Family, School, Community Engagement and Partnerships

Theory and Best Practices

Reyes Quezada, Viviana Alexandrowicz, Sarina Molina, Reyes Quezada, Viviana Alexandrowicz, Sarina Molina, Reyes L. Quezada, Viviana Alexandrowicz, Sarina Molina

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2018
• Print ISBN:
  9781138888104
• eBook ISBN:
  9781317498735
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

How can colleges and schools support the inclusion of family, school and community engagement curricula in teacher and administrator preparation programs? The contributions in this book try to answer this question, with contributors describing their experiences, their programs, and their support for the goal of enhancing parental involvement and engagement in Schools and Colleges of Education.

The authors and researchers, such as Joyce Epstein, who is the foremost researcher on the topic, have the knowledge and expertise in family, school, and community engagement and partnerships from both theory and best practice perspectives. The book is designed to be interactive, and readers are encouraged to engage themselves in the conversation. Readers are invited to e-mail any of the editors to discuss the questions posed. This book was originally published as a special issue of Teaching Education.

Family, school, community engagement, and partnerships: an imperative for k-12, and colleges of education in the development of twenty-first-century educators

The need for engaging families in their children’s education in schools and for schools and communities to also engage in supporting families can no longer be ignored. Teachers themselves cannot do it alone. For the most part, colleges of education and teacher preparation programs do not require a course in family, schoolcommunity engagement/partnerships as part of teacher training, yet, over the past decades, research conducted on parental involvement support the notion that when schools, families, and community groups work as partners to support learning, student academic achievement increases if they stay in school longer, and like school more (Dantas & Manyak, 2010; Epstein & Dauber, 1991; Quezada, 2003).

Research also confirms a need to prepare teachers, particularly those working with families of color and in poor urban communities, on how to establish authentic relationships that will lead to increased family and community involvement and student success (Hands & Hubbard, 2011; Henderson & Mapp, 2002). This preparation should be a requirement of the preparation all teachers receive in their college or university programs. We, therefore, guest edit this special issue on the important role of family-school, community partnerships, and the role teacher preparation can play in preparing culturally competent global teachers for the twenty-first century. These will be teachers who are prepared to engage and develop family, school, and community engagement/partnerships in order for children to be successful in their education.

The focus of this theme issue is to disseminate research on the state of family, school, and community engagement/partnerships in k-12 settings from a global perspective; on family, school, and community engagement/partnership research and best practices in schools and colleges of education; and on family, school community-partnership that support equal access and equitable opportunities for hard to reach families.

Section I provides a synopsis of each of the articles, using text extracted from the authors’ abstracts. The theme issue begins with the article entitled: “Educating pre-service teachers for family, school, and community engagement.” Michael Evans reviews existing literature on the outcomes of efforts to prepare educators who are capable of successfully engaging a broad range of families and communities. These studies offer insights regarding pedagogical approaches that increase teachers’ confidence and self-awareness, improve educators’ knowledge of diverse families, and enhance teachers’ ability to use knowledge about families and communities to improve instruction. The article concludes with recommendations for research in the field based on identified knowledge gaps.

Section II focuses on research conducted by faculty and k-12 teachers on k-12 settings, and on pre-service teachers at the undergraduate and graduate level. It presents data on the need for preparing teachers, educators, and teacher candidates on family-school and community engagement involvement and practices. Cathy Hands article “Including All families in education: school district-level efforts to promote parent engagement in Ontario, Canada” focuses on strategies for reaching and supporting parents who face challenges to engagement such as poverty and cultural diversity issues. Five district-level parent engagement projects were qualitatively examined through observations, document analysis, and interviews with program coordinators, educators, and parents. Findings include that district’s support and use strategies to address poverty and/or cultural issues, for instance, by engaging parents in teaching and learning, and by providing parenting support and links to community services and organizations. Gloria Miller, Cathy Lines, Erin Sullivan, and Kristen Hermanutz’ article entitled “Preparing educators to partner with families” focuses on current efforts underway in one western US state to prepare educators for meaningful participation with families. Directors and faculty from 43 accredited Institutions of Higher Education (IHEs) preparing pre-service teachers, administrators, and student support personnel participated. Their results indicate that current course offerings and field practice requirements may not match prevailing views regarding the need for and importance of family engagement in promoting student success. Specific recommendations are forwarded in regards to coursework options, field experiences, site-based projects, and continuing professional development. Laura Nathans and Carol Revelle’s article “An analysis of cultural diversity and recurring themes in preservice teachers’ online discussions of Epstein’s six types of parent involvement” used a qualitative, grounded theoretical framework to examine integration of Epstein’s six types of parent involvement in responses to discussion questions for an online parent involvement course. Fifty-two undergraduate students’ responses were axially coded. Participants showed comprehensive understanding of such issues as communication methods and barriers and benefits of community involvement, but failed to recognize relationships between involvement types or effectively integrate personal knowledge and anecdotes. Lisa Mehlig and Lee Shumow’s study “How is my child doing?: Preparing preservice teachers to engage parents through assessment” reviews an assessment class for pre-service teachers (experimental group) that participated in role-playing activities designed to expand their understanding and skill for partnering with parents. Role-playing included situations related to student assessment. Results indicated that participants in the experimental group gained more knowledge about parental engagement and communicating with parents than the control group.

