number of Visits Completed by School

Student Visit Average Visit Goal Total Number of Visits
School
Goal Per Teacher Completed
1 38 13 23
2 60 20 26
3 24 12 16
4 40 8 46
5 18 18 22
6 27 9 40
7 17 17 11
8 17 17 10
9 20 10 37
10 25 6 70
11 40 20 55
Note. Highlighted rows indicate schools that met their priority student goals. This
table includes the total number of visits (aggregating first and second visits).
To boost the number of finished visits across all schools (those that were
part of the study and those that were not), HOME WORKS! offered addi-
tional financial incentives to teachers who completed a certain target number
by the holiday break in December, and again by the end of data collection in
early April. Only 2 of the 25 teachers participating in the RCT study received
this incentive, a $15 gift card for completing between 5 and 9 visits. HOME
WORKS! also provided a Valentine’s Day “Thank You” gift card for complet-
ing a minimum of one visit. At least 3 teachers in every school received that
gift, with as many as 10 teachers in one school receiving it.
Student and Family Participation
Approximately half of the families with students in HOME WORKS! class-
rooms actively participated in any program services, and 40% received a first
visit (see Figure 4). Only 3% participated to the fullest extent possible, receiv-
ing both home visits and attending both dinners.
114
Figure 4. Participation Rate of Families With Children in HOME WORKS!

Classrooms
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
49%
50%
40%
40%
30% 25%
20% 17%
10% 3%
0%
Any HOME First visit Second visit Any dinner Both visits and
WORKS! both dinners
There was wide variation across schools in the percentage of students receiving
visits, with a range of 19–70% (see Figure 5).
Figure 5. Percentage of HOME WORKS! Students Who Received at Least

One Home Visit (Full Randomized Sample) by Participating School
100%
90%
80%
70%
70% 65%
59%
60%
50% 44%
40%
40% 38%
32% 33% 33% 31%
30% 27%
19%
20%
10%
0%
School 1 School 2 School 3 School 4 School 5 School 6 School 7 School 8 School 9 School School AllAll
10 11 schools
schools
Teachers did not always reach the students they prioritized when mak-
ing home visits. During their training, teachers were asked to prioritize visits
based on student need, using “priority characteristics” such as low academic
115
performance, behavioral issues or social–emotional concerns, low parent en-

gagement, attendance and/or tardiness issues, low homework completion, or a
family’s request for a visit. Nearly 40% of families who received a first visit were
not identified by the teacher as having a priority characteristic. Similar patterns
were found when looking at more objective measures of “priority” based on
2016–17 baseline school records information. For example, 53% of HOME
WORKS! students who received a home visit fell into one of three key priority
categories examined in the impact subgroup analysis: scoring more than half a
year below grade level on the STAR reading assessment, chronically absent, or
ever receiving a disciplinary referral.
For students recorded by their teachers as being part of a priority category,
low academic performance and student behavior were the most commonly re-
ported characteristics. Just over half of students with second visits did not fit
teacher-defined priority characteristics. Students with two home visits were
significantly more likely than those receiving one home visit to be African
American (87% versus 78%) and less likely to be English learners (5% versus
11%). Discussions with HOME WORKS! staff suggest that teachers under-
stood the need to prioritize visits but had difficulty reaching all families.
Characteristics of Home Visits
Approximately 70% of the home visits were held in students’ homes, the
preferred venue to meet the family (see Figure 6). Visits held outside the home
were in neutral, non-school locations, such as libraries, parks, benches outside
the school, community centers, and fast food establishments. Home visits av-
eraged 40 minutes in length, with 90% completed within 30 to 60 minutes.
The shortest reported visit was 15 minutes, and the longest was 300 minutes.
Students were present during the home visit about 90% of the time.
Figure 6. Home Visit Locations
17%
1% Home
2% Library
Park
10%
Place of Worship
Other
70%
116
Teachers discussed a variety of topics during home visits. They presented a

student’s “plan for success” in the majority (93%) of first visits. Teachers also
discussed academic and attendance data in almost all visits. Table 3 provides ex-
amples of the most common recommendations that teachers made to families.
Table 3. Examples of Recommendations Made to Families to Support Student

Success
Recommendation Examples
• Student should read 20 minutes daily.
Practice reading
• Mastery of sight words to improve reading level.
skills (n = 106)
• Student needs guidance in reading comprehension.
• Gave parent resources to support learning at home, parent
asked for afterschool resources and other activities available
for student to make progress in reading. We also discussed
behavior and strategies that I will use at school, and they
Importance of par- will work with the student at home as well.
ents’ role in sup- • Dad will listen to the student read and help the student
porting students practice their multiplication facts. When the student is
(n = 37) reading, the student will focus on comprehension.
• The student’s dad had agreed to assist with homework com-
pletion. The father has also agreed to read daily with the
student. We agree to support the student, as well. Working
daily on sight words will assist with the student’s reading.
• The student is encouraged to complete homework daily.
The student is also encouraged to read daily.
Complete home- • The student will complete their homework and go to the
work (n = 24) library to read books. The family will create a schedule for
homework completion.
• The child will do homework before playing video games.
• Begin a daily behavior chart.
• Send behavior charts home daily, reward if returned, make
Work on behavior
phone calls home when necessary to redirect behavior.
(n = 42)
• The student is to work on self-control and anger issues. The
student is to stay in their seat and not walk out of class.
Teachers’ Perceptions of Benefits of Home Visits

Teachers were enthusiastic about the quality and benefits of the first visits:
More than 80% reported that the first visit enabled them to improve their re-
lationship with and enhance their understanding of the student’s family. For
example, one teacher learned that there had been some “drastic changes within
the house” and that “mom is trying to iron out the wrinkles.” Another teacher
117
noted that a child who alternated living with the mother and father was now
“living solely with the father, which was a major transition and causing behav-
ior change. Knowing this has shed some insight on this promising child.”
Other perceived benefits teachers cited included a better understanding of
academic challenges, the ability to discuss student growth and progress (par-
ticularly during the second visit), and beneficial discussions regarding student
behavior. For example, one teacher mentioned it was helpful to meet the par-
ents to “discuss strategies to implement to improve behavior with the student
and the student’s older sibling.” Another teacher noted that “it was great to
see the student’s mom set on making sure the student does well. The student’s
mother expressed interest in helping the student get above grade level. It was
great to talk about strategies the student can use to help become a better reader.”
After the second visit, teachers again cited an improved relationship and un-
derstanding of the family as the biggest benefits. They also found it helpful to
share student progress or growth and to discuss academic challenges or behav-
iors in school. For example, one teacher noted that the parents “had concerns
about the student’s progression in talking over the plan for success. Since doing
the second home visit, it was beneficial to see where the parent felt the student
was struggling academically.” In another situation, a teacher stated that “this
visit was especially beneficial because the parent was able to see growth and
compare them to the goals that we set in the first visit. The student…has made
steady progress in all areas. The family was very happy with our visits and in-
quired about any further visits this year.”
Family Engagement Opportunities Available to Members of the Control Group
Almost none of the students in the comparison classrooms participated in
HOME WORKS! activities. Families in the comparison group who did not
participate in HOME WORKS! programming had other parent involvement
opportunities available through their child’s school. Those school events were
available to both HOME WORKS! and comparison students, and included a
variety of activities throughout the year, such as regular Parent Teacher Orga-
nization events, meetings for parents of English learners, and special events. In
a typical SLPS school, an open house was held at the beginning of the year,
and award ceremonies and recognition events were held at the end of the year
to celebrate student achievement. In some study schools, two parent–teacher
conferences and an open house were offered, along with four Parent Teacher
Organization meetings. Eight other enrichment events occurred throughout
the year. Some events were academic in nature, such as a Literacy Family Night
at one of the schools, while others centered on holidays or themes, such as
Trick-or-Treat or a Father–Daughter Dance. Most parent involvement events
118
were held at the schools, although some special events took place at other lo-
cations, such as the Botanical Gardens Family Night at the Missouri Botanical
Garden. The research team did not receive attendance data from these events,
so it is not possible to know if these events were widely attended.
HOME WORKS! Impacts
Impacts on Academic and Behavioral Outcomes
To measure the effects of HOME WORKS! on student academic outcomes,
the research team focused on 663 students who had complete baseline and out-
come data. Sensitivity analyses that used imputation methods to account for
missing data yielded nearly identical results and are not discussed in this article
but can be provided upon request. The primary analysis sample included 361
students enrolled in 25 HOME WORKS! classrooms and 302 students en-
rolled in 24 comparison classrooms. Among this sample of HOME WORKS!
students with available baseline and outcome data, 50% participated in at least
one home visit, and 59% took part in at least one HOME WORKS! activity
(home visit or family dinner).
Given the random assignment design, the HOME WORKS! and compar-
ison groups would be expected to share similar background characteristics.
Indeed, at baseline, the HOME WORKS! and comparison group students
were similar in terms of demographic characteristics as well as baseline aca-
demic measures (see Table 4). Approximately half of the students were female.
More than three-quarters were African American, 18% were White, and 4%
were Hispanic. Students were roughly equally distributed across grade levels,
with slightly more students in Grade 2 represented in the analysis sample.1
About 15% of students were designated as English learners in the prior school
year, and about 10% received special education services through an IEP. About
4% were designated as gifted and talented, and less than 2% had been retained
in grade from the prior school year.
In terms of academic performance, more than 40% of the analysis sample
scored at least one-half year below grade level on the STAR reading assessment
at the beginning of the 2017–18 school year when the HOME WORKS! inter-
vention commenced. About 9% were chronically absent in the prior school year,
and just under 6% had received a disciplinary referral in the prior school year.
119
Table 4. Background Characteristics of Analysis Sample

HOME
Analysis Comparison
WORKS!
Characteristic Sample Students
Students
(n = 663) (n = 302)
(n = 361)
Female 47.8% 47.0% 49.0%
African American, non-Hispanic 76.8% 77.0% 75.0%
Hispanic 4.4% 5.0% 4.0%
White, non-Hispanic 18.3% 18.0% 21.0%
Other race or ethnicity 0.6% 0.0% 1.0%
Grade 1 28.1% 24.0% 26.0%
Grade 2 41.2% 41.0% 40.0%
Grade 3 30.8% 35.0% 33.0%
English learner status 14.6% 15.0% 16.0%
Receives special education services 9.7% 11.0% 9.0%
Gifted status 4.4% 1.0% 6.0%
Retained in grade from prior year 1.8% 1.0% 2.0%
STAR Fall 2017 reading (grade level) 1.7 1.6 1.8
(SD = 1.15) (SD = 1.12) (SD = 1.17)
Scored at least one-half year below 44.3% 47.0% 42.0%
grade level on STAR reading
Attendance rate prior school year 94.9% 95.0% 95.0%
Was chronically absent during prior 8.7% 10.0% 8.0%
school year (attendance below 90%)
Received a disciplinary referral 5.6% 4.0% 7.0%
during prior school year
Note. SD = standard deviation. There were no statistically significant differences between
HOME WORKS! and comparison students (p < .05). All baseline estimates and analyses are
adjusted for grade- and school-level blocking characteristics and clustering at the teacher level.
Standard deviations for the STAR test are unadjusted.
Academic Achievement
To measure program effects on student achievement, the research team
measured differences in STAR reading assessments between students enrolled
in HOME WORKS! classrooms and students enrolled in comparison group
classrooms. The research team examined the overall grade-level-equivalent
score as well as the percentage of students who scored half a grade level be-
low average on the STAR assessment (see Figure 7). In both cases, comparison
students scored slightly higher than HOME WORKS! students, but these dif-
ferences were not statistically significant.
120
Similar results were found when focusing on students who received at least
one home visit. Again, comparison students scored slightly higher than HOME
WORKS! students on the spring 2018 STAR assessment, but the differences
were minimal and not statistically significant.
Figure 7. Spring 2018 STAR Reading Assessment Scores for HOME WORKS!
and Comparison Students
Student Performance
Score Percentage
4.0 100
HOME WORKS! Comparison HOME WORKS! Comparison
90
3.5
80
3.0 2.69 2.74
70
2.5 60
47.5
2.0 50 42.7
40
1.5
30
1.0
20
0.5 10
0.0 0
STAR reading spring 2018 Percent below average on STAR reading spring 2018
Note. Differences are not statistically significant (p = .496 for the STAR reading score, and p =
.143 for percent below average). Means are regression-adjusted.
Attendance and Chronic Absenteeism

Overall attendance rates were relatively high and nearly identical for both
the HOME WORKS! and comparison students. On average, students attend-
ed school 95% of the time. While the overall attendance rate was similar to
that reported in the baseline year, the percentage of students who were chron-
ically absent increased. During the 2016–17 baseline year, 9.2% of students
were chronically absent, meaning they were absent more than 10% of the
time. During the 2017–18 study year, the incidence of chronic absenteeism
rose to 12.8% for students included in the analysis sample. HOME WORKS!
students had slightly lower rates (0.3 percentage points difference) of being
chronically absent than comparison students, and this difference was not sta-
tistically significant (see Figure 8).
121
Figure 8. Rates of Chronic Absenteeism for HOME WORKS! and Compari-

son Students
50
HOME WORKS! Comparison
45
40
35
30
25
20
15 12.6% 12.9%
10
0
Percent chronically absent
Note. Differences are not statistically significant (p = .907). Means are regression-adjusted.
Similarly, when focusing on students who participated in at least one

home visit, the estimated difference in chronic absenteeism between HOME
WORKS! and comparison students was close to 1 percentage point. This dif-
ference was not statistically significant, and overall attendance rates were nearly
identical for both groups.
Disciplinary Referrals
Disciplinary referrals for in-school and out-of-school suspensions were
rarely reported by participating schools. On average, less than 8% of students
in the analysis sample received one or more disciplinary referrals during the
2017–18 school year, and students who received infractions averaged about
3 days of suspension across the school year. A slightly larger proportion of
students in HOME WORKS! classrooms received any disciplinary referrals
(8.8%) than students in comparison classrooms (6.6%); however, this differ-
ence was not statistically significant (see Figure 9). When focusing on students
who participated in HOME WORKS! programming, differences between the
HOME WORKS! and comparison students were more pronounced (a 5 per-
centage point difference) but remained non-statistically significant. Similarly,
the study found no statistically significant or substantively important differenc-
es between the groups in terms of the overall length of the disciplinary referrals.
122
Figure 9. Rates of Disciplinary Referrals for HOME WORKS! and Compari-

son Students
50
HOME WORKS! Comparison
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
8.8
10 6.6
5
0
Percent of students who received any discplinary referrals
Note. Differences are not statistically significant (p = .350). Means are regression-adjusted.
Additional Exploratory Analyses

Teachers were instructed to focus on students who had particular priori-
ty characteristics, which HOME WORKS! defined to include low academic
performance, behavioral and social–emotional concerns, high absenteeism or
tardiness rates, homework completion concerns, and low parent engagement.
Also, students were prioritized if parents requested a visit. The research team
examined whether there were differences in academic outcomes for HOME
WORKS! and comparison students who fit into these key priority categories.
Specifically, the research team examined effects for students who were at least
a half-year below grade level in reading at the start of the study year, students
who were chronically absent in the prior school year, and students who had
any disciplinary referrals in the prior year. These analyses should be considered
with caution, as they are based on substantially smaller samples of students,
and there is evidence that these groups varied in terms of background demo-
graphics. The research team also examined effects by gender, race and ethnicity,
and grade-level subgroups. Results were similar to those in the overall analyses.
Results from these exploratory subgroup analyses are summarized in Table
5. Among the students who fit into these three priority subgroups, less than
half participated in a home visit (column 2 of Table 5). In accordance with the
intent-to-treat analysis, all students were included in the subgroup analysis,
regardless of whether they received a home visit. HOME WORKS! students
who scored below average at baseline did not differ from comparison students
in terms of 2017–18 academic outcomes.
123
For students who were chronically absent at baseline, a statistically signifi-

cant difference favoring the HOME WORKS! group was found in subsequent
rates of chronic absenteeism. This positive relationship should be interpreted
with caution because the analysis was based on a very small sample of 58 stu-
dents within 30 classrooms, and students in the HOME WORKS! group in
this analysis were much more likely to be female than students in the compar-
ison group. Thus, differences in outcomes between the HOME WORKS! and
comparison groups may be due to HOME WORKS!, but may also be due to
underlying differences between the analyzed groups.
Table 5. Subgroup Analyses Based on “Priority” Characteristics

% HOME Star
Chronic Any Dis-
Sample WORKS! Students Reading
Subgroup Absen- ciplinary
Size Who Received a Achieve-
teeism Referrals
Home Visit ment
Low-achieving 294 48 NS NS NS
Chronically absent
58 37 NS + NS
in prior school year
Had at least one dis-
ciplinary referral in 37 48 + + NS
prior school year
Note. NS = no statistically significant differences. + = statistically significant differences favor-
ing the HOME WORKS! group.
The analysis of students who had received a disciplinary referral in the prior
school year is based on an even smaller sample size of 37 students within 18 class-
rooms with substantial differences in the gender and grade level composition
of the sample. While the analysis did not show any differences in the percent-
age of students who received a disciplinary referral in the study year, there were
statistically significant differences favoring the HOME WORKS! group for
the spring STAR test scores, as well as lower rates of chronic absenteeism after
controlling for gender, grade-level composition, and other background charac-
teristics. Again, this result should be considered with caution given the lack of
baseline equivalence between the groups.
Summary Findings
This study by external evaluators at Concentric Research & Evaluation and
Synergy Enterprises, funded by the U.S. Department of Education’s Institute
of Education Sciences, aimed to understand whether the HOME WORKS!
“2+2” model had positive effects on achievement, attendance, and behaviors
124
during one academic year. The research team designed the study in partner-
ship with HOME WORKS! and SLPS to examine the effects of the program,
as implemented, in 11 elementary schools in a high-needs school district.
Schools were recruited, and volunteer teachers were randomly assigned to the
HOME WORKS! or comparison conditions. Students in HOME WORKS!
and comparison classrooms shared similar background characteristics at ran-
dom assignment.
Over the course of the academic year, HOME WORKS! teachers took part
in two professional development events, conducted home visits, and partici-
pated in family dinners at their schools. The “full” HOME WORKS! model
(two teacher home visits and two family dinners at the school) was seldom
experienced. About half of the students assigned to HOME WORKS! class-
rooms participated in any single HOME WORKS! activity, and less than 5%
of students and their families took part in two home visits and two family din-
ners. Approximately 70% of the home visits were held in students’ homes. The
remaining visits were held in neutral, non-school locations such as libraries,
parks, and fast-food establishments. Home visits averaged 40 minutes, with
90% of visits completed within 30–60 minutes. Students were present during
the home visit approximately 90% of the time. A student’s plan for success was
discussed, along with students’ attendance, academic performance, and read-
ing skills in 93% of the home visits.
Teachers overwhelmingly reported positive benefits to participating in
home visits. More than 80% of participating teachers reported that their first
home visit enabled them to improve their relationship with and enhance their
understanding of the student’s family. Teachers also commonly discussed learn-
ing more about the student’s challenges at home (including limited resources
and recent changes in the family’s situation or home environment) and a child’s
strengths, weaknesses, and individual interests. Other perceived benefits in-
cluded a better understanding of students’ academic challenges, the ability to
discuss student growth and progress (particularly during the second visit), and
beneficial discussions about student behaviors.
To measure program effects on student achievement, the research team
measured differences in STAR reading assessments between students enrolled
in HOME WORKS! classrooms and students enrolled in the control group
classrooms. Students in HOME WORKS! classrooms and comparison class-
rooms scored similarly on STAR reading assessments (p > .10). Rates of chronic
absenteeism were also similar for students enrolled in HOME WORKS! and
comparison classrooms (p > .10). Students in HOME WORKS! classrooms
had a slightly higher incidence of in-school and out-of-school suspensions,
but the difference was not statistically significant. Similarly, the study found
125
no statistically significant or substantively important differences between the

groups in terms of the overall length of the disciplinary referrals.
Discussion
The results from this study, which did not find statistically significant ef-
fects of HOME WORKS! on student reading achievement, attendance, or
disciplinary referrals, run counter to other recent evidence that suggests home
visiting has a positive effect on student outcomes (McDonald et al., 2006;
Sheldon & Jung, 2015; Sheldon & Jung, 2018; Concentric Research & Eval-
uation & EMT, 2016). We suggest that there are a few potential reasons for
this discrepancy.
First, prior studies, including a study of HOME WORKS!, have been based
on quasi-experimental studies, comparing students who participated in home
visits with students who have not. Based on the current study’s findings, it is
possible that the results from prior quasi-experimental studies indicate that
families who chose to engage in home visits may already have stronger con-
nections to school than those who do not. Non-experimental studies may not
be able to capture underlying differences in the characteristics of these families
(for example, academic motivation or connection to school) that may provide
an alternative explanation for differences in academic outcomes. Future qua-
si-experimental research efforts might examine the connection between family
characteristics and program participation to get a better sense of the incentives
for, and barriers to, participation.
Second, the program was not implemented as intended. Only about half of
the students in HOME WORKS! classrooms received a home visit, and very
few students received the full model of two home visits and two family dinners.
Implementation challenges are not new to this program, particularly in schools
serving a large proportion of high-needs students. Other parent engagement
models have learned that caregiver employment status, number of siblings in
the family, family social support, and school turnaround status are significant
predictors of recruitment and retention for FAST (Families and Schools To-
gether, 2021; McMackin, 2020). HOME WORKS! is investigating various
ways to increase the number of families who participate in its program.
HOME WORKS!’s challenges may have been further amplified by the
rollout of the program with a limited number of teachers per school. When
HOME WORKS! typically recruits schools, the organization encourages as
many teachers as possible to participate in programming in a given year so
that the program operates as a “whole school” model. However, in the study
schools, the research study design dictated that only a portion of teachers in
126
the early grade levels be randomly assigned to implement the program. The
rollout of the program with a limited number of teachers per school may have
impeded strong program implementation and the development of a school-
wide culture around the program, which may have diminished the potential
program impact on student achievement. Also, all teachers in this study were
new to the HOME WORKS! intervention, and it is possible that it takes time
for teachers to become accustomed to the program and devise successful strat-
egies for parent outreach. Future research efforts should consider examining
schoolwide program implementation over multiple school years.
Finally, the outcomes that were available are based on data readily accessible
through school administrative records but may not be the most malleable in
the short term for an early elementary school population. Many prior studies
focused on shorter-term, teacher-reported academic and behavioral outcomes.
In this study, although teachers anecdotally reported benefits of home visits,
such as improved relationships with families and better understandings of
student needs, these did not necessarily translate into statistically significant
improvements in academic achievement, attendance, or behavior. Given the
relatively young age of the students in the study, there was very little variation
in attendance rates, chronic absenteeism, and disciplinary referrals, making
it difficult to detect differences between HOME WORKS! and comparison
students. Both administrative and teacher-reported data may be necessary to
gauge a program’s potential for short- and long-term influences on behavioral
and academic outcomes.
Given the discrepancy of findings in this study of HOME WORKS! and
prior studies of home visiting programs, future studies should continue to
use rigorous designs, along with thorough implementation studies, to exam-
ine the potential program effects of home visiting programs. Researchers may
also wish to examine the connection between family characteristics and pro-
gram participation to get a better sense of the predictors of and barriers to
participation. It may be worthwhile to consider school-level designs, and to
measure implementation and outcomes over time, which would enable schools
to have the opportunity to develop a schoolwide culture around home visiting
programming. Such studies could also incorporate additional data collection
efforts to get a better understanding of parent and teacher perspectives on the
programming, changes in teacher behaviors, and changes in student and family
engagement with school.
Based on the lessons learned from the current study and additional ongo-
ing internal program evaluation, the HOME WORKS! organization has since
collaborated closely with SLPS as well as other partner districts to develop strat-
egies that strengthen and tailor programs to the needs of schools. As this and
127
similar programs across the country continue to build and refine home visiting
programming for school-age families, additional research–practice partnership
efforts should investigate: (1) barriers to family participation and how best to
reach high-needs families; (2) ways to support teachers in implementing the
program with fidelity, perhaps through extra release time and/or additional
communication skills training; (3) whether different levels or types of teacher
incentives can increase participation; and (4) what role a broader schoolwide
culture around parent and family engagement plays in the successful imple-
mentation of home visiting programs.
Endnote
1
The complete case analysis sample was similar to the full sample of students enrolled in par-
ticipating classrooms at baseline. One notable difference is that there were fewer students in
Grade 1 in the analysis sample (largely because baseline STAR testing data were not available
for some Grade 1 classrooms).
References
Bryk, A. S., Sebring, P. B., Allensworth, E., Easton, J. Q., & Luppescu, S. (2010). Organizing
schools for improvement: Lessons from Chicago. University of Chicago Press.
Concentric Research & Evaluation and Evaluation, Management, and Training Associates
(EMT). (2016, September). HOME WORKS! The Teacher Home Visit Program: Exploring
outcomes during the 2014–15 school year. https://www.teacherhomevisit.org/wp-content/
uploads/2017/02/Concentric-HW-report-9.29.16.pdf
Child Trends. (2018). Parent involvement in schools. https://www.childtrends.org/indicators/
parental-involvement-in-schools
Dearing, E., Kreider, H., Simpkins, S., & Weiss, H. B. (2006). Family involvement in school
and low-income children’s literacy: Longitudinal associations between and within families.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(4), 653–664.
Evaluation, Management, and Training Associates. (EMT). (2018). Implementation findings from
HOME WORKS! The Teacher Home Visit Program: 2017–18 school year annual evaluation
report. https://www.teacherhomevisit.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/2017-2018-home-
works-annual-evaluation-report.pdf
Families and Schools Together. (2021). FAST program: Brief overview. https://www.familie-
sandschools.org/what-we-do/fast-program
Henderson, A. T., & Mapp, K. L. (2002). A new wave of evidence: The impact of school, family,
and community connections on student achievement. SEDL.
Layzer, J. I., Goodson, B., Creps, C. Werner, C., Werner, A., & Bernstein, L. (2001). National
evaluation of family support programs. Volume B: Research studies. Abt Associates. https://
www.familiesandschools.org/app/uploads/2014/08/FAST-RCT-ABT-Research-Associ-
ates-Article.pdf
McDonald, L., Moberg, D. P., Brown, R., Rodriguez-Espiricueta, I., Flores, N. I., Burke, M.
P., & Coover, G. (2006). Afterschool multifamily groups: A randomized controlled trial
involving low-income, urban, Latino children. Children & Schools, 28(1), 25–34.
128
McKnight, K., Venkateswaran, N., Laird, J., Robles, J., & Shalev, T. (2017). Mindset shifts
and parent teacher home visits. RTI International. http://www.pthvp.org/wp-content/up-
loads/2018/02/PTHV_Study1_Report.pdf
McMackin, M. K. (2020). Predicting recruitment and retention of caregivers for the Families and
Schools Together Program using health beliefs model variables [Unpublished doctoral disserta-
tion]. University of Wisconsin–Madison.
Missouri Department of Education. (2017). District report card: St. Louis City (115115). https://
apps.dese.mo.gov/MCDS/Reports/SSRS_Print.aspx?Reportid=6a5392af-6f3d-46a5-
92e1-f39fdfa861c2
Renaissance Learning. (2019). Renaissance STAR Reading and Renaissance STAR Math assess-
ments. https://www.renaissance.com/products/star-reading/
Sheldon, S. B., & Jung, S. B. (2015). The family engagement partnership: Student outcome evalu-
ation. Johns Hopkins University, Center on School, Family, and Community Partnerships.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319226886_The_Family_Engagement_Part-
nership_Student_Outcome_Evaluation
Sheldon, S. B., & Jung, S. B. (2018). Student outcomes and Parent Teacher Home Visits. Johns
Hopkins University, Center on School, Family, and Community Partnerships. http://www.
pthvp.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/181130-StudentOutcomesandPTHVReportFI-
NAL.pdf
Sheridan, S. M., Knoche, L. L., Kupzyk, K. A., Edwards, C. P., & Marvin, C. A. (2011). A ran-
domized trial examining the effects of parent engagement on early language and literacy:
The Getting Ready intervention. Journal of School Psychology, 49, 361–383.
Schulting, A. B. (2009). The kindergarten home visit project: A kindergarten transition inter-
vention study [Doctoral dissertation]. Duke University. https://dukespace.lib.duke.edu/
dspace/bitstream/handle/10161/2481/D_Schulting_Amy_a_201005.pdf?seq
Stetson, R., Stetson, E., Sinclair, B., & Nix, K. (2012). Home visits: Teacher reflections about
relationships, student behavior, and achievement. Teacher Education, 21(1), 21–37.
U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. (2019). What Works Clearing-
house standards handbook, Version 4.1. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/referenceresourc-
es/WWC-Standards-Handbook-v4-1-508.pdf
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Policy, Research, and Evaluation.
(2019). Home visiting evidence of effectiveness review: Executive summary (OPRE Report
#2019-93). https://homvee.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/2020-02/homevee_effectiveness_
executive_summary_dec_2019.pdf
Van Voorhis, F. L., Maier, M. F., Epstein, J. L., & Lloyd, C. M. (2013). The impact of family
involvement on the education of children ages 3 to 8: A focus on literacy and math achievement
outcomes and social–emotional skills. MDRC.
Wagner, M., Spiker, D., & Linn, M. I. (2002). The effectiveness of the Parents as Teachers pro-
gram with low-income parents and children. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education,
22(2), 67–81.
Wright, K. B., Shields, S. M., Black, K., & Waman, H. C. (2018). The effects of teacher
home visits on student behavior, student academic achievement, and parent involvement.
School Community Journal, 28(1), 67–90. https://www.adi.org/journal/2018ss/WrightEtAl-
Spring2018.pdf
Author’s Note: This study was supported by a Low-Cost, Short-Duration Evaluation

grant (#305L170005) from the U.S. Department of Education’s Institute of Educa-
tion Sciences. The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not represent
129
views of the U.S. Department of Education. The authors would like to express deep
appreciation to the leadership at the St. Louis Public Schools for their partnership on
this project, including Superintendent Kelvin Adams and Deputy Superintendent of
Accountability Cheryl VanNoy. The authors are also greatly indebted to Karen Kalish,
founder of HOME WORKS!, who has served as a thought partner and strong believer
in evidence to support program improvement.
Lauren Scher is a senior researcher at Mathematica, Inc., where she participates in

numerous evaluation technical assistance projects to help grantees and evaluators de-
sign and implement studies that will yield useful evidence to guide decisions aimed at
improving public well-being. She is the former partner and co-founder of Concentric
Research & Evaluation where she served as the principal investigator of this experi-
mental study of a teacher home visiting program. Correspondence concerning this
article may be addressed to Lauren Scher, Ph.D., Senior Researcher, Mathematica,
Inc., 955 Massachusetts Avenue, Suite 801, Cambridge, MA 02139, or email lscher@
mathematica-mpr.com
Sherri Lauver is a senior researcher at Synergy Enterprises, Inc., and served as the
co-principal investigator of the study. She is a senior researcher with 20 years of ex-
perience designing and directing educational research, evaluation, technical assistance
(TA), and strategic planning projects with clients in government and nonprofit organi-
zations. Dr. Lauver is committed to improving outcomes for disadvantaged students,
families, and neighborhoods through research initiatives that support evidence-based
programs and policies.
130
High School Home Visits: Parent–Teacher
Relationships and Student Success
Nathan E. Soule and Heidi L. Curtis
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to determine how home visits conducted by

teachers from a diverse, urban high school impacted student success and rela-
tionships between parents and teachers. Participants were high school teachers
who were invited to conduct home visits for rising ninth graders and the
students visited at home. In this mixed methods design, attendance and grad-
uation data were collected for students participating in home visits, surveys
were administered to eligible teachers and staff, and semi-structured interviews
were subsequently conducted with seven home visiting teachers. Data over
five years reveals the chronic absenteeism rate was lower for students visited at
home (4%) compared to the whole cohort. The graduation rate for students
visited at home at this site was also higher (3.7%) than the rate for the whole
graduating class. Surveys and interviews indicate teachers who visited students
at home were more likely than non-home visiting teachers to report positive
relationships with and support from parents. Home visiting teachers also met
with parents more in person, and, more than non-home visiting teachers, they
believed parents welcome home visits.
Key Words: parent teacher home visits, family engagement, academic achieve-
ment, attendance, graduation, high school

Introduction and Literature Review
When parents and teachers build relationships and work together, students
are more successful in school (Hampden-Thompson & Galindo, 2017; Wright
et al., 2018; Note: throughout, “parent” refers to any adult acting in a parental
role for a student). However, despite ongoing federal, state, and local efforts to
support family engagement, establishing strong relationships between parents
and teachers continues to be a challenge (Balli, 2016; Hong, 2019). Teachers
generally are eager to work with families, but often they lack the time and re-
sources to effectively build these relationships (Smith & Sheridan, 2019). In
addition, while teacher-initiated collaboration is critical for growing effective
home–school relationships, teacher preparation colleges do not systematical-
ly prepare teacher candidates with these skills (Collier et al., 2015). Parents
also want to be involved, and open and effective engagement with teachers is
not only a preference, but a priority for parents (Falk, 2017). Recent studies
indicate parent engagement is actually the most significant determinant of par-
ent satisfaction with schools (Falk, 2017; Hampden-Thompson & Galindo,
2017; Marsh et al., 2015). However, some groups of students—including re-
cent immigrants, students with disabilities, and those living in poverty—suffer
disproportionally when parents and teachers are not able to work well together
(Collier et al., 2015; Hong, 2019; Soutullo, 2016).
Despite decades of parent engagement efforts advanced through federal ini-
tiatives and local district policies, improving parent and teacher engagement
still requires school leaders and staff to face and overcome significant challenges
(Henderson & Mapp, 2002; Mapp, 2003; Mapp, 2012). Teachers and school
leaders often discuss ways to get parents more involved, but a change in beliefs
about parents and a reevaluation of staff and parent roles are required for more
substantial improvement (Goodall, 2018). While teachers and parents general-
ly agree that having a strong relationship is important, school leaders are in the
best position to support sustainable systems and beliefs designed to build part-
nerships with parents (Goodall, 2018). Although schools have good intentions
about engaging with parents, traditional parent involvement methods such as
offering programs or distributing one-way information about school do not
translate well into authentic, dynamic relationships between parents and teach-
ers—and principals have authority over these decisions (Collier et al., 2015).
School leaders have begun to acknowledge that traditional parent engage-
ment practices have continued to yield limited parent and teacher partnerships
and that new ideas should be considered (Auerbach, 2009; Christianakis,
2011; Hong, 2019). In response, many schools have begun adopting creative
ways to improve parent engagement (Stefanski et al., 2016). One strategy that
132
HIGH SCHOOL HOME VISITS
has gained increasing attention is home visiting (Mcknight et al., 2017; Shel-
don & Jung, 2018).
While teachers in some communities have been informally visiting par-
ents for years, efforts to organize home visits with training, scheduling, and
compensation have only recently become more widespread (Kronholz, 2016;
Meyer et al., 2011). National Title I and state policies require some parent en-
gagement activities, yet methods for engaging parents in compliance with Title
I guidelines often involve school parent nights and meetings where the focus
is giving information and resources in a one-way approach from school to par-
ents. This limited format may not foster an environment that breaks through
barriers and invites parents and teachers to develop reciprocal relationships. In
contrast, home visits designed to focus on parents and teachers as partners with
equal value have demonstrated potential to build trust and positive relation-
ships (Mcknight et al., 2017).
Notably, there are different philosophies and designs for home visits around
the United States, and teachers and parents may have different ideas about
the purpose of home visits and what they are intended to accomplish. These
differences can result in substantially different experiences and outcomes as
the method and relationships are crucial (Saïas et al., 2016). Recognizing
that some practices have led to consistent success, an increasing number of
schools have adopted effective, research-based models with established core
values, strategies, and built-in support. The Parent Teacher Home Visit organi-
zation (PTHV) is one example of a model dedicated to supporting home visits
designed to grow strong relationships with parents, and they have recently ex-
panded partnerships across the United States.
One PTHV goal is building trust between parents, teachers, and students by
focusing on relationships (Loughlin-Presnal & Bierman, 2017; Nudd, 1921;
Saïas et al., 2016). The PTHV model creates a unique space for teachers and
parents to be open and vulnerable by meeting in the home of parents—a more
neutral setting. Their home visits are designed to build trust by addressing as-
sumptions and implicit bias (Mcknight et al., 2017). PTHV trains teachers to
set assumptions aside and to listen to the experiences of families. One premise
of this approach is that addressing implicit bias and building trust will result in
improved educational experiences and outcomes for students. While research
associating home visits with attendance and academic outcomes has been es-
tablished, nearly all studies about such school and family partnerships focus on
the early grades (Barmore, 2018; Hampden-Thompson & Galindo, 2017). Yet
dissatisfaction with school interactions spans across all levels including high
school (Falk, 2017). Consequently, important questions remain about the pos-
sibilities for home visits at the middle and high school levels.
133
Chronic absenteeism and dropout rates in high school continue to be a

concern, especially for marginalized students, students of color, and students
in poverty (Zaff et al., 2017). While very little research is available related
to high school home visits, studies have shown an important relationship be-
tween graduation rate and the strength of relationship between parents and
their children (Jeynes, 2012; Zaff et al., 2017). Two specific factors associated
with graduation rate or continued enrollment at the high school level are par-
ent academic involvement and the parent–child connection (Zaff et al., 2017).
Home visits have been increasingly advanced as a strategy to strengthen rela-
tionships between parents, their children, and the teacher; therefore, this study
explored the potential of home visits to positively impact teacher and parent
relationships and student outcomes at a diverse, urban high school.
Theoretical Framework
The bioecological theory of human development (Bronfenbrenner & Ceci,

1994) helps explain how the connection between parents and teachers can im-
pact a student’s experience with school. Urie Bronfenbrenner proposed the idea
of nested environmental systems: the microsystem, macrosystem, mesosystem,
exosystem, and chronosystem. These systems function simultaneously and in
different ways to affect human development and success in school (Bronfen-
brenner & Ceci, 1994).
When a person participates in more than one setting (multiple microsys-
tems), a mesosystem emerges (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Bronfenbrenner & Ceci,
1994). The mesosystem is the space where students participate at home and
school as two common, predominant microsystems connect (Hayes et al.,
2017). Macrosystems and exosystems are where sociocultural dynamics and
more indirect influences are experienced (Vélez-Agosto et al., 2017). Mi-
crosystem connections—mesosystems—are at the core of parent and school
relationships and home visits and thus the focus of this study. Each microsys-
tem functions differently, and children learn to adapt to expected routines,
rules, and rhythms of home, a classroom, or a community (Vélez-Agosto et al.,
2017). Tension and conflicts can arise when expectations and norms vary in
the mesosystem.
A weak mesosystem can be attributed to a conflict or lack of understand-
ing of cultural norms, transportation barriers, parent work schedules, language
differences, and poverty (Auerbach, 2009; Smith et al., 2014). These barri-
ers often prevent parents and teachers from talking regularly and building a
relationship (Ashiabi & O’Neal, 2015). Bronfenbrenner (1979) explained
that seeing and understanding the life of a student in their home contributes
134
to a deeper, crucial understanding of the child’s experiences (see also Lin &
Bates, 2010). This new understanding has the potential to break down barriers.
Bronfenbrenner even asserted that observations of students in just one setting
ultimately “fail to be developmentally valid” (p. 182). Home visits enable a
teacher to gain a new understanding of how different people and contexts in-
fluence a child’s human development and success in school.
One prediction Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) theory makes is that home ob-
servations will tend to affect not only the behavior and outcomes of the child,
but also those of the parents and the family. Bronfenbrenner concludes that a
key to an effective public education system is not within the school alone, but
in the interconnections with the community (e.g., family and community re-
sources). Bronfenbrenner’s theory emphasizes the importance of educators and
families working together, and specifically charges educators to reach out to
families to establish nurturing, empowering relationships (Ferrara, 2017).
The bioecological theory also recognizes additional, important variables at
work in the life of students. Proximal processes, personal characteristics, con-
textual factors, and time (also known as PPCT) all work together to shape a
child’s development. (Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1994; Tudge et al., 2009; Tudge
et al., 2016). PPCT illustrates how home visits may support a proximal process
capable of impacting the relationship between parents, teachers, and students,
and subsequently student success.
Bronfenbrenner (1979) argues that healthy proximal processes are not actu-
alized alone in the school building. In high-poverty communities, schools have
become increasingly isolated, disconnected from the culture and community
that students are living in and where relationships and meaning are created
(Soutullo, 2016; Vesely et al., 2017). Proximal processes, such as increased
parent interactions with children, behavioral and academic interventions, and
the crucial interconnectedness realized through partnerships are capable of
bridging the divide between home and school microsystems. These connec-
tions offer great potential for enhancing relationships, building self-efficacy for
parents and children, and fostering behavioral and academic growth (Bronfen-
brenner, 1986). The bioecological theory affirms the power of this connection
and the potential for providing equitable and purposeful support for students
and families.
Bronfenbrenner asserts proximal processes can influence circumstances and
people enough to shift possibilities of success (Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1994).
Consequently, his theory compels questions about best practices for improv-
ing relationships between home and school. This study investigated how home
visits nurture relationships between parents and teachers and how home visits
impact student outcomes. The following questions were addressed:
135
1. How do high school home visits impact relationships between parents and
teachers?
2. Why are some teachers more willing to conduct home visits than others?
3. How do high school home visits impact student attendance and gradua-
tion rates?
Methods
Participants
Participants in this study included teachers, staff, and students from a large
urban public high school in the northeastern United States. After identify-
ing a site, an application was submitted to the district office for permission to
research. All teachers and staff involved with this study had been invited to at-
tend home visit training offered by the PTHV organization or using adapted
training materials.
This study was designed to capture the beliefs and experiences of teach-
ers who chose to conduct home visits compared to those who did not. All
teachers and staff who had been invited for PTHV training at the site were
invited to participate in this study. Teachers who conducted home visits were
required to complete training comprised of learning the purpose of home vis-
its, procedures, expectations, and follow-up support. Procedures include the
requirement of going in pairs, establishing relationships, and how to invite
interpreters when needed. Some participants who decided not to go on home
visits may have completed the training, but since they did not complete visits,
they were assigned to the non-home visiting group. Teachers in this study rep-
resented a diverse range of backgrounds. There were new teachers and veteran
teachers of 20 and 30 years. Some were career teachers, and others had been
career switchers. Several teachers were in their twenties, and others were plan-
ning to retire soon. Teachers indicated whether they had conducted home visits
at the beginning of the online survey.
Data Sources
A survey was administered using the Staff–Family Relationship instrument
created by Harvard University and Panorama Education. The 35 questions are
arranged among four different scales. All scales reflect teacher beliefs about
working with families and students and home visits. This study analyzes both
the overall scales and individual, statistically significant items. The survey in-
cludes the following scale categories: beliefs about home visits, parent and
family relationships, educating diverse students, and perception of self-efficacy.
136
All questions in the survey were Likert-style except for individual items relat-
ing to beliefs about roles and responsibilities of teachers for which respondents
selected teacher or parent. Home visit items were designed to capture teach-
er confidence and perceptions about the purpose and efficacy of home visits.
For example, teachers were asked how effective they believe home visits are for
promoting positive relationships with families. Another item asked if teachers
believe home visits impact academic achievement. Teachers were also asked
to share how safe they feel when thinking of going on home visits. Demo-
graphic questions were also included. An electronic invitation was sent using
an anonymous link from Qualtrics to all teachers and staff who were invited
to participate in home visits at the site. In all, 51 teachers and staff completed
the survey, and seven agreed to be available for post-survey, semi-structured
interviews. The response rate was initially a concern, and multiple attempts
were made to increase survey responses with some success. The 51 surveys were
submitted out of 225 eligible participants who received a survey resulting in a
response rate of 22.6%. While nonresponse bias has traditionally been an issue
for researchers, it has been recently regarded as less of a threat to validity, and
lower response rates have been even regarded as statistically indistinguishable
from more rigorous surveys with higher response rates (Keeter et al., 2006).
While a higher response rate may be considered desirable, studies have revealed
response bias in samples ranging from 5% to 75% are not much different, and
that time-intensive attempts to increase response rates usually result in just
trivial changes (Fosnacht et al., 2016). Another rigorous study showe that re-
sponse rate does not have much impact on mean, internal consistency, or other
statistical properties of a survey, with response rate comparisons ranging from
under 20% to 100% (Wåhlberg & Poom, 2015).
Next, additional data were collected by requesting student attendance and
graduation data for all students at the high school over multiple years. The data
included attendance (chronic absenteeism rate) and graduation rates reported
to the state. Chronic absenteeism and graduation rates were analyzed to deter-
mine differences for students visited at home compared to the whole cohort.
Teacher participants for the qualitative portion of this study were recruited
using volunteers from the survey. All teachers and staff who completed the sur-
vey were invited to participate in a semi-structured interview. Participants were
interviewed one at a time. Interview questions were piloted with an expert pan-
el including parent engagement scholars, parent engagement practitioners, and
current classroom teachers with experience communicating with parents and
conducting home visits. Pilot interviews help researchers understand any per-
ceived problems or confusion with the instrument including reliability issues
or researcher bias (Marshall & Rossman, 2016). Participants from this pilot
137
shared helpful feedback and clarifying questions about interview items and the
process of conducting the semi-structured interviews. Adjustments were made
to the questions and to the format based on information gathered from this pi-
lot group. Interview sessions with the seven staff members ran between 45–60
minutes. Participants were assigned pseudonyms, and any identifiable or per-
sonal information was changed.
Data Analysis
The quantitative section of this study included data from the survey and from
student attendance and graduation rate data provided by the school district.
Survey items were analyzed to determine if there were differences in perceptions
and beliefs between the home visiting and non-home visiting teacher groups.
While there are different perspectives about whether Likert items should be
analyzed using parametric or nonparametric measures, the Mann-Whitney U
Test was used for this study since it is an appropriate test for nonparametric
data and Likert items (de Winter & Dodou, 2010). Some researchers prefer
nonparametric tests for smaller samples sizes, and the Mann-Whitney and the t
test (parametric) generally have equivalent power (de Winter & Dodou, 2010;
Sullivan & Artino, 2013). Survey data were also analyzed to examine trends
associated with teachers and demographic information. The independent vari-
able was demographic information, and the dependent variables were the
perception of parent relationships and beliefs about home visits. Data from the
quantitative survey results were analyzed using SPSS Statistical Software Ver-
sion 25 (SPSS, 2019). Student attendance and graduation data were analyzed
to determine if significant differences in chronic absenteeism and graduation
rate were present for students visited at home by a teacher compared to stu-
dents who were not visited at home.
The qualitative section of this study included semi-structured interviews.
Interviews were recorded, and field notes and observations of the setting and
participants were collected to provide helpful information for identifying
trends and themes (Marshall & Rossman, 2016). Each interview was recorded
and transcribed using GoToMeeting™. Interview transcriptions were reviewed
and analyzed to identify themes (Creswell, 2015; Marshall & Rossman, 2016).
Themes were initially identified by applying in vivo coding and by identifying
emerging patterns. Additional notes and questions were recorded when new or
unanticipated themes surfaced (Marshall & Rossman, 2016).
Throughout the process of identifying codes, several strategies were adopt-
ed. Key words, phrases, and potential themes were initially highlighted. Precise
industry words were added to assist in identifying theme words and phrases
spoken by participants such as “trust,” “barriers,” “don’t care,” “not helpful,” or
138
“parents are easy to talk to” (Creswell, 2015). After interview transcripts were
analyzed multiple times, themes were recorded in a spreadsheet. Responses
were counted to identify dominant themes and to review language for possible
nuances and subthemes. Member checking emails were sent to all interview
participants to affirm that the themes and interpretation matched the par-
ticipant understanding (Creswell, 2015). Member checking emails included
identified themes, direct quotations, and paraphrased responses. Only one mi-
nor adjustment was made after member checking.
Results and Discussion

Home Visits and Parent–Teacher Relationships
The first research question asks how going on home visits impacts parent
and teacher relationships. Table 1 shows results from each of the four sur-
vey scales. When comparing the home visiting and non-home visiting teacher
groups on the relationship scale (p = .018), results were below .05, the level
considered statistically significant for Likert data, and thus considered statis-
tically significant (de Winter & Dodou, 2010). The relationship scale is the
only scale on the survey that showed statistical significance. The home visiting
teachers reported having more positive relationships with parents than teachers
who chose not to go on home visits. This statistically significant result means
the differences found between the two teacher home visiting groups and their
views of parent relationships are not attributable to chance, and that these re-
sults are generalizable to larger, similar populations (Creswell, 2015).
One primary benefit of visiting with parents at home is the potential of
developing relationships (Llopart et al., 2018; Saïas et al., 2016; Whyte & Kara-
bon, 2016). Since home visit research has been nearly all related to elementary
schools, the results from this study show that home visits at the high school
level also are associated with better relationships between teachers and parents.
Table 1. Mann-Whitney U Test by Survey Scale

Home Educating Teacher
Scale Relationships
Visits All Students Efficacy
Mann-Whitney U 181.500 163.000 172.000 146.500
Wilcoxon W 371.500 268.000 263.000 611.500
Z -2.359 -1.343 -.655 -1.341
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) .018 .179 .513 .180
Exact Sig. [2*(1-tailed Sig.)] .557b .202b
Notes. a. Grouping Variable: Have you completed at least one parent teacher home visit?
b. Not corrected for ties.
139
Next, individual Likert items were analyzed for statistical significance. H0,
or the null hypothesis, was tested for each item on the survey. The null hy-
pothesis states the distribution for the group who completed home visits and
the group who did not are equal. Four survey items are statistically significant
when the two groups were compared (see Table 2). Each of these items were
below a p-value of .05 resulting in a 95% level of confidence that there is a re-
lationship between the two groups and each variable (Creswell, 2015).
Table 2. Mann-Whitney U Test: All Survey Items With a Rejected Null

Hypothesis
Item Significance
How safe do you feel when thinking about going
.005a
on a parent teacher home visit?
How supportive are families of participating in
.001a
parent teacher home visits?
How often do you meet in person with the fami-
.032
lies of your students?
When you face challenges with particular stu-
.015
dents, how supportive are the families?
Notes. P-value: The significance level is .050.
a. Exact significance is displayed for this test.
Home Visits and Barriers: Safety and Perceptions

The second research question asks why some teachers are more willing to
conduct home visits than others. Teachers in this study offered many explana-
tions, and several expressed concern about home visits and safety. The response
to teacher safety concerns while going on a home visit for the two home visit-
ing groups results in a p-value of .005 (see Table 2). Conducting home visits at
this site is voluntary, and teachers did not have to share why they chose not to
volunteer. However, in the interviews, home visiting teachers shared that safe-
ty was cited as an obstacle by multiple teacher peers who chose not to conduct
home visits. One participant was told by a teacher who declined home visits
that he or she did not feel “comfortable going inside the homes of strangers.”
Another participant who completed over 100 home visits said that some hes-
itation for conducting home visits related to questions about “when to report
issues to social services like drugs or suspected abuse.” Others expressed con-
cerns about strange smells or big dogs.
Teachers and staff were also surveyed about how supportive they believe
families are of participating in home visits. When comparing the two groups
140
of teachers, the p-score for this question is .001—a strong, statistically signifi-
cant result (see Table 2). Teachers who chose not to go on home visits reported
parents are far less supportive of home visits when compared to teachers who
had completed home visits. In addition, interviews of home visiting teachers
revealed parents overwhelmingly appreciate home visits, and each interview
participant shared about parents expressing gratitude afterward. One partici-
pant said she and the parents always walk away with something positive:
For a teacher to come to a parent home—they are honored; they are
blessed; they are so thankful. I’ve never walked away from a home visit
where a parent talked about their child’s hopes and dreams, and they
thought it was a waste of time. Parents…when we leave, they’re always
very thankful. Parents say, “I can’t believe you’re asking about my child’s
hopes and dreams. No one has asked this before.”
Home Visiting Teachers: Relationships and Communication

With Parents
Home visiting teachers in this study met with parents more, and they be-
lieve parents are more supportive. When analyzing the survey item asking how
often teachers meet in person with families, the p-value is .032 (see Table 2).
The result shows a statistically significant relationship between frequency of
meeting with parents and whether a teacher conducted a home visit. Teach-
ers in this study who conducted home visits were significantly more likely to
meet with parents in general. This view of the practice and importance of
spending time with parents stands out because building trust and relationships
requires time and contact between teachers and parents (Hong, 2019; Pushor
& Amendt, 2018). Participants shared stories of experiences from home visits
that led to continued conversations and open doors for talking about academ-
ics and more difficult topics. Home visits were cited as paving the way. Diane
shared that, after a home visit, her confidence and willingness to talk with par-
ents grew: “Home visits have affected my confidence level in speaking with
parents quite a bit. It’s because humanizing the parent and humanizing myself
to them…definitely an improvement in effort to talk and an improvement in
our relationship.” Susan believes learning about their family in a neutral setting
built trust and capacity for future interactions. She explained,
When you already know their name, you remember the birth of a sibling
or a family story, when you need to get your student’s trust during any
sort of difficult thing, if it’s an essay, or they’re not comfortable talking
about a test they failed, if you have something non-academic in the be-
ginning, it’s powerful.
141
The next statistically significant survey item asked how supportive families
are when dealing with difficult students. The p-value for this item is .015 (see
Table 2). Teachers who conducted home visits are more likely to report fami-
lies are supportive when dealing with difficult students. According to Rey, too
many teachers have assumptions about why parents are involved or not, and
home visits “…help to uncover the discrepancy between teacher perception of
parents and what is really happening with parents.” When teachers understand
a parent’s culture and background, relationships are more likely to develop
(Nievar et al., 2018). When relationships and trust grow, both teachers and
parents feel more supported.
The survey also asked participants to share who they thought should be
most responsible for various school experiences related to their child. The chi-
square statistic was applied since the data available in this item contained two
nonnormally distributed categorical variables (Creswell, 2015; Hoy & Adams,
2015). Only one item resulted in statistical significance: the question asking
teachers and staff who should be most responsible for communication between
home and school. The two-tailed Pearson chi-square p-score of .46 is statisti-
cally significant (see Table 3).
Participants who conducted home visits responded that teachers should be
more responsible than parents for communication between home and school.
In this study, 74.3% of teachers who conducted home visits believe that
schools should be primarily responsible for communication, while a far smaller
25.7% of teachers who did not complete home visits believe schools should be
primarily responsible for communication between the school and home. Com-
munication between the school and home has been a source of discontent for
many years. Previous studies affirm there is also a discrepancy between teacher
and parent expectations for how communication between the home and school
should happen, and more than half of parents are not satisfied with interac-
tions they had with schools (Conus & Fahrni, 2019; Kraft, 2017; Schneider
& Arnot, 2018).
This study suggests one reason for communication problems between par-
ents and teachers at the high school level is having different expectations about
who is primarily responsible for initiating and sustaining communication. Im-
portantly, there is an association between teachers who have completed home
visits and their expectation about who is responsible for communication.
Teachers at this high school who chose not to conduct home visits were far
more likely to believe that parents are primarily responsible for communica-
tion between the home and school. This difference in the belief about who is
primarily responsible for communication between the home and school may
exist before teachers decide whether to complete a home visit, or the belief
142
may change after completing home visits, but the difference in beliefs and
the significance between groups are important. While literature indicates cul-
tural and language barriers contribute to communication problems between
teachers and parents (Schneider & Arnot, 2018), this study shows underlying
beliefs by teachers also contribute to communication challenges in high school
parent–teacher relationships.
Table 3. Chi-Square Tests: Ensure Good Communication Between Home and

School
Asymptotic Signif- Exact Sig. Exact Sig.
Value df
icance (2-sided) (2-sided) (1-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 3.967a 1 .046
Continuity Correction b
2.301 1 .129
Likelihood Ratio 3.679 1 .055
Fisher’s Exact Test .069 .069
Linear-by-Linear Asso-
3.870 1 .049
ciation
N of Valid Cases 41
Notes. a. 2 cells (50.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 1.90.
b. Computed only for a 2x2 table
When teachers going on a home visit learned about struggles or specific

fears the student or the family were experiencing, communication and fol-
low-through were the norm. Connie explained how learning something new
about each student affected her approach:
I realized that a child might need an extra hand…like a little softer glove.
One person wanted to be known as gender neutral. Another student’s
parents said their child was struggling with weight. I learned these things
at the home visits.
Susan also realized she adapted and her relationship with the parent and stu-
dent improved after learning more about families through home visits:
One girl did not have a place to study at home. We learned this on a
home visit. We thought she could work at school, but parents didn’t
want her walking home…so we made a call to get her picked up later
from school one day per week. I may not have been this forward without
the home visit.
In this study teachers reported parents shared far more at home visits than
usual, and they left feeling a stronger bond. Home visiting teachers explained
143
this type of personal communication was not as common with tradition-

al methods such as parent–teacher conferences or phone calls. Emily believes
there is “something unique about being in the family space versus being in
our space…that’s why we do it [home visits].” She added, “I think, again,
working with immigrant families. They are—I don’t know that they’re always
comfortable coming into the school. They’re not sure [what] the norms and ex-
pectations are in an American School setting, and it’s not their space.” Phone
calls and school visits were still important in the eyes of teachers in this study,
but home visits and their potential for fostering understanding and trust en-
rich the relationship between teachers and parents, and this may lead to more
optimal student support.
Participant interviews from this study also show that acknowledging family
traditions, culture, and language translates into better relationships. Susan re-
vealed how her perspective and expectations changed after visiting homes. She
began to realize, “Parents are universally concerned about the trajectory for
their child’s future. It might be more heightened for parents who made such
sacrifices to leave their country and come here because there’s a lot riding on
the future of the child.” Rey explained how her assumptions were challenged,
and she began to understand more parents wanted to be involved, but some
parents’ lives were just different than others. Rey believes: “effective or positive
home visits happen when assumptions are left at the door…socioeconomic
status, culture, etcetera. Some teachers assume a lot, and too much about why
parents are involved or not.” When families in this study predominantly spoke
another language, home visitors brought a translator. Teacher home visitors
shared stories about families who feel uncomfortable visiting the school due
to a language barrier, but when home visiting teachers arrived at their home
prepared, communication was better, and the relationship was healthier. Ri-
ley explained home visits taught her that “most parents want to be involved,
but they don’t know how” and “…some Latino parents…it takes a while be-
cause of language and culture.” Susan quickly realized how families of English
learners feel empowered by seeing a teacher on a home visit as “a first point of
contact” and that more “buy in” to the relationship happens. After completing
several home visits, Emily remarked: “Seeing kids in their home environment
with families gave me a richer context for background and home life…a wider
view.” Susan also explained how the visit opened her eyes to a new perspective:
“[There was] not a quiet place to study. Lots of activity. The student had a lot
of responsibility. So vastly different than others. Once you get inside the home
to see what they live with…[your perspective shifts].” This teacher’s approach
toward relationships and communication changed because of this new insight.
144
Home Visited Students: Chronic Absenteeism and Graduation Rate

The third research question addressed how home visits impact attendance
and graduation rates. The chronic absenteeism rate reported to the state was
used for all students at this site for three consecutive school years starting in
2016–17 and ending with the 2018–19 school year. Determining the chronic
absenteeism rate for students visited at home required using the district’s atten-
dance data to calculate the total percentage of days absent for all home visited
students. For comparison, the schoolwide chronic absenteeism rate published
on the state’s department of education website was used. The chart below dis-
plays the schoolwide chronic absenteeism rate for three consecutive years and
the home visited student group only for the same three years. The chronic ab-
senteeism rate was lower for home visited students for every year (see Figure 1).
Figure 1. Chronic Absenteeism Rate by Group
Chronic Absensteeism Rate By Group
20 18.46
18 16.89
15.69
16
14
14 14.1
12
10 11.5
8
6
4
2
0
2016-17 2017-18 2018-19
Whole Cohort With Non Visited Students Home Visited Students
While home visits are known to be associated with better attendance at the
elementary level, questions have remained about how home visits at the high
school level might be associated with attendance and the likelihood of students
graduating on time. To help answer that question, graduation rate data were
collected for the whole school and for the home visited student group who
were first visited as rising ninth graders in 2014. Five years of graduation data
were analyzed for the whole school and for the home visited students ending
with the 2018–19 school year. Comparisons show that for students visited at
home by a teacher, the graduation rate exceeded the whole high school cohort
rate for four out of five years. The graduation rate for home visited students
145
over five years in this study was 95.08%, while the whole cohort rate for all five
years was 91.36% (see Figure 2).
Figure 2. Graduation Rate Home Visits vs. Whole High School
Graduation Rate Home Visit vs. Whole High School

