Spring/Summer 2016 Volume 26, Number 1

Transcription

Spring/Summer 2016
Volume 26, Number 1
Academic Development Institute
School Community Journal
Spring/Summer 2016
Volume 26, Number 1
Sam Redding, Executive Editor
Lori G. Thomas, Editor
School Community Journal Advisory Board
Paul J. Baker
Illinois State University
Normal, Illinois
Alison A. Carr-Chellman
Penn State University
University Park, Pennsylvania
James P. Comer
Yale Child Study Center
New Haven, Connecticut
Rollande Deslandes
Universite du Quebec a Trois-Rivieres
Quebec, Canada
Patricia Edwards
Michigan State University
East Lansing, Michigan
Joyce L. Epstein
Center on School, Family &
Community Partnerships
Johns Hopkins University
Baltimore, Maryland
Patricia Gándara
UCLA Graduate School of Education
Los Angeles, California
Raquel-Amaya Martínez González
Universidad de Oviedo
Oviedo, Spain
Anne T. Henderson
Annenberg Institute for School Reform
Washington, D.C.
Esther Sui-Chu Ho
The Chinese University of Hong Kong
Hong Kong SAR, China
Kathleen V. Hoover-Dempsey
Peabody College at Vanderbilt University
Nashville, Tennessee
William H. Jeynes
California State University, Long Beach
Witherspoon Institute
Princeton, New Jersey
Hazel Loucks
National Education Association
Edwardsville, Illinois
Karen L. Mapp
Harvard Graduate School of Education
Cambridge, Massachusetts
Denise Maybank
Michigan State University
East Lansing, Michigan
Toni Moynihan-McCoy
Corpus Christi Independent School District
Corpus Christi, Texas
Eva Patrikakou
DePaul University
Chicago, Illinois
Janice M. Rosales
School District 45, DuPage County
Villa Park, Illinois
Diane Scott-Jones
Boston College (retired)
Boston, Massachusetts
Loizos Symeou
European University-Cyprus
Nicosia, Cyprus
Herbert J. Walberg
Hoover Institution at Stanford University
Chicago, Illinois
Heather Weiss
Harvard Family Research Project
Cambridge, Massachusetts
Roger Weissberg
University of Illinois at Chicago
Chicago, Illinois
THE
SCHOOL COMMUNITY
JOURNAL
Spring/Summer 2016
Volume 26, Number 1
Academic Development Institute
ISSN 1059-308X
© 2016 Academic Development Institute
Business and Editorial Office
School Community Journal
121 N. Kickapoo Street
Lincoln, IL 62656 USA
Phone: 217-732-6462
Fax: 217-732-3696
Email: [email protected]
Requests for Manuscripts
School Community Journal 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 categories listed above.
Note: The journal generally follows the format of the APA Publication Manual, 6th Edition,
which includes new information on how to cite online sources in the reference list. 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, via email attachments of electronic files (in Word): the manuscript, including an abstract of no more than 250 words; a one paragraph description (each)
of the author(s); and a mailing address, phone number, fax number, and email address where
each author can be reached to: [email protected]
The 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 unless specifically
requested by the editor.
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 [email protected] and ask to be added
to journal notices. Please include your mailing address, also. The archives of the journal may be
accessed (free) at http://www.schoolcommunitynetwork.org/SCJ.aspx
Contents
Editor’s Comments........................................................................................7
Lori G. Thomas
Guest Editorial: Is an Ounce of Prevention Still Worth a Pound of................9
Cure? Community-Based Interagency Collaboration to Enhance
Student and Family Well-Being
Jeffrey Alvin Anderson
What Is Homework For? Hong Kong Primary School Teachers’..................25
Homework Conceptions
Vicky C. Tam and Raymond M. C. Chan
Parental Engagement in Children’s Education: Motivating Factors..............45
in Japan and the U.S.
Yoko Yamamoto, Susan D. Holloway, and
Sawako Suzuki
A Squandered Resource: The Divestment of Mexican Parental.....................67
Involvement in a New Gateway State
Eleanor Petrone
(Re)Imagining School as Community: Lessons Learned From Teachers.......93
Terri N. Watson and Ira Bogotch
Schools as Communities and for Communities: Learning From.................115
the 2010–2011 New Zealand Earthquakes
Carol Mutch
“Just One More Thing I Have to Do”: School–Community Partnerships..139
Hope G. Casto
Impact of Adopt-A-Classroom Partnerships Between K–12 and................163
University Faculty
Elizabeth Smith, Heather D. Kindall,
Vinson Carter, and Maggie Beachner
Contents continued next page
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL
Working Together to Strengthen the School Community:.........................183
The Restructuring of a University–School Partnership
Donna R. Sanderson
Promoting Family Literacy Through the Five Pillars of Family...................199
and Community Engagement (FACE)
Nai-Cheng Kuo
Child and Parent Voices on a Community-Based Prevention.....................223
Program (FAST)
Melodie Fearnow-Kenney, Patricia Hill,
and Nicole Gore
The Prairie Valley Project: Reactions to a Transition to a............................239
Schoolwide, Multiage Elementary Classroom Design
Gregory J. Bailey, Eric P. Werth,
Donna M. Allen, and Leonie L. Sutherland
6
Editor’s Comments
We begin this issue with a guest editorial from Jeff Anderson. His personal
history helps us remember the reasons why interagency collaboration is worth
the struggle—helping the hurting students and families who most need a thriving school community. His call for more and better research to support such
collaboration is timely, and at least one or two articles in our forthcoming Fall/
Winter issue will touch on this subject again.
Our first article in this issue is from Tam and Chan on the conceptions
of primary teachers in Hong Kong about homework. Their mixed methods
study has implications for homework design and teachers’ professional development. Next we have a study from Yamamoto, Holloway, and Suzuki who
compared the educational engagement of mothers from Japan and the U.S.,
looking at both home-based and school-based engagement. Petrone also compares involvement in two locales, this time from reports of families’ school
involvement in Mexico compared to their involvement after immigrating to a
new gateway state in the U.S., with implications for school systems and their
English learner populations.
Watson and Bogotch share a look at a new leader’s work in a large, urban
high school and his attempts to transform it into a school as community as
seen through the eyes of the teachers in the school. We then have a thoughtful
look by Mutch at schools’ roles following natural disasters through the history
emerging after the New Zealand earthquakes of 2010–11.
Casto looks at the perspectives of those in a small, rural town on community partnerships and relationships with their school. A different type of
partnership is examined by Smith, Kindall, Carter, and Beachner—in their
case, partnerships between university faculty, including some outside of the
education department, with nearby schools. Sanderson also studied a university–school partnership, but from the viewpoint of navigating the restructuring
of an existing partnership to better serve the needs of all partners. Kuo, too,
examined teacher preparation by studying the development of university students through a course using a family and community engagement framework
for promoting family literacy in both class and fieldwork.
Hearing both child and parent voices provides a unique view of a community-based prevention program (FAST) by authors Fearnow-Kenney, Hill, and
Gore. Finally, Bailey, Werth, Allen, and Sutherland describe two schools that
switched to a multiage classroom design and offer perspectives on the transition from both parents and teachers. Happy reading!
Lori G. Thomas
May 2016
Editorial Review Board
Jeffrey A. Anderson
Indiana University, Bloomington
Diana Hiatt-Michael
Pepperdine University, Malibu, CA
Judith Munter
University of Texas at El Paso
Ji-Hi Bae
Sungshin Women’s University,
Seoul, Korea
Brian Holland
Consultant, Silver Spring, MD
Marilyn Murphy
Temple University,
Philadelphia, PA
Pamela Hudson Baker
George Mason University,
Fairfax, VA
Jerold P. Bauch
Vanderbilt University,
Nashville, TN
Pat Hulsebosch
Gallaudet University,
Washington, DC
Osamha M. Obeidat
Hashemite University, Jordan
Toni Griego Jones
University of Arizona, Tucson
Reatha Owen
Illinois Association of School
Boards, Springfield
Arti Joshi
The College of New Jersey, Ewing
Philip E. Bernhardt
University of Denver, CO
Kate Gill Kressley
Consultant, Portsmouth, NH
Michael L. Boucher, Jr.
FL Gulf Coast University, Ft Myers
Robert Leier
U.S. Dept of State/Georgetown
University, English Language
Fellow, Colombia
Lusa Lo
University of MA, Boston
Mary L. Cavey
Chicago (IL) Public Schools
Cheng-Ting Chen
Chung Yuan Christian University,
Taiwan
Susan DeMoss
School Administrator,
Oklahoma City, OK
Tina Durand
Wheelock College, Boston, MA
Stewart W. Ehly
University of Iowa, Iowa City
Karen Estep
Grand Canyon University,
Phoenix, AZ
Margaret Ferrara
University of Nevada Reno
Laureen Fregeau
University of South Alabama,
Mobile
Alyssa R. Gonzalez-DeHass
Florida Atlantic University,
Jupiter, FL
Deborah Halliday
Montana Office of Public
Instruction, Helena
Bowling Green State University, OH
Hui Jiang
Ohio State University, Columbus
Brian R. Beabout
University of New Orleans, LA
Corey Bunje Bower
Niagara University, NY
Mary M. Murray
Vera Lopez
Arizona State University, Tempe
Angela Louque
California State University, San
Bernadino
Reyes Quezada
University of San Diego, CA
Pablo C. Ramirez
Arizona State University, Glendale
Cynthia J. Reed
Northern Kentucky University,
Highland Heights, KY
Timothy Rodriguez
University of Toledo, OH
Mavis Sanders
University of Maryland, Baltimore
County
Steven B. Sheldon
Johns Hopkins University, MD
Pamela Loughner
Consultant, Huntingdon
Valley, PA
Lee Shumow
Northern Illinois University,
DeKalb
Marga Madhuri
University of La Verne, CA
Martha Strickland
Penn State Capital College,
Middletown, PA
Helen Janc Malone
Institute for Educational
Leadership, Washington, DC
Kate McGilly
United Way of Greater St. Louis
Loizos Symeou
European University, Nicosia,
Cyprus
Kyle Miller
Illinois State University, Normal
Elise Trumbull
Independent Consultant, Mill
Valley, CA
Oliver Moles
Social Science Research Group,
LLC, Rockville, MD
Patricia Willems
Florida Atlantic University,
Davie, FL
Shadrack Msengi
Southern Illinois University,
Edwardsville
Jianzhong Xu
Mississippi State University, MS
Guest Editorial
Is an Ounce of Prevention Still Worth a Pound
of Cure? Community-Based Interagency
Collaboration to Enhance Student and Family
Well-Being
Jeffrey Alvin Anderson
I was teaching elementary school in the early 1990s when a paper by Mike
Epstein and some of his colleagues (1993) caught my attention. It was titled,
“A Comprehensive Community-Based Approach to Serving Students with
Emotional and Behavioral Disorders” and was published in the newly created
Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders. As a teacher of 3rd through 6th
grade students who, in those days, had been labeled with “serious emotional
disturbances1” (SED), I identified with the information provided in the article.
For example, the authors discussed many of the same issues that I was confronting, such as the pervasiveness of blaming parents, the lack of organized
coordination efforts at the community level (e.g., I never had any contact with
my students’ case workers, pediatricians, etc.), and the paucity of using data
or even contextual information to inform decision-making for these students.
I was also keenly aware, as the authors noted, of “the enormous expense
of providing traditional restrictive services to this population” (Epstein et al.,
1993, p. 128). Indeed, part of my role as one of the district’s only SED-trained
teachers was to assist with students who were being released from regional or
state psychiatric facilities (read that as “released because funding had expired”)
back to local SED classrooms. More often than not, these facilities were located
in other states, far from the student’s home and community. Also, it was typical
that the transitional activities mostly involved me working solo, trying to communicate with the facility on behalf of the returning students, their caregivers
(including temporary foster case placements or local residential placements),
School Community Journal, 2016, Vol. 26, No. 1
Available at http://www.schoolcommunitynetwork.org/SCJ.aspx
9
and their soon-to-be-teachers. These were messy, disorganized situations that
required persistence, patience, and creativity. Along with some very dedicated
colleagues from the district, child welfare, and children’s mental health agencies, I learned how to navigate a lot of different systems and players.
In hindsight, it is little surprise that Epstein et al.’s (1993) article resonated
with me. I loved my work and did everything in my power to help my students
succeed both in and out of school; however, I became frustrated with the limited or complete lack of processes for coordinating and communicating among
and across children’s social service systems. My students needed and often noticeably benefited from socioemotional supports, yet few were available. My
students did better in school when their families were supported in stable housing, yet often such supports were inconsistent or difficult to get. Although I
was able to connect students and families with available psychological supports
and, in some cases, find help with housing issues, locate food pantries, and
access other social services, I could not understand why there were no formal
policies to guide these efforts. If I could see the positive influence these kinds
of supports had, I assumed everyone else could, too.