Section III articles focus on research on families where their voices are heard and how educators can best support them. Elizabeth Martinez and Sharon Ulanoff’s narrative study entitled “Latino parents and teachers: key players building neighborhood social capital” examines how Latino parents and teachers in a community in California, USA, create and appropriate social capital to increase student achievement. Through interviews, observations, and text analysis, a story emerges that demonstrates a collective narrative about beliefs, attitudes, and the motivation behind support efforts. Goran Widding’s article “Practices in home-school cooperation: a gendered story” studies gendered practices in home–school relationships. It analyzes the construction of a cooperation practice that operates in two versions and affects performativity practices in both home and school, emphasizing a joint teacher–mother responsibility discourse. The results indicate that both parents and teachers express attitudes that may raise questions whether they, despite the mission to, counteract traditional gender patterns. Jayme Swanke, Judy Doktor, Sabita Strestha, and Laura Dreuth Zeman’s article entitled “Is the week over yet? Insight for educators about social network support among cybermothers raising children with ASD” examines the motivation to participate in social networks maintained by mothers who blog and raise children with Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD). The findings indicate that these mothers find blogs help them develop unique virtual networks marked by emotional, instrumental, informational, and appraisal support. We end this issue with Sarina Molina’s response to the entire theme issue where she reports on the collective learning from these articles where implications of the findings pointed to the importance of elevating family, school and community engagement and partnerships. It is not limited to providing professional development learning opportunities, it is shifting the paradigm of family, school and community involvement from a deficit model to a resource-rich model, and promoting a more free flowing sharing of research-based practices between the research community and those who are in the frontlines of these partnerships.

Implications for teacher education and teacher professional development

If we are to further develop global citizens who support efforts of cultural and global diversity, then we must increase efforts to make sure our education candidates are familiar with the importance of family, school, and community involvement and how that can help in the academic achievement of the students they serve. Schools and colleges of education have a responsibility to provide its education candidates with the knowledge, skills, dispositions, and experiences that will allow them to effectively teach through a global context and perspective in k-12 classrooms in order to negotiate a relationship with “hard to reach families.” Our failure to do so may result in a disconnect between the home, the school, and the IHEs in preparing educators to work with ethnically and linguistically diverse students. We need to ensure that our graduates are equipped with the knowledge, skills, and dispositions required of twenty-first-century citizens.

Acknowledgments

We sincerely appreciate all of our colleagues who served as reviewers for this special theme issue. Their constructive feedback was much appreciated by us and by all of the manuscript authors (accepted and nonaccepted). In particular, many faculty from our department of Learning and Teaching as well as other faculty at the University of San Diego: Jerry Ammer, Donna Barnes, Sany Buczynski, Fred Galloway, Steve Gelb, Bobbi Hansen, Lea Hubbard, Heather Lattimer, and Joi Spencer. Faculty and colleagues from throughout the USA and internationally: Jose Lalas, Anaida Muniz-Colon, Justi Saldana, Juan Flores, Irma Olmedo, Cristina Alfaro, Alberto Ochoa, Angela Louque, Gloria Johannessen, Monica Garcia, Lettie Ramirez, Nilsa Thorsos, Melissa Whipple, Mona Thompson, Jean Rockford, Ron Solorzano, Paula Motley, Desiree Zamorano, Nadine Ruiz, Peter Baird, Nirma Flores, Keith Walters, Mary Soto, and Deborah Ham.

References

Dantas, L. M., & Manyak, C. P. (2010). Home-school connections in a multicultural society: Learning from and with culturally and linguistically diverse families. New York, NY: Routledge.

Epstein, J. L., & Dauber, S. L. (1991). School programs and teacher practices of parent involvement in inner-city elementary and middle schools. The Elementary School Journal, 91, 289–305.

Hands, K., & Hubbard, L. (2011). Including families and communities in urban education. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.

Henderson, A. T., & Mapp, K. L. (2002). A new wave of evidence: The impact of school, family and community connections on student achievement (Research synthesis). Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.

Quezada, R. (2003). Going for the gold! Field reports on effective home-school community partnership programs. The School Community Journal, Human Development Institute, 13, 137–155.

Reyes L. Quezada, Viviana Alexandrowicz and Sarina C. Molina

Department of Learning and Teaching

School of Leadership and Education Sciences

University of San Diego, San Diego, CA, USA

Educating preservice teachers for family, school, and community engagement

Michael P. Evans

School of Education Health and Society, Miami University, Oxford, OH, USA

Effective family, school, and community partnerships enhance the academic, social, and emotional development of children. As a result, colleges, schools, and departments of education are increasingly addressing the topic. Unfortunately, teachers continue to report that the most significant challenge encountered when entering the profession is the establishment of relationships with families and communities. This article reviews existing literature on the outcomes of efforts to prepare educators who are capable of successfully engaging a broad range of families and communities. Based on a comprehensive literature review, the findings reveal a narrow sample of empirically based research; however, these studies offer insights regarding pedagogical approaches that increase teachers’ confidence and self-awareness, improve educators’ knowledge of diverse families, and enhance teachers’ ability to use knowledge about families and communities to improve instruction. This review examines efforts in higher education to address family engagement and the impact of various pedagogical approaches on preservice teachers. It concludes with recommendations for research in the field based on identified knowledge gaps.