100.00 98.30
98.00 96.4 96.7
96.00
93.6 93
94.00
92.00 91
90.00 92.4 90.8
89.9 90.1
88.00
86.00
84.00
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
HV WHS
Several interview participants shared stories of how building relationships

with students through home visits may have contributed to better attendance.
Some students were connected to a club or to a counselor to help with a con-
cern specifically shared during the home visits. Susan recalls one student who
shared apprehension about school during a home visit, and home visiting
teachers “made sure this student was in touch with club leaders right away…
didn’t want bullying to happen, God forbid. I think if this didn’t happen at
home [home visit], it could have taken a while.” Susan believes this visit helped
the student “get connected and to not fall through the cracks.”
Teachers indicated that students who felt supported and more connected
also expressed feeling more comfortable attending school. Diane believes learn-
ing about students encourages success and better outcomes: “When talking
about their experiences, travels, hobbies, you just become a person and more
than a teacher…and that changes how they view me. I’ve definitely seen an
improvement in outcomes like attendance and grades. But usually in behav-
ior. Definitely. Definitely.” Information shared and relationships built during
home visits may have changed the dynamic and perception of school for teach-
ers and students.
This study indicates a link between students who are visited at home by
teachers and the likelihood of graduating from high school on time. Schools
are committed to all students graduating from high school, and students in
this study who were visited at home by teachers through a home visit model
146
were more likely to graduate. Important questions remain about whether stu-
dents who participate in home visits are more likely to graduate because of the
home visit, or whether students who are already more likely to graduate due to
environmental or other mediating factors are also more likely to participate in
home visits. Further study is needed in this area.
Conclusions
In this study, beliefs of high school teachers and staff who conducted home
visits were compared to those who opted out. Attendance and graduation data
for home visited students were also analyzed to answer the question about
whether home visits impact school outcomes for high school students. Teach-
er beliefs captured in the survey include perceptions of home visiting, parent
support, and assumptions about who is responsible for communication. Re-
sults show significant differences in beliefs and practices between teachers who
completed home visits and those who did not. The home visiting group of
teachers reported parents appreciate home visits and that they make a differ-
ence. The group of teachers who did not conduct home visits believe parents
are not as receptive to home visits and that home visits are not worth the time
and investment. Teachers who never conducted a home visit are less likely to
meet with parents, and they are more likely to believe parents are less friendly
and less supportive of teachers when conflicts or challenges arise. This group
is also more likely to believe that communication with parents is challenging,
and that when communication happens, parents are less likely to be caring. In
contrast, teachers who conducted home visits are more likely to report having
a better relationship with parents.
Teachers who opted out of going on home visits cited safety concerns. Inter-
view participants also shared that those who opted out believe home visits are
not worth the time. Studies at the early childhood and elementary levels sup-
port this finding about home visits and safety concerns (Burstein, 2020; Rosa,
2020). Teachers, preservice teachers, and principals have all communicated
some apprehension about going into certain neighborhoods and feeling unsafe
about visiting homes (Peralta-Nash, 2003). However, if teachers feel anxious
or unsafe about visiting homes in the neighborhoods where their students live,
the likelihood of overcoming assumptions and building relationships with par-
ents may be negatively affected (Mcknight et al., 2017).
Home visitors who are trained to understand different family worldviews,
cultures, and language barriers are better equipped to build relationships with
parents (Nievar et al., 2018). It is important to note that the school in this study
hired professional trainers to prepare teachers for home visits. This training is
147
likely vital to the success of the home visits and teachers working more closely
with families. Even with formal training offered to all teachers, significant dif-
ferences remain between teachers who see the value of home visits and those
who do not.
For students visited at home by a teacher in this study, the graduation
rate exceeded the whole high school cohort for four out of five years of avail-
able data. Previous research has demonstrated relationship strength between
parents and their middle or high school child can predict the likelihood of
graduating from high school (Jeynes, 2012; Zaff et al., 2017). This study sug-
gests high school home visits contribute to building relationships between the
parent–teacher–student triad described by Bronfenbrenner that may impact
the likelihood of student success and graduating from high school.
Implications and Recommendations for Future Research
Several implications for practice arise from this study. Teachers often are
not adequately trained to work with parents. Nearly all teachers who were in-
terviewed shared that they had held beliefs about parents and practices that
stifled open, trusting relationships with parents and students. Emily had been
trained as a new teacher to call parents as a best practice, and she often “ques-
tioned why parents wouldn’t return calls.” After new insight gained from home
visits, she commented, “I can’t imagine keeping that assumption anymore af-
ter meeting face-to-face, because being in the environment with parents shows
that they’re working too much, or they’re not sure how to call back, or not
sure if you expect a call back—but interest in their child is definitely there.”
One strategy for supporting teachers with parent engagement is focusing on
teacher preparation. Preservice and in-service training for teachers about as-
sumptions and cultural responsiveness is vital. University teacher preparation
should prioritize parent engagement in its coursework and practice, and pro-
fessional development for practicing teachers should be provided to support
more effective parent engagement.
Teachers at this site shared stories about the importance of learning from
the training and from other teachers who had already completed home visits.
Annual refresher trainings and review of procedures contribute to the success
of home visits as teachers discuss the purpose of home visits, communication
guidelines, and follow-up debriefing notes. Teachers who participate in this
training and review are more confident and equipped to conduct a positive
home visit. For example, teachers are reminded the conversation should focus
on relationships, listening, and asking parents what their hopes and dreams are
for their child. Ensuring successful home visits requires training and review
with a clear purpose and procedures.
148
Future studies should include an analysis of how high school home visits are
associated with academic achievement by comparing achievement for students
who participated in home visits to those who did not. This study shows the
student group visited by teachers at home has a lower chronic absenteeism rate.
Low chronic absenteeism (good attendance) has a positive and strong correla-
tion to achievement in high school courses (Kirksey, 2019). As a result, since
high school home visits are associated with better attendance, and attendance
is positively correlated with higher course grades, then high school home visits
may be a contributing factor to high school academic performance. Addition-
al studies could focus directly on home visits and academic achievement, and
additional design elements could control for other variables including student
demographics.
Limitations of this study include an absence of direct student and parent
voice, and a lack of non-home visitor participation in the semi-structured in-
terviews. Future research on this topic should also include parent and student
interviews. Parents may be able to share stories about what their assumptions
and fears were before home visits and what changed after. Students could provide
insight about how relationships formed through home visits impact relation-
ships with their teachers and parents and the school experience. The parent and
student perspective could provide additional context and new insight.
References
Ashiabi, G. S., & O’Neal, K. K. (2015). Child social development in context: An examination
of some propositions in Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological theory. SAGE Open, 5(2). https://
doi.org/10.1177/2158244015590840
Auerbach, S. (2009). Walking the walk: Portraits in leadership for family engagement in urban
schools. School Community Journal, 19(1), 9–31. https://www.adi.org/journal/ss09/Auer-
bachSpring2009.pdf
Bacon, J. K., & Causton-Theoharis, J. (2013). “It should be teamwork”: A critical investiga-
tion of school practices and parent advocacy in special education. International Journal
of Inclusive Education, 17(7), 682–699. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2012.708060
Balli, D. (2016). Importance of parental involvement to meet the special needs of their chil-
dren with disabilities in regular schools. Academic Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, 5(1),
147.
Barmore, P. (2018, December 23). Home visiting in high school: Trying an intervention for
toddlers on teenagers. The Hechinger Report. https://hechingerreport.org/home-visiting-in-
high-school-trying-an-intervention-for-toddlers-on-teenagers/
Bridgemohan, R., van Wyk, N., & van Staden, C. (2005). Home-school communication in
the early childhood development phase. Education, 126(1), 60–77.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and de-
sign. Harvard University Press.
149
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1986). Ecology of the family as a context for human development: Research
perspectives. Developmental Psychology, 22(6), 723–742. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-
1649.22.6.723
Bronfenbrenner, U., & Ceci, S. J. (1994). Nature–nuture reconceptualized in developmental
perspective: A bioecological model. Psychological Review, 101(4), 568–586. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0033-295X.101.4.568
Burstein, R. (2020, February 19). Home visits are effective. Here’s why they still make some
teachers uneasy. EdSurge. https://www.edsurge.com/news/2020-02-19-home-visits-are-ef-
fective-here-s-why-they-still-make-some-teachers-uneasy
Christianakis, M. (2011). Parents as “help labor”: Inner-city teachers’ narratives of parent
involvement. Teacher Education Quarterly, 38(4), 157–178.
Collier, M., Keefe, E. B., & Hirrel, L. A. (2015). Listening to parents’ narratives: The value
of authentic experiences with children with disabilities and their families. School Com-
munity Journal, 25(2), 221–242. https://www.adi.org/journal/2015fw/CollierKeefeHirrel-
Fall2015.pdf
Conus, X., & Fahrni, L. (2019). Routine communication between teachers and parents from
minority groups: An endless misunderstanding? Educational Review, 71(2), 234–256.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2017.1387098
Creswell, J. W. (2015). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative
and qualitative research (5th ed.). Pearson.
de Winter, J. F. C., & Dodou, D. (2010). Five-point likert items: t test versus Mann-Whit-
ney-Wilcoxon (Addendum added October 2012). Practical Assessment, Research, and Eval-
uation, 15(1). https://scholarworks.umass.edu/pare/vol15/iss1/11
Epstein, J. L., Sanders, M. G., Simon, B. S., Salinas, K. C., Jansorn, N. R., & Van Voorhis, F.
L. (2002). School, family, and community partnerships: Your handbook for action (2nd ed.).
Corwin Press.
Falk, J. (2017, November 29). Rice U. study: Public schools lagging in family and community
engagement. Rice News. http://news.rice.edu/2017/11/29/105830/
Ferrara, M. M. (2017). Understanding family engagement through the focus of the nation-
al standards for family–school partnerships: Secondary preservice teachers’ perspectives.
School Community Journal, 27(2), 145–166. https://www.adi.org/journal/2017fw/Ferrar-
aFall2017.pdf
Fosnacht, K., Sarraf, S., Howe, E., & Peck, L. K. (2016). How important are high response
rates for college surveys? The Review of Higher Education, 40(2), 245–265. https://doi.
org/10.1353/rhe.2017.0003
Goodall, J. (2018). Leading for parental engagement: Working towards partnership. School
Leadership & Management, 38(2), 143–146. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2018.14
59022
Hampden-Thompson, G., & Galindo, C. (2017). School–family relationships, school satisfac-
tion, and the academic achievement of young people. Educational Review, 69(2), 248–265.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2016.1207613
Hayes, N., O’Toole, L., & Halpenny, A. M. (2017). Introducing Bronfenbrenner: A guide for
practitioners and students in early years education. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781
315646206
Henderson, A. T., & Mapp, K. L. (2002). A new wave of evidence: The impact of school,
family, and community connections on student achievement. SEDL.
Hong, S. (2019). Natural allies: Hope and possibility in teacher–family partnerships. Harvard
Education Press. https://trove.nla.gov.au/version/264460902
150
Hoy, W. K., & Adams, C. M. (2015). Quantitative research in education: A primer. Sage.
Jeynes, W. (2012). A meta-analysis of the efficacy of different types of parental involvement
programs for urban students. Urban Education, 47(4), 706–742. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0042085912445643
Keeter, S., Kennedy, C., Dimock, M., Best, J., & Craighill, P. (2006). Gauging the impact
of growing nonresponse on estimates from a national RDD telephone survey. The Public
Opinion Quarterly, 70(5), 759–779.
Kirksey, J. J. (2019). Academic harms of missing high school and the accuracy of current
policy thresholds: Analysis of preregistered administrative data from a California school
district: AERA Open. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858419867692
Kraft, M. A. (2017). Engaging parents through better communication systems. Educational
Leadership, 75(1), 58–62. https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/mkraft/files/kraft_2017_engag-
ing_parents_through_better_communication_systems_el.pdf
Kronholz, J. (2016). Teacher home visits. Education Next, 16(3), 17–21.
Leer, J., & Lopez-Boo, F. (2018). Assessing the quality of home visit parenting programs in
Latin America and the Caribbean. Early Child Development and Care, 0(0), 1–14. https://
doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2018.1443922
Lin, M., & Bates, A. B. (2010). Home visits: How do they affect teachers’ beliefs about
teaching and diversity? Early Childhood Education Journal, 38(3), 179–185. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10643-010-0393-1
Llopart, M., Serra, J. M., & Esteban-Guitart, M. (2018). Teachers’ perceptions of the benefits,
limitations, and areas for improvement of the funds of knowledge approach: A qualitative
study. Teachers and Teaching, 24(5), 571–583. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2018.1
452729
Loughlin-Presnal, J. E., & Bierman, K. L. (2017). Promoting parent academic expectations
predicts improved school outcomes for low-income children entering kindergarten. Jour-
nal of School Psychology, 62, 67–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2017.03.007
Mapp, K. L. (2003). Having their say: Parents describe why and how they are engaged in their
children’s learning. School Community Journal, 13(1), 35–64. https://www.adi.org/journal/
ss03/Mapp%2035-64.pdf
Mapp, K. (2012). Title I and parental involvement. http://www.aei.org/publication/title-i-and-
parental-involvement/
Marsh, J. A., Strunk, K. O., Bush-Mecenas, S. C., & Huguet, A. (2015). Democratic engage-
ment in district reform: The evolving role of parents in the Los Angeles Public School choice
initiative. Educational Policy, 29(1), 51–84. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904814563204
Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2016). Designing qualitative research (6th ed.). Sage.
Mcknight, K., Venkateswaran, N., Laird, J., Robles, J., & Shalev, T. (2017). Mindset
shifts and Parent Teacher Home Visits. RTI International. https://doi.org/10.13140/
RG.2.2.27018.36801
Meyer, J., Mann, M., & Becker, J. (2011). A five-year follow-up: Teachers’ perceptions of the
benefits of home visits for early elementary children. Early Childhood Education Journal,
39(3), 191–196. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-011-0461-1
Miretzky, D. (2004). The communication requirements of democratic schools: Parent teacher
perspectives on their relationships. Teachers College Record, 106(4), 814–851.
Nievar, A., Brown, A. L., Nathans, L., Chen, Q., & Martinez-Cantu, V. (2018). Home visiting
among inner-city families: Links to early academic achievement. Early Education and De-
velopment, 29(8), 1115–1128. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2018.1506229
151
Nudd, H. W. (1921). The visiting teacher in the United States. Public Education Association of
the city of New York.
Peralta-Nash, C. (2003). The Impact of home visit in students’ perception of teaching. Teacher
Education Quarterly, 30(4), 111–125.
Pushor, D., & Amendt, T. (2018). Leading an examination of beliefs and assumptions about
parents. School Leadership & Management, 38(2), 202–221. https://doi.org/10.1080/136
32434.2018.1439466
Rosa, S. D. L. (2020, February 24). Home visits effective, but safety concerns remain. Ed-
ucation Dive. https://www.educationdive.com/news/home-visits-effective-but-safety-con-
cerns-remain/572796/
Saïas, T., Lerner, E., Greacen, T., Emer, A., Guédeney, A., & Dugravier, R., Tubach, F.,
Tereno, S., & Guédeney, N. (2016). Parent–provider relationship in home visiting in-
terventions. Children and Youth Services Review, 69, 106–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
childyouth.2016.08.004
Schneider, C., & Arnot, M. (2018). Transactional school–home–school communication: Ad-
dressing the mismatches between migrant parents’ and teachers’ views of parental knowl-
edge, engagement, and the barriers to engagement. Teaching and Teacher Education, 75,
10–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2018.05.005
Sheldon, S. B., & Jung, S. B. (2018, November). Student outcomes and parent teacher home
visits. Johns Hopkins University, Center on School, Family, and Community Partnerships.
http://www.pthvp.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/18-11-30-Student-Outcomes-and-
PTHV-Report-FINAL.pdf
Smith, T. E., & Sheridan, S. M. (2019). The effects of teacher training on teachers’ family
engagement practices, attitudes, and knowledge: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational
and Psychological Consultation, 29(2), 128–157. https://doi.org/10.1080/10474412.2018
.1460725
Smith, S. C., Smith-Bonahue, T. M., & Soutullo, O. R. (2014). “My assumptions were
wrong”: Exploring teachers’ constructions of self and biases towards diverse families. Jour-
nal of Family Diversity in Education, 1(2), 24–46.
Soutullo, O. R. (2016). Discouraging partnerships? Teachers’ perspectives on immigration-re-
lated barriers to family–school collaboration. School Psychology Quarterly. https://doi.
org/10.1037/spq0000148
Sullivan, G. M., & Artino, A. R. (2013). Analyzing and interpreting data from Likert-type
scales. Journal of Graduate Medical Education, 5(4), 541–542. https://doi.org/10.4300/
JGME-5-4-18
Stefanski, A., Valli, L., & Jacobson, R. (2016). Beyond involvement and engagement: The
role of the family in school–community partnerships. School Community Journal, 26(2),
135–160. https://www.adi.org/journal/2016fw/StefanskiValliJacobsonFall2016.pdf
Tudge, J. R. H., Mokrova I., Hatfield, B. E., & Karnik, R. B. (2009). Uses and misuses of
Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological theory of human development. Journal of Family Theory &
Review, 1(4), 198–210. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-2589.2009.00026.x
Tudge, J. R. H., Payir, A., Merçon‐Vargas, E., Cao, H., Liang, Y., Li, J., & O’Brien, L. (2016).
Still misused after all these years? A reevaluation of the uses of Bronfenbrenner’s bioeco-
logical theory of human development. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 8(4), 427–445.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12165
Vélez-Agosto, N. M., Soto-Crespo, J. G., Vizcarrondo-Oppenheimer, M., Vega-Molina, S.,
& García Coll, C. (2017). Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological theory revision: Moving cul-
ture from the macro into the micro. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(5), 900–910.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617704397
152
Vesely, C. K., Brown, E. L., & Mehta, S. (2017). Developing cultural humility through ex-
periential learning: How home visits transform early childhood preservice educators’ atti-
tudes for engaging families. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 38(3), 242–258.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10901027.2017.1345805
Wåhlberg, A. E., & Poom, L. (2015). An empirical test of nonresponse bias in internet surveys.
Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 37(6), 336–347. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.
2015.1111212
Whyte, K. L., & Karabon, A. (2016). Transforming teacher–family relationships: Shifting
roles and perceptions of home visits through the funds of knowledge approach. Early Years,
36(2), 207–221. https://doi.org/10.1080/09575146.2016.1139546
Wright, K. B., Shields, S. M., Black, K., & Waxman, H. C. (2018). The effects of teach-
er home visits on student behavior, student academic achievement, and parent involve-
ment. School Community Journal, 28(1), 67–90. https://www.adi.org/journal/2018ss/
WrightEtAlSpring2018.pdf
Zaff, J. F., Donlan, A., Gunning, A., Anderson, S. E., Mcdermott, E., & Sedaca, M. (2017).
Factors that promote high school graduation: A review of the literature. Educational Psy-
chology Review, 29(3), 447–476.
Nathan Soule is the principal of Northeastern High School in Elizabeth City, NC

and an adjunct professor in the Department of Teacher Education at Mid-Atlantic
Christian University. He has worked as a classroom teacher and as a school administra-
tor. His research interests include parent engagement, social and emotional learning,
and preservice teacher education. Correspondence concerning this article may be ad-
dressed to Dr. Nathan Soule, 715 N Poindexter St., Elizabeth City, NC 27909, or
email nathan.soule@macuniversity.edu
Heidi Curtis is the chair of Graduate Education in the College of Education
at Northwest Nazarene University. For the past seven years, she has engaged with
doctoral students in research as an associate professor teaching mainly research and
leadership. Her research interests are varied but have focused recently on personalized
learning and innovation in K–12 public schools. Prior to working at the university,
Dr. Curtis was a secondary teacher and principal.
153
154
School Community Involvement to Address
Student Decision-Making Regarding Personal
Health
Sylvie Barma, Rollande Deslandes, E. Alexander Cooper, and
Samantha Voyer
Abstract
This article discusses how the key players’ multilayered collaboration may
be enacted by the Change Laboratory methodology in the footsteps of Virk-
kunen and Newnham (2013) to address a complex issue for the benefit of
adolescents. It can be defined as a group processing approach used by a group
to solve a problem of its own defining. Over six months, members of a school
community played an important role in participating in the modelling of
classroom lessons with adolescents facing the new guidelines of the Canadi-
an Cannabis Act in 2018. Drawing on the theory of expansive learning and
the cultural–historical activity theory (CHAT), we used the Change Labora-
tory approach to dialogue on the problems and solutions to be implemented.
The results examine specifically how some of the school community mem-
bers contributed to the co-modelling of these lessons, taking into account the
adolescents’ needs in two schools. The collaboration between the members
evolved over time. The vertical power hierarchy usually present in schools was
modified as parents, grandparents, a medical doctor, a special education teach-
er, two teachers, and five students agreed to sit together to address the health
issue. The qualitative analysis brings to light how the participants shared their
needs and engaged in taking transformative actions to intervene directly in
two high school classrooms.

Key words: activity theory, cannabis legalization, complex issues, change lab-
oratory, expansive learning, school community involvement, student health
Introduction
The article discusses how some members of a school community can play an
important role in participating in the co-modelling of classroom lessons that
are aimed at adolescents facing a complex issue regarding their health. Accord-
ing to some authors (Deslandes & Bertrand, 2001; Redding, 2011), members
of a school community may be characterized as an educational community
when a group of partners are committed to the success and development of
students’ full potential, sharing a common vision and values, and demonstrat-
ing caring, warmth, and support in their interpersonal relationships with other
members of the same community. In other words, a school community may
be composed of different stakeholders or players such as students, members
of a school team, and members of the broader community, including parents,
grandparents, and health professionals concerned with the well-being of these
students (Barma et al., 2017). All these actors are potential participants for
engaging in a social collaboration and formative intervention like a Change
Laboratory. As Barma et al. (2017) document, “several types of approaches
and intervention methods are open to the researcher studying empirically the
challenge of school transformation and inter-institutional collaboration” (p.
674). In their book The Change Laboratory, Virkkunen and Newnham (2013),
who present the founding principles of the methodology, describe the essence
of the Change Laboratory in this way: “The Change Laboratory is a formative
intervention method for developing work activities by the practitioners in col-
laboration with researcher interventionists. It is also a toolkit for envisioning,
designing, and experimenting with new forms of work and a social setting
in which this can be done” (p. 15). Our choice of methods had to take into
account a diversity of participating groups and the complexity of imagining
new pedagogical scenarios to foster student engagement in the decision-mak-
ing process regarding their own health. When setting up a Change Laboratory,
a research team and the participants work together to address the problems en-
countered and to create new tools (ideas or artifacts) that will make it possible
to overcome and solve the initial problems.
Problem Statement
The complex issue discussed in this article is the legalization of cannabis for
adults that took place in October 2018 in Canada and the challenges it has
been presenting to school boards and teachers. A complex social issue involves
156
SCHOOL COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT
competing values and interests, it is politically sensitive, it arouses strong emo-

tions, and the issues involved are multifaceted and hot topics. In the same line
of thought, dealing with complex topics can be difficult especially when ad-
dressing health education issues, as they are distinguished from mainstream
disciplines by the absence of an academic referent and a clearly defined cur-
riculum (Pizon & Jourdan, 2009). Researchers and school officials in several
countries have become aware of the importance of including the study of so-
cio-scientific issues in school curricula, stressing the importance of considering
environmental and health uncertainties and crises (Barma, 2011; Méheut,
2006).
A UNICEF report released in 2013 places Canadian youth at the top of
the list of 29 developed countries for illegal cannabis use, with 28% of 11 to
15 years old having used it in the preceding year. In 2018, the Canadian Gov-
ernment legalized recreational cannabis usage for people aged 18 and over.
Recently, the Quebec Government increased the legal age to 21. The Cannabis
Act created a strict legal framework for controlling the production, distribu-
tion, sale, and possession of cannabis across Canada. As for the situation in
the province of Quebec, the Institute of Statistics reported that one-quarter of
high school students had used cannabis in the preceding 12 months, making
it the most popular drug (Gouvernement du Québec, 2016). This consump-
tion is worrisome because it can open the door to harmful habits such as drug
addiction and criminal drug use, which can in turn lead to problems in per-
sonal and family relationships as well as difficulties at school such as worsened
academic exam results, class participation, time allocated to study, attitude to-
wards school and graduation (Patte et al., 2017), and even increased dropping
out (Gouvernement du Québec, 2012). In addition, chronic cannabis use can
lead to cognitive impairment damage to developing brain regions, depression,
and suicidal ideation in adolescents (Durkin, 2014; Golub et al., 2010). Equal-
ly alarming is Uruguay’s experience with the legalization of cannabis which
has shown an increase in adolescent cannabis use (Marsiglia et al., 2017). One
explanation for this could be the misinterpretation of the new laws (Meyer &
Rosen, 2014) and the fact that legalization may fuel the perception that can-
nabis is socially acceptable, even for young people (Hall & Lynskey, 2016).
Educating youth about the intent of the law seems crucial to prevent wide-
spread use by minors (Marsiglia et al., 2017). Prevention is also imperative to
reduce adolescents’ perceptions of the social acceptability of substance use and
to highlight the risks and consequences (Estoup et al., 2016). Therefore, the
problem we are addressing is about how schools can support students in mak-
ing healthy choices.
157
The Role of School: Possibilities and Limits

As recognized by the World Health Organization (1986), school can play
a key role in developing skills that enable young people to make choices that
promote health. For instance, an intervention by trained teachers and teaching
life skills, risk assessment, and decision-making was implemented in two tu-
ition-free schools in Montevideo, Uruguay. Findings were reported regarding
declines in alcohol frequency and cannabis frequency (Marsiglia et al., 2017).
However, most teachers struggle with the fact that they have to integrate aspects
such as drug or alcohol usage into their teaching while they move away from
a disciplinary teaching area to an integrated one as proposed in the Quebec
education program in Canada (Barma, 2008; Quebec Ministry of Education,
Leisure, and Sport, 2006). Indeed, according to the prescriptions of the Que-
bec education program (PFÉQ), all disciplines and all school players must
take charge of health education. To actually put into place these practices in a
classroom represents a challenge to the majority of teachers as their university
teacher preparation did not prepare them for such an activity. Their training
is traditionally focused on disciplinary content and centered on the evaluative
process (Barma et al., 2010; Urgelli, 2008). In the same line of thought, Lange
and Victor (2006) report that high school teachers frequently express a feeling
of incompetence regarding health education, as, according to them, it seems
to belong more to the medical or social field. It seems that teachers fear that
health education will add to already heavy teaching duties and, because the
subject is complex and sensitive, that they are not sufficiently equipped to do
so (Manidi & Dafflon-Arvanitou, 2000). Different factors—such as the fact
that students are at an important stage of their personal development, the pos-
sibility of implementing a range of pedagogical approaches, the presence of a
competent team, the possibility of reinforcing what is learned in class through
a supportive school environment (Green et al., 1996), and its strategic position
at the interface of society and families—make the school a very appropriate
place to proactively intervene with young people (Guiet-Silvain et al., 2011).
In spite of all the efforts made, traditional teaching approaches aiming to re-
duce risk behaviors focus on the dissemination of information. Such programs
put forward through ad hoc thematic activities do not demonstrate the de-
sired results (Quebec Ministry of Education, Leisure, and Sport, 2006). These
approaches, called informative (Manderscheid, 1994), biomedical (Piperini,
2016), traditional (Grenier et al., 2010), or rational (Jourdan, 2004), empha-
size the transmission of knowledge that is considered neutral. It aims to guide
students’ health behaviors by appealing to reason and common sense.
According to this vision, it is not enough to apply the guidelines to be
healthy (Jourdan, 2004). Moreover, informed people do not necessarily change
158
their health behavior (Bury, 1988). The educator seeks to teach appropriate be-
haviors in an environment that is implicitly considered homogeneous, whereas
it is composed of individuals with a wide variety of experiences and perceptions
depending on the environment in which they live (Piperini, 2016) and other
factors. We know that coercitive measures have too often had the opposite of
desired effects (Craplet, 2006; Paglia & Room, 1999). Addressing this issue
with adolescents appears to be important because there may be an inverse rela-
tionship between cannabis use and risk perception in this age group (Volkow
et al., 2014). Approaches that attempt to limit access to illicit substances are at
odds with those that promote the development of adolescents’ ability to make
informed choices (Laventure et al., 2010).
The Role of Families
A promising way to introduce pedagogical innovations in schools is to reach
out to families, because it is by now well-known that families have a major in-
fluence on the academic success (Deslandes, 1996, 2020a; Deslandes et al.,
1997; Epstein and Associates, 2019; Simon, 2019) and resilience of young
people (Deslandes & Bertrand, 2001) as well as on their lifestyle (Czaplick
et al., 2013). Adolescents who describe their parents as warm and encour-
aging them to develop their independence while interacting with them on a
daily basis tend to have better academic results and a greater sense of respon-
sibility (Deslandes, 2005, 2019; Deslandes & Barma, 2016; Jeynes, 2005).
In the same line, grandparents, as members of the extended family and of the
community, are key players in support of parenthood. They can offer stable
benchmarks to children in the context of family difficulties. Most grandparents
want to share their experiences, their knowledge, their values such as tolerance
and respect, and to enhance the dialogue between the generations (Coutrim &
Silva, 2019; Parent, 2013). While promoting adolescents’ self-determination
and critical thinking is important (Steinberg, 2014), the involvement of par-
ents, grandparents, and other members of the community in helping youth to
make choices regarding their health is crucial. Through support and dialogue,
these key players are also likely to support teachers in their work with adoles-
cents in the context of cannabis legal changes (Barma et al., 2019). Studies also
show that the school community, through its values, norms, and resources such
as physicians and psychosocial workers can promote youth development and
contribute to the school’s mission (Barma, 2008, 2011; Deslandes, 2020b).
The purpose of this study is to document and analyze an intervention by
a research team with members of a school community (assistant principal,
science teachers, special education teacher, parents, grandparents, a medical
doctor, and the adolescent students themselves). The goal of this intervention
159
was to engage students and their peers in making sound decisions concerning
matters pertaining to their health. The following research question is addressed:
How can members of a school community collaborate to better support adoles-
cents’ decision making regarding their health in the context of the legalization
of cannabis?
In this article, we describe eight Change Laboratory sessions that we
conducted. The outcome of these Change Laboratory sessions led to the im-
plementation of five participatory classroom lessons in two school settings. The
intervention lasted six months. We examine more specifically how the school
community contributed to the co-construction of these lessons, taking into
account the adolescents’ needs in each setting. We also examine how the col-
laboration between the members evolved over time.
Theoretical Approach
In the study, we rely on the theory of expansive learning grounded in cul-

tural–historical activity theory (CHAT). In the 1970s, Western researchers
brought sociocultural theories like CHAT to the forefront, and these have
gained interest ever since (Bracewell & Witte, 2003). Engeström (1999), who
developed third-generation CHAT which is described further below, proposed
a systemic model in the form of triangular representation integrating the in-
dividual and the collective dimensions of a goal-oriented activity leading to
the production of a new form of activity. The triangular representation of in-
dividual / social mediation has six interconnected elements or poles: subjects,
objects, tools, community, rules, and division of labor (Engeström, 2015). This
representation is considered the minimal unit of analysis required to unders-
tand how an individual participates in a collective endeavor. The originality of
CHAT lies in approaching problems in a different way from behavioral theory,
given the central role played by instrumental and cultural mediation guiding
the pursuit of an activity (Vygotsky, 1987). Using CHAT analytical tools helps
to highlight the poles or the elements where changes need to be addressed
(Engeström & Sannino, 2011). The actions of the members participating in
an activity are diverse, distributed, and are part of the pursuit of a collectively
shared activity.
Figure 1 illustrates how a subject (researcher) can engage in an agentive way
in an activity system aiming at supporting a school team in the context of the
Cannabis Act. Tools like the Change Laboratory sessions can mediate a collab-
orative activity by gathering together some members of a school community to
work together at designing innovative pedagogical strategies for the adolescents
to discuss a health issue.
160
Figure 1. A Researcher–Interventionist Engaging in a Change Laboratory
Note. Based on Learning by Expanding: An Activity–Theoretical Approach to Developmental Re-

search, by Y. Engeström, 1987 (http://lchc.ucsd.edu/MCA/Paper/Engestrom/expanding/toc.
htm).
Third generation CHAT refers to expansive learning that takes us beyond

the limits of a single activity system and expands the unit of analysis to mul-
tiple activity systems interacting and potentially sharing a common object
(Engeström, 2001). As for Miettinen (2006), he refers to expansive learning
as “a process of shared construction of an object, a mobilization of mutual
resources, as well as a process of mutual learning” (p. 176). In other words,
CHAT provides a valuable lens to assist subjects engaged in a task toward an
objective and who are influenced by the rules and norms (guidelines, policies)
of communities they are in and ways of how division of labor should occur. In
any system of human activity, the subject who acts within a community is or-
ganized by rules and division of labor and uses artifacts or tools to accomplish,
with others, the object of the collective activity.
The actors in activity systems are subjected to contradictory forces. These
forces can induce a significant transformation in the object of a collective
activity. In the context of this study, the theory provides the basis of possi-
ble expansive creativity as the school community (the assistant principal, the
teachers, the parents/grandparents, and other professionals from the com-
munity like a medical doctor) interact and collaborate, undergoing collective
transformations as they discuss the problems and solutions to be implemented
(Engeström, 2001, 2015).
161
In order for a transformation to become collective and follow an expan-

sive cycle (Engeström, 2015), a typical sequence of enacted or learning actions
comprises seven phases and provides a framework for analyzing organizational
practices: (1) question the situation and identify a need; (2) analyze the way we
intervene, and consider how a new activity will have an impact on the environ-
ment; (3) model new tools to solve your problem; (4) model the new activity;
(5) implement it; (6) adopt a reflexive attitude; and (7) consolidate the prac-
tice by carrying out reflexive feedback on everything. Through these different
phases of the cycle, participants confront and share their expertise to develop
a common vision, the potentially shared object being the production of class-
room lessons.
The Change Laboratory Approach
The Change Laboratory rooted in expansive learning was used as a means

to foster expansive learning actions to construct a new form of activity (Enge-
ström, 2001; Virkkunen & Newnham, 2013). “Change Laboratory” refers to
a mode of collective problem-solving in an intervention facilitated by at least
one researcher interventionist, bringing together a small group of participants.
The participants examine origins and systemic causes of a problem by rais-
ing questions about the problem, reformulating the problem, and envisioning
new forms of activity aimed at solving the problem (Virkkunen & Newnham,
2013). Even though the typical change methodology comprises 5–12 sessions,
in many instances, it becomes necessary to adapt it to the local and cultural
settings while still respecting its principles (Barma et al., 2017). The objec-
tive of our Change Laboratory activity was to improve collaboration between
members of a school community to better understand and to better address
the needs of two different school teams in approaching the new socio-political
environment of cannabis legalization.
A Change Laboratory is based on the principle of double stimulation (Bar-
ma et al., 2015; Vygotsky, 1987). The problematic situation constitutes what
is called “the first stimulus” and is a necessary element to trigger transforma-
tive agency (Engeström & Sannino, 2013). The starting point of any Change
Laboratory happens mostly during the first sessions (1–3) when the researcher
interventionist identifies what the problem situation is. This is the “first stim-
ulus” expressed in the participants’ discussion. It will often take the form of
expressions of impossibility, and it will bring to light the opposition of vari-
ous divergent needs, motives, and pressures (Virkkunen & Newnham, 2013).
At the heart of any activity system lies an inner basic contradiction that has
to be revealed in order to understand the complexity of the object pursued by
162
the participants. In our case, despite the fact that the government seeks policy
that promotes adolescent wellness and provides for safe use with the Canna-
bis Act, a possible basic contradiction is identified: on the one hand, we find
a taboo when it comes to addressing the complex issue in the classroom with
adolescents, and on the other hand, we find the possibility of a multilayered
collaboration within the school community that can address the issue (Barma
et al., 2020). It is important to document contradictions that generate dis-
turbances but also efforts at changing the activity. According to Engeström
(2015),
the essence of [an expansive] learning activity is production of objective-
ly, societally new activity structures (including new objects, instruments,
etc.) out of actions manifesting the inner contradictions of the preceding
form of the activity in question. [Expansive] learning activity is mastery
of expansion from actions to a new activity. (p. 174)
However, contradictions are often not directly accessible. They are manifest-
ed through the discourse of the participants in the form of tensions that have
accumulated over time (Engeström & Sannino, 2011). Four types of tensions
based on linguistic criteria are possible, namely dilemmas, conflicts, critical
conflicts, and double binds. Dilemma directs us to incompatible expressions or
exchanges of evaluations, and it is usually expressed through hesitations, such
as “yes, but” or “on the one hand” and “on the other hand.” Conflict is synon-
ymous with argument, criticism, and disagreement. Discursive expressions are
“no,” “I disagree.” Conflict calls for compromise, intervention, and so on. Crit-
ical conflict refers to conflicting motives that paralyze social interaction, such
as having the feeling of being guilty. To be solved, it requires negotiating a new
meaning for the initial situation. Double binds mean that individuals have to
face alternatives as nonwinners in either case. The impossibility is expressed as:
“What can we do?”
Once these tensions are brought to the surface, it is the role of the research-
er interventionist to bring them to the attention of the participants. Exchanges
and collaboration between the participants ideally make them share a com-
mon understanding of the nature and the causes of the problem. They become
better equipped to build the second stimulus by sharing new ideas, finding
solutions, moving on to envision, and committing to actions and taking ac-
tions (Haapasaari et al., 2016).
In the context of our research, the objective of the Change Laboratory
sessions that we established targeted the development and monitoring of class-
room lessons aiming at increasing adolescents’ capacity to make enlightened
choices in the context of the legalization of cannabis. According to CHAT, the
163
introduction of new elements, such as the 2018 law on Cannabis in Canada, is

followed by a questioning of the rules and the division of labor of a communi-
ty that regulates the activity. The originality of the process was the inclusion of
active participation of some members of the school community (assistant prin-
cipal, parents, grandparents, medical doctor, teachers, and students) working
together and listening to the adolescents’ voices and needs, all while consider-
ing their own needs and preoccupations as participants. The expected outcome
was thus classroom lessons that would lead to better informed decision-making
by adolescents.
In this article, we focus closely on the intervention itself and the ways the
Change Laboratory method made it possible for a variety of participants to
produce new classroom activities respecting the needs of the adolescents as
well of the needs of the adults. The vertical power hierarchy usually present in
schools was modified as parents, grandparents, a medical doctor, a special edu-
cation teacher, two other teachers, and five students agreed to meet together to
address the issue of cannabis legalization in two schools.
After receiving approval of the Laval University research ethics committee,
the project was first presented in the two high schools that agreed to partic-
ipate. In terms of a preventive perspective, the Secondary 2 level was chosen
because teachers and school professionals often find a gap in the students’ ma-
turity between Secondary 2 level (freshman year in the U.S.) and higher level
students (sophomore and junior years in the U.S.), ages 13–14 compared to
15–16. School 1 is an urban private secondary school in the Quebec region
with 723 students, while School 2 is a suburban public school attended by 945
secondary students. In each setting, a planning session was held in order to
present the research project and negotiate the timing to implement the Change
Laboratory intervention.
Research Methods
Data Collection and Analysis
Two preparatory meetings followed by eight Change Laboratory sessions
were conducted between January 2018 and June 2018 (see Figure 2). The com-
position of the groups of participants varied according to the schools. The
School 1 Change Laboratory group comprised one ethics and religious cul-
ture teacher, one special education technician, two Secondary 2 students, one
medical doctor, one mother, and one grandfather (from different families),
while the School 2 Change Laboratory group was composed of one science
and technology teacher, three students, and the medical doctor. Both groups
had in common two researcher interventionists, four research assistants, and
164
the medical doctor as a collaborator in the research project. As for the research
assistants, their knowledge of the method was an asset when it came time to
transcribe and analyze data across the sessions. They were helpful in building
the mirror data and preparing the technical aspects required to conduct the
Change Laboratory sessions. An invitation to participate in the research activi-
ty addressed to all parents of the Secondary 2 level students in both schools, as
well as other members of the extended family, was sent by the two school prin-
cipals. In School 1, one parent and one grandparent committed to the Change
Laboratory sessions, but only 17 out of 34 parents gave consent for their ado-
lescents to participate in the research project lessons. As a consequence, half of
the group participated in the research project; the other half were given study
periods. In School 2, all parents consented to their adolescents’ participation,
but none of them volunteered as participants in the Change Laboratory. The
five students considered leaders who would participate in all the Change Lab-
oratory sessions were chosen by their peers and teachers in each school. All of
the participants therefore chose to participate on a voluntary basis. They all
signed the ethics form adopted by the ethics committee. The form was de-
signed to ensure a climate conducive to the exchange of ideas while respecting
the opinions of others in a constructive spirit of collegiality.
Figure 2. Overlook of The Change Laboratory in the Two School Settings
165
In each school, the first two sessions sought to introduce the Change La-
boratory approach to the participants and to present evidence-based mirror
data in order to foster individual and collective reflections about cannabis
use. The research team gathered the reactions of the students, as described by
their parents, in a questionnaire previously administered (Voyer, 2021). Then,
exchanges between students and the other participants focused on the new
cannabis law. This was followed by brainstorming in subgroups regarding ideas
for classroom lessons to be conducted (defining the need state for classroom
lessons). The third Change Laboratory sessions could be referred to as the key-
stone of the co-modelling of the classroom lessons. These lessons included a
legal info-message, a power point on medical information, and a Kahoot quiz
(very much like a Jeopardy TV show), all on the subject of cannabis legal-
ization, plus kiosks in preparation of a trial simulation. The fourth Change
Laboratory sessions occurred after both schools experienced the classroom les-
sons. The participants reflected on the classroom activities with respect to what
was learned, which experiences were preferred as well as why, and what could
be improved or added in order to better support the school team in helping
adolescents in decision-making regarding cannabis.
The eight Change Laboratory sessions were videotaped, and each one lasted
for about 90 minutes. The verbatims were then transcribed giving a total of
105 pages for School 1 and 117 pages for School 2. Notes were also collected
in the researchers’ journals. Ethnographic field notes were also collected in the
researchers’ journals to triangulate the qualitative analysis of each session. The
data were first coded in terms of dialectical units or segments of meaning ac-
cording to the forms of tensions (dilemmas, double binds, critical conflicts,
conflict) as discussed previously (Engeström & Sannino, 2011), and then, ac-
cording to the poles of the activity system to which the discursive expressions
were directed. Based on Haapasaari et al. (2016), the expressions of transforma-
tive agency were also identified: resisting, criticizing, explicating, envisioning,
committing to action, and taking action. Both types of analysis help describe
the development of the object of the activity put in place by the school team in
collaboration with school community members as they address the need state
and model and implement classroom lessons with the adolescents participating
in the Change Laboratory. The excerpts reported in this article were translated
from French to English by the two researchers who are both fully bilingual.
Research Findings
This section presents the results of the analysis in line with the unfolding
of the Change Laboratory aiming at addressing the research question: How
166
can members of a school community collaborate to better support adolescents’

decision making regarding their health in the context of the cannabis legaliza-
tion? Firstly, our findings present why some members of the school community
were saddled with another social problem such as the Cannabis Act. They illus-
trate the expanded roles that the mother, the grandfather, the medical doctor,
and some educators played as they started a new form of collaboration with the
adolescent students. Secondly, the findings show the concrete co-modelling of
the classroom lessons that were experienced by two eighth grade classes and the
reflective exchanges that took place the week after.
Meaning Given to the Expanded Roles of Some School Commu-
nity Members
In January 2019, a planning session was held in School 1, gathering the as-
sistant principal, a special education teacher, and four members of the research
team. During the planning session that would define more precisely conditions
related to the beginning of the Change Laboratory, the assistant principal—who
was present only at this activity—clearly expressed a tension in the form of a
conflict regarding the results of a questionnaire that 253 parents had previously
completed in order to express their concern about the Cannabis Law: “Educa-
tion has become little more than a mercantile affair nowadays. Once again, it’s
the school that has to take responsibility.” It became clear that the parents ex-
pected the school to take over the discussion about the new cannabis law. Soon
thereafter, the assistant principal expressed another tension in the form of a di-
lemma as he felt compelled to take action: “It seems that parents have taken for
granted that society will take care of it.” For the research team, what the assistant
principal expressed was key in justifying the importance of aiming to develop
a sense of autonomy and decision-making skills amongst the 13–14-year-old
adolescents. As he was questioning the relevance of a possible intervention, the
assistant principal seemed frustrated that the population in general did not ad-
dress the health issue in the context of the forthcoming legalization:
I think it’s a societal problem; every time there is a problem in society
today, people will say: let’s ask the government, let’s ask the government,
and this, regardless of their level of education. The thing is that WE are
the government.…The decision is ours, but it seems as though people
have taken for granted that government will take care of everything.
He continued by expressing, in the form of a double bind, that “parents
think that when they buy a product, everything is ok! I buy something that
is legal, there is no problem! Yes, but do you know exactly when your child
smokes? The parents don’t think about that.” Right from the beginning of the
167
intervention, participants engaged in the Change Laboratory sessions mani-

fested a high degree of emotivity. It was clear the special education teacher, the
mother, as well as the grandfather were aware of the fact that some adolescents
had declared that their parents were cannabis consumers. The teacher expressed
real, conflicting concerns over the family conditions of some of her students:
“These young people have parents [smoking]; we won’t hide it. I don’t know
how many parents smoke, but there are a lot of parents in line to buy some le-
gal cannabis nowadays.” The school team was facing a real dilemma as to how
cannabis legalization would impact the way this complex issue had to be ad-
dressed by the school.
In line with the assistant principal’s comments with respect to the school
responsibility of informing and educating the students, the mother, imitating
her youngster’s discourse, brought up another pertinent element to the discus-
sion. The mother expressed genuine concern about protecting her adolescent
from an influential “best” friend when she stated: “After three, four times that
you say no to your adolescents, they go to the party, and finally everyone has
it [cannabis].”
Other excerpts exemplify a dilemma regarding a teacher’s doubt with re-
spect to her knowledge about cannabis. During the first session, the conflicted
mother’s comments led to the teacher addressing her own credibility in that
matter: “Is it true that everyone has already tried cannabis, or is it false? Are
there adults who can tell you about it…but I haven’t tried it. Are we losing our
credibility if we haven’t tried it?” The mother replied: “Is there any discomfort
in admitting it or not saying it?” The teacher went on, saying: “We know that
we have some students whose goal is precisely to try to trap us. Of course, we
will be asked the following question: ‘But you, madam, have you tried it?’”
It seemed that the members were hesitant to have an open discussion re-
garding the health issue, and they did not know how to present it to their
adolescents. Their comments referred to the rules and division of labor poles in
the triangular representation at each pole illustrated (see Figure 3), since they
seemed to express doubts about their expected roles in the intervention. On his
part, in line with the mother’s statement, the grandfather expressed a conflict
about the rapidity of the implementation of the Cannabis Act:
What I find is that it was legalized very quickly. Not, that I’m against
legalization, because sooner or later it had to get there. We remember
alcohol prohibition at the time, we had to go back to legalizing alcohol
because it created more problems than anything else. Now, I found that
it was too quick and that there was not enough information to prepare
for the legalization of cannabis.
168
The special education teacher expressed doubts as to whether students re-

membered previous information provided to them in the form of a dilemma:
At the Secondary 1 level, they are offered lectures, and they see different
types of drugs, nicotine and all that. We showed the impacts, we showed
them cases and how to intervene with someone who was insistent, and
how to react. It worked really well. But, do they remember?
All the participants agreed on the inefficacy of “bare facts” presentations
to adolescents. For that reason, they decided to work together with the stu-
dents participating in the Change Laboratory to co-model a new form of more
engaging classroom lessons likely to foster adolescents’ agency and interest re-
garding their health. The results document Phase 1 and 2 of the expansive
learning cycle: questioning and analyzing.
Figure 3. Activity System (inner contradictions at each pole)
Indeed, some students seem to forget the information as time goes on. In
search of more efficacious actions, a teacher, after summarizing the lessons that
have been done the previous year at school, suggests that facts presentation is
not enough and that content must reach the students in their emotions. As the
discussion progressed during the session, the medical doctor expressed some
tensions in the form of a double bind in the following terms:
I’m trying to get inside the brain of a 15-year-old or a 14-year-old.
Yes, it’s fascinating to hear their stories, but they’re often dramatic and
169
negative stories. So, you also have to be aware of what makes someone
try [the doctor then referring to the parents’ own experience with drugs].
I think the situation in our social environment is that it is often your
own friends who will say, ‘well, I remember in our younger days;’ it’s
people we knew that have tried it.
One of the repeated dilemmas (characterized by hesitations) in both schools
reflected tensions regarding the rules pole in CHAT. It had to do mainly with
tensions expressed in the form of a double bind about lack of time in the teach-
ers’ schedule, as demonstrated in the following excerpt with regards to the
classroom lessons to be implemented in their respective schools:
My students, they are working on a project, but we already lack some
time. I would have had some space, but we had a conference on fake
news. I have extra courses for the other groups but not with this one.
(Teacher)
In brief, reflecting back on the analysis of the tensions in the form of dis-
cursive manifestations of contradictions highlights the need state to address in
both settings: a lack of information, a low retention of the information, the
effects of cannabis on health, the need to present real case studies, and the com-
petence to look for scientifically based information on the web by students.
The need state corresponds to why some members of the school community
decided to expand their usual roles as parents or educators in a new form of
collaboration with the adolescents.
Co-Modelling of the Classroom Lessons
Starting from the third Change Laboratory session, significant progress was
made on the possible classroom lessons to be delivered experimentally. In order
to better understand the development of a possible expansive learning cycle,
we analyzed expressions of transformative agency. Their identification revealed
that, over the sessions, the recurrence of resisting and criticizing actions de-
creased during the third Change Laboratory session and led to more actions
like visualizing the future and planning for action. In line with Haapaasari
et al.’s (2016) work and as shown in Figure 4, the recurrence of criticizing is
high at the beginning. Note that the first phase on an expansive cycle is relat-
ed to questioning the current activity. It is expressed discursively among other
things as criticisms welcomed by the researcher interventionist. Surprisingly,
criticizing is still high in the third session, probably because the school com-
munity members participating in the process of modelling classroom lessons
were arguing about the type and the content. Likewise, the number of criti-
cisms remained high during the fourth session. It highlights a challenge that
170
School 1 faced with regard to the fact that only half the parents had signed
the consent forms for their child. It also may indicate that half of the parents
were not comfortable with their child participating in the research project. The
management of the classroom involved dividing the class into two subgroups
and an increased workload for the teacher and the special education teacher.
Figure 4. Transformative Agency Expressions in the Four Change Laboratory

Sessions of School 1 (all participants except the students)
Resisting
Criticizing
25 Explaining
Envisioning
Committing to actions
20
Number of turns
Taking actions
15
10
0
PREPARATORY FIRST SECOND THIRD FOURTH
Sessions
An important role of the researcher interventionist is to foster innovative

ideas by the participants as he/she invites them to imagine new forms of ac-
tions. As for explaining numbers of expressions of transformative agency, we
observed an increase as the Change Laboratory progressed. The frequency of
envisioning increased during the third session as the grandfather, the medical
doctor, and the special education teacher engaged in co-modelling new tools
for the classroom lessons. This is a clear sign of their active collaboration and
their will to get involved in the lessons themselves. The medical doctor pro-
posed to gather the questions from the adolescents and address them directly
later on with them. The grandfather, a former policeman, mobilized a lot of
information that he would present during the second activity in School 1.
During the second and third Change Laboratory sessions, the participants
expressed clearer ideas related to the possible classroom lessons (visualizing the
future). Note that some expressions of transformative agency can be readily
171
identified as early as in the first session. For example, here are a few narrative
excerpts of the participants over the sessions to support the expansion of their
respective roles over the four weeks. The participating mother in School 1 ex-
pressed the will from the start to change the perceptions of the adolescents
regarding cannabis:
I told myself that it was the opportunity to come and talk about it,
discuss it, and maybe even set up actions that would be more concrete—
changing perceptions versus reality. In any case, I’m a little…I am very
interested in doing my part as a parent.
At the beginning of the second session, the mother explained her motivation
to get involved:
We had to find an idea, a way to present the issue to students, so that
they could make informed decisions…the impacts, whether they are
positive or negative, or whether they know where they stand, so that
they can make an informed decision. So, I realized that the Change Lab-
oratory was really the project.
The medical doctor, on his part, shared an idea with the grandfather and
the mother that would inspire the two participating adolescents. It revealed a
key to envision the main content of one of the classroom lessons and the im-
portance of being equipped to make an informed decision when taking action
in the context of this era of social media. As a practitioner, the doctor was con-
cerned about the impact of social media on adolescents:
There is a growing whistleblowing phenomenon now with smartphones,
cell phones. People putting things, posting things on social media…and
people aren’t going to go knock on the door or call the police, they’re go-
ing to publish, they’re going to do a kind of public lynching right away.
The medical doctor, the mother, and the grandfather (former policeman)
collaborated by agreement to combine their respective contributions for the
planning of the kiosk information day. The collaboration was also reinvest-
ed in School 2 in the form of medical and legal information presentations.
The researcher interventionist then presented the suggestions to the Change
Laboratory participants at the beginning of the third session. In School 1,
the grandfather played an important role in defining key elements that would
characterize the classroom lessons. He proposed various ways to seek informa-
tion about the legal and medical aspects of the cannabis law:
I think that there are ways to create simulations or classroom exercises,
laboratories, which would allow young people to do an exercise before-
hand, to get information from different competent people. Then, they
172
would come back to the classroom and exchange ideas, perhaps through
a simulation. I don’t know, because that’s a proposal I would make, but
it’s clear that you need information to make a decision.
This grandfather’s ideas oriented the development of the classroom lessons
in the form of information kiosks where experts would share information with
the Secondary 2 students. It is through the evolving collaboration between the
participants that the first classroom lessons were created to respond to specific
needs that were identified: lack of information on the legal issues and the effects
of cannabis on health and research done by the students to retain the information.
The third Change Laboratory session was dedicated to finalizing the
co-modelling of the classroom lessons and comprised envisioning transforma-
tive expressions. It corresponds to Phase 3 of the Expansive Learning Cycle
(modelling). The fourth session corresponded to the fourth and fifth phases of
the Expansive Learning Cycle, that is, the implementation of new classroom
lessons and the reflection over the whole process.
The first classroom lesson, which was identical in the two schools, was com-
prised of two workshops: one legal info-message (Kahoot style, like a TV quiz)
on legal age for usage, purchase, possession, and sanctions. In school 1, only
two lessons took place. The second lesson aimed at responding to the students’
specific needs as expressed by the Change Laboratory participants: special
interest in debates, exchanges of ideas and sharing of viewpoints, and informa-
tion kiosks and testimonies based on prior experiences, with the creation of a
scenario to engage students. A scenario implying sale of cannabis at school was
presented to the class. Subsequently, each team of four students was assigned
a different solution to the scenario. Each team analyzed the advantages and
disadvantages—regardless of their personal opinion on the issue—and then
presented them to the class. Finally, one member of the research team moni-
tored a collective discussion. After hearing the arguments for every scenario,
the students could share their personal opinion on each and explain which
solution they would favor.
In School 2, the second activity was different than the one in School 1.
As for School 2, the second classroom lesson included, besides the analysis of
a scientific article using a grid on critical thinking, a problematic scenario to
solve. For this scenario, the students had decided to accuse one of the students
in the class and organize a mock trial. Therefore, information stands (different
stations in the room) were aimed at preparing students for the proceedings of
a mock trial. After those two classroom lessons, the students in School 2 had
enough information to prepare their pleadings for the coming trial during the
third classroom lesson. Every team had a different role at the trial and had to
plead their case based on their role. At the end, the team of student judges pro-
nounced their sentence and justified it.
173
Conclusion
In retrospective, the Change Laboratory sessions gave the opportunity to

the participants to better support adolescent decision making regarding their
own health in the context of cannabis legalization. The findings revealed a
shared goal to expand their roles in co-modelling new formats of classroom
teaching. These findings offer solutions to the powerlessness felt by parents and
the role confusion felt by teachers and their institutions regarding policy im-
plementation. The unfolding of the Change Laboratory sessions enhanced the
collaboration with stakeholders, the research team, and some members of the
school community, while allowing a great experience for students to examine a
complex issue. Over the six months of Change Laboratory intervention, mem-
bers of the school community in the two settings engaged actively with the
research team and the participating students in sharing their opinions, ideas,
and insecurities regarding the Canadian Cannabis Act and its possible impact
on the adolescents.
As illustrated in Figure 5, a shared object was identified as two activity sys-
tems emerging from the Change Laboratory intervention. After the analysis of
parents’ responses to the survey that was conducted in School 1, the assistant
principal understood that parents were expecting the school to engage in some
form of action with their adolescents. This created a tension in the division of
labor at the school since the school team had to bear the full responsibility of
acting. When the research team presented the project to the assistant principal
during the planning session, it was agreed that the recruiting of members of the
school community should start. A grandfather, a mother, a special education
teacher, and other teachers joined with volunteer students during the sessions
that would reveal key moments of sharing, analysis, and building classroom
lessons for the benefit of the Secondary 2 students in both school settings.
Tensions identified at the subject pole were mostly related to the individu-
als’ own representation of the coming Cannabis Act and their inner conflicts
related to their own sentiment of competence when it came to intervening
with their child or students. At the tools pole, the way information was to be
provided to the adolescents became a crucial issue that led to preparing the
classroom lessons with the information kiosks put together by the medical doc-
tor, the mother, and the grandfather and the cases that were being presented.
The members of the school community demonstrated a high degree of flexibil-
ity in their daily schedule since their daily routine at work was disrupted many
times related to either the Change Laboratory sessions themselves or their par-
ticipation in the classrooms during the lessons with the Secondary 2 students.
174
Figure 5. Two Activity Systems in Interaction and the Shared Object: Increase
Adolescents’ Capacity to Make Choices Related to Cannabis
Overall, the participants’ interactions began to lead toward a common rep-

resentation of the nature of the classroom lessons that would be modelled
and implemented in each school setting. These results are coherent with Ran-
tavuori et al.’s (2016) findings stating that as the participants interact together
in Change Laboratory sessions, the shared object gets more precise as new
tools are conceptualized to support the development of the activity. As Virk-
kunen and Newnham (2013) documented, Change Laboratory interventions
are put in place to support the development of the participating practitioners’
transformative agency. The instrument-producing activity that was envisioned
and implemented in the form of five classroom lessons alleviated tensions and
addressed the school community members’ as well as the school team’s con-
cerns. Reflection on the Change Laboratory approach suggests it gives space to
improve collaboration with a school team and also gives space for the signifi-
cant participation of some school community members interested in making
a difference amongst young people and could be used to address other related
complex health issues such as alcohol use, eating disorders, and smoking.
Endnotes
1
Vygotsky’s principle of double stimulation refers to the way individuals may deal with con-
flicting situations presented to them in the form of mirror data. The mirror data constitutes
the first stimulus and is necessary to trigger transformative agency. The second stimulus is built
175
by the participants who envision to resolve the problematic situation. For example, a teacher
might employ a different pedagogical strategy as a second stimulus, investing it with a new
meaning in order to get his/her students’ attention (Barma et al., 2015).
2
Out of 34 students, 19 got the consent forms signed by their parents.
References
Barma, S. (2008). Un contexte de renouvellement de pratiques en éducation aux sciences et aux
technologies: Une étude de cas réalisée sous l’angle de la théorie de l’activité [A context of
renewal of practices in science and technology education: A case study carried out from
the angle of activity theory]. [Doctoral dissertation, Laval University]. http://hdl.handle.
net/20.500.11794/20215
Barma, S. (2011). A sociocultural reading of reform in science teaching in a secondary biology
class. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 6(3), 635–661.
Barma, S., Deslandes, R., Voyer, S., Cooper, E. A., Dewailly, C., Dubois, A., & Turgeon-Dorion,
O. (2019). Addressing a controversial socioscientific issue at high school: Preparing a change
laboratory in the context of the legalization of marijuana. E-Proceedings of the ISCAR 2019
Regional Conference, Ioannina, Greece.
Barma, S., Lacasse, M., & Massé-Morneau, J. (2015). Engaging discussion about climate
change in a Quebec secondary school: A challenge for science teachers. Learning, Culture,
and Social Interaction, 4, 28–36.
Barma, S., Laferrière, T., Lemieux, B., Massé-Morneau, J., & Vincent, M. C. (2017). Early
stages in building hybrid activity between school and work: The case of PénArt. Journal of
Education and Work, 30(6), 669–687.
Barma, S., Power, M., & Daniel, S. (2010). Réalité augmentée et jeu mobile pour une éduca-
tion aux sciences et à la technologie [Augmented reality and mobile games for science and
technology education]. In Actes du colloque scientifique Ludovia.
Bracewell, R. J., & Witte, S. P. (2003). Tasks, ensembles, and activity: Linkages between text
production and situation of use in the workplace. Written Communication, 20(4), 511–
559.
Bury, J.-A. (1988). Éducation pour la santé, concepts, enjeux, planifications [Health educa-
tion, concepts, issues, planning]. Savoir et Santé [Knowledge and Health].
Canadian Centre on Substance Use and Addiction. (2018). Sommaire Canadien sur la drogue:
Cannabis [Canadian summary on drugs: Cannabis].
Coutrim, R. M. E., & Silva, P. (2019). Other subjects in the family–school relationship: The
role of grandparents in the educational process of grandchildren. Aula Abierta, 48(1), 97–
104.
Craplet, M. (2006). La prévention mise à la question: Éducation ou contrôle, I-Aperçu sur
l’histoire et l’actualité de la prévention en addictologie [Prevention put to the question:
Education or control, I-Overview on the history and topicality of prevention in addiction].
Alcoologie et Addictologie, 28(4), 337–346.
Czaplick, G., Laurencelle, L., Deslandes, R., Rivard, M.-C., & Trudeau, F. (2013). Pratiques
parentales, activité physique et consommation de fruits et légumes chez des jeunes de 9 à
17 ans [Parenting, physical activity, and fruit and vegetable consumption among young
people aged 9 to 17]. Revue Sciences & Sports, 28(1), 36–45.
Deslandes, R. (1996). Collaboration entre l’école et les familles: Influence du style parental et
de la participation parentale sur la réussite scolaire au secondaire [Collaboration between
176
schools and families: Influence of parenting style and parental involvement on high school
success]. [Doctoral dissertation]. Laval University, Québec. https://corpus.ulaval.ca/jspui/
handle/20.500.11794/37926
Deslandes, R. (2005). Réussite scolaire: Déterminants et impact des relations entre l’école et
la famille [School success: Determinants and impact of school–family relationships]. In
L. Deblois & D. Lamothe (Ed.), La réussite scolaire. Comprendre et mieux intervenir (p.
223–236). Presses de l’Université Laval.
Deslandes, R. (2019). A framework for school–family collaboration integrating some relevant
factors and processes. Aula Abierta, 48(1), 11–18.
Deslandes, R. (2020a). School–family–community collaborations. Retrospective on what has been
done and what has been learned (Vol. 1). https://f1dfdbec-27a5-47d5-b7a8-627874ff492f.
filesusr.com/ugd/791c53_e4778c1a904242b59bb51e744b754a8a.pdf
Deslandes, R. (2020b). School–family–community collaborations. Retrospective on what has been
done and what has been learned (Vol. 2). https://f1dfdbec-27a5-47d5-b7a8-627874ff492f.
filesusr.com/ugd/791c53_f1b129ceed3d45d08b536773cbb8832d.pdf
Deslandes, R., & Barma, S. (2016). Revisiting the challenges linked to parenting and home–
school relationships at the high school level. Canadian Journal of Education, 39(4), 1–32.
Deslandes, R., & Bertrand, R. (2001). La création d’une véritable communauté éducative aut-
our de l’élève: Une intervention plus cohérente et des services mieux harmonisés [The creation
of a true educational community around the student: A more coherent intervention and
better harmonized services]. https://docplayer.fr/42742500-La-creation-d-une-verita-
ble-communaute-educative-autour-de-l-eleve-une-intervention-coherente-et-des-servic-
es-mieux-harmonises-rapport-de-recherche.html
Deslandes, R., Royer, É., Turcotte, D., & Bertrand, R. (1997). School achievement at the
secondary level: Influence of parenting style and parent involvement in schooling. McGill
Journal of Education, 32(3), 191–208.
Durkin, A. (2014). Legalization of marijuana for non-medical use: Health, policy, socioeco-
nomic, and nursing implications. Journal of Psychosocial Nursing and Mental Health Ser-
vices, 52(9), 22–26. https://doi.org/10.3928/02793695-20140721-03
Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity–theoretical approach to developmental
research. Orienta-Konsultit.
Engeström, Y. (1999). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. Perspectives on
Activity Theory, 19(38), 19–30.
Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptu-
alization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133–156.
Engeström, Y. (2015). Learning by expanding. Cambridge University Press.
Engeström, Y., & Sannino, A. (2011). Discursive manifestations of contradictions in organi-
zational change efforts. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 24(3), 368–387.
Engeström, Y., & Sannino, A. (2013). La volition et l’agentivité transformatrice: Perspective
théorique de l’activité [Volition and transformative agency: Activity’s theoritical perspec-
tive]. Revue internationale du CRIRES: Innover dans la tradition de Vygotsky.
Epstein, J. L., & Associates. (2019). School, family, and community partnerships: Your handbook
for action (4th ed.). Corwin Press.
Estoup, A. C., Moise-Campbell, C., Varma, M., & Stewart, D. G. (2016). The impact of
cannabis legalization on adolescent use, consequences, and perceived risk. Substance Use &
Misuse, 51(14), 1881–1887.
Golub, A., Dunlap, E., & Benoit, E. (2010). Drug use and conflict in inner-city African Amer-
ican relationships in the 2000s. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, 42(3), 327–337.
177
Gouvernement du Québec, Institut de la statistique du Québec. (2012). Enquête Québécoise

sur la santé des jeunes du secondaire, 2010–2011, Tome 2: Le visage des jeunes d’aujourd’hui:
Leur santé mentale et leur adaptation sociale [Quebec Health Survey of High School Stu-
dents, 2010–2011, Vol. 2]. https://statistique.quebec.ca/fr/fichier/enquete-quebecoise-
sur-la-sante-des-jeunes-du-secondaire-2010-2011-le-visage-des-jeunes-d-aujourdhui-leur-
sante-mentale-et-leur-adaptation-sociale-tome-2.pdf
Gouvernement du Québec, Institut de la statistique du Québec. (2016). Faits saillants de l’En-
quête québécoise sur la santé des jeunes du secondaire 2010–2011 [Highlights of the Quebec
Health Survey of high school students 2010–2011]. http://www.eqsjs.stat.gouv.qc.ca/en-
quete-2016-2017/eqsjs_faits-saillants-FR_web.pdf
Green, J., Tones, K., & Manderscheid, J. C. (1996). Efficacité et utilité de l’éducation à la
santé à l’école [Efficiency and utility of health education in schools]. Revue Française de
Pédagogie, 114(1), 103–120.
Grenier, J., Harvey, G., & Otis, J. (2010). Faire équipe pour l’éducation à la santé en milieu
scolaire [Team up for health education in school]. Presses de l’Université du Québec.
Guiet-Silvain, J., Jourdan, D., Parayre, S., Simar, C., Pizon, F., & Berger, D. (2011). Éduca-
tion à la santé en milieu scolaire, mise en perspective historique et internationale? Cannabis
and Canadian Children and Youth [Health education in schools, historical and interna-
tional perspective. Cannabis and Canadian Children and Youth]. Carrefours de l’Éducation,
2, 105–127.
Haapasaari, A., Engeström, Y., & Kerosuo, H. (2016). The emergence of learners’ transforma-
tive agency in a Change Laboratory intervention. Journal of Education and Work, 29(2),
232–262.
Hall, W., & Lynskey, M. (2016). Evaluating the public health impacts of legalizing recreational
cannabis use in the United States. Addiction, 111(10), 1764–1773.
Jeynes, W. H. (2005). A meta-analysis of the relation of parental involvement to urban elemen-
tary school student academic achievement. Urban Education, 40(3), 237–269.
Jourdan, D. (2004). La formation des acteurs de l’éducation à la santé en milieu scolaire [Training
of health education players in schools] Éditions Universitaires du Sud Collection “École
et Santé”.
Lange, J. M., & Victor, P. (2006). Didactique curriculaire et « éducation à la santé,
l’environnement et au développement durable »: Quelles questions, quels repères? [Curricular
didactics and “education in health, the environment, and sustainable development”: What
questions, what benchmarks]. Didaskalia (Paris). https://doi.org/10.4267/2042/23954
Laventure, M., Boisvert, K., & Besnard, T. (2010). Programmes de prévention universelle et
ciblée de la toxicomanie à l’adolescence: Recension des facteurs prédictifs de l’efficacité.
[Universal and targeted prevention programs for drug abuse in adolescence: A review of the
factors predicting effectiveness]. Drogues, Santé, et Société, 9(1), 121–164.
Manderscheid, J.-C. (1994). Modèles et principes en éducation pour la santé [Models and
principals in health education]. Revue Française de Pédagogie, 107, 81–96.
Manidi, M. J., & Dafflon-Arvanitou, I. (2000). Activité physique et santé: Apports des sciences
humaines et sociales, éducation à la santé par l’activité physique [Physical activity and health:
Contributions of humanities and social sciences, health education through physical activ-
ity]. Ed. Masson.
Marsiglia, F. F., Kulis, S. S., Kiehne, E., Ayers, S. L., Libisch Recalde, C. A., & Barros Sulca,
L. (2017). Adolescent substance-use prevention and legalization of cannabis in Uruguay:
A feasibility trial of the keepin’it REAL prevention program. Journal of Substance Use, 23,
457–465.
178
Méheut, M. (2006). Science education research and the training of science teachers. Science
Teaching in Schools in Europe, Policies and Research, 55–72.
Meyer, P. J., & Rosen, L. (2014). Cannabis legalization in Uruguay: Policy developments and
context. Penny Hill Press.
Miettinen, R. (2006). The sources of novelty: A cultural and systemic view of distributed cre-
ativity. Creativity and Innovation Management, 15(2), 173–181.
Paglia, A., & Room, R. (1999). Preventing substance use problems among youth: A literature
review and recommendations. Journal of Primary Prevention, 20(1), 3–50.
Parent, N. (2013). Pour grands-parents seulement [For grandparents only]. Les Éditions Qué-
bec-Livres.
Patte, K. A., Qian, W., & Leatherdale, S. T. (2017). Cannabis and alcohol use as predictors
of academic achievement: A longitudinal analysis among youth in the COMPASS study.
Journal of School Health, 87(5), 310–318.
Piperini, M. C. (2016). L’éducation pour la santé [Health education]. Théories, Pratiques, et
Méthodes d’Évaluation. De Boeck.
Pizon, F., & Jourdan, D. (2009). Les enseignants et les prescriptions institutionnelles dans le
champ de l’éducation à la santé [Teachers and institutional prescriptions in the field of
health education]. Spirale-Revue de Recherches en Éducation, 43(1), 171–189.
Quebec Ministry of Education, Leisure, and Sport. (2006). Programme de formation de l’école
Québécoise enseignement secondaire, premier cycle [Québec high school training program in
lower secondary school years] http://collections.banq.qc.ca/ark:/52327/56123
Rantavuori, J., Engeström, Y., & Lipponen, L. (2016). Learning actions, objects and types of
interaction: A methodological analysis of expansive learning among pre-service teachers.
Frontline Learning Research, 4(3), 1–27.
Redding, S. (2011). The school community: Working together for student success. In S. Red-
ding, M. Murphy, & P. Sheley, (Eds.), Handbook on family and community engagement, (pp.
15–20). Information Age & ADI. https://www.adi.org/downloads/FACEHandbook.pdf
Rivard, M.-C., Deslandes, R., & Collet, M. (2010). L’approche école en santé au primaire:
Points de vue des parents [The primary school health approach: Parents’ points of view].
Journal of Educational Sciences, 36(3), 761–786.
Simon, B. S. (2019). Predictors and effects of family involvement in high schools. In J. L.
Epstein, M. G. Sanders, B. S. Simon, K. C. Salinas, N. J. Rodriguez, & F. C. Van Voorhis
(Eds.), School, family, and community partnerships: Your handbook for action (4th ed., pp.
215–223). Corwin Press.
Steinberg, L. (2014). Adolescence (10th ed.). McGraw-Hill.
UNICEF. (2013). Le bien-être des enfants dans les pays riches: Vue d’ensemble comparative [Child
well-being in rich countries: A comparative overview]. UNICEF Centre de Recherche,
Florence.
Urgelli, B. (2008). Éducation aux risques climatiques. Premières analyses d’un dispositif péd-
agogique interdisciplinaire [The initial results of an interdisciplinary teaching project con-
cerning the teaching of the sciences, citizenship, and the risks of climate change]. Aster, 46,
97–122.
Virkkunen, J., & Newnham, D. S. (2013). The Change Laboratory: A tool for collaborative de-
velopment of work and education. Springer Science & Business Media.
Volkow, N. D., Baler, R. D., Compton, W. M., & Weiss, S. R. (2014). Adverse health effects
of cannabis use. New England Journal of Medicine, 370(23), 2219–2227.
Voyer, S. (2021). Analyse de sessions de Laboratoire du Changement dans une école secondaire
Québécoise en contexte de légalisation du cannabis [Analysis of Change Lab sessions in a
179
Quebec high school in the context of cannabis legalization]. [Doctoral dissertation]. Laval
University, Québec.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1960/1987). Lectures on psychology, Lecture 6: The problem of will and its
development in childhood. In The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky. Problems of General Psy-
chology, Vol. 1. (pp. 351–358). Plenum Press.
World Health Organization. (1986). Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion. Charter adopted
during the International Conference on Health Promotion. http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/
ph-sp/docs/charter-chartre/pdf/chartre.pdf
Authors’ Notes: This research was made possible thanks to Social Sciences and Hu-
manities Research Council (SSHRC) 2018–2020.
We are thankful to all the participants who agreed to take part in the study. The
authors wish to recognize the contribution of Amélie Dubois, Chloé Dewailly, Olivier
Turgeon-Dorion, and Vincent-Gabriel St-Cyr with data collection and analysis.
Sylvie Barma is a full professor at the Faculty of Education, Laval University in