As a teacher, I learned quickly that parents and caregivers were my best allies. They could make important out-of-school things happen (e.g., getting
psychological support for my student), and they would advocate for their children more effectively than I ever could (sometimes this required my coaching).
I also well understood as a teacher in a self-contained classroom that, although
mainstreaming (the precursor to inclusion) was always my goal, not everyone agreed that, in principle, general education was the best place for “my”
students. I found that navigating even my own school required developing
trusting relationships with like-minded educators. And, even though my classroom was burdened with a significantly onerous and archaic points-and-levels
system that almost guaranteed few if any of my students would ever be “allowed” to spend time in general education, our school learned to work around
this system—and eventually dismantle it (Flicek, Olsen, Chivers, Kaufman, &
Anderson, 1996).
In spite of my best efforts, my students continued to have a habit of “disappearing” (at least this is how it looked to me). On any given day, one or
more of my students would not be in class, and when trying to find out what
was going on, I often learned that they had been incarcerated, hospitalized, or
just removed from their home the previous night or weekend. Typically, but
not always, this was due in some degree to safety concerns; sometimes it was
a consequence of poor behavior (e.g., fighting, stealing). This was so common
that I came to understand, as part of my work as an SED teacher, the need to
remediate for the constant disruptions in my students’ learning opportunities.
10
EDITORIAL: INTERAGENCY COLLABORATION
These scenarios tended to follow a similar chain of events. After finding
out where my student was being held, I would call the facility. My goal, as any
good teacher, was to ensure continuity of the curriculum. I would let the facility know that I was so-and-so’s teacher, had talked with her or his parent(s),
and had permission to discuss the student’s situation with staff at the facility.
Almost without exception, I was told that no one was allowed to speak with
me because no formal agreements between or among agencies for cross-agency
communication were in place. In other words, no matter how much I rationalized or pleaded, I was not allowed to bring over current textbooks or other
curricular materials. The person on the other end of the phone would not even
confirm that my student was there.
An Introduction to Interagency Collaboration
After reading the Epstein et al. (1993) article, I recall arranging a meeting
with my special education director to share the paper and discuss what I needed
(and why) to be more successful with my students. I was fortunate to work in
a district where the teachers were supported and encouraged by administration
to improve, and within a few weeks, I was sitting in my first community interagency collaborative planning meeting. I convened the meeting because one of
my students was going to be adjudicated by a local judge to a state residential
facility for posing an ongoing danger to the community (e.g., fire setting). The
student had been arrested several times over the past few years and had recently
been locked up again. I had chaired numerous special education IEP (individualized education program) meetings, but this was different. In addition to the
parents and my principal, I invited a representative from the district attorney’s
(DA) office, the family’s therapist who was from the local community mental
health center, and the school’s social worker. The group created a collaborative
plan to keep the student in the community and in my classroom. Given the
parents’ agreement to the plan, the assistant DA took it to the Court, and the
team received permission to implement the plan.
The implications of my teaching experiences are obvious. I learned firsthand
the critical importance of community and school collaboration. I eventually
returned to the university and worked on a PhD focused on interagency collaboration in children’s social services. In those days, many of us were working on
a model of interagency collaboration called systems of care (Stroul & Friedman,
1986). It is noteworthy that the more contemporary definitions of systems of
care (SOC) include language about the term “at risk:”
11
A spectrum of effective, community-based services and supports for children and youth with or at risk for mental health or other challenges,
and their families, that is organized into a coordinated network, builds
meaningful partnerships with families and youth, and addresses their
cultural and linguistic needs, in order to help them to function better at
home, in school, in the community, and throughout life. (Stroul & Blau,
2010, p. 6; see also Stroul & Friedman, 1986)
Many of us in the field are pleased that SOCs are expanding their focus to a
much broader range of children and families by assisting communities to build
interagency models of prevention and early intervention (Anderson, Ergulec,
Cornell, Ruschman, & Min, 2016).
Blending School and Community Models
In the late 1990s, during my pretenure years, I wrote a lot about how schools,
community mental health agencies, and other social services needed to better
work together and with families (e.g., Anderson, 2000; Anderson & Matthews,
2001; Anderson & Mohr, 2003). We examined the supports schools needed
from the community to successfully educate students with mental illness (Anderson, McIntyre, & Somers, 2004; Anderson & Mohr, 2003). Emphasizing
strengths orientations (Rapp, 1998) and authentically partnering with families
have become the norm, as contemporary approaches now require services to
be family-driven and youth-guided (Stroul & Blau, 2010). During these years,
as it became increasingly apparent that many forms of mental illness could be
dramatically curtailed and perhaps prevented (e.g., Nicholas & Broadstock,
1999), my professional interests shifted from intervention for children with
significant mental health challenges and their families to early interventions
and prevention. This work also pushed me to expand my focus from individualized efforts (i.e., working with a child and family) to an exploration of
classroom-level and whole-school efforts (Anderson & Cornell, 2015; Anderson, Watkins, Chen, & Howland, 2014).
In the early 2000s, I started working with a group in central Indiana to create a collaborative model between an urban school district (Indianapolis Public
Schools) and a local SOC (Dawn Project). Called the Full Purpose Partnership (FPP; Anderson, Crowley, Dare, & Retz, 2006; Crowley, Dare, Retz, &
Anderson, 2003), the new school-based model was built around four essential
elements: “(a) effective curricula and instruction; (b) inquiry driven, databased decision making; (c) SOC and wraparound principles (i.e., authentic
family involvement, strengths-focused, cultural competence, and interagency collaboration); and (d) positive behavior interventions and supports” (aka
12
PBIS; Anderson, Houser, & Howland, 2010, p. 34). Each component of the
FPP model was conceptualized through a multitiered system (Strein, Hoagwood, & Cohn, 2003; Sugai, Sprague, Horner, & Walker, 2000) that focused
foremost on prevention efforts, followed by early and intense interventions and
supports, with the ultimate objective always being improved academic achievement (Smith, Anderson, & Abel, 2008). The model was implemented through
a care coordinator, whose role was to implement the essential elements and provide case management for schools. To ensure fidelity to the model, the care
coordinator worked for the SOC, not the school district. The working theory
for the FPP was that partnerships among families, schools, and communities
could be coordinated to support and sustain improved academic achievement
for students in communities and schools experiencing significant needs (e.g.,
Adelman & Taylor, 1997, 2006a, 2006b; Conwill, 2003; Evans, 2004).
The development of the FPP model in Indianapolis, which initially targeted
three urban schools serving disadvantaged neighborhoods, occurred at the same
time as the resurgence of another school–community collaborative approach,
collectively known as community schools. The community schools model can be
traced back more than a century to John Dewey and Jane Addams (Dryfoos,
2002). Whereas Addams and the Settlement House movement endorsed deliberate coordination between schools and the communities in which they reside,
Dewey promoted the notion that schools should be operated as microcosms
of their communities, providing students with authentic lived-experiences that
prepare them for adulthood (Houser, 2014). Since 2010, the U.S. Department of Education has been funding a version of community schools called
Full Service Community Schools (Chen, Anderson, & Watkins, 2016). More
recently, interagency approaches that were created in community contexts,
such as SOCs, are merging with school-based models, like community schools
(Anderson & Cornell, 2015; Eber, Sugai, Smith, & Scott, 2002). For example, Integrated Student Services (or supports) approaches confront nonacademic
barriers to learning through the coordination of community-based supports
aligned with the integration of school-based supports such as afterschool programming or family engagement (Moore et al., 2014). The early vision for this
work might have been best summarized by Eber and her colleagues (2002),
who stated, “Bringing family members, friends, and other natural support
persons together with teachers, behavior specialists, and other professionals
involved with the student and family is essential to the planning process” (p.
174). This happens when teams can comfortably work together to identify
effective clinical, medical, behavioral, and instructional strategies and to coordinate efforts toward reducing risk factors and improving outcomes.
13
Policy Supports for Interagency Collaboration in Schools
Although No Child Left Behind (NCLB) passed in 2001, it was years
before the extent to which it required schools to monitor and document adequate academic annual performance for all students was fully realized (see
McLaughlin, West, & Anderson, 2016). Over time, it became apparent that
the long-term patterns of poor academic outcomes observed in many underresourced urban schools would make compliance with NCLB accountability
especially challenging (Blank, Melville, & Shah, 2003; Dryfoos, 2005; Tagle,
2005). Advocates insisted that without the sustained involvement of families
and tangible support from community social service agencies, schools would
be unable to overcome the negative effects of poverty (Dryfoos, 2000; Harris
& Wilkes, 2013).
The recent passage of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), which
replaced NCLB in late 2015, is the current iteration of the 50-year-old Elementary and Secondary Education Act (http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/
essa/index.html?src=essa-page). Not surprisingly, ESSA quickly generated a lot
of public examination, with some groups expressing excitement for its requirement to improve “non-academic” outcomes (e.g., Blank, 2016). Adelman and
Taylor (NCMHS, 2016) analyzed the new legislation, noting that ESSA emphasizes not only how important it is for schools to authentically engage their
families, but also that community connections are necessary to support and
improve schools. The authors (NCMHS, 2016) highlighted Title IV–21st Century Schools Subpart 2: Community Support for School Success, noting that
ESSA is intended to
(1) significantly improve the academic and developmental outcomes of
children living in the most distressed communities of the United States,
including ensuring school readiness, high school graduation, and access
to a community-based continuum of high-quality services; and (2) provide support for the planning, implementation, and operation of fullservice community schools that improve the coordination and integration, accessibility, and effectiveness of services for children and families,
particularly for children attending high-poverty schools, including highpoverty rural schools. (p. 10)
Further, ESSA appears to link the coordination and integration of support services (e.g., connecting schools with available community resources) directly to
overcoming barriers to learning and teaching (NCMHS, 2016).
14
Next Steps for Schools and Communities
Interagency collaborative models have continued to gain attention from
practitioners, researchers, and policymakers, particularly in urban areas, because
they offer tangible approaches for coordinating and integrating the supports
and resources of various community agencies, including schools, child welfare,
health and mental health, case management, prevention programming, and
afterschool care (Abrams & Gibbs, 2000; Anderson, 2000, 2011; Blank et al.,
2003; Dryfoos, 2005; Stroul & Blau, 2010). The entire field of education continues to evolve, and numerous emerging ideas, concepts, and approaches from
both the education and social services fields present substantial opportunities
to overcome the intractable history of educational failure that has occurred in
many underresourced communities (Robertson, Anderson, & Meyer, 2004).
In addition to the models and innovations already described in this editorial,
some of the more recent innovations include evidence-based practices; multitiered student supports (MTSS); developments in neuroscience; improved
risk-resiliency modeling; effective, inexpensive screening and referral protocols;
response to intervention; advances in early childhood technologies; and trauma-informed systems and services (see, e.g., Anderson, Cousik, & Dare, in
press; NCMHS, 2016; NSCC, 2016).
However, the depth and breadth of so many new opportunities come with
risks. Ostensibly, schools were created to teach students academics; thus, making all of these community-based social service opportunities available to
educators could be overwhelming and could ultimately have a negative impact
on teaching and learning. Adelman and Taylor stated that to “focus only on
adding personnel, services, and programs to schools is not sufficient. Further,
it often is a recipe for perpetuating the existing marginalization and fragmentation of learning and student supports” (NCMHS, 2016, p. 14). In other
words, throwing too much at a school without providing appropriate integration, coordination, and school and community buy-in will not help and often
hurts, as taxpayers see the waste of valuable public resources. Indeed, understanding and supporting high needs schools has been compared to solving a
puzzle that, when completed, provides a coherent picture of a school and community (Anderson, 2011).
Perhaps for the first time ever, P–12 education has a clear legislative mandate to deliberately align student and school needs with corresponding supports
for learning through goal-driven collaborations among educators, families,
and communities. Such efforts require all of us to think and act in new ways.
Adelman and Taylor have provided not only a strategy but also a beginning
framework for the kind of systematic transformation that will be required to
implement and sustain such comprehensive changes:
15
Moving forward involves starting a process that (1) coalesces existing
student and learning supports into a cohesive component and (2) over
a period of several years, develops the component into a comprehensive
intervention system that is fully interwoven into instructional efforts.