Introduction

Policy-makers, researchers, and education leaders agree that family engagement is critical to student achievement, often resulting in better attendance, improved behavior at home and school, and increased academic performance based on grade point averages and standardized test scores (Henderson & Mapp, 2002; Weiss, Lopez, & Rosenberg, 2010). Yet, the establishment of strong connections can be challenging and teachers report high levels of anxiety in their encounters with families as they negotiate complex and emotionally laden relationships (Lawrence-Lightfoot, 2003). In particular, family engagement is a significant challenge for new teachers who receive limited preparation on the topic during their preservice education (Markow & Martin, 2005). This review examines efforts in higher education to address family engagement and the impact of various pedagogical approaches on preservice teachers.

An overview of the role of higher education in teacher preparation for family engagement

Recognition of the value of family engagement has increased substantially over the past 25 years. Early studies of colleges, schools, and departments of education (CSDE) revealed interest in the topic, but few dedicated course offerings. A 1988 survey of teacher educators found that 82.8% of faculty believed that family, school, and community courses should be required, but only 4% of the respondents worked at an institution that offered such a course (Chavkin & Williams, 1988). The lack of opportunity for family engagement study in the 1980s and early 1990s is partially related to the absence of its requirement as a standard for licensure. Today, the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE), which has established partnerships with all 50 states, including the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, includes the ability to “consider the school, family, and community contexts” as a critical part of a teacher’s professional and pedagogical knowledge (NCATE, 2008, p. 18). As a result, more recent surveys indicate an increase in opportunities to learn about family engagement. In a national survey involving administrators and department chairs at 161 CSDEs, 59.6% of the respondents offered a full course dedicated to family involvement and 91.8% reported that the topic was addressed for a few class sessions in at least one course in the curriculum (Epstein & Sanders, 2006). However, respondents to the national survey express concern about the quality of graduates’ overall preparation:

only 7.2% strongly agreed that the new teachers who graduated from their programs were prepared to work with all students’ families and communities… According to these educational leaders, their current courses and content coverage were not adequately preparing new professional educators to work with students’ families and communities. (Epstein & Sanders, 2006, p. 96)

Based on the 2005 Met Life teacher survey, the perspectives of the higher education administrators in the national survey appear to be in line with the beliefs of practicing teachers. In this survey, 31% of the respondents identified “communicating with and involving parents” as the biggest challenge they faced as a teacher (Markow & Martin, 2005, p. 7). Working with parents outpaced issues like access to sufficient resources (22%), maintaining classroom discipline (20%), and preparing students for testing (14%).

Thus, despite increased coverage of family engagement in the curriculum, teachers continue to feel unprepared. Faculty members from a study of five Illinois’ CSDEs cited several difficulties that emerge when trying to address the topic in teacher preparation programs. First, there is often a cultural disconnect between preservice teachers who are predominantly white, female, and middle-class and the students and families they serve (Flanigan, 2007). Second, it is often difficult for preservice teachers who have not had the experience of being a parent to relate to their students’ parents and families, a position that is echoed in Lawrence-Lightfoot’s case studies involving veteran teachers (2003). Third, school definitions of appropriate roles for families in the education process frequently give preservice teachers mixed messages. Finally, faculty members believed that the typical structure of teacher education programs presented significant challenges. University regulations often limit opportunities that allow preservice teachers to interact directly with students’ families and their communities.

Overall, the practice of teacher education remains primarily focused on instructional practices with a limited view of the importance of interaction between teachers and families (Flanigan, 2007). Recently, the National Family, School, and Community Engagement Working Group which includes several reputable leaders in the field, defined family engagement as the support that families provide to their children to “achieve more effective educational opportunities” (NFSCEWG, 2009). It is a definition that also recognizes family engagement as a shared res...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• Citation Information
• Notes on Contributors
• Foreword: Ready or not? Preparing future educators for school, family, and community partnerships
• 1. Family, school, community engagement, and partnerships: an imperative for k-12, and colleges of education in the development of twenty-first-century educators
• 2. Educating preservice teachers for family, school, and community engagement
• 3. Including all families in education: school district-level efforts to promote parent engagement in Ontario, Canada
• 4. Preparing educators to partner with families
• 5. An analysis of cultural diversity and recurring themes in preservice teachers’ online discussions of Epstein’s six types of parent involvement
• 6. How is my child doing?: Preparing pre-service teachers to engage parents through assessment
• 7. Latino parents and teachers: key players building neighborhood social capital
• 8. Practices in home–school cooperation – a gendered story?
• 9. Is the week over yet? Insight for educators about social network support among cyber mothers raising children with ASD
• 10. Family, school, community engagement, and partnerships: an area of continued inquiry and growth
• Index