Quebec City, Canada. Her research interests are focused on science and health educa-
tion. She is involved in preservice and in-service teacher training. She has developed
an expertise in Change Laboratory methodology when addressing socio-scientific is-
sues at school. At the time the research was conducted, she was director of the Center
of Research and Intervention for Student and School Success (CRI_SAS). Correspon-
dence regarding this article may be addressed to Sylvie.Barma@fse.ulaval.ca
Rollande Deslandes is professor emerita and associate professor at the University of
Quebec at Trois-Rivières, and she is a former teacher in special education at the high
school level. She was involved in preservice and in-service teacher education for several
decades. She has been a regular researcher at CRI_SAS since 1997. Her research work
focuses on parental participation/involvement in the school and home setting and on
school–family–community relationships in different contexts.
Alexander Cooper is clinical professor at the Faculty of Medicine, Laval University.
He has been a family and emergency physician for more than 30 years. He has been
treating patients with various addictions and post-traumatic stress disorder. He is an
active member of diverse community organisations.
Samantha Voyer is a MSc. Ed. candidate in didactics at Laval University in Quebec
City, Canada. Her research interests include health education, socio-scientific issues,
and collaboration in the school community. She is also a high school science and tech-
nology teacher.
180
The Power of the Collective: How a Black Parent
Group’s Initiative Shaped Children’s Educational
Experiences and Excellence
Raquel M. Rall and Alea R. Holman
Abstract
The authors investigated cultural resourcefulness among seven Black

middle-class families who proactively collaborated to ensure their children’s
academic excellence in a highly racialized suburban community in southern
California. Their children achieved high grades and successfully entered and
completed higher education at elite U.S. institutions, despite pervasive expe-
riences of racial discrimination in their K–12 years. Parents and their children
were interviewed to determine how the parent group contributed to the suc-
cess of these students. The authors describe three major pathways the families
used to maximize and safeguard their children’s education: (1) psychologically
preparing children to excel in school, (2) reforming schools through collective
advocacy to successfully educate Black students, and (3) engaging and em-
powering other Black parents with key resources and knowledge to help their
children succeed. This research presents an exemplary model of self-initiated
collective action to strengthen Black youths’ and families’ educational experi-
ences, particularly when in the extreme racial minority. Implications for theory
and practice are addressed.
Key Words: Black students, parents, families, parent groups, collaboration,

educational excellence, cultural resourcefulness, collective advocacy, minority
youth development, family engagement in schools

When you have one body of people who have been sewn together by a common
experience…and you plant this people in a highly pressurized situation and they
survive, they’re surviving with all of those motivations and with all of the basic
ingenuity which any group develops in order to remain alive. Let’s not play these
kids cheap; let’s find out what they have. What do they have that is a strength?
What do they have that you can approach and build a bridge upon?
–Ralph Ellison, 1963
Whereas literature exists concerning cultural factors that inhibit Black1

students’ academic progress (Ford & Moore, 2013), there are relatively few-
er examinations of what cultural factors contribute to Black students’ high
achievement in the U.S. (Anyiwo et al., 2018; Carter, 2007; Strayhorn, 2010).
The knowledge that people of color possess has historically been suppressed,
misrepresented, stereotyped, and rejected by the dominant culture (Carter et
al., 2017; Ladson-Billings, 2000; Yosso, 2005). In particular, the knowledge
and actions of Black parents have often been criticized as insufficient (or even
nonexistent) in educational literature (Marchand et al., 2019). Black families
have repeatedly been portrayed negatively in the research literature with re-
spect to education and are often seen to conflict with schools (Powell & Coles,
2020). A dominant message within scholarship suggests that Black families
tend to be disengaged from their children’s schooling due to cultural disso-
nance between the family and school practitioners (Brown-Wright & Tyler,
2010; Jeynes, 2007). These misconceptions persist despite research demon-
strating that the negative beliefs about Black families in schools are rooted in
unfounded and untested assumptions (Puchner & Markowitz, 2015).
Though literature has historically overlooked the intentionality Black par-
ents exert to help their students navigate the preschool-to-college pathway,
recent scholarship has increasingly sought to counter this deficit narrative by
describing the agency and advocacy Black parents demonstrate on behalf of
their children, despite negative experiences with the educational system (Clark,
1984; Codjoe, 2010; Latunde, 2018; McCarthy Foubert, 2019; Posey-Mad-
dox et al., 2021). The present study extends this focus on Black parents’ agency
by examining the collective support and initiative of Black parents as they draw
on Black cultural strengths to promote students’ educational achievement.
The primary purpose of this article is to present a paragon of academic ex-
cellence among Black families in highly racialized communities. We present
data that illustrate how a self-initiated Black parent group, formed in an over-
whelmingly White and Asian middle-class suburban neighborhood, set out
to impact education within and outside of the walls of the schools through
cultural, social, and academic tenets, and we detail the group’s outstanding
182
THE POWER OF THE COLLECTIVE
outcomes. This study centers the educational experiences of Black students

and parents, thereby challenging the predominantly negative constructions of
Black families and highlighting the deliberate, culturally specific ways in which
parents promote academic achievement. We examine the critical question: In
what ways did this Black parent group utilize familial and cultural strengths to
support its children’s academic excellence within this racialized community?
Collaboration is a central tenet of Black culture (Nobles, 2006). African
families and Black enslaved families were purposeful in relationship formation
to fulfill various needs (Furstenberg, 2007; Johnson & Staples, 2004). Close
community ties among Blacks have been enacted for many reasons, including
low socioeconomic status, exclusion from White society, systematic and insti-
tutional oppression, and fear of discrimination and violence (Strmic-Pawl &
Leffler, 2011). The present study highlights the benefits of this cooperation and
collaboration in an educational context. We examine the pathways by which
Black cultural strengths were nurtured and shared to promote student achieve-
ment. The findings of this research support assertions that Black parents play a
key role in educational reform efforts (Posey-Maddox, 2017a, 2017b) and that
policy initiatives and interventions ought to attend to the cultural strengths
and collective knowledge of Black parents in efforts to promote students’ edu-
cational excellence (Alameda-Lawson & Lawson, 2019).
Conceptual Framework and Literature Review
As we highlight the strength of the Black family within the educational con-
text, we must also acknowledge the various forms of racism impacting these
communities (Strmic-Pawl & Leffler, 2011). Black students face numerous
contextual stressors that adversely impact their psychological and behavioral
outcomes (Carter, 2007; Nyborg & Curry, 2003; Steele & Aronson, 1995), in-
cluding pervasive ideologies and actions of antiblackness and anti-Black racism
in schools (Dumas, 2016; Dumas & ross, 2016; Posey-Maddox et al., 2021).
Black students’ experiences with institutional, interpersonal, and internalized
racism within schools continue to be important topics of research (Grace &
Nelson, 2019; Skiba et al., 2002). The impact of and response to these chronic
racist experiences are inextricably linked to students’ academic outcomes (Car-
ter Andrews, 2012; Reynolds et al., 2010).
Some research, including the present study, suggests that strong, positive
Black identities, coupled with nurturing environments, enhance students’ ac-
ademic resilience and achievement (Nasir, 2012; Sankofa Waters, 2016). Race
necessarily plays an integral role in the education of Black students (Latunde &
Clark-Louque, 2016; McKinney de Royston et al., 2017; Posey-Maddox et al.,
183
2021). To examine the nuances of Black parents’ collective efforts, we situate

this study in the literature on racial identity development, racial socialization,
family engagement in education, and the specific factors unique to Black pa-
rental involvement in schools to help inform our investigation of Black parents
who united on their own accord to influence their children’s academic success.
Racial Identity Development
Identity is an organized system of beliefs about the self that characterizes
an individual’s behavior in salient social settings (Murray & Mandara, 2002).
Although many factors affect identity development, Bandura (1986) asserted
that people first view themselves based on inferences from significant others,
including family members, peers, and teachers. With maturation, people gain
increased self-awareness of their true beliefs and attributes. In racial identity
development, individuals progress in their understanding of race, membership
in a racial/ethnic group, and the consequences of that membership (Murray &
Mandara, 2002).
In a study of how ethnic discrimination and ethnic identification relate
to African American adolescents’ adjustment, Wong et al. (2003) found that,
among a sample of 629 students, “connection to one’s ethnic group acts as a
promotive and protective factor by compensating for and buffering against
the impact of perceived discrimination” (Wong et al., 2003, p. 1223). Nasir’s
(2012) examination of the learning and identity processes of Black students il-
lustrated how racialized identities impact students’ academic engagement and
how various learning settings supported certain racialized and academic iden-
tities. As Black children navigate the complexities of identity development in
racialized schools, they require explicit and implicit guidance to respond to
negative stereotypes and racial discrimination (McAdoo, 2002).
Racial Socialization
Black parents raising children in a discriminatory and racist society often
include conversations about race as a regular part of parenting (Peters, 2002;
Threlfall, 2018). Racial socialization describes the messages parents share and
experiences parents make available to their children to help inform children’s
racial identities (Hughes et al., 2016; Strmic-Pawl & Leffler, 2011). Wilson et
al. (2009) define racial socialization as “the process of transmitting rules, reg-
ulations, skills, values, history, and knowledge about culture and race relations
from one generation to another” (p. 104). The foundation of such teachings
includes a discussion of the negative implications of racialization and an affir-
mation of positive Black cultural strengths (Hughes et al., 2016). Both pieces
are integral to successfully navigate society as a racial minority (Martin &
McAdoo, 2007).
184
Parents’ racial socialization practices are most often intended to prepare chil-
dren for encounters with racial bias and to enable them to maintain positive
self-beliefs despite prejudice (Dunbar et al., 2017; Hughes et al., 2006). Black
parents face the challenging task of socializing their children to be competent
and self-assured despite demeaning stereotypes and low expectations (Anderson
& Stevenson, 2019; Thomas & King, 2007). Parents’ racial socialization efforts
help children grasp a sense of humanity and racial pride while recognizing the
realities of racism (Hughes et al., 2006). Rather than being overwhelmed by the
insidious, oppressive forces designed to debilitate Black people, Black children
are better prepared to excel in racialized schools when equipped with knowl-
edge about the culture that oppresses them and knowledge of their own culture
that has the potential to liberate them. The racial socialization efforts of parents
are crucial for children’s maintenance of mental health and academic engage-
ment in racialized school environments (Holman, 2012).
Family Engagement in Education
As the research on racial identity development and racial socialization
among Black families makes clear, the historical experiences of Black families
in America have unique implications for educational engagement. In order to
better understand Black parents’ distinctive experiences of school engagement,
it is useful to take a broader look at how researchers have conceptualized fam-
ily engagement.
The established research highlighting “home funds of knowledge” contrib-
utes to our understanding of how schools benefit from learning about and
building upon families’ intellectual and social resources and historically devel-
oped strategies, toward the goal of supporting children’s academic excellence
(see Greenberg, 1989). For example, researchers engaged teachers to conduct
research visits to the homes of their students’ predominantly Mexican work-
ing-class families to better understand students’ home funds of knowledge
(González et al., 1995). These visits were found to directly influence teachers’
attitudes about the families and the wealth of resources they possess to support
the work teachers are doing in the classroom. The study resulted in the teach-
er–researchers developing a counternarrative to the pervasive, deficit framing
of working-class students of color being disadvantaged and lacking the skills
needed to be academically successful (González et al., 1995).
A study examining family engagement among Mexican, Mexican Amer-
ican, and Asian/Pacific Islander families in a Catholic school setting found
that students and parents were highly satisfied with their partnership with the
school because of several key features of the school community: nonjudgmen-
tal attitudes, consistent communication, and shared values between home and
185
school, including high expectations of students’ behavior and achievement (An-

guiano et al., 2020). As this study shows, how teachers and school staff show
respect and care for families greatly influences students’ and parents’ feelings
toward the school and their quality of engagement. Yet, when interpersonal
and systemic racism goes unrecognized and unchecked in schools, it obstructs
family–school communication and partnership among families of color.
A community-based participatory action research project led by Yull and
colleagues (2018) highlighted the crucial importance of prioritizing a race-con-
scious perspective when working toward sincere parental involvement and
advocacy in children’s education. The authors note that schools often only val-
ue family engagement that is based on behavioral norms of White, middle-class
families, thereby undervaluing or even denigrating the ways in which families
of color contribute to their children’s academic progress (Baquedano-Lopez et
al., 2013; Yull et al., 2018). Related to research on home funds of knowledge,
this race-conscious parent engagement program positioned Black parents as
“cultural mentors” for the school, honoring the expertise and cultural strengths
that parents of color have to contribute to help teachers successfully and fairly
educate their children (Yull et al., 2018).
Research on home funds of knowledge also helps inform the framing of
the present study based on findings of how households connect to share in-
tellectual resources through the development of long-term, trusting, social
relationships (Moll & Greenberg, 1990). A study of a small group of Lati-
no immigrant parents revealed how they connected, mobilized, and catalyzed
change within their school communities to better their children’s fair treatment
and educational opportunities (Jasis, 2013). Similar to the present study, Ja-
sis (2013) examined how this group of parents collectively advocated for their
children’s educational equity and excellence by making themselves increasing-
ly visible at the school. Therefore, rather than the common conceptualization
of family engagement as actions initiated by schools to bring families into the
fold, Jasis (2013) demonstrated that family engagement is a process that can be
successfully spearheaded by families themselves.
The research literature includes several examples of parents engaging in their
children’s educational experiences and the subsequent benefits to students’ out-
comes (e.g., González et al., 1995; Yull et al., 2018). While some research
focuses on how schools can best connect with families (e.g., Anguiano et al.,
2020; Brown & Beckett, 2007), other studies examine how parents proactively
advocate to have a seat at the table for educational decision-making (e.g., Jasis,
2013). These findings are important to understanding how schools can better
welcome and appreciate Black families’ efforts to be engaged in their children’s
education. What the aforementioned literature does not do, however, is focus
186
on the history and nuance of Black parental involvement in education and

showcase how Black families play an integral role in their children’s education-
al success both within and outside the walls of the school despite exclusionary
practices. With an understanding of how researchers have conceptualized fam-
ily engagement more broadly, it is important to take a closer look at literature
specific to how Black parents navigate engagement in largely anti-Black school
environments where their contributions are often disregarded and devalued.
Black Parental Involvement in Schooling
Black parents have a long history of serving, often without an invitation, to
help their children’s schools improve their ability to fairly educate their chil-
dren despite enduring racism (McCarthy Foubert, 2019; Vincent et al., 2012).
Researchers have highlighted the multitude of ways that African American par-
ent involvement, both in and outside of schools, positively contributes to their
children’s intellectual growth and academic achievement (e.g., Dotterer &
Wehrspann, 2016; Howard & Reynolds, 2008; Jackson & Remillard, 2005).
The current study adds to this body of research by examining the collective ac-
tion of Black parents in education to influence not only their own children’s
academic success but also systematically influence schools’ policies and proce-
dures so that schools are better prepared to serve all children. Aligned with Yull
et al.’s (2018) concept of “cultural mentors,” we assert that Black families have
a primary role in educating their children’s schools about the strengths and val-
ues of being Black.
To achieve the goal of developing intellectually and emotionally healthy
children, schools and families must work together (Jeynes, 2005). Accom-
plishing such unity requires schools to responsibly engage parents in their
children’s educational process and relinquish some agency and control of re-
sources to families (Latunde & Clark-Louque, 2016). This study highlights the
importance of explicit, collective forms of parental involvement in successful
outcomes for Black students. It informs strategies for propelling more Black
students to higher levels of academic attainment through the partnership of
parents, policy developers, and educational leaders who respect and utilize the
invaluable strengths of Black culture and identities as academic and social/
emotional resources.
187
Context and Methodology

Council of African American Parents (CAAP)
Study participants were recruited from a Black parent organization called the
Council of African American Parents (CAAP), located in a southern California
community where African Americans comprise less than 5% of the popula-
tion. We examined this group in a suburban context, an environment that is
seldom examined, to better understand the role of Black parents (Posey-Mad-
dox, 2017a, 2017b). The Council of African American Parents (CAAP) is a
nonprofit parent- and community-driven organization that centers academics,
social activities, and cultural awareness as a triadic approach to improving edu-
cational experiences and outcomes of Black students (CAAP, n.d.).
The authors elected to study this cultural group for four reasons. First, this
group was established and is currently maintained by collective parent initia-
tive and actions. This acknowledgment is important because, as noted in the
literature review, there is limited information on Black parental involvement in
the education of their children, especially information on collective Black pa-
rental group involvement in the academic lives of students. Second, the group
has been in operation for almost three decades, which allowed for a rich case
study of a self-sustained, effective organization. Third, because this organiza-
tion is based in a highly racialized suburb and school community, yet touts the
success of having nearly 100% of affiliated Black students attending a four-year
college or university, the findings of this study have the potential to inform best
practices for the education of Black students. Lastly, because the first author
was as a student who benefited from CAAP in the past when it was in its in-
fancy, it was essential to go back, with “an ethnographer’s eye” (Jacobs-Huey,
2006) and try to elucidate the interworkings and aspects that do or do not in-
fluence student academic trajectories and success within this community. The
time away from the group granted a fresh perspective, while knowledge of and
prior personal involvement with CAAP facilitated access to the group.
Program Development and History
The group was formed in 1992 by five Black families in response to racial
tension and injustice in the school district. The education of Black students
and future leaders is at the top of CAAP’s organizational agenda. CAAP’s goal
is to support and empower parents to identify, push for, and utilize tools and
resources that will help maximize their children’s academic experience. CAAP
emphasizes the roles of parents in preparing students to be academically com-
petitive leaders who make intentional and necessary contributions to their
families, communities, and society (CAAP, n.d.).
188
Initially, CAAP focused solely on supporting high school students. Over

the years, the group has expanded its work to include students (“scholars”) as
early as preschool age. There are currently several programs included under the
CAAP umbrella. The Reading Circle Program is for preschool to third grade
students, the Personal Academic Learning System (PALS) is for students in
Grades 4–10, and the Junior/Senior Workshop is for those in Grades 11–12.
Depending on the student’s grade level, families meet Sunday afternoons either
monthly, biweekly, or weekly at a local college campus. CAAP is not a drop-
off and pick-up program; while some parents participate in workshops down
the hall, others lead the programs for the K–12 scholars. Others volunteer to
distribute snacks or staff the registration table. Once they arrive on the third
floor of the building, they move to their respective rooms to have a class ses-
sion, guest presenter, or workshop. CAAP demonstrates distinct approaches of
including parents and students in program activities and establishing a self-sus-
taining structure by bringing alumni back and keeping parents involved even
after their children have matriculated out of secondary school.
Participants
Intentional sampling emphasizes information-rich cases that illuminate a
comprehensive understanding of the area of interest (Jones et al., 2006). We
addressed the sampling dimensions of context, people, and time (Hammers-
ley & Atkinson, 2003) through participant selection. Study participants (see
Table 1) were recruited from CAAP, which is composed of primarily mid-
dle-income African American parents. Initially, when CAAP was founded, it
just focused on the experiences of Black families in one relatively small subur-
ban community, all of which were middle income. As the program has grown,
it has expanded to include families in neighboring communities who include
affluent and low-income families. However, this study is focused just on those
early families involved in the inception of the program to investigate the foun-
dational components of the organization. These early families each identified
as middle-class Black families, a group for which there has been a dearth of re-
search (Lacy, 2007).
All interview participants self-identified as African American/Black, con-
firmed their current or prior membership in CAAP, and lived within the
community that this organization serves. The 15 interview participants rep-
resented seven families (parents and students) who had one or more of their
children matriculate to a top tier, four-year university (e.g., Princeton, Stan-
ford, University of Southern California, University of California–Berkeley,
etc.). The focus on families with students who have already gone to an institu-
tion of higher education is important because these students have experienced
189
the complete influence of CAAP, which aims to empower parents to equip

their children with the tools they need to succeed academically. In order to
understand why Black students whose parents unite with other Black parents
successfully complete and compete in high school and postsecondary educa-
tion despite community circumstances, it is necessary to understand the past
experiences and actions of this group and how it aids Black students to achieve
academically.
Table 1. Participant Overview

# of Chil- Postsecondary Highest Degree Single
When the
Parent/ dren in Institution (student)/ Parent
Student First
Student CAAP Per Attended Attended Col- Household?
Joined CAAP
Home (student) lege? (parent) (student)
Adu Parent of Pele Middle school 2 -- Yes

Parent
Mia Middle School 2 -- Yes
of Pele
Parent of
Flo High School 1 -- Yes
Michael
Louise Parent Middle School 2 -- Yes
George Parent Middle School 2 -- Yes

Elementary
Claire Parent of Theo 3 -- Yes
School
Michelle Parent of Sasha High School 2 -- Yes
Ruth Parent of Ray Elementary 3 Yes
Lionel Student Middle School 2 UC Berkeley B.S. No
Elementary
Robert Student 3 UC Berkeley B.A. No
School
MPH
Pele Student Middle school 2 Princeton No
M.D.
Arizona State
Michael Student High School 1 B.S. Yes
University
University of
Elementary
Theo Student 3 Southern Cal- M.S. No
School
ifornia
Sasha Student High School 2 UC Berkeley M.Ed. Yes
Elementary
Ray Student 3 UC Berkeley M.Ed. No
School
190
We wanted participants such that we could interview both the parent(s)

and the student. Both parents and students demonstrated active involvement
with CAAP when the student was in K–12 education and once the student
had obtained a bachelor’s degree. We also desired to speak with students that
matriculated to college after the 1996 passage of California’s Proposition 209
because studies have indicated a precipitous drop in applications and atten-
dance of Black students since that legislation (Pusser, 2001; Robinson et al.,
2003; Santos et al., 2010). This drop impacted Black male students most of all,
so we also intentionally pursued Black male students’ families. The intersection
of all the requirements we sought made the pool necessarily smaller.
Since its inception, CAAP has hovered between a 97–100% four-year col-
lege going rate each year. According to the National Center for Education
Statistics, the immediate college enrollment rate for Black students in 2019
was 57% (2020). Therefore, the former CAAP students who participated in
this study exemplify the large majority of CAAP students with regards to their
well-above-average academic achievement. Although CAAP students may have
excelled academically without CAAP’s influence, the findings make clear that
CAAP had a significant impact on students’ academic experiences and pursuits.
Procedure
A qualitative methodological approach was best suited for this study, given
our interest in uncovering meanings Black parents and students ascribe to their
experiences within this group and within schools. Researchers who aim to crit-
ically examine why racial inequities persist in educational policy and practices
must learn from the realities of minoritized populations (Harper, 2012).
Data Collection
Based on information gleaned from the research literature, a pilot inter-
view with the current CAAP president, and informal conversations with CAAP
members, a semistructured interview protocol was generated to use for in-
depth interviews with parents and students to understand what, if any, aspects
of CAAP contribute to better outcomes for Black students. All interviews were
conducted individually, except two interviews in which both parents of a stu-
dent were present at once. The first author served as the interviewer in each
interview in order to maintain an environment conducive to participants shar-
ing personal information. Participants were asked whether and how CAAP has
shaped the educational trajectory of high achieving African American students.
Questions focused on parent/student involvement with CAAP, level of support
provided by CAAP, the benefits/challenges of CAAP, and the impact CAAP has
had on students. For example, we asked, “How does CAAP establish a support
191
system for Black parents?” and “Can you provide me with a summary state-
ment of what CAAP has done for you and your child?” The authors identified
participants with the help of the co-founder and current president of the orga-
nization and obtained informed consent from all participants.
The participants were voluntary, assured of confidentiality, and allowed to
select their own pseudonyms and to review information before publication
(Creswell, 2007). Whichever participant we confirmed to participate first (par-
ent or student), we then pursued the missing link (e.g., the student’s parent if
the student confirmed first, or vice versa if the parent confirmed first) to have
both perspectives of the experience. This was an integral component of our
study as typical research of this type focuses either on the student perspective or
the parent perspective, but not both. Interviews were 60–90 minutes in length
and were conducted in the homes of the participants. In-depth follow-up was
done with six interviewees (three parents and three students) to gain further
insight into the themes that came out of the first round of interviews.
In addition to interviews, the first author conducted observations that
spanned Sunday meetings and special event programming such as celebra-
tions for Kwanzaa, Career Fair, and Stand and Deliver (an annual event when
students offer creative presentations on a theme, e.g., “Why do Black lives mat-
ter?” and are judged by higher education stakeholders on content, delivery, and
creativity). While Sunday meetings took place at a local Cal State University
(CSU) campus, other events span community college, University of California,
and other CSU campuses. CAAP intentionally exposed students and families
to different institution types to make sure that students interacted with higher
education professionals well before college applications started.
All audiotapes from interviews were transcribed verbatim by the first au-
thor. Over 250 pages of transcriptions and observation notes were analyzed.
The data presented here represents over 30 hours of interviews with partici-
pants and 55 hours of observations over a period of approximately 13 months.
Data Analysis
We utilized grounded theory methodology to generate, mine, and make
sense of the data we collected (Charmaz, 2006). Grounded theory is designed
to assist in systematically gathering and analyzing data (Creswell, 2007). This
methodology was appropriate as we wanted to emphasize the analysis of action
and process (Creswell, 2007; Glaser, 1978). Furthermore, grounded theory
is particularly useful in studying settings and social relations that have yet to
receive considerable attention (Kushner & Morrow, 2003), as is the case for
collective Black parental involvement in schools in racialized communities. We
desired to understand the circumstances that formed the basis of the parents’
192
collaboration, their strategic responses to issues within the school and commu-
nity setting, and the outcomes of these responses (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). To
advance the field in this area, the methodology of grounded theory was ideal
because it is a user-friendly and clearly defined (Oliver, 2012) way to increase
the possibilities for the transformation of knowledge (Charmaz, 2006).
We qualitatively assessed Black parents’ and students’ beliefs, attitudes, and
reported practices based on transcriptions of semistructured, in-depth inter-
views (Patton, 2002). This mode of inquiry allowed us to understand how
Black parents incorporated their knowledge of Black cultural values and histo-
ry as a part of their socialization efforts to impact their children’s educational
success. Grounded theory commonly employs the data collection techniques
of document collection, participant observation, and interviews (Glesne &
Peshkin, 1992). We sought first-order narratives in which individuals shared
about themselves and the experiences that contributed to students’ academ-
ic success (Creswell, 2007). We emphasized understanding the various layers
of meanings of participant actions. That is, we analyzed the verbalized expla-
nations, unstated assumptions, intentions, effects, and consequences of their
actions (Charmaz & Belgrave, 2007).
Data collection and analysis were concurrent (Birks & Mills, 2015). We
engaged in multiple stages of collecting, refining, and categorizing the data uti-
lizing open, axial, and selective coding (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). We moved
from concepts to categories, opting for a paragraph-by-paragraph analysis
(Strauss & Corbin, 1990). Once saturation was reached, and no additional
codes or categories emerged, we concluded our analysis. Because qualitative
educational researchers have had to work hard to legitimate their methods
(Anderson, 1989), the provision of thick description (Geertz, 1973) and
establishment of an audit trail was a necessary foundational piece to the de-
pendability of this study (Rodgers & Cowles, 1993).
Triangulation (Kolb & Hanley-Maxwell, 2003) of data was integral to the
validity and fidelity of the study (Glesne & Peshkin, 1992). The authors con-
verged three methods of data collection to not only enhance understanding of
CAAP but to also establish trustworthiness of the study. The authors also used
the aforementioned constant comparison method as a way to enhance validity
(Parry, 1998).
Researchers’ Positionality
As Black women, scholars, and mothers who are profoundly committed to
the study of Black education, the authors returned to one author’s childhood
community to conduct fieldwork. The first author benefitted from the parent
group under study as a child. Both authors were educated in public schools
in middle-class environments where there was stark within-school segregation
193
based at least partially on biased expectations of Black students’ academic

potential. Ladson-Billings (2000) posits that “scholars of color who have expe-
rienced racism and ethnic discrimination (yet survived the rigors of the degree
credentialing process) have a perspective advantage” (p. 271).
Both authors have firsthand experience with negotiating the lurking hos-
tility associated with being Black and successful in academic environments in
which they were “the only one.” They strategically and purposefully include
themselves in this research and acknowledge the multiple consciousnesses in
which they operate (Ladson-Billings, 2000). For example, the first author ap-
proaches this work as an education scholar and as a former member of this
community. To that end, the acknowledgment and articulation of this bias is
required (Reason, 1994). The authors consulted closely throughout the study
in the process of bracketing biases (Morrow, 2005). Throughout data collec-
tion and analysis, the authors engaged in frequent discussions about potential
influences of their biases and focused on accurately capturing and reflecting the
participants’ responses.
The authors leveraged the theoretical sensitivity established by their per-
sonal, professional, and analytic experiences to recognize important aspects of
the data and elucidate meaning (Glaser, 1978; Strauss & Corbin, 1990). The
theoretical sensitivity allowed the authors to maintain an attitude of skepticism
(Strauss & Corbin, 1990), so despite prior familiarity with the research group
and common experiences of isolation as Black students, the authors were able
to pose questions and maintain relative objectivity in their analysis. Moreover,
our prior affiliation pushed us to intentionally probe and extend questioning to
get beyond “taken-for-granted” meanings (Charmaz & Belgrave, 2007).
Findings
Our analyses indicated that this Black parent group overcame educational
barriers by equipping their Black students and families with a cultural, com-
munity-grounded foundation. This study expands our current understanding
of actions that foster Black student success and Black parental support. Parents
were adapting and responding to a racially hostile educational environment.
The environmental conditions led to three deliberate goals of the group: (1)
psychologically prepare children to excel academically and emotionally, (2)
proactively reform schools through advocacy, and (3) empower other Black
parents. Before we describe the major findings, we offer an example to illustrate
the educational climate and challenges that spurred the group’s actions.
Throughout the interviews, both parents and students noted the racist ed-
ucational environment in which they lived. These families experienced racial
194
isolation, low teacher expectations, and other racist and discriminatory events
that spurred their resistance and intervention. Reflecting on how Black stu-
dents were unjustly stigmatized, one former student, Sasha, specified:
When you go to these high schools where a lot of Black students are the
minority, you’re grouped very easily, and if one student is doing bad,
then you’re all doing bad. And I think that’s one of the things that the
Black students in these suburban schools suffer from...it’s hard to create
distinction even amongst the small Black population.
A consequence of Black students not being seen as individuals by their
school staff and being wholly stereotyped as academically weak was that stu-
dents were misdirected into undermatched postgraduate opportunities (Black
et al., 2015). As Sasha recalled:
My counselor told me I should go to community college. I was a 4.0
student mind you...and I told my mom, and she was like, “Oh-kay [sar-
castically], you don’t ever need to talk to her again.” So that was the
messaging that was happening to a lot of the Black students.
Immediately after she graduated from high school, Sasha matriculated at UC
Berkeley, and she now holds a master’s degree in education. As elucidated in the
description of findings that follow, experiences of low academic expectations,
stereotyping, and other forms of racial discrimination in schools prompted
Black parents to come together and advocate for their children’s educational
excellence.
Psychologically Preparing Children to Excel in School
The psychological preparation CAAP provided its students spanned from
counterprogramming against the schools’ negative stereotyping, setting high
expectations for students and assuring them that they were capable of high
achievement, and offering the material support (e.g., college preparation ac-
tivities, study groups, academic mentoring) to enable students to meet those
expectations. Of equal priority, CAAP celebrated students’ racial identities by
educating them on the history of Black excellence, making it clear that they
are a part of the legacy and instilling them with confidence and pride as Black
people.
Collective Correction of Schools’ Miseducation
Sasha, the student who was encouraged by her guidance counselor to pursue
community college despite her 4.0 GPA, reflected on CAAP’s role in showing
her that she could and was expected to reach for other educational opportuni-
ties. She shared:
195
So, going into CAAP and making that distinction, like ok, this [counsel-
or] absolutely does not know what she is doing, and she is grouping me.
But in [CAAP], I’m being told something else that makes sense and…
that’s a very powerful thing, because if you don’t have the parent thing,
if you don’t have the CAAP unit, what do you have? You just have this
one counselor telling you to go to community college, and I am a 4.0
student, and I should be going to a four-year, top school, but I could be
listening to her. But I’m not, because I already have this structure estab-
lished that I know that you’re not telling me the truth. And I think that’s
one of the powerful things that CAAP does.
Sasha’s mother, Michelle, further specified that, “We’ve had to break down a
lot of the stereotypes...the school systems place on our students...that African
American students are academically and intellectually inferior. We know that
that is a lie, and we tell our children that’s a lie.”
Another student, Pele, shared his experience of CAAP as a collective source
of support, encouragement, and counterprogramming against the negative,
limiting messages he received in school. He detailed, “If CAAP wasn’t there,
if there weren’t other African American families that I felt I could latch onto,
then I definitely don’t think I would have succeeded.” He believes that he
would have struggled to motivate himself had he not had CAAP’s support “by
my side helping me to get through” and the role modeling provided by other
CAAP students who were determined to succeed.
Pele noted, “Without something like CAAP that teaches you, or instills in
you the fact that you can achieve greatness, you sort of are left with what the
counselors or what the teachers tell you.” Pele recalled excelling in elementary
school and yet being told by his teachers that he should not be in advanced
classes. He explained, “So without having that reaffirmation, that yes, I can
achieve, yes, I should be achieving, it’s a lot easier to be a product of what the
public system [tells you about yourself ]…CAAP sort of filled in that aspect.”
As the above reflections illustrate, CAAP provided students with counterpro-
gramming against schools’ deficit-oriented expectations through collective
support and encouragement.
Holding Students to High Academic Expectations
CAAP did not stop at merely countering the negative expectations families
received from schools. It also actively and intentionally insisted on greatness
from the students. A major collective focus of the group was on setting high
academic expectations for its children. Theo’s mother Claire remarked on the
great importance of collectively holding children to high expectations and giv-
ing them the material and emotional resources they needed to accomplish the
high standards set for them. She said:
196
I really, truly believe that you have to prepare your kids for greatness and
prepare them for a set of expectations to perform at that higher level...
because they knew what my expectations were, and they knew that I
had confidence in them. That no matter what the consequences were,
no matter who the competition was at school, they knew they could
perform at a high level because they knew that they came from greatness,
and they knew that they were great.
Adu, Pele’s father, discussed how the group supported students’ internal-
ization of believing themselves to be academically efficacious and to “not limit
your sights.” He explicated:
We pushed them, we pushed the students to go ahead and seek those
opportunities. It was common within all of us, you know, like, “Hey, it’s
not unusual to apply to these schools, the UC schools, it’s just a normal
thing that we expect from all of CAAP….You can do it, and we can help.
We’ll help provide whatever help we could do to make you succeed.
These parents made targeted efforts to normalize high expectations—par-
ents were expected to push their students to maximize their education, and
students were expected to use the organization’s social, emotional, and academ-
ic support to reinforce their own expectations of their abilities and potential.
Provisions of Academic Preparation and Motivational Support
To support students with meeting CAAP’s high expectations for them,
the group provided the material support and soft skills training to actualize
these goals. Through their programming, CAAP has helped over 1,000 Black
students get to four-year institutions of higher learning across the nation. As
Claire described:
We lay a foundation. We have several educational programs. Our junior/
senior workshops are 16-week comprehensive programs to teach parents
and students about the whole path of college choice, college decisions,
and college applications…[in] our PALS program—Grades 4 through
12—we teach kids how to stand and deliver. We teach kids how to speak
in public, how to work in groups, how to network. Those are intangibles
that you don’t get in the day-to-day learning in a traditional school site.
They know about cultural awareness. They get motivational speakers
coming in. They see their parents putting forth an effort to make sure
that they have an opportunity.
In addition to the programming made available to students, the organi-
zation also promoted informal connections among students who were often
excluded from studying with their classmates due to racial isolation within
197
their individual schools. As Claire noted, “our students usually perform in iso-
lation….[Yet,] studies have shown when you work in a group, when you tutor
in a group, you have more power, and you have more impact than working
alone.” CAAP’s support outside of the classroom made students feel supported
even when they were “the only one” in their respective classes.
Former students praised the academic guidance, support, and communi-
ty CAAP provided for them. As Pele recalled, his CAAP experiences not only
showed him how to navigate the high school requirements and prepared him
to be competitive at the nation’s top universities, but they also motivated him
to want to achieve at the highest levels. He said:
With that sort of ambition and vision from CAAP, that made me want
to achieve more because I wanted to be that sort of person that CAAP
wanted me to be. Not only were they helping me, they also gave me
some sort of personal motivation for myself….CAAP has given me the
confidence, well first, it has given me the tools which led to confidence,
but it has given me the tools and the confidence to know how to suc-
ceed…so CAAP has really kept that fire going. I don’t think I would
have been able to get that sort of internal motivation on my own.
Flo shared her son Michael’s growth with CAAP:
The academic part was the core of it, but there was a social part. He end-
ed up meeting different peers. He ended up meeting different mentors.
Different people in different organizations. His knowledge base was far
greater than what it was when he came in…he knew what he wanted to
do, what was available to him, what schools were available. I’m sure he
never would have scored as well on his exams.
More than just the academic component, Claire highlighted the crucial im-
portance of uplifting students and reminding them of their self-worth through
the ideological principles imparted to students. She described:
Every day we come in, we start with the scholar’s creed that tells them
that they are going to leave an indelible mark on the world. They are the
ebony jewels….The creed is something that we have each student mem-
orize so that they know that they are something to be valued, something
to be in awe of, and that nothing can ever get them down.
While CAAP put a great deal of effort into students’ academic motivation,
preparation, and growth, equally important was the provision of cultural val-
ues and confidence. As Claire explained, “I think the cultural piece and the
academics run hand in hand. You have to know who you are and where you
came from and have confidence in yourself to try anything.” It is this cultural
component that we explore in the next section.
198
Instilling Cultural Pride, Values, and Confidence

CAAP understood cultural pride to be integral to students’ abilities to be ac-
ademically excellent. The cultural component was essential because the school
environment was devoid of Black students, staff, administration, and Black
cultural affirmation. If the students did not come to school confident in who
they were, the potential for discouragement and/or miseducation was high. As
Michelle, a CAAP parent, delineated:
There’s just a “rooting” that we give them. We root our students, and
then we encourage the parents to do the same thing at home so that
ultimately, no matter which way the wind is blowing, no matter what
the cultural climate, there is a sense of knowing…and cultural pride and
cultural esteem and confidence that’s in place.
Part of the “rooting” process included ensuring that students were knowledge-
able about Black history and the rich legacy that they are a part of as Black peo-
ple. For example, as Claire explained, the mission of the organization included
providing sociocultural knowledge:
When our kids know whose shoulders they stand on and the expectation
and the greatness and genius they have in them, then they have a lot
more confidence, and they perform at a higher level. They stand on their
parents’ shoulders—their grandparents, and all their ancestors—all the
greats who have paved the way for us to be great.
Parents and former students discussed the variety of social and cultural activ-
ities the group put on, including Kwanzaa celebrations, Black History Month
events, and potlucks, which added to the educational experience. Michael, a
former student, recalled that, “Overall, it’s not just an educational group, but
it’s also a cultural and a social organization…the people that you’re involved
with at the same school or even at other schools, you know, you have a kind of
separate bond outside the organization.”
As the recollections of CAAP leadership, parents, and former students illus-
trate, the collective voices and actions of the group prepared children to meet
the group’s high academic expectations. By laying an impenetrable foundation
of social connection, academic preparedness, and racial knowledge and pride,
CAAP psychologically prepared its students to face and overcome the negative
onslaught of low expectations and doubt they experienced at school. In addi-
tion to the efforts they put into preparing the students, the group also made
it their mission to shape the school environment to be a more nurturing and
effective academic space for students.
199
Reforming Schools Through Collective Advocacy

The advocacy efforts of CAAP changed policies and procedures related to
academic courses, disciplinary practices, and extracurricular activities in the
school district. The changes directly challenged practices that had been disad-
vantaging and excluding Black students. As Claire limned:
Changes were made in response to [CAAP] being involved and exposing
the district.…Our major accomplishments are that within the [district]
when we started, African American students weren’t allowed to take
AP and honors classes unless they were recommended by a teacher. We
took that whole process out through working with the superintendent.
[Now], if your child gets an A or a B, they’re able to take the next level
of classes, no matter if they have a teacher recommendation. The other
successful thing we did was [to address] the name-calling—a number of
students were calling our students out of their names, “niggers,” “mon-
keys,”…we started a rule where if you name call, that’s the same as a
suspension for hitting someone.
Another issue the group tackled was that school teachers and administration
would oftentimes say they did not have time to meet with the Black parents. In
response, the parents took time from their schedules, whether it was to make
phone calls while they were at work, amending their workday (going in late
or leaving early) in order to be present at the school, or having other parents
intervene on their behalf. CAAP was integral in equipping parents with the
knowledge of how to enact change in the school district. Michelle, a parent
who has been involved with the group for over 20 years, highlighted the im-
portance of the presence of these Black parents at the schools:
These schools and these teachers bank on parents not knowing what
their rights are, because once you know your rights, it makes their jobs
more difficult ‘cus they really got a whole ‘nother layer of work that they
don’t want to be bothered with. That’s their biggest fear, is a knowledge-
able parent.
While CAAP worked to challenge systemic racist practices and equip par-
ents to do the same, it also made sure to have a presence at the school that
exposed the campus and its students and staff to the richness of Black culture.
Ray, a former student, remembered: “We had our annual Kwanzaa events, and
would set up for Black History Month, that was an annual event.”
Speaking of the direct influence CAAP had at a new high school, one for-
mer student, Sasha, commented, “For instance, I was the first graduating class,
and they wouldn’t, for the first couple of years, they wouldn’t let us have a Black
200
Student Union [BSU] because that wasn’t how they wanted to portray their
high school.” With the support of the CAAP community, the BSU was even-
tually established and became a source of on-site collaboration with CAAP. To
this day, CAAP continues to host events at schools in the district and works
closely with district staff.
CAAP was able to respond to the individual needs and experiences of Black
families and students by creating a lasting and collective call to action. CAAP’s
collective reformative advocacy in the district has led to a legacy of systemic
changes that has been recognized (both informally and formally) in the district
and beyond and has increased equity, access, and inclusion for all students.
CAAP’s Lasting Legacy of Protecting Black Students in the School District
As Adu, a CAAP parent, described:
CAAP was able to challenge that perception that [the district] had of
African American students. And by having CAAP as a voice or as an
organization as a whole, these schools, when they are hassling an African
American student, they know that there’s a support and an organization
behind them. [Schools] would investigate a little bit more and find out
the story before they take the actions. These systemic changes that CAAP
introduced, demanded, and achieved continue to benefit the small num-
ber of Black students in the district.
As a result of the initiative, action, and programming on the part of CAAP,
the organization continues to build credibility within the community and in-
fluence within the school district. Michelle, a CAAP parent, expounded:
One of the things that CAAP has is a lot of power, so that when any of
these schools in the inland empire or Office of the President or the UC
System, they get a call from [the CAAP president], they take her calls; I’ll
put it like that. If one of these schools sees us coming…they want to be
friends with CAAP. They don’t want to be on the bad side of the Council
of African American Parents.
Sasha describes the sense of protection she, as a Black student, felt with the
support of the CAAP collective behind her. She outlined:
I think that having parents together show that they’re a unit and that
they’re protecting these students is important. You have to have some
type of voice or else your kids are going to be victimized, and it happens
every day, so to be that kind of unit to have a presence in your commu-
nity is really important. I think there’s power in numbers…these injus-
tices that take place at these high schools are nipped in the bud because
CAAP is there.
201
Through collaborative supportiveness and collective action, CAAP created

a powerful movement of change within the school district. By making their
concerns known and putting pressure on school leadership to address prob-
lem areas and fill in curricular gaps, CAAP facilitated school- and district-level
changes that benefitted all students. Furthermore, CAAP established itself as
a vigilant group that would not tolerate injustice, thereby holding the school
and its actors to higher standards of performance. Individual parents working
in isolation would likely not have been able to accomplish such changes, but
the group cohesion brought forth a power that could not be extinguished.
Empowering Other Black Parents
The utility of CAAP is deeply rooted in the notion of unity and agency.
As George, a CAAP parent, framed it, Black students require the support of
out-of-school programs like CAAP “because their school doesn’t care…we [the
parents] have to do something about it.” The organization was and is able to
provide more for its families because parents share what they have learned
and bring others into the fold. As Louise, another parent, conveyed: “A par-
ent could come in and could be clueless [about navigating the school system].
They teach you how to have the courage and to do your homework and to do
your research so that you can take on…that you can fight for your child and
advocate for your child.” Oftentimes parents do not know they can question
schools’ policies and decisions, and many are unsure of how to interact with
the school when the need arises. CAAP was able to help fill this gap for the
parents so that they could advocate on behalf of their children. Claire shared
that CAAP has:
…a very vital role, because we give information and support to parents
who don’t know how to navigate the educational system. There’s a lot
of things that go on in the educational system that the school district
does not tell you, and you learn from other parents and people who have
gone through it. You don’t know to advocate for your kid to take AP and
honors classes. No one puts a sign up to say, “Hey, get in AP and honors
classes.” You don’t know what the relevance is. You don’t know about
rigor until you work with the Council of African American Parents, and
they tell you what rigor is, and they explain to you the importance of
rigor and how you maximize your opportunities by having rigor.
The participants of this study emphasized their commitment to empow-
ering others within the community. All participants communicated a sense
of being part of something greater, one part of a greater body. Pele, a former
CAAP scholar who later served as a board member and instructor, character-
ized the empowerment piece thusly:
202
CAAP helped empower those parents that weren’t as energetic in their

kids’ academic lives…so CAAP did help teach these parents. This is what
you need to be doing about getting your kids through school; these are
the questions you need to be asking the counselors, and these are the
questions you need to be asking the admissions officers. They were also
able to empower those other parents who might not have had the stron-
gest confidence in themselves. It is hard to become confident African
American parents when you don’t see other strong African American
parents in the community. So CAAP, I felt, did an amazing job, and I
saw that more as I became a lot older after high school, after I was in
my 20s working a lot with the kids and the parents directly. I saw how
CAAP changed these parents from going from just putting these kids
through school to these parents now becoming the heads of their kids’
academic vision. They don’t know that they have these sorts of rights,
but that’s where the parents need to be at. They need to be the ones
telling the school, these are the courses that my kids should be taking….
Fortunately for CAAP, there is somebody there who is telling these par-
ents that this is what you are allowed to do because, me personally, I
would not have known unless somebody told me that you have the right
to do this for your kid if they’re in a public school. I think CAAP does a
great job with empowering parents.
Parents also discussed the value of CAAP for empowering them and other
parents in the struggle to support their students. Louise, a mother of two sons,
shared:
CAAP gave us the knowledge that we had to fight for our kids. I think a
lot of parents believe, without CAAP in their life, right, they believe that
you can just drop your kid off at school, and they’ll get educated, and
then when they start failing and underperforming you blame the kids.…
One lady said, “Oh you’re so lucky, your kids are so great, mine are so
lazy.” I said, “Well girl, I have the laziest children on the planet…you
have no idea. You know who the hard workers are? This man [pointing
to her husband] and me. Really. They would sleep all day if we let them.
Literally, all day.” So, the parents can’t get tired. The parents have to be
the magic. They have to be the driver. They have to set the high expecta-
tions.…All work completed, no behavioral problems, and no grades less
than a B, that was the criteria to live here.
As the participants’ reflections make clear, CAAP provided parents with
knowledge and power to hold their children to high expectations and to en-
sure that the schools were giving their children just opportunities to achieve
203
academic excellence. The interviews tell the tale of the importance of a commu-
nity with deeply entrenched networks. The connections they made and unity
they exhibited to empower the members individually and collectively fortified
the adults with the tools to prime their children for success in this community.
Discussion
This study provides contextually situated findings of how parents optimal-

ly contributed to Black students’ educational development and success. Using
this parent group as a case study, we make clear how families can collective-
ly support Black children’s academic success by proactively introducing Black
cultural strengths, values, and history to their children, their children’s schools,
and other Black parents. The findings of this study demonstrate that the cul-
tural priming some Black families provide for their children prior to entering
the American education system (e.g., racial socialization) and throughout their
grade level progression is a crucial contributor to students’ academic and emo-
tional well-being. Furthermore, we found that this group of parents not only
actively prepared their children to respond to racialized life, but also support-
ed each other and their children’s schools through education about race, Black
culture, and equity.
The words shared by the parents and students involved in the Council of Af-
rican American Parents demonstrated that this group provided a safe haven for
this community who constantly felt like they were not heard, seen, or valued
in their schools. CAAP took the initiative to counter the deficit-based messages
and practices to which their children were subjected to within the school sys-
tem. By supporting their children’s racial and academic identities, intervening
to correct the injustices perpetrated by school policies, and empowering oth-
er Black parents with knowledge and tools to advocate for their children, the
group ultimately improved Black students’ and families’ educational experienc-
es and ensured that they could thrive academically and culturally.
This study bolsters existing literature that has identified strong racial iden-
tities as promotive of Black students’ achievement (e.g., Nasir, 2012). The
findings of this examination of CAAP’s influence highlight the crucial impor-
tance of psychologically preparing children to enter school with an awareness
of racial bias and equipping them with the coping tools to maintain resilience
in the face of discrimination. The racial socialization literature clarifies that
parents’ efforts to bolster children’s resilience around issues of racial discrimina-
tion have significantly favorable effects on students’ academic outcomes (e.g.,
Wong et al., 2003). Our study further illustrates the significant labor Black
parents exert to nurture their children’s positive racial and academic identities.
204
Furthermore, the study strengthens previous findings that families of color

