Teachers as Collaborative Partners

Working With Diverse Families and Communities

Sandra J. Winn Tutwiler

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2017
• eBook ISBN:
  9781351225601
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

Teachers as Collaborative Partners assists future and inservice teachers in developing a research-based framework for understanding the dynamics of school, family, and community relations. It provides foundational knowledge important for understanding families and communities, while exploring conditions that influence family-school-community interactions. The text is designed to engage the critical reflective capability of teachers in ways that will support their ability to work with diverse families in a variety of teaching contexts.Part I focuses first on the social, cultural, and historical roots of the family, with specific attention to the evolution of public schools and the family as interdependent social institutions, and then on the multiple ways families conceive of and conduct family life, as well as the impact of community attributes on the work of families and schools.Part II explores the relationship among families, communities, and schools within social, political, legal, and educational contexts.Part III addresses educational practices that respond to authentic partnerships with families and communities.The goals of the text are supported by pedagogical tools that provide opportunities for readers to make connections between information in each chapter and realistic family-community-school situations.Case Studies are embedded in most chapters. These serve to complement research-based with authentic and personally articulated experiences of parents. Teachers then have the opportunity to make connections between theory and lived experiences.Each chapter includes Inquiry and Reflection questions and Guided Observations to engage readers in case study analysis, situated learning exercises, and classroom and community observations and reflections.The Family-Community-School Profile introduced in this text as a teacher-generated summary allows for evaluation of

Part I
Exploring Family and Community Contexts: Social and Cultural Perspectives

Despite socially sanctioned and preferred norms, families have historically varied in structural configuration, cultural traditions, and available economic and social resources, all of which influence ways in which they conduct everyday life. Schools, however, reflect societal norms and values that have traditionally relied on a specific family form for socialization of children prior to entry into formal schooling and for general parental support throughout the schooling process. Children living in White middle-class nuclear families—a family form consisting of mother, father, and children living in the same home with sufficient resources to care for most of the children's needs—most often reflect the behaviors, values, language, and approaches to learning that our schools value. In the past, many school and classroom practices and much of the curriculum aligned with experiences of children from these homes. As a result, high levels of continuity existed between White middle-class nuclear family homes and the school. Yet all children were expected to conform to school practices based on nuclear family norms regardless of the homes and communities from which they came. Even today, varying degrees of discontinuity exist between many homes and schools, precipitated by differences in expectations and interactions in the school and those in the home.

Part I explores the social and cultural bases for family and community differences for the purpose of understanding how these differences influence school and family relations. Chapter 1 provides a historical overview of events that have influenced the evolution of school–family relations, using cultural explications of mothering as a framework for the discussion. The guiding premise of this chapter is that school–family relations have been influenced by the interaction among the cultural contexts of mothering, changes in mothering processes over time, and fluctuations in the aims of schooling. Mothering, as a social construct, is synonymous with the care of children. Not surprisingly, persons in mothering positions have evolved as the primary link between schools and the family. A review of the mothering–child connection, the diverse experiences that influenced the nature of this connection, and specific events in the evolution of public education provide an important foundation for understanding school-family relations today.

Chapters 2 and 3 further explore family diversity through discussions of multiple family attributes, such as family structure, ethnicity, and socio-economic background. Although individual characteristics of the family are important, the true essence of a "diversity" among families can be found in ways that various attributes combine to influence the day-to-day lives of families. Family life is also shaped by conditions and circumstances external to the unit, including the community or neighborhood where the family lives. The final chapter of Part I focuses on the social, cultural, and economic influences that shape different community environments and the impact of community attributes on families.

Chapter 1
Exploring Families Through Mothering Across Time and Cultures

Mothers have traditionally been the family contact or liaison between the school and the family. Educators continue to look primarily to mothers as the individuals most responsible for the quality and adequacy of child and adolescent care as it influences school performance. In many ways, expectations parents and teachers have of each other are influenced by a host of social changes that have historically altered the social role and function of both. This chapter begins with a review of the social and cultural events occurring between 1840 and 1920, 1950 and 1960, and 1960 to the present in terms of the influence of these events on perceptions of the function of families and schools as social institutions and the subsequent interactions between the two.

School–family tension has historically centered around differing perceptions of caretaking and the overall needs of children. Mothers from various backgrounds, however, hold different beliefs of what is necessary to care for, nurture, educate, and protect children. Common behaviors, values, and concerns that guide the work of mothers often obscure unique aspects of mother practice that emerge from differences in the social, cultural, and economic contexts in which mothering takes place. Mother practice, the day-to-day actions taken and decisions made on behalf of children, is undoubtedly influenced by resources (cultural, educational, financial, social, etc.) brought to the act of mothering.