Such a component is key to enabling all students to have an equal opportunity to learn at school and all teachers to teach effectively. This type
of systematic approach is especially important where large numbers of
students are not succeeding. (NCMHS, 2016, p. 15)
Suggestions for Researchers
Early in my research career, I came to understand that examining whether
or not a program “worked” was insufficient. Instead, the role of the researcher
is to investigate for whom the program worked, under what conditions, and
why it worked (Hohmann, 1999). I end this editorial with some advice for
those who study the types of school- and community-based models of interagency collaboration that focus on building partnerships with the school and/
or educational outcomes as the goal. Although the field is rapidly evolving,
even with clear and growing federal and local support for this, numerous challenges confront the appropriate study of these models (Houser, 2014; Foster,
Stephens, Krivelyova, & Gamfi, 2007), including resistance of schools toward
outsiders (Carreón, Drake, & Barton, 2005); difficulties of maintaining effective communication both with and among stakeholders (Chen et al., 2016);
concerns about attrition rates of study participants, particularly in the most
impoverished schools; questions about the choice of outcome variables that can
operationally measure program goals (Knapp, 1995); and the broad challenges
that confront researchers attempting to make causal inferences when studying
interagency collaborations (Hitchcock, Johnson, & Schoonenboom, 2016).
The complex collaborations and professional boundary spanning among
and across disciplines (e.g., education, child welfare, health, including mental health) that allow these models to operate are pushing scholars to develop
more inclusive and expansive theoretical orientations to guide the science of
interagency collaboration. Moore and her colleagues (2014) noted that, by its
nature, this work is grounded in multiple theoretical perspectives, including (a)
ecological, which accounts for both proximal influences and distal influences
of school functioning; (b) life-course, which recognizes experiences at earlier
stages of childhood affect outcomes at later stages; (c) positive youth development psychology, which emphasizes the importance of healthy relationships,
interactions, and self-concepts; (d) whole child perspectives that are simultaneously defined by health, behavior, and socioemotional development; and
16
(e) bioecological models that emphasize the interactive nature of development
over time between individuals and their ecologies.
Hernandez and Hodges (2003) also described three challenges confronting our research that are important to mention. First, the development of
interagency models in any community is an evolutionary process that will
involve numerous and often changing stakeholders, many of whom are investing substantial amounts of time, influence, and energy. Second, leadership
is constantly changing at the program level locally, as well as at state and national levels. A newly hired school superintendent can stop a well-developed
community-based school initiative almost overnight, as can a newly elected
mayor. This example fits at the state and national level, too. Third, bringing
together the various needed systems and agencies under an interagency umbrella can be an unanticipated political process, requiring a tenuous balance
of competing responsibilities, funding, goals, and desired outcomes. Moreover, often community-based models of interagency collaboration progress
through a nonlinear developmental process that Lourie (1994) referred to as
“incremental opportunism,” meaning that progress tends to be sporadic and
dependent on many difficult-to-understand factors, including regulatory and
legislative climates and intermittent funding opportunities (McLaughlin et al.,
2016). Moreover, the policymaking and legislation that has created many of
the current interagency collaborative structures has been reactive at best, perpetuating piecemeal and fragmented responses to system, school, and student/
family level challenges (NCMHS, 2016). Not unexpectedly, therefore, innovative research models are needed so that we can conduct studies which will allow
us to better understand, assess, inform, and ultimately grow the field.
Over the course of my scientific career, my primary goal has been to conduct
research that can inform schools, communities, and families, with a particular
interest in preventing mental health challenges while simultaneously supporting children with mental illness to be successful in school. Such a goal is lofty,
and my success has been limited and somewhat periodic. For example, I evaluate a specific project, usually utilizing a robust participatory framework that
involves stakeholders including families, and from the study findings, we collaboratively generate a set of recommendations that helps administration know
how to move forward (e.g., Anderson et al., 2016). However, often there is no
comparison group included in these studies, and, although such approaches
can be very useful locally, they tend to offer limited utility outside of this local context. Further, these designs are highly susceptible to multiple, serious
threats to validity (Shadish, Cook, & Campbell, 2002), making any level of
substantive generalization imprecise or inappropriate. A recently articulated alternative, called Networked Improvement Communities (NIC), is helping us to
17
think differently about some of our work. Anthony Bryk and his colleagues at
the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching developed NICs to
facilitate rapid and empirically supported growth. The steps in this approach
are similar to some of the methods used in evaluation-driven improvement
of interagency models: (a) develop and focus on a clear, common goal; (b)
develop a thorough understanding of the problem and the structures that create it; (c) create a working theory about how to improve (or overcome the
problem); and (d) use methods of improvement science to develop, test, and
improve. The authors also suggest starting small, but then rapidly distilling and
disseminating solutions/effective implementation (Bryk, Gomez, Grunow, &
LeMahieu, 2015).
The magnitude of challenges confronting our ability to conduct appropriate, useful studies of interagency approaches cannot be overstated. Random
controlled studies are cost prohibitive, and, even under the best of conditions,
cause and effect will not be unequivocally demonstrated (Schneider, Carnoy,
Kilpatrick, Schmidt, & Shavelson, 2007). Moreover, fully understanding the
counterfactual of complex interagency collaborative models is not realistic, given current technologies. Thus our ability to conduct generalizable research
about interagency collaboration will remain elusive for the foreseeable future.
Ten years ago, Foster and colleagues (2007) suggested that consensus about
the effectiveness of interagency collaboration to improve outcomes for children and their families will likely only emerge as the evidence from numerous
site-specific studies is compiled and examined (Foster et al., 2007). However,
as with NICs, other recent advancements in research methods may offer potential to our work.
Mixed methodologies offer promise (Hasson-Ohayon, Roe, Yanos, & Lysaker, 2015). For example, when discussing the challenges of conducting random
controlled trials, Hitchcock and his colleagues (2016) noted that mixed methods may offer alternatives. The authors described how mixed methodologists
will consider causality through the lenses of a variety of different types of designs, including RCTs, single subject, systematic literature reviews, practitioner
expertise, and the whole range of qualitative methodologies. A core idea in the
mixed methods paradigm, according to Hitchcock et al. (2016), is that multiple
sources of evidence are examined and combined. Attention is given to both the
strength of specific sources of information, as well as the extent to which logical convergence appears to be occurring across various sources of information.
I conclude this paper with a few final reflections about my own professional
journey as a researcher of community-based interagency collaborative projects.
This might also be called, “Stuff I wished I had known 20 years ago when I
started my research career.” First, relationships drive everything. Establishing
18
and maintaining relationships with, between, and among stakeholders, including families and consumers, is not just critical to the work that we do
as educators; relationship building often is one of the many unexpected jobs
of the researcher, especially in participatory program evaluation. Moreover, as
the external evaluator of a new project, I often find myself directly assisting
a community with project visioning, including the development of mission
statements, logic models, and theories of change. I do this foremost to ensure
these important procedures happen, as they force people to communicate, decide, and agree—more often than I care to admit—because this work requires
communities to decide specifically what they want to do (i.e., program design)
so our team can evaluate the program. Second, in community-driven interagency collaboration, politics play an almost ubiquitous role. From the current
federal and state-level leadership to local history, core stakeholders always come
to the process with an agenda which must be acknowledged, understood, and
negotiated. Obviously, this process is the core purpose of interagency collaboration (Anderson, 2000), but still, such challenges need to be addressed not
only in project development but also in research and evaluation (Blank et al.,
2003). For example, I worked on one project, and when it became clear the
data did not demonstrate improved scores on state standardized tests (after the
interagency model had been in place for a single academic year), city leadership
shifted its support to a more recently proposed project.
Third and closely related, scholars such as Michael Fullan (2005) have indicated that it can take up to five years to see tangible academic improvements
from comprehensive projects like these interagency collaborative models. However, as with the previous example, the researcher rarely actually gets five years
to do the study. In addition to evaluation funding running out long before any
sort of causal effects can be considered, even with sufficient time and resources,
the work is challenged through the constant barrage of interruptions due to
staff turnover (consider in a multisystem project how many core staff members
change each year), turnover in elected officials after elections, and a continuous
parade of new partners, initiatives, directions, and so on. Fourth, as a participatory researcher, I find myself constantly navigating between advocacy and
objectivity. As a scientist, I am expected to be impartial. On the other hand,
as a scholar who is relentlessly reading the literature from a variety of different
social and educational fields, I have a lot of knowledge about how interagency
collaboration works. This duality sometimes puts me into awkward positions,
and periodic public disclosures of my potential conflicts of interest are necessary. Finally, one of the most challenging lessons for me has been my slow but
clear recognition that we researchers need to be deliberate in ensuring that research findings are used to inform policymaking (McLaughlin et al., 2016).
19
Although I was disappointed to learn that Congress does not read my research
publications, I also accept that part of the reason for the long time span between the publication of important findings and changes to practice are partly
the fault of researchers. Instead of just talking with each other, we must find
better ways to quickly get concise, useful information to policymakers. Still, I
remain optimistic in my journey and have confidence that, more often than
not, we are heading in appropriate directions. I am also pleased that there does
appear to be at least some empirical support for the old adage: it does indeed
take a village to raise children.
Endnote
In the 1997 reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, the term serious emotional disturbances (SED) was shortened to Emotional Disturbance, or ED (see, e.g.,
Anderson & Mohr, 2003, for an in-depth discussion of labels and diagnoses).
1
References
Abrams, L. S., & Gibbs, J. T. (2000). Planning for school change: School–community collaboration in a full-service elementary school. Urban Education, 35(1), 79–103.
Adelman, H. S., & Taylor, L. (1997). Addressing barriers to learning: Beyond school-linked
services and full-service schools. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 67(3), 408.
Adelman, H. S., & Taylor, L. (2000). Moving prevention from the fringes into the fabric of
school improvement. Journal of Emotional and Psychological Consultation, 11(1), 7–37.
Adelman, H. S., & Taylor, L. (2006a). The implementation guide to student learning supports
in the classroom and schoolwide: New directions for addressing barriers to learning. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Adelman, H. S., & Taylor, L. (2006b). The school leader’s guide to student learning supports: New
directions for addressing barriers to learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Adelman, H. S., & Taylor, L. (2012). Mental health in schools: Moving in new directions.
Contemporary School Psychology, 16, 9–18.
Anderson, J. A. (2000). The need for interagency collaboration for children with emotional
and behavior disabilities and their families. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary
Human Services, 81, 484–493.
Anderson, J. A. (2011). Patterns of school functioning over time among students served in a
system of care. Remedial and Special Education, 32(6), 482–495.
Anderson, J. A., & Cornell, H. (2015, November 18–20). Full Service Community Schools: A
comprehensive education model for providing comprehensive supports for students and their families. Paper presented at the 8th Annual International Conference of Education, Research,
and Innovation, Seville, Spain. Retrieved from http://library.iated.org/view/ANDERSON2015FUL
Anderson, J. A., Cousik, R., & Dare, M. J. (in press). Taking responsibility: Supporting
schools to support children in foster care and state custody. Journal of Family Diversity in
Education.
Anderson, J. A., Crowley, M. F., Dare, M. J., & Retz, J. (2006). Partnerships in systems of care:
An early intervention pilot project with education. Journal of At-Risk Issues, 12(1), 11–19.
20
Anderson, J. A., Ergulec, F., Cornell, H. R., Ruschman, N. L., & Min, M. (2016). Community
impact study. Prepared for the One Community One Family Governance Committee.
Anderson, J. A., Houser, J. H., & Howland, A. (2010). The full purpose partnership model
for promoting academic and socioemotional success in schools. School Community Journal,
20(1), 31–54. Retrieved from http://www.schoolcommunitynetwork.org/SCJ.aspx
Anderson, J. A., & Matthews, B. (2001). We care for students with emotional and behavioral
disabilities and their families. Teaching Exceptional Children, 33(5), 34–39.
Anderson, J. A., McIntyre, J. S., & Somers, J. S. (2004). Exploring the experiences of successful completers of a system of care for children and their families through case narratives.
Journal of Family Social Work, 8(1), 1–25.
Anderson, J. A., & Mohr, W. K. (2003). A developmental ecological perspective in systems
of care for children with serious emotional disturbances and their families. Education and
Treatment of Children, 26(1), 52–74.
Anderson, J. A., Watkins, L. L., Chen, M.-E., & Howland, A. A. (2014, March). Providence
full service community schools aggregated report: Data years 2009/10–2012/13. doi:10.13140/
RG.2.1.3122.0568
Blank, M. J. (2016, May 9). Measuring school quality: Non-academic measures in the Every Student Succeeds Act. Huffpost Education. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.
com/martin-j-blank/measuring-school-quality_b_9871706.html
Blank, M. J., Melville, A., & Shah, B. P. (2003). Making the difference: Research and practice
in community schools. Washington, DC: Coalition for Community Schools. (ED499103)
Bryk, A. S., Gomez, L. M., Grunow, A., & LeMahieu, P. G. (2015). Learning to improve: How
America’s schools can get better at getting better. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Educational Press.