possess a multitude of intellectual and social strengths that support not only
student achievement, but also support schools’ ability to provide higher quality
and more equitable educational services as a result of their stronger relation-
ships with and appreciation of families (González et al., 1995). Examples taken
from CAAP demonstrate the possibilities of student outcomes when schools
listen to Black parents as they strive to establish fair procedures to respond to
racist incidents, insert Black cultural values in the curriculum, and educate
school staff about Black cultural strengths and how to utilize them for students’
academic achievement and socal/emotional wellness. Aligned with research on
home funds of knowledge (Moll & Greenberg, 1990), this study shows that
schools benefit from learning from Black parents because, as evidenced by this
group, parents can positively reform schools so that they better serve students,
especially students of color. Our study calls for the reframing and reimagining
of Black parental involvement to include the responsibility of schools to hon-
or and incorporate Black parents’ contributions. Not only should parents be
considered partners of the schools, but schools should also consider themselves
partners of the parents.
Moreover, this study demonstrates that Black parents put forth this effort
on behalf of other children and parents, as well as for the benefit of their own
children. In each area that the group pursued and excelled in, including sup-
porting students, parents, and schools, one of the most important factors was
the value and power of the collective. The caring that these parents exhibited
on behalf of their fictive kin was powerful and impacted students and par-
ents alike. Adding to evidence from previous studies (e.g., Jasis, 2013; Yull et
al., 2018), this examination of CAAP’s activities and influences provided con-
crete examples of Black parents’ collective agency and advocacy, as well as the
long-lasting impact such work has had on student success and racially equita-
ble school policies and practices.
Implications
The findings of this study have implications for families, schools, policy-
makers, and child and family practitioners regarding how to support the use of
cultural protective factors as a valuable contributor to Black students’ educa-
tional success. Because Black students and parents often feel excluded within
educational spaces like the ones our participants experienced, organizations
such as CAAP can serve as a necessary network of support for families. Schools
can leverage such organizations and partner with them to disseminate informa-
tion, fortify communication pathways, and access cultural and social resources
205
not readily available in schools. Tertiary organizations such as CAAP may also
be maximized in the summers when communication between schools and stu-
dents is sparse, particularly the summer between high school and college when
students and families are neither fully under the tutelage of K–12 or high-
er education (Rall, 2016). As the nation continues to diversify across various
characteristics, there is a large burden placed on schools. Schools regularly uti-
lize “outside” resources such as speech pathologists, hearing specialists, and
enrichment assemblies to meet the needs of their students; the cultural needs
of students should be no exception. Collaboration with cultural groups may be
a way to address equity gaps across racial, ethnic, and cultural lines.
We must acknowledge that this group had a relative privilege that other
groups of Black parents, with different educational and socioeconomic capi-
tal, may not have access to. More research is needed to identify how collective
Black parental efforts are similar or different among groups who differ in socio-
economic status. Nevertheless, among this study’s participants, it was not just
the individual capital of the parents, but the amalgamation of these resources
that provided the force needed to challenge individual bad actors and change
discriminatory system-level practices within schools.
Limitations
Study limitations are inevitable regardless of precautions taken; therefore,
researchers have a responsibility to acknowledge these challenges (Collet-Klin-
genberg & Kolb, 2011). Qualitative researchers value uniqueness (Stake, 1995).
Often with qualitative research, analytic results are unique to the specific investi-
gators, participants, and context (Morrow & Smith, 1995). Qualitative research
relies on the researchers who carry it out, as our preconceptions permeate our
thinking and writing (Charmaz, 2006). This sample was one of convenience
where each participant was a member of the nonprofit organization and vol-
unteered to participate. Additionally, as noted in the methodology section,
the first author had prior knowledge of and relationship with the Black parent
group highlighted in this article. This may have caused participants to answer in
socially desirable ways or limit their explanations if they assumed the researcher
was already familiar with the organization and what the members did.
Conclusion
This study highlights the importance of explicit forms of collective parental
involvement in successful outcomes for Black students. The effort, commit-
ment, unity, and follow-through of the parents and students affiliated with
this group were remarkable. The network of Black families simultaneously act-
ed as a safe haven and a preemptive architect of a much needed academic
206
and cultural foundation for the students and parents in this community. The
data we gathered from parents and students themselves contribute to practi-
cal knowledge that can be shared with families who would benefit from more
explicit guidance on how to support their children’s academic excellence. This
study informs strategies for helping to successfully propel more Black students
(regardless of their minority status in a community) to higher levels of academ-
ic attainment. More investigation is needed to understand the discourse and
actions of collective groups of Black parents (not just parents within a single
household) in highly racialized communities as they mobilize to promote their
children’s abilities to excel academically.
Race continues to be a constant determinant of various educational out-
comes (Harper, 2012). The pervasiveness of race, racialization, and racism
insists that many Black students and parents need to take an active part in a
process of cultural, social, and educational preparation for educational excel-
lence. In order to develop a successful foundation for Black students, parents,
policy developers, and educational leaders must utilize the invaluable resourc-
es present in Black culture, Black identity, and the Black family. By gaining
knowledge of how Black families pool and tap into cultural strengths to sup-
port individual students and school and community functioning, educators
and families can better serve Black students’ learning needs.
Endnote
1
For the purposes of this article and based on our personal use of the terms, “Black” and
“African American” will be used interchangeably in this article to include people of African
descent in the U.S. We understand that these terms have been used differently by a variety of
scholars; our interchangeable use of them is not meant to “homogenize cultural and ethnic
differences among African Americans and other people of African descent” (Tillman, 2002,
p. 10).
References
Alameda-Lawson, T., & Lawson, M. A. (2019). Ecologies of collective parent engagement in
urban education. Urban Education, 54(8), 1085–1120.
Anderson, G. L. (1989). Critical ethnography in education: Origins, current status, and new
directions. Review of Educational Research, 59(3), 249–270.
Anderson, R. E., & Stevenson, H. C. (2019). RECASTing racial stress and trauma: Theorizing
the healing potential of racial socialization in families. American Psychologist, 79, 63–75.
Anguiano, R., Thomas, S., & Proehl, R. (2020). Family engagement in a Catholic school:
What can urban schools learn? School Community Journal, 30(1), 209–241. https://www.
adi.org/journal/2020ss/AnguianoEtAlSS2020.pdf
Anyiwo, N., Bañales, J., Rowley, S. J., Watkins, D. C., & Richards‐Schuster, K. (2018). So-
ciocultural influences on the sociopolitical development of African American youth. Child
Development Perspectives, 12(3), 165–170.
207
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Pren-
tice-Hall.
Baquedano-López, P., Alexander, R. A., & Hernández, S. J. (2013). Equity issues in parental
Birks, M., & Mills, J. (2015). Grounded theory: A practical guide. Sage.
Black, S. E., Cortes, K. E., & Lincove, J. A. (2015). Academic undermatching of high-achiev-
ing minority students: Evidence from race-neutral and holistic admissions policies. Ameri-
can Economic Review, 105(5), 604–610.
Brown, L. H., & Beckett, K. S. (2007). Building community in an urban school district: A
case study of African American educational leadership. School Community Journal, 17(1),
7–32. https://www.adi.org/journal/ss07/BrownBeckettSpring2007.pdf
Brown-Wright, L., & Tyler, K. M. (2010). The effects of home–school dissonance on African
American male high school students. Journal of Negro Education, 79(2), 125–136.
Carter Andrews, D. J. (2012). Black achievers’ experiences with racial spotlighting and ignor-
ing in a predominantly White high school. Teachers College Record, 114(10), 1–46.
Carter, D. J. (2007). Why the Black kids sit together at the stairs: The role of identity-affirm-
ing counter-spaces in a predominantly White high school. The Journal of Negro Education,
76(4), 542–554.
Carter, P. L., Skiba, R., Arredondo, M. I., & Pollock, M. (2017). You can’t fix what you don’t
look at: Acknowledging race in addressing racial discipline disparities. Urban Education,
52(2), 207–235.
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory. Sage.
Charmaz, K., & Belgrave, L. L. (2007). Grounded theory. The Blackwell Encyclopedia of So-
ciology.
Clark, R. M. (1984). Family life and school achievement: Why poor black children succeed or fail.
University of Chicago Press.
Codjoe, H. M. (2010). Fighting a “Public Enemy” of Black academic achievement—The per-
sistence of racism and the schooling experiences of Black students in Canada. Race Ethnic-
ity and Education, 4(4), 343–375.
Collet-Klingenberg, L., & Kolb, S. M. (2011). Secondary and transition programming for
18–21-year-old students in rural Wisconsin, Rural. Special Education Quarterly, 30(2),
19–27.
Council of African American Parents (CAAP). (n.d.). About CAAP. https://councilofafricana-
mericanparents.org/about-us/about-capp/
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches.
Sage.
Dotterer, A. M., & Wehrspann, E. (2016). Parent involvement and academic outcomes among
urban adolescents: Examining the role of school engagement. Educational Psychology,
36(4), 812–830.
Dumas, M. J. (2016). Against the dark: Antiblackness in education policy and discourse. The-
ory Into Practice, 55(1), 11–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2016.1116852
Dumas, M. J., & ross, K. M. (2016). “Be real Black for me”: Imagining BlackCrit in edu-
cation. Urban Education, 51(4), 415–442. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085916628611
Dunbar, A. S., Leerkes, E. M., Coard, S. I., Supple, A. J., & Calkins, S. (2017). An integrative
conceptual model of parental racial/ethnic and emotion socialization and links to children’s
social–emotional development among African American families. Child Development Per-
spectives, 11(1), 16–22.
208
Ellison, R. (1963). What these children are like. Lecture given by Ellison in Dedham, MA, U.S.
Ford, D. Y., & Moore, J. L. (2013). Understanding and reversing underachievement, low
achievement, and achievement gaps among high-ability African American males in urban
school contexts. The Urban Review, 45(4), 399–415.
Furstenberg, F. F. (2007). The making of the Black family: Race and class in qualitative studies
in the twentieth century. Annual Review of Sociology, 33, 429–448.
Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays. Basic Books.
Glaser, B. G. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity: Advances in the methodology of grounded theory (Vol.
2). Sociology Press.
Glesne, C., & Peshkin, A. (1992). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. Longman.
González, N., Moll, L. C., Tenery, M. F., Rivera, A., Rendon, P., Gonzales, & Amanti, C.
(1995). Funds of knowledge for teaching in Latino households. Urban Education, 29(4),
443–447.
Grace, J. E., & Nelson, S. L. (2019). “Tryin’ to survive”: Black male students’ understandings
of the role of race and racism in the school-to-prison pipeline. Leadership and Policy in
Schools, 18(4), 664–680.
Greenberg, J. B. (1989, April). Funds of knowledge: Historical constitution, social distribution,
and transmission [Paper presentation]. Annual Meeting of the Society for Applied Anthro-
pology, Santa Fe, NM, U.S.
Hammersley, M., & Atkinson, P. (2003). Ethnography. Routledge Press.
Harper, S. R. (2012). Race without racism: How higher education researchers minimize racist
institutional norms. The Review of Higher Education, 36(1), 9–29.
Holman, A. R. (2012). Gendered racial socialization in Black families: Mothers’ beliefs, ap-
proaches, and advocacy. [Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley]. Pro-
Quest Dissertations.
Howard, T. C., & Reynolds, R. (2008). Examining parent involvement in reversing the un-
derachievement of African American students in middle-class schools. Educational Foun-
dations, 22, 79–98.
Hughes, D., Rodriguez, J., Smith, E. P., Johnson, D. J., Stevenson, H. C., & Spicer, P. (2006).
Parents’ ethnic–racial socialization practices: A review of research and directions for future
study. Developmental Psychology, 42, 747–770.
Hughes, D. L., Watford, J. A., & Del Toro, J. (2016). A transactional/ecological perspective
on ethnic–racial identity, socialization, and discrimination. In S. S. Horn, M. D. Ruck, &
L. S. Liben (Eds.), Equity and justice in developmental science: Implications for young people,
families, and communities (pp. 1–41). Elsevier Academic Press.
Jackson, K., & Remillard, J. T. (2005). Rethinking parent involvement: African American
mothers construct their roles in the mathematics education of their children. School Com-
munity Journal, 15, 51–73. https://www.adi.org/journal/ss05/Jackson%20&%20Remi-
llard.pdf
Jacobs-Huey, L. (2006). From the kitchen to the parlor: Language and becoming in African Amer-
ican women’s hair care. Oxford University Press.
Jasis, P. (2013). Latino families challenging exclusion in a middle school: A story from the
trenches. School Community Journal, 23(1), 111–130. https://www.adi.org/journal/2013ss/
JasisSpring2013.pdf
Jeynes, W. H. (2005). A meta-analysis of the relation of parental involvement to urban elemen-
tary school student academic achievement. Urban Education, 40(3), 237–269.
Jeynes, W. H. (2007). The relationship between parental involvement and urban secondary
school student academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Urban Education, 42(1), 82–110.
209
Johnson, L. B., & Staples, R. (2004). Black families at the crossroads: Challenges and prospects.
Jossey-Bass.
Jones, S. R., Torres, V., & Arminio, J. L. (2006). Negotiating the complexities of qualitative re-
search in higher education: Fundamental elements and issues. Brunner-Routledge.
Kolb, S. M. & Hanley-Maxwell, C. (2003). Critical social skills for adolescents with high inci-
dence disabilities: Parental perspectives. Exceptional Children, 69(2), 163–179.
Kushner, K. E., & Morrow, R. (2003). Grounded theory, feminist theory, critical theory: To-
ward theoretical triangulation. Advances in Nursing Science, 26(1), 30–43.
Lacy, K. R. (2007). Blue-chip Black: Race, class, and status in the new Black middle class. Uni-
versity of California Press.
Ladson-Billings, G. (2000). Racialized discourses and ethnic epistemologies. Handbook of
Qualitative Research, 2, 257–277.
Latunde, Y. C. (2018). Expanding their opportunities to engage: A case of the African Ameri-
can parent council. The Journal of Negro Education, 87(3), 270–284.
Latunde, Y., & Clark-Louque, A. (2016). Untapped resources: Black parent engagement that
contributes to learning. The Journal of Negro Education, 85(1), 72–81.
Marchand, A. D., Vassar, R. R., Diemer, M. A., & Rowley, S. J. (2019). Integrating race,
racism, and critical consciousness in Black parents’ engagement with schools. Journal of
Family Theory & Review, 11(3), 367–384.
Martin, P., & McAdoo, H. (2007). Sources of racial socialization: Theological orientation
of African American churches and parents. In H. P. McAdoo (Ed.), Black families (pp.
125–142). Sage.
McAdoo, H. P. (2002). The village talks: Racial socialization of our children. In H. P. McAdoo
(Ed.), Black children: Social, educational, and parental environments (pp. 47–55). Sage.
McCarthy Foubert, J. L. M. (2019). “Damned if you do, damned if you don’t”: Black parents’
racial realist school engagement. Race Ethnicity and Education, 1–18.
McKinney De Royston, M. M., Vakil, S., Nasir, N. S., Ross, K. M., Givens, J., & Holman,
A. (2017). “He’s more like a ‘brother’ than a teacher”: Politicized caring in a program for
African American males. Teachers College Record, 119(4), 1–40.
Moll, L. C., & Greenberg, J. (1990). Creating zones of possibilities: Combining social contexts
for instruction. In L. C. Moll (Ed.), Vygotsky and education (pp. 319–348). Cambridge
University Press.
Morrow, S. L. (2005). Quality and trustworthiness in qualitative research in counseling psy-
chology. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(2), 250–260.
Morrow, S. L., & Smith, M. L. (1995). Constructions of survival and coping by women who
have survived childhood sexual abuse. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 42(1), 24–33.
Murray, C. B., & Mandara, J. (2002). Racial identity development in African American chil-
dren: Cognitive and experiential antecedents. In H. P. McAdoo (Ed.), Black children: So-
cial, educational, and parental environments (2nd ed., pp. 73–96). Sage.
Nasir, N. S. (2012). Racialized identities: Race and achievement among African American youth.
Stanford University Press.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2020). Digest of Education Statistics 2020, Table
302.20. In Current Population Survey (CPS), October Supplement, 2010 through 2019. U.S.
Department of Commerce, Census Bureau.
Nobles, W. W. (2006). Seeking the Sakhu: Foundational writings for an African psychology. Third
World Press.
Nyborg, V. M., & Curry, J. F. (2003). The impact of perceived racism: Psychological symp-
toms among African American boys. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology,
32(2), 258–266.
210
Oliver, C. (2012). Critical realist grounded theory: A new approach for social work research.
British Journal of Social Work, 42(2), 371–387.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Two decades of developments of qualitative inquiry: A personal, expe-
riential perspective. Qualitative Social Work, 1(3), 261–283.
Peters, M. F. (2002). Racial socialization of young Black children. In H. P. McAdoo (Ed.),
Black children: Social, educational, and parental environments (2nd ed., pp. 57–72). Sage.
Posey-Maddox, L. (2017a). Race in place: Black parents, family–school relations, and mul-
tispatial microaggressions in a predominantly White suburb. Teachers College Record,
119(12), 1–42.
Posey-Maddox, L. (2017b). Schooling in suburbia: The intersections of race, class, gender, and
place in Black fathers’ engagement and family–school relationships. Gender and Education,
5, 577–593.
Posey-Maddox, L., McKinney de Royston, M., Holman, A. R., Rall, R. M., & Johnson, R.
(2021). No choice is the “right” choice: Black parents’ educational decision-making in
their search for a “good” school. Harvard Educational Review, 91(1), 38–61.
Powell, T., & Coles, J. A. (2020). “We still here”: Black mothers’ personal narratives of sense
making and resisting antiblackness and the suspensions of their Black children. Race Eth-
nicity and Education, 24(1), 76–95.
Puchner, L., & Markowitz, L. (2015). Do Black families value education? White teachers, in-
stitutional cultural narratives, & beliefs about African Americans. Multicultural Education,
23(1), 9–16.
Pusser, B. (2001). The contemporary politics of access policy: California after Proposition
209. In D. E. Heller (Ed.), The states and public education policy: Affordability, access, and
accountability (pp. 121–152). Johns Hopkins University Press.
Rall, R. M. (2016). Forgotten students in a transitional summer: Low-income racial/ethnic
minority students experience the summer melt. The Journal of Negro Education, 85(4),
462–479.
Reason, P. (1994). Three approaches to participative inquiry. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln
(Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 324–339). Sage.
Reynolds, A. L., Sneva, J. N., & Beehler, G. P. (2010). The influence of racism-related stress
on the academic motivation of Black and Latino/a students. Journal of College Student
Development, 51(2), 135–149.
Robinson, N., Caspary, K., Santelices, V., Geiser, S., Studley, R., & Masten, C. (2003). Under-
graduate access to the University of California after the elimination of race- conscious policies.
University of California, Office of the President.
Rodgers, B. L., & Cowles, K. V. (1993). The qualitative research audit trail: A complex collec-
tion of documentation. Research in Nursing & Health, 16(3), 219–226.
Sankofa Waters, B. (2016). Freedom lessons: Black mothers asserting smartness of their chil-
dren. Race Ethnicity and Education, 19(6), 1223–1235.
Santos, J. L., Cabrera, N. L., & Fosnacht, K. J. (2010). Is “race-neutral” really race-neutral?:
Disparate impact towards underrepresented minorities in post-209 UC system admissions.
The Journal of Higher Education, 81(6), 605–631.
Skiba, R. J., Michael, R. S., Nardo, A. C., & Peterson, R. L. (2002). The color of discipline:
Sources of racial and gender disproportionality in school punishment. The Urban Review,
34(4), 317–342.
Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Sage.
Steele, C. M., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of
African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(5), 797–811.
211
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and
techniques. Sage.
Strayhorn, T. L. (2010). The role of schools, families, and psychological variables on math
achievement of Black high school students. The High School Journal, 93(4), 177–194.
Strmic-Pawl, H. V., & Leffler, P. K. (2011). Black families and fostering of leadership. Ethnic-
ities, 11(2), 139–162.
Thomas, A. J., & King, C. T. (2007). Gendered racial socialization of African American moth-
ers and daughters. The Family Journal, 15, 137–142.
Threlfall, J. M. (2018). Parenting in the shadow of Ferguson: Racial socialization practices in
context. Youth & Society, 50, 255–273.
Tillman, L. C. (2002). Culturally sensitive research approaches: An African American perspec-
tive. Educational Researcher, 31(9), 3–12.
Vincent, C., Rollock, N., Ball, S., & Gillborn, D. (2012). Intersectional work and precarious
positionings: Black middle-class parents and their encounters with schools in England.
International Studies in Sociology of Education, 22(3), 259–276.
Wilson, D., Foster, J., Anderson, S., & Mance, G. (2009). Racial socialization’s moderating
effect between poverty stress and psychological symptoms for African American youth.
Journal of Black Psychology, 35, 102–124.
Wong, C. A., Eccles, J. S., & Sameroff, A. (2003). The influence of ethnic discrimination and
ethnic identification on African American adolescents’ school and socioemotional adjust-
ment. Journal of Personality, 71, 1197–1232.
Yosso, T. J. (2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community
cultural wealth. Race, Ethnicity, and Education, 8(1), 69–91.
Yull, D., Wilson, M., Murray, C., & Parham, L. (2018). Reversing the dehumanization of
families of color in schools: Community-based research in a race-conscious parent en-
gagement program. School Community Journal, 28(1), 319–347. https://www.adi.org/jour-
nal/2018ss/YullEtAlSpring2018.pdf
Raquel M. Rall is an assistant professor of higher education at the University of

California, Riverside. Prior to that appointment, she was a UC Chancellor’s Postdoc-
toral Fellow. Her research is centered on higher education leadership and governance.
Of particular interest to Dr. Rall is research that helps further illuminate and con-
nect aspects of governing boards that are central to concepts of equity, diversity, and
inclusion. She is active with programs and initiatives centered on equity, diversity,
inclusion, and leadership both on and off-campus. Correspondence concerning this
article may be addressed to Dr. Raquel M. Rall, 900 University Avenue, 1207 Sproul
Hall, Riverside, CA 92521, or email raquel.rall@ucr.edu
Alea Holman is an assistant professor of school psychology in the Graduate School
of Education at Fordham University. Her scholarship focuses on the gendered and
racialized experiences of children and families of color. Specifically, Dr. Holman ex-
amines mothers’ gendered racial socialization beliefs and practices with their Black
and mixed-race children. Additionally, she investigates best practices for providing
culturally integrative, therapeutic, collaborative psychological assessment for children.
Complementing her research program, Dr. Holman is a licensed psychologist and has
practice-based experience working in schools, community mental health, and private
practice.
212
Español, el Idioma Que Nosotros Hablamos:
A Collective Case Study of Home Language Use
and Literacy Practices of Mexican American
Families
Anne M. García, Rong Zhang, Annamarie King, and
Trish Morita-Mullaney
Abstract
This collective case study employs both family literacy theory (Taylor, 1983)
and funds of knowledge (Moll et al., 1992) to examine the ways that Mexican
American parents conceptualize and practice literacy in the home with their
emergent bilingual elementary-aged children. “Emergent bilingual” is used to
reference students who are gaining English as an additional linguistic repertoire
(García, 2009). Drawing from questionnaires and interviews from a suburban
Midwestern U.S. community, findings demonstrate how families position and
mediate their languages and literacies within their homes and communities.
Such findings illuminate how emergent bilingual families create distinct spac-
es to shape the identity and agency of their emergent bilingual children. Such
findings are now incorporated into English Language Learner and bilingual
teacher preparation courses so teachers can identify, describe, and understand
the multifaceted literacy capacities of their emergent bilingual families.
Key Words: family literacy practices, emergent bilingual, family engagement,

agency, identity, home language use, Mexican American families, collective
case study, funds of knowledge

Introduction
Describing how families are negotiating their “linguistic repertoires” in their

homes and communities is an important area of inquiry, as bilingualism is not
only levels of language proficiency (e.g., beginning, intermediate, or advanced).
Bilingualism is the dynamic interplay between heritage languages, the majority
language, and families’ locally generated resources (García & Kleifgen, 2010).
We use the term emergent bilingual as employed by scholars to recognize the
assets these children and families bring to schools and communities through
not only their linguistic backgrounds, but also their cultural practices (García,
2009; García & Kleifgen, 2010). This study identifies and describes the strate-
gies and resources Mexican American families use with their bilingual children.
Analysis from parent interviews describe the strategies parents employ in their
homes and communities, roles that schools play in shaping these literacy and
language activities, and how such strategies intersect and differ from each oth-
er. We approach this study by asking the following research question: How do
Mexican American parents conceptualize and practice literacy in their home
with their elementary-aged emergent bilingual children and for what purpose?
Through observations and interviews with 11 Mexican American parents, we
explore ideas and strategies adopted in their home literacy practices, which
can reshape the way teachers and schools define literacy practices for and with
emergent bilingual students.
Literature Review
Shifting Orientations Around Family Literacy
Family literacy programs that are run by schools often direct families to im-
plement school activities in the home, reflecting the needs of the school rather
than the family (Auerbach, 1989; Li & Renn, 2018; Morita-Mullaney et al.,
2019). Auerbach (1989) found that some family literacy programs hold the
assumption that home practices are not as valuable as school practices, ignor-
ing multiple forms of family literacy practice that contain interactions with
people across different social contexts. Such assumptions from schools create
a disequilibrium of power between educators and families, with school liter-
acies conceived as more powerful, disregarding the distinct knowledge that
emergent bilingual families bring to the literacy experiences of their children
(Kajee, 2011; Poza et al., 2014; Rodríguez, 2015). Replacing home practices
with school literacy activities ignores parents’ knowledge and experiences and
suggests that children need to be fixed and parents need to broker such reme-
diation. To date and in contrast to Auerbach’s earlier findings (1989), more
214
FAMILIES' HOME LANGUAGE USE
research suggests that family literacies hold value and purpose, building on a
body of literature from the fields of language, literacy, and family engagement
(Anderson et al., 2010; Hull & Stornaiuolo, 2010; Morita-Mullaney, 2020;
Morita-Mullaney et al., 2019; Renn & Li, 2018; Reyes et al., 2007).
Classroom teachers often underestimate and constrain what emergent bilin-
gual students are capable of intellectually (Auerbach, 1989; García & Kleifgen,
2010; Moll, 1994). Reyes et al. (2015) appeal to preservice teachers to learn
from family interactions and be aware of the oral language skills, emergent liter-
acy, and cultural knowledge developed in homes, rather than ascribing students
as being broken, constructing them from a deficit perspective. Further, U.S.
educators who are not immigrants themselves often ascribe to the construct
of individualism, whereby any social ideal can be realized through individual
effort. This individualism contrasts with the more collectivistic beliefs embod-
ied by emergent bilingual families (Greenfield et al., 2020), such as brokering
communication between children, parents, and school personnel. Moll and
Greenberg (1990) advocated that teachers value the cultural and cognitive re-
sources emergent bilingual students bring to the classroom and use them to fuel
and inform literacy learning. Understanding students’ funds of knowledge can
reform teachers’ teaching pedagogy, responding to students’ needs by contextu-
alizing students’ world into understanding how they learn (Hedges et al., 2011).
Expanding our Definition of Literacies
Family literacy is typically described as parents reading books to their chil-
dren. Although reading aloud between parent and child may be a practice for
families, it is not the only means of generating literacy within the home (Mui
& Anderson, 2008). To expand this perspective of “literacy,” family literacy
practice can include reading recipes, playing board games, engaging in dra-
matic play, and role playing among family members. Interactions across these
activities are bidirectional, as children and adults fluidly take on leadership
roles to impart skills across children, parents, and other family members (Reyes
et al., 2015). As a result of these literacy exchanges, the knowledge that the
children generate is incorporated into communications with family and com-
munity members (Moll & González, 1994). Kajee (2011) identified that such
creations of literacies are not only distinctive of the home, but also a manifes-
tation of “community literacies,” as literacy and language practices are readily
observed at religious and cultural events. Drawing from the work of Barton et
al. (2000), “literacy is situated,” meaning each literacy event is an adaptive and
performed exercise. These studies stretch the operational definition of family
literacy beyond storybook reading, recognizing that family and community
activities arbitrate the different roles family members take on as they create,
negotiate, and enact literacies.
215
Family’s Negotiated Literacies and the Home to School Connection

Scholars have worked to bridge the literacies that families negotiate within
their homes to bring to schools as a means of cultural connection and rele-
vance for the child. Louie and Davis-Welton’s (2016) study examined how
emergent bilingual family members described their personal or cultural stories
during literacy time at school. Teachers in their project encouraged children to
transform their family stories into their own picture books and allowed them
to use their heritage language. Similarly, Goldin et al. (2018) studied about
building connection between family and school by parent–teacher conference.
In the study, preservice teachers learned to reexamine their assumptions about
Hispanic parents and embrace incorporating family and cultural knowledge
into teaching. These studies made educators recognize that literacy begins at
home with the contributions of family members and their current resources
and related practices (Epstein et al., 2018; Njeru, 2015; Protacio & Edwards,
2015). Rather than claiming the child’s literacy development as exclusively
fostered in the school setting, these strategies integrate the familial and educa-
tional communities to work collaboratively on behalf of the child to recognize
their home literacies as valid, relevant, and meaningful (Cochran-Smith, 2004;
Epstein et al., 2018; Louie & Davis-Welton, 2016). In addition, bilingual
parents are supportive and actively involved in children’s language and liter-
acy development in connection with schools (Poza et al., 2014; Rodríguez,
2015). Understanding children’s familial language and literacy development
help teachers to realize learners’ identity and teach accordingly (Moll, 2019).
The acknowledgement of the literacies that emergent bilingual families possess
fosters a reciprocal relationship between schools and homes versus the school’s
unidirectional definition of literacy (González & Moll, 2002).
Children in immigrant, emergent bilingual households develop transna-
tional literacies as they are immersed in flows of languages, ideas, values, and
multimedia that are frequently used in homes in a variety of ways (Comp-
ton-Lilly et al., 2019; Hull & Stornaiuolo, 2010; Morita-Mullaney et al., 2019;
Sánchez, 2007). For example, distinct types of interactions are occurring in the
home between a student and their grandmother who resides in another coun-
try, so a video exchange (e.g., Google hangouts, Zoom, Skype) is needed. Thus,
we see how new forms of language and literacy are generated and regenerated
across physical and mental borders. Such practices represent language and lit-
eracies expanding beyond a physical space (e.g., a school or only a text), being
transposed and transformed uniquely, representative of transnational literacies.
García and Kleifgen (2010) and Auerbach (1989) all urge schools to focus
on students’ strengths and incorporating curricular and program changes that
216
reflect the literacies that emergent bilingual families transact and transform
inside and outside of school. Despite these important connections between
schools and homes, our study examines how language and literacy interac-
tions are distinctly negotiated and performed in emergent bilingual homes.
While the negotiated nature of language and literacies within emergent bilin-
gual households demonstrates its transactional nature, family literacy theory
and funds of knowledge helps us theorize how literacy practices are being ap-
propriated in the homes and communities of emergent bilinguals.
Theoretical Framework: Describing Emerging Bilingualism
The term English language learner is often used by policymakers, school

districts, and educators to refer to students developing English proficiency with
a background in another language. This terminology suggests a deficit by fo-
cusing on English proficiency and English monolingualism rather than the
strengths of their home language, culture, and experiences (García & Kleifgen,
2010). The term emergent bilingual embraces these differences, referencing
students who are gaining English as an additional linguistic repertoire (García,
2009). Further, García and Kleifgen (2010) call for a different definition of
bilingualism among emergent bilingual families, calling on academics, school
staff, and families to recognize and reconceptualize how languages and litera-
cies are appropriated in emergent bilingual homes. Therefore, the present study
adopts the term emergent bilingual, rather than English language learner.
In this study, we employ family literacy theory (Taylor, 1983, 2019), which
centers the distinct knowledge of families and recognizes them as the main
organizers from which literacies emerge (Louie & Davis-Welton, 2016; Tay-
lor, 1983, 2019). The language and culture constructed at home with family
is a beginning for children’s emergent biliteracy and bilingual development,
continuously shaping children’s future literacy practices and their identities as
bilinguals. Schools often have a formalized philosophy and method of teach-
ing literacy, suggesting that literacy is standardized and fixed (Ong, 1991),
with the aim of English monolingualism (Morita-Mullaney et al., 2019). Fam-
ily literacy theory involves negotiations among family members, inclusive of
language use, while simultaneously fostering social relationships that meet the
immediate needs and interests of the family. Family literacy theory accentuates
the important role of parents in children’s language and literacy development,
including parents’ choices of what and how to appropriate and perform litera-
cies across their shared literacy and language resources. Thus, family literacies
within and across family members involves immediacy, negotiation, and rela-
tionships. This study draws upon our immersive work throughout the Midwest
217
with emergent bilingual families (Li & Renn, 2018; Morita-Mullaney, 2020,
Morita-Mullaney et al., 2019).
Family literacy theory mainly focuses on literacy and language practic-
es of families within the home, but funds of knowledge extends its scope to
include family’s social interactions, cultural practices, and historical accumula-
tions (Moll & Greenberg, 1990). The funds of knowledge perspective claims
that families hold specialized knowledge, language, and literacies, which are
uniquely expressed in particular localities, including emergent bilingual homes
and communities (Esteban-Guitart & Moll, 2014; Moll, 1994). Such funds of
knowledge are social, cultural, and historical, which influence how emergent bi-
lingual students define, express, and understand themselves (Esteban-Guitart
& Moll, 2014). Compared to knowledge taught in school, funds of knowl-
edge embrace broader aspects of knowledge and experiences of families, such
as farming and cooking, drawing from the distinct histories and cultural accu-
mulations represented among family members (Moll, 2019). The interaction
fostered within emergent bilingual families across their shared social resources,
including their different languages, makes each literacy activity relevant and
personal to the learner (Moll, 2019). Instead of solely identifying children as a
“student,” family members see children as mutual contributors to the language
and literacy development of the entire household. Thus, parents and children
build upon historic and cultural strategies to engage their families in literacy
and language development and innovation (Moll, 1992, 2019).
Our theoretical framework is based on the intersection of these two relat-
ed constructs and theories (see Figure 1). Family literacy theory and funds of
knowledge mainly focus on the interactions that occur among family members,
extended family members, and the community. Thus, the literacy activities of
emergent bilingual families happen in certain types of spaces. The negotiation
of language and literacy within homes illustrates the dynamic and creative na-
ture of families that incorporate all their available resources to create literacies
that are distinct. The distinct family literacies reflect parents’ agency when mak-
ing decisions on literacy practice, and further illustrating the impact of their
special identity: emergent bilingual parents. Drawing from these two related
constructs, we now examine how Mexican American parents preserve space for
the development of their children’s literacies, shape their identities, and invoke
their collective agency toward creating bilingual and biliterate children.
218
Figure 1. Conceptual Framework
Methodology
This study employs a collective, illustrative case study in a suburban commu-

nity in Indiana, U.S. (Creswell, 2007; Merriam, 2008; Yin, 1994). This design
is most suitable for this study since the community is bounded to one ele-
mentary school and the Mexican American parents whose children attend that
school. Because the focus is narrow in nature, findings can locally inform the
area school and community about the types of language and literacy resources
families negotiate, making it immersive and illustrative. This is particular sig-
nificance to our research team, who continue to work directly with educators
in the focal school whose families are a part of the study. This case study in-
tegrates two data sources: questionnaires and semi-structured interviews with
emergent bilingual parents whose children attend the target elementary school.
Data Collection and Recruitment
The ENL (English as a New Language) Director in the suburban district
identified one elementary school to participate in the present study based on
the emergent bilingual population and the administration’s willingness to
participate, making the participants a purposeful sample. Approximately 85
questionnaires were sent home with students, and 52 completed questionnaires
were returned to the classroom teachers and collected by the ENL Director.
219
Families who expressed an interest in a follow-up interview and with whom the
ENL Director had a relationship were purposively identified.
Using the information provided by the ENL Director, families were contact-
ed by text and/or phone call to set up interviews. Times were arranged based
on each family’s availability. Interviews were conducted in participants’ homes
and the school. All interviews were audiorecorded. Brief field notes were taken
by the interviewer during interviews. All participants chose to conduct the in-
terview in Spanish. In total, 10 interviews were completed, ranging in length
from 17 to 44 minutes. Participants answered the 28 interview questions with
the addition of clarifying questions from the interviewer as needed. The areas
included language development history and home language use; home (bi)lit-
eracy practices; bilingualism challenges; and strategies and concerns for raising
bilingual children.
Participants
Participants were Mexican American parents whose children attend Dela-
ware Elementary School (a pseudonym), a suburban elementary in Indiana.
The Mexican American parents have children who are eligible and a part of the
English as a New Language (ENL) program. Eleven parents from ten families,
nine mothers and two fathers, participated. Participants spoke Spanish and
self-identified as Mexican Americans. At the time of the study, all participants
lived with their spouse or domestic partner (meaning there were two parents
involved in the social interactions with the children) at home and had between
two and five children ranging in age from four months to 20 years.
Instruments
Questionnaire
The first point of data collection was a family questionnaire. The ques-
tionnaire included demographic information about each family as well as
self-reported English and Spanish proficiency for both parents, the focal child,
and then other children in the home. The demographic information for the
parents included place of birth, native language, ethnicity, education, occupa-
tion, and how long they had lived in the U.S. Information about the children
included age, grade, gender, and name. Parents completing the questionnaire
were also asked about their interest in participating in a follow-up interview.
Questionnaires were provided in English and Spanish and were disseminated
by the district’s ENL Director.
Interviews
A semi-structured interview (see Appendices A and B) consisted of ques-
tions adapted from the Bilingual Family Interview Protocol (Bailey & Osipova,
220
2015). The interview questions addressed language development history, cur-

rent home language use, home literacy practices, thoughts on bilingualism,
bilingual strategies, and then challenges and concerns. Interview questions
were offered in the language of choice of the parent, including English and
Spanish.
Researcher Identity
The researcher team member who conducted the interviews is fully bi-
lingual in English and Spanish. She is a native English speaker but started
studying Spanish at age 13. She is married to a native Spanish speaker and
taught secondary Spanish for 10 years. Although the researcher is from the area
where the research was conducted, she did not have a relationship with any of
the participants before the study was conducted but does have a deep under-
standing of the local context.
Another research team member is bilingual in Chinese and English. Though
she does not speak Spanish, she has experience and understanding towards En-
glish language learners, and she also has experience teaching Mexican children.
The last research team member is bilingual in English and Spanish. She is a
native English speaker, earned a bachelor’s degree in Spanish, and continues to
actively learn Spanish to support connections with her clients as a speech-lan-
guage pathologist.
The Principal Investigator is bilingual in English and Spanish. She racially
identifies as Japanese American but has no proficiency in her heritage language.
She studied Spanish in school and continued to use Spanish throughout her ca-
reer from teaching adults, teaching ENL, acting as an EL Director, and talking
to parents of her students.
Data Analysis
After completing the parent interviews, a synopsis was written in English
for each interview and served as the first phase of data analysis. Later, all audio
recordings were fully transcribed into Spanish, and thereafter translated into
English. The lead researcher used color coding and tallying to organize and
analyze the responses from parents for meaning units of space, agency, and
identity. Thereafter, the research team conducted a more thorough thematic
content analysis individually (Strauss & Corbin, 1998) to identify saturated
themes consistent with our conceptual framework (Figure 1). Later, the team
conferred to identify where there was agreement. If there was disagreement
within the team, research team members would review the transcripts again
and confer until consensus was reached.
221
Findings
Findings from this study will be arranged in the order of our interview
protocol, including the areas of language development history and home lan-
guage use; home (bi)literacy practices; bilingualism challenges; and strategies
and concerns for raising bilingual children. Thereafter, we analyze the findings
employing the conceptual framework of family literacy theory and funds of
knowledge. To further understand the families, we have included Table 1 with
a sampling of the demographic information collected in the questionnaire.
Table 1. Emergent Bilingual Interviewee Demographic Information

Age of Educa- Strongest Strongest
Job/Occupa-
Family Interview- Years in U.S. tion Lev- Language Language
tion
ee(s) el/Grade Parent Children
Fam1 M: 37 M: 27 M: 12 M: Housewife Spanish English
M: 36 M: 16 M: 12 M: Housewife
Fam4 Spanish English
D: 34 D: 15 D: 6 D: Baker
Fam5 M: 32 M: 15 M: 2 M: Work Spanish English
Fam6 M: 40 Not Entered M: 8 M: Housewife Spanish English
Fam10 D: 39 D: 18 D: 12 D: Factory Spanish English
Notes. D = Dad; M = Mom. Native language of all families was Spanish.
Language Development History and Home Language Use

All parents interviewed spoke Spanish to their children after the children
were born. When asked why, the mother from Family 2 said in Spanish, “el
idioma que nosotros hablamos,” meaning “the language that we speak.” The
same mother later stated, “español, el idioma de nosotros,” or “Spanish, our
language.” Family 3 also articulated that Spanish was important “porque es
el lenguaje de nosostros” or “because it’s our language.” Families 6, 7, and 8
also discussed how it was the language that they “have” and the language that
they “know.” Family 4, 5, and 10, also identified the use of Spanish only in the
household due to their lack of English proficiency. But dominantly, families ex-
pressed that the use of Spanish was embodied by their deep ownership of their
language and how it connected to their identities and heritages.
222
As a result of parents’ Spanish speaking at home, all children spoke their

first words in Spanish. Currently, parents reported that they speak to their
children in Spanish most of the time at home. The children’s responses to their
parents varied, with six families reporting responses in Spanish, and three fam-
ilies reporting responses in both languages.
Home (Bi)Literacy Practices
When asked about print materials in the home, all parents said there were
books in the house, and less than half reported other materials like newspapers,
magazines, Bibles, bills, mail, and notes from school. Although all parents stat-
ed they had books in English, two families owned a few books in Spanish. The
mother from Family 9 reported,
Bueno, los de español me los traen mis papas de México….Les leo en
español, entonces me traen libros. Pero en cuestión como para leerles en
inglés, vamos a la biblioteca también. [Well, the Spanish ones, my par-
ents bring me from Mexico….I read to them in Spanish, so they bring
me books. But the question of reading to them in English, we also go to
the library.]
Other parents also read books with their children, but some were not comfort-
able reading in English. When asked if she read in English with her children,
the Family 8 mother said,
Pues no. (Nombre del padre) a veces se pone a leer con (nombre de
la hija), como anoche estuvieron leyendo, es que él sí un poquito más
entiende y él puede, pero yo no puedo. [Well, no. (Father’s name) some-
times reads with (daughter’s name), like last night they were reading
together, because he understands a little more and he can, but I cannot.]
Language proficiency drove how this family engaged with reading activities
that involved English texts. Whereas with Family 9, literacy occurred in Span-
ish with resources from the parents’ home country of Mexico.
When asked about television and music, and all responses were similar: Par-
ents watched TV and listened to music in Spanish, and the children watched
TV and listened to music in English. Eight children (middle and high school
age) had cell phones. Their phones were all programmed in English, and they
used English as the primary means of communication on social media. Parents’
phones were mainly programmed in Spanish, with only one in English. Parents
texted their children in Spanish, and the children responded in both languages.
Family 7’s mom stated,
En español, pues sí me dice “ya voy,” o “estoy bien,” “hola,”…así nada
más. O me pone la carita (emoji). [In Spanish, well, he says “I’m coming,”
223
or “I’m fine,” “hello,”…but nothing more. Or sometimes he sends me a

little face (emoji).]
Although Spanish texts were brief in nature from the children, sometimes ac-
companied by an emoji, communication between children and parents was
creative and bidirectional.
Delaware Elementary frequently sent letters home with students. Seven par-
ents said the schools sent letters home in both languages, two said letters were
in English only, and one said letters were in Spanish only. When asked what
they did if they did not understand something sent home in a letter, three par-
ents said they used a translation tool on their smartphones to help translate.
Parents reported other home activities including cleaning, cooking, eating,
sports, and doing homework. Parents reported they spoke in Spanish during
such family activities, with children responding to parents mainly in Spanish
and speaking English with their siblings. The shifting language among children
and parents became even more pronounced as more than one child started
school. School played a major role in the language shift from Spanish to En-
glish among siblings.
Bilingualism Challenges
All parents said they wanted their children to be both bilingual and biliter-
ate. Generally, parent responses related to their children’s future careers or for
cross-cultural connections. More than half of the parents said their children’s
future job prospects would improve if the children were bilingual. The Family
2 mother stated,
O como mi esposo luego dice, “yo no quiero que andan como yo, ahorita
afuera en el frío trabajando.” [My husband always says, “I don’t want our
girls to be working like me, right now out in the cold working.”]
Economic advancement was seen as a prospect for their emergent bilingual
children as they could mediate meaning among different speakers and with-
in different contexts. Further, parents expressed that keeping their children’s
Spanish intact would benefit them when they traveled to Mexico to see family.
Also, Spanish served a critical role in maintaining their Mexican heritage.
All parents were devoted to their children’s Spanish maintenance, while de-
veloping their children as bilingual and biliterate. When asked if it was easy or
difficult to raise a bilingual child, answers were mixed. Four parents respond-
ed it was easy, because it was part of their responsibilities as a parent to speak
Spanish at home, while the children learn English at school. Five parents said
it was difficult, with three parents attributed difficulties to their limited English
proficiency. Another parent stated it was because the children do not like to
224
speak Spanish as much as speaking English. Parents expressed the pull and al-
lure of the dominant language of their immediate surroundings, and although
they found English to be of value, they struggled with it occupying time away
from Spanish.
Strategies and Concerns for Raising Bilingual Children
Parents said speaking in Spanish was the main strategy utilized to raise
bilingual children. Three families maintained their rules for speaking strict-
ly Spanish at home and reported that their children were highly proficient
in Spanish. Some parents allowed their children to respond in English and
others required Spanish. Three parents said they would act as if they did not
understand if the children spoke in English, prompting the children to repeat
themselves in Spanish. When asked about his strategies for raising bilingual
children, the father from Family 10 stated,
Pues, en este caso, como le decía anteriormente, tratamos de mantener
el español totalmente aquí en la casa el 100%…pues todo se hable en
español aquí. [Well, in this case, like I said before, we try to keep Spanish
totally here in the house 100%…well, everything is spoken in Spanish
here.]
When asked an open-ended question about what teachers could do to bet-
ter serve their emergent bilingual children, parents overwhelmingly reported
that teachers should have more “paciencia” [patience] with students. Parents
also stated that schools should have more bilingual staff and teachers to better
serve both their children as well as themselves. When asked how the school
could help the bilingual language development for her children, the mother
from Family 3 said, “Como que ayuden a los niños también, personas bilingües
como que ayuden también a los niños,” conveying, “Like they could help the
kids too, bilingual people can help the kids, too.” She later said,
Bueno, al principio yo creo que sí, como cuando apenas entran en la
escuela y no saben nada. Y como a veces uno tampoco a veces no sabe
nada. [Well, at the beginning I think yes, like when they just start in
school and they do not know anything, and sometimes their parents do
not know anything either.]
This mother emphasized the importance of bilingual teachers at school to fa-
cilitate transitioning to an English-speaking school system. Additionally, the
mom wanted such resources to facilitate her connection to the school and to
her child’s sense of inclusion in a new and unfamiliar setting.
225
Analysis and Discussion
Using family literacy theory (Taylor, 1983) and funds of knowledge (Moll
et al., 1992), we now analyze the language and literacy findings and practices of
emergent bilingual families within their homes. As referenced in the theoretical
framework, analysis of family literacy practices attended to (1) the immediate
social needs and interests; (2) cultural negotiations among family members;
and (3) how historical and contemporary identities foster relationships. Fam-
ilies play a central role in negotiating language and literacies that vary from
standard school practices (Louie & Davis-Welton, 2016). In our analysis, we
found that parents engaged in varied literacy and language activities at home to
foster their children’s identity development, their language agency, and a space
for such negotiations.
The preservation of space, appropriation of agency, and affirmation of iden-
tity are all heavily influenced by the dominant language and culture of the
surrounding Delaware Elementary community. All families reside in a commu-
nity that is quickly diversifying, but the community is still mostly populated
by White, English-majority families. Students are attending schools where
the majority of their educators reflect this racial/ethnic and language major-
ity demographic. As emergent bilingual students are integrated within these
school and community settings that differ linguistically and culturally from
their homes, their families organically developed ways to preserve their space
to serve their immediate needs, appropriate their agency by deciding which
language to use and when, and affirm their identity and heritage as a Mexi-
can American family. Consistent with our theoretical framework (Figure 1),
we now demonstrate how each area was negotiated among emergent bilingual
families within the Delaware school community.
Preservation and Creation of Space
All interviewed families reported that they mainly spoke Spanish at home,
and parents reported Spanish as their dominant language. In contrast, school
is conducted in English, and most of the children’s teachers only speak English,
with a few speaking some words or phrases in Spanish. When the children in-
tegrate into these schools that differ both linguistically and culturally from
their home, their parents reported they are often uneasy about how to navigate
this new space, making their schooling experience stressful. When asked about
changes in language production after their child started school and about try-
ing to help with homework, the mother from Family 2 said,
Sí, porque se le dificultaba entender bien el inglés, porque nosotros le
hablábamos el español y ella algunas palabras en inglés para el español no
226
las sabías….Pues ahí fue cuando empezamos también a mirar que se le

dificultaba del inglés al español y del español al inglés. No fue fácil para
ella, tampoco, y hasta ahora, hay veces que también se le dificultan al-
gunas cosas para ella de la escuela. [It was difficult for her to understand
English well, because we speak to her in Spanish and some words in En-
glish, she doesn’t know the Spanish….Well, that was when we started to
see how difficult it was to translate from English to Spanish and Spanish
to English. It was not easy for her, and even now, there are times that
things are very difficult for her at school.]
Some families reported that their oldest child arrived at kindergarten know-
ing very little English. These children had to learn how to navigate a new
school, friends, adults, as well as a new culture and language. The school was
not representative of the full inclusion fostered and created within their homes.
Parents preserve their homes as a space where the children and extended fam-
ily can express themselves in multiple languages, based on immediate needs
and situations (Louie & Davis-Welton, 2016; Taylor, 1983). While all inter-
viewed parents want their children to be fluent in Spanish, they allow their
children to speak in English at home, particularly among their siblings. No
parent reported punishing their child for speaking English, just a gentle nudge
to speak Spanish for family members who only know Spanish. At home, they
are free to read in Spanish, English, or a mixture; they can use their entire rep-
ertoire of languages to convey meaning, whereas they are usually restricted to
only English at school (García & Kleifgen, 2010). The parents have preserved
a multilingual space where everyone in the family can use their full language
repertoire to navigate the current social situation. When asked about language
use in the home, the mother from Family 4 said,
Y es que es una vida cotidiana de uno. O sea, como uno se va expresando
alguna palabra, dice, “¿y qué es eso, mami?” Y ya le di…ya se les explica
y como es un rato, yo no sé, ellos me dijeron una palabra en inglés, digo,
“¿qué me están diciendo?” Y ya ellos me explicaron. Digo okay, para yo
saber. [It’s just everyday life for us. Like, when I’m saying a word, and
the kids say, “what’s that, mommy?” And I say, well, I explain the word,
and then a little bit later, I don’t know, they say a word in English, and
I say, “what are you saying?” And then they explain it to me. So, I can
understand.]
In situations like these, parents are negotiating meaning and supporting
their children’s language learning by explaining words in Spanish and ask-
ing questions about the children’s English. These interactions show children
that although their parents are more proficient in Spanish and prefer to speak
227
Spanish in the home, they are interested in the new language their children are
speaking. The children know they are free to use both languages at home when
necessary and that the parents are invested in supporting both languages.
Appropriation of Agency
To adapt to this hybrid culture in their home, where the parents speak
Spanish and the children prefer English, parents are making decisions every
day about which language to use, with which activities, and with which peo-
ple. They are making informed decisions about language use in their homes
based on their knowledge about their families (Moll et al., 1992; Taylor, 1983).
Children are also practicing their agency in the homes when they negotiate
language use with their parents, siblings, and extended family. In fact, the chil-
dren showed agency of language choice just as much as parents, if not more,
because their language repertoires included more languages than the parents.
All interviewed parents were native speakers of Spanish and greatly preferred it
over English, even those who had lived in the Midwest for many years. Most
parents interviewed self-reported that they did not have a working use of En-
glish. Children, however, were all reported by their parents to be able to speak
English very well. Spanish was sometimes spoken well by the children and
sometimes not—this varied greatly from family to family. Therefore, children
were reported to have more of a choice when it came to agency of language.
For example, the parents reported speaking Spanish to their family members,
including siblings, aunts, uncles, and parents. Children, on the other hand,
were reported as code-switching between Spanish and English with their rela-
tives, even if the relatives only spoke in Spanish. For example, the mother from
Family 4 reported how she supports her children’s appropriation of language.
She said,
Pero aquí no, le digo, tienes que expresarte si necesitas ayuda, tienes que
decirle ‘no entiendo, explíquenme, o no sé,’ en inglés, le digo. [Here no,
I tell them, you have to express yourself if you need help, you have to
say, ‘I don’t understand, explain it to me, or I don’t know,’ in English, I
tell them.]
Parents are observing language shift and are trying to preserve the heritage
language as well as support their children’s bilingualism.
The parents also said the children spoke to their Spanish-speaking friends in
English. When asked about his children’s communication with Spanish-speak-
ing friends, the father from Family 10 reported that “Bueno cuando hablan
con sus amigos en inglés, cuando hablan con la familia…pues español,” mean-
ing, “when they speak to their friends, English, when they speak with family…
228
Spanish.” The children feel comfortable using both languages to convey mean-
ing, so they choose to use both.
Overall, the children were more bilingual than their parents, so they some-
times took the lead with interpretation and translation. Many times, the child
interprets or translates for the parents to help them understand something,
and that something could be a simple instruction on a label, or a complicat-
ed immigration form, demonstrating the bidirectional nature of agency being
appropriated not only by parents, but by emergent bilingual children. The
mother from Family 7 commented,
Vamos a la tienda, y mi hijo, “pregúntale esto” o “esto como es” o “como
se hace”…y ya ellos preguntan. [We go to the store, and I tell my kids,
“ask them about this” or “what is this like,” or “what does it do,”…and
they ask.]
The children also act as an interlocutor in conversations with the parents for
clarification. For example, when talking about details in a conversation, the
mother from Family 4 reported,
Que a veces uno como el padre no lo entiende, cosas que no entiende y
cualquiera de los dos dicen, “ah, te está diciendo esto,” y ya para entend-
er. Pero, sí, es un apoyo también. [Sometimes, we parents don’t under-
stand it, things we don’t understand, and either one of the children say,
“oh, they’re saying this,” and then we understand. But yes, that’s helpful
as well.]
These interactions serve to address the immediate needs of families as they
negotiate their literacies across their different and shared languages (García &
Kleifgen, 2010; Taylor, 1983).
Affirmation of Identity
As aforementioned, the interviewed families live in an area where the major-
ity of people are linguistically and culturally different from their home language
and culture. Their identities are not always recognized or differ widely from
their majority peers and educators. Emergent bilingual students are constantly
negotiating their identities, including their linguistic, racial/ethnic, and cultur-
al identities, along with deciding what to integrate, reject, or mix (García &
Kleifgen, 2010). This negotiation frequently manifests itself in language agen-
cy and choice. As observed in the households, we see how parents are engaging
with their children across this continuum of language use (Spanish, English, or
both) in different mediums (e.g., interaction through the use of TV, radio, tex-
ting, social media). As such interactions incorporate the English that students
are learning in school and from various medias, we see how the hybridization
229
of the language identities are being negotiated and accepted by their parents.
When asked about language use between her children, the mother from Family
3 said, “Entonces los más chiquitos son los que hablan más entre ellos el inglés,
su idioma,” meaning, “so the youngest children are the ones who speak the
most between themselves in English, their language.” This mother is express-
ing that although her children have Mexican-born parents who speak Spanish,
they were born in an English-speaking country, so their language is English.
Families’ negotiation of this hybridity demonstrates connection and affiliation
across language varieties and differences, essential tenets of language identity
affirmation.
All parents reported speaking in Spanish to their children when they were
born and throughout early childhood, yet a linguistic shift occurred when their
children began school. Yet, families claim Spanish as their original language,
and such beginnings are regularly claimed and asserted by parents, fostering
continual relationships within the family that spans their different generational
statuses (e.g., grandparents, parents, children; Taylor, 1983, 2019). The par-
ents’ use of Spanish is also a reflection of their social and historical identity
(Moll, 1994). As immigrants, the parents expressed the importance of main-
taining their culture and language within their families (James, 2014; Louie &
Davis-Welton, 2016). When asked about the source of books in her home, the
mother from Family 9 reported that her parents brought her books from Mex-
ico so she can read to her children in Spanish. She elaborated,
Bueno, los de español me los traen mis papas de México. Me los traen,
incluso, o sea…para que yo les enseñe mi cultura, exactamente. [The
books in Spanish my parents bring me from Mexico. They bring them…
so I can show/teach my culture to my children, exactly.]
The maintenance of heritage culture does not conflict with embracing dom-
inant culture that children receive from outside of the family environment. As
mentioned in the expectation of children’s bilingualism, all parents want their
children to be proficient bilinguals. The father from Family 10 stated, “Sí, cla-
ro,” or “Yes, of course,” when asked if he wanted his children to be bilingual
and biliterate. He went on to say that being bilingual is “parte de nuestra cul-
tura, como Mexicanos,” or “part of our culture, as Mexicans.” He later said
that “pues es que una persona bilingüe tiene más oportunidades en el país, en
el área laboral, pues,” meaning, “well, it’s that a bilingual person has more op-
portunities in this country, in the workforce.” The identity is not limited to
only confirming their heritage identities, but this is something new; the chil-
dren have shared identities across their languages and experiences with their
immigrant parents. Although the parents want the children to maintain their
230
heritage language/identity, the parents are also cognizant that the children were
born in the United States and will speak English. The children will grow up
with these intersecting identities of language and culture, and the parents want
to confirm and support both identities in their children.
When asked about the advice she would give to other parents who are rais-
ing bilingual children, the Family 9 mother said,
El consejo sería de que…el hecho de enseñarles nuestras costumbres, de
leerles libros. El hecho de platicar nuestras raíces. Que tengan interés en
ser bilingües . . . que tengan como entusiasmo en cuestión de eso, si lle-
gan a ir a nuestro país no sea un obstáculo el idioma. [My advice would
be…that they should teach our customs, read them books. They should
discuss our roots. So, the kids have an interest in being bilingual…that
they have enthusiasm about that, if they go to our country it (the lan-
guage) won’t be an obstacle for them.]
Through the space making that families create in their households; we ob-
served the generation of identities and the agency that emergent bilingual
children appropriate across varied social contexts. Emergent bilingual children
take up distinct bidirectional leadership roles with their parents and siblings
and other extended family members and practice transnational literacies (Hull
& Stornaiuolo, 2010; Sánchez, 2007). Our analysis demonstrates that literacy is
not mere print, nor is literacy and language fixed and standardized (Ong, 1991).
Emergent bilingual parents and children are adopting, creating, and transform-
ing their language and literacy resources (García & Kleifgen, 2010), expanding
our understanding of family literacy practices and biliteracy development.
Implications and Conclusion
Parents recognize the benefits of their children being bilingual and biliterate,
as it forecasted better job opportunities, ability to communicate with extend-
ed family and community, and to sustain their identity as Mexican Americans.
Consistent with Moll et al.’s (1992) original funds of knowledge work, defined
as “historically accumulated and culturally developed bodies of knowledge and
skills” (p. 133), parents’ augmentation of funds of knowledge is a way to assert
their agency and distinct identities as parents. Parents demonstrate their curi-
osity and engagement about what children are learning in school. English and
Spanish are both used to negotiate meaning during family interactions, and
parents mediate their children’s comprehension. Parents hold high expecta-
tions for their children’s proficiency in both languages. These high expectations
help build a connection between home, school, and community.
231
Oftentimes, educators will construct the family’s lack of English as reducing

their capacity to serve as “teachers” of their own children, primarily focusing on
language proficiency as the means of measurement. Yet, this inquiry demon-
strates the mutual and beneficial negotiations from parent to child and child
to parent and how it preserves space, affirms identity, and shapes agency. This
study demonstrates how parents support their children’s literacy development
in the home and how their support might not fit the prescribed literacy of the
schools, but it is valuable, valid, and can potentially reform instruction in the
classroom.
As a result of this study, findings have been incorporated into our in-service
courses with teachers from Delaware Elementary and the surrounding area.
Teachers participate in a family multiliteracy project, interviewing one fami-
ly and focusing on the areas of space, agency, and identity. As a result of this
project, teachers are renegotiating their own understanding of what literacy
means within their students’ homes and communities. While teachers are at-
tempting to make such findings “transportable” to their classrooms, university
instructors have encouraged teachers to take in the experience as resettling
and unsettling their notions on the purposes of literacy and language (Morita-
Mullaney, 2020). This ideological shift is an important step in reshaping their
beliefs prior to it becoming actionable in their classrooms. Keeping educators
unsettled in their shifting beliefs also assists them in transforming their notions
of individualism towards understanding the collectivism imbued by their im-
migrant families (Greenfield et al., 2020).
Educators’ new understanding of emergent bilingual families’ multiliter-
acies can help shift their view about prescribed literacy practices as well as
inform changes in instructional beliefs (Greenfield et al., 2020). This study
encompasses ways for schools to understand how emergent bilingual families
are robustly supporting the biliteracy development of their children, suggest-
ing that family literacy practices are not lacking, but are practiced in ways that
school staff do not yet fully understand. Additional research is needed to ex-
plore how language and literacy is practiced in emergent bilingual families so
we can identify the situated and dynamic nature of languages and literacies.
References
Anderson, J., Anderson, A., Friedrich, N., & Kim, J. E. (2010). Taking stock of family literacy:
Some contemporary perspectives. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 10(1), 33–53.
Auerbach, E. R. (1989). Toward a social–contextual approach to family literacy. Harvard Edu-
cational Review, 59(2), 165–182. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.59.2.h23731364l283156
Bailey, A. L., & Osipova, V. (2015). How families and schools can develop together. In A. L.
Bailey & A. V. Osipova (Eds.), Children’s multilingual development and education: Fostering
linguistic resources in home and school contexts (pp. 221–258). Cambridge University Press.
232
Barton, D., Hamilton, M., & Ivanic, R. (Eds.). (2000). Situated literacies: Reading and writing
in context. Routledge.
Cochran-Smith, M. (2004). Walking the road: Race, diversity, and social justice in teacher educa-
tion. Teachers College Press.
Compton-Lilly, C., Kim, J., Quast, E., Tran, S., & Shedrow, S. (2019). The emergence of
transnational awareness among children in immigrant families. Journal of Early Childhood
Literacy, 19(1), 3–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468798417696342
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches
(2nd ed.). Sage.
Davis, H. S., González, J. E., Pollard-Durodola, S., Saenz, L. M., Soares, D. A., Resendez, N.,
Zhu, L., & Hagan-Burke, S. (2015). Home literacy beliefs and practices among low-in-
come Latino families. Early Child Development and Care, 186(7), 1152–1172. https://doi.
org/10.1080/03004430.2015.1081184
Epstein, J. L., Sanders, M. G., Sheldon, S. B., Simon, B. S., Salinas, K. C., Jansorn, N. R.,
Van Voorhis, F. L., Martin, C. S., Thomas, B. G., Greenfield, M. D., Hutchins, D. J., &
Williams, K. J. (2018). School, family, and community partnerships: Your handbook for action
(4th ed.). Corwin Press.
Esteban-Guitart, M., & Moll, L. C. (2014). Funds of identity: A new concept based on the
funds of knowledge approach. Culture & Psychology, 20(1), 31–48. https://doi.org/10.11
77/1354067x13515934
García, O. (2009). Emergent bilinguals and TESOL: What’s in a name? TESOL Quarterly,
43(2), 322–326.
García, O., & Kleifgen, J. A. (2010). Educating emergent bilinguals: Policies, programs, and
practices for English language learners. Teachers College Press.
Goldin, S., Khasnabis, D., & Atkins, S. (2018). Mining gems, nurturing relationships, build-
ing teacher practice. School Community Journal, 28(2), 189–212. https://www.adi.org/jour-
nal/2018fw/GoldinEtAlFall2018.pdf
González, J. E., Acosta, S., Davis, H., Pollard-Durodola, S., Saenz, L., Soares, D., Resendez,
N., & Zhu, L. (2017). Latino maternal literacy beliefs and practices mediating socioeco-
nomic status and maternal education effects in predicting child receptive vocabulary. Early
Education and Development, 28(1), 78–95. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2016.118
5885
González, N., & Moll, L. C. (2002). Cruzando el puente: Building bridges to funds of knowl-
edge. Educational Policy, 16(4), 623–641. https://doi.org/10.1177/08959048020160040
09
Greenfield, P. M., Espinoza, G., Monterroza-Brugger, M., Ruedas-Gracia, N., & Manago,
A. M. (2020). Long-term parent–child separation through serial migration: Effects of a
post-reunion intervention. School Community Journal, 30(1), 267–298. https://www.adi.
org/journal/2020ss/GreenfieldEtAlSS2020.pdf
Hedges, H., Cullen, J., & Jordan, B. (2011). Early Years curriculum: Funds of knowledge
as a conceptual framework for children’s interests. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 43(2),
185–205. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2010.511275
Hilburn, J. (2014). Challenges facing immigrant students beyond the linguistic domain in
a new gateway state. Urban Review, 46, 654–680. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11256-014-
0273-x
Hull, G. A., & Stornaiuolo, A. (2010). Literate arts in a global world: Reframing social net-
working as cosmopolitan practice. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 54(2), 85–97.
https://doi.org/10.1598/JAAL.54.2.1
233
James, M. (2014). The honey ant readers: An innovative and bold approach to engaging rural
Indigenous students in print literacy through accessible, culturally and linguistically appro-
priate resources. Australian and International Journal of Rural Education, 24(1), 79.
Kajee, L. (2011). Literacy journeys: Home and family literacy practices in immigrant house-
holds and their congruence with schooled literacy. South African Journal of Education,
31(3), 434–446. https://doi.org/10.15700/saje.v31n3a545
Li, H., & Renn, J. (2018). Nurturing Spanish-speaking English learners to be bilinguals in the
rural Midwest: Challenges and possible solutions. INTESOL Journal, 15(1), 5–28.
Louie, B., & Davis-Welton, K. (2016). Family literacy project. The Reading Teacher, 69(6),
597–606. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1444
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. Jossey-Bass.
Moll, L. C. (Ed.). (1992). Vygotsky and education: Instructional implications and applications of
sociohistorical psychology. Cambridge University Press.
Moll, L. C. (1994). Literacy research in community and classrooms: A sociocultural approach.
In R. B. Ruddell, M. R. Ruddell, & H. Singer (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of
reading (pp. 179–207). International Reading Association.
Moll, L. C. (2019). Elaborating funds of knowledge: Community-oriented practices in inter-
national contexts. Literacy Research: Theory, Method, and Practice, 68(1), 130–138. https://
doi.org/10.1177/2381336919870805
Moll, L. C., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & González, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching:
Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory Into Practice, 31(2),
132–141. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405849209543534
Moll, L. C., & González, N. (1994). Lessons from research with language-minority children.
Journal of Reading Behavior, 26(4), 439–456. https://doi.org/10.1080/10862969409547862
Moll, L., & Greenberg, J. B. (1990). Creating zones of possibilities: Combining social contexts
for instruction. In L. Moll (Ed.), Vygotsky and education: Instructional implications and ap-
plications of sociohistorical psychology (pp. 319–348). Cambridge University Press. https://
doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173674.016
Morita-Mullaney, T. (2020). Multilingual multiliteracies of emergent bilingual families: Trans-
forming teacher’s perspectives on the “literacies” of family engagement. Theory into Practice,
60. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2020.1829382
Morita-Mullaney, T., Li, H., & Renn, J. (2019). Multiliteracies in rural schools: The “revuelto
y mezclada” of home and community literacy practices of Midwestern emergent bilingual
families. The Rural Educator, 40(3), 35–48. https://journals.library.msstate.edu/index.php/
ruraled/article/view/548/770
Mui, S., & Anderson, J. (2008). At home with the Johars: Another look at family literacy. The
Reading Teacher, 62(3), 234–243. https://doi.org/10.1598/rt.62.3.5
Njeru, M. (2015). Parents as participants in their children’s learning. Journal of Adolescent &
Adult Literacy, 58(5), 368–371. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.375
Ong, W. J. (1991). Orality and literacy: The technologizing of the word. Routledge.
Poza, L., Brooks, M. D., & Valdés, G. (2014). Entre familia: Immigrant parents’ strategies for
involvement in children’s schooling. School Community Journal, 24(1), 119–148. https://
www.adi.org/journal/2014ss/PozaBrooksValdesSpring2014.pdf
Protacio, M. S., & Edwards, P. A. (2015). Restructuring sharing time for English learners and
their parents. The Reading Teacher, 68(6), 413–421. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1327
Reyes, I., Iddings, A. C. D. S., & Feller, N. (2015). Building relationships with diverse stu-
dents and families: A funds of knowledge perspective. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy,
16(1), 8–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468798415584692
234
Reyes, L. V., & Torres, M. N. (2007). Decolonizing family literacy in a culture circle: Rein-
venting the family literacy educator’s role. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 7(1), 73–94.
Rodríguez, M. V. (2015). Families and educators supporting bilingualism in early childhood.
School Community Journal, 25(2), 177–194. https://www.adi.org/journal/2015fw/Rodri-
guezFall2015.pdf
Sánchez, P. (2007). Cultural authenticity and transnational Latina youth: Constructing a
meta-narrative across borders. Linguistics and Education, 18(3–4), 258–282. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.linged.2007.07.007
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. M. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for
developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Sage.
Taylor, D. (1983). Family literacy: Young children learning to read and write. Heinemann Edu-
cational Books.
Taylor, D. (2019). Family literacy provides an effective response to the U.N. SDGs and peacebuild-
ing architecture. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5abc153cb1059858310b37e1/t/
5ca67325eb393170a5f10db9/1554412325962/FAMILY_LITERACY_AND_UN_
SDGS_AND_PEACEBUILDING_2019_DENNY_TAYLOR.pdf
Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: design and methods (2nd ed.). Sage.
Anne García is a PhD candidate in literacy and language at Purdue University Col-
lege of Education. Her research focus is English learners, identity, Borderlands Theory,
and bilingual education. She is also the project manager for two different federal NPD
grants. Correspondence concerning this article may be addressed to Anne García,
Beering Hall of Liberal Arts and Education, 100 N University St., West Lafayette, IN
47907, or email aggarcia@purdue.edu
Rong Zhang is a PhD candidate in language and literacy of Purdue University
College of Education. Her research is focused on bilingual education, young children’s
picture book reading, and children’s literature analysis.
Annamarie King is a clinical fellow in speech–language pathology and recent grad-
uate of the Purdue University master’s program in speech–language pathology. Her
interests include the identification, evaluation, and clinical management of language
disorders.
Trish Morita-Mullaney is an assistant professor at Purdue University with a cour-
tesy appointment in the Asian American studies program. Her research focuses on the
intersections between language learning, gender, and race and how this shapes policy
brokering within bilingual education. She serves as Principal Investigator on two fed-
eral K–12 bilingual education focused on family, school, and community engagement
with emergent bilinguals.
Appendix A: Protocolo para entrevistar a familias bilingües (Español)