The focus on mothering in this chapter is not meant to negate or minimize the role of fathers in the lives of children and youth. Mothering, as discussed in this context, is a social rather than biological construct. In this way, "mothering" can be defined as a relationship characterized by the nurture and care one extends to another (Nakano Glenn, 1994), deemed necessary in the case of children and adolescents to ensure their safety, growth, and development. Whereas families adhering to dominant culture norms in the United States are the basic unit responsible for nurturing and taking care of children and youth, women in the family have been the primary caregivers since the 19th-century emergence of the modern or nuclear family. Still, given the diversity among families in the United States, it is reasonable to assume that mothering would be perceived, defined, and expressed in many ways and even carried out by various individuals in a child's family or community. Diversity in family structure, to include families in which men are single parents, those in which grandparents are taking care of children, and those that have stay-at-home dads, suggests the likelihood that schools will interact with a variety of individuals who present themselves to schools on behalf of children to address issues traditionally viewed within the realm of mother's work. The focus on the perception and practice of mothering is meant to establish the multiple ways children are cared for, as well as the ways schools have interacted with families around issues of caring, nurturing, and educating children and youth.

19th-Century Family Change

As social institutions, education and the family continue to be influenced by the social, historical, and cultural contexts in which they exist. Berger and Luckmann (1966) defined social institutions as outcomes of routinized interactions among humans that occur over time. Institutions are human constructs that function differently among different societies at different points in history. The numerous institutions of a given society are not necessarily interdependent. The institutions of the family and mass public education, for example, did not originate at the same time or as logically or functionally integrated. In fact, there are numerous historical examples in which the process of educating and caring for children were nonintegrated, separate spheres of activity. For example, in the Greek city-state of Sparta, male children were removed from the home at age 8 to be educated by the state. The option to send children away from home to be educated has been a mainstay for centuries in the U.S., particularly among wealthy families. In other instances, children were taken from their homes with the overt goal of ensuring that families would have little influence on their education, as was the case for children attending Native American boarding schools. That the family and public education are viewed as functionally integrated today is based first on the fact that they have traditionally shared "relevant areas of conduct" (i.e., responsibility to children—at least for families with children). Second, and perhaps more important, the tendency to view the family and education as logically integrated institutions reflects the human desire for integration and consistency in their social world. Hence, there is no a priori basis for integration among specific institutions—integration originates with human needs.

In the contemporary United States, education and families are integrated social institutions responsible for the education and social development of youth. Although the bond formed between the two institutions is expected to be a cooperative one, its functional capability has historically been tempered by fluctuating perceptions of responsibilities, not only as perceived by each institution, but as perceived by the wider society as well. The pattern of interaction established between families and schools as the latter emerged as the major educating entity in the late 1800s continues to influence the current relationship between the two institutions.

The institutionalization of education, part of an "institutional explosion" in the early 19th-century (Katz, 1986, p. 11), paralleled the emergence of the modern or nuclear family. Social and economic changes occurring within the wider society during this period precipitated long-standing changes in both the function and the conceptualization of the family. As its economic, protective, recreational, religious, and educational activities increasingly were transferred to agencies outside the home, the family became a unit of companionship, rather than the cooperative, self-sufficient economic unit that had previously characterized it (Burgess & Locke, 1945; Mintz & Kellogg, 1988).

The roles and responsibilities of all family members were altered by early-19th-century changes in the family. Before this period, families were patriarchal, with male members of households having complete authority to rule over wives and children. This authority came with responsibility for the education and training of all members of the household. For example, laws enacted as early as 1642, principally in Virginia and Massachusetts, held men legally responsible for the education of household members. In Massachusetts, this responsibility included ensuring that household members knew how to read, that they understood laws of the commonwealth, and that they understood the codes of Puritanism.

In addition to obligations for the educational training of family members, 17th-and 18th-century men figured prominently in all aspects of child rearing. Fathers provided both physical and emotional care for children and made decisions, such as what they would eat, wear, and learn, as well as when they should begin work, leave home, and whom they should marry (Berry, 1993). In some instances, fathers' work with respect to children was a shared endeavor with mothers. Still, until the late 1700s, parenting was viewed as a male endeavor, with motherhood generally devalued. A unique mothering role was further obscured by the tendency of households to include other adults (e.g., adolescent servants) who took part in child-rearing activities (Bloch, 1978).

Mothering in the Modern, Nuclear Family

With the advent of industrialization, men's activities became less family centered as the nature of their work took them away from the home. At the same time, expectations of shared economic roles among family members gave way to men being the sole financial resource for the family In fact, a woman in the labor force reflected poorly on her husband, who would be judged unable to provide for his family, and thus unable to fulfill this new head-of-household role (Thornton Dill, 1988). By the late 1800s, women no longer had an economic role within the family unit. Instead, they were charged with child rearing and home maintenance.

From: Ladies Home Journal, March 1893
Fathers' activities were less home centered after industrialization. In upper-and middle-class families, women were charged with child rearing and home maintenance, and fathers were the sole financial resource for the family.

Social support for this role began early in the 19th century. According to Mintz and Kellogg (1988), a "cult of true womanhood" emerged that glorified the American wife and mother as the "personification of ... piety, submissiveness, purity, and domesticity," and that defined American women as "purer than man, more given to sacrifice and service to others, and untainted by the competitive struggle for wealth and power" (p. 55). This view of women was evident through literature, the media, the church, and the nature of work and types of education available to women at the time. Earlier notions of characteristics essential for child rearing included theological understanding, self-discipline, rationality, and control of one's emotions—attributes that were more associated with men (Bloch, 1978). Changes in the conceptualization of childhood that focused on the importance of growth and development during the early years, however, demanded different parental attributes—those more associated with "true womanhood."