Chen, M.-E., Anderson, J. A., & Watkins, L. (2016). Parent perceptions of connectedness
to a full service community school. Journal of China and Family Studies. Advance online
publication. doi:10.1007/s10826-016-0398-5
Carreón, G. P., Drake, C., & Barton, A. C. (2005). The importance of presence: Immigrant
parents’ school engagement experiences. American Educational Research Journal, 42(3),
465–498.
Conwill, W. L. (2003). Consultation and collaboration: An action research model for the fullservice school. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 55(4), 239–248.
Crowley, M. F., Dare, M. J., Retz, J., & Anderson, J. A. (2003, January). Who said it couldn’t
be done? Creative response from a grant site and special education. Paper presented at the
Winter 2003 System of Care community meeting, “Education: A system of care partner—
Effective strategies for serving youth with serious emotional disorders and their families,”
Portland, OR.
Dryfoos, J. (2000). Evaluation of community schools: Findings to date. Washington, DC: Coalition for Community Schools. (ED450204)
Dryfoos, J. (2002). Full-service community schools: Creating new institutions. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(5), 393–399.
Dryfoos, J. (2005). Community schools in action: Lessons from a decade of practice. New York,
NY: Oxford University Press.
Eber, L., Sugai, G., Smith, C. R., & Scott, T. M. (2002). Wraparound and positive behavioral
interventions and supports in the schools. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders,
10, 171–181.
Evans, G. W. (2004). The environment of childhood poverty. American Psychologist, 59(2),
77–92.
21
Epstein, M. H., Nelson, C. M., Polsgrove, L., Coutinho, M., Cumblad, C., & Quinn, K.
(1993). A comprehensive community-based approach to serving students with emotional
and behavioral disorders. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 1, 127–133.
Flicek, M., Olsen, C., Chivers, R., Kaufman, C. J., & Anderson, J. A. (1996). The Combined
Classroom Model for serving elementary students with and without behavioral disorders.
Behavioral Disorders, 21(3), 241–248.
Foster, E. M., Stephens, R., Krivelyova, A., & Gamfi, P. (2007). Can system integration improve mental health outcomes for children and youth? Children and Youth Services Review,
29, 1301–1319.
Fullan, M. (2005). Leadership and sustainability: System thinkers in action. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Corwin.
Harris, E., & Wilkes, S. (2013). Partnerships for learning: Community support for youth success.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard Family Research Project.
Hasson-Ohayon, I., Roe, D., Yanos, P. T., & Lysaker, P. H. (2015). The trees and the forest:
Mixed methods in the assessment of recovery based interventions’ processes and outcomes
in mental health. Journal of Mental Health. doi:10.3109/09638237.2015.1101419
Hernandez, M., & Hodges, S. (2003). Building upon the theory of change for systems of care.
Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 11, 19–26.
Hitchcock, J. H., Johnson, R. B., & Schoonenboom, J. (2016, April). Ideographic and nomothetic causal inference in special education research and practice: Mixed methods perspectives.
Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting [Special Education Research SIG], Washington, DC.
Hohmann, A. A. (1999). A contextual model for clinical mental health effectiveness research.
Mental Health Services Research, 1, 83–91.
Houser, J. H. W. (2014). Community- and school-sponsored program participation and
academic achievement in a full-service community school. Education and Urban Society,
48(4), 324–345.
Knapp, M. S. (1995). How shall we study comprehensive, collaborative services for children
and families? Educational Research, 24, 5–16.
Lourie, I. S. (1994). Principles of local system development for children, adolescents, and their
families. Chicago, IL: Kaleidoscope.
Moore, K. A., Caal, S., Carney, R., Lippman, L., Li, W., Muenks, K.,…Terzian, M. (2014).
Making the grade: Assessing the evidence for integrated student supports (Publication No.
2014-07). Bethesda, MD: Child Trends. Retrieved from http://www.childtrends.org/wpcontent/uploads/2014/02/2014-07ISSPaper.pdf
McLaughlin, V., West, J., & Anderson, J. A. (2016). Engaging effectively in the policy making
process. Teacher Education and Special Education, 39(2), 134–149.
National Center for Mental Health in Schools (NCMHS) in the Department of Psychology at
UCLA. (2016). ESSA, equity of opportunity, and addressing barriers to learning.Los Angeles,
CA: Center for Mental Health in Schools. (ED565303)
National School Climate Center (NSCC). (2016). School climate. Retrieved from http://www.
schoolclimate.org/climate/
Nicholas, B., & Broadstock, M. (1999). Effectiveness of early interventions for preventing
mental illness in young people. NZHTA-Report, 2(3), 31–41.
Rapp, C. A. (1998). The strengths model: Case management for people suffering from severe and
persistent mental illness. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Robertson, D. C., Anderson, J. A., & Meyer, R. (2004). Individual focus, systemic collaboration: The current and potential role of schools in the integrated delivery of mental health
22
services. In K. Robinson (Ed.), School based mental health: Best practices and program models
(pp. 5.1–5.13). Kingston, NJ: Civic Research Institute.
Schneider, B., Carnoy, M., Kilpatrick, J., Schmidt, W. H., & Shavelson, R. J. (2007). Estimating causal effects: Using experimental and observation of designs (Report from the governing
board of the American Educational Research Association Grants Program). Washington,
DC: American Educational Research Association.
Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental
designs for generalized causal inference. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin.
Smith, S. J., Anderson, J. A., & Abell, A. K. (2008). Preliminary evaluation of the full purpose
partnership school-wide model. Preventing School Failure, 53(1), 28–37.
Strein, W., Hoagwood, K., & Cohn, A. (2003). School psychology: A public health perspective: Prevention, populations, and systems change. Journal of School Psychology, 41(1),
23–38.
Stroul, B. A., & Blau, G. M. (2010). Defining the system of care concept and philosophy: To
update or not to update? Evaluation and Program Planning, 33(1), 59–62.
Stroul, B., & Friedman, R. M. (1986). A system of care for children and youth with severe emotional disturbances (Rev. ed.). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Child Development Center, CASSP Technical Assistance Center.
Sugai, G., Sprague, J. R., Horner, R. H., & Walker, H. M. (2000). Preventing school violence:
The use of office discipline referrals to assess and monitor school-wide discipline interventions. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 8, 94–101.
Tagle, R. (2005). Full service community schools: Cause and outcome of public engagement.
New Directions for Youth Development, 2005(107), 45–54.
Jeffrey Alvin Anderson is a professor in the School of Education at Indiana
University–Bloomington, U.S. His academic home is in the Department of
Curriculum and Instruction/Special Education, where he currently is Principal
Investigator of Project FoCuS: Families, Communities, and Schools (FoCuS):
“Supporting partnerships among schools, families, and communities through
collaboration, engagement, and research.” His research examines the role and
impact of interagency collaboration and family engagement in public schools,
as well as the development of school-based models for preventing and improving the educational and social well-being of students experiencing or at risk for
mental health challenges. Correspondence concerning this editorial may be addressed to Dr. Jeffrey Anderson, Indiana University School of Education, 201
N. Rose Ave., Bloomington, IN 47405, or email [email protected]
23
24
What Is Homework For? Hong Kong Primary
School Teachers’ Homework Conceptions
Vicky C. Tam and Raymond M. C. Chan
Abstract
It is generally agreed that student homework has the potential to extend
learning beyond the classroom. Teachers play a crucial role in the design and
implementation of these assignments. Their beliefs and perceptions are important factors in determining the type and load of homework. This mixed methods
study focuses on teachers’ homework conceptions, that is, how teachers think
about or perceive the nature and purpose of homework. It examines Hong
Kong Chinese primary school teachers’ homework conceptions with respect to
preference for assignment type and perception of homework functions. Findings draw from questionnaire survey data collected from 317 teachers together
with focus group interviews involving 38 teachers. On the whole, respondents support the use of homework assignments to serve various academic and
nonacademic functions. Tension between tradition and change is reflected in
their preference for drilling versus nondrilling assignment type. Furthermore,
questionnaire survey results indicate that teacher efficacy relates to preference
for nondrilling assignments and endorsement of the homework functions of
enhancing long-term learning and supporting home–school communication.
Implications for homework design, teacher preparation, and future research on
teacher conceptions are discussed.
Key Words: homework, Chinese teachers, conceptions, function, preferences,
Hong Kong, perceptions, primary schools, elementary
25
Introduction
It is generally accepted that student homework has the potential to extend
the learning process commenced in the classroom by providing opportunities
for practicing skills, increasing learning-task involvement, as well fostering selfdiscipline and responsibility (Epstein, 1988). Given its significance, there has
been discussion in various education systems around the world with regard to
appropriate homework load, assignment type, and purposes (Cooper, 2001;
Eren & Henderson, 2011; Kralovec & Buell, 2000). Homework assigned to
students at elementary or primary school levels is particularly worthy of attention so as to optimize the use of these young children’s limited cognitive
and physical capacity in managing take-home assignments. As teachers play a
crucial role in homework design and implementation, there is a need to understand their views and thinking so as to prepare new educators for these
important tasks.
It is the focus of this study to examine the homework conceptions of Chinese primary school teachers in Hong Kong. This specific education system
provides an intriguing context for homework research with respect to changing cultural and societal demands. On one hand, Chinese children in Hong
Kong and elsewhere spend a substantial amount of time on school-related assignments every day (Chen & Stevenson, 1989; Dandy & Nettlebeck, 2002;
Tam, 2009). Their heavy engagement in homework stems from the traditional
Chinese culture that is achievement-oriented and puts an emphasis on intensive drilling and practice (Salili, Zhou, & Hoosain, 2003). On the other hand,
education reform in Hong Kong highlights the proper role of homework for
meeting the challenges of the 21st century. Schools are urged to set meaningful homework assignments and to regulate the frequency and amount to keep
students inspired and wanting to do homework (Curriculum Development
Council, 2002). This tension between traditional values and practices versus
changing societal demands—which is also encountered in other education systems that experience rapid transformation—has to be resolved at the system,
school, and classroom levels. This study on Hong Kong teachers’ conceptions
elucidates the views and beliefs behind the design and use of homework assignments. It also makes an attempt to examine how these teacher cognitions
relate to one of the attributes reflecting teaching performance and outcomes,
namely teacher efficacy. This attribute refers to the belief teachers hold about
their individual capacity to teach effectively and to influence student learning
(Klassen, Tze, Betts, & Gordon, 2011). It is of specific interest to explore how
teachers’ views on the purposes of homework and preference for assignment
type and load are linked to efficacy belief on teaching. The findings of this
26
HOMEWORK CONCEPTIONS IN HONG KONG
study will inform teacher education programs in Hong Kong and elsewhere
on developing novice teachers’ capacity on the design and use of homework.
There is also the potential for this study to enlighten policymakers and school
administrators about teachers’ homework conceptions when planning for curriculum changes and innovations that involve student work and assignments.
Teachers’ Homework Conceptions
Teachers’ beliefs and perceptions are important factors affecting instructional practices and student achievement (Fang, 1996; Stevens & Vermeersch,
2010). Among various conceptualizations of cognitions, teachers’ conceptions
refer to how they think about or perceive the nature and purpose of an educational process and practice (Thompson, 1992). Previous research on teachers’
conceptions has examined views on specific academic subjects (Yilmaz, 2008),
language competence (Baleghizadeh & Shahri, 2014), student assessment
(Brown, Lake, & Matters, 2011; Segers & Tillema, 2011), and teachers’ professional roles (Swann, McIntyre, Pell, Hargreaves, & Cunningham, 2010).
These studies on teachers’ cognitions are useful in providing an understanding
of the function and structure of beliefs as well as in interpreting the nature of
the relationship between beliefs and professional practices (Thompson, 1992).
When teachers design and implement homework, they often draw upon
their own beliefs and perceptions about the nature and purpose of the assignments. Esptein (1988) pointed out that homework was assigned by teachers to
serve a range of functions, namely, to practice skills, to foster students’ personal
development, to establish parent–child communication about schoolwork, to
fulfill system policy prescriptions about homework, and as punishment. These
perceived functions are likely to link to the type and amount of homework
assigned. Various aspects of teachers’ homework conceptions have been examined in studies conducted in different education systems around the world.
These include homework functions or purposes (Bang, 2012; Brock, Lapp,
Flood, Fisher, & Han, 2007), preference for assignment type (Kaur, 2011;
Trautwein, Niggli, Schnyder, & Ludtke, 2009), and perceived homework
problems (Hong, Wan, & Peng, 2011). For example, the study of Brock and
her associates (2007) on elementary school teachers in the U.S. has demonstrated a range of perceived homework functions including practicing skills
and teaching discipline, as well as meeting parental expectations and system
requirements. Kaur (2011) reported Singapore Grade 8 teachers’ preference
for review, practice, and drill types of assignments. Another study on Grade
8 classes conducted in Switzerland showed an association between a low emphasis on drill and practice homework tasks and students’ homework effort
and achievement (Trautwein et al., 2009). The above studies indicated how
27
teachers’ homework conceptions related to the type, load, and effectiveness of
assignments. So far only a few studies on teachers’ homework perceptions and
attitudes focus on elementary schools. Furthermore, no study has been done to
demonstrate how teachers’ homework conceptions relate to teaching attribute
or performance.
This study is a fresh attempt to examine teachers’ homework conceptions
in changing Chinese educational contexts. It provides an opportunity to show
how educators’ pedagogical orientations and practices are ingrained in cultural
values and beliefs vis-à-vis transformation brought about by curricular reform.
Tam and Chan’s (2011) study on homework conceptions of Chinese parents
and students in Hong Kong reported a continuation of cultural values on
homework importance and responsibility in conjunction with a de-emphasis
on the traditional preference for assignments emphasizing drilling. It is of interest to see if the views and perceptions of Hong Kong teachers also demonstrate
similar patterns of continuity and change. Furthermore it was shown in Tam
and Chan’s (2011) study that Hong Kong students’ and parents’ preference for
nondrilling assignment and appreciation of the learning and communication
functions of homework were linked to personal efficacy beliefs. The current
investigation extends upon these findings by relating teachers’ homework conceptions to efficacy beliefs. Teacher efficacy relates to the belief about personal
capacity to carry out professional pedagogical tasks. It incorporates the ability
to create an adequate learning environment and to deliver academic instruction (Pas, Bradshaw, & Hershfeldt, 2012). Research studies have associated
teacher efficacy with a range of teaching behaviors and performances including
innovative teaching techniques, higher expectations for students’ outcomes, as
well as more job satisfaction and professional commitment (see Haverback &
Parault, 2008 and Klassen et al., 2011 for reviews). Building upon the existing
literature, this study investigates Chinese teachers’ conceptions of homework
preference and functions and relates these conceptions to efficacy belief on
teaching performance.
Finally, compared to secondary school, primary school curriculum in Hong
Kong is less constrained by demands of public examination. This renders it
possible for teachers to design homework assignments for meeting multiple
academic and nonacademic purposes. Hence this study focuses specifically on
primary school teachers’ homework conceptions.
Method
This study was part of a larger research project on homework in primary
schools in Hong Kong (Tam, 2009; Tam & Chan, 2009, 2010, 2011). The
28
present study included data collected from teachers through focus group interviews and a questionnaire survey. Mixed methods design was employed as
it allows for corroborative evidence for the interpretations of the results that
enlighten understanding on teachers’ conceptions (Brown et al., 2011). While
the focus group interviews explored context-specific conceptions of homework,
data generated from the questionnaire survey described the profile of teachers’
homework conceptions and was used to examine relationships between homework conceptions and teacher efficacy.
Sample
Questionnaire data for this study were collected from 317 teachers (78.9%
female) in 36 government, subsidized, and private primary schools. This sample, taken together, represented teaching at all six primary grade levels with an
average of 14.69 years (SD = 9.03) of experience. In terms of professional rank,
53.9% (n = 171) were teachers holding senior posts in the school including
deputy headteacher, curriculum chair, and subject panel chair, while the rest
were junior teachers. The focus group interviews involved 38 teachers (86.8%
were female) from four schools. Twenty-two of these teachers held senior posts.
Informed consent from the participants was received prior to data collection.
Focus Group Interviews
Eight focus group interviews were carried out on school premises. Each interview involved four to five teachers and lasted between 50 to 60 minutes. We
conducted these semi-structured interviews in Cantonese, a Chinese dialect
native to Hong Kong. The interview protocol covered topics on preferences
of assignment types, perceived functions of homework, as well as expectations
of students’ and parents’ involvement in homework. All interviews were transcribed verbatim in Chinese. The transcripts were then analyzed using coding
procedures recommended by Taylor and Bogdan (1998) and Auerbach and
Silverstein (2003) that involved developing a coding list, sorting and comparing the data, as well as organizing ideas and themes into a narrative. A
list of 10 codes was used which included, among others, amount and type
of homework assigned, considerations on assigning homework, functions of
homework, school support for homework, and observed and expected student
involvement in homework. Through the support of the NVivo qualitative data
management and analysis software, interview data were categorized and organized for identification of themes or key content that elucidated teachers’ views
and practices on homework. The key content was then incorporated with the
survey results into an integrative narrative as reported in the Results section.
29
Questionnaire Survey
The questionnaire used in the research project was written in Chinese
language and included a host of measures including homework preference,
perceived homework functions, and teacher efficacy. The self-administered
questionnaires were distributed to teachers through their schools and were returned to the research team by postal mail.
Homework Preference
A seven-item inventory was developed for the research project to measure
preference for two homework types: drilling assignments that involve text
copying or rote memory; and nondrilling assignments requiring thinking,
imagination, reading, peer collaboration, or parent–child collaboration (Tam
2009; Tam & Chan, 2011). Teachers reported on a five-point Likert scale (1
= very unimportant and 5 = very important) the extent to which they found a
specific assignment type important for enhancing learning and child development. Cronbach’s alphas for the two subscales were .74.
Perceived Homework Functions
An inventory of 12 items tapping perception on the functions and purposes
served by homework assignments was developed for the research project (Tam,
2009; Tam & Chan, 2011). Four subscales were formed, covering homework
functions of: (a) meeting immediate learning goals (4 items): to review learning, to prepare for quizzes and examinations, to comprehend things learned,
and to apply learning; (b) meeting long-term learning goals (3 items): to learn
time management and responsibility, to improve learning skills, and to enhance
learning interests; (c) meeting external demands (3 items): to meet teachers’
demands, to punish students, and to please teachers and parents; and (d) enhancing home–school communication (2 items): parent–child communication,
and parent–school communication. Responses to each statement were measured on a five-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree).
Cronbach’s alphas for the four subscales were .76, .70, .67, and .63, respectively.
Teacher Efficacy
A self-reported measure of instructional self-efficacy adapted from Bandura
(2006) was used to assess teachers’ self-beliefs of capability in managing teaching and learning. There were four items in this scale (e.g., “how much can
you do to motivate your students who show low interest in schoolwork?”).
Responses were collected using a five-point scale (1 = not at all and 5 = very
much). Cronbach’s alpha was .69.
30
Results
Findings of the focus group interviews and the questionnaire survey are reported in the following integrative narrative. It elucidates the profile of Hong
Kong primary school teachers’ conceptions of homework and the relationships
to teacher efficacy. English translation of verbatim quotes extracted from the
interviews is also included as support for validity.
Teachers’ Expected Student Involvement and Preference for
Assignment Type
Primary school teachers taking part in this study considered homework
an essential part of learning. Results of the questionnaire survey showed that
the majority of the teachers (70.9%) expected students to spend more than
one hour each day on take-home assignments and revisions, whereas none endorsed no homework (see Figure 1). The profile reflected teachers’ recognition
of the essential role of homework in primary school education. In the interviews, they explained their support of homework by making reference to the
unique educational context. Primary One teacher A (Note: a subject code was
assigned to each focus group participant) cited large class size as a rationale to
use homework intensively for learning assessment:
Under the current education system in Hong Kong, resources allocated
by the government to the schools are quite limited. We really need to
make use of homework to assess students’ learning. Foreign countries
tend to put more resources into schools so the teacher–student ratio is
low. For them, it is acceptable not to assign homework to students.
Figure 1. Frequency distributions of expected student involvement in homework.
31
Another context-specific rationale for the support of homework relates to
the emphasis on bilingualism in the Hong Kong education system. Beginning
in kindergarten, children learn the Chinese language as their mother tongue
and English as a second language. Homework is thus deemed essential for
building up skills and competence in two languages. Senior teacher B shared
her view on English learning:
English is a second language to our students. So they need to copy text
in order to strengthen their memory. It is especially the case with students whose parents are not competent to supervise English learning;
they need to put more time in practicing.
These teachers’ narratives indicate the perceived significance of written assignments emphasizing drilling and practice for second language acquisition.
The questionnaire survey data provided the profile of teachers’ preference
for assignment types. Teachers as a group showed higher preference for nondrilling assignments involving thinking, imagination, peer collaboration, and
reading (M = 4.04, SD = 0.43) than for drilling assignments including copying
text and memorization (M = 3.00, SD = 0.64). Yet, it was interesting to note
the larger value of standard deviation of preference for drilling assignments, indicating variations among teachers in preference for traditional homework that
emphasizes mechanical practice and memorization. We explored variations in
preference for assignment type by examining two professional background
factors, namely rank and years of experience. Results of independent sample
t-tests reported no significant professional rank differences in preferences. In
other words, senior and junior teachers held similar views on homework types.
Analyses based on bivariate correlations between teaching experience and preference for the two assignment types showed a significant negative relationship
with preference for drilling assignments only, r = -.16, p < .01 (see Table 1),
but not with nondrilling assignments. Specifically, compared to novice teachers, experienced teachers indicated lower preference for homework involving
memorization and copying.
In the interviews, teachers voiced their support for drilling assignments.
English Language and General Studies teacher C stated her view with reference
to language learning:
I find copying text very helpful even though the Education Bureau keeps
saying that it is useless. It helps students learn the [Chinese] characters.
It would be useless copying text all day, but through the process students
learn the characters and the strokes involved. I have experimented with
and without assigning copying text as homework before a dictation and
found a major difference in students’ performance.
32
C’s revelation indicated how she, like many other local teachers, found value in traditional assignments while she acknowledged that such a view did not
align with the requirements of curricular reform. The balance between drilling
and nondrilling assignments needs to be considered in the design of homework
for meeting learning goals specific to the academic subject.
Table 1. Intercorrelations for Scores on Teacher Background Variables, Homework Conception Variables, and Teacher Efficacy
2
1. Teaching experience
3
.12* -.16**
2. Professional rank
3. Preference for drilling
assignments
.06
4
5
-.01
-.01
-.03
.16**
6
7
8
9
-.02 .14*
.14*
.06
.02
.03 .16**
.11
.15**
.06
.10
.03
.03
-.02
4. Preference for nondrilling assignments
.32** -.06 .17** .15** .25**
5. Perceived function –
Meeting immediate
learning goals
.08 .29** .37** .22**
6. Perceived function–
Meeting external
demands
7. Perceived function –
Meeting long-term
learning goals
8. Perceived function–
Enhancing home–
school communication
.05
-.01
-.02
.41** .34**
.34**
9. Teacher efficacy
Notes: N = 317; * p < .05; ** p < .01.
Teachers’ Perceptions of Homework Functions
Focus group participants cited a host of academic and nonacademic functions fulfilled by doing homework. The learning functions mentioned included
consolidating and monitoring learning and preparing for assessment. Other
functions of homework mentioned in the interviews related to nonacademic aspects, namely facilitating personal development, enhancing home–school
communication, and serving as punishment for misbehaviors.
First of all, teachers found homework important for consolidating learning, specifically in promoting comprehension and enhancing recall. English
33
Language teacher D explained why she believes homework assignments help
students to strengthen learning:
If you are presented with something you have just learned a few hours
ago and what you have learned helps you to complete a certain task, then
the activity will boost your long-term memory on that piece of learning.
Chinese Language teacher E drew upon school children’s developmental characteristics to support the benefits of homework:
I believe that children learn through certain processes. We cannot simply
ask them to look at the textbook. We need to ask them to read aloud or
copy the text. There has to be some output. Children are different from
adults; adults can acquire knowledge through reading, while children
cannot.
Teachers also spoke on the functions of homework in monitoring learning
progress and improving teaching. Deputy School Head F shared her views:
When students work on assignments that are related to the lessons, they
realize how much they have learned. Sometimes students think that they
know the materials. But when they go home and work on the assignments, they find out that they don’t quite understand. When students
have this awareness, teachers are able to offer help to them.
Doing homework thus provided an opportunity for primary school students to
review learning attainment. Furthermore, Chinese Language senior teacher G
described how homework enhances her teaching:
Sometimes I notice that many students make a similar mistake in a certain piece of an assignment. Then I start to think whether it is a problem
with my teaching so that they did not get what I said.…Then I can do
some follow-up work the next day to explain further and to improve
learning.
These two examples showed the ways in which teaching and learning could
be monitored through the feedback provided by homework to teachers and
students. Given the significant role of homework in the pedagogical process,
teachers in the interviews raised the concern that the learning purposes of assignments should be explained to the students so as to instill positive homework attitudes. Another Chinese Language senior teacher H remarked:
As part of their process of learning, students need to understand the
purposes behind doing homework. Teachers do not assign homework
simply to fill up students’ free time. The purposes of homework are very
important. You learn something, and then there is a follow-up assignment. This is the process of learning. If students understand this point,
they will hold a different view on homework.
34
Teachers indicated how homework benefited students by preparing them
for assessment. This instrumental perspective was crucial in the examinationoriented education system in Hong Kong. Students’ successes in assessment
bore important consequences not only to themselves, but also to their teachers. Mathematics teacher J said frankly, “We have practical concerns….There
is pressure on us with regard to Territory-Wide System Assessment.1 If there
is no preparation and students’ performance is below the basic competency
standards, teachers will be affected.” J’s remarks highlighted the high-stakes assessment system in Hong Kong and pressure on teachers to ensure good exam
results. Homework was thus also a tool for meeting external demands.
Secondly, other than functions related to academic gains, doing homework was considered contributive to personal growth. Primary One teacher K
shared her belief, “Students do homework in order to build up knowledge. At
the same time, homework helps students to develop independence and confidence.” She expressed the conviction that children developed virtues such as
personal responsibility and accountability through doing homework. In this
regard, homework facilitates whole-person development and serves long-term
learning goals.
Thirdly, teachers elucidated how homework provides a platform for home–
school communication. By supervising homework, parents got to understand
children’s learning. Primary Three teacher L reported her observation:
In my class, I find that students with parental support in doing homework tend to have better learning outcomes. Even when parents may not
be capable of supervising homework, the support they render to children
is beneficial in enhancing learning. It is also important for parents and
the teacher to communicate on students’ performance.
Her view supported the importance of parental involvement in children’s
education. There was also another home–school communication function of
homework expressed in the interviews. As pointed out by Primary Six teacher M, students’ personal changes could be observed through tracking homework performance: “If a student’s homework performance deteriorates suddenly, there may be some family problems. We can make observations like this
through homework assignments.” Observant teachers like M were able to take
note of homework performance to find out about nonacademic aspects of life
affecting the students.
Finally, the use of homework as a form of punishment was mentioned in
the interviews but is on the whole considered inappropriate and ineffective.
Deputy School Head N held a strong view on this point, “If students are punished for talking in class by copying text, the punishment is irrelevant to the
misdeed.…They won’t understand the purpose of the punishment.”
35
Teachers’ conceptions of homework functions were further examined in
the questionnaire survey. Results of one-way within-subject ANOVA showed
significant differences among individual teachers’ endorsement of the four
homework functions, F(3, 948) = 933.74, p < .01. Post-hoc pairwise comparisons indicated that among the 317 teachers sampled, higher endorsements
of homework functions of meeting immediate learning goals (M = 4.13, SD
= 0.44) were reported as compared to the other two functions of meeting
long-term learning goals (M = 3.71, SD = 0.50) and enhancing home–school
communication (M = 3.65, SD = 0.59). Teachers as a group gave lower endorsement to the function of meeting external demands (M = 2.33, SD = 0.60)
than all the other three functions (ps < .01 for all pairwise comparisons). Results of independent sample t-tests comparing professional rank difference
showed that teachers holding senior administrative posts were more likely to
see homework for meeting long-term learning goals (M = 3.78, SD = 0.49)
than their junior counterparts (M = 3.62, SD = 0.51), t (312) = 2.77, p < .01.
No rank difference was reported with the other three perceived homework
functions. Furthermore, teaching experience was found to correlate with two
of the perceived functions, namely meeting long-term learning goals and enhancing home–school collaboration, rs = .14, p < .05 (see Table 1). The more
experienced the teachers, the stronger their endorsement of these two homework functions.
Relationships Among Homework Conceptions and Teacher Efficacy
The associations of homework conceptions with teacher efficacy were examined using hierarchical regression analysis on the questionnaire data. The
analysis allowed for a comparison of the relative contribution of homework
conception variables in predicting teacher efficacy when controlling for professional background factors. Bivariate correlations between teacher efficacy
and teacher characteristics and homework conception variables are reported
in Table 1. Teaching experience, preference for drilling assignments, and the
homework function of meeting external demands showed insignificant correlations with teacher efficacy, and these variables were dropped from further
analysis. The rest of the predictor variables were entered into the hierarchical
regression model in two blocks: (1) professional rank, dummy-coded; (2) preferences for drilling and nondrilling assignments, and the perceived homework
function variables of meeting immediate and long-term learning goals as well
as enhancing home–school communication.
Results of the regression analysis are presented in Table 2. The regression
model was significant at both steps, with 3% and 20% of total R2 explained,
F(2,301) = 4.37, p < .05 and F(8, 295) = 8.91, p < .01, respectively. At step
36
2, R2 change (.17) was significant, F(6, 295) = 10.12, p < .01, showing that
homework conception variables were important predictors of teacher efficacy
above and beyond professional rank. Among them, preference for nondrilling
assignments, together with the two perceived function variables of meeting
long-term learning goals and enhancing home–school collaboration, were
significant positive predictors of teacher efficacy, bs = .19, .20, and .21, respectively, all ps < .01. Implications of these findings on the design of homework
and teacher preparation are discussed in the next section.
Table 2. Hierarchical Regression Analysis Predicting Teacher Efficacy
Teacher Efficacy
Variable
Professional rank
Preference for nondrilling assignments
Meeting immediate learning goals
Meeting long-term learning goals
Enhancing home–school communication
Total R2
Incremental R2
Notes. N = 317; * p < .05; ** p < .01.
Step 1
b
Step 2
b
.15**
.11*
.19**
.02
.20**
.21**
.21**
.18**
.02**
Discussion
This mixed methods study on Hong Kong Chinese primary teachers’ homework conceptions indicated how beliefs and perceptions of the nature and
functions of homework are rooted in the sociocultural contexts of the education system. It is one of few research attempts that has focused on homework
and teachers’ homework conceptions in Hong Kong. Findings are discussed
in terms of implications for school practices and teacher preparation in Hong
Kong and other education systems.
Hong Kong Primary School Teachers’ Homework Conceptions
We have shown in this study that Chinese primary school teachers in Hong
Kong in general favored the use of homework and that they expected students
to spend about an hour a day completing assignments at home. These views
reflect Chinese cultural values for effort and practice as a significant component
of schooling (Salili et al., 2003). Moreover, homework was considered essential in Hong Kong schools as a way to cope with limited resources as well as to
manage bilingual learning. These findings reveal how teachers’ conceptions of
37
homework as pedagogical tools are strategic to the demands of the local education system.
Our survey data showed that teachers as a group preferred nondrilling
assignments that encourage thinking, creativity, and other intellectual and nonintellectual abilities over traditional assignments requiring drilling and practice.
At the same time, focus group interviews revealed teachers’ recognition of the
contribution of drilling and practice to children’s learning, especially given the
heavy demand of bilingual language education in the local system. Such views
reflect how cultural values and ideologies are ingrained in the thinking and
practices of teachers. It also indicates a tension between following traditional practices and managing change brought forth by curricular reform, which
has been similarly documented in Hong Kong Chinese teachers’ conceptions
of assessment (Brown, Kennedy, Fok, Chan, & Yu, 2009). Consideration
is thus needed in the design of homework that takes into account cultural
practices while at the same time provides various assignment types unique to
the demands of specific academic subjects, rendering sufficient opportunities
for the development of a diverse range of skills and competences. A balance of
assignment types should be considered in designing homework so as to achieve
the various academic and nonacademic functions.
Teachers in the focus group interviews reported their perceptions on diverse
academic and nonacademic functions served by homework. Their conceptions
are in line with findings reported in previous studies conducted elsewhere (e.g.,
Epstein, 1988). Our survey results showed that teachers in Hong Kong considered homework beneficial for consolidating and monitoring learning and
developing positive virtues in students. At the same time, take-home assignments were used as a tool to improve teaching, as well as a mechanism for
enhancing home–school communication. The overall positive conceptions
among Chinese teachers in Hong Kong leave little room for a case against
homework, contrasting with those who have sometimes criticized it as a waste
of time (Eren & Henderson, 2011) or a source of stress to children and families (Kralovec & Buell, 2000). From a cultural and professional vantage point,
the challenge for our Hong Kong Chinese teachers is not a black-and-white
acceptance or rejection of homework. Our findings on homework functions
point to the need to design and use homework to serve a variety of teaching,
learning, and developmental purposes.
One important contribution of this study is the investigation of the relationships between homework conceptions and teacher efficacy. While correlational
analysis using cross-sectional data did not allow us to determine the direction
of cause–effect relationships, our findings demonstrated the link between conceptions on professional practices to beliefs in professional competence. We
38
showed that after controlling for professional rank, teacher self-efficacy related
to homework conceptions, in particular preference for nondrilling assignments
and appreciation of the long-term learning purposes and home–school communication functions served by homework. In other words, teachers’ appraisal
of their competence in managing teaching and learning anchored upon recognition of the wider homework functions that develop important values,
learning attitudes, and skills in students and that draw in parental involvement,
as well as the preference for homework assignments emphasizing reading, peer
collaboration, thinking, and creativity. In such regard, the understanding of
teachers’ homework conceptions carries important implications in teacher preparation and professional development. Furthermore, our findings on
the relationship between teacher conceptions and efficacy beliefs corroborates
with studies on parents and students that link homework perceptions to efficacy beliefs (Tam & Chan, 2011). These observations together render support
to cognition-oriented frameworks in understanding teaching and learning
processes (e.g., Bang, 2012; Thompson, 1992).
Designing Homework: Practice and Guidelines
Curricular reform in Hong Kong has highlighted setting meaningful homework so that its important functions can be met by emphasizing its quality
and not its quantity (Curriculum Development Council, 2002). Bembenutty
(2011) suggested that the effectiveness of homework is enhanced by teachers who understand the pedagogical benefits of homework, assign homework
when it is necessary, and provide homework assignments that appeal to the
students’ interests while maintaining solid curricular objectives. Clarification
and affirmation of homework conceptions is thus a critical component in the
development of teaching competence. By explicating homework functions
and how these assignments are embedded in the contextualized teaching and
learning processes, this study can be helpful in orienting teachers and school
administrators in the design and use of homework for academic and nonacademic purposes. Homework functions should be considered when planning
and designing the load and type of student assignments. Our findings reveal
Hong Kong Chinese teachers’ support of drilling-type homework that serves
the immediate learning purposes of reviewing and consolidating materials, especially given the bilingual educational context. At the same time, emphasis
should also be given to assignments that meet the long-term learning functions
of developing academic interest and skills. Examples include individual and
group projects that address cross-curricular content and draw upon creative
thinking and problem-solving skills.
39
Finally, teachers and schools should also consider the home–school communication role of homework which includes designing assignments that
explicitly involve parents, as in parent–child projects. Furthermore, it is important that the purposes of homework assignments be communicated to students
and parents so that they recognize and support the significance of homework.
As Segers and Tillema remark (2011), the effectiveness of homework as a form
of assessment can be enhanced when teachers’ and other stakeholders’ conceptions of learning, teaching, and assessment are congruent. The views of parents
and students should thus be considered and incorporated so as to make effective and efficient use of homework efforts (Bang, 2012; Tam & Chan, 2011;
Tas, Vural, & Öztekin, 2014). Homework functions and objectives are best
made explicit in school- and system-based guidelines that are developed in collaboration among teachers, school administrators, parents, and students. These
guidelines or policies can help affirm the value of homework and align the expectations and behaviors of major stakeholders. As indicated from the results
of our study, the formulation of homework guidelines should take into account
the social and cultural expectations in each school system’s society.
Preparing Teachers for Homework Design and Use
Given the significant role of homework in Hong Kong, it is surprising to
find that its design and implementation have not been incorporated explicitly
in the local Teacher Competencies Framework (Hong Kong Advisory Committee on Teacher Education and Qualifications, 2003) nor in local teacher
education programs. As this study demonstrates the significant contribution of
homework conceptions to teachers’ efficacy beliefs, we urge that teacher training programs in Hong Kong and elsewhere pay more attention to addressing
homework types and functions so as to facilitate professional teachers’ role in
the design and use of homework. The demand is especially important for novice
teachers who have yet to accrue consolidated understanding and conceptions
of the best assignments to hand out to students. Education reform taking place
in Hong Kong and elsewhere in the world makes it essential to systematically
include critical discussion of homework types and the respective potentialities
in preservice and advanced, in-service teacher education curricula (Epstein
& Van Voorhis, 2001; Trautwein et al., 2009). Findings stemming from this
study on teachers’ conceptions inform the curriculum design of teacher education programs to ensure teachers develop competency in designing and using
homework. Past research has demonstrated that teacher preparation is linked
to teaching efficacy (Pas et al., 2012). By preparing teachers for the important
task of homework design and use, they become more confident in making
homework more effective.
40
Future Research
This study examined primary school teachers’ conceptions of homework
in Hong Kong. While we interpret its findings with respect to this unique sociocultural context, this investigation has the potential to trigger the interest
of researchers and practitioners in other Chinese and non-Chinese education
systems to reflect on similar issues and concerns encountered in homework design and use.
With recent advances in educational technology, teachers now have a multitude of tools to assist and enhance student learning and motivation. The nature
and functions of homework are likely to change with the integration of technology in teaching and learning. For instance, web-based homework, among
other new technologies, has been increasingly adopted in schools in Hong
Kong and elsewhere in the world (Medicino, Razzaq, & Heffernan, 2009). Future studies should investigate how teachers’ homework conceptions relate to
and accommodate such pedagogical transformation.
Future research should also examine the homework conceptions of teachers
and other stakeholder groups at the secondary school level. The understanding and practice of homework in secondary schools in Hong Kong is likely to
differ because of the unique learning needs of adolescent students. Moreover,
the public examination that marks the end of secondary school education will
influence the importance of preparation and formative assessment for these
older students.
This context-based examination of Chinese teachers’ homework conceptions
adds to the volume of research on teachers’ cognitions and thinking (Brown et
al., 2009; Thompson, 1992; Turner, Christensen, & Meyer, 2009). This cognitive focus could be expanded in future research on teacher development in
several directions. First, our correlational results on teacher conceptions and
efficacy should be validated in future studies using longitudinal designs that
tap into the professional developmental trajectories of teachers. Second, it is
of interest to find out how homework conceptions relate to a host of teacher
attributes including homework use/practices, pedagogical beliefs, instructional
behaviors, and teaching performance. Finally, a broad framework of teacher cognitions covering various domains of teaching practices such as relating
conceptions of homework and assessment can be established through further
research. This would contribute to the development of theory on teacher cognitions that enhance the professional development of teachers.
41
Endnote
Territory-Wide System Assessment is conducted by the Education Bureau in Hong Kong
annually to assess the performance of all Primary Three, Primary Six, and Secondary Three
students in key learning areas of Chinese Language, English Language, and Mathematics. This
assessment provides information to schools and teachers to enhance their pedagogical plans
and helps the government to review policies and to provide support to schools.
1
References
Auerbach, C. F., & Silverstein, L. B. (2003). Qualitative data: An introduction to coding and
analysis. New York, NY: New York University Press.
Baleghizadeh. S., & Shahri, M. N. (2014). EFL teachers’ conceptions of speaking competence
in English. Teachers and Teaching, 20(6), 738–754. doi:10.1080/13540602.2014.885702
Bandura, A. (2006). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.),
Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 307–337). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
Bang, H. J. (2012). Promising homework practices: Teachers’ perspectives on making homework work for newcomer immigrant students. High School Journal, 95(2), 3–31.
Bembenutty, H. (2011). The first word: Homework’s theory, research, and practice. Journal of
Advanced Academics, 22(2), 185–192. doi:10.1177/1932202X1102200201
Brock, C. H., Lapp, D., Flood, J., Fisher, D., & Han, K. T. (2007). Does homework matter? An
investigation of teacher perceptions about homework practices for children from nondominant backgrounds. Urban Education, 42(4), 349–372. doi:10.1177/0042085907304277
Brown, G., Kennedy, K. J., Fok, P. K., Chan, J. K., & Yu, W. M. (2009). Assessment for
student improvement: Understanding Hong Kong teachers’ conceptions and practices of
assessment. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy, & Practice, 16(3), 347–363. doi:10.
1080/09695940903319737
Brown, G., Lake, R., & Matters, G. (2011). Queensland teachers’ conceptions of assessment:
The impact of policy priorities on teacher attitudes. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27,
210–220. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2010.08.003
Chen, C. S., & Stevenson, H. W. (1989). Homework: A cross-cultural examination. Child
Development, 60, 551–561. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.1989.tb02736.x
Cooper, H. (2001). The battle over homework: Common ground for administrators, teachers, and
parents. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Curriculum Development Council. (2002). Basic education curriculum guide: Building on
strengths. Retrieved from http://cd1.edb.hkedcity.net/cd/EN/Content_2909/BE_Eng.pdf
Dandy, J., & Nettlebeck, T. (2002). The relationship between IQ, homework, aspirations,
and academic achievement for Chinese, Vietnamese, and Anglo-Celtic Australian school
children. Educational Psychology, 22(3), 267–275. doi:10.1080/01443410220138502
Epstein, J. L. (1988). Homework practices, achievements, and behaviors of elementary school students. Baltimore, MD: Center for Research on Elementary and Middle Schools, Johns
Hopkins University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. PS 017 621) Retrieved
from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED301322.pdf
Epstein, J. L., & Van Voorhis, F. L. (2001). More than minutes: Teachers’ roles in designing
homework. Educational Psychologist, 36(3), 181–193. doi:10.1207/S15326985EP3603_4
Eren, O., & Henderson, D. J. (2011). Are we wasting our children’s time by giving them
more homework? Economics of Education Review, 30(5), 950–961. doi:10.1016/j.econedurev.2011.03.011
42
Fang, Z. (1996). A review of research on teacher beliefs and practices. Educational Research,
38(1), 47–65. doi:10.1080/0013188960380104
Haverback, H. R., & Parault, S. J. (2008). Pre-service reading teaching efficacy and tutoring: A
review. Educational Psychology Review, 20(3), 237–255. doi:10.1007/s10648-008-9077-4
Hong, E., Wan, M., & Peng, Y. (2011). Discrepancies between students and teachers: Perceptions of homework. Journal of Advanced Academics, 22(2), 280–308. doi:10.1177/19322
02X1102200205
Hong Kong Advisory Committee on Teacher Education and Qualifications. (2003). Towards
a learning profession: The teacher competencies framework and the continuing professional development of teachers. Retrieved from http://www.edb.gov.hk/attachment/en/teacher/qualification-training-development/development/cpd-teachers/ACTEQ%20Document%20
2003%20-%20Eng.pdf
Kaur, B. (2011). Mathematics homework: A study of three Grade Eight classrooms in Singapore. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 9(1), 187–206. doi:10.
1007/s10763-010-9237-0
Klassen, R. M., Tze, V. M., Betts, S. M., & Gordon, K. A. (2011). Teacher efficacy research
1998–2009: Signs of progress or unfulfilled promise? Educational Psychology Review, 23,
21–43. doi:10.1007/s10648-010-9141-8
Kralovec, E., & Buell, J. (2000). The end of homework: How homework disrupts families, overburdens children, and limits learning. Boston, MA: Beacon.
Medicino, M., Razzaq, L., & Heffernan, T. (2009). A comparison of traditional homework
to computer-supported homework. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41(3),
331–358.
Pas, E. T., Bradshaw, C. P., & Hershfeldt, P. A. (2012). Teacher- and school-level predictors
of teacher efficacy and burnout: Identifying potential areas for support. Journal of School
Psychology, 50, 129–145. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2011.07.003
Salili, F., Zhou, H., & Hoosain, R. (2003). Adolescent education in Hong Kong and Mainland China: Effects of culture and context of learning on Chinese adolescents. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.), Adolescence and education, Vol. III: International perspectives on
adolescence (pp. 277–302). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
Segers, M., & Tillema, H. (2011). How do Dutch secondary teachers and students conceive
the purpose of assessment? Studies in Education Evaluation, 37, 49–54. doi:10.1016/j.
studeuc.2011.03.008
Stevens, P. A., & Vermeersch, H. (2010). Streaming in Flemish secondary schools: Exploring
teachers’ perceptions of and adaptation to students in different streams. Oxford Review of
Education, 36(3), 267–284. doi:10.1080/03054981003629862
Swann, M., McIntyre, D., Pell, T., Hargreaves, L., & Cunningham, M. (2010). Teachers’
conceptions of teacher professionalism in England in 2003 and 2006. British Educational
Research Journal, 36(4), 549–571. doi:10.1080/01411920903018083
Tam, V. C. (2009). Homework involvement among Hong Kong primary school students.
Asian Pacific Journal of Education, 29(2), 213–227.
Tam, V. C., & Chan, R. M. (2009). Parental involvement in primary children’s homework
in Hong Kong. School Community Journal, 19(2), 81–100. Retrieved from http://www.
schoolcommunitynetwork.org/SCJ.aspx
Tam, V. C., & Chan, R. M. (2010). Hong Kong parents’ perceptions and experiences of involvement in homework: A family capital and resource management perspective. Journal of
Family and Economic Issues, 31, 361–370.
43
Tam, V. C., & Chan, R. M. (2011). Homework involvement and functions: Perceptions of
Hong Kong Chinese primary school students and parents. Educational Studies, 37(5),
569–580. doi:10.1080/03055698.2010.539788
Tas, Y., Vural, S. S., & Öztekin, C. (2014). A study of science teachers’ homework practice.
Research in Education, 91, 45–64. doi:10.7227/RIE.91.1.5
Taylor, S. J., & Bogdan, R. (1998). Introduction to qualitative research methods: A guidebook and
resource. New York, NY: Wiley.
Thompson, A. G. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and conception: A synthesis of the research. In D.
A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 127–
146). New York, NY: Macmillan.
Trautwein, U., Niggli, A., Schnyder, I., & Ludtke, O. (2009). Between-teacher differences in
homework assignments and the development of students’ homework effort, homework
emotions, and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(1), 176–189. doi:10.
1037/0022-0663.101.1.176
Turner, J. C., Christensen, A., & Meyer, D. K. (2009). Teachers’ beliefs about student learning
and motivation. In L. J. Saha & A. G. Dworkin (Eds.), International handbook of research
on teachers and teaching (pp. 361–371). New York, NY: Springer.
Yilmaz, K. (2008). Social studies teachers’ conceptions of history: Calling on historiography.
Journal of Educational Research, 101(3), 158–176. doi:10.3200/JOER.101.3.158-176
Vicky C. Tam is a professor in the Department of Education Studies of
Hong Kong Baptist University. Her research interests include homework, parental involvement in education, parenting, adolescent development, and stress
and coping. Correspondence concerning this article may be addressed to Dr.
Tam, Department of Education Studies, Hong Kong Baptist University, Kowloon Tong, Hong Kong, or email [email protected]
Raymond M. C. Chan is an associate professor in the Department of Education Studies at Hong Kong Baptist University. His research interests are school
guidance and counseling, teacher professional development, teacher wellness,
adolescents’ life skills development, and adolescents’ cross-cultural adjustment.
44
Parental Engagement in Children’s Education:
Motivating Factors in Japan and the U.S.
Yoko Yamamoto, Susan D. Holloway, and Sawako Suzuki
Abstract
In spite of evidence indicating the benefits of parental engagement for children’s achievement, little is known about the factors that contribute to parental
engagement in countries outside the United States. In this study, we addressed
this gap in the literature by examining teachers’ outreach in addition to maternal
psychological elements (maternal role construction and parenting self-efficacy)
in predicting Japanese and American mothers’ home- and school-based engagement at the second grade level. We found that these factors uniquely and
significantly contributed to home-based engagement (homework supervision
and engagement in cognitive activities) and school-based engagement in both
countries. Furthermore, these factors accounted for between-country differences in the extent of home-based engagement. Between-country differences
in school-based engagement remained significant even after the three factors
were entered, suggesting a need for additional theorizing in contexts outside
the U.S. Findings of this study also highlight the importance of teacher invitations in stimulating parents’ engagement.
Key Words: engagement, home, school, parenting self-efficacy, parental role
construction, teachers, parents’ involvement, Japanese mothers, American
Introduction
Promoting parental engagement in children’s education has become a major goal for both policymakers and educators in the U.S. Ample evidence has
45
demonstrated that parental engagement benefits children’s development and
academic progress (Fan & Chen, 2001; Grolnick & Slowiaczek, 1994; Pomerantz, Moorman, & Litwack, 2007). Accordingly, researchers have endeavored
to identify factors that facilitate parents’ willingness and ability to become engaged (Anderson & Minke, 2007; Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler, 1997; Sheldon,
2002). Much of this work has been guided by a theoretical model developed
by Hoover-Dempsey and her associates which identifies the following determinants of parental engagement in children’s schooling: (a) parents’ sense of
responsibility for supporting their child’s learning; (b) parenting self-efficacy
in helping their children; (c) invitations from teachers; (d) invitations from
children; and (e) family resources such as time, knowledge, and skills (HooverDempsey et al., 2005; Walker, Wilkins, Dallaire, Sandler, & Hoover-Dempsey,
2005). Empirical studies have generally supported the Hoover-Dempsey framework for middle class families in the U.S. (Anderson & Minke, 2007; Green,
Walker, Hoover-Dempsey, & Sandler, 2007; Park & Holloway, 2013; Sheldon,
2002; Walker, Ice, Hoover-Dempsey, & Sandler, 2011).
In spite of increasing evidence indicating the benefits of parental engagement in international contexts (e.g., Buchmann, 2002; Gao, 2012; Yamamoto
& Brinton, 2010), little effort has been made to examine the factors that contribute to it in countries outside the U.S., and little is known about whether
the model can be generalized to other countries. Indeed, it is likely that cultural factors affect parents’ decisions regarding engagement above and beyond
the factors identified by Hoover-Dempsey and colleagues, as has been found
in studies of immigrants and members of nondominant ethnic groups within the U.S. (García Coll & Marks, 2009; Greenfield, Quiroz, & Raeff, 2000;
Park & Holloway, 2013; Sy & Schulenberg, 2005; Trumbull, Rothstein-Fisch,
Greenfield, & Quiroz, 2001; Trumbull, Rothstein-Fisch, & Hernandez, 2003;
Walker et al., 2011). By identifying the factors that promote parental engagement in various cultural contexts, researchers can assist in the development of
effective policies and practices in other nations as well as for American families
from diverse cultural and social backgrounds. In addition, insights based on
values and practices in other cultural contexts can shed light on those of the
dominant culture reflected in U.S. schooling.
In this study, we focused on three determinants of parental engagement
from the broader range identified in the Hoover-Dempsey model: parental
role construction, parenting self-efficacy, and parents’ perception of teacher
invitations. Due to our focus on parents’ psychological beliefs and school contexts across the two nations, we used family resources as controls and decided
not to examine individual children’s attributes. Because of the heightened maternal role in socializing and educating their children in Japan, we focused
46
PARENTAL ENGAGEMENT IN JAPAN & U.S.
on mothers in our examination of parental engagement. Of particular interest was the extent to which these three motivational factors were associated
with Japanese and American mothers’ home- and school-based engagement at
the second grade level. While these two countries are comparable in terms of
economic development, government structure, and educational system, the expectations of school staff regarding parental engagement differ in key respects,
as we detail below.
Parental Engagement in Japan and the U.S.
The term parental engagement, also referred to as parental involvement,
encompasses behaviors that directly or indirectly support a child’s school experiences at home or school (Pomerantz et al., 2007). Home-based engagement
includes parental assistance with homework and engagement in intellectually stimulating activities such as reading aloud or visiting a museum (Epstein,
1987; Pomerantz et al., 2007). Our review of the literature suggests that cultural expectations for home-based parental engagement are similar in Japan
and the United States. In both countries, parents are often asked by the schools
to monitor and support their children’s completion of homework assignments.
Japanese schools tend to be particularly explicit about what parents, especially
mothers, should do with respect to helping with homework, and this practice
seems to be clearly understood and reliably carried out by most mothers of elementary school children (Lewis, 1995; Yamamoto, 2015). Similarly, activities
related to literacy such as visiting the library and reading aloud are commonly
practiced (Pomerantz et al., 2007; Yamamoto & Brinton, 2010), even though
social class differences in parental engagement in these activities appear in both
countries (Dumais, 2002; Kariya, 2004; Lareau, 2003; Matsuoka, Nakamuro,
& Inui, 2015).
School-based engagement includes such practices as communicating with
teachers, helping in the classroom, attending school events, participating in
parent–teacher conferences, and being involved in a parent–teacher organization (Epstein & Sanders, 2002). It is with respect to this type of engagement
that we can identify more pronounced national differences. In the U.S., many
parents exert considerable pressure to influence teachers’ decisions and instructions regarding issues such as student testing, placement in special services,
and retention decisions (Lareau, 2000). In Japan, parents are expected to attend parent–teacher conferences and school events but are discouraged from
making special requests for their children or questioning teachers’ decisions
and practices (Okano & Tsuchiya, 1999; Onoda, 2013). Moreover, the nationally controlled school curriculum and the absence of academic tracks or ability
47
grouping in Japanese primary schools constrains parents’ ability to customize
or influence their children’s school experience (Yamamoto, 2015). Because of
these national differences, we expected that country differences would be more
apparent with respect to the predictors of school-based than home-based engagement in our data.
What Factors Motivate Parental Engagement in Education?
Parental Role Construction
Parental role beliefs determine the range of parents’ activities considered
to be important and critical on behalf of the child (Eccles & Harold, 1996;
Greenfield et al., 2000; Hoover-Dempsey et al., 2005; Hoover-Dempsey &
Sandler, 1997). Parents construct their roles by considering their own expectations and those of people around them (e.g., teachers, friends). Within the
U.S., many parents believe that supporting their children’s cognitive, verbal,
and educational development is a critical aspect of their role in addition to
supporting their physical and social competence (Lareau, 2000; Okagaki &
Sternberg, 1993; Valdés, 1996). Despite considerable within-country variation
concerning parents’ endorsement of particular behaviors, parental role construction has been established as a critical element predicting their engagement
(Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler, 1997; Walker et al., 2011).
In Japan, many parents believe that supporting children’s education, in addition to physical care and socialization experiences, is a mother’s responsibility
(Allison, 1996; Hirao, 2001; Holloway, 2000, 2010). However, not all Japanese
mothers are as heavily involved in their children’s schooling as has been commonly supposed by American researchers. First of all, many Japanese parents
send their children to private enrichment programs, thus shifting responsibility to these institutions for their children’s education (Kariya, 2004; Roesgaard,
2006). Additionally, as in the U.S., social class may play a role in shaping Japanese mothers’ construction of their role vis-à-vis their children’s schooling, and
lower socioeconomic status (SES) Japanese mothers tend to leave the task of
educating their children to teachers (Kondo, 1990; Yamamoto, 2015). These
cultural patterns make it important to explore whether or not parental role
construction is related to parental engagement both in Japan and the U.S.
Parenting Self-Efficacy
The construct of self-efficacy refers to “beliefs in one’s capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to produce given attainments”
(Bandura, 1997, p. 3). Individuals with high self-efficacy in a particular area
(e.g., supporting their children’s education) exert effort in that area, persevere
48
in the face of difficulty, and respond resiliently to adversity (Bandura, 1997).
This theory suggests that even if parents value education and realize the importance of parental support, they may decide not to be involved in their children’s
education if they do not feel capable of teaching, disciplining, or interacting
with their children.
Empirical evidence in the U.S. has identified a strong link between parents’
self-efficacy and their childrearing activities. Parents with high levels of parenting self-efficacy tend to build warm and affectionate relationships with their
children and to persevere in their parenting actions (Coleman & Karraker,
1997; Teti & Gelfand, 1991). Parents who feel competent regarding academic matters tend to be more involved in their children’s education, suggesting
the importance of domain-specific efficacy (Bandura, Barbaranelli, Caprara, &
Pastorelli, 1996; Eccles & Harold, 1996; Hoover-Dempsey, Bassler, & Brissie,
1992).
Cross-cultural evidence has demonstrated that Japanese mothers, on
average, have lower parenting self-efficacy compared to mothers in other industrialized countries including the U.S. (Bornstein et al., 1998; Kazui, 1997).
Some scholars have suggested that the Japanese cultural practice of engaging
in critical self-reflection may result in a decrement to self-efficacy and can—in
the absence of social support—undermine parenting effectiveness (Holloway,
2010). Previous studies found that parenting self-efficacy was associated with
mothers’ likelihood of engaging in individually chosen activities like reading to
their preschoolers and their investment in extracurricular classes but not with
their engagement in activities at the preschool site which are heavily scripted by
the school (Holloway, Yamamoto, Suzuki, & Dalesandro, 2008; Yamamoto,
Holloway, & Suzuki, 2006). The current study extends these works by examining the role of parenting self-efficacy in predicting maternal engagement when
their children are in the second grade.
Perceptions of Teacher Invitations
In Hoover-Dempsey’s model, parental engagement is seen not only as a
matter of parental self-perception but also as a function of the school climate,
including parents’ perception about whether their engagement is welcomed
by school staff. These perceptions are based on the nature and frequency of
teachers’ communications as well as whether they invite parents to visit the
school site and provide suggestions about home-based engagement (HooverDempsey et al., 2005; Walker et al., 2005). In the U.S., teachers’ invitations
and support have been shown to particularly facilitate low-SES and immigrant parents’ engagement in children’s schooling (Park & Holloway, 2013;
Wang, 2008; Whitaker & Hoover-Dempsey, 2013; Trumbull et al., 2003). In
49
Japan, while school efforts to facilitate parent–teacher communications and
community–school partnerships are found to be a characteristic of “effective”
or “empowering” schools (Shimizu, 2008), school staff are often unwilling or
unable to extend genuine invitations to parents (Onoda, 2013; Yamamoto,
2015). While many Japanese elementary school teachers encourage parents to
attend meetings and school events and provide suggestions regarding home
routines, most do not invite parents to volunteer in their children’s classroom
or play a role in developing school policies or activities (Okano & Tsuchiya,
1999; Onoda, 2013; Yamamoto et al., 2006). In the present study, we examined mothers’ perceptions of teacher invitations for involvement and evaluated
whether or not they were associated with home- and school-based engagement.
Overview of the Current Research
The goal of this study was to examine the determinants of home- and
school-based maternal engagement in Japan and the U.S. at the second grade
level. Our first objective was to obtain a sense of what types of engagement
were present in each country. Because previous studies have demonstrated that
education is valued by parents in both countries, we did not expect to find
differences between Japanese and American mothers in the degree to which
they engaged in home-based activities. However, we did expect that American mothers would be more involved than Japanese mothers in school-based
activities, given the national differences in school climate and acceptance of
parent presence at the school site. Our second goal was to determine whether three key elements of the Hoover-Dempsey model successfully explained
any country-level differences we found in maternal engagement at home and
school. We expected that, as theoretically robust psychological and contextual determinants of parental engagement, they would indeed account for such
differences. Our third goal was to examine the relative contribution of each
theoretical determinant to each form of maternal engagement. We hypothesized that mothers’ role construction and self-efficacy would be associated with
home-based engagement in both countries. However, because mothers may
feel that they have relatively little control over the school environment—particularly in Japan—we thought that role construction and self-efficacy were less
likely to be associated with school-based engagement. We expected that teacher
invitations would be related to school-based engagement in both nations but
did not expect to find strong associations with home-based engagement.
50
Method
Data and Procedure
Data were derived from a longitudinal study that initially focused on Japanese and American families with a preschool-aged child and then followed the
families through the child’s second-grade year. At Time 1, mothers completed
a survey about their parenting beliefs and styles and their relationships with
families and friends. They completed a second survey on these topics when
their children were in the first grade and a third survey near the end of second
grade. Data used in the present study were derived from the third survey (Time
3), with the exception of the measure of parental role construction, which was
drawn from the first survey, along with the measures of mothers’ education and
child’s birth order.
Participants
In Japan, the Time 1 sample contained 116 Japanese women with a child
attending one of nine preschools (yōchien) in an urban region. At each school,
a member of the preschool staff solicited the participation of all mothers with
a child in the final year of preschool. Over 95% of mothers participated in the
survey. The average age of the mothers was 36 years (SD = 3.93), and the average age of the children was 68 months (SD = 3.47). Mothers’ education level
varied from junior high school diploma to master’s degree with an average of
13 years (SD = 1.50). Forty percent indicated an annual household income of
5 to 7 million yen (approximately $50,000 to $70,000). Twenty-six percent
earned less than 5 million yen, and 34% earned more than 7 million yen.
Of the Japanese participants, 98 (84% of the original sample) remained
in the sample at the Time 3 project, when the children were in second grade
and were 7 or 8 years old. At that time, more than half