I. Historial del desarrollo del lenguaje
1. ¿Qué idioma(s) o lenguajes(s) le habló a su hijo/a después de que él/ella nació? ¿Por
qué?
2. Cuando su hijo/a comenzó a hablar, ¿qué idioma habló? ¿Por qué?
3. ¿Qué idiomas escuchó y usó su hijo/a al crecer antes de comenzar la escuela?
235
4. Cuando su hijo comenzó el programa bilingüe, ¿notó algún cambio en el desarrollo

del lenguaje de su hijo en español o en inglés?
II. Uso del lenguaje(s) en el hogar
5. ¿Qué idioma(s) usa para hablarle a sus hijos? ¿Cómo responden ellos?
6. ¿Qué idioma(s) usan sus hijos cuando hablan con usted? ¿Cómo responde usted?
7. ¿Qué idioma(s) usa su hijo con sus hermanos y hermanas?
III. Prácticas de alfabetización bilingüe en el hogar
8. ¿Qué materiales impresos tienen en casa? (por ejemplo, periódicos, libros, revistas,
la Biblia, notas de la escuela, cartas y otro correo, diarios familiares, guías telefónicas,
documentos, etc.) ¿En qué lenguajes?
9. ¿Compra libros u obtiene libros prestados de la escuela o de la biblioteca pública
para usted o para sus hijos? ¿En qué lenguaje?
10. ¿Lee libros u otros materiales junto con sus hijos? ¿En qué lenguaje?
11. ¿Dónde guarda estos materiales de lectura? (estantería, mesa, armario).
12. Usted y sus hijos, ¿ven televisión, películas u otros videos en casa? ¿En qué len-
guaje?
13. Usted y sus hijos, ¿escuchan la radio o música en casa o en el automóvil? ¿En qué
idiomas?
14. ¿Usan usted o sus hijos Internet o las redes sociales de comunicación en casa?
¿Usan computadoras, teléfonos inteligentes u otros dispositivos? ¿En qué lenguaje?
15. ¿Le envía mensajes de texto a sus hijos? ¿En qué lenguaje?
16. La escuela, ¿le envía cartas u otros documentos escritos a casa? ¿En qué lenguaje?
¿Qué hace si no puede leerlos o entenderlos?
17. ¿Ayuda a sus hijos con sus tareas? ¿En qué lenguaje?
18. ¿Qué otras actividades hacen con sus hijos? ¿En qué lenguaje?
19. Por favor, ofrecen un ejemplo de lo que es una práctica de lectura en tu casa.
IV. ¿Por qué bilingüismo?
20. ¿Desea que su hijo sea completamente bilingüe (escuche y hable) y que pueda leer
y escribir en dos lenguajes? ¿Por qué?
21. ¿Es difícil o fácil criar a un niño que hable dos idiomas? ¿Por qué?
22. ¿De qué manera su hijo/a sirve como un apoyo bilingüe a su familia?
V. Estrategias
23. ¿Cuáles son algunas estrategias o métodos que usa para educar a su hijo bilingüe-
mente?
24. ¿Qué consejo les daría a otros padres que quieran criar hijos bilingües?
25. ¿Qué consejo les daría a los maestros que trabajan con niños bilingües?
VI. Retos, Preocupaciones y Preguntas
26. ¿Qué pueden hacer las escuelas o las organizaciones comunitarias como (La Plaza
o CIIE) para apoyar el desarrollo bilingüe de su hijo/a?
27. ¿Qué se puede hacer para ayudar a más padres a inscribir a sus hijos en programas
bilingües y educar a sus hijos en un ambiente bilingüe?
236
Appendix B: Language and Literacy Family Interview Protocol (English)

I. Language Development History
1. What language(s) did you speak to your child after he/she was born? Why?
2. When your child started to talk, what language did he/she speak? Why?
3. What languages did your child hear and use growing up before starting school?
4. When your child started in school, did you notice any changes in your child’s lan-
guage development in Spanish or English?
II. Home Language(s) Use
5. What language(s) do you use to speak to your children? How do they respond?
6. What language(s) do your children use when speaking to you? How do you re-
spond?
7. What language(s) does your child use with his/her brothers and sisters?
III. Home (Bi)Literacy Practices
8. What print materials do you have at home? (e.g. newspapers, books, magazines, the
Bible, notes from school, letters and other mail, family notebooks, phone books,
documents, etc.) In what languages?
9. Do you buy books or borrow books from the school or public library for yourself
or for your children? In what languages?
10. Do you read any books or other materials together with your children? In what
languages?
11. Where do you keep these reading materials? (bookshelf, table, closet).
12. Do you and your children watch television, movies, or other videos at home? In
what languages?
13. Do you and your children listen to the radio or music at home or in the car? What
languages?
14. Do you or your children use the Internet or social media at home using comput-
ers, smartphones or other devices? In what languages?
15. Do you text your children? In what languages?
16. Does the school send home letters or other written documents to you? In what
languages? What do you do if you can’t read or understand them?
17. Do you help your children with their homework? In what languages?
18. What other activities do you do with your children? In what languages?
19. Give us an example of what a “literacy practice” looks like in your home.
IV. Bilingualism
20. Do you want your child to be fully bilingual (listen and speak) and biliterate (read
and write)? Why?
21. Is it hard or easy to raise a child speaking two languages? Why?
22. In what ways does your child/ren serve as a bilingual support to your family?
V. Strategies
23. What are some strategies or methods you use to raise your child bilingually?
237
24. What advice would you give other parents who want to raise bilingual children?
25. What advice would you give teachers who work with bilingual children?
VI. Challenges, Concerns, and Questions
26. What can the schools or community organizations like [La Plaza] do to support
your child’s bilingual development?
27. What can be done to help more parents enroll their children in bilingual programs
and raise their children bilingually?
238
Parents’ Perceptions of a K–3 Formative
Assessment
Cristina Gillanders, Iheoma U. Iruka, Cindy Bagwell, and
Tobi Adejumo
Abstract
From a sociocultural perspective to assessment, this study investigated par-
ents’ beliefs about formative assessment. When North Carolina (NC) received
an Early Learning Challenge Grant, its Department of Public Instruction was
funded to develop a kindergarten entry assessment. The department proposed
the development of a kindergarten to third grade assessment that was forma-
tive in nature and could be conducted in the context of teaching and learning.
Formative assessment is an alternative to large-scale assessment providing a
broader picture of children’s learning and effectively informing teachers’ future
instructional process. The present study explored parents’ general beliefs about
formative assessment and parents’ attitudes toward strategies for obtaining fam-
ily information relevant to this assessment. A total of 152 parents of children
attending kindergarten to third grade in eight NC school districts participated
in focus groups. Results revealed parents desired to receive more information
about their children’s learning, behavior, and interests so they could support
their children at home. Parents also emphasized the importance of the form in
which information about their child is conveyed. Finally, parents demonstrat-
ed their willingness to provide information about their child’s development
and learning at home and to be co-interpreters of the child’s participation in
school. Findings underscored the critical importance of parents’ contributions
to understanding children’s transformation in school and that assessments that
are co-designed and co-interpreted with parents can provide evidence that can
deliver meaningful improvement to educational practice.

Key Words: formative assessment, home–school partnership, parents’ views of

school, home–school communication, parent involvement, family engagement
Introduction
Large-scale assessments have become pervasive in all levels of education as

a result of the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001(Wei et al.,
2015), and the subsequent passing of ESSA. Results from these assessments
have high stakes implications for schools and teachers since they are used for
accountability purposes. Critics of such assessments have argued that they do
not provide an accurate picture of students’ learning, competencies, and mis-
conceptions nor effective feedback for teachers to improve their instruction
(Trumbull & Lash, 2013). Accordingly, efforts have been made to create as-
sessments that can inform teachers of children’s ongoing learning throughout
the year and consequently allow them to adjust their instruction. Rather than
a score, teachers might find it more useful to have qualitative insight into chil-
dren’s learning (Shepard, 2009).
Formative assessment has been viewed as an alternative to large-scale as-
sessment since it is “a process used by teachers and students during instruction
that provides feedback to adjust ongoing teaching and learning to improve
students’ achievement of intended instructional outcomes” (McManus, 2008,
p. 3). A critical feature of formative assessment is the use of feedback to modi-
fy teaching and learning activities. It is assumed that this process can facilitate
changes in pedagogy and in turn yield improvements in learning (Black &
Wiliam, 1998).
Most studies on assessment have focused on the perceptions and attitudes
of teachers towards formative assessment (e.g., Ahmedi, 2019; Alotaibi, 2019;
Sach, 2012, 2015). Absent from research on formative assessment is atten-
tion to the question of whether this type of assessment in school can be used
to help parents understand their children’s learning and, thus, support it at
home (Harris, 2015), leaving the answer unclear. Similarly, an assumption
underlying formative assessment is that data on children’s learning can only be
obtained from their behaviors in school and that this data can be interpreted
only by the teacher. An alternative perspective is that parents can also pro-
vide information about children’s learning in contexts outside of school and
that they can contribute to the interpretations of children’s learning in school.
The current study aims to explore parents’ beliefs about kindergarten to third
grade (K–3) formative assessment and the role parents can play in the forma-
tive assessment.
240
PARENTS & K–3 FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT
Theoretical Framework: Sociocultural Views of Assessment

Traditionally, student assessment has focused on the current capabilities of
the individual. Those embracing sociocultural views of assessment argue that
rather than examining the individual in isolation, assessment should involve
the notions of interdependence in social contexts (Fleer, 2002). In other words,
learning is a social process, with individuals learning from and in conjunction
with others. From this perspective, assessment aims to understand children’s
participation in different sociocultural contexts (Rogoff, 2003; Vygotsky,
1978). As suggested by Gee (2007), “To fairly and truly judge what a person
can do, you need to know how the talent (skill, knowledge) you are assessing is
situated in—placed within—the lived social practices of the person as well as
his or her interpretations of those practices” (p. 364). Thus, to understand chil-
dren’s acquisition of knowledge and skills, we need to comprehend how these
abilities are situated in the different contexts in which children participate. “To
learn” means to participate more effectively in different communities of prac-
tice with the knowledge and skills defined by these communities (Hickey &
Anderson, 2007). From this perspective, school assessment becomes limited if
it only focuses on children’s participation in school. Alternatively, data gath-
ered from the home and community can shed light on children’s participation
in sociocultural contexts other than the school. After all, education should
prepare the individual to be an active participant in the different contexts in
which they live.
Because these sociocultural experiences shape children’s thinking, a cultural
validity perspective should be considered when designing assessments of chil-
dren’s learning. Solano-Flores and Nelson-Barber (2001) have defined cultural
validity as the effectiveness in which assessments respond to the child’s socio-
cultural experiences and the ways in which the child interprets the assessment.
Cultural validity has become more relevant in an increasingly diverse and mul-
ticultural world so that students can display a more accurate demonstration of
their competence, ensuring that teachers’ instruction is based on children’s actu-
al competencies rather than assumed ones. To ensure cultural validity, educators
and assessment developers should consider the students’ epistemology, language
proficiency, cultural worldviews, cultural communication, socialization styles,
and the student’s life and values (Solano-Flores & Nelson-Barber, 2001).
Since they can adapt to the students’ sociocultural contexts and can be
used on a continuing basis, formative assessments can be responsive to the
issues involved in cultural validity (Trumbull & Lash, 2013). Educators and
assessment developers can gain insights into the sociocultural practices that
influence cultural validity by learning more about children’s lives. Parents can
241
provide important information on the child’s everyday routines in the commu-

nity. Information provided by parents can aid in the interpretation of children’s
learning in school as parents have knowledge about the child’s individual char-
acteristics and participation in different sociocultural contexts (Fredericks &
Rasinski, 1990; Krieg & Curtis, 2017). Furthermore, when parents can be
legitimate consumers of their children’s assessment data, they can also learn
about the discourses used in the schools’ communities of practice. As such, par-
ents become important informants and consumers of data.
Parents as Consumers and Informants of Assessment
It has been suggested that the positive link between home–school partner-
ship and students’ outcomes is due in part to parents being viewed as credible
informants of children’s capabilities as well as how schools can best meet fami-
lies’ and children’s needs (Ma et al., 2016; Smith et al., 2020; Sonnenschein et
al., 2014). Previous studies have indicated that home–school partnerships are
effective when teachers value the information received from families about fac-
tors likely to facilitate or disrupt a given children’s learning or engagement (e.g.,
life event like a divorce, death) or what type of learning environment and inter-
actions may work for a given child (Christenson, 2004; Sheldon, 2003). Thus,
while assessment information shared by school staff is valuable to parents and
children, it is also critical that parents and families are viewed as informants for
assessing children’s competencies and areas of improvement (Gillanders et al.,
2012), especially in light of parents’ roles as their child’s first teacher and first
and foremost caregiver. Furthermore, the home environment is another setting
in which to gather data about children’s actual knowledge and competencies.
Critical in this process is ongoing, dynamic, and consistent communication
between families and school staff, whereby schools can inform parents of chil-
dren’s learning and parents become informants of children’s development and
learning in the home environment and community (Birbili & Tzioga, 2014). It
is often the case that teachers (and other school staff) and parents differ in their
goals for children’s learning, and their knowledge on what each one is doing
to support children’s learning. For example, as a way to ensure their children
benefit from all learning experiences, some immigrant families might social-
ize their children to be respectful and quietly attentive to teacher’s instruction
in the classroom (Trumbull & Lash, 2013). As a consequence, teachers might
mistakenly consider quiet students withdrawn and non-participating. Schnei-
der and Arnot (2018) have argued that in order to truly partner with families,
a transactional system of communication needs to exist in which schools and
parents do not merely exchange messages but rather arrive at a “mutual assign-
ment of meaning and understanding” (p. 12). In a country that has become
242
widely diverse over the past century, cultural differences can make communi-
cation challenging (Trumbull & Lash, 2013). However, as discussed in Garcia
et al. (2016), teachers can vastly improve the process by making intentional
efforts to engage in cross-cultural communication to learn and be aware of pos-
sible differences in goals that parents have for their children.
Previous research has not shed adequate light on parents’ views about
formative assessments and parents’ beliefs about their roles as consumers
and informants of assessments. The implementation of assessments requires
stakeholders convinced of the educational value of the assessment. In gener-
al, parents value the assessments of learning because they want their children
to do well in school (Deslandes & Rivard, 2013). Parents’ attitudes towards
assessments are important since, first, it is likely that they can influence policy-
makers on the use of these kinds of assessments at a larger scale (Harris, 2015),
and second, because parents can have an important role in informing teachers
on children’s learning and development. In a review of parents’ perceptions of
assessment, Harris (2015) found that in 12 studies reviewed parents tended
to favor standardized testing. However, Harris also found that simultaneously
parents negatively viewed children’s anxiety towards standardized testing. Ac-
cording to Harris, it is possible that parents favor standardized testing because
this is the traditional form of assessment that they are more familiar with. Like-
wise, they are probably more familiar and comfortable with letter grades as
summary forms of assessment than the types of scores that might be assigned
on formative assessments (Culbertson & Jalongo, 1999).
In her review, Harris (2015) also found that parents of children in the low-
er levels of elementary were keener on using alternative forms of assessment.
Previous studies have indicated that parents of children from preschool to
third grade could be open to formative assessment. For example, Meisels et al.
(2001) surveyed 246 parents of children in K–3 on their reactions to the use of
a curriculum-embedded performance assessment (i.e., Work Sampling System
[WSS]). Findings indicated that parents preferred a summary of the teachers’
observations using this form of assessment rather than report cards. Parents’
attitudes towards this form of assessment were affected by teachers’ consis-
tent communication about the results of the assessment. In a follow-up study
with Greek parents of kindergarten children, Pekis and Gourgiotou (2017)
also found positive attitudes towards the WSS. Most parents agreed that this
form of assessment provided valuable feedback on children’s learning, informa-
tion about children’s potential behavior problems or learning difficulties, and
the overall kindergarten program.
In another study, MacDonald (2007) interviewed a group of 25 parents
regarding their views of documentation after a group of kindergarten teachers
243
used it in their classrooms. Documentation involves capturing learning mo-

ments through observations, transcriptions, and visual representations of
children’s learning (Rinaldi, 2001). This documentation process can provoke
teachers’ and parents’ reflection on children’s learning and, therefore, guide fu-
ture instruction. Documentation is “not considered as the collecting of data
in a detached, objective, distant way. Rather, it is seen as the interpretation of
close, keen observation, and attentive listening, gathered with a variety of tools
by educators aware of contributing their different points of views” (Gandini
& Goldhaber, 2001, p. 125). Moss et al. (2000) stated that “pedagogical doc-
umentation plays a role in seeing and understanding children as individuals
rather than normalizing children against standardized measures and catego-
rizing some as ‘abnormal’” (p. 251). In the MacDonald (2007) study, the
majority of the participating parents reported that their children seldom told
them about their learning in the classroom before teachers adopted the process
of documentation. After teachers began using documentation, most parents
indicated that they were better informed about their children’s learning and
pedagogical approaches used by teachers.
These studies indicate that parents could have a positive attitude towards
formative assessment if it were used more widely. However, less is known about
parents’ views regarding the information that would be useful for them to have
in order to support their children in future learning. Parents’ views about as-
sessment can reflect parents’ beliefs about what is important for their children’s
development. The scarcity of research on this topic is surprising considering
the emphasis that schools place on assessment and the importance of home–
school partnerships.
Development of a Formative Assessment Process in North Carolina
Development of a formative assessment for children in K–3 in North Car-
olina (NC) began in 2012 when the state was awarded a Race to the Top Early
Learning Challenge grant. In response to the federal government’s invitation
to create a kindergarten entry assessment (KEA) that would inform instruc-
tion in the early grades, the state proposed creating an assessment that would
incorporate the KEA requirements into a broader K–3 assessment. Such an as-
sessment would support the department’s emphasis on improving instruction
in the early grades.
To begin the design process, the NC Department of Public Instruction’s
superintendent convened a K–3 Assessment Think Tank composed of schol-
ars and researchers to help the state define those skills and understandings that
are critical for children in the early grades to know and be able to do. In ad-
dition to identifying the key skills and understandings, the K–3 Assessment
244
Think Tank also recommended that the department utilize a formative assess-
ment process to look at the whole child in a manner that identifies each child’s
strengths and areas for growth in five learning domains (i.e., cognitive, social–
emotional, physical and health, approaches to learning, language). Formative
assessment was defined as a systematic process by which teachers gather ev-
idence of student learning in the context of teaching, then use the data to
identify students’ current level of understanding and adjust instruction to help
students reach intended outcomes (Heritage, 2007). To inform design of the
assessment, NC public school kindergarten teachers were asked to complete a
survey rating the importance of a number of developmental skills, the potential
impact of information related to those skills on daily instruction, and the best
means of assessing those skills in young children. Findings demonstrated broad
support among NC kindergarten teachers for a statewide K–3 assessment and,
in particular, a willingness to implement a formative assessment process (Shar-
ma, 2013).
Given the recommendations from the K–3 Assessment Think Tank, as well
as support from classroom teachers, the Department of Public Instruction
made the decision to design the K–3 assessment to be formative in nature—
an observation-based process to be conducted in the context of teaching and
learning rather than as a more traditional assessment, administered individu-
ally as an isolated event separate from instruction. While formative assessment
is most often designed by teachers as a means to gather information related to
specific curricular goals and objectives, the assessment designed by the depart-
ment would focus on constructs associated with success in school and related
to the state’s instructional goals across the K–3 grade span. Consistent with rec-
ommendations from the Think Tank, as well as federal requirements for KEA
content, NC’s assessment would focus on essential constructs in five learning
domains. Constructs determined essential for the grade span from K–3 would
include the following: engagement in self-selected activities and perseverance
for the approaches to learning domain; emotional literacy, emotion expression,
and emotion regulation for the social–emotional domain; fine motor and gross
motor for the physical development domain; object counting, mathematical
patterns, and problem solving for the cognitive domain; and following direc-
tions, letter naming, book orientation, print awareness, vocabulary, writing,
and reading comprehension for the language and literacy domain. Using in-
formation gathered from a literature review, as well as feedback from teachers,
the department planned to develop learning progressions for each of the se-
lected constructs. Because the assessment would be designed as a formative
assessment, teachers would not be conducting an individually administered
assessment. Instead, teachers would use observation and questioning to gather
245
information about children’s performance during large and small group in-
struction, as well as center-based learning. The information gathered during
instruction would serve as evidence to document children’s current levels of
understanding. Teachers would then analyze that document using the learning
progressions, determining where children are developmentally and what next
steps in learning are most appropriate. This information could then be used to
plan instruction designed to move each child forward. The department hoped
that an assessment designed in this manner would minimize the burden of an
additional state-mandated assessment while bringing greater value to the types
of assessment data teachers routinely gather as part of the instructional process.
To ensure that the design and implementation of this formative assessment
process be informed by stakeholders, the department designed multiple strate-
gies to incorporate input from the field. One such strategy was to gather input
from key stakeholders. Recognizing parents’ importance in the development of
young children, the department sought out information from families as one
of the key stakeholder groups. This group was particularly important given the
limitations of existing educational research and its bias toward White, mid-
dle-class students, as well as the lack of diversity among teachers in the state’s
early grades in contrast to the population of children and families they serve.
The department considered it critical to understand families’ beliefs and atti-
tudes towards the formative assessment being created since they believed that
parents could provide important information to inform instruction.
Consequently, the study aimed to answer the following questions:
• What were the parents’ general attitudes and beliefs about formative as-
sessment?
• What were parents’ beliefs with regard to the type of information they
would like to receive from formative assessment reports?
• How can schools convey this information to parents?
• What were parents’ attitudes towards strategies for obtaining family infor-
mation relevant to the formative assessment?
Method
The purpose of this exploratory study was to examine parents’ beliefs and
attitudes towards the K–3 formative assessment being developed by the NC
Department of Public Instruction. This study came about as a partnership be-
tween the department and the authors of this article. Recently, more efforts
have been made to forge research–practice partnerships which are organized to
investigate problems of practice and find solutions (Coburn et al., 2013). As
246
such, the researchers and personnel from the Office of Early Learning (OEL)
at the NC Department of Public Instruction collaborated in the sampling, re-
cruitment procedures, data collection design, interpretation of the findings,
and dissemination efforts.
Recruitment Procedures
The department was interested in gaining insight from a large group of
stakeholders. Therefore, a sampling framework was developed to select eight
school districts, taking into consideration urbanicity, racial/ethnic diversity, re-
gion, and socioeconomic status. Representatives from the NC OEL, including
the program manager overseeing the assessment design, as well as regional con-
sultants who provide direct support to school district administrators, worked
closely with researchers to discuss potential participant schools. Once schools
were recommended, NC OEL staff sent a letter to superintendents to provide
an overview of the project and its goals and inform them about schools that
will be contacted to participate in the project. Regional consultants were cop-
ied on these letters, so they knew when superintendents were contacted.
After superintendents were notified, the regional consultants contacted
principals of the recommended schools to: (a) provide an overview of the proj-
ect, (b) determine their willingness to participate in the project, and (c) ask
for the name and contact information of a school liaison person who could
make initial contact with parents. Consultants followed up the call with an
email to the principal confirming the conversation and copied the liaison on
the message. Regional consultants also informed the principal of their interest
in conducting two focus group sessions per school (i.e., one for Spanish- and
another for English-speaking parents) and the type of parents they were look-
ing for: (a) parents of children in K–3, (b) parents who frequently participate
in school events or the Parent Teacher Association (PTA), and (c) those who
might not participate as often in school activities. The research team was inter-
ested in finding information from a diversity of parents.
Once the principals were contacted and school liaisons were identified by
regional consultants, the liaison’s contact information was shared with the
project staff to help start scheduling the sessions. The project staff contacted
the school liaison and supported them during the participants’ recruitment
process by discussing strategies for recruiting parents and coordinating the fol-
lowing aspects: (a) the number of participants, (b) possible dates and times, (c)
locations for focus group sessions, (d) dinner, and (e) the childcare providers
recommended by the school. The liaison was also provided with flyers in En-
glish and Spanish to help with recruitment.
247
Participants
A total of 13 schools in eight school districts in 12 counties (some school
districts cross over two counties) in NC participated. While 13 schools accept-
ed participation, two declined due to limited availability of staff who could
serve as the school liaison (87% acceptance rate). As a result, we were able to
conduct 20 focus groups in 13 different schools (14 in English, 6 in Spanish).
A total of 152 parents of children attending K–3 in eight NC school districts
had the opportunity to share their ideas regarding the formative assessment
that was being developed by OEL. In Table 1, we present the country of origin
and race and ethnicity of participating parents, including their marital status
and level of education.
Procedures
The study aimed to gain information about: (a) parents’ general attitudes
and beliefs about formative assessment, (b) parents’ beliefs with regard to the
type of information they would like to receive from formative assessment re-
ports and how they would like for schools to convey this information, and
(c) parents’ attitudes towards strategies for obtaining family information rele-
vant to the formative assessment. The research team developed a set of seven
questions specifically designed to respond to the project’s questions (see the
Appendix for the list of questions). A pilot focus group was conducted in order
to test the proposed questions. Three mothers (one Filipino, one White, one
South Asian) with children in K–3 in NC schools participated in the pilot. Af-
ter this initial pilot, minor revisions were made to the focus group questions.
Once the parents were recruited by the school liaison, parents were asked
to attend a focus group session in the school. To increase participation in the
focus groups, the researchers offered each participant the following incentives:
a light dinner, free childcare, and a $20 gift card. The four focus group fa-
cilitators, including a bilingual Spanish–English facilitator, were experienced
and trained. All facilitators had conducted focus groups before and/or had
been data collectors in research projects. The focus group facilitators followed
a protocol to conduct the sessions, using a written script to guide them. Before
asking the focus group questions, the facilitators asked parents to complete a
questionnaire to obtain demographic information. The lead investigators met
with the facilitators on several occasions to address questions that emerged as
the facilitators conducted the recruitment and focus groups.
248
Table 1. Demographic Information of Participating Parents

Demographics Percentage
Country of Birth/Origin
U.S. 62%
Mexico 27%
Puerto Rico 3%
Guatemala 3%
Latin America/Caribbean (e.g. El Salvador, Colombia) 4%
Race/Ethnicity
White 45%
Latine 34%
African American/Black 19%
Other 2%
Marital Status
Married/Widowed 76%
Never Married/Single 15%
Divorced/Separated 9%
Education Level
Less than High School 30%
High School/GED 13%
Some College 12%
AA/AS Degree 9%
BA/BS Degree 21%
Ph.D./M.D./Professional Degrees 16%
English Proficiency
Speaks very well 66%
Speaks well 9%
Speaks not so well 24%
Note. N = 152
Each focus group session lasted approximately 60 to 90 minutes. All sessions

were audiorecorded with the permission of the participants. Data collectors lis-
tened to the audio recordings and wrote summaries of the discussion including
sentences and paragraphs relevant to the research questions (McLellan et al.,
249
2003). The first two authors reviewed the summaries for completeness, asked
data collectors for more information if needed, and then analyzed the summa-
ries. The bilingual data collector wrote the summaries of the Spanish-speaking
parents’ focus groups in Spanish, and these were read and analyzed by the first
author who is a native Spanish-speaker.
Data Analysis
To analyze the data, the first two authors read all summaries written by the
focus group facilitators and identified initial themes and codes. A priori codes
were created based on the questions of the study and focus group interviews
(Miles et al., 2014). Examples of codes were views towards formative assess-
ment, useful communication, information teachers need to know about family, and
additional information about child. Authors coded the participant responses’
summaries using the a priori codes as well as other codes that emerged from the
data. Based on each focus group’s questions, the researchers wrote memos in
an effort to refine categories as well as engage in-depth data analysis (Charmaz,
2014). Memos were then revised and edited.
Results
The analysis of the data yielded five themes: beliefs about formative assess-
ment; information about the child’s performance and behavior; home–school
forms of communication; information about the curriculum, child’s behavior,
and performance; and parents as informants of children’s learning and behavior
outside of school, each of which we describe in greater detail in this section.
Beliefs About Formative Assessment
After the concept of formative assessment was explained in the interview
(see Appendix), the majority of the parents demonstrated a positive view of this
process. From the 20 groups interviewed, only a few parents in four groups in-
dicated that the information provided in the assessment would not be helpful.
From those who viewed the assessment process positively, they stated that the
assessment allowed teachers to identify children’s learning styles, to individual-
ize instruction, to determine children’s interests, and to observe other areas of
development different from academics such as social–emotional development
and physical health. The observations teachers provided to parents using this
kind of assessment demonstrated that teachers “cared for their children.” It also
provided information to parents about how their child can learn in different
contexts such as home and school. Some parents viewed the formative assess-
ment as an alternative to standardized testing allowing them to have a more
complete picture of their children’s progress.
250
A few parents, although not against using formative assessment, wanted

more information before deciding if a formative assessment was a good idea.
One of the mothers asked, “How are they going to do the testing, and what
are they going to do with the results? How are they [teachers] going to cater
their lessons? How are they going to use what you get to help teachers to teach
children with all those different needs?” Furthermore, a parent asked, “Is it pi-
loted? Is it reliable? Does it have construct validity? How is it actually going to
be developed to test what it says it’s going to test? Is it based on solid research
that is statistically valid?”
Parents who were not in favor of a formative assessment as it was presented
in the example expressed concern in terms of the time teachers would need to
conduct these assessments. They also indicated that they already knew about
this type of information from their observations of the children outside of
school. These parents preferred to obtain more information about their chil-
dren’s academic progress rather than social and linguistic development.
Some parents who voluntarily shared that they have children with special
needs expressed concern about how this assessment would be applied to their
children. One parent hoped that this assessment would help children with
special needs be identified earlier. Another parent was wondering how the as-
sessment would be implemented when children were assigned to special needs
classes, “Who would conduct the assessment? The regular classroom teacher
or the special education teacher?” she asked. Another parent indicated that
this kind of assessment would provide additional information about the child’s
strengths.
Information About the Child’s Performance and Behavior
In addition to learning about parents’ views on formative assessment, it
was important to explore parents’ views of the current ways in which parents
received information about their children’s performance and behavior. School
assessment should not only yield information about children’s academic devel-
opment but also their social and emotional skills. Parents in all the focus groups
reported receiving some sort of information regarding their child’s behavior
and academic performance. However, the consistency, quality, timeliness, and
positivity of the information they received varied across schools and families.
Some parents reported that they received timely and helpful information. One
parent stated that the teachers tell them “how much [their child] is learning,
their progress, and how much they improve.” Other parents also received infor-
mation about their child’s academic progress, such as reading scores. A group
of Spanish-speaking parents reported that, in addition to the report card, they
received a note in Spanish from the teacher giving more specific information
251
about their child’s needs so they can provide support at home in these areas.
Some parents reported receiving strategies to reinforce reading lessons, as well
as strengths and weaknesses, progress, issues that need work, and achievement
of daily expectations and longer-term benchmarks.
Parents were also receiving information about their child’s behavior through
a color rating system that allowed a parent to gauge the extent to which their
child was behaving appropriately throughout the school day, such as wheth-
er the child was on task for a majority of the day. For some Spanish-speaking
parents, this system was sometimes confusing because different teachers used
different colors to rate children’s behaviors and because the different colors
used were not clearly explained to parents.
While many parents acknowledged receiving information about their child’s
behavior, especially regarding problem behavior, the parents stressed the value
of also receiving some positive information about their child. As stated by one
parent, “Other than the regular progress report, I do not really receive perfor-
mance or grade information, and the behavioral information shared is typically
negative.” Similarly stated by another, “Teachers are quicker to give you the
negative rather than positive.” Parents also wanted to know more about how
their children behaved compared to their peers, including whether they were
experiencing any challenges with their peers (e.g., bullying).
Not only did parents want more information about their child’s behavior,
but they also sought more information about their child’s learning progress. For
example, they wanted more specific information about their child’s strengths
and areas in need of improvement with specific clarity about the grading sys-
tem, especially for children in the lower grades (i.e., second grade and lower).
They also wanted to get more information about any changes as early as possi-
ble and before testing and grades are released.
Forms of Home–School Communication
In order for parents to learn from the findings of the formative assessment,
a system of communication between the school and home should be in place.
Parents reported that their child’s teachers use a variety of communication me-
dia to connect with them, including emails, phone calls, texts, newsletters,
websites (e.g., classroomdojo.com), Facebook, daily journals, notes, and par-
ent–teacher conferences. They find all these means of communication useful
and helpful in staying connected with the teacher and informed about their
child’s learning and behavior. However, parents reported that the type of com-
munication chosen should be aligned with the information that will be shared
with the parent. One parent shared that “emails are great, text if it is a little
more important, and if it’s a phone call you know it’s really important.”
252
Differences among and within schools were found on the frequency and
means of communication with all parents. In one particular school, a group
of Spanish-speaking parents complained that they never received any commu-
nication despite trying to communicate directly with the teacher on several
occasions. They only received report cards which did not provide, according to
their view, enough information about their child’s progress. In another school,
a Spanish-speaking mother described how she visited the school almost every
day, yet she did not find out about her daughters’ lack of progress in reading
until she received the report card three months into the year. In contrast, in
a couple of schools where focus groups were conducted, a group of White
and African American parents reported receiving prompt and timely informa-
tion from their children’s teacher, including daily reports through journals or
notes. In one instance, a parent reported that she received daily information
through face-to-face communication with her child’s teacher as she volun-
teered frequently at the school. One father noted that he received “constant
communication [about his child with disabilities] regarding the effectiveness
of the strategies put in place, medication adjustments or changes, and what is
working and what is not working in the classroom.”
There were instances where parents within the same school reported varied
communication with their child’s teacher. In one focus group of White parents,
one mother reported receiving weekly behavior communication regarding if
her child was on “Gold” or not; yet another parent reported never even know-
ing about that “Gold-Silver” system of rating behavior until she tutored once
in the school. In another focus group of primarily White mothers, one moth-
er said her child’s kindergarten teacher rarely sent curriculum information. It’s
mostly “things like bring in snack.” But another mom said she talked to her
son’s teacher every day at drop-off and got face-to-face information about what
he will be doing each day.
The majority of parents noted that one-on-one, especially face-to-face, was
the preferred method of communication with teachers. Meetings between
teachers and parents should happen early in the year and with sufficient time
for the parent to feel comfortable sharing private information with the teach-
er. Many parents suggested that information should be gathered more than
once and potentially two to three times per year from families as things change
during the school year. Parents of color stressed the importance of gaining
information from families “as often as necessary” including on a monthly
or quarterly basis. Phone calls were also seen as an appropriate way to com-
municate, especially specific information about a child. However, they also
understood that teachers were busy and could not necessarily find time to meet
with parents as needed. Therefore, some identified parents, especially African
253
American and Spanish-speaking parents, made it a priority to visit the school

and classroom to see how things were going—not necessarily to volunteer, but
to see how their child was experiencing school and interacting with their teach-
ers and other students: “Sometimes my child tells me something, and I check
on him so he sees that I care about school. I want to build a relationship with
the teacher. I want to try to fix it, figure it out, help.” Being in the school and
observing the classroom provided them with the opportunity to have conversa-
tions with their child’s teacher. However, for some Spanish-speaking parents, it
was a challenge to communicate with the teacher, especially if there was no one
in the school who could work as an interpreter. Often the English as a Second
Language teacher served this function.
Furthermore, parents liked electronic communication because their busy
work schedule and lives may not allow them to take long phone calls or visit
the schools, but parents advised teachers to use discretion in the kind of infor-
mation they sent electronically. A few Spanish-speaking parents indicated that
emails with specific information about the child reflected that the teacher was
more attentive to the child’s individual needs. Yet, for some parents, commu-
nication via email was not an option if the teacher did not write in Spanish.
In particular, parents were seeking ways for teachers to be responsive to their
inquiries (e.g., how their child was performing academically in relation to oth-
er children and grade level, what factors went into how their child was being
graded, how to read grade reports and test results) and to get up-to-date in-
formation about their child. Some parents, primarily White parents, reported
taking the initiative to communicate with their child’s teacher through notes
and daily agendas, as well as volunteering in the classroom to “see what the
teachers are struggling with.” They were open to a variety of ways of com-
munication, with some parents being more comfortable with electronic and
web-based forms of communicating while others preferred face-to-face or
phone calls.
Information About the Curriculum, Child’s Behavior, and
Performance
Several parents reported wanting to know more about textbooks and cur-
riculum so they could help their child link the school learning to their home
lives. One mother eloquently stated that “you can take an everyday thing and
apply it to the science of their learning, and it makes more sense to them than
in the classroom. They want to see something and how it is applied rather than
just reading it in a textbook.” Parents also reported that getting information
about the curriculum and class lessons would be another way of strengthen-
ing the home–school communication and assessment. In addition to specific
254
curriculum, parents also would like to get more frequent and timely informa-
tion about daily classroom lessons and activities. One particular subject area
noted by several parents was in mathematics as they felt they were unable to
help their child without having strategies and instructions from the teacher.
One parent suggested a class for parents to learn math the way it is currently
being taught so they can help their children; another suggested a video tuto-
rial. In essence, parents wanted as much information as possible so they can
help their children at home, as exemplified by this statement from one parent,
“Just explain it to me. Once I figured out that’s what they were doing, then we
worked on it at home.”
Similarly, other parents reported that they received information about school
and classroom activities and events. A few reported they received a weekly
packet and schedule of classroom lessons and activities, which they found to
be useful in helping support their child’s learning and understand their needs.
This is exemplified by one mother talking about the weekly sheet she received
from her child’s science and math class in which the teacher relays “this week
we’ll be reading these books. Then I can ask my daughter to tell me about the
book she read at school. It’s right there, and I know exactly what she’s done.”
Parents stressed the importance of getting more information about their
child’s learning and performance, including more detailed information about
their child’s learning style, what motivates their child when learning, and what
strategies and tools they can use to help their child reach their potential. Fur-
ther, parents wanted to get information as soon as possible about when their
child was struggling.
Parents also wished to gain more information about their child’s behavior,
and this was especially the case for African American and Spanish-speaking
parents. As clarified by one parent,
If my son doesn’t tell me he’s done something wrong, I won’t know. The
teacher says it’s not a big deal and won’t call, but I would like to know…
because if he did something not right I want to help and work with
him….The only way I can help is if I know.
In addition to children’s problem behavior and adjustment to school ex-
pectations, parents wanted to receive positive information about their child.
However, they also desired to know when something occurred at school (e.g.,
child hurt by another child) and how the school handled it or when their child
was pulled out of the classroom. In addition, several Spanish-speaking parents
also wanted to know if their children were eating well in school since they rec-
ognized that nutrition was important for learning.
Parents expressed the need to understand better how to interpret the letter
grades being assigned to their children in second grade or lower. Parents did
255
not feel that the grades helped them to understand what their child knows
or does not know because it is class specific. In the same vein, parents want-
ed more information about the state standards and implications for children’s
learning and expectations. It was suggested that a website with “how to” or
“new term vs. old terms” would be helpful to explain how state standards have
changed lessons.
Parents as Informants of Children’s Learning and Development
Outside of School
In 17 of the 20 groups, parents stated that they agreed it was important
for the teacher to know some information about the family. In the other three
groups, parents were not so convinced that this was necessary. Parents named
the following aspects as important for teachers to find out about: (a) family
size and birth order of the child; (b) family routines, cultural values, and tra-
ditions; (c) discipline styles in the home; (d) major family events (e.g., birth of
a sibling, parents military deployment, family member death, etc.); (e) marital
relations (i.e., divorce); (f ) socioeconomic status, parents’ type of employment
and level of education; (g) parents’ work schedule and availability for volun-
teering and helping children with homework; (h) child’s disabilities, health,
personality traits, and social skills; and (i) language use at home.
Although these parents acknowledged the importance of teachers obtaining
information about the family, they also recognized that it might make some
families uncomfortable. As one parent described, “Honestly, the more infor-
mation you know about the family, the more help you can give kids who may
not be getting extra help at home. I know some people who have issues at
home feel like it’s none of their [the teacher’s] business, but I feel like it’s a huge
part.” In effect, some parents believed that what was really important for the
teachers to know was about the child’s “personality traits” rather than learning
about the family. This information was important for children’s performance in
school. They also believed that the previous teacher could provide more valu-
able information about the child’s “learning style.”
A group of African American mothers agreed, without being probed, that in
some instances schools asked information that was often used to the children’s
disadvantage. Based on some family information, some teachers tended to ste-
reotype about the child’s learning. One mother stated, “You want the teacher
to know everything, but depending on the teacher, you don’t want them form-
ing an opinion.” Furthermore, a father indicated that he would be willing to
answer questions depending on “how deep the question is.” A mother added,
“it’s supposed to be for the benefit of the child at school...so it shouldn’t go that
deep if it’s going to benefit education at school.”
256
According to the Spanish-speaking mothers, teachers should know about

important events at home such as death in the family, divorce, or if the child
was complaining at home about bullying in school. They also indicated that in
some instances revealing information about the family can give them “vergüen-
za” [embarrassment], especially if there were issues related to deportation and
marital status.
Parents in several groups indicated that an important prerequisite aspect of
revealing family information was if parents felt that they trusted the teacher.
Parents should not feel forced to share the information. As a father stated,
It comes down to how the person asking the question comes at you...
if you come at me with respect, I’ll give you the information you want,
but come at me disrespectfully... I want to be treated how you want to
be treated.
One Spanish-speaking mother also indicated that once teachers have this infor-
mation it should be used with sensitivity. In her case she had told the teacher
that her husband had died, and the teacher had said to the child, who wanted
to make a Father’s Day card, not to do it because she didn’t have a father. Par-
ents agreed that the family information should be kept confidential, so it was
not detrimental to the child and family.
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to explore parents’ ideas about formative
assessment. In general, parents had a positive view towards the formative as-
sessment process. Data obtained through a formative assessment process could
provide information that was timely, that allowed individualized instruction,
and that revealed children’s performance and behavior in school to parents.
Unlike previous studies that found that parents favor standardized assess-
ment (Harris, 2015), in this study most parents had a general positive attitude
towards formative assessment as it was described in the focus groups. As in
previous studies (Deslandes & Rivard, 2013; MacDonald, 2007; Meisels et al,
2001) parents demonstrated an interest in learning more about their children’s
learning and development. Their curiosity for their children’s learning in school
was not limited to academic development but also extended to their child’s
social and emotional development, learning style, behavior in school, and in-
terest areas. Parents were interested in this information so that they can better
support their children’s learning at home. Most parents, especially those who
were African American or Spanish-speaking, found it useful to receive both
positive and negative information about their child’s behavior in class. Parents
also revealed that they wanted to receive information about what is expected in
257
each grade level and how the expectations in the state standards might be sim-
ilar to or different from previous standards. Some parents also indicated that
they had trouble understanding the meaning of the current assessment system.
Schneider and Arnot (2018) identified a similar issue in a study of immigrant
parents in the United Kingdom. During parent interviews, the researchers ob-
served that parents lacked understanding of the United Kingdom’s schools’
assessment system and which was not necessarily related to parents’ level of ed-
ucation or years living in the United Kingdom.
Results from the focus groups suggest that the type of information received
from the formative assessment reports is as important as how this information
is communicated to parents. Teachers used different means of communication,
and parents believed that the means of communication should be aligned with
the type of information shared. The majority of parents emphasized that timely,
one-on-one communication, especially face-to-face, was the preferred method
of communication with teachers. In particular, parents preferred a communi-
cation method that provided an opportunity for them to inquire about how
best to support their child’s learning and behavior and also allowed the teacher
an opportunity to learn more about their child. Using a transactional model of
communication, parents and teachers could arrive at common understandings
about children’s learning and ways to support it (Schneider & Arnot, 2018).
Findings also revealed that, according to the participants, there was a lot of
variation among schools on the forms and frequency of communication par-
ents received.
The majority of parents believed that obtaining information about the fam-
ily was important for teachers. Some of the aspects they considered critical
were family’s cultural traditions and values, language used in the home, child’s
social skills outside of school, family’s socioeconomic status, and major events
in the child’s life. Some parents were concerned if information about the fam-
ily would be detrimental to the child. Parents emphasized the importance of
developing trust between teachers and parents so that the parents felt more at
ease with providing such information. In general, parents believed that some
information could be gathered through surveys and questionnaires, but other
information should be gathered through personal contact early in the school
year and throughout.
These findings reveal that parents understand that children’s home and com-
munity sociocultural contexts are as important for children’s lives as schools
and that teachers cannot have a complete view of the child if they do not have
information about these contexts. Parents demonstrated a sociocultural view
of assessment (Fleer, 2002; Gee, 2007) as they reflected on notions of inter-
dependence of the social contexts of home and school. Interestingly, parents’
258
responses demonstrated an intuitive notion that they can become informants

about children’s participation in these contexts. At the same time, they seek to
be co-interpreters of children’s participation in school so that they can support
them and provide scaffolding.
Implication for Practice
This study aimed to understand parents’ beliefs about the assessment of
their children’s learning. Their voices as reflected in this study can be useful for
schools as they consider alternative forms of assessment. According to the find-
ings in this study, parents are open to formative assessment. It is clear from the
results from the focus groups that designers of formative assessment need to
plan for the content and form of the assessment, and also the means by which
teachers will communicate with parents about formative assessments. In a sim-
ilar state education reform implemented in Quebec, Deslandes and Rivard
(2013) conducted a series of workshops to promote parents’ understanding
of competency-based assessments. The authors relayed that after parents at-
tended a series of experiential assessment workshops, parents reported more
understanding of the new assessment practices. Similarly, Meisels et al. (2001)
discovered that parents rated the WSS more positively when they perceived
teachers were willing to use this type of assessment and when school staff was
available to answer questions. As found in the present study, parents expressed
concern that this type of assessment could be too burdensome for teachers.
Furthermore, parents had many questions about how this kind of assessment
could be implemented that could be answered by school personnel communi-
cating often and consistently.
Considering that teachers have many competing demands for their time, it
is critical that they ask all families at the beginning of the year the best mode
of communicating so that their efforts are efficient and effective. Some of the
information that should be communicated includes: (a) general school infor-
mation (e.g., events, activities, changes), (b) classroom level information (e.g.,
tests, curriculum, staff updates), and (c) individual child information (e.g.,
performance, behavior). In addition to inquiring about preferred mode(s) of
communication, teachers should ask families for feedback and updates during
the year. Depending on the school population, some of this additional infor-
mation will need to be translated into different languages. It will be also critical
to create opportunities in which both teachers and parents engage in meaning
making and that the communication is transactional rather than one-sided
(i.e., from school to parents; Schneider & Arnot, 2018).
More information about general instructional practices and curriculum (in-
cluding changes) should be communicated with parents embedded within the
259
formative assessment process, as well as children’s interactions with peers and

teachers. Documentation as conceived in the Reggio Emilia approach, an ear-
ly childhood education approach originated in Italy that encourages hands-on
creativity and self-expression, is a move in this direction (Gandini & Gold-
haber, 2001). Parents can also contribute to the process of documentation
(Birbili & Tzioga, 2014). Another promising approach is the Learning Stories
framework as described by Carr and Lee (2012). Learning Story, a sociocultur-
ally oriented framework, is an alternative multimodal narrative assessment that
involves collaborative telling and retelling stories of children’s observed learn-
ing episodes and experiences (Carr & Lee, 2012). This bicultural framework
empowers children’s individualized learning pathways, coordinates families’
multiple perspectives of their children’s learning expectations, and documents
teachers’ self-reflective instructional practices. These approaches to assessment
aim to understand the complexity of the transformation that occurs as chil-
dren learn, and at the same time, are necessary for informing teaching. As Fleer
(2002) indicates,
Documenting individual test scores, then compiling test scores into sets
of results for classrooms, schools, and finally an entire system does little
to inform how teaching practices must change for the improvement of
outcomes. Worse still is the unquestioning faith that the current assess-
ment tools can adequately document the complexity of the transforma-
tion that occurs through learning. (p. 115)
Alternative forms of assessment such as these also inform parents of social and
linguistic aspects of the child’s development and communicate to parents that
these areas are equally important for learning. In this way, being better in-
formed about their child’s progress, parents can be more effective and inten-
tional in supporting children’s learning in school (Sonnenschein et al., 2014).
State efforts to move from standardized assessments to formative assessment
should consider the different stakeholders who will benefit from the informa-
tion provided in the assessment. Rather than providing one form of assessment,
state efforts should focus on creating guidelines for formative assessment de-
sign as well as implementation. Given the current emphasis on standardized
assessments, it is critical that states plan and oversee the delivery of profession-
al development focused on implementing formative assessment with fidelity,
including a particular emphasis on strategies proven to be effective for engag-
ing families in the assessment process. Likewise, teacher preparation programs
should include experiences for prospective teachers that include knowledge,
skills, and dispositions necessary to partner with families in assessment and
to value parents’ desire to be involved in their children’s learning regardless of
260
their background (Mehlig & Shumow, 2013). We recognize that these strate-
gies would entail great efforts for teachers and administrators who are already
overwhelmed with competing responsibilities. However, findings from this
study reveal that parents can be willing allies in the assessment process and
that their contributions can be critical to understand children’s transformation.
Assessments that are co-designed and co-interpreted with parents can provide
evidence that can deliver meaningful improvement to educational practice.
Therefore, we should not squander such a valuable resource.
Study Limitations
There are several limitations to the study. First, although the researchers
described to the school the criteria for participant recruitment, it is not pos-
sible to determine if the parents who responded and represented the resulting
convenience sample consisted primarily of those who frequently participate
in school events or the PTA. Had we thought of doing so, we could have
asked parents in the focus groups at the outset whether they had participated
in school activities before. Thus, there is no claim that participants were rep-
resentative of the parent population. The study, however, was not aiming to
generalize the perspective here described to the majority of parents in NC but
rather to understand some of the various perspectives that parents might have
towards formative assessment. As with any such study, findings can point to
additional questions or refined methods for future research.
Another limitation of the study is that the lead investigators did not conduct
the focus groups directly, and it was not possible to transcribe the recordings
because of funding restrictions. To minimize the impact of these limitations,
the investigators reviewed all summaries provided by focus group facilitators
and asked them to provide additional information and clarifications as needed.
Finally, since most parents have little experience with formative assess-
ments, an example was provided in the focus group to gain insight on parents’
perspectives towards these kinds of assessments. It is possible that parents’ re-
sponses might be limited to the formative assessment example in the focus
group and not to other forms of formative assessment. Further research should
be conducted to determine parents’ perspectives to different kinds of formative
assessment.
At this time when there is a call to transform education to meet the needs of
all children, especially children of color who have historically been left behind,
it is important that assessments (and other educational tools) are culturally
grounded and strengths based. By incorporating the sociocultural wealth of
children through families’ voices, we can better meet the needs of children in
the learning environment.
261
References
Ahmedi, V. (2019). Teachers’ attitudes and practices towards formative assessment in primary
schools. Journal of Social Studies Education Research, 10(3), 161–175.
Alotaibi, K. A. (2019). Teachers’ perceptions on factors influence adoption of formative assess-
ment. Journal of Education and Learning, 8(1), 74–86.
Birbili, M., & Tzioga, K. (2014). Involving parents in children’s assessment: Lessons from the
Greek context. Early Years, 34(2), 161–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/09575146.2014.89
4498
Black, P. J., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom
assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80, 139–148. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20439383
Carr, M., & Lee, W. (2012). Learning stories: Constructing learner identities in early education.
Sage.
Charmaz, K. (2014). Grounded theory in global perspective: Reviews by international research-
ers. Qualitative Inquiry, 20(9), 1074–1084. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800414545235
Christenson, S. L. (2004). The family–school partnership: An opportunity to promote the
learning competence of all students. School Psychology Review, 33(1), 83–104. https://doi.
org/10.1080/02796015.2004.12086233
Coburn, C. E., Penuel, W. R., & Geil, K. E. (2013). Practice partnerships: A strategy for lever-
aging research for educational improvement in school districts. William T. Grant Foundation.
Culbertson, L. D., & Jalongo, M. R. (1999). “But what’s wrong with letter grades?” Respond-
ing to parents’ questions about alternative assessment. Childhood Education, 75(3), 130–
135. https://doi.org/10.1080/00094056.1999.10521999
Deslandes, R., & Rivard, M. C. (2013). A pilot study aiming to promote parents’ understand-
ing of learning assessments at the elementary level. School Community Journal, 23(2), 9–32.
https://www.adi.org/journal/2013fw/DeslandesRivardFall2013.pdf
Fleer, M. (2002). Sociocultural assessment in early years education—Myth or reality? Inter-
national Journal of Early Years Education, 10(2), 105–120. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669
760220141999
Fredericks, A. D., & Rasinski, T. V. (1990). Working with parents: Involving parents in the
assessment process. The Reading Teacher, 44(4), 346–349.
Gandini, L., & Edwards, C. P. (Eds.). (2001). Bambini: The Italian approach to infant/toddler
care (Vol. 77). Teachers College Press.
Gandini, L., & Goldhaber, J. (2001). Two reflections about documentation. In L. Gandini &
C. P. Edwards (Eds.), Bambini: The Italian approach to infant/toddler care (pp. 124–145).
Teachers College Press.
Garcia, M. E., Frunzi, K., Dean, C. B., Flores, N., & Miller, K. B. (2016). Toolkit of resources
for engaging families and the community as partners in education. Part 1: Building an un-
derstanding of family and community engagement (REL 2016–148). Regional Educational
Laboratory Pacific.
Gee, J. P. (2007). Reflections on assessment from a sociocultural‐situated perspective. Yearbook
of the National Society for the Study of Education, 106(1), 362–375.
Gillanders, C., Iruka, I., Ritchie, S., & Cobb, C. T. (2012). Restructuring and aligning early
education opportunities for cultural, language, and ethnic minority children. In R. C.
Pianta, W. S. Barnett., L. M. Justice, & S. M. Sheridan (Eds.), Handbook of early education
(pp. 111–136). The Guilford Press.
262
Harris, L. R. (2015, April). Reviewing research on parent attitudes towards school assessment:
Implications for classroom assessment practices [Paper presentation]. American Educational
Research Association Annual Meeting, Chicago, Illinois.
Heritage, M. (2007). Formative assessment: What do teachers need to know and do. Phi Delta
Kappan, 89(2), 140–145. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172170708900210
Hickey, D. T., & Anderson, K. T. (2007). Situative approaches to student assessment: Con-
textualizing evidence to transform practice. Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of
Education, 106(1), 264–287.
Krieg, S., & Curtis, D. (2017). Involving parents in early childhood research as reliable asses-
sors. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 25(5), 717–731. https://doi.or
g/10.1080/1350293X.2017.1356601
Ma, X., Shen, J., Krenn, H. Y., Hu, S., & Yuan, J. (2016). A meta-analysis of the relationship
between learning outcomes and parental involvement during early childhood education
and early elementary education. Educational Psychology Review, 28(4), 771–801. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9351-1
MacDonald, M. (2007). Toward formative assessment: The use of pedagogical documenta-
tion in early elementary classrooms. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 22(2), 232–242.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2006.12.001
McLellan, E., MacQueen, K. M., & Neidig, J. L. (2003). Beyond the qualitative inter-
view: Data preparation and transcription. Field Methods, 15, 63–84. https://doi.org/10.
1177/1525822X02239573
McManus, S. (2008). Attributes of effective formative assessment. Council of Chief State School
Officers. https://www.ccsso.org/sites/default/files/2017-12/Attributes_of_Effective_2008.
pdf
Mehlig, L. M., & Shumow, L. (2013). How is my child doing? Preparing pre-service teachers
to engage parents through assessment. Teaching Education, 24(2), 181–194. https://doi.or
g/10.1080/10476210.2013.786892
Meisels, S. J., Xue, Y., Bickel, D. D., Nicholson, J., & Atkins-Burnett, S. (2001). Parental re-
actions to authentic performance assessment. Educational Assessment, 7(1), 61–85. https://
doi.org/10.1207/S15326977EA0701_6
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis. Sage.
Milner, R., H. (2012). But what is urban education? Urban Education, 47(3), 556–561. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0042085912447516
Moss, P., Dillon, J., & Statham, J. (2000). The “child in need” and “the rich child”: Dis-
courses, constructions, and practice. Critical Social Policy, 20(2), 233–254. https://doi.
org/10.1177/026101830002000203
North Carolina Department of Public Instruction. (2013). Assessment for learning and devel-
opment in K–3: A report by the K–3 North Carolina Assessment Think Tank. https://files.
nc.gov/dpi/documents/earlylearning/k3assessment/oel-think-tank.pdf
Pekis, A., & Gourgiotou, E. (2017). Parental perceptions about children’s authentic assessment
and the work sampling system’s implementation. International Journal of Assessment Tools in
Education, 4(2), 182–210.
Rinaldi, C. (2001). The pedagogy of listening: The listening perspective from Reggio Emilia.
Innovations in Early Education: The International Reggio Exchange, 8(4), 1–4.
Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature of human development. Oxford University Press.
Sach, E. (2012). Teachers and testing: An investigation into teachers’ perceptions of formative
assessment. Educational Studies, 38(3), 261–276. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.201
1.598684
263
Sach, E. (2015). An exploration of teachers’ narratives: What are the facilitators and con-
straints which promote or inhibit “good” formative assessment practices in schools? Educa-
tion 3–13, 43(3), 322–335. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004279.2013.813956
Schneider, C., & Arnot, M. (2018). An exploration of school communication approaches for
newly arrived EAL students: Applying three dimensions of organizational communication
theory. Cambridge Journal of Education, 48(2), 245–262. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057
64X.2017.1329399
Sharma, C. (2013). North Carolina public Kindergarten teacher perceptions on readiness and the
development of a state K–3 assessment [Master’s thesis]. Duke University Sanford School of
Public Policy.
Sheldon, S. B. (2003). Linking school–family–community partnerships in urban elementary
schools to student achievement on state tests. The Urban Review, 35(2), 149–165. https://
doi.org/10.1023/a:1023713829693
Shepard, L. A. (2009). Commentary: Evaluating the validity of formative and interim assess-
ment. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 28(3), 32–37. https://doi.org/10.1111/
j.1745-3992.2009.00152.x
Smith, T. E., Sheridan, S. M., Kim, E. M., Park, S., & Beretvas, S. N. (2020). The effects of
family–school partnership interventions on academic and social–emotional functioning:
A meta-analysis exploring what works for whom. Educational Psychology Review, 32(2),
511–544. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09509-w
Solano‐Flores, G., & Nelson‐Barber, S. (2001). On the cultural validity of science assessments.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(5), 553–573. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.1018
Sonnenschein, S., Stapleton, L. M., & Metzger, S. R. (2014). What parents know about how
well their children are doing in school. The Journal of Educational Research, 107, 152–162.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2013.788987
Trumbull, E., & Lash, A. (2013). Understanding formative assessment. Insights from learning the-
ory and measurement theory. WestEd. https://www.wested.org/online_pubs/resource1307.
pdf
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind and society: The development of higher psychological processes. Har-
vard University Press.
Wei, R. C., Pecheone, R. L., & Wilczak, K. L. (2015). Measuring what really matters. Phi
Delta Kappan, 97(1), 8–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/0031721715602228
Cristina Gillanders is an associate professor in early childhood education in the

School of Education and Human Development at the University of Colorado Den-
ver. Her research focuses on the development and learning of dual language learners,
emergent literacy, parents’ beliefs and practices, and home–school partnerships, as
well as preparing early childhood education teachers to work with minoritized chil-
dren and families. Correspondence concerning this article may be addressed to Dr.
Cristina Gillanders, 1380 Lawrence Street, Denver, CO 80204, or email cristina.gil-
landers@ucdenver.edu
Iheoma U. Iruka is a research professor in the Department of Public Policy and
founding director of the Equity Research–Action Coalition at FPG Child Develop-
ment Institute at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Dr. Iruka is engaged
in projects and initiatives focused on how evidence-informed policies, systems, and
practices in early education can support the optimal development and experiences
264
of children from low wealth and marginalized households and communities. She is
working on strengthening antiracist, antibias, and equitable research, practices, and
policies to ensure the excellence and well-being for young diverse learners, especially
Black children and their families.
Cindy Bagwell recently retired from the North Carolina Department of Public
Instruction, where she served as the K–3 Education Project administrator responsible
for overseeing the development and implementation of a kindergarten entry assess-
ment, which is now part of a K–3 formative assessment process. Dr. Bagwell also
served as the project director for an Enhanced Assessment Grant and led a consortium
of nine states in the enhancement of NC’s K–3 Formative Assessment Process, making
it applicable to varied state contexts. With over 30 years of experience in education,
she has taught, served as a district administrator, and worked as a state-level consul-
tant, where she coordinated the development and implementation of North Carolina’s
first early learning standards and oversaw the creation of preschool and kindergarten
demonstration classrooms and play-based assessment centers.
Tobi Adejumo is a PhD candidate in early childhood education in the School
of Education and Human Development at the University of Colorado Denver. Her
teaching and research interests lie in the ecocultural contextualization of immigrant
children’s early childhood experiences, immigrant parents’ early care, education, or
school readiness practices and beliefs, and immigrant parents’ advocacy and school
involvement. She is also a research and policy associate at the Center for the Study of
Child Care Employment at the University of California, Berkeley.
Appendix: Focus Groups Questions
1. Teachers use different ways to communicate to parents how their child is doing
in school. What have you found most useful? (Probe for means of communica-
tion, i.e., frequent text messages, parent–teacher conferences, phone calls, notes
for home, report card, etc.)
2. What kind of information have you received about your child’s performance or
behavior in school that has been most useful?
3. What else would you like to know about your child’s behavior or performance?
4. The OEL is working on a formative assessment that would help teachers learn more
about the child’s learning and development so that their teaching is more in tune
with the child’s needs. A sample of one of the areas they will explore is how chil-
dren listen and use language (read example). Let me read you an example.
A kindergarten teacher has been reading Goldilocks and the Three Bears with
her class during circle time and decides to use the children’s interest in the story
to learn more about the children’s development in the areas of listening and
speaking. After reviewing the story, the teacher asks the children to imagine
that the three bears decided to move to a new part of the woods so that Gold-
ilocks couldn’t find them. She asks the children to work together to build the
265
three bears a new house in the block area. As the children work together to
build a new house for the bears, the teacher observes them working and listens
to their conversation. Throughout the work time, the teacher listens, observes,
asks questions as needed, and records the conversation by making notes about
each child’s use of language, such as how the children express their ideas, take
turns in conversation, and stays on topic.
In this example, the teacher will be looking to see how children express their thoughts,
how much they stay on topic, and if they allow other children to take turns during
the conversation. Would you like to receive this kind of information from your child’s
teacher? If so, please let us know why.
5. In order for teachers to get a more complete picture of the child’s learning and
development they would need to gain some information from the family. What
kind of information do you think it is important for the teachers to know about
the family?
6. What would be the best way of gaining this information? (Probe for in person,
through a website, text message, completing forms, phone call, homework, etc.)
7. When would be the best time for schools to gain this information from families?
(Probe for at beginning of the year, end of the year, every month, etc.)
266
Critical Community Building in Teacher
Education: Rethinking Classroom Management
Jeannette D. Alarcón and Silvia Cristina Bettez
Abstract
In this article, critical community building (CCB) is posed as a promising

practice for teacher education. The authors engaged in action research in order
to investigate the usefulness of the tenets of CCB for shaping experiences in a
classroom management course. The overarching goal was to inform a teacher
educator’s practices in establishing equitable learning spaces. The objectives of
the investigation were twofold. First, we aimed to build trust in the learning
community so that we could address controversial topics related to education,
specifically in the area of classroom management. Second, we hoped that pre-
service teachers would take up and name CCB as part of their own pedagogical
practice. Our guiding question was: When CCB is intentionally embedded in
a teacher education course, how might preservice teachers’ description of their
understanding be used to refine CCB practices within the context of teacher
education? Action research was employed so that the authors could use stu-
dent data to inform teaching practices. Data sources included observations
during instructional time, student work products, audio recordings of small
group discussions, interview transcripts, and collaborative debrief and planning
notes. The co-authors coded and analyzed data individually and collaborative-
ly. Preservice teachers revealed that participating in activities guided by CCB
principles resulted in what they described as: (a) increased meaningful interac-
tion and interdependence, (b) instructional strategies that enhanced learning,
and (c) shifts in thinking about traditional notions of classroom management.