Inquiry and Reflection 1A: The media have historically played a major role in projecting family images. What is the image of family projected in the media (e.g., magazines, newspaper articles, movies, television) today? What is the image of mothering? Are multiple ethnic/cultural family images included?

Like the mother, the child was no longer important to the economic activity of the family. Indeed, the years between 1870 and 1930 have been characterized as the period of the economically "worthless" but emotionally "priceless" child (Katz, 1986). Childhood emerged during these years as a distinct, important, and valuable period of life. Children were in need of nurturance and protection, given that vulnerability and innocence were a part of their nature. This perception of childhood directly contrasted earlier views of children as innately sinful and possible to restrain only through parental authority. Transformation from a patriarchal to democratic family form coincided with parents instilling independence in children so that they would be self-reliant and self-directed adults (Mintz & Kellogg, 1988).

It is important to note that even as this socially constructed model of the family became accepted as the preferred norm, it more commonly reflected familial patterns of middle-and upper-class families. The same social and economic changes that resulted in the nuclear family form for middle-and upper-class families brought about different family patterns for poor and working-class families who made up the majority of the population until World War I (Mintz & Kellogg, 1988). Unlike their middle-to upper-class counterparts, unstable work conditions, periods of unemployment, and a transient lifestyle plagued poor and working-class families as they moved frequently in search of work. In fact, the inability of men to find stable work often led to their desertion of the family.

Still, many poor women attempted to carry out socially sanctioned roles of wife and mother, even though their husbands' earnings did not afford them the financial security experienced by middle-and upper-class women. In an effort to remain wives and mothers in the home, many women produced goods for pay and extended services (e.g., taking in boarders) that could contribute to the household income. In other poor and working-class families, women and children entered the labor force as a means for family survival, experiences contrary to that of their middle-and upper-class counterparts. Furthermore, the view of children as economically worthless did not apply to poor children. In fact, the economic worth of poor children increased; they provided cheap labor for a booming factory-based economy while contributing to the household income (Katz, 1986).

Many women produced goods from their homes, often with the assistance of their children, to help support their families.
Family of Mrs. Mott Making Artificial Flowers. Lewis W. Hines, Photographer, 1911. Library of Congress, Prints and Photographs Division, National Labor Collection. [Reproduction number LC-USZ62-999382]

Despite overt differences in living conditions between middle-class and poor families, poor families were evaluated using the new conception of the family and criticized for activities used for survival. Women in the labor force, for example, were criticized for not having time to care and cook for their families. Working families in general were charged with exploiting their children by requiring that they work to help support the family.

Children living in poverty worked in agriculture, mills, and factories to help support the family, even though child labor laws existed as early as 1830. Boy Sweeper Alongside a Carding Machine. Lewis W. Hines, Photographer, 1908. Library of Congress, Prints and Photographs Division, National Labor Collection. [Reproduction number LC-USZ62-91451]

Mothering in African American Enslaved Families

Social and economic class differences influenced the extent to which White women were able to carry out expectations for mothers in the modern family. Life circumstances of African American and Mexican American women, however, engendered practices for child and family care that were even further removed from the American family ideal. Social, political, and economic policies tended to work against these women as members of the "cult of true womanhood" and were not supportive of their establishing environments supportive of priceless and precious children.

Under the dehumanizing system of slavery, neither Black men nor Black women were expected to fulfill the newly constructed roles for women and men in the family unit. In fact, in direct contradiction to men as heads of a closely knit nuclear family, many slave men preferred to marry women not living on their plantation, primarily because they did not want to witness the mistreatment of their wives (Franklin, 1997). Still, in acts of defiance to a system in which human worth was defined primarily in terms of economic value, slave women and men structured a family life that has played a historically key role in the struggle to combat the effects of oppression. W...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title
• Copyright
• Dedication
• Contents
• PART I: EXPLORING FAMILY AND COMMUNITY CONTEXTS: SOCIAL AND CULTURAL PERSPECTIVES
• PART II: UNDERSTANDING SCHOOL–FAMILY INTERACTIONS: SOCIAL, POLITICAL, LEGAL, AND EDUCATIONAL ISSUES
• PART III: CREATING MUTUALLY RESPECTFUL AND RESPONSIVE FAMILY, COMMUNITY, AND SCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS
• Preface
• Chapter Alignment With Selected INTASC Principles
• Case List
• Acknowledgments
• PART I: EXPLORING FAMILY AND COMMUNITY CONTEXTS: SOCIAL AND CULTURAL PERSPECTIVES
• PART II: UNDERSTANDING SCHOOL–FAMILY INTERACTIONS: SOCIAL, POLITICAL, LEGAL, AND EDUCATIONAL ISSUES
• PART III: CREATING MUTUALLY RESPECTFUL AND RESPONSIVE FAMILY, COMMUNITY, AND SCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS
• Glossary
• References
• Author Index
• Subject Index