Key Words: critical community building, culturally relevant pedagogy, preser-

vice teacher education, classroom management, equity
Introduction
As preservice teachers prepare to enter the profession, experiences with

classroom management practices that foster student voice, promote equita-
ble opportunity, and build trust are key. However, there remains a lack of
emphasis on developing critical awareness as a skill for examining and un-
derstanding accepted forms of traditional classroom management practices
in teacher education. When teachers talk about future classrooms and learn-
ing environments, they seldom consider the need to engage culturally relevant
pedagogy as a framework for establishing procedures, routines, norms, rules,
and other essential processes (Milner & Tenore, 2010; Nieto, 2000). Statistics
show that disproportionate numbers of students of color are negatively disci-
plined through traditional classroom management approaches (Mayworm et
al., 2016; Skiba et al., 2009). Teachers are often taught to “manage” by con-
straining students to fit particular ways of being. We believe moving from a
focus on teacher-controlled management to creating an atmosphere in which
all students feel like a part of the community has the potential to increase eq-
uity and a sense of security for all students. Critical multicultural education
scholars indicate a need for increased emphasis on equity-oriented practices
in teacher education in order to provide preservice teachers with experiences
for fostering equitable learning environments (Alarcón, 2016; Cochran-Smith,
2004; Nieto 2000; Sleeter, 2018). Such space exists within classroom manage-
ment courses that centralize asset-based framing and are infused with practice
geared toward justice-oriented education.
Critical community building (CCB) has been put forth as a strategy of
social justice education in higher education classroom and professional de-
velopment settings. (Bettez 2011a, 2011b; Bettez & Hytten, 2013). Bettez
(2011a, 2011b), expanding upon literature regarding community building
(Hall, 2007; Pharr, 2010), defined critical community building by articulating
three main tenets: (1) maintaining an open web of connections; (2) engaging
in active listening with critical question posing; and (3) making a commitment
coupled with accountability (Bettez, 2011a, p. 11). The first tenet refers to the
need to create a dynamic and fluid learning space where students and teachers
are seen as contributors to knowledge-building in the classroom while also fos-
tering relationships that support difficult learning moments. The key factor in
the second tenet is the inclusion of critical question posing. In the context of
teacher education, and specifically classroom management coursework, critical
268
CRITICAL COMMUNITY BUILDING
question posing leads to facilitated dialogue that helps preservice teachers bet-
ter understand their roles establishing a more inclusive learning environment.
The third tenet is meant as a pathway toward establishing mutual respect with
the goal of promoting equity.
Alarcón, the first author, is a teacher educator who promotes an increased
awareness of and practice with equity pedagogies that are appropriate for
PreK–12 classrooms. As such, Alarcón drew upon the CCB premise as a tan-
gible, culturally relevant strategy for guiding preservice teachers in rethinking
classroom management. The authors co-designed and conducted an action
research project by intentionally implementing the principles of CCB in a
teacher preparation classroom management course. The overarching goal of the
project was to inform practices that establish equitable learning environments
by employing culturally relevant pedagogy (Ladson-Billings, 1995). Culturally
relevant pedagogy is commonly seen as an effective pathway to increased equi-
ty in public school classrooms and other educational spaces (Cochran-Smith,
2004; Ladson-Billings, 1995; Nieto, 2014).
During the course, we encouraged CCB by providing preservice teachers
with a framework for understanding the concept and asked them to commit to
specific forms of small group work to promote open dialogue and space for all
voices to be heard. We presented CCB to preservice teachers in two ways. First,
we introduced the concept of CCB, distinct from (non-critical) community
building, as a classroom management strategy that centralizes active listening
and voicing commitments for engaging in the learning space as integral to cre-
ating an environment where critical question posing is centralized. Second,
preservice teachers practiced CCB as a strategy for fostering a trusting class-
room culture where everyone invested in considering the perspectives of others
in order to understand complicated issues that arise throughout the school day.
Theoretical Framework and Related Literature
Results of our literature review indicated a renewed focus on traditional
community building as a child-centered approach to classroom management.
However, there is little indication of an emphasis on criticality in this area.
This study adds to the literature addressing both classroom management and
culturally relevant pedagogy by examining the impact of intentionally enacting
and promoting a CCB environment. Our work is situated within three main
bodies of literature: child-centered classroom management, culturally relevant
pedagogy as a pathway to justice-oriented classrooms, and CCB in learning
environments. We begin with an overview of a child-centered orientation, next
we provide foundational information regarding culturally relevant pedagogy
and social justice education, and finally we present previously published work
highlighting CCB.
269
Community-Centered Classroom Management

The notion of classroom management, in most cases, refers to the ways in
which teachers handle time, movement, instruction, and decision-making in
classrooms. Traditional approaches to classroom management include a variety
of models such as behavioral approaches, systematic approaches, and integra-
tive approaches that combine instruction and management strategies (Hardin,
2012). Beginning in the late 1990s, the notion of child-centered management
techniques has been preferable to antiquated disciplinary action as teachers
work to create engaging learning environments while simultaneously shaping
students’ behaviors (Perry & Weinstein, 1998). In many cases, child-centered
approaches incorporate three main strategies: empathetic listening, assign-
ing positive intent to behaviors, and teaching children to use choice language
(Pereira & Smith-Adcock, 2011). While a child-centered focus continues to
be held up as desirable practice, the tension between the teacher’s authority
in the classroom and making space for student-led decision-making persists
(Tzuo, 2007). Building from these premises, a next step could be an integrative
approach that builds from a community-centered learning environment and
allows for co-construction of knowledge among students and teachers via dia-
logue and open communication (Lloyd et al., 2016; Meltzoff, 2001). A critical
aspect is realized when people learn to speak across differences in order to learn
to examine and analyze the systems of power that permeate society (including
classrooms). Strategies such as question-posing can be used for moving toward
fostering critical community. Developing a sense of criticality is essential in
working toward more just educational environments and access to relevant ed-
ucational opportunities.
This work endorses taking up equity pedagogies that help preservice teach-
ers make sense of systems of power. However, teacher educators must remain
mindful of cultural differences that may be at odds with certain premises of
critical pedagogy, such as teaching students to question authority (Greenfield
et al., 2000; Rothstein-Fisch & Trumbull, 2008). As such, it is important to
include explicit instruction for facilitating dialogue with students and fam-
ilies that promotes understanding the usefulness of a democratic approach
while also maintaining order via mutual respect and accountability. To achieve
this goal it is important to consider variance in communication styles across
cultural difference, particularly in terms of interactions between adults and
children and varieties of group interactions (Lustig et al., 2006; Nelson-Barber
& Dull, 1998). One goal for raising critical awareness and promoting com-
munity building in classrooms is to centralize historically marginalized ways
of knowing and to reveal civic pathways for correcting long-standing inequity
in schooling.
270
Culturally Relevant Pedagogy and Justice-Oriented Practice

We have found that although social justice is often a central theme in cul-
tural and social foundations graduate programs, “teacher education program
surveys indicate that ‘diversity’ is often relegated to a single optional course”
(Cochran-Smith, 2004, p. 149). Furthermore, there is no guarantee that with-
in “diversity” courses social justice issues will be directly addressed. When we
speak of social justice, we are referring to “critical social justice” (Sensoy & Di-
Angelo, 2011, p. xvii, emphasis in original). A critical approach to social justice
refers to specific theoretical perspectives that recognize that society is stratified
(divided and unequal) in significant and far-reaching ways along social group
lines that include race/ethnicity, class, gender, sexuality, and ability. Critical
social justice recognizes inequality as deeply embedded in the fabric of society
(i.e., as structural) and actively seeks to change this. Educational spaces can
be sites for teaching about the complexities of society by helping students un-
derstand how communities work. By providing a learning community where
preservice teachers are engaged in tackling social issues related to education on
micro and macro levels, teacher educators provide an opportunity for them to
experience culturally relevant pedagogy.
As educators and researchers grounded in a social justice orientation, we be-
lieve in the importance of examining systems of privilege and power (Allen et
al., 2017; Delpit, 2006) in all aspects of teacher education; this moves beyond
mainstream notions of incorporating diversity. As Hackman (2005) explains,
Social justice education does not merely examine difference or diversity
but pays careful attention to systems of power and privilege that give rise
to social inequality and encourage students to critically examine oppres-
sion on institutional, cultural, and individual levels in search of oppor-
tunities for social action in service of social change (p. 104).
Thus, our work is predicated on recognizing and understanding this critical
social justice complexity as well as helping preservice teachers experience it in
tangible ways, such as CCB.
Critical Community Building
We assert, along with others (Bettez & Hytten, 2013; Renner, 2009), that
community building is integral to promoting equity in education. We set out
to examine the ways that preservice teachers described their understanding of
CCB. Thus we planned for purposefully implementing a CCB framework in a
teacher education classroom management course.
Maintaining a web of connections requires operating with an attitude of
openness and inclusivity, attempting to build bridges, and making conscien-
tious efforts to be welcoming and hospitable. Engaging in active listening in
271
a critical community context entails seeking out dialogues across lines of dif-
ferences, aiming for reciprocity in which both the speaker and listener can
learn from the dialogue, recognizing that listening is impacted by structure and
space, engaging in critical self-reflexivity, and asking critical questions. Block
(2008) in his book on community argues that:
Commitment and accountability are forever paired, for they do not ex-
ist without each other. Accountability is the willingness to care for the
well-being of the whole; commitment is the willingness to make a prom-
ise with no expectation in return (p. 71).
We used these definitions as a framework for the work teacher educators and
preservice teachers did together in the classroom management course.
Of late, restorative justice has proven a popular approach in schools. The
main premise of restorative justice is that students will learn to take owner-
ship when they have transgressed against community-established norms and
practices or against individual community members (Zehr, 2015). Some of
the practices in both the CCB approach and the restorative justice approach
are similar, for example, the use of circles to address important learning com-
munity issues. However, the main distinction is that CCB highlights helping
preservice teachers to understand the foundational skills needed to forge the
learning community in the first place. In other words, engaging in CCB helps
all members of the learning community understand interactions of the whole
as opposed to individual relationships. We assert that both are important. It is
our view that establishing a space for students to ask each other critical ques-
tions and expect their views to be valued will result in a classroom community
that centralizes learning about differences and how to work together to solve
problems in a proactive way.
Using CCB as both a management and instructional strategy provides a
pathway for preservice teachers to disrupt taken-for-granted power dynam-
ics embedded in school settings. Relationship building is key to both teacher
retention and promoting equitable learning opportunities for students (Ni-
eto, 2000; Phelps & Benson, 2012). CCB centers relationship building as a
key component to establishing interdependence in classrooms. Further, it pro-
motes rethinking teacher–student and student–student relationships. We assert
that this approach has the potential to help teacher educators provide tangi-
ble experiences with culturally relevant pedagogy. As reported by the Bridging
Cultures Project (Greenfield et al., 2000; Rothstein-Fisch & Trumbull, 2008),
it is key for teachers to understand many students’ collectivist backgrounds in
order to create culturally familiar and appropriate learning environments and
instructional opportunities.
272
Researcher Context
Alarcón is a faculty member in teacher education in a college of education
at a large public university in the southwestern United States. Bettez is a faculty
member in cultural foundations in a school of education at a mid-size public
university in the southeastern United States. Both of us are committed to and
have previously written about social justice praxis. Bettez has conducted re-
search and writing about CCB for several years (Bettez 2011a, 2011b; Bettez
& Hytten, 2013); however, up until this point none of the research had been
conducted within teacher education. Alarcón emphasizes culturally relevant
pedagogy, social justice education, and equity in her work with preservice and
practicing teachers. We engaged as co-researchers for this action research proj-
ect. Alarcón was the course instructor.
Purpose of the Study
This study sought to understand the ways in which teaching candidates
seeking a Master’s degree and initial licensure make sense of CCB in order to
inform future teaching practices. During the course of this study, we engaged
CCB practices for employing culturally relevant pedagogy in the classroom en-
vironment. The preservice teachers were asked to describe their experience and
the potential for including it in their classroom management plans due at the
end of the course. The guiding research questions were:
1. When critical community building is intentionally embedded in a teacher
education course, what do preservice teachers describe as the impact of the
approach?
2. How might the descriptions be used to refine critical community building
practices in the context of teacher education?
Methods
The action research was set within the parameters of a classroom manage-
ment course taught as part of a teacher preparation program at a midsize public
university in the southeastern United States. The course is a requirement of
the university-based, Master of Arts in Teaching initial teaching certification
program. We employed action research in order to present a data-informed
promising practice in the field of teacher education. Because we employed re-
flective methods, the course instructor was able to use student-generated data
to improve her own practice when implementing CCB. Finally, we found ac-
tion research an appropriate method because it promotes professional dialogue
about teaching practices (Sagor, 1992).
273
The main data sources were artifacts (student work, teaching materials), ob-
servation notes, planning/debrief notes, and audio recordings of small group
discussions. The main purpose of the study was to understand Alarcón’s teach-
ing practice. As such, document analysis was enlisted across data sources. The
authors engaged in reflective dialogue during meetings before and after class
sessions as points of triangulation. Finally, 9 of the 16 (56%) preservice teach-
ers enrolled in the course agreed to be interviewed about their understanding
of CCB. The preservice teachers who agreed to the interview represented mi-
noritized perspectives along race/ethnicity, gender, and age lines, and/or had
expressed a commitment to engaging culturally relevant pedagogy. While this
sample size is small, the insights provided informed planning for subsequent
implementation of CCB in teacher education courses. Table 1 captures demo-
graphic information about the nine interview participants.
Table 1. Preservice Teacher Interviewees

Preservice Teacher Grade Level Self-Described
Gender Age
(pseudonym) Certification Sought Race/Ethnicity
Sabita Secondary ESL Indian descent Female 32
Lorraine Middle School Math African American Female 50
Mary Secondary ESL White Female 24
Amber Middle School Math White Female 28
Jack Secondary ESL White Male 24
Greg Elementary Education Latino Male 24
Irene Secondary ESL Asian American Female 28
Debra Elementary Education White Female 30
Jennifer Middle School Science African American Female 40
We were able to capture preservice teachers’ reactions and learning through-

out the duration of the course and identified links to the language, activities,
and questions used to elicit the responses. The main purpose of the study was
to inform future practice for raising critical awareness, CCB, and culturally
relevant pedagogy. Nine preservice teachers agreed to interviews and provided
descriptions of what worked well and what challenges they faced when consid-
ering implementing CCB in their future classrooms.
Context of the Study
The classroom management course took place during a five-week summer
session and met 19 times (2 hours each). The first several sessions were devoted
274
to introducing the preservice teachers to a variety of frameworks for classroom

management. During session six we began developing class learning commit-
ments. This is a central component of CCB and became our introduction to
the approach. Over the next seven consecutive sessions, Alarcón directly em-
phasized defining and engaging in CCB as a pathway for developing culturally
relevant pedagogical practices. The authors created activities that would result
in experiencing CCB, and a co-instructor helped to facilitate the small group
dialogue. Preservice teachers were asked to explore the ways the framework
could inform their classroom management action plans. For example, in order
to encourage preservice teachers to move beyond non-CCB toward CCB, read-
ings highlighted notions of connectivity, active listening, and commitment as
foundations for our own learning community (Sleeter, 2018). As a follow up
to reading about CCB, preservice teachers engaged in the process of naming
community commitments and discussing appropriate ways to hold each oth-
er accountable. We finished this segment with small group dialogue capturing
ideas for implementing the framework and strategy in their future classrooms.
During subsequent sessions, assigned readings focused on cultivating a
mindset informed by culturally relevant pedagogy and applying these prin-
ciples to classroom management practices (Ladson-Billings, 2009; Milner, &
Tenore, 2010; Weinstein et al., 2003). After reading about the framework,
preservice teachers analyzed case studies depicting scenarios in which teachers
should consider issues of equity in making decisions about consequences for
behavior. In other words, the case studies illustrated a clear-cut rule violation
in the school setting while at the same time providing sociocultural contexts
calling for teachers to make individualized decisions that demonstrated an
antibias stance based in culturally relevant pedagogy as opposed to making de-
cisions based upon generalizations. Here again, we followed up with a dialogue
around implementing culturally relevant pedagogy in designing the classroom
management action plan.
We followed a similar format over the seven sessions that defined the data
collection period, beginning with a reading about culturally relevant pedagogy,
followed by an experiential activity, and ending with a dialogue centralizing
the application of culturally relevant pedagogy. We chose this instructional for-
mat in order to aid in collecting data that would bring forth the links between
Alarcón’s teaching practice and preservice teachers’ descriptions of understand-
ing CCB. We used responses to prompts and the interview transcripts as points
for triangulation. Ultimately, the goal was to help refine practices for using
CCB and culturally relevant pedagogy frameworks in the teacher education
courses taught by Alarcón. While we did use preservice teachers’ reported ex-
periences and reflections to guide our understanding of their perspectives, they
275
were not used to make claims about student learning per se. Instead, the focus
of the study remained on practices that might inform rethinking classroom
management courses in teacher education. Specific teacher learning moments
(where Alarcón is positioned as the teacher) and recommendations for practice
are discussed in the implications section.
Data Collection
First, we created several small written assignments with the aim of gather-
ing information about the preservice teachers’ perceptions of course content
and activities related to CCB. These included written responses to open-ended
prompts asked at the end of each class that were used to guide debriefing sessions
focused on progress and reactions to particular session topics. All participant
work samples were considered and analyzed as relevant data. Second, we con-
ducted observations during selected class sessions when the focus was explicitly
teaching about or engaging in CCB practices or culturally relevant pedagogy.
Bettez attended these sessions to take field notes. We also audiorecorded small
group discussions that were transcribed and analyzed. Observation field notes
were taken at various points throughout the 38 hours of class time. Lastly, we
conducted individual interviews (45 minutes–1 hour) with nine of the preser-
vice teachers who took the course. The nine were selected because they were the
students who consented to both analysis of their work and an interview. Addi-
tionally, the preservice teachers who had named community building and/or
took up culturally relevant teaching in the classroom management action plans
they submitted at the end of the semester were considered. This latter criteri-
on made their insights particularly useful for making course revisions because
we asked the preservice teachers about how course activities influenced the
decisions. Including this variety of data sources allowed us to triangulate (Gle-
sne, 2011; Yin, 2009) the data during analysis. Engaging in collaborative data
analysis enabled us to gain a rich understanding of the connections between
Alarcón’s planning and carrying out instruction in CCB and culturally relevant
pedagogy. The collaborative aspect added a layer of trustworthiness thereby
providing evidence to inform revisions to teaching practices as well as share re-
sults with the broader field of teacher education.
Analysis
We began data analysis with coding the written work and field notes to de-
termine the ways preservice teachers articulated and/or defined CCB, either
explicitly or implicitly, taking up culturally relevant pedagogy either explicitly
or implicitly, and examples of instructional practices/experiences that facilitat-
ed their learning about CCB and/or culturally relevant pedagogy. The coding
276
involved marking portions of texts by identifying “a word or phrase that sym-

bolically assign[ed] a summative, salient, essence-capturing, and/or evocative
attribute” (Saldaña, 2009, p. 3). Initially, we individually coded the same
documents and then conversed with each other to create a preliminary codes
document. We then continued to code separate documents, adding to and re-
fining our coding list, and occasionally coded the same documents in order
to add to the trustworthiness of the analysis via peer coding and debriefing
(Glesne, 2011). We searched for patterns and created categories to organize
our findings, ultimately uncovering themes drawing from Rallis et al. (2007)
who explicated the move from categories to themes in this way: “Think of a
category as a word or phrase describing some segment of your data that is ex-
plicit, whereas a theme is a phrase or a sentence describing more subtle and
tacit processes (p. 282)” (as cited in Saldaña, 2009, p. 13). We employed the
coding and theme identification to analyze the nine interviews with the goal
of further understanding the ways in which participants defined and articu-
lated using CCB as a foundation for enacting culturally responsive classroom
management. After analyzing all the data, we compared themes among partici-
pant responses and data sources in order to find consistencies and discrepancies
in descriptions of CCB and the connections participants made to developing
classroom management action plans grounded in culturally relevant pedagogy.
Additionally, we looked for indications of the ways in which the course in-
structional and pedagogical practices informed preservice teachers’ work and
articulations. Pseudonyms are used in the discussion of findings.
Findings
Data analysis revealed that enacting a CCB approach in the teacher ed-
ucation classroom resulted in what participants described as: (a) increased
meaningful interaction and interdependence, (b) instructional practices that
enhanced learning, and (c) shifts in thinking that complicate traditional
notions of classroom management. The following sections are organized the-
matically to inform potential revision to teaching practices that centralize the
critical aspects of CCB going forward.
Increased Meaningful Interaction and Interdependence
We purposefully worked toward meaningful interaction and interdepen-
dence in a variety of ways. Beginning on the first day of class, we engaged in
small group work promoting trust-building and listening in order to provide ex-
periences the preservice teachers could implement in their own classrooms while
simultaneously establishing our own learning community. Interacting with each
277
other right away, the preservice teachers introduced themselves by interviewing

each other in pairs. Several were visibly pushed from their comfort zone as evi-
denced by initial silences, indecision about who should share first, and nervous
laughter. However, the opportunity to learn about their classmates seemed to
increase participation when we developed our class expectations together later
in the same session. Some days later, when introduced explicitly to the concept
of CCB, students drew heavily upon their previously created class expectations
of mutual respect and active listening to revise our class commitments. Table 2
includes the final commitments the preservice teachers and instructors agreed to
around the midpoint in the summer session. Each tenet of the CCB definition
is listed, and examples of the learning community’s commitment are listed in
the column below and exemplify the priorities of the group.
Table 2. Commitment Definitions

Connectivity Active Listening Group Accountability
·Create space for honest · Be accommodating and
answers · No interruption expect others to accommo-
·Refrain from advice- · Ask questions and date
giving connect responses to · Monitor your own behav-
· Ask questions to seek themes ior with attention toward
clarification equity
Through a facilitated group activity involving adding and altering, we

reframed the community commitments using a lens more oriented toward cul-
turally relevant pedagogy and equity. Ultimately, we reached consensus around
the classroom management course community commitments. It is import-
ant to note that active listening was continually emphasized across student
responses to in-class assignments. When asked about active listening during
the interviews, all nine participants named observable behaviors that indicated
“active” listening but still did not articulate that the goal of the listening was
for understanding. This indicated that Alarcón needed to draw out distinctive
attributes of active listening using a CCB framework such as asking questions
to elicit deeper understanding and student-led facilitation.
Returning to work on our community commitments over several course
sessions drew attention to the time investment we made to this activity.
Alarcón shared this reflective moment with the preservice teachers when we
discussed the importance of devoting time to establishing the classroom envi-
ronment. The community commitments became key when preservice teachers
worked in small groups to tackle controversial topics related to education and
teaching. During one whole group discussion of the text, The Dreamkeepers by
278
Gloria Ladson-Billings (2009), Greg (who seldom participated in whole group

discussion) shared a vulnerable moment from his student teaching experience.
When asked by Bettez about his decision to do so, he pointed to the work we
did to build the community commitments as “something that bonded the
group together.”
Small group activities ranging from creative projects to dialogue were con-
sistently and intentionally implemented in the course to promote CCB. When
asked about her most memorable experience in the course, Amber stated:
Well most any time we did—well we did group work every day—but
group work where we were drawing the pictures of the different commu-
nity things that we felt were important in the classroom, where we made
the posters [expressing our own ideas].
All interviewees noted group work as a key factor in facilitating students’
co-construction of new knowledge, particularly for being open to different
ways of interpreting course content. The activity Amber is referring to is a
group mapping activity wherein students created a visual representation of im-
portant considerations for teachers as they mindfully used culturally relevant
pedagogy to frame classroom management action plans. The fact that several
preservice teachers referred to group activities indicated it as a practice Alarcón
would retain for building both content knowledge and relationships within the
classroom. Additionally, mention of a specific arts-based activity indicated that
creative projects provided an outlet for helping preservice teachers talk through
a variety of ideas and then reach agreement on how to represent them visually.
In order to reach this level of agreement, listening with the goal of understand-
ing was strategically used during group work. As Jennifer noted when talking
about problem-solving during group work, “with seventh graders, you know
getting them to listen is…I like the idea that they can listen to each other and
decide things together. Then, [I] can use their ideas to solve issues that come
up.” In this example, Jennifer shows a move toward seeing herself relinquish
some control over what happens in the classroom but understanding that de-
velopmentally, the students may still need guidance. The experience of small
group work for multiple purposes provided Jennifer with ideas for engaging
students in setting the tone in the classroom.
Preservice teachers recognized the value of applying CCB principles, such as
active listening, with all classroom interactions. When asked about how prac-
ticing CCB could help build relationships with teammates, Lorraine noted,
If you work in the group, a lot of things build up about how to work to-
gether, your listening skills for one thing...you learn good listening skills
and communication skills. You learn how to communicate to others
279
because you might have an idea, but if you can’t get it across to others
[that could be a problem].
In the excerpt above, Lorraine confirms the importance of understanding lis-
tening as a skill that can be used in a variety of ways for a variety of pur-
poses beyond teacher–student interactions. Although the class was geared to-
ward student–teacher interactions, as the class progressed, preservice teachers
were asked to consider the variety of relationships they would be engaged in
as teachers. Often, they focused on building relationships with students and
overlooked the fact that they would have to engage with other adults regularly
(i.e., students’ parents and family members, professional colleagues).
Lorraine goes on to say, “the community building within the classroom I
think is a good idea, and you know, you can build it around so many differ-
ent things.” Lorraine clarified in a follow up conversation that by “things” she
meant topics and issues that arise in classrooms and schools. She named the
importance of not only listening for understanding but having the space for
communicating various ideas. As Lorraine indicated, “how” people work to-
gether is as important as what brings them together. We found that providing
many and varied instances that promoted connection within the group resulted
in an engaged learning environment, thus validating community-building-ori-
ented instructional decisions. A second important learning point for future
planning is that, like Lorraine, most interviewees did not directly mention the
critical aspects of community building that I felt I was highlighting during the
sessions studied. This indicates the need for a deeper treatment of critical ped-
agogy as a framework for the course.
Small group work and practice with active listening in a variety of configu-
rations provided opportunities for increased understanding among preservice
teachers, which in turn enhanced the feeling of mutual respect among them.
As Jack noted,
I don’t really remember any big disagreements to be honest with you...I
don’t think I remember any huge debates, but I just think that just the
whole classroom, [how it] was created from day one lent itself to what
I just said an open atmosphere….So I can’t really remember any hard
discussions or anything like that.
Jack’s recollections indicate that, despite the fact that we often talked in
class about potentially controversial topics including racialized perceptions,
varying ideas around parental involvement, and disciplinary stances, people
listened to each other and engaged in asking questions in ways that prevented
conflict. Interestingly, Debra contradicted Jack’s recollection by noting ten-
sions that sometimes arose during group work. However, she also shared that
280
forging the commitments helped to make these interactions less “intense”; “less
‘I have to be right.’” This indicated that the commitment became helping each
other to make sense of new and sometimes difficult ideas. In terms of teach-
ing, it confirmed that time spent developing commitments was worthwhile
and that more could be brought forth in terms of understanding power dy-
namics in group work. In addition to small group work and activities that
emphasized building classroom community, the preservice teachers began to
understand how making purposeful instructional choices influenced student
engagement. The instructional choices made while working with this particu-
lar group helped create a space where question-posing enhanced learning and
where students felt their ideas would be considered.
Interview and observation data indicated that instructional work promot-
ed connection between peers, consistent active listening, and mutual respect
as their familiarity with each other increased. Audio recordings of small group
work indicated several instances when students grappled together to figure out
how concepts from the reading on culturally relevant teaching might look in
their future classrooms. In some instances, questions from the small groups
were brought forward for the large group discussion indicating mutual respect
for each other’s opinions and ideas.
The data also revealed the need for increased attention to explicitly teach
about the importance of critical pedagogy for promoting educational equi-
ty. This was evidenced in the interviews, with eight of the nine describing the
importance of community building in more traditional terms such as “getting
to know your students,” “making sure there is representation,” and “commu-
nicating respectfully with parents.” Only one preservice teacher talked about
community building in more critical ways such as helping students to value
difference and “speak up when other teachers put students down.” This indi-
cated the need to teach about the notion of criticality more explicitly in the
beginning of the course. The next section addresses our second finding, con-
nections between learning and instructional practices.
Instructional Practices That Enhanced Learning
While the instructional practices/strategies employed are mainstream by
themselves, intentionally framing them as CCB practices and naming the ways
they were used as culturally relevant pedagogy helped the students to see the
strategies as more than just tricks of the trade. Interviewees described the fol-
lowing practices as the ones that enhanced their learning: (1) sharing power
in the classroom in terms of decision making, (2) promoting co-construction
of knowledge via cooperative learning, and (3) facilitating an environment of
mutual respect between the instructors and students and among the students.
281
Prior to the course beginning, the co-instructors met to talk about the type
of classroom environment they would promote. Taking community building
as integral to establishing expectations and ways of interacting, we often in-
cluded icebreaker activities and class meetings in our daily plans. With an eye
toward introducing CCB, we included readings that would help the preservice
teachers find points of connection between what they knew about commu-
nity building and reaching beyond simply liking each other. Additionally, we
worked to create an environment where students felt able to include the in-
structors in dialogue and ask honest questions during whole group discussions.
Sabita stated,
Shared power between the professors and students [created] a very
friendly atmosphere…it was not like there was a distinct line between
“I am the professor, and you are the student.” There was still an under-
standing of those demarcations, but there wasn’t a constant feeling of
that difference. We were still a community of collaborators working to
advance our knowledge.
Though Sabita did not name specific instructional practices in her quote, she
described the impact of our practices. She noted a “very friendly atmosphere”
indicating a level of comfort and trust when interacting with the instructors.
But she also pushed toward a more critical stance by mentioning that under-
lying power dynamics remained intact, though she did not feel the instructors
exploited them. Finally, she described a key understanding of the importance
of students seeing themselves as holders of knowledge alongside teachers. In
terms of informing teaching practice, Sabita’s reflection sheds light on what
may have been a missed opportunity in terms of content building with the goal
of a more explicit articulation of the ways instructional practices were connect-
ed to the environment we eventually created.
Mary shared that the “turn and talk” practice contributed to her comfort
level. She said, “Like you had us do the turn and talk and discuss our ideas
with our neighbors to see what their views were and [share] our views….[We]
created discussion between ourselves.” The instructors framed this practice as a
way to increase participation among students. Use of discussion prompts also
highlighted the goal of understanding the other person’s message. Mary went
on to say these practices worked to “create a relationship.” She expressed that
the turn and talk strategy made sharing with the whole group less intimidat-
ing, “then we did that with everyone in the classroom...we all got to know each
other, and it built up the community real well.” Mary’s descriptions indicated
her pathway to understanding how instructional practices could be used to
facilitate community building. Further, she saw relationship building as ben-
eficial to student learning. We used the turn and talk strategy in a variety of
282
ways. Approaches included scaffolded question-posing aimed at helping pre-

service teachers become comfortable talking with each other. As the preservice
teachers became more familiar with the process, we used the strategy to evoke
stance-taking with regard to classroom management and discipline. Addition-
ally, turn and talk was described to students as a scaffold toward whole group
discussion and as useful for encouraging a variety of student voices, especial-
ly those not often heard in the classroom. Finally, Mary also emphasized the
importance of the course format being “not lecture based” as key for building
community and facilitating learning from peers.
Lorraine emphasized the importance of the course format as she described
the impact that mutual respect between students and instructors had for her.
She noted that when instructors consider the strengths and needs of students
when making instructional decisions, students may feel more inclined to en-
gage in learning. She shared, “You have some kids that are brilliant and just
afraid to talk so you have to figure that out and then find a way to get them in
groups where they will have an opportunity to speak out.”
Throughout the course the instructors emphasized the importance of con-
sidering implicit bias and disrupting assumptions preservice teachers often
have about students. Lorraine’s learning evidenced her understanding that in-
structional practices can be purposefully selected to highlight students’ existing
strengths and cultivate new ones. The preservice teachers emphasized the im-
portance of learning to hear and value multiple perspectives. This showed that
they considered the importance of students helping each other through the
learning process in ways they had not prior to the course. The shift in think-
ing became evident when analyzing an early in-class writing prompt asking
them to define classroom management. After experiencing culturally relevant
pedagogy via cooperative learning and defining community commitments,
preservice teachers more explicitly noted that teachers are not the sole owners
of knowledge and that students can learn from each other. It should be noted
that they continued to grapple with becoming comfortable striking a balance
between honoring that idea and the logistics of managing a classroom. This
evidence provides a specific area to consider as teacher educators continue to
hone teaching practices that forefront culturally relevant pedagogy.
Overall, the interviewees listed community building as a key component in
planning for classroom management and expressed the ways that it enhanced
student engagement in learning. According to those interviewed, the commu-
nity commitments created in our class for engaging in discussion helped to
enhance content knowledge building by helping students come to consider
differing perspectives while working toward a common learning goal. They
also demonstrated and articulated connections between enhanced student
283
engagement and instructional practices that highlighted collaborative work

among students and between students and teachers. In sum, the preservice
teachers highlighted instructional practices in which instructors shared pow-
er, promoted co-construction of knowledge, and fostered an environment of
mutual respect. The next section addresses our third finding, highlighting par-
ticipants’ ideas around the importance of CCB in their future classrooms.
New Notions of Classroom Management
The preservice teachers came away from the course with a belief that com-
munity building in classrooms is important to student learning. Most did
not articulate a clear distinction between responsive notions of community
building (such as class meetings) and CCB. However, most preservice teachers
who were interviewed reported a desire to foster a positive classroom envi-
ronment via community building above other traditional modes of classroom
management such as systems based upon extrinsic rewards. Some of the inter-
view participants did highlight CCB as important for teachers committed to
drawing upon students’ cultural wealth and those concerned with promoting
equitable learning spaces. For example, Irene described how she learned from
“the way we had class, a lot of discussion of the way we wanted it to be, and
how we could be held accountable for group work; some of them did not like
group work, but in the end we could figure things out in our own way.” Irene
was referring to the routines and procedures we put into place for co-con-
structing knowledge and using instructional practices like cooperative learning
as systems of classroom management. Preservice teachers noted the ways in
which CCB helped them imagine a classroom that was less teacher-controlled
and a more community-based learning environment. This indicated that the
readings and instructional practices we selected for the course where helpful in
encouraging a new vision of classroom management. They described this shift
in terms of becoming comfortable with community-promoting practices.
Finally, the participants expressed the need to think through obstacles to
community building in classrooms in order to develop plans for use in their
future classrooms. While the previous two findings validated instructional
choices, the third finding has been useful for rethinking approaches to high-
lighting distinct features of CCB and also providing experiences that more
closely promote transfer of these features beyond the teacher education class-
room. It is important to include more discussion of how to navigate obstacles
such as going against the grain in terms of behaviorist, school-based approach-
es so that preservice teachers have opportunities to learn about each other’s
ideas. In addition, including opportunities for preservice teachers to hear from
experienced teachers who engage culturally relevant pedagogy could be useful.
284
Many of the classroom management action plans students handed in at the

end of the course included aspects of community building. As the preservice
teachers continued to engage in learning activities that called for collaboration
throughout the term, student work products indicated increased investment in
helping each other to learn. For example, students noted in exit tickets collect-
ed at the end of class that their level of engagement increased when working
together in small groups toward a common goal. This indicates they connected
a community-based learning environment to a new understanding of student
interaction. Instead of framing student interaction as a potential disruption,
the preservice teachers began to see these guided interactions as integral to
students learning from and with each other. This idea disrupts deficit-based
perspectives by shifting from the assumption that students’ interactions will
lead to chaos to viewing group work as enhancing purposeful learning as a
possibility. Sabita extended the notion of decentering the teacher’s control by
pointing out the ways in which CCB approaches could include families:
That is another reason why I think this concept of critical community
building is highly important, and taking it from the multicultural stand-
point is again very important...I hope to be able to create an atmosphere
in my classroom where all students will feel a part of that community, in
fact that parents also feel a part of that community, because their contri-
butions will be valuable to the students’ learning as well.
This stance invites teachers to give up the role of sole authority to include
various perspectives. As Sabita further noted, “we also built on that knowledge
to be a classroom community on our own and that allowed us to experience
firsthand how it is possible to manage to do this.” Here she described content
knowledge building as a group endeavor rather than an individual act. She
stressed the importance of experiencing this firsthand by pointing out that it
helps preservice teachers to plan and facilitate classroom environments that in-
clude CCB practices in terms of both classroom management and instruction.
The preservice teachers grappled with the fact that the school districts they
are most familiar with implement campus-wide disciplinary systems. The main
concern discussed during our class was the emphasis on extrinsic rewards and
punitive punishments that seemed to be the norm in public schools. Many
voiced the value of community building, critical or otherwise, for establishing
a positive learning environment. However, they recognized that this could be
challenging if they were alone in their efforts. As Lorraine pointed out, “The
way the administration is set up [could be an obstacle]. If your administration
is set up like one of those really traditional [ones] that don’t really see the need
for [it]…that is a barrier to get that teacher to try and get that set up.”
285
Here Lorraine explicitly named traditional stances around student disci-

pline among administration as a potential barrier. She also alluded to the idea
of teacher isolation as a barrier in implementing the strategies we practiced in
class. This indicated the importance that she placed on teachers coming to-
gether to support each other in taking up culturally relevant pedagogy in both
classroom management and instructional practice. Though Lorraine did not
name CCB explicitly, her mention of teacher agency as key to disrupting status
quo practice indicated her view that professional support is a necessary form of
CCB and is integral to a shift to using culturally relevant pedagogy in her fu-
ture classroom. This segment of data brings to light ways that activities geared
toward developing professional agency and ownership of teaching practices
were used. The descriptions of CCB and culturally relevant pedagogy indicate
that students learned during the experiences while at the same time showing
that the experiences fell short in providing specific ways for students to name
CCB and culturally relevant pedagogy as the framework. This highlights the
importance of being mindful when planning for future courses of employing
strategies that help build preservice teachers’ articulation of CCB and cultur-
ally relevant pedagogy that can be added to students’ repertoire of professional
communication.
Through interview responses, preservice teachers articulated pathways and
barriers to CCB practices in schools. They highlighted the importance of
teachers finding ways to share power in the classroom and ways to embrace
community building practices. Shifts in thinking beyond relationship build-
ing with students to consider the need to do this with other adults was also a
key aspect of learning. Overall, the experiences we provided during the course
highlighting CCB as a tangible way to practice culturally relevant pedagogy in
classrooms enhanced participants’ understanding of the frameworks. The study
was a success in terms of providing relevant information that can inform teach-
ing practices with regard to CCB and culturally relevant pedagogy. In the next
section we discuss implications for teacher education.
Implications for Teacher Education
Alarcón used the findings to inform revisions to instructional practice

using CCB as a vehicle for enacting culturally relevant pedagogy in teacher
education. Sharing the outcomes of this action research provides a look at a
promising practice for facilitating preservice teachers’ understanding of class-
room management as space for using just practices to ensure equitable learning
environments and opportunities for teachers and students to build commu-
nity within the classroom. This action research builds upon work centralizing
286
culturally relevant pedagogy with an equity lens in teacher education (Alarcón,

2016; Cochran-Smith, 2004; Sleeter, 2018). In the current literature, promot-
ing CCB is positioned as having the potential to enhance dialogue regarding
issues of power related to social justice; however, no empirical studies had ap-
parently been done to examine the effectiveness of this technique in teacher
education. The action research presented is a step toward filling that gap. As
stated previously, we had two main questions entering this research study. Re-
lated to our first question, “When critical community building is intentionally
embedded in a teacher education course, what do preservice teachers describe
as the impact of the approach?”, we uncovered informative findings. Those in-
terviewed articulated that the learning community established over time had
positive impacts that included (a) increased meaningful interaction and inter-
dependence, (b) instructional practices that enhanced learning, and (c) shifts
in thinking beyond traditional notions of classroom management.
Increased meaningful interaction and interdependence relates directly to
social justice work and culturally relevant pedagogy. Lee Anne Bell (1997) de-
fines social justice as “both a process and a goal… [it entails] a society in which
individuals are both self-determining (able to develop their full capacities) and
interdependent (capable of acting democratically with others)” (p. 1). Given
that recognizing interdependence is a key aspect of social justice, recognition
of the importance of connection, active listening, and mutual respect as posi-
tive aspects of the course is encouraging. Further, experiencing such practices
helped preservice teachers to acknowledge increasing the space for collabora-
tive and just decision-making as a viable option to traditional classroom norms
centralizing notions of individualism and competition. Importantly, they be-
gan to see the connection between facilitating a sense of interdependence and
classroom management by using instructional practices that supported that
goal, such as cooperative learning activities. Through supporting each other
in learning within the classroom, the students demonstrated shifts in think-
ing, including seeing the value in honoring a wider variety of contributions to
the learning environment. As such, they could articulate reasons to diminish
punitive practices, which we know disproportionately affect students of color
and perpetuates marginalization. Given descriptions of the CCB approach, we
consider the framework a promising practice not only for courses addressing
issues of classroom management, but for any course aimed to help develop the
skill sets for promoting equity, inclusion, and access in their classrooms by de-
liberately building a sense of community.
Related to our second question, “How might the preservice teachers’ de-
scriptions be used to refine CCB practices in the context of teacher education?”
we found that purposefully working to de-emphasize traditional teacher–
287
student power dynamics was key to preservice teachers’ understanding the

CCB approach as distinct from other approaches to establishing the learning
environment. Given this, the main point of refinement to practice is atten-
tion to experiences that help reveal and work toward de-emphasizing power
relationships in classrooms. Delpit (2006) asserts, most often teachers in class-
rooms enact a “culture of power” that privileges some students over others,
providing inequitable learning opportunities. Preservice teachers in this study
remarked upon the shared power, co-constructed learning, and mutually re-
spectful environments built through shared CCB practices. Over the duration
of the course, several traditional instructional strategies were employed (i.e.
text-based small-group discussion, turn and talk, assignment of roles for small-
group work). However, the difference in implementation surfaced when these
strategies were discussed with preservice teachers. Instead of naming them as
well-worn and trusted teaching practices, the potential for using them to build
mutual accountability among students and create trusting spaces for sharing
different ways of knowing was emphasized; they recognized that how the prac-
tices were framed could enhance community building. The implication for
teacher education is promising because indications are that teacher educators
do not need to invest in acquiring a new skill set for promoting criticality
and equity in teaching. Rather, long-standing practices can be reenvisioned.
In sum, the study demonstrated the ways in which preservice teachers experi-
enced important shifts that revealed a CCB approach as viable for establishing
classroom environments based upon shared power and mutual respect both
between teacher and student and among students. The CCB approach shows
promise in that it promotes equity and justice-oriented education in both
teacher education and PreK–12 settings.
We have two recommendations for future research. First, there is value in
following up with these teachers once they have had the chance to establish
their own classroom environments to see which CCB practices they took up
initially and which, if any, they continue to refine as they become experienced
teachers. Second, the framework is useful establishing communities of practice
for teacher educators who seek to work collectively to refine critical pedagogical
practices across disciplines. As such, future research questions could centralize
understanding how teacher educators engage CCB in order to promote collec-
tive sense-making for professional development.
Limitations
The preservice teachers rarely used the term “critical” community build-
ing in work products, interviews, or conversations. Although not articulated
as explicitly as we hoped, the data revealed that they demonstrated shifts in
288
understanding of how building community can lead to actions and under-

standings that are related to creating more equitable classrooms. Despite the
limitations of studying CCB as culturally relevant pedagogy within a single
course, we view reported and observed shifts as important building blocks in
understanding the instructional practices that support criticality in teacher ed-
ucation. We believe that if a CCB approach were modeled and implemented
throughout a variety of courses, then more students would be able to explicit-
ly articulate the framework’s connection to their intended practice in terms of
culturally relevant pedagogy and equity education. In addition to supporting
more exposure to the concept over time via multiple courses, we feel that the
short timeframe for the study did not allow for a deep treatment of the con-
cept, critical pedagogy. In subsequent semesters, foundational work around this
topic will take place earlier in the course.
References
Allen, A., Hancock, S. D., Lewis, C.W., & Starker-Glass, T. (2017). Mapping culturally rel-
evant pedagogy into teacher education programs: A critical framework. Teachers College
Record, 119(1).
Alarcón, J. D. (2016). Enacting critical pedagogy in an elementary methods course: A move
toward re-imagining teacher education. The International Journal of Critical Pedagogy, 7(2)
149–170.
Bettez, S. C. (2011a). Building critical communities amid the uncertainty of social justice ped-
agogy in the graduate classroom. The Review of Education, Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies,
33, 76–106.
Bettez, S. C. (2011b). Critical community building: Beyond belonging. Educational Founda-
tions, 25(3–4), 3–19.
Bettez, S. C., & Hytten, K. (2013). Community building in social justice work: A critical
approach. Educational Studies, 29(1), 45–66.
Bell, L. A. (1997). Theoretical foundations for social justice education. In M. Adams, L. A.
Bell, & P. Griffin (Eds.), Teaching for diversity and social justice (pp. 3–15). Routledge.
Block, P. (2008). Community: The structure of belonging. Berrett-Koehler.
Cochran-Smith, M. (2004). Walking the road: Race, diversity, and social justice in teacher educa-
tion. Teachers College Press.
Delpit, L. (2006). Other people’s children: Cultural conflicts in the classroom. The New Press.
Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (4th ed.). Allyn & Bacon.
Greenfield, P. M., Quiroz, B., & Raeff, C. (2000). Cross-cultural conflict and harmony in the
social construction of the child. In S. Harkness, C. Raeff, & C. M. Super (Eds.), Variability
in the social construction of the child (pp. 93–108). Jossey-Bass.
Hackman, H. (2005). Five essential components for social justice education. Equity & Excel-
lence in Education, 38, 103–109.
Hall, D. E. (2007). The academic community: A manual for change. Ohio State University Press.
Hardin, C. J. (2012). Effective classroom management: Models and strategies for today’s classrooms
(3rd ed.). Pearson.
289
Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Edu-

cational Research Journal, 32(3), 465–491. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312032003465
Ladson-Billings, G. (2009). The dreamkeepers: Successful teachers of African American children.
John Wiley & Sons.
Lloyd, M. H., Kolodziej, N. J., & Brashears, K. M. (2016). Classroom discourse: An essential
component in building a classroom community. School Community Journal, 26(2), 291–
304. https://www.adi.org/journal/2016fw/LloydEtAlFall2016.pdf
Lustig, M. W., Koester, J., & Halualani, R. (2006). Intercultural competence: Interpersonal com-
munication across cultures. Pearson/A and B.
Mayworm, A. M., Sharkey, J. D., Hunnicutt, K. L., & Schiedel, K. C. (2016). Teacher consul-
tation to enhance implementation of school-based restorative justice. Journal of Education-
al and Psychological Consultation, 26(4), 385–412.
Meltzoff, N. (2001). Relationship, the fourth “R”: The development of a classroom commu-
nity. School Community Journal, 11(1), 259–274. https://www.adi.org/journal/ss01/Chap-
ters/Chapter19-Meltzoff.pdf
Milner, H. R., & Tenore, F. B. (2010). Classroom management in diverse classrooms. Urban
Education, 45(5), 560–603.
Nelson-Barber, S., & Dull, V. (1998). Don’t act like a teacher! Images of effective instruction
in a Yup’ik Eskimo classroom. In J. Lipka (Ed.), Transforming the culture of schools: Yup’ik
Eskimo examples (pp. 101–105). Erlbaum.
Nieto, S. (2000). Affirming diversity: The sociopolitical context of multicultural education. Long-
man.
Nieto, S. (2014). The Brown case at 60: Lessons learned. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 50(3), 103–
105. https://doi.org/10.1080/00228958.2014.931155
Pereira, J. K., & Smith-Adcock, S. (2011). Child-centered classroom management. Action in
Teacher Education, 33(3), 254–264.
Perry, K. E., & Weinstein, R. S. (1998). The social context of early schooling and children’s
school adjustment. Educational Psychologist, 33(4), 177–194.
Pharr, S. (2010). Reflections on liberation. In M. Adams, W. J. Blumenfeld, C. Castañeda, H.
W. Hackman, M. L. Peters, & X. Zúñiga (Eds.), Readings for diversity and social justice (2nd
ed.; pp. 591–598). Routledge.
Phelps, P. H., & Benson, T. R. (2012). Teachers with a passion for the profession. Action in
Teacher Education, 34(1), 65–76. https://doi.org/10.1080/01626620.2012.642289
Renner, A. (2009). Teaching community, praxis, and courage: A foundations pedagogy of hope
and humanization. Educational Studies, 45(1), 59–79.
Rallis, S. F., Rossman, G. B., & Gajda, R. (2007). Trustworthiness in evaluation practice: An
emphasis on the relational. Evaluation and Program Planning, 30(4), 404–409.
Roseth, C. J., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2008). Promoting early adolescents’ achieve-
ment and peer relationships: The effects of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic
goal structures. Psychological Bulletin, 134(2), 223–243.
Rothstein-Fisch, C. & Trumbull, E. (2008). Managing diverse classrooms. Association for Su-
pervision and Curriculum Development.
Sagor, R. (1992). How to conduct collaborative action research. Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
Saldaña, J. (2009). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Sage.
Sensoy, Ö., & DiAngelo, R. (2011). Is everyone really equal?: An introduction to key concepts in
social justice education. Teachers College Press.
290
Skiba, R. J., Eckes, S. E., & Brown, K. (2009). African American disproportionality in school
discipline: The divide between best evidence and legal remedy. New York Law School Law
Review, 54, 1071–1112.
Sleeter, C. (2018). Learning to teach through controversy. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 54(1), 18–
22.
Stake, R. (1995). The art of case study research. Sage.
Tzuo, P. W. (2007). The tension between teacher control and children’s freedom in a child
centered classroom: Resolving the practical dilemma through a closer look at the related
theories. Early Childhood Education Journal, 35(1), 33–39.
Weinstein, C., Curran, M., & Tomlinson-Clarke, S. (2003). Culturally responsive classroom
management: Awareness into action. Theory Into Practice, 42, 269–276.
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Sage.
Zehr, H. (2015). The little book of restorative justice: Revised and updated. Skyhorse Publishing.
Jeannette D. Alarcón is an associate professor of teaching and teacher educa-

tion in the curriculum and instruction department at the University of Houston.
Dr. Alarcón’s research addresses teacher learning with a focus on culturally relevant/
sustaining pedagogies, teacher learning over the career span, and teacher learning in
terms of facilitating the learning environment. Correspondence concerning this arti-
cle may be addressed to Jeannette D. Alarcón, PhD., Associate Professor, Teaching and
Teacher Education, University of Houston, College of Education, Farish Hall 318 E,
Houston, Texas 77204, or email jdalarcon2@uh.edu
Silvia Cristina Bettez is a professor in the educational leadership and cultural foun-
dations department in the School of Education at the University of North Carolina,
Greensboro. Dr. Bettez’s research centralizes critical community building as pedagogy
in higher education and community learning spaces.
291
292
From School Exclusion to Provisional Access:
Possibilities and Limitations of a Critical Class-
Conscious Parent Engagement Program in Rural
Upstate New York
Marguerite Anne Fillion Wilson, Ada Robinson-Perez, and
Denise Gray Yull
Abstract
Parent engagement is typically understood as parent attendance at school

functions or volunteering; however, these spaces are often defined by the behav-
ioral norms of White middle-class parents. Using social class, moral capital, and
Critical Whiteness Studies as theoretical frameworks, this article qualitatively
examines the implementation of a class-conscious parent engagement strategy—
the Parent Mentor Program—in a rural, predominantly White school district.
Based on 42 focus groups with six low-income White parents who participat-
ed as Parent Mentors, we argue that, through the process of engaging with the
program, these parents began to form community and access some parts of the
institution. Although these parents demonstrated their commitment to being
active contributors to the school community as classroom volunteers, authen-
tic acceptance remained provisional. We argue that the continued disparaging
treatment of these parents is connected to the fact that they do not perform
whiteness in an acceptable (i.e., middle-class) manner. Because they lack a
discourse of systemic oppression, we analyze the parents’ discourse with a theo-
retical lens that explains how moral capital, individual access, and meritocracy
is applied to their tenuous access to privilege. These individualistic discourses—
hallmarks of whiteness mostly devoid of class critique—prevent the program
from developing into a larger activist strategy to transform the school culture.

Key Words: moral capital, social capital, critical whiteness studies, classism,
parent engagement, rural schools, classroom mentors, low-income families
Introduction
Research in education has confirmed what parents and educators have al-
ways known—that the active engagement of parents in the schools their
children attend is beneficial to their children’s educational success (Auerbach,
2009; Noguera, 2001). However, what educators and policymakers often de-
fine as parent engagement is typically based on White, middle-class norms of
participation that exclude low-income parents, both White parents and par-
ents of color, who are already marginalized by class (Baquedano-López et al.,
2013; Levine-Rasky, 2009). Norms of engagement are often determined by
the agenda of those in power—White middle- and upper-class parents who
align with school administration. These alliances between White middle- and
upper-class parents and the school system work together to set the agenda
for parent engagement efforts that leave nondominant parents out of deci-
sion-making, requiring them to be deferential to the school’s agenda and to
“serve as cooperative volunteers rather than participate as equal power-hold-
ers” (Cooper, 2009, p. 380). Low-income parents are often faced with hostility
from school staff when they enter school buildings, a hostility that originates
from classist assumptions about them—assumptions that position these par-
ents as “lazy, ignorant, and morally deficient” (Sullivan, 2014, p. 35). These
classist assumptions about low-income parents reverberate in their children’s
experience of school, exacerbating disparities in educational outcomes between
low-income and middle-class students.
Based on three years of qualitative action research in a predominately
White, rural, geographically dispersed school district—which we call “Pleas-
ant Grove”—in upstate New York, and responding to the call made by Tieken
(2014) and others for more educational research on rural schools, we exam-
ine the experiences of low-income White parents as they attempt to engage
the school system. The student population in Pleasant Grove is 96.1% White,
with 62% of its students identified by New York State as “economically disad-
vantaged.” The study takes place in the context of the Parent Mentor Program,
an innovative, class-conscious parent engagement program that we initiated
in Pleasant Grove in 2015, adapted from a similar program we started in the
urban setting of Rivertown in 2013 (Yull et al., 2018). The program places
low-income parents who typically do not show up to traditional school-ini-
tiated events into classrooms in their rural community to assist teachers in
understanding the children from nondominant backgrounds—in the case of
294
CLASS-CONSCIOUS PARENT ENGAGEMENT
Pleasant Grove, those students categorized by the state as “economically dis-

advantaged” and who have faced challenges with school discipline, academic
performance, and/or attendance. We call these parent volunteers “Parent Men-
tors” to reflect the aspiration of the program in placing nondominant parents
in classrooms to mentor middle-class teachers in better relating to the non-
dominant children they teach.
During program implementation, we collected data for this study from
42 focus groups conducted with six low-income White parents who partic-
ipated in our Parent Mentor Program (described below). Focus groups took
place weekly over the course of three 10-week program implementation peri-
ods and an additional three four-day training sessions that also included focus
groups. These weekly focus groups and training sessions for the Parent Men-
tor Program form the corpus of our data and took place in March–June of
2015, 2016, and 2017, respectively. These focus group conversations centered
on these six low-income White parents’ experiences with school prior to and
during the implementation of the program. The six parents who participated
in the focus groups were the same parents who volunteered as Parent Mentors
in elementary school classrooms.
In this article, we report on the findings from these focus group interviews
across the three years of the Pleasant Grove program implementation. We in-
terpret the experiences of these parents using a theoretical lens foregrounding
social class and classism (Lott, 2002), Critical Whiteness Studies (Castagno,
2014; Lensmire, 2017; Sullivan, 2014), and moral capital (Jaye et al., 2018;
Sherman, 2006), focusing on the intersections of these frameworks in a rural
school setting. We examine the social processes and outcomes associated with
implementing a social class-conscious parent engagement strategy in a rural
school district where low-income White families experience social and cultur-
al exclusion both in and outside the school. The Parent Mentor Program is an
effort to counter what Tieken (2014) refers to as “the habits of inclusion and ex-
clusion a rural school can perpetuate in a rural community” (p. 3), and here we
analyze both the promises and limitations of this program in achieving its goal.
From Traditional Parent Involvement to Family Engagement to
Equitable Collaboration
Traditionally, educators have expected parents to meet White middle-class
expectations of parent involvement—to participate cooperatively and def-
erentially in their children’s education by communicating with the schools
and helping children at home in the ways schools prescribe. Such norms for
participation maintain deeply entrenched notions of parents, particularly
nondominant parents, as deficient and needing to be remediated in order to
295
conform to White middle-class norms of parenting, rather than viewing them

as a rich source of cultural knowledge and leadership potential to build to-
ward just schools (Ishimaru, 2020). Parent involvement, in its most traditional
form, is usually understood as parent attendance at school functions such as
parent–teacher conferences and/or volunteering in school-organized programs
(Baquedano-López et al., 2013; Cooper, 2009; Lewis & Forman, 2002). Be-
cause models of parent involvement originated in federal government attempts
to “fix problem parents” in the context of Lyndon Johnson’s War on Pover-
ty, most of these programs to this day are dictated by “a vision of partnership
centered on the school’s agenda” (Baquedano-López et al., 2013, p. 150) that
does not value the forms of knowledge that parents, particularly parents of col-
or from all class backgrounds and low-income White parents, bring to their
children’s education. These programs are based on a Eurocentric, middle-class
model involving behavioral norms of White middle-class parents, who lead
most of the programs and establish the standard for successful parent involve-
ment (Lewis & Forman, 2002).
Ferlazzo and Hammond (2009) argue that parent engagement, in contrast
to parent involvement, requires schools to develop a relationship-building
process, where ideas are elicited from parents in the context of trusting rela-
tionships. This form of engagement goes beyond calls for parents to be more
interested in their children’s education and more supportive of teachers; it re-
quires schools to be more supportive and responsive to the children and families
they serve by consciously developing partnerships based on mutual account-
ability and responsibility (Noguera, 2001) —a tall order given the inherently
inequitable relationship between schools and nondominant parents (Cooper,
2009; Ishimaru, 2020). Because the relationship between schools and non-
dominant parents always already exists on unequal relational ground, efforts
to move from parent involvement to family engagement in schools have typ-
ically reified the very power structures they attempt to transform, as “many
of the practices and implicit assumptions of parent involvement still persist in
approaches reframed as ‘family engagement’” (Ishimaru, 2020, p. 30). These
practices and assumptions do not fundamentally question the stance that par-
ents need to be brought on board with agendas and reform efforts that the
school and other stakeholders such as the PTA have created without the in-
put of nondominant families themselves (Ishimaru, 2020). As Cooper (2009)
argues, the normative discourse of “partnership” between schools and parents
does not consider
the extent to which shared responsibility should entail sharing power….
Power sharing is left to school community members to negotiate, yet
the history of public schooling indicates that educators typically urge
296
parents to serve as cooperative volunteers rather than participate as equal

power-holders. (p. 380)
Furthermore, the discourse of partnership “still constructs a lack of parent
involvement as endemic and as something that schools must address to get
parents on board with their agenda, particularly on reform efforts” (Baqueda-
no-López et al., 2013, p. 154).
Ishimaru (2020) proposes the framework of equitable collaborations as an
alternative to both parent involvement and family engagement; such a frame-
work, while messy in its implementation and still far from its ideal goal, involves
(1) beginning with the strengths and wealth of knowledge of nondominant
families; (2) fundamentally transforming the relationship of power between
schools and communities; (3) building reciprocity in which there is “two-way
communication and presumption of expertise and capacity on the part of all
parties” (p. 53); and (4) approaching change as “collective inquiry” that seeks
to learn from rather than smooth over tensions in the power-sharing process
(Ishimaru, 2020). While our project attempts to engage low-income White
parents as equal power-holders in the school system through the framework
of equitable collaborations, our research and program are necessarily situat-
ed within an institutional context that expects low-income White parents to
conform to White middle-class norms of conduct—to be docile, cooperative,
and not fundamentally question the relations of power already at work. Our
ability to create a truly equitable collaboration remains an unrealized ideal, but
one to strive toward nonetheless. Throughout the remainder of this article, we
use the term “parent engagement” to describe our program and efforts, as it is
most closely aligned with what we were able to accomplish given the structural
constraints we faced.
Poverty and Parent Engagement in Rural Schools
Rural education remains an area of concern for policymakers and the people
who populate rural areas. With more than 9.3 million children attending ru-
ral schools and nearly one in six of those children living under the poverty line
(Showalter et al., 2019), the need to find effective strategies to support student
success through parent engagement and community building is critical (Bailey,
2014). Some researchers have argued that although rural and urban schools
often have much in common in terms of poverty levels and lack of resources,
the bulk of the current educational literature is directed at an understanding of
urban school districts (e.g., Barrett et al., 2015; Beeson & Strange, 2000; Tiek-
en, 2014). While the federal government defines rurality in terms of what is
left over—“what ‘urban’ and ‘metropolitan’ are not” (Tieken, 2014, p. 5)—the
literature on rural education asserts that there are qualities unique to rural sites
297
that demand increased attention in educational research (Arnold et al., 2005;

Beeson & Strange, 2000; Gallo & Beckman, 2016). Tieken’s (2014) research
suggests that rural communities tend to provide a “geography-dependent sense
of belonging” (p. 5) and the potential for close relationships between school
staff and parents that prove more difficult in larger, urban areas. Our research
evaluates whether “the same race and class lines that slice urban America”
(Tieken, 2014, p. 7) are upheld in Pleasant Grove as well, reinforcing old pat-
terns of social exclusion.
Researchers have examined the significance of poverty in relation to social
exclusion and social capital based on class status among parents and its influ-
ence on school–parent relationships (Cooper et al., 2010; Griffin & Galassi,
2010; Milbourne, 2010). Research suggests that children’s experience with
poverty in rural areas makes them more likely to have negative outcomes in
education and more susceptible to insecure parental employment, substance
use, and poor health status compared to their counterparts in urban areas
(Buck & Deutsch, 2014). A growing number of rural communities are faced
with a shrinking job market relative to the depletion of the rural extractive
industries, such as farming, mining, and timber work (Bailey, 2014). In rural
settings, health care services, recreational programs, and public transportation
are sparse, and the affordability of owning and maintaining a personal vehicle
is difficult for poor families, especially in single-parent homes.
In a congruent manner, rural school settings can also create spaces for par-
ents with limited resources to form a community of mutual support. However,
Howley and Howley (2010) explored in their study how stigmas associated
with the intersections of rurality and class create conditions for poor rural com-
munities that promote the social exclusion of an already marginalized group.
Combined with negative stereotypes of rural identity and cultural messages
that reinforce the associations between rurality, backwardness, and deficiency,
scholars argue that the “othering” of the “rural poor” obscures their resiliency
and remarkable productivity in their capacity to identify resources and manage
their existence (Howley & Howley, 2010, p. 5). Because rural places are often
areas of high poverty, research in rural education must foreground social class
as an analytic lens.
Educational paths and opportunities in school for students are greatly in-
fluenced by social class (Lott, 2002). Schools are social institutions that act as
“agencies of moral regulation” aimed at the production of individual ethical
subjectivity (Valverde, 1994, p. 218). Historically, educational systems have
been positioned as contributors to the reproduction of the structure of power
relationships through the inequitable distribution of symbolic goods referred
to as cultural capital (Bourdieu, 1973). The concept of cultural capital used in
298
this study asserts that the position of White middle class is exclusive and rep-
resents a standard whereby “all other forms of expressions of ‘culture’ are judged
in comparison to this ‘norm’” (Yosso, 2005, p. 76). This standard reflects an
accumulation of knowledge, skills, and abilities that are valued by privileged
groups in society to facilitate social advancement and social mobility (Yosso,
2005). Rural poverty has a significant influence on the type of cultural capital
parents wield in rural schools and constitutes a discursive space in which rural
identities are produced and reproduced based on power relations (Schafft &
Jackson, 2010). Lareau and Weininger (2003) found that social class affected
the likelihood of parent’s compliance or lack of compliance with the standards
of a dominant institution, such as schools. A lack of compliance with stan-
dards places low-income parents on the social margins. Lareau (2002) argues
that social class creates distinctive parenting styles influencing parents’ role in
their children’s lives. For example, findings from Lareau’s (2002) study indicat-
ed working class and low-income parents viewed educators as social superiors
whose decisions were to be unquestioningly accepted, whereas middle-class
parents possessed more confidence in childrearing, thereby giving their chil-
dren a sense of entitlement in social institutions such as school (Lareau, 2002).
While cultural capital refers to the effects of proper educational “skills,”
“ability,” and “achievement” differentiated by class (Lareau, 2002, p. 22), moral
capital, also derived from Bourdieu (1973), provides a nuanced way of un-
derstanding class distinctions among low-income families in rural settings.
Among the poor, moral capital is a form of symbolic capital that serves in the
absence of economic capital by creating distinctions within this class as a re-
sult of the cultural homogeneity (Jaye et al., 2018; Sherman, 2006). This can
be perceived as equivalent to measuring a person’s moral worth based on their
coping behaviors in managing the stress of living in poverty. Sherman (2006)
argues that moral capital is important because it is a source of self-respect and
can be traded for social and economic capital in the form of job opportunities
and assistance from family and friends in the community when residents face
especially difficult times. Maintaining high moral capital is often considered
more important than attempting to build economic capital, especially when
the only means to building economic capital available to families are illegal or
dependent on state assistance, such as welfare, both of which impart low mor-
al capital (Sherman, 2006). This alternative ideal of moral capital implies that
one should only help those who are willing to help themselves as an effort to
build good character or independence (Valverde, 1994). Moral capital has the
potential to enhance or erode relational ties between low-income parents and
schools based on perceptions of class identity. In this study we analyze how
moral capital divides parents on the basis of class because of the assumption
299
that any marginalization that parents experience is due to individual moral

choices rather than structural constraints.
“Poor White Trash,” Critical Whiteness Studies, and the
Education System
This article examines the intersections of class, rurality, and whiteness as
they play out in poor White parents’ attempts to gain access to the institutional
power of the school system. While Critical Race Theory (CRT) has traditionally
(and rightly so) focused on the experiences of people of color in a White-dom-
inant society (Bell, 1992; Delgado & Stefancic, 2001; Ladson-Billings, 1998),
the field of Critical Whiteness Studies extends this focus to those on the re-
ceiving end of the privileges and opportunities that have historically and are
presently afforded to White people while systematically denied to people of
color (Gillborn, 2005; Leonardo, 2009). Combined with the fact that most
education research has been focused on urban centers (Tieken, 2014) which
are typically more racially diverse than rural contexts, our focus on whiteness
in the predominantly White rural setting examines two areas often overlooked
by researchers in education. While a focus on race in rural schools in terms of
interactions between Whites and people of color is beyond the scope of this
article due to the racially homogeneous environment of Pleasant Grove, an
examination of the ways in which whiteness informs these low-income White
parents’ perspectives on the education system and their role in it is one of the
key contributions of this article.
One way in which whiteness operates in rural areas with high rates of pov-
erty is through the projecting of middle-class White racism onto poor White
people—what Sullivan (2014) terms “dumping on ‘White trash’” (p. 8). Sul-
livan analyzes this move by showing how middle-class White people prove
their moral goodness (of being nonracist) “through a process of abjection
[whereby] White middle-class anxieties about the failures of poor Whites are
managed by expelling White trash from the realm of proper whiteness” (p. 8).
In other words, to understand the class hierarchies between low-income and
middle-class Whites requires us to disrupt the notion of White people as a
monolithic group. Low-income White people have been subjected to an array
of socially sanctioned forms of prejudice from racial in-group members, such
as referring to them as “White trash” or “trailer trash.” While maintaining a
focus on the racialized practices directed at non-Whites, we overlook the dis-
criminatory practices that non-poor Whites direct toward low-income Whites.
While these discriminatory practices are based on the surface on class differ-
ence, there is also a racializing component as the criteria for being included in
the group of “proper” or “good” White people is always already constructed in
300
relation to blackness (Sullivan, 2017). As Lensmire (2017) recounts through

his own story, growing up working-class and White created a deep sense of not
belonging (to the middle class); he struggled “with the offer, made by school,
to join the middle class. I was struggling with its demand that I remake (or at
least hide) my working-class insides” (p. 17). The privilege afforded to Whites
by their skin is threatened by the presence of low-income Whites who do not
perform whiteness in an acceptable manner, as Lensmire’s story indicates. At
the heart of this perceived threat is an ideology of antiblackness; according to
Sullivan (2014), “White trash do not speak, eat, dress, and otherwise behave
as proper White people are supposed to do, and their breach of White social
etiquette threatens the boundary between White and non-White (especially
Black) people” (p. 35).
This disparagement of poor and low-income White people hinges upon
two closely related ideologies at the heart of whiteness: individualism and mer-
itocracy. Sullivan (2014) argues that “the middle class in the United States
thus is less a precise economic category than a broad rhetorical designation for
the vast majority of Americans who see themselves as the moral norm: hard
workers who deserve their success and who have endless possibilities for im-
proving their lives even further” (p. 8). While such avenues for meritocratic
success are not made available to low-income White people, an investment in
whiteness—an identity as White people rather than an identity as low-income
people exploited by the same economic system that exploits people of color—
leads low-income Whites to believe that the field is as wide open to them as it is
to middle-class Whites. When it fails to turn out this way, low-income Whites
are left only to blame themselves and each other as individual failures—more
specifically, as we will see in the case of Pleasant Grove, as “bad parents.”
The Pleasant Grove Community and School District
Pleasant Grove is a rural village located in a northeastern rustbelt region

where economic growth has been on a steady decline for many decades, re-
sulting in widening income gaps amongst the community’s wealthy and
impoverished families. The Pleasant Grove village, which sits about 30 miles
outside of Rivertown, the nearest urban center, is a small rural community of
fewer than 1,000 people, of whom 96.9% are White, 1.6% Hispanic/Latino,
0.2% Black/African American, 0.3% Asian/Pacific Islander, and 1.8% multi-
racial. Some families in Pleasant Grove are middle class and highly influential
in the town, while many others are extremely poor and marginalized in town
and school functions; 13.2% of the population lives below the poverty line.
The school district serves 1,370 students, whose racial demographics mirror
301
the local population: 96.1% are White, 1.7% Hispanic/Latino, 1.4% multira-
cial, and 0.4% Black/African American. This small district has three schools,
with 62% of students identified by New York State as “economically disad-
vantaged.” For the low-income families in this district, daily life in this rural
community can be challenging. People often live isolated, miles from their
nearest neighbor with no local public transportation, limited phone service,
and minimal financial resources. These barriers result in families left isolated
and immobile or dependent on rides from family or friends. Most of the teach-
ers and administrators, unlike the families they serve, are middle-class and do
not live in the local community; instead, they commute to the schools from
surrounding urban and suburban areas. The school has struggled with dis-
proportionate educational outcomes1 among the economically disadvantaged
students in this rural community.
Context of the Study: The Parent Mentor Program
The Parent Mentor Program at Pleasant Grove Elementary School began in
May 2015 and concluded after three years, in June 2017. The program each
year was limited to a 10-week period in the spring term of the school year, in
addition to one week of orientation at the beginning of each program year,
for a total of 33 weeks of program implementation and data collection. The
Pleasant Grove parents who participated in the Parent Mentor program from
2015–17 included six low-income White parents (five mothers, one father),
five of whom refer to themselves as “lifers,” having grown up in the small com-
munity of Pleasant Grove and attended the same schools their children now
attend. The remoteness of Pleasant Grove creates a situation where parents
with minimal resources are isolated from one another and feel that they can-
not participate in traditional routes to parent engagement because they do not
“know the right people.” Table 1 provides demographic information on the
parent participants, and in the Data Collection and Analysis section that fol-
lows, we provide information on the recruitment and sampling.
The Parent Mentor Program in Pleasant Grove was initiated in 2015 when
the school district approached Denise and Marguerite (Authors 1 & 3 of this
article) to implement a parent engagement program modeled after a similar
program we had started in 2014 in the nearby urban district of Rivertown
(Yull et al., 2018) but adapted to the local predominantly White rural context.
The goals of the program are to: (1) transform the school culture by increas-
ing the school’s investment in the parents’ social and cultural capital; (2) work
alongside parents and teachers to reduce detentions and suspensions, thereby
keeping low-income children in the classroom; and (3) build a community of
parents who support each other as they engage with the schools their children
302
attend. Parents who participate in the program receive a weekly gas card to fa-
cilitate transportation to and from the school.
Table 1. Participant Demographics

Parent Years Lifetime # of Chil- Grade
Level of Employ-
(Pseud- Partic- Resi- dren in level(s) of
Education ment Status
onym) ipated dent District child(ren)
2016– Completed
Amanda Unemployed Yes 1 PreK
17 high school
Cassan- 2015– Completed
Unemployed No 1 PreK
dra 17 high school
Some high
Nancy 2015 Unemployed Yes 1 9th
school
Former
Completed contractor;
Alex 2016 Yes 1 3rd
high school unemployed
on disability
Completed 1st, 4th, &
Nina 2016 Unemployed Yes 3
high school 7th
2015– Completed Childcare PreK &
Ramona Yes 2
16 high school provider 2nd
We recruited low-income parents using a convenience sampling method

with referrals from community organizations and schools. Participants had to
be parents or guardians of one or more children in the school district and have
time to spend on-site during the school day. Teachers who volunteered to par-
ticipate were identified by the school administrators and then contacted by the
community schools coordinator with whom we, as a research team, worked
closely. Parents completed an initial one week (20-hour) orientation, which
was identical for all three years of the program, and then spent four hours in
the school building each week—two hours in a classroom and two hours in
weekly processing meetings co-facilitated by the researchers and the commu-
nity schools coordinator. As part of the agreement with the school district we
submitted a report each year summarizing the number of parents who partici-
pated in the program and our key findings.
Author Positionality
Our positionality is a critical component in this study as we conducted
this work through the lens of three women scholars; Marguerite identifies as a
303
White woman, and Ada and Denise identify as African American women from
diverse socioeconomic backgrounds. Marguerite grew up in an affluent, pre-
dominantly White suburb of the San Francisco Bay Area where she attended
the local public school; there, most families could afford to have one stay-at-
home parent and therefore were highly involved in the school system both
in terms of donating their time as well as their financial resources. Even with
middle-class standing, Marguerite’s parents, as overworked assistant professors
at two different local university campuses, did not have the time or financial
means available to participate in the ways desired by the school and often faced
criticism from other parents and school personnel for their lack of involvement.
Even though Marguerite’s class standing is different from the parents in this
study and is a stark example of the intraclass hierarchies among White people,
and she does not have school-aged children of her own, her experiences with
parents facing judgment from the school is a motivating factor for conducting
this study.
Ada is a middle-aged African American woman who grew up in a single-
parent family household. She lived with her family in a diverse working-class
community within a semirural school district. Her mother’s work as a manual
laborer in manufacturing resulted in long hours outside of the home, which
hindered her ability to be actively involved in her children’s education; how-
ever, the value of education was highly regarded and prioritized. Ada attended
schools that had a racially diverse student population but significantly lacked
faculty diversity; therefore, the curriculum and student supports were often not
inclusive or equitable. Ada is a first-generation doctoral graduate with children.
With active involvement in her children’s education, Ada recognized how priv-
ilege of class and race is used to push low income and parents of color to the
margins of their child’s school system.
Denise is a middle-aged Black woman who has navigated through school
systems in different parts of the United States, both as a student navigating her
own journey through public schools and observing the differential impacts of
the education system on her siblings, as well as through her experiences as a
parent and as an educator. While her middle-class economic status, her educa-
tional level, and her racialized experience situate her in a category distinct from
the participants, Denise’s own personal experiences of marginalization in the
education system afford an avenue for relating to those who are different from
her in terms of both class and race. As a parent, Denise has navigated the dis-
missiveness and hostility of the school system as she has advocated on behalf of
her own children in the school system. The experiences of low-income White
parents, also marginalized by the school system, fall along similar lines.
304

This study is a critical qualitative research study incorporating critical eth-
nographic methods (Thomas, 1993). Our central research questions were: (1)
What are the perceptions and experiences of low-income rural White parents
participating in a parent engagement program with respect to their relationship
with the school system? (2) To what extent were these low-income rural White
parents’ relationships with each other and with the school system transformed
by participating in the Parent Mentor Program? The main source of data for
this study is 42 audiorecorded focus groups involving the Parent Mentors and
co-facilitated by the two principal investigators (Marguerite and Denise), the
co-principal investigator (Ada), and the community schools coordinator over
the course of the three-year study. Each year the program was implemented,
we began the program with a week-long, 20-hour orientation with the Par-
ent Mentors to critically discuss the institutional norms of the school system
and ask focus group questions around the Parent Mentors’ prior experiences
in school (see below). Following the orientation, weekly focus group meetings
were conducted by the researchers and community schools coordinator to un-
derstand the Parent Mentors’ current experiences in the classroom, discuss and
build parent engagement, and work collectively to solve any problems arising
in their classroom work.
A critical ethnographic approach was utilized to explore parents’ percep-
tions of the school, location of power, and the way power is distributed and
managed in the schools and among parents historically marginalized by the
school system (Grbich, 2013). This methodology works to re-center the voices
of parents who have been silenced, and as such, operates from a critical ap-
proach whose goal is to redistribute power in more equitable ways (Thomas,
1993). We relied on the community schools coordinator to make connections
with these six parents and recruit them into the program and research; this was
a convenience sampling method, relying on relationships and word of mouth
in the community, given the high amount of distrust among low-income par-
ents with regard to the school district and each other (none of them knew
each other prior to the program). Therefore, an impersonal call for recruitment
conducted through school district channels would not have engendered the
kind of trust necessary for low-income parents to be willing to enter the school
building, volunteer in classrooms, and participate in a research study associat-
ed with the school district. Participants who volunteered through this process
of convenience sampling in the community were accepted into the program as
long as they met the minimum criteria stated above. The parents were required
to commit to the program for one 10-week session only; they were invited back
305
each year, but there was no requirement for them to be able to participate for
all three years. In fact, only one parent participated for all three years. This was
due to the fact that some of the parents were able to find employment from one
year to the next, and therefore were no longer able to visit the school during
the school day. Some parents joined in the second and third years, so it was a
rotating group of Parent Mentors rather than a group of six parents who par-
ticipated the entire time.
To collect data and to facilitate opportunities for parents to connect with one
another during their course of involvement with the Parent Mentor Program,
we employed focus groups. Focus groups create safe(r) spaces for individuals
from marginalized communities by allowing them to share personal experienc-
es in a collective manner to unify their voices and decenter authority (Denzin
& Lincoln, 2011). Beginning from the critique that low-income parents typ-
ically have never been asked the basic questions of what their experiences in
school were and what their goals for their children’s education are (Swaden-
er, 2005), we began the orientation with eight grand tour questions (Brenner,
2006) that we revisited in various forms throughout the study: (1) When you
were growing up, what were your experiences like in school? (2) In what ways
are your child(ren)’s experiences in school similar or different than yours? (3)
What are your goals for your child(ren)’s future? (4) What is it like to be rais-
ing (a) child(ren) in this community? (5) Share a positive experience you’ve had
with the school. (6) Share a negative experience you’ve had with the school. (7)
How do issues of poverty impact your relationship with the school system? (8)
If you could say anything to the superintendent and know they wouldn’t judge
you, what would you say? These questions helped us to understand the parents’
experiences with the school system prior to entering the Parent Mentor Pro-
gram and established a baseline for determining if and how their relationship
with the school changed over time.
Data analysis involved transcribing the 42 audiorecorded focus group ses-
sions and coding each transcript according to the constant comparative method
of grounded theory (Charmaz, 2006). The analysis unfolded in three phases.
In the first phase, the three researchers separately used open coding to generate
initial codes, focusing on the overarching analytic question of how the par-
ents’ discourse about themselves and their access to participating in the schools
changed—or not—as a result of participating in the program. We also paid par-
ticular attention to discourses about race, class, and the dynamics of inclusion
and exclusion in our first pass of the data. We then compiled our combined list
of 26 codes and used our research questions to focus our inquiry and collapse
these codes into 10 larger categories: exclusion, inclusion, access/popularity,
provisional acceptance, class and classism, individualism, meritocracy, good
306
parent/bad parent, building parent community, and mistrust/social distancing.

(Note: We define social distancing as creating hierarchical social distinctions
which define one’s implicit or explicit access to moral capital). In the third
phase, we used this refined list of categories to identify relevant themes. In
what follows, we discuss the three primary themes that emerged from this data
analysis process.
From Exclusion to Provisional Access: Classism and Moral

Capital in Pleasant Grove
In the analysis of findings that follows, we argue that the dynamics of classism
and moral capital created isolation and mistrust among parents in the Pleasant
Grove community; in the schools, classism created a hostile environment that
inhibited engagement. Through participating in the Parent Mentor program,
however, parents began to access some aspects of the institution. Nevertheless,
while parents’ institutional access increased in some contexts and spaces, the
program did not change the structural conditions that led to parents being
marginalized based on class. Parents discussed the fact that acceptance from
the school was always provisional and tenuous, and, because the parents did
not have a discourse of class, classism, or systemic oppression to explain their
situation, they relied on explanations of individual access, achievement, and
meritocracy to explain this tenuous access. These individualistic, meritocrat-
ic explanatory frames are imbued with ideologies of whiteness; ironically, the
parents’ discourse, therefore, reflects an allegiance to whiteness, even as these
parents are unable to perform whiteness in an acceptable (i.e., middle-class)
manner. In what follows, we consider each of these points in turn, considering
how race and class factor into the shaping of these individualistic perspectives.
Wanting to Be Accepted, But Acceptance Is Provisional
In Pleasant Grove, the low-income White parents who participated in the
Parent Mentor Program experience the school system as unwelcoming and dis-
missive of their presence in school spaces. These parents’ experiences reflect a
school climate that makes it difficult for them to engage the schools, leaving
them feeling powerless and marginalized. Schools, as institutions of the domi-
nant society, facilitate low-income White people learning an internalized sense
of inferiority relative to middle-class and wealthy White people. For the low-in-
come White parents in Pleasant Grove, this sense of inferiority is a daily lived
experience when they enter the school. According to one Pleasant Grove par-
ent, walking into the school felt intimidating, both in terms of navigating the
physical space as well as interacting with school staff who were unwelcoming:
307
It’s just little things like that make you feel, like, uninformed or stupid
or uncomfortable. Or even like coming to the building and being like,
okay, I got to push the button and open the door and grab it at the right
moment and make sure that I don’t miss it so I don’t have to! It gives me
anxiety to even just come into the building.
Because of this internalized feeling of inferiority and intimidation, these
parents saw the schools as a place from which they as individuals needed ac-
ceptance. One parent shared, “I just don’t feel comfortable coming to school
functions. What will I wear; how will I sound?”, reflecting a hyperawareness
of how habits of dress and speech may betray class standing. Another parent
echoed this concern with a discussion of language,
Well a lot of people with multiple children, I know ‘cause I’ve had expe-
rience with this, when you’re home, when you’re stay-at-home mom, you
don’t know how to connect with people, you completely lose that, and so
you come into a situation where there’s a bunch of, you know, real peo-
ple, and you just kind of hunker down; “I’m so scared,” you know? You
don’t know how to talk to people, and we do have a lot of stay-at-home
mommies down here, and may not even have a vehicle, you know? And
that’s why they don’t come here, so it’s finding people with enough, you
know, I don’t know, just a kind of slowly to work their way in, you can’t
just walk up to somebody and be like, “oh, join this” because that’s scary.
I mean I’d be scared of that, so you know, that’s I think a problem, too.
Here, this parent framed the exclusion they face from the school system as
one of being a “stay-at-home mom” who does not know how to connect with
“real people.” While they made a brief connection to the isolation parents face
because of structural barriers (i.e., not owning a vehicle) exacerbated by living
in a rural setting, they stopped short (“so it’s finding people with enough, you
know, I don’t know”) of naming the specific form of social capital valued by the
school that parents need in order to be accepted.
In one discussion during the initial week-long orientation in which we
prompted the parents to think about how poverty impacted their relation-
ship with the school system, one parent more explicitly linked social status
with income: “If you make money, you’re okay, but you’re low class when
you’re not.” More frequently during this initial discussion, though, parents
indirectly indexed class status by referring to coming from the “right family,”
stating, “My last name isn’t of importance in this town.” In individualizing
their problems, they often fell back on explanations that emphasized individu-
al personalities, stay-at-home parenting, money, and consumption practices to
understand their difficulty in accessing social capital in the school system. Like
308
the working-class girls in Bettie’s (2014) ethnography, Pleasant Grove parents

rarely used a discourse of class oppression to frame their struggles. One parent
talked about themselves as “low maintenance” in contrast to the middle-class
school personnel (and us, the researchers), whom they considered “high main-
tenance.” While this in some ways is a discourse of class, they defined these
labels in terms of individual consumption practices (the cars people drive, the
clothes people wear, where people live), rather than in terms of how the school
interacts with the entire group of “low maintenance” families.
Despite these concerns, parents participating in the Parent Mentor Program
expressed a shift in their willingness to participate in school-sponsored pro-
grams. One parent attended a school camping activity, sharing with the group,
I came to the campout last night, and some of the kids from the class-
room recognized me and came over and gave me a hug, and I was like,
aww. “Mommy, this is [name] from my class,” so it was really cool. I was
in the classroom yesterday so that probably helped them remember me
because I have the same outfit on. I would have never come to some-
thing like this before.
However, even after participating in the program, parents reported that
their acceptance in the school was provisional and that they sometimes still
faced the same hostility from school staff as they did when they came in as par-
ents. One parent made a suggestion for improving the program the following
year, and in doing so revealed this continuing sense of alienation:
It would be helpful even if there’s like, we have to fill out a form in the
beginning of the school year that we’re going to come in once a week
and maybe make it a flex time, so if we’re a little early, we’re allowed in.
Like even if that becomes a policy that you have to sign a form in the
beginning of the year and still sign in and out and still get your badge,
but you’re not questioned week after week on why you’re here, does the
teacher know you’re coming, is it your time yet? Because it’s hard to be
here as the program and be welcomed and then as a parent you feel that
same thing you were feeling before the program.
In making this suggestion for a clearer communication process with school
staff, this parent related that, even though they volunteered at the same time
on the same day every week, they continued to be questioned by school per-
sonnel, particularly when they entered the space as a parent on behalf of their
child rather than in their official capacity as a Parent Mentor. Although schools
routinely question non-staff members as to their identity and purpose for be-
ing in the school as a matter of ensuring student safety, particularly in an era
of heightened concerns around school shootings, the parents experienced this
309
repeated questioning from the same staff members, week after week, as an
exclusionary and hostile practice. Another parent shared this same feeling of
continued hostility, pointing out that different parents received differential
treatment from staff members:
Well, I’m no different than she is, and I’m no different than you are, and
I’m no different than you are, or you [pointing to other parents sitting
at the table]. So, when you walk into the office, I should get the same
treatment as you guys all do, not like “oh, what are you here to do?” You
should be greeted all the same, or because it is such a small local school
district, a lot of the parents were raised here, did go to the school. So,
your outlook should be that we want to change their attitude. I was a
good kid in school. I didn’t get in trouble. I didn’t have school problems
at all whatsoever. I didn’t have problems with teachers….I wasn’t a trou-
bled child.
This parent’s experience demonstrates the ongoing questioning parents
faced as to why they were entering the school building, reinforcing the “hab-
its of inclusion and exclusion” (Tieken, 2014, p. 3) in rural communities. The
parent expressed a discourse of powerblind sameness (Castagno 2014), naive-
ly interpreting all parents as being “no different” from one another, ignoring
the power dynamics at play even within the group of Parent Mentors sitting
around the table. It is unclear what makes all of these parents “the same”—
whether it is the fact that they are all White, that they all have children in the
school district, or that they all come from low-income backgrounds. Yet it is
clear that they are not treated “the same” by the school personnel, especially
when compared to middle-class parents. This parent went on, however, to draw
on discourses of moral capital—of their own academic achievement and spot-
less behavioral record—as an argument for being treated better in the school.
According to this discourse of exceptionalism, it is not enough for all parents to
be treated humanely from the outset; instead, they must prove their worth and
belonging by conforming to middle-class behavioral standards—to the prevail-
ing standard of whiteness—to be accepted at school.
Creating a Supportive Parent Community: Dynamics of Inclu-
sion and Exclusion
After the initial week-long training, the weekly processing meetings became
a space in which Parent Mentors gathered together with us, the researcher–fa-
cilitators, to get to know each other, share their experiences in the classroom,
and bring concerns to the group to discuss collectively—as a counterspace to
the alienation parents experienced in the rest of the school building. It was a
space created intentionally to build community among the parents, which is
310
needed in rural districts such as Pleasant Grove, where the sheer geographic size
and remoteness of residences produces parental isolation. Because parents in the
district are car-dependent, automotive troubles can prevent them from attend-
ing school events. These factors result in isolation and mistrust of other parents,
particularly those whose middle-class privilege (or middle-class passing) runs
the risk of inflicting class injury (Bettie, 2014) upon low-income parents. This
mistrust and feeling of exclusion was expressed by one parent when they dis-
cussed what it is like to attend sports events organized by the school:
Well it’s not just that, but I noticed from like other parents, but parents
who have kids in sports, like that’s where parents tend to meet up, at
sporting events, and they group off, and some won’t talk to others. It’s
very weird, and you bring parents in a place like this [referring to the
Parent Mentor meetings], this is just about the kids, and it’s different,
you know? It’s just strange.
This parent expresses an innocent-sounding wonder at the exclusionary prac-
tices of “other” parents—presumably those who are middle-class and accepted
within the school environment. They express that the meeting space of the
Parent Mentors is “different” than those exclusionary spaces—and yet lack a
discourse of class or classism to articulate why the spaces feel different.
In our observations of the group and our analysis of focus group discourse,
we found that the weekly school visits and meetings provided a significant
space for parents to connect with one another and reduce this isolation. In the
second year, we witnessed two parents—who both participated in the program
in the first year—forming a friendship with one another and helping each oth-
er beyond the space of the school. When one parent was left without a car, the
other parent made sure to give them rides to the school for volunteer hours and
our weekly meetings. Second, the creation of a parent community is evidenced
by the fact that the parents, unprompted by facilitators, created a private group
on social media where they could independently connect with one another,
circulate ideas, and coordinate rides. Third, while we as facilitators shared our
knowledge of the working structure of the school, the parents also taught each
other a great deal in the space of the meetings. For example, during one meet-
ing a parent explained both how to get in touch with the school to confirm
whether school has been cancelled due to weather, as well as specific informa-
tion on special education with which the other parents were not familiar. One
parent shared what they had learned from other parents in group meetings:
I like being able to socialize with everyone, ‘cause as much as we are a
wealth of information for our teachers, and they are for us, we are for
each other, and it really helps me to have confidence to speak up within
311
the school after like bouncing ideas off you guys, or like I get numbers
from [parent] because she knows the world.…Then she brought me into
the community more. With the [local] library, I’m gonna volunteer this
summer there while my daughter’s away, rather than, you know, chasing
my dog all day.
Here, this parent recognized the wealth of information that each parent brought
to the table and provided evidence that they were able to create an authentic
community focused on supporting each other, providing advice and feedback,
and helping each other connect in the larger community in ways that had been
inaccessible prior to the program.
However, parents in this group still mistrusted other parents outside of the
group. One parent expressed the ongoing anxiety they experienced coming
into a space with other parents they did not know:
I got anxiety about how many people were going to be here. Am I not
going to like someone here? I know a teacher in the school that I, she
used to be a substitute, but I didn’t ask about it. I can’t be in the same
area as her ‘cause we don’t get along. There are just a bunch of different
factors, especially because it is a small town. We are separated a lot, but
like I know you. I didn’t sit across from you; we didn’t have lunch togeth-
er; girl, I feel like that’s a lot of the withdrawal some people have.
This ongoing mistrust and fear of judgment inhibits the larger goal of the
Parent Mentor program—to have Parent Mentors connect with other mar-
ginalized parents and recruit them into the program. As a result, the program
remained limited to the six parents who were recruited by the community
schools coordinator.
Leveraging Social Distancing to Access Moral Capital
The limitations of the program in creating a broader sense of community
also speaks to a final theme from the data, in which parents in the program re-
peatedly used discourses of moral capital to distance themselves from “other”
parents who, in their judgment, were “bad parents.” Herein lies an important
irony—these parents were judged by the school for being “bad parents,” yet they
used the same discourse to talk negatively about “those parents” using the frame
of moral capital. This indexes social class positioning—creating small distinc-
tions in performing class to obtain individual access to social and moral capital.
If these parents can perform “good parenting” (i.e., perform middle-class) in a
way that makes them look and feel superior to “those parents,” then they hope
to gain access to power and belonging in the school building.
312
This leveraging of moral capital in order to perform middle-classness and

“good parenting” occurred both within the dynamics of the Parent Mentor
group as well as in the ways that parents in the group spoke about parents
outside the group. One parent in the second year of the program spent much
of their time attempting to “prove” their middle-class standing to the rest of
the parents in the group, even though it was a small community of “lifers”
who knew each other’s backgrounds and knew that this parent was not, in
fact, middle-class. The secrets of this parent’s past were not secrets at all to
everyone in the room—except to us, the researchers. Still, the need to cre-
ate a distinction between themselves and the other parents in the group to
gain individual access in the school was persistent. In one instance, at the end
of a group processing meeting, one parent who had been volunteering with
the local community-supported agriculture program shared a flyer that ad-
vertised reduced-price farm share produce boxes for low-income families. The
middle-class performing parent dismissed the flyer, saying, “oh, we already eat
healthy at home.” Here, the performance of middle-class “good parenting,”
which includes providing healthy food for children, was something this parent
claimed to already do and thus claimed to not need the assistance offered by
the farm share. Accepting such “handouts” would reduce their moral capital
in the eyes of the community. This same parent entered the group claiming
to have no issues with engaging with the school, presenting themselves as a
“pushy parent” in alignment with middle-class values:
My son has, is here [in the elementary school], and I’m here three times
a week to intervene, so like I have an advantage. I’m very pushy. I’m kind
of at school now, so I come in and have lunch with my daughter, and I,
first it was like they looked at me like, “Really? you want to have lunch
with your daughter?” but now I just walk in and just go to lunch, you
know? So, so I have a pretty good experience here, for the most part.
While this parent positioned themselves as a middle-class “pushy parent” with
“advantage” over other parents who try to come in to the school and have
lunch with their child, they also hinted at more negative experiences—“at first
it was like they looked at me” and “for the most part”—on which they did not
elaborate. Emphasizing their individual inclusion in the school community
seemed to be more important than aligning themselves with other parents in
the room who had recounted experiences of exclusion from the school.
Many of the parents in the Parent Mentor group had internalized, to various
degrees, these negative judgments of their own parenting, putting pressure on
themselves to prove themselves as “good parents” based on a middle-class, set-
tled-living standard. One parent used the trope of “good parent” to discuss the
pressures they put on themselves to know about upcoming school-based events:
313
I mean like, even if I am a good parent and check her backpack every
day at five, which I’m not, [checking her backpack] but you know, like
[I would put a reminder, like] a sticker to put up on your calendar, you
know? [Getting a notice from school]…two weeks even ahead of time
would be good, because then you can plan for [school events]…if you
don’t know something until [the last minute]…you have plans, [even] if
you’re planning you know, and that’s hard too, because there are times
when I come home, and she’s like really [let’s go, but] I really want to go
to sleep…this nightly…thing that they do, and I really want to take her
but I can’t, [and] I just found out about it, and we have to do this.
Without a discourse of class oppression on a structural level, parents fell
back on individual explanations of their parenting struggles, unable to artic-
ulate how the lack of resources in their lives and community contributed to
this inability to fully perform middle-class parenting. These individual, meri-
tocratic explanations of success or failure are a key hallmark of whiteness as an
ideology that governs how schools operate (Castagno, 2014). While this parent
discussed the improvements in communication that the school needed to make
in order for them to plan to take their daughter to school events (in large part
because, as single parents, they had to work around a shared custody schedule),
the use of the “good parent” discourse reveals the pressure they put on them-
selves to check all of the boxes and find out about all of the opportunities for
their daughter to engage. This parent internalized the dominant societal narra-
tive that if they can just be a “good parent,” then whatever structural barriers
are in place because of poverty will fall away and their child will be able to
enjoy a middle-class childhood with access to enriching activities and school-
based functions.
Regardless of where they started from, through the process of engaging with
the program, the parents began to see that their parenting struggles were not
unique and were, instead, normal. In one conversation, one parent shared that
in the classroom they were volunteering in, the onset of warmer weather meant
that students were acting out more. They shared that it was a challenge but that
it normalized their own son’s behavior from a developmental perspective: “It
made me feel better. He’s four, it’s that time of year, and it’s nice out.” How-
ever, at the same time, while letting go of judgments of their own parenting,
in a paradoxical move these parents then turned around to judge other parents
who were not part of the Parent Mentor group for being “bad parents” or not
trustworthy. In a conversation among parents discussing attendance at school
meetings (e.g., Open House, Common Core Support), one parent critiqued
the parents who do not show up to these events:
314
I have first, fourth and seventh graders. I always try to go to all of them
because it changes from year to year. When they do have an Open House,
instead of it being, “where is his work on the wall,” it was the parents
yelling at the teacher, like there was no niceness, like “I can’t understand
this math, how am I supposed to teach my child!”
Another parent chimed in:
Yet those parents did not show up at the beginning school meeting, and
those parents did not show up to the math meeting, and those parents did
not show up until they actually struggled and kids are crying at home.
In this case the display of moral capital is evident as the parents vehement-
ly refer to those parents as a way to separate oneself from the “other.” This
parent appears to judge the other parents that do not attend Open House or
other scheduled school functions, forgetting that prior to their involvement in
the Parent Mentor program, they also had reservations about participating in
these same events due to feeling judged or fear of being rejected by their child’s
school. Possessing a higher moral capital represents a form of currency that cre-
ates a sense of entitlement and belonging. This form of capital shames parents
that do not rise to the occasion of being the “good” parent, thereby recon-
structing a hierarchy and perpetuating a cycle of social isolation and division
based on middle-class standards of whiteness that, by definition, are impossible
for low-income White parents to meet.
Discussion and Implications
In this study, we have applied the frameworks of classism, moral capital, and
whiteness to understand the class dynamics among this group of six parents as
well as their tenuous relationship to the school system. Moral capital (Jaye et
al., 2018; Sherman, 2006) involves the creation of moral distinctions in com-
munities with few economic resources. The conceptual application of moral
capital in this study examines schools as institutional agencies of moral regula-
tion that perpetuate middle-class ideologies which become equated with moral
prestige (Valverde, 1994). One way the logic of moral capital operated within
and beyond the group of Parent Mentors in Pleasant Grove, as we have noted,
is through the binary discourse of “good parenting”/“bad parenting.” Con-
structions of “bad parenting” are imbued with classist meanings and are part
of the larger societal “family values” discourse that vilifies low-income families
for their parenting practices, which are perceived by the dominant society as
neglectful, uncaring, and not valuing education for their children (Swadener,
2005). While certainly there are harmful ways to parent children, this notion
315
of “bad parenting” also operates as a mechanism of social control and is applied

particularly to what Bettie (2014) refers to as “hard-living” families—those who
“are supported by low-paying, less stable occupations that lack health care ben-
efits and make home ownership impossible—self-employed work, non-union
labor, service work—and have lifestyles that are chaotic and unpredictable” (p.
13). What the dominant society typically does not understand about hard-liv-
ing families, Bettie argues, is that “hard-living is not desired or intentional, but
is a consequence of the difficulties of trying to establish a settled life” (p. 13).
In conjunction with moral capital, whiteness, with its constituting discours-
es of individualism and meritocracy, shows up in how the parents make sense
of their treatment in the school. Rather than understanding the differential
treatment between themselves and middle-class parents as being due to class,
they fall back on individualistic explanations of popularity and (not) having
an “important name” as reasons for their exclusion, insisting that all parents
are the same, so why should they be treated differently by the school? This
discourse of equality reveals the powerblind (Castagno, 2014) ideologies of
whiteness, assuming that if all parents are viewed and treated as the same,
differences can simply be ignored and will therefore disappear. The idea of
difference in and of itself is regarded by the parents as negative—as a basis for
hierarchical differentiation—rather than as a strength. These parents believe
that if they can only manage to be treated the same as middle-class parents,
they will essentially be able to perform as middle-class and access the privileg-
es of whiteness more fully. Their discourse implies (but does not state directly)
that they believe they are the same as the middle-class parents because they are
White like them. Without a discourse of class (or race), it is unclear to these
parents why they are, in fact, treated differently. The treatment of low-income
White people is just as much about their class standing as it is about the fact
that they do not perform whiteness in the same way that middle-class White
people do (Sullivan, 2014).
This article adds to the scant literature on parent engagement from a critical
perspective, examining the systemic oppression of low-income White parents
in predominantly White rural communities. This program does not focus on
“fixing the parents” so that they better fit the school paradigm of parent in-
volvement, or even parent engagement; instead, we assume that the parents
will bring into the school skills and experiences that can help change the way
teachers engage low-income White families. Having low-income parents pres-
ent in the school building is key to creating equitable education for low-income
children, because if these parents are not brought into the school building even
in the limited way in which they participated in the Parent Mentor Program,
their concerns will never be heard in the school. Foregrounding social class and
316
classism requires stakeholders to privilege and respect the knowledge and ex-
perience low-income parents bring into the school as well as recognizing the
oppression that these families face. This program offers a way—albeit small and
contained—to bring parents into the building in a way that is less harmful to
them because it does not demand that they be anything other than who they
are. Teachers and administrators must be willing to embrace the presence of
low-income parents in the school exactly as they are, without requiring them
to conform to middle-class standards of speech, dress, and behavior.
The program partially succeeded in producing a tightly knit community of
parents who support each other in and out of the school setting—the kind of
tightly knit community that many rural communities already have (Tieken,
2014) but that Pleasant Grove lacks. Still, much work remains. Through criti-
cal analysis of the parents’ stories, we discovered that acceptance in the school
is not a binary of either being accepted or not; rather, low-income parents al-
ways exist in a liminal space in which exclusion can occur at any moment. The
parents shared that while they experienced some gains in being treated more
warmly in the school, these gains did not move consistently in the direction of
progress. The same parents who volunteered in elementary school classrooms
and built relationships with teachers and school staff were then dismissed and
treated with hostility when they entered the same school building on behalf
of their own children. The threat of exclusion was always present, and from
the individualistic frame of whiteness and without a critical understanding of
classism, the parents made sense of this threat of exclusion based on individual
notions of popularity and friendship. As Sullivan (2014) argues,
no matter how hard one works, a poor White person is at risk of being
viewed as lazy, ignorant, and morally deficient. Unlike the Black person
who likely experiences racial discrimination in education and the labor
market, a poor White person has no way to account for her poverty and
related moral “failures.” (p. 35)
Class (and race) remained largely invisible in these explanations, even though
it was ever-present in the ways these parents and their children were treated.
From the parents’ narratives, we learn that the dynamics of whiteness and clas-
sism operate mostly below the conscious awareness of parents and teachers
alike, reframing group-level exclusion as individual deficits in parenting and
school engagement.
In sum, even as parents within the Parent Mentor group began to form
bonds of friendship and community that reduced the isolation they had ex-
perienced previously, the dynamics of moral capital and classist judgments of
“good parenting”/“bad parenting” persisted both within the group and also
317
as they collectively analyzed the conditions under which parents outside the
group functioned. This contradiction is explained by the individualistic frame
of whiteness within which these parents insisted on understanding their own
and other parents’ situations. Because these parents were intent on gaining in-
dividual access to participating in the school for their own children’s success,
they maintained a stance of social distancing, creating hierarchical social dis-
tinctions. While they attempted to overcome the marginalizing practices of the
school, they used the same discourse to talk about “those parents” in the frame
of moral capital, trying to distance themselves from other White parents who
were unable to perform as middle-class. The potential for solidarity with other
low-income White parents was, ironically, undermined by these explanatory
frames of whiteness.
Limitations and Future Directions
The small rural school district of Pleasant Grove presented challenges to the
initiation and sustainability of the project, particularly in terms of the partici-
patory action research model we had hoped to implement. In Pleasant Grove,
we faced significant institutional barriers: the school district and building ad-
ministrators maintained a traditional parent engagement perspective and, as
such, insisted on keeping the program contained by limiting our contact with
teachers. In all three years, the program was limited to 10 weeks at the end of
the school year, rather than extending over the course of the year or even one
full term, disrupting the potential impact. Additionally, the use of a communi-
ty schools coordinator to mediate communication between the researchers and
the teachers and administrators limited the control we had in implementing the
program with fidelity—it was disempowering to us as researcher–practitioners
and compromised the scope of the model by limiting the communication that
could take place. As a result, the program remained constrained; we were not
able to set up an agreement with the teachers to allow parents to communi-
cate with and recruit other low-income parents in their classrooms, expand the
program beyond 10 weeks at the end of the school year, expand beyond the el-
ementary school, or allow parents to work with different grade levels.
The barriers listed above limited the impact we had as researchers as well as
our ability to work alongside parents to craft the program according to their
needs. We remained limited to a traditional parent engagement program with
elements of a more transformative approach wherever we were able to (some-
what subversively) insert them. The barriers we described above prevented this
project from having the transformational impact we sought. The parents con-
tinued to be viewed through a deficit lens which stunted the communication
between the administrators and the parents. While the parents had ideas and
318
suggestions to share regarding school policies, they were not given a platform
or a voice in crafting school policies. These low-income parents continued to be
managed by the school authorities, making it impossible to address the system-
ic problems grounded in classism faced by low-income parents in the school.
Because of these challenges, we could only report changes we observed in
the parents and their relationship to the school system, while also remaining
critical of the limitations of this transformation, both in terms of the structural
constraints of poverty and the district’s control of the program. Subsequently,
only one parent participated in the program for all the three years, which also
limits any general conclusions we could make about changes in the parents’ re-
lationship with their children’s schools over time.
Although our intent was to implement the participatory framework of
participatory action research (Swantz, 2008), we were thwarted in our goals,
thereby being relegated to a more traditional action research model direct-
ed by the researchers and community schools coordinator. However, despite
not being able to fully implement participatory action research, the action
component of this research consisted of working with the parents through
processing their experiences to encourage them to become more active in their
advocacy for their children and those children in the classrooms in which they
volunteered—providing them with the institutional channels that they had
previously not had access to and/or did not know about for airing their griev-
ances and seeking action.
In addition to the gap between the participatory action research ideal and
the realities we met on the ground, we also recognize that data was only collect-
ed from one rural school district, therefore the findings are not generalizable to
other rural schools and families. Although gender was not a focus of this study,
we recognize that there was a lack of gender diversity among the parents. A
follow-up study to examine the role of gender and class in rural parent engage-
ment is recommended.
Conclusion
In this article, we have analyzed the outcomes of a critical qualitative research
study whose aim is to increase parent engagement in a manner approaching the
ideal of equitable collaborations (Ishimaru, 2020) between parents, teachers,
students, and the school, while working toward reducing the systemic margin-
alization these low-income White parents experience in the rural schools their
children attend. The low-income White parents in this parent engagement
project represent the community of parents in rural settings that are often
dismissed as uninterested in their children’s educational progress. This article
critically analyzes the possibilities and limitations of attempting to create an
319
equitable collaboration that approaches parent engagement from a class-con-

scious perspective that honors the experiences and expertise of low-income
White parents while responding to the need to conduct further research on ru-
ral schools (Tieken, 2014). This article contributes to the literature on parent
engagement and equitable collaborations by incorporating an understanding
of how classism works to marginalize low-income White parents in a rural con-
text that uses moral capital to regulate their behavior.
Although much work remains—in terms of raising critical consciousness
among parents as to the dynamics of classism, transforming school staff mem-
bers’ conceptions of low-income parents, and moving toward a true equitable
collaboration that fundamentally reshapes relations of power—the three years
of the Parent Mentor Program in Pleasant Grove were a start toward helping
schools embrace low-income parents even in a very limited way. Even though
the model was limited in time and scope and the program is no longer in op-
eration, the parents’ enthusiasm for being in the school near their children as
well as the relationships they built with one another were positive outcomes
of the program. Effective class-conscious parent engagement, then, requires
much more than simply bringing low-income parents into the school as tokens
of their community; instead, it requires a fundamental change in the classist
conceptions of school staff members, challenging the system of moral capital
that denigrates and isolates low-income parents, and a nuanced understanding
of class among all school community members that goes beyond superficial
notions of popularity, consumption, and individual access. A class-inclusive
school community would also benefit from recruiting, training, and retaining
teachers who both come from and live in the same communities as low-income
families. When a class-inclusive rather than class-exclusive school community
exists, the academic, social, and emotional well-being of all families and stu-
dents stands to improve.
Endnote
1
One metric used to measure educational outcomes is graduation rates. In the Pleasant Grove
school district: economically disadvantaged graduation rate is 77% vs 89% for those not eco-
nomically disadvantaged; the dropout rate for the economically disadvantaged is 12% vs 2
% for those not economically disadvantaged. Even the type of diplomas received shows the
disproportionality: most of the economically disadvantaged receive a general Regents diploma,
with only 17% receiving a Regents diploma with advanced designation, compared to 54% for
those not economically disadvantaged (2019 data, retrieved from the New York State Educa-
tion Department).
320
References
Arnold, M. L., Newman, J. H., Gaddy, B. B., & Dean, C. B. (2005). A look at the condition
of rural education research: Setting a direction for future research. Journal of Research in
Rural Education, 20(6), 1–25.
Auerbach, S. (2009). Walking the walk: Portraits in leadership for family engagement in urban
schools. School Community Journal, 19(1), 9–31. https://www.adi.org/journal/ss09/Auer-
bachSpring2009.pdf
Bailey, L. B. (2014). A review of the research: Common Core State Standards for improving
rural children’s school readiness. Early Childhood Education Journal, 42(6), 389–396.
Baquedano-López, P., Alexander, R. A., & Hernández, S. J. (2013). Equity issues in parental
Barrett, N., Cowen, J., Toma, E., & Troske, S. (2015). Working with what they have: Pro-
fessional development as a reform strategy in rural schools. Journal of Research in Rural
Education, 30(10), 1–18.
Beeson, E., & Strange, M. (2000). Why rural matters: The need for every state to take action
on rural education. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 16(2), 63–140.
Bell, D. A. (1992). Faces at the bottom of the well: The permanence of racism. Basic Books.
Bettie, J. (2014). Women without class: Girls, race, and identity. University of California Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1973). Cultural reproduction and social reproduction. In R. Brown (Ed.),
Knowledge, education, and cultural change (pp. 71–84). Routledge.
Brenner, M. (2006). Interviewing in educational research. In J. Green, G. Camilli, & P. El-
more (Eds.), Handbook of complementary methods in education research (pp. 357–370).
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Buck, R., & Deutsch, J. (2014). Effects of poverty on education. International Journal of Hu-
man Sciences, 11(2), 1139–1148.
Castagno, A. (2014). Educated in whiteness: Good intentions and diversity in schools. University
of Minnesota Press.
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative anal-
ysis. Sage.
Cooper, C. W. (2009). Parent involvement, African American mothers, and the politics of
educational care. Equity & Excellence in Education, 42(4), 379–394.
Cooper, C. E., Crosnoe, R., Suizzo, M. A., & Pituch, K. A. (2010). Poverty, race, and parental
involvement during the transition to elementary school. Journal of Family Issues, 31(7),
859–883.
Delgado, R., & Stefancic, J. (2001). Critical Race Theory: An introduction. New York University
Press.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2011). The Sage handbook of qualitative research. Sage.
Ferlazzo, L., & Hammond, L. A. (2009). Building parent engagement in schools. Linworth.
Gallo, J., & Beckman, P. (2016). A global view of rural education: Teacher preparation, re-
cruitment, and retention. Global Education Review, 3(1), 1–4.
Gillborn, D. (2005). Education as an act of White supremacy: Whiteness, critical race theory,
and education reform. Journal of Educational Policy, 20(4), 485–505.
Grbich, C. (2013). Qualitative data analysis: An introduction. Sage.
Griffin, D., & Galassi, J. P. (2010). Parent perceptions of barriers to academic success in a rural
middle school. Professional School Counseling, 14(1), 87–100.
321
Howley, C. B., & Howley, A. (2010). Poverty and school achievement in rural communities:
A social class interpretation. In K. A. Schafft & A. Y. Jackson (Eds.), Rural education for
the twenty-first century: Identity, place, and community in a globalizing world. Pennsylvania
University Press.
Ishimaru, A. M. (2020). Just schools: building equitable collaborations with families and commu-
nities. Teachers College Press.
Jaye, C., Young, J., Egan, T., & Williams, M. (2018). Moral economy and moral capital in the
community of clinical practice. Qualitative Health Research, 28(4), 523–533.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1998). Just what is critical race theory and what’s it doing in a nice field
like education? International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 11(1), 7–24.
Lareau, A. (2002). Invisible inequality: Social class and childrearing in Black families and
White families. American Sociological Review, 67(5), 747–776.
Lareau, A., & Weininger, E. (2003). Cultural capital in educational research: A critical assess-
ment. Theory and Society, 32, 567–606.
Lensmire, T. (2017). White folks. Routledge.
Leonardo, Z. (2009). Race, whiteness, and Education. Routledge.
Levine-Rasky, C. (2009). Dynamics of parent involvement at a multicultural school. British
Journal of Sociology of Education, 30(3), 331–344.
Lewis, A. E., & Forman, T. A. (2002). Contestation or collaboration? A comparative study of
home–school relations. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 33(1), 60–89.
Lott, B. (2002). Cognitive and behavioral distancing from the poor. American Psychologist,
57(2), 100–110.
Milbourne, P. (2010). Putting poverty and welfare in place. Policy & Politics, 38(1), 153–169.
Noguera, P. (2001). Transforming urban schools through investment in the social capital of
parents. In S. Saegert, J. P. Thompson, & M. R. Warren (Eds.), Social capital and poor
communities (pp. 189–212). Russell Sage.
Schafft, K. A, & Jackson, A. Y. (Eds.). (2010). Rural education for the twenty-first century: Iden-
tity, place, and community in a globalizing world. Pennsylvania University Press.
Sherman, J. (2006). Coping with rural poverty: Economic survival and moral capital in rural
America. Social Forces, 85(2), 891–913.
Showalter, D., Hartman, S. L., Johnson, J., & Klein, B. (2019, November). Why rural matters
2018–2019: The time is now. Rural School and Community Trust.
Sullivan, S. (2014). Good White people: The problem with middle-class White anti-racism.
SUNY Press.
Swadener, B. B. (2005). “At risk” or “at promise”? From deficit constructions of the “other
childhood” to possibilities for authentic alliances with children and families. In L. D. Soto
(Ed.), The politics of early childhood education (pp. 117–134). Peter Lang.
Swantz, M. L. (2008). Participatory action research as practice. In P. Reason & H. Bradbury
(Eds.), The Sage handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice (pp. 31–48).
Sage.
Thomas, J. (1993). Doing critical ethnography. Sage.
Tieken, M. C. (2014). Why rural schools matter. The University of North Carolina Press.
Valverde, M. (1994). Moral capital. Canadian Journal of Law & Society, 9(1), 213–232.
Yosso, T. J. (2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community
cultural wealth. Race, Ethnicity, and Education, 8(1), 69–91.
Yull, D., Wilson, M. A. F., Murray, C., & Parham, L. (2018). Reversing the dehumanization of
Black families in school: Parents of color advocating for children of color. School Communi-
ty Journal, 28(1), 319–347. https://www.adi.org/journal/2018ss/YullEtAlSpring2018.pdf
322
Marguerite Anne Fillion Wilson is an associate professor in the Department of

Human Development at Binghamton University. Dr. Wilson is an anthropologist of
education with interdisciplinary training whose research agenda focuses on ethno-
graphically understanding and transforming the cultural conditions in schools that
produce inequitable outcomes along the lines of race, class, gender, and sexuality.
Her current collaborative community-based ethnographic projects are focused on (1)
understanding and interrupting the national trend of racialized disciplinary practices
in schools through an innovative approach to parent engagement, and (2) research-
ing the motivations and life histories of White people and people of color engaged
in antiracism work in the local community. Correspondence concerning this article
may be addressed to Dr. Marguerite Wilson, Department of Human Development,
Binghamton University, P.O. Box 6000, Binghamton, NY 13902-6000, or email
mwilson@binghamton.edu
Ada Robinson-Perez is an assistant professor in the Department of Social Work
at Binghamton University in Binghamton, NY. As a New York State licensed social
worker and a certified employee assistance professional, she served in the role of the
associate director of the Employee Assistance Program at Binghamton University.
Her research is conducted through a Critical Race Theory lens and her scholarly ex-
pertise focuses on the adverse effects of racial microaggressions on the mental health
of Black students. In addition, Dr. Robinson-Perez researches the efficacy of innova-
tive, race- and class-conscious parent engagement programs in both rural and urban
settings whose purpose is to amplify the voices and honor the cultural capital of fam-
ilies from marginalized communities.
Denise Gray Yull is an assistant professor of human development at Binghamton
University. Dr. Yull’s work focuses on the influence of structural factors that impact
educational disparities in both rural and urban marginalized communities in the con-
text of secondary and higher education. Her scholarly research interests focus on Black
students, schooling, student engagement, collective parent engagement, school–fam-
ily–community partnerships, and the impact on Black families and other families of
color. Dr. Yull’s scholarly research provides innovative and culturally grounded the-
oretical and empirical frameworks for understanding the sociocultural contexts of
educational disparities for Black youth and school disconnections for Black families.
323
324
From Crisis to Opportunity: Family Partnerships
with Special Education Preservice Teachers
in Remote Practicum During the COVID-19
School Closures
Seung Eun McDevitt and Maria Paula Mello
Abstract
Challenges for culturally and linguistically diverse children with disabilities

have been exacerbated by the COVID-19 school closures, highlighting major
social and educational inequities. In response to this educational crisis, our
university partnered with a community organization that supports immigrant
families and their children with disabilities to provide them with individu-
alized instruction while also providing preservice special education teachers
with practicum field experiences. Situated in New York City, this qualitative
study explored the experiences of preservice teachers, mothers, and their chil-
dren with disabilities who participated in remote instruction during the initial
COVID-19 school closures. We analyzed focus group interviews of preservice
teachers and their journal entries, as well as individual interviews with moth-
ers and their children with disabilities. This study details the successes and
challenges of this novel teaching and learning partnership during the pandem-
ic and the implications of reimagining field experiences in special education
teacher education programs to cultivate educators who are equipped techno-
logically and prepared to build relationship-centered family partnerships.
Key Words: COVID-19, remote instruction, family partnerships, special edu-

cation practicum, preservice teachers, field experience, culturally and linguisti-
cally diverse students with disabilities

Introduction and Literature Review
New York City (NYC) has been one of the cities hardest hit by COVID-19
with over 900,000 cases at the time of writing this article (NYC Health
COVID-19 Data). In March 2020, NYC schools abruptly closed, impacting
the education of over 1.1 million children and over 75,000 teachers (Shapiro,
2020). The closures exacerbated inequities in education that already existed for
children with disabilities receiving special education services, particularly those
from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds (Nadworny, 2020), and
their families experienced extra burdens during the abrupt switch to remote
instruction (Klass, 2020). Moreover, the closures impacted preservice teachers’
field experience in special education, and many were unable to continue their
practicum, critical for building essential teaching skills.
Tying together the needs of these communities, we, as field supervisors in
a university teacher preparation program, connected culturally and linguis-
tically diverse families of children with disabilities to preservice teachers in a
special education teacher preparation program who provided individualized
remote instruction to the children. In this study, we explore the collaborative
experiences of the preservice teachers, mothers, and students with disabili-
ties in remote instruction. First, we provide a brief review of the literature on
the importance of practicum fieldwork for preservice teachers, parent–teach-
er collaboration in special education, and remote learning in general and for
students with disabilities, particularly during emergency situations. Then, we
analyze the benefits and challenges of this collaborative process, which provid-
ed meaningful field experiences for preservice teachers and educational support
for culturally and linguistically diverse families and their children with disabili-
ties during the COVID-19 crisis in NYC.
Practicum in Special Education
Darling-Hammond (2014) stated that practicum field experience in teacher
preparation is the “holy grail” and one of the most powerful tools for im-
proving the quality and competence of future teachers. As preservice teachers
engage in meaningful and contextualized teaching practices, they reflect on
their own practices and connect theory to practice (Fewster, 2012; Naughton,
2016; Samaras, 2000; Tsui et al., 2020). Scholars in teacher education con-
cur on the importance of providing field-based teaching practice under close
supervision so preservice teachers may learn to negotiate tensions and dilem-
mas in actual classroom spaces (Cohen et al., 2013; Henry, 2016; Macy et al.,
2009). Particularly in special education teacher education, there is a strong
emphasis on practicum because “field experience is the best vehicle to prepare
326
REMOTE PRACTICUM DURING CLOSURES
future teachers for the complexity and diversity of the classroom” (Billingsley
& Scheuermann, 2014, p. 255).
In a review of special education teacher preparation programs, Brownell and
colleagues (2005) cited “extensive field experiences” as a main characteristic of
effective programs. In such field experiences, preservice teachers apply knowl-
edge gained from coursework in the field. For the current study, we define
practicum field experience as teaching activities completed in the field (i.e.,
classroom or community settings), beyond the walls of teacher preparation
courses, over a number of predetermined hours, and guided by mentor teach-
ers and university faculty. Specific skills implemented in the field can include
differentiated instruction, explicit instruction, accommodation and modifica-
tion, applied behavior analysis, culturally responsive–sustaining practices, and
other evidence-based education strategies. In addition, preservice teachers can
learn to collaborate with myriad stakeholders, such as cooperating teachers,
paraprofessionals, related service providers, administrators, other school per-
sonnel, and families (Fewster, 2012). Thus, practicum field experience provides
preservice teachers with extensive training and real-life application of instruc-
tion and collaboration (Billingsley & Scheuermann, 2014).
Collaborating with Families of Students with Disabilities
Partnering with families and communities is especially critical when work-
ing with students with diverse backgrounds, including those with disabilities
(Accardo et al., 2020; Miller, 2019), considering almost 50% enrolled in spe-
cial education are from culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) families and
historically and contemporarily minoritized backgrounds (Waitoller, 2014).
Yet, many teacher preparation programs are challenged in providing meaning-
ful experiences for preservice teachers to build partnerships with families and
communities of diverse backgrounds (Collier et al., 2015). In a review of spe-
cial education and general education teacher preparation programs, Brownell
and colleagues (2015) found programs often omitted family collaboration al-
though it is an integral part of effective teaching and a necessary skill to develop.
In special education, family collaboration is essential as parents are an inte-
gral part of the Individualized Education Program (IEP) team. The Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act of 2004 (IDEA, 2004) legally requires parent
participation, accountability, and consent in the IEP process. Besides obtain-
ing consent for placement and services, schools are obligated by law to notify
parents regarding their child’s progress toward IEP goals and in the curriculum
through frequent progress reports (IDEA, 2004). In this sense, learning how to
collaborate and communicate with families is one of the most essential aspects
of special education teacher preparation.
327
According to Goldman and Burke (2019), parent involvement in special ed-

ucation includes the following activities: (1) parent advocacy, (2) collaborative
partnerships, (3) home–school communication, (4) school-based participa-
tion, and (5) home-based participation. Parent–school collaboration can be
defined as “parent/family and teacher/school working together with mutual re-
spect, trust, and equality on behalf of the child” (Goldman & Burke, 2019, p.
111). Collaborative partnership activities can include asking parents for their
opinions, shared decision making, incorporating parent ideas and concerns
into the IEP, and working on student goals in the home setting. Parent in-
volvement and collaboration is critical to student success as it can increase
student achievement, improve attendance, and decrease behavior concerns and
drop-out rates (Goldman & Burke, 2019). Despite this, there are many bar-
riers, such as parent ideas and suggestions not being considered and teachers
not regularly communicating with parents (Tucker & Schwartz, 2013). These
may be exacerbated for CLD parents of children with disabilities who receive
special education services (Blackwell & Rossetti, 2014). CLD families are of-
ten marginalized during the special education process because schools may lack
culturally responsive-sustaining practices, do not provide language interpreters
or translations of crucial documents (despite federal requirements mandating
the provision of interpreters for IEP meetings), schedule meetings at inconve-
nient times, and do not respect family as experts or value their contributions
to their children’s education (Rossetti et al., 2017; Syeda & Dresens, 2020).
To minimize these barriers, it is imperative that preservice teachers learn
strategies for engaging in effective parent–school collaboration. However, there
exists a problematic gap in teacher preparation programs in experiences that
build these skills (Collier et al., 2015). Zeichner (2010) asserted this gap could
be bridged through providing preservice teachers opportunities to participate
in communities, beyond traditional school spaces. Such experiences high-
light the benefits of leveraging contextualized understandings of students’ lives
and community members’ knowledge and expertise. Zygmunt and colleagues
(2018) examined a teacher education program that created opportunities for
preservice teachers to develop a pedagogy of care and connection through com-
munity engagement. The preservice teachers were paired with mentors who
were leaders, parents, or elders in the community, and their fieldwork activities
were prioritized by the needs of the community. Through this approach, pre-
service teachers reflected on and challenged their conceptions of “race, culture,
power, and privilege” (Zygmunt et al., 2018, p. 135). The partnerships allowed
them to dismantle preconceptions and transform deficit perspectives towards
marginalized communities. As shown in the study, engaging with families and
communities provides “hybrid spaces” (p. 89) for preservice teachers to connect
328
theory and practice in more contextualized situations (Zeichner, 2010). In a

comparison study, Accardo and colleagues (2020) found that special education
preservice teachers who worked with families during their teacher education
program expressed greater understanding of the collaborative process with
parents and more effective communication methods than those who did not
collaborate with families during their program.
Promoting Equity in Remote Instruction and Online Environments
Meeting the needs of CLD families with children with disabilities in remote
settings can bring unique challenges. According to Kirkland (2020), similar to
in-person instruction, it is important to create culturally responsive–sustain-
ing remote education for CLD students and their families. One premise of his
guidance for creating such education is the use of both technological tools and
tools outside technology. Kirkland mentioned people as a tool outside technol-
ogy and urged educators to consider family and community as integral parts
of remote learning. He suggested educators conduct participatory lesson plan-
ning with students, parents, and other educators who can provide insights into
the students’ unique needs. When teaching remotely, frequent communication
through phone or video calls is also vital, as in-person meetings may not be
possible, and individualized, student-centered lessons are necessary to meet the
diverse needs of students, particularly those from CLD backgrounds and with
disabilities.
In addition, teaching CLD students in an online environment requires
mindfulness of home and community settings. While it is essential to build on
students’ funds of knowledge (Moll et al., 1992) and prior experiences to pro-
vide instruction that is reflective of who they are (Kumi-Yeboah et al., 2020),
it is also critical to consider factors such as cultural and linguistic differences,
stress, economic hardships, and anxiety and fear, especially during emergency
situations like the COVID-19 pandemic (Abdi et al., 2020; Syeda & Dres-
ens, 2020). Barko-Alva et al. (2020) urged educators to be responsive to what
students and families from marginalized communities might be negotiating
in their own circumstances. Jung (2020) encouraged educators to proactively
reach out to the families of students with disabilities to assess their priorities and
needs and to build upon resources available in their familial and community
settings. As Kirkland (2020) mentioned, these resources can be technological,
but may also be resources centered in human relationships and social com-
munities, facilitating instruction that is personalized to learners’ own contexts
(Shearer et al., 2020).
329
Current Study
In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, we adopted remote practicum in
our special education practicum courses to respond to the urgent need of CLD
students with disabilities and their families in the local community. Some pre-
service teachers who had lost access to their practicum sites due to the abrupt
school closures were willing to serve students and families in need through an
alternative practicum opportunity. Although remote practicum is rare for uni-
versity-based teacher preparation programs (Kennedy & Archambault, 2012),
under the emergency guidance of the New York State Education Department,
we sought to create remote teaching opportunities for these preservice teachers.
The purpose of the remote instruction was to meet the need for individualized
goals and instruction for students with disabilities, as face-to-face instruction
was unavailable. As supervisors of the preservice teachers who engaged in this
practicum, we investigated their experiences along with the those of the CLD
students with disabilities and their families who partnered with the preservice
teachers in family-partnered, individualized remote instruction.
Our investigation was anchored in the following research questions:
1. How do preservice teachers describe their experience of remote practicum
in partnership with families of CLD students with disabilities during the
COVID-19 school closures?
a. What instructional strategies did preservice teachers use to provide indi-
vidualized remote instruction to students?
2. How do CLD students with disabilities and their families describe their
experience of remote instruction provided by preservice teachers during the
COVID-19 school closures?
3. What were the successes and challenges experienced by participants of the
remote practicum family-partnership?
Method
COVID-19 and School Closures
The current study took place in Queens, New York, known as “the most
ethnically diverse urban area in the world” (New York State, n.d.), where near-
ly 50% of residents are foreign-born (U.S. Census Bureau, 2019). Among all
the boroughs, Queens was hit the hardest by COVID-19 during the initial
outbreak in March 2020 (NYC Health, n.d.). In response to the school clo-
sures and the resulting loss of practicum sites for many preservice teachers in
our university’s program in special education teacher education, the program
330
partnered with a community organization that provides services to immigrant

families of students with disabilities. The purpose of this collaboration was
twofold: meet the needs of CLD families and their children with disabilities
and provide alternative field experiences for preservice teachers. The commu-
nity organization recruited parents, who signed up for individualized remote
instruction, and the teacher education program offered preservice teachers an
alternative opportunity to complete their practicum fieldwork hours.
Participants and Program Context
Five preservice teacher candidates participated in this study. The preservice
teachers were in their final semester of graduate school and were completing
their special education practicum, which required 150 hours of field expe-
rience in a special education setting in Grades 1–6. All the participating
preservice teachers were female. The community organization worked to re-
cruit family members of children with disabilities. All participants who signed
up after initial recruitment from the community organization were mothers
of children with disabilities. In total, ten mothers signed up for individualized
remote instruction. However, four families either did not respond to attempts
to contact them or said that their schedule would not work with our preservice
teachers’ schedules. Four children were successfully matched to three preservice
teachers through the community organization; one of the preservice teach-
ers worked with two individual children. Two other preservice teachers were
matched with two additional families through personal connections. Most of
the children were from Asian immigrant families, and one student was from a
Latino family. Four of the mothers were Korean and spoke primarily Korean;
one was fluent in English. The Latina mother’s primary language was English.
All participating children were emergent bilinguals and had documented dis-
abilities such as autism, deafness, cerebral palsy, speech–language impairment,
and ADHD (see Table 1, next page). During the final eight weeks of the spring
semester, the preservice teachers provided individualized remote instruction to
their assigned student(s). Depending on their remaining required practicum
hours, the preservice teachers spent from 25 to 75 hours in this alternative field
experience.
331
Table 1. Participant Descriptions

Pre- Student, Family
Remote Learning Interview Participa-
service Gender, Dis- Ethnicity/
Format tion
Teacher ability, & Age Race
Aaliyah Bruno, male, Latina/ Synchronous work Mother, student,
autism, White with student and preservice
14 years teacher interviewed
Rachel Daniel, male, Korean/ Synchronous work Mother and preser-

autism, Asian with behavior ana- vice teacher inter-
10 years lyst and student viewed
Laura Chul Soo, Korean/ Synchronous work Mother, student,

male, ADHD, Asian with student and preservice
Mi Young, fe- Mixed- Synchronous work Mother, student,

male, deaf, race Asian with student and preservice
Sarah Kelly, female, Korean/ Synchronous work Mother and stu-
learning Asian with student dent interviewed
disabilities/
cerebral palsy,
9 years
Kendis Owen, male, Korean/ Synchronous work Preservice teacher
autism, Asian with student & interviewed
10 years mother (mother
managed behavior &
engaged in person)
Notes. All names throughout the article are pseudonyms. The family member who agreed to
be interviewed in each case was the mother. Participating preservice teachers were all female.
Practicum Structure
Practicum Field Experience
Under the close supervision of practicum course instructors (the authors
of this article), preservice teachers provided 30 minutes to 1 hour of indi-
vidualized remote instruction to their students, two to five times a week for
eight weeks, from the beginning of the COVID-19 outbreak in early March
until the end of their graduate school semester in mid-May. The preservice
teachers also spent extra minutes communicating with the mothers before and
332
after each lesson via email or phone (calls and texts). Their primary language
for communication was English, with some mothers noting that they relied
on their children, translation applications, and/or other service providers for
translation and communication.
Critical Reflection
Preservice teachers engaged in self-reflection through biweekly journal writ-
ing. This offered them the opportunity to reflect on their practicum experiences,
including their values and dispositions towards their multiply marginalized
student(s) (Maude et al., 2009).
Teaching Demonstration and Observation
Typically, preservice teachers’ teaching demonstrations are observed by su-
pervisors three times in a semester. However, due to COVID-19 and the switch
to online coursework, observations of teaching demonstrations were canceled;
thus, we did not observe any remote teaching demonstrations. Instead, we
communicated closely with the preservice teachers as their course instructors
and mentors by responding to questions in their biweekly journals and provid-
ing personalized feedback during individual virtual meetings.
Upon receiving approval from the Institutional Review Board (IRB), we
provided the preservice teachers and families with written requests and the
children with verbal assent requests to participate in the study. Out of ethical
consideration, we assured them it was their choice to participate and that they
could withdraw from the study at their discretion. We also explained that their
privacy and identities would be protected in our research iterations. Once we
received their consent and assent and after grades were entered for the practi-
cum course when the semester was over, we followed the qualitative case study
approach (Yin, 2014) to collect data from the following sources: a semi-struc-
tured focus group interview with the preservice teachers, preservice teachers’
biweekly journals, and individual interviews with students and their mothers.
By including the voices of students with disabilities and their mothers in the
preservice teachers’ practicum experiences, this study makes a unique contribu-
tion to the literature on field-based practicum (Lawson et al., 2015).
All interviews with mothers, students, and the preservice teacher focus
group were semi-structured. The interview with each mother consisted of
questions about (1) why they engaged in remote instruction, (2) their first
impressions and if the opportunity met their expectations, (3) educational
gains and challenges their child experienced, (4) their role and communication
with the preservice teachers, and (5) if they would participate in this type of
333
opportunity again and why. The student interview consisted of questions about
(1) whether or not they enjoyed remote instruction and why, (2) if they learned
anything through the experience or if they found participation difficult, and
(3) if they would ever do it again and why. In the focus group with the preser-
vice teachers, we asked questions about (1) their feelings and thoughts about
the switch to remote instruction, (2) their first impressions of the family and
student, (3) the types of communication they used to partner with the family,
(4) how they got to know the student and the format and strategies used in re-
mote instruction, (5) any memorable incidents and something they are proud
of, and (6) challenges in remote instruction or what they would do differently.
The first author, who is bilingual in Korean and English, transcribed ver-
batim and translated the interviews that were conducted in Korean, which
was the preferred language of three of the mothers (the mothers of Owen,
Chul Soo, and Kelly). The second author and a graduate assistant transcribed
verbatim the other two parent interviews, which were conducted in English
according to the mothers’ preferences. The recording of the focus group inter-
view with the preservice teachers was sent to a transcription service.
The preservice teachers’ biweekly journal entries were shared with their
practicum instructor and generally addressed teaching activities, both positive
and challenging, and plans for future instruction. They could write about any-
thing else they felt was important that had occurred during that week. For
example, when schools abruptly closed, many wrote about their feelings and
concerns for their students with disabilities. Their final journal entry was a re-
flection on the entire practicum field experience.
For the data analysis, we individually read through the interview transcripts
and journal entries to familiarize ourselves with the data. Then, we engaged in
both inductive and deductive thematic analysis to reduce the data and organize
codes (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Through an iterative process of reading and
reflecting upon the collected data, we collapsed the codes into category labels
while keeping the research questions in mind. After applying triangulation for
coherence (Yin, 2014), we identified clusters of labels and combined them into
three themes, presented below.
Findings
We identified three themes in the individual and group interviews and jour-
nal entries: (1) initial response to abrupt school closures, (2) development of
preservice teacher–family collaborative partnership, (3) successes and challeng-
es of individualized remote instruction. The first theme offered a look at the
urgent context created by the COVID-19 outbreak and the anxiety and needs
334
among the preservice teachers and the families of CLD students with disabili-
ties. The second theme revealed how preservice teachers and mothers partnered
with each other through the new practicum opportunity. The final theme il-
lustrated the successes and challenges experienced by the preservice teachers,
mothers, and students while navigating the remote individualized instruction.
Initial Responses to Abrupt School Closures
In March 2020, the COVID-19 outbreak hit a peak in NYC, and all pub-
lic schools transitioned to remote learning using Google Classroom. Preservice
teachers in our university’s practicum courses expressed panic and anxiety
when they learned they would not have access to practicum sites due to the
school closures. Some preservice teachers were not able to get in touch with
their cooperating teachers, and those who were granted access to remote teach-
ing did not feel it would give them the experience they would have had in the
actual classroom. Aaliyah, who transitioned to Google Classroom once her
placement moved to remote instruction, shared, “I kind of felt like I was there
more of, like an observer, and I wasn’t really doing anything hands-on within
Google Classroom, so I wasn’t really getting the experience I wanted or learn-
ing from it” (Aaliyah, Focus Group). Even for preservice teachers who had not
lost their placement, the lack of teaching opportunity during remote instruc-
tion through Google Classroom was a concern.
Preservice teachers’ concerns went beyond their own needs and extended
to the students and their families. Aaliyah wrote, “I keep thinking about how
remote learning will impact students with disabilities. I can’t imagine how it
must feel to be a parent of a child with a learning disability during this time”
(Aaliyah, Journal). Sarah shared a similar sentiment in her journal: “I fear that
students aren’t getting the proper education that they need [through Google
Classroom]…I fear that many students will fall behind” (Sarah, Journal). The
families we interviewed concurred. Kelly’s mother expressed, “I was afraid of
the possible regression my daughter might have from not attending actual
school…I even thought about going back to Korea with my daughter so she
could receive proper education and services” (Parent Interview).
Some of the mothers were newcomer immigrants and mentioned feeling
limited in supporting their children with schoolwork due to cultural and lin-
guistic differences. Mi Young’s mother stated, “If you are not proficient in
English, it’s hard to help with their homework. With my limited English it was
really hard to support my children with remote learning” (Parent Interview).
They also noticed that remote learning through Google Classroom lacked indi-
vidualization, although their children desperately needed such attention from
their teachers. Mi Young’s mother expressed her frustration,
335
I feel like the DOE [Department of Education] had a plan for kids with-
out disabilities. But, kids with disabilities require more support, but they
didn’t seem to have any plans for them. I don’t think this [remote learn-
ing] is working….I wish the DOE had some training for parents on how
to navigate remote learning. (Parent Interview)
Daniel’s mother reported that the sudden switch to remote learning was
confusing for her son who has autism: “At first, he was learning to be social,
and then he had to suddenly learn to social distance” (Parent Interview). To
help her child reach his goals for generalization of social skills, a novel person
was needed. This could not have happened during his school’s remote instruc-
tion alone, so collaboration with the preservice teacher, Rachel, provided a
valuable opportunity. Daniel’s mother explained,
That’s what we were looking for that time, because getting away from
school…he’s unable to communicate with people, and if it’s only family
members, I think it’s very limited. So, we were thinking that we were
going to invite somebody to talk to him, and then Rachel, this [oppor-
tunity] came in that time…so when Rachel came into the picture [we
could] generalize his skill, his social interaction skill. (Parent Interview)
Development of Preservice Teacher–Family Collaborative
Partnership
When family-partnered practicum became available, preservice teachers
seemed comforted knowing they would support the community through their
teaching as well as complete their required hours. Once the preservice teachers
were matched with individual students and families through the community
organization, they reached out to the families via email under the guidance of
their practicum instructors. They seemed excited to engage in these partner-
ships and to help address some of the challenges students and families were
facing. Rachel stated, “I feel like this is the least [I can do] for all those students
who are struggling and can’t receive adequate help from their parents” (Rachel,
Focus Group). Laura wrote,
I want to hear their needs and understand how their son learns best.
I hope to be able to help in any way that I can, and I look forward to
starting something new. I have never virtually taught before, and so I am
trying to prepare myself in whatever ways I can. (Laura, Journal)
Upon initial contact, many mothers reported they felt ready to begin in-
struction right away and expressed appreciation toward the preservice teachers
for their willingness to support their children. Rachel communicated with
Daniel’s mother and worked directly with the behavior therapist to support
336
Daniel in his generalization of social skills. His mother noted the reciprocal
nature of this partnership: “It’s something very different they give, it is like,
in one hand, it helped Rachel to practice teaching. On the other hand, it put
in more ideas for the therapists in the future. So, it’s like a win–win situation”
(Parent Interview).
The mothers also mentioned that they really liked how the preservice teach-
ers listened to their input and experience. Bruno’s mother stated,
I think she is going to be a marvelous teacher….She was a great listener
to what a parent wanted. But also, she took my professional experience
[as a parent], the advice from me, you know, and she was like, “Oh, wow,
I never thought of something like that,” and it was really nice. (Parent
Interview)
All preservice teachers shared that they were encouraged by the mothers’ en-
thusiasm and active involvement from the start. Kendis wrote in her journal,
I exchanged several emails back and forth with [my assigned student’s]
mom in order to get a better idea of who Owen was and what his needs
were, but also what were some things that she wanted me to work on
with him specifically. (Kendis, Journal)
Drawing on their previous experiences, coursework, and knowledge on top-
ics related to family partnerships and working with CLD families, the preservice
teachers first positioned themselves as learners. They honored the students’ and
their families’ funds of knowledge by listening carefully to what they brought
to the partnership and the remote instruction setting. Having never met the as-
signed students and their families before, the preservice teachers asked as many
questions as possible to learn about them and provide instruction appropriate
to their individual needs.
During the interviews, the mothers repeatedly expressed satisfaction in how
the preservice teachers asked about their children’s interests, support needs,
areas to target, and progress. Highlighting the reciprocity of the partnerships,
the preservice teachers also shared that the mothers were their cheerleaders. For
some, this experience was their first time working with students with more pro-
found disabilities, and they felt challenged but motivated to provide adequate
instruction. For example, Kendis mentioned that Owen often had difficulty
paying attention or displayed difficult behaviors such as running away from the
screen or lying on the couch. However, according to Kendis, each session was
delivered in collaboration with Owen’s mother: “His mom has been there each
time for our sessions, which is good because he often wants to walk away and
go do something else” (Kendis, Focus Group). The other preservice teachers
agreed they often had to rely on the mothers, and building close relationships
337
with them ultimately resulted in a positive learning experience for the students.
Kendis added, “[I] just want what’s best for the student, and the parent obvi-
ously knows their child best. I think that’s establishing a good level of respect
and bond with the parent. [This] goes a long way” (Kendis, Focus Group).
Individualized Remote Instruction: Successes and Challenges
The preservice teachers described both successes and challenges in deliver-
ing instruction remotely to individual students. They articulated that building
relationships with students was essential to engaging them in instruction, par-
ticularly given the remote format. Rachel stated, “Once you’re able to connect
with the kid…then he’s more relaxed and more open towards you” (Rachel,
Focus Group). Aaliyah agreed: “We got friendly during the first session, and it
was a good icebreaker…I think I humanized myself to him a little bit more, so
it was great” (Aaliyah, Focus Group). Laura shared that she engaged her stu-
dent by affirming his personal funds of knowledge:
Sometimes [he’d] say some things that, like just random thoughts on the
topic that you can kind of tie in and bring in [his] own personal experi-
ence. Whenever [the] student would share like [his] thoughts or idea, I
would always be like, “Oh, that’s really good,” and kind of relate it to the
topic, so that really kept [him] wanting to add…and tie into the lesson.
(Laura, Focus Group)
In a time of isolation, cultivating genuine relationships seemed to have offered
the students and the preservice teachers a sense of connectedness that ultimate-
ly increased engagement in the instruction.
The students’ responses were mutual. In their interviews, all of the students
mentioned their favorite part of the remote instruction was the personal atten-
tion they received. For instance, Chul Soo stated, “She [Laura] knows what
I’m saying, so I tell her something, and she adds more” (Chul Soo, Individ-
ual Interview). When asked about his experience with remote learning and
his favorite part of working with Aaliyah, Bruno stated, “When we’re reading
all about sharks…I’ll just stick with Aaliyah…it’s fun” (Bruno, Individual In-
terview). Built around genuine relationships, the individualized instructional
spaces allowed the preservice teachers to focus on students’ interests and build
on their contributions.
The mothers also appreciated the individualized attention their children
received and noticed they looked forward to the sessions with the preservice
teachers. Daniel’s mother stated,
Rachel introduced a lot of new games for Daniel and according to what
Daniel is interested in. So, every session, she’ll bring in something new
338
which is somehow related to what he likes. So, he’s kind of looking for-
ward to every session Rachel is here. (Parent Interview)
Similarly, Bruno’s mother discussed the benefits of the individualized sessions
not only to Bruno’s learning but his overall development:
I think it was a good support for him with writing comprehension. I
don’t know, because I wasn’t sitting there to see stuff like that light bulb
moment…but for me, what I’ve seen that he’s learned, it was more the
independence, the social skills, all the stuff that she wasn’t [directly]
teaching. (Parent Interview)
However, there were also unforeseen challenges. Some preservice teachers
found themselves lacking knowledge about their student’s specific disability.
Sarah’s student, Kelly, had limited verbal abilities, and Sarah had to learn how
to communicate with Kelly from her mother. Through trial and error and par-
ent feedback, Sarah’s instructional strategies solidified as their relationships
grew. Kelly’s mother described how she interacted with Sarah to support Kelly:
At first, Sarah didn’t have any information about my daughter, like how
she communicates and where she was academically. So, it was a process
to get to know each other….Sarah asked me what she should do with
Kelly, and I offered my suggestions. Sarah also sent some learning mate-
rials before her sessions, so I was able to share my thoughts with her that
way. (Parent Interview)
Kelly’s mother was initially worried about how the partnership would work out
considering the remote format and her daughter’s disabilities, which required
more extensive support. However, she praised Sarah’s willingness to listen to
her advice, based on experience, to build on Kelly’s strengths in interactive and
multimodal learning.
Similarly, Rachel shared that she lacked experience working closely with
students with autism and how that initially made her uncomfortable. Howev-
er, her partnership with Daniel’s mother allowed her to grow personally and
professionally. She noted, “I feel like I’m personally more comfortable now…
especially because he was autistic, I was more so worried about building that
type of relationship with [him]” (Rachel, Focus Group). The individualized
remote instruction settings provided a unique opportunity for the preservice
teachers to work closely with students with low incidence disabilities who
may have more extensive support needs. Despite the challenges, the preservice
teachers relied upon collaboration with the families and student-centered rela-
tionships and ultimately broadened their ability to work with diverse learners.
The remote setting also challenged the preservice teachers to go beyond their
comfort zone into new territories of teaching and learning. Aaliyah explained,
339
As someone who loves face-to-face instruction, hands-on learning is in

my teaching philosophy, and this situation has forced me to step out of
my comfort zone and work with what I have…understanding what it
means to be prepared regardless of what may happen. Conducting my
practicum at the same time as a pandemic has shown me that learning
stops at nothing. (Aaliyah, Journal)
Partnering with students and families from marginalized communities opened
the minds and hearts of the preservice teachers, allowing them to recognize not
only the students’ vulnerabilities and needs but also their resilience and passion
for learning. Sarah summarized her experience in her final journal entry:
This pandemic has taught me a very important lesson. It has made me
realize that students have other lives outside of school, and as teachers we
might not always be aware of their struggles, well-being, and even suc-
cess. This is something I will definitely be taking with me both in heart
and in mind throughout my teaching career. (Sarah, Journal)
Discussion
The COVID-19 pandemic has had a complex impact particularly on cultur-

ally and linguistically diverse students with disabilities and their families who
had to make a sudden switch to remote instruction (Klass, 2020; Nadworny,
2020). According to the mothers interviewed in this study, their children re-
quired individualized attention and instruction from their teachers due to
their disabilities; however, the emergent situation put such support on pause.
Some mothers expressed a sense of loss and difficulty in helping their children
navigate Google Classroom, utilized citywide, due to cultural and linguistic
differences. Concurrently, changes to practicum field experiences because of
COVID-19 made it possible for preservice teachers to obtain field hours by
working with families directly (AACTE, 2020). In response to the needs of the
students with disabilities and their families, we sought to investigate how pre-
service teachers whose school-based practicum was cut short were able to turn
the crisis into an alternative practicum opportunity and deliver individualized
remote instruction that is technology-based and relationship-centered to the
students with disabilities and their families.
Through interviews with the mothers, students, and preservice teachers
and analysis of the teachers’ reflections, we inquired into their collaborative
partnerships. Collaborating with families is an imperative skill for special
education teachers; their responsibilities not only include conducting IEP
meetings and developing IEPs with families but also becoming advocates for
340
families of children with disabilities and for their success in school (Goldman
& Burke, 2019). However, learning how to practice authentic family part-
nerships and collaboration seems to be an experience often lacking in typical
school-based practicum (Brownell et al., 2005; Zeichner, 2010), particularly
with CLD families of children with disabilities (Blackwell & Rossetti, 2014;
Lo, 2008; Rossetti et al., 2017; Syeda & Dresens, 2020; Tucker et al., 2013).
In our study, we found that relocating special education field-based practicum
to family partnerships offered preservice teachers the unique opportunity to
engage in parent collaboration through real-life application of instruction. For
example, preservice teachers were able to implement strategies they had learned
from previous courses, such as individualized instruction and differentiation
in teaching according to students’ and families’ interests and educational, sup-
port, and cultural needs.
As Zeichner (2010) asserted, directly connecting with families within
communities, beyond traditional school spaces, can provide opportunities
for preservice teachers to learn from the knowledge and expertise of families.
Previous research has also shown that working with families within their com-
munities allows preservice teachers to learn strategies for communicating with
and listening to families about their priorities and goals for their children (Ac-
cardo et al., 2020; Goldman & Burke, 2019; Zygmunt et al., 2018). In our
study, the preservice teachers created lessons by relying on the mothers’ input
during remote instruction, acknowledging that parents were the experts on
their children. For example, Sarah learned to communicate with her student,
Kelly, from the mother, who took into consideration her daughter’s unique,
multimodal ways of communicating. When Kendis delivered her lessons, the
student’s mother offered instructional and behavioral support when he strug-
gled with focusing and the new online learning format. Kirkland (2020) stated
that people are the best resources when working with CLD families, even
during remote learning. This proved true for the preservice teachers and the
mothers, who became resources to each other by centering the students and
through constant communication and collaboration despite challenges and
cultural and language differences. By sharing their funds of knowledge (Moll
et al., 1992) and being open to possibility amid a time of crisis, the families
and children in the current study gained a positive learning experience and au-
thentic social connections.
Lastly, we found that the mothers were particularly grateful to have preser-
vice teachers’ assistance with their children, as a novel person for generalization,
someone who taught new skills, and someone with whom their children en-
joyed spending time. They also noted indirect benefits for their children, such
as their learning to be more independent and development of social skills. Al-
341
though it was a short collaboration, all those involved in the concerted effort
saw the value in each other and maximized the opportunity, using technology
and human relationships as resources, to continue learning despite the unfore-
seen disruptions caused by the global pandemic.
Implications
Grounded in the commitment to providing quality, accessible education
for all children in the wake of a global crisis, this collaboration animated in-
novative, technology-based, relationship-centered ways to prepare preservice
teachers to work with students with disabilities and their families who have
historically and currently been marginalized in our school system. Digital and
assistive technology tools offered the preservice teachers and their students and
families a way to conduct flexible, responsive online education that ultimate-
ly enhanced their understanding of each other (Anderson & Putman, 2020;
Martínez-Álvarez et al., 2018). As the pandemic continues to impact society,
teacher educators must reimagine teacher education and field experiences to
enable preservice teachers to work collaboratively with families and students
from marginalized communities and intentionally build social justice skills.
Opportunities such as the family partnerships demonstrated in this study can
allow preservice teachers to grow as educators who honor parents as experts, a
perception parents often say is lacking in their relationship with schools in spe-
cial education (Blackwell & Rossetti, 2014).
We also highlight the benefits of building partnerships between universi-
ty-based teacher education programs and community organizations to provide
educational services through preservice teacher fieldwork. The community
organization with whom we partnered surveyed the needs of families in the
community during the COVID-19 outbreak and offered them access to in-
dividualized remote instruction. Their efforts made the family partnerships
possible and allowed the preservice teachers to engage in learning experienc-
es beyond the typical school-based ones. Although the partnerships were in
response to an emergency situation, the experiences gained offer a unique
opportunity to reimagine field-based practicum through community part-
nerships, which can continue postpandemic in a variety of teacher education
contexts.
Limitations and Future Directions
The current study was exploratory in nature and was conducted prompt-
ly after the abrupt educational changes caused by COVID-19. Therefore, it is
limited in length and in the amount and type of data collected. Future research
should further study the impact of COVID-19 on community and family
342
partnerships immediately after and beyond the pandemic, as well as the sus-
tainability of such partnerships. In addition, future research should investigate
the benefits and challenges of community field-based practicum for preservice
teachers within special education teacher education. More in-depth studies on
the perspectives of parents and students with disabilities on the partnerships
are also needed. Lastly, it is vital to examine if community-based practicum
with students with disabilities leads to improved preservice teacher collabora-
tion skills and student learning outcomes after they enter the teaching field.
References
Abdi, N. M., Gil, E., Marshall, S. L., & Khalifa, M. (2020). Humanizing practices in online
learning communities during pandemics in the USA. Journal of Professional Capital and
Community, 5(3/4), 205–212. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPCC-07-2020-0066
Accardo, A. L., Xin, J. F., & Shuff, M. (2020). Special education teacher preparation and
family collaboration. School Community Journal, 30(2), 53–72. https://www.adi.org/jour-
nal/2020fw/AccardoEtAlFW2020.pdf
American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. (2020). Teaching in the time of
COVID-19: State recommendations for educator preparation programs and new teachers.
https://secure.aacte.org/apps/rl/res_get.php?fid=5583&ref=rl
Anderson, S. E., & Putman, R. S. (2020). Special education teachers’ experience, confidence,
beliefs, and knowledge about integrating technology. Journal of Special Education Technol-
ogy, 35(1), 37–50.
Barko-Alva, K., Porter, L., & Herrera, S. (2020). Technology as technocracy: Educators’
conscientious use of technology for authentic family engagement. In R. E. Ferdig, E.
Baumgartner, R. Hartshorne, R. Kaplan-Rakowski, & C. Mouza (Eds), Teaching, tech-
nology, and teacher education during the COVID-19 pandemic: Stories from the field (pp.
765–768). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). https://
www.learntechlib.org/p/216903/
Billingsley, G. M., & Scheuermann, B. K. (2014). Using virtual technology to enhance field
experiences for pre-service special education teachers. Teacher Education and Special Educa-
tion, 37(3), 255–272. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406414530413
Blackwell, W. H., & Rossetti, Z. S. (2014). The development of individualized education pro-
grams: Where have we been and where should we go now? SAGE Open, 1–15. https://doi.
org/10.1177/2158244014530411
Brownell, M. T., Ross, D. D., Colon, E. P., & McCallum, C. L. (2005). Critical features in
special education teacher preparation: A comparison with general teacher education. Jour-
nal of Special Education, 28(4), 242–252.
Cohen, E., Hoz, R., & Kaplan, H. (2013). The practicum in preservice teacher education: A
review of empirical studies. Teaching Education, 24(4), 345–380.
Collier, M., Keefe, E. B., & Hirrel, L. A. (2015). Listening to parents’ narratives: The value
of authentic experiences with children with disabilities and their families. School Com-
munity Journal, 26(2), 221–242. https://www.adi.org/journal/2015fw/CollierKeefeHirrel-
Fall2015.pdf
Darling-Hammond, L. (2014). Strengthening clinical preparation: The holy grail of teacher
education. Peabody Journal of Education, 89(4), 547–561.
343
Fewster, D. (2012). Developing a sense of becoming a special educator. Counterpoints, 411,

32–57.
Goldman, S. E., & Burke, M. M. (2019). The perceptions of school involvement of parents
of students with autism spectrum disorders: A systematic literature review. Review Journal
of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 6, 109–127. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40489-019-
00157-y
Henry, A. (2016). Conceptualizing teacher identity as a complex dynamic system: The in-
ner dynamics of transformations during a practicum. Journal of Teacher Education, 67(4),
291–305.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of 2004, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. (2004).
https://sites.ed.gov/idea?src=policypage
Jung, L. A. (2020). Accommodations, modifications, and intervention at a distance. Edu-
cational Leadership, 77, 16–21. http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/
summer20/vol77/num10/Accommodations,-Modifications,-and-Intervention-at-a-Dis-
tance.aspx
Kennedy, K., & Archambault, L. (2012). Offering preservice teachers field experiences in
K–12 online learning: A national survey of teacher education programs. Journal of Teacher
Education, 63(3), 185–200.
Kirkland, D. E. (2020). Guidance on culturally responsive-sustaining remote education: Centering
equity, access, and educational justice. Metropolitan Center for Research on Equity and the
Transformation of Schools.
Klass, P. (2020, July 27). The pandemic’s toll on children with special needs and their parents.
The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/27/well/family/children-spe-
cial-needs-pandemic.htm
Kumi-Yeboah, A., Dogbey, J., Yuan, G., & Smith, P. (2020). Cultural diversity in online edu-
cation: An exploration of instructors’ perceptions and challenges. Teachers College Record,
122(7), 1–46.
Lawson, T., Çakmak, M., Gündüz, M., & Busher, H. (2015) Research on teaching practi-
cum—a systematic review. European Journal of Teacher Education, 38(3), 392–407.
Lesh, J. J. (2020). Navigating two pandemics: Racism/inequity and COVID-19. Teaching
Exceptional Children, 53(1), 7–9.
Lo, L. (2008). Expectations of Chinese families of children with disabilities towards Ameri-
can schools. School Community Journal, 18(2), 73–90. https://www.adi.org/journal/fw08/
LoFall2008.pdf
Macy, M., Squires, J. K., & Barton, E. E. (2009). Providing optimal opportunities: Struc-
turing practicum experiences in early intervention and early childhood special education
preservice programs. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 28(4), 209–218.
Martínez-Álvarez, P., Pantin, L., & Kajamaa, A. (2018). Creating shared access: Bilingual
teachers and children using technology to multimodally negotiate understandings in sci-
ence and language. Multiple Voices of Ethnically Diverse Exceptional Learners, 18(1), 22–41.
Maude, P., Hodges, L. N., Brotherson, M. J., Hughes-Belding, K., Peck, N., Weigel, C., &
Sharp, L. (2009). Critical reflections on working with diverse families: Culturally respon-
sive professional development strategies for early childhood and early childhood special
educators. Multiple Voices of Ethnically Diverse Exceptional Learners, 12(1), 38–53.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementa-
tion (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Miller, A. L. (2019). (Re)conceptualizing family–school partnerships with and for culturally
and linguistically diverse families. Race, Ethnicity, and Education, 22(6), 746–766.
344
Moll, L. C., 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(2),
132–141.
Nadworny, E. (2020, March 27). With schools closed, kids with disabilities are more vulnerable
than ever. NPR. https://www.npr.org/2020/03/27/821926032/with-schools-closed-kids-
with-disabilities-are-more-vulnerable-than-ever
Naughton, C. (2016). A reflection on Bakhtin’s ‘Epic and Novel’ in the context of early child-
hood student teachers’ practicum. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 35(1), 93–101.
New York State. (n.d.). Queens. https://www.ny.gov/counties/queens
NYC Health. (n.d.). COVID-19: Data. Retrieved June 13, 2020, from https://www1.nyc.gov/
site/doh/covid/covid-19-data.page
Rossetti, Z., Sauer, J. S., Bui, O., & Ou, S. (2017). Developing collaborative partnerships
with culturally and linguistically diverse families. Teaching Exceptional Children, 50(4),
172–182.
Samaras, A. P. (2000). When is a practicum productive? A study of learning to plan. Action in
Teacher Education, 22(2), 100–115.
Shapiro, E. (2020, March 15). New York City public schools to close to slow spread of corona-
virus. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/15/nyregion/nyc-schools-
closed.html
Shearer, R. L., Aldemir, T., Hitchcock, J., Resig, J., Driver, J., & Kohler, M. (2020). What stu-
dents want: A vision of a future online learning experience grounded in distance education
theory. American Journal of Distance Education, 34(1), 36–52.
Syeda, N., & Dresens, E. (2020). Are school professionals in Australian schools well-prepared
to collaborate with culturally and linguistically diverse families of their students on the
autism spectrum? School Community Journal, 30(2), 73–92. https://www.adi.org/jour-
nal/2020fw/SyedaDresensFW2020.pdf
Tsui, A. B. M., Chan, C. K. K., Harfitt, G., & Leung, P. (2020). Crisis and opportunity in
teacher preparation in the pandemic: Exploring the “adjacent possible.” Journal of Profes-
sional Capital and Community. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPCC-07-2020-0061
Tucker, V., & Schwartz, I. (2013). Parents’ perspectives of collaboration with school profes-
sionals: Barriers and facilitators to successful partnerships in planning for students with
ASD. School Mental Health, 5, 3–14.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2019). QuickFacts: Queens County. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/
fact/table/queenscountyqueensboroughnewyork/POP645218
Waitoller, F. (2014). Becoming a culturally responsive special educator amidst school/univer-
sity partnerships: Teaching and learning in boundary-zone activity. Mind, Culture, and
Activity, 21(1), 53–73.
Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). Sage.
Zeichner, K. (2010). Rethinking the connections between campus courses and field expe-
riences in college- and university-based teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education,
61(1–2), 89–99.
Zygmunt, E., Cipollone, K., Tancock, S., Clausen, J., Clark, P., & Mucherah, W. (2018).
Loving out loud: Community mentors, teacher candidates, and transformational learning
through a pedagogy of care and connection. Journal of Teacher Education, 69(2), 127–139.
Authors’ Note: The authors wish to thank the preservice teachers, mothers, and stu-
dents who participated in this study and shared their experiences with us during this
turbulent time.
345
Seung Eun McDevitt is an assistant professor in the School of Education at St.

John’s University. Her research interests include inclusive practice, teacher diversity,
and teacher education/development in early childhood education and care contexts.
She is committed to learning from and with young children, families, and teachers
from historically marginalized communities and exploring how their cultural knowl-
edge and experiences can serve as powerful tools in creating classrooms and a society
that are more inclusive and just. Prior to entering academia, Seung Eun was an ear-
ly childhood/special education teacher and a learning specialist in New York City.
Correspondence concerning this article may be addressed to Dr. Seung Eun McDe-
vitt, Department of Education Specialties, School of Education, St. John’s University,
8000 Utopia Parkway, Queens, NY 11439, or email mcdevits@stjohns.edu
Maria Paula Mello is an assistant professor in the School of Education at St. John’s
University. Her research and teaching focuses on transition to adulthood, effective
practices and technologies that support independent living skills in young adults with
intellectual and developmental disabilities, autism, applied behavior analysis, and ser-
vice provision for families who are culturally and linguistically diverse.
346
Book Review
Book Review on Adolescents in the Internet Age

Eva N. Patrikakou
Adolescence is a period of rapid neurobiological development, when a dy-

namic maturational process takes place and leads into positive or negative
outcomes (Dahl et al., 2018). While early life experiences have long been rec-
ognized for their importance in further development, affecting practice and
policy, adolescence has yet to be recognized for its compelling impact on an in-
dividual’s formative years. Increasingly, neuroscientists view the teenage years as
a crucial, sensitive period of brain development that offers a unique opportuni-
ty to enhance cognitive, social, and emotional growth and learning (Fuhrmann
et al., 2015). In their 2019 report, the National Academies of Sciences, Engi-
neering, and Medicine emphasized that “adolescence offers great promise” and
neurological changes that take place during this stage can lead to “positive,
life-shaping development” and, equally important, “recovery from past adver-
sity” (p. 1). Being able to support adolescent development in a proactive and
positive way has also been recently underlined by indications of the stressful
impact of isolation on and protective mediating factors for youth, brought
about by restrictions imposed due to the COVID-19 pandemic (Romm et al.,
2021).
Adolescents in the Internet Age, authored by father and son, professors Robert
Strom and Paris Strom, offers a framework to address important dimensions
of adolescent development, especially for educators and other professionals in-
volved in the educational process. Interestingly, the authors characterize these
dimensions as “expectations” (p. xvii). By their definition in the preface, the
term also involves perceptions, which can serve as a critical mediator among
student, parent, and teacher expectations. The book is structured in four
parts—four “expectations”: identity, cognitive, social, and health—and each
part includes three chapters.

The chapters in the first part provide background information on ways var-
ious theories have historically viewed adolescent development. Authors point
to the contradictory ways theorists have accounted for changes that take place
during this developmental phase, assisting the reader to get a broader picture
of theoretical underpinnings. In addition, raising contemporary considerations
such as generational complexities, as well as “Goals in a Hurried Environment”
and “Critical Thinking and Decision-making,” alerts those closely working
with students to realities faced by teenagers nowadays. It is important to note
that the topic of creative thinking and problem solving is extensively discussed
in Chapter 6 in the second part of the book.
Another notable contribution of the first part of Adolescents in the Internet
Age is the crucial element of career exploration. The exploratory questions in-
cluded in Chapter 3 are a useful tool for students and families. The complexity
of postsecondary options makes the collaboration amongst students, teach-
ers, parents, and school counselors an essential one. Expanding the chapter
to include the school counselors’ role and ways to integrate their contribution
would have further promoted the collaborative nature of career exploration, es-
pecially considering that career counseling is one of the three main foci of the
National Model by the American School Counselor Association (2019).
In the second part, authors delve into cognitive expectations, exploring
pertinent aspects of making today’s classroom relevant to current conditions
and demands. The rapid and expansive technological advances, use of online
media, and affordability of mobile technology have precipitously affected the
educational process, with parents and teachers struggling to find optimal and
meaningful integration of technology (Patrikakou, 2016). Chapter 4 details
multiple aspects of cognitive development, including perspectives on intelli-
gence and cognitive theories. The discussion is largely contextualized within the
constructivism paradigm, reflecting the authors’ personal theoretical choice,
and provides a rich description primarily of Piaget’s theory, as well as social and
cyber constructivism. This chapter also highlights insights from neuroscience,
a field which, along with the developmental science of adolescence, has increas-
ingly called for viewing this stage of development as an “opportunity during
which we can have especially strong positive impacts on trajectories of health,
education, social, and economic success across the lifespan (Dahl et al., 2018,
p. 447).
Chapter 5 directly relates to the book’s title, rightfully shedding light on me-
dia literacy and meaningful ways to integrate it in order to maximize learning
benefits. Turning attention to fostering digital wisdom (Prensky, 2009) instead
of spending time on limiting technology use or denouncing its ever-expand-
ing applications is time well spent. Part II concludes with Chapter 6 which, as
348
BOOK REVIEW
previously mentioned, expands on the nature and meaning of creative think-

ing. The authors also highlight the importance of collaborative teamwork and
offer specific student behaviors to be fostered to support collaboration vis a vis
more traditionally expected behaviors.
Part III of Adolescents in the Internet Age is devoted to social expectations.
Specifically, Chapter 7 focuses on socialization and the importance of peer re-
lationships. Important aspects of adolescent social development are presented
and serve as a critical reminder to readers who will work with this age group.
For example, ways to enhance teenagers’ sense and need of belonging should
be part of every educator’s planning regardless of content area. The chapter
should have been enhanced with information about ways internet use has more
broadly affected adolescent peer and social interactions. Also valuable would
have been the inclusion of specific ways to maximize the benefits of media use
in order to build and maintain meaningful relationships, while being cognizant
of the pitfalls of such mediums. The integration of how technology and media
use affects various aspects discussed in other chapters of this book will be an
important enhancement in subsequent editions.
Chapter 8 addresses ways to gauge risks and teenage risk-taking. The com-
mon expectation when discussing risks in adolescence might be a discussion
of risky behaviors such as drug or alcohol use. The authors take a different, in-
teresting angle discussing primarily academic, growth-oriented risks students
should be encouraged to take with the support of teachers and parents. The dif-
ference in approaches between U.S. and Asian parents and teachers is used to
highlight one of the notable points of this chapter, namely clarifying the value
of praise and cautioning against unconditional praise or the common mistake
of conflating praise with the absence of constructive criticism.
The third part of the book wraps up with Chapter 9 offering a discussion
on moral development and ethical conduct. The readers benefit from an ex-
posure to Kohlberg’s and Gilligan’s theories, along with issues and concerns
each theory has raised. In addition to presenting academic integrity concerns,
the authors also include internet ethics, such as monitoring online test-taking.
Such issues have become even more pronounced with the prolonged periods
of distance learning imposed by the recent pandemic. A closer examination
of difficulties which stemmed from these online practices, as well as potential
solutions to best address them will be an important part of any future discus-
sion on such matters.
Part IV covers health expectations, including components of both physical
and mental health. Chapter 10 outlines important elements of physical health
such as obesity and sleep patterns, as well as risky aspects of sexual behaviors.
With teenage obesity rates increasing, associated health issues such as diabetes
349
and other ailments occurring later in life comprise a public health matter. The
chapter raises awareness on such matters as well as on the association between
physical health and mental health aspects, which is critical for a collaborative
effort to support teenagers in practicing healthy habits.
An important contribution of Adolescents in the Internet Age is the discus-
sion in Chapter 11 regarding socioemotional behaviors. The Center for Disease
Control and Prevention in the Youth Risk Behavior Survey (2019) indicates
that experiences of violence, including bullying both at school and electron-
ic, as well as forced sex, remain high among teenagers. The chapter’s section
on ways teachers and schools can address bullying with parents provides criti-
cal information and offers suggestions for working productively with families.
In general, expanding on those parts of the book that offer opportunities for
meaningful school–home collaboration will be important to enhance the
book’s call for collaborative behaviors and dispel the erroneous perception that
parents become “irrelevant” once students reach adolescence. Chapter 11 also
offers a refresher on the theoretical underpinnings of addressing behavioral pat-
terns from Skinner to (recently deceased) Bandura that is helpful for educators
to better understand classroom applications.
The last section of the book concludes with Chapter 12 with a discussion on
particular aspects of emotional health, such as resilience and stress. According
to the World Health Organization (2020), anxiety and depression are leading
causes of illness amongst adolescents and contribute to self-harm, with suicide
being the third leading cause of death in older adolescents (15–19 years). Au-
thors highlight signs of stress, useful knowledge for educators working with
teenagers, in hopes that when noticing such signs, teachers will reach out to
their mental health colleagues and seek support for those students. The concept
of resilience is also included in Chapter 12. Resilience is a critical ability that
can assist teenagers to overcome adverse experiences and reach their full poten-
tial. According to Harvard’s Center of the Developing Child, reducing adverse
effects not only contributes to an individual’s healthy development, but also
to the prosperity of any society (2021). The Center provides an easy-to-under-
stand scientific framework of toxic stress and the role of resilience, which could
further enhance the contents of this chapter in future editions.
Overall, Adolescents in the Internet Age, although needing enhancement in
various chapters, provides educators and other school professionals working
in middle and high school settings with valuable information about several
aspects, or “expectations,” involved in the critical developmental stage of ad-
olescence. The standardized format of each chapter concluding with sections
on teacher applications, topics of reflection, and cooperative learning exercises
adds predictability to its structure and makes it easier for readers to focus on
the most pertinent concepts presented.
350
BOOK REVIEW
References
American School Counselor Association. (2019). ASCA national model: A framework for school
counseling programs (4th ed).
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2019). Nutrition, physical activity, and obesity
data, trend and maps. https://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpao/data-trends-maps/index.html
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2019). Youth Risk Behavior Survey. https://www.
cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpao/data-trends-maps/index.html.
Center on the Developing Child at Harvard University. (2121). Resilience. https://developing-
child.harvard.edu/science/key-concepts/resilience/
Dahl, E. E., Allen, N. B., Wilbrecht, L., & Suleiman, A. B. (2018). Importance of investing in
adolescence from a developmental science perspective. Nature, 554, 441–450.
Fuhrmann, D., Knoll, L. J., & Blakemore, S. J. (2015). Adolescence as a sensitive period of
brain development. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 19, 558–566.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2019). The promise of adoles-
cence: Realizing opportunity for all youth. https://doi.org/10.17226/25388
Patrikakou, E. N. (2016). Parent involvement, technology, and media: Now what? School Com-
munity Journal, 26(2), 9–24. https://www.adi.org/journal/2016fw/PatrikakouFall2016.pdf
Prensky, M. (2009). H. sapiens digital: From digital immigrants and digital natives to digital
wisdom. Innovate: Journal of Online Education, 5(3). http://nsuworks.nova.edu/innovate/
vol5/iss3/1
Romm, K. F., Park, Y. W., Hughes, J. L., & Gentzler, A. L. (2021). Risk and protective factors
for changes in adolescent psychosocial adjustment during COVID-19. Journal of Research
on Adolescence, 31, 546–559. https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12667
Strom, P. S., & Strom, R. D. (2021). Adolescents in the internet age: A team learning and teach-
ing perspective (3rd ed.). Information Age.
World Health Organization. (2020). Adolescent mental health. https://www.who.int/news-
room/fact-sheets/detail/adolescent-mental-health
Eva Patrikakou is a professor at DePaul University’s Department of Counseling

and Special Education. Her research focuses on parent involvement and academic,
social, and emotional learning, as well as on multitiered systems of support. Cor-
respondence concerning this book review may be addressed to Dr. Patrikakou at
epatrika@depaul.edu
351
352
Book Review
Book Review of Inclusive Education: A

Systematic Perspective
Margo Collier
The right of students with disabilities to receive a free appropriate public

education in the least restrictive environment is guaranteed equal protection
under the law granted to all citizens under the Constitution of the United
States. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 2004 (IDEA) requires
that students with disabilities be educated to the maximum extent possible
with students without disabilities. As a result of this bill, a higher percentage of
students with high incidence disability categories have been placed in general
education classrooms over the past 30 years (National Center for Education
Statistics, [NCES], 2019).
Despite ample evidence of research-based findings that demonstrate the
benefits of inclusive educational environments for all students with disabilities,
many students in lower incident disability categories continue to be segregated
in self-contained classrooms or in separate schools (Agran et al., 2020). These
students typically have limited or no opportunities to participate academically
or socially in general education classrooms which leaves them ill prepared for
adult life (National Council on Disability, 2018). Only limited progress has
been made for the development and sustainability of effective inclusion pro-
grams for these students (Brock, 2018).
Systematic and coherent approaches to well-designed inclusive programs
are more likely to increase progress toward improvements that can be made
and sustained over time (Bryk et al., 2015). Inclusive Education: A Systematic
Perspective, edited by Howley and colleagues, provides a collection of inclu-
sive models of teacher preparation, educational leadership, and state and local
educational services in Ohio that have demonstrated effective, equitable, and
inclusive education for all students. The authors note that one of their goals

with this book is “to provide a context for critical thinking about ways to in-
crease broad and deep opportunities for equity and inclusive practice” (Howley
et al., 2020, p. xv). The authors share practical solutions and recommendations
for inclusive practices at a variety of levels of the educational system, includ-
ing higher education, with a focus on teacher preparation programs, principal
preparation programs, and state and local educational agencies. Additionally,
this book provides an examination of practices at the PK–12 school level that
provide examples of faculty and administration professional development that
incorporate concepts of inclusion into the curriculum that have resulted in
positive outcomes. Although the collection of chapters represents a multilay-
ered framework of ideas generated primarily through work that has been done
in Ohio that promote effective inclusive education for all students, contribut-
ing authors include professionals outside of Ohio.
The 27 chapters of Inclusive Education: A Systematic Perspective are divid-
ed into seven sections. Section I introduces the meaning and significance of
inclusive practice. The authors call attention to ethical considerations related
to social justice in Chapters 1, 2, and 3. Classroom structures and routines
that marginalize some students are contrasted to inclusive practices that ensure
quality instruction, high expectations, and supportive learning environments.
Section II outlines the basic components essential to effective inclusive prac-
tices that have demonstrated promotion of successful inclusion in classroom.
The authors of Chapter 4 present an assessment tool that can identify observ-
able teacher behaviors that help to promote inclusive environments. Such an
assessment can be useful for nonstandardized evaluations of implementation of
inclusive practices both in the classroom and across an entire school. In Chap-
ter 5, the authors share their efforts to provide contexts to preservice teachers
that enable them to confront and examine preexisting biases and stereotypes in
their own perspectives of race, class-based disparities, and poverty that impact
their approach to teaching and to inclusion of all students.
The focus of Section III is inclusive assessment practices. Chapter 6 reviews
the finding of a study involving school districts which have been successful in
promoting inclusive education that have resulted in improved achievement for
students from marginalized groups. Chapter 7 presents a formative cross-con-
tent assessment framework, designed to support inclusion and to provide data
that can measure students’ progress within the general education curriculum.
Section IV covers the role that leadership plays in implementing and sustaining
schoolwide inclusive practices. Supportive ideas are provided in Chapter 8 for
principals, which include consistent use of evidence-based instructional strat-
egies to reach targets and the value of sharing leadership, coaching teachers,
and reflecting on practice. Chapter 9 provides an example of a school district
354
BOOK REVIEW
that is in the process of working to increase the use of inclusive practices by

stressing the importance of collaborative teams and communities. Chapter 10
highlights the need for school leaders to celebrate diversity by effectively reach-
ing students from diverse backgrounds and empowering all students to become
active members of the learning community.
Section V consists of eight chapters in which the topic of preparing teachers
for inclusive classrooms is discussed. In Chapter 11, the authors examine the
organizational dynamics of the dual-licensure teacher preparations programs
(in special education and general education) of six higher education institu-
tions. In addressing the findings, the authors focus attention on challenges
associated with curriculum restructuring efforts. Chapters 12–18 discuss cur-
riculum reform specific to dual-license programs that include a focus on early
childhood, middle school, online, and Montessori education, as well as cultur-
ally responsive restructured programs that all incorporate inclusive practices.
Section VI focuses on the critical role that school principals play and the
distributed model of leadership. In Chapter 19, the authors describe how,
together with professional development that features evidence-based instruc-
tional curriculum and instructional leadership practices, it is possible to prepare
principals to become inclusive instructional leaders. Tools to evaluate inclusive
teaching practices resulting from the collaborative efforts between higher edu-
cation and middle grade PK–12 partners are described in Chapter 20. Through
the findings of an online survey, insight into inclusive instructional perspectives
and perceived barriers of classroom teachers and building administrators are
shared in Chapter 21. The authors of Chapter 22 describe invitational educa-
tion in a professional development initiative designed to encourage schoolwide
inclusive attitudes. The author of Chapter 23 reviews integration as a focus of
social justice and the development of special education and dispositions into
the reconstruction of a principal preparation program.
State support for inclusive practices is discussed in Section VII. Providing
equitable education programs statewide involves a multifaceted collaboration
among institutions of higher education and state and local education agen-
cies. Chapters 24–27 in Section VII cover restructuring teacher preparation,
practices that foster and support reform of licensure standards, formation of
partnerships that support sustained collaborative efforts, and education poli-
cies that promote inclusive educational practices.
Given the generally fragmented approaches in the literature regarding in-
clusive education, a systematic approach especially geared to administrators
within higher education, PK–12 schools, local and state education agencies,
and state and local policymakers is much needed. This book offers examples
of systemic, coherent, and well-designed change efforts that have the potential
355
of advancing inclusive education (McLeskey, 2020). Building upon inclusive

practices identified as working well in Ohio, the many authors of Inclusive
Education: A Systematic Perspective have provided to a broader nationwide au-
dience the possibilities of change that can lead to widespread development and
scaling up of effective inclusive programs.
References
Agran, M., Jackson, L., Kurth, J. A., Ryndak, D., Burnette, K., Jameson, M., Zagona, A.,
Fitzpatrick, H., & Wehmeyer, M. (2020). Why aren’t students with severe disabilities be-
ing placed in general education classrooms? Examining the relations among classroom
placement, learner outcomes, and other factors. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe
Disabilities, 45, 4–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1540796919878134
Brock, M. (2018). Trends in the educational placement of students with intellectual disabilities
in the United States over the past 40 years. American Journal on Intellectual and Develop-
mental Disabilities, 123(4), 305–314. https://doi.org/10.1352/1944-7558-123.4.305
Bryk, A., Gomez, L., Grunow, A., & LeMahieu, P. (2015). Learning to improve: How America’s
schools can get better at getting better. Harvard Education Press.
Howley, A., Faiella, C. M., Kroeger, S. D., & Hansen, B. (Eds.). (2020). Inclusive education: A
systematic perspective. Information Age.
McLeskey, J. (2020). Reflections on future directions for including students with severe dis-
abilities. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 45(1), 45–50.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of 2004, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. (2004).
https://sites.ed.gov/idea?src=policypage
National Center for Education Statistics. (2019, May). Digest of education statistics: Children
and youth with disabilities. Table 204.60: Percentage distribution of students 6 to 21 years
old served under Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), part B, by educational
environment and type of disability: Selected years, fall 1989 through fall 2017. https://nces.
ed.gov/programs/digest/d18/tables/dt18_204.60.asp
National Council on Disability. (2018). The segregation of students with disabilities. www.ncd.
gov/sites/default/files/NCD_Segregation-SWD_508.pdf
Margo Collier is an associate professor in special education at the University of New

Mexico. She coordinates and teaches in the educational diagnostician certification
program. Her research interests include home–school partnerships, multidisciplinary
collaboration in teaching and research, and meaningful assessment for all students.
Correspondence concerning this article may be addressed to Margo Collier, PhD,
Department of Special Education, MSC 05 3045, 1 University of New Mexico, Albu-
querque, NM 87131-0001, or email collierm@unm.edu
356

Current Issue

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Current Issue

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Current Issue

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

VOLUME

SINCE 1991 DEVELOPMENT

© ACADEMIC DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE a EST 1984

Academic Development Institute

Comments from the Executive Editor Emeritus: Not to Drop a Name..........7

Factors Impacting Positive School–Home Communication: A Multiple

Stress Among Korean Immigrant Parents of Children With Diagnosed

The Use of the World Café Process to Foster Parent–School

Examining the Effects of HOME WORKS! The Teacher Home Visit

High School Home Visits: Parent–Teacher Relationships and Student

Contents continued next page

The Power of the Collective: How a Black Parent Group’s Initiative

Español, el Idioma Que Nosotros Hablamos: A Collective Case Study of Home

Parents’ Perceptions of a K–3 Formative Assessment..................................239

Critical Community Building in Teacher Education: Rethinking

From School Exclusion to Provisional Access: Possibilities and

From Crisis to Opportunity: Family Partnerships with Special

Book Review on Adolescents in the Internet Age..........................................347

Book Review of Inclusive Education: A Systematic Perspective......................353

Key Words: family–school–community partnerships, family engagement, case

School Community Journal, 2021, Vol. 31, No. 2 9

Researchers have taken varied approaches when studying partnerships around

the relative importance of face-to-face versus online communication has not

all of these contexts are important to children’s development, the microsystem

Table 1. School Characteristics

ʻUlaʻula Elementary School. ʻUlaʻula is a small, private school serving 200

Melemele School. A mid-SES, private, parochial, same-sex school, Mele-

sometimes recruited teachers through the parents in their homerooms or asked

• Community engagement (61 references)

The category of Communication, the second largest category, included 16

Successful Modes of Communication

We divided the larger category of Digital Communication into Texting,

Although individual participants said they preferred a wide variety of modes

Figure 1. Positive References to Communication Modes

Personalized Versus Nonpersonalized Communication

Formal Versus Informal Communication

How important is face-to-face communication in establishing quality rela-

has suggested that “schools need to create spaces to learn from…families. By

non-face-to-face and yet personalized, as in many online communications.

Daniel, G. (2015). Patterns of parent involvement: A longitudinal analysis of family–school

Kim, E. M., & Sheridan, S. M. (2015). Foundational aspects of family–school connections:

Jacquelyn Chappel serves an instructor in the University of Hawaiʻi system and

Appendix. Interview Questions

2. What is your definition of family, school, and community partnerships?

This study examines difficulties amid the COVID-19 pandemic in raising

Key Words: Coronavirus disease, COVID-19, pandemic, Korean, immigrant,

School Community Journal, 2021, Vol. 31, No. 2 31

Korean Immigrants in the U.S.

Table 1. Characteristics of the Study Sample

Participants’ number of children with special needs ranged from 1 to 3

in helping with my children’s schoolwork and activities using online instruc-

Qualitative Data Analysis

Meeting Children’s Educational Needs and Parental Stress

Table 3. Ordinary Least Square (OLS) Regression Model on Parental Stress

In the first model, a significant association was found between participants’

levels of resilience showed statistically significant lower levels of parental stress.

ly my responsibility as my wife speaks little English. I am extremely busy and

Concerns Related to Child Development and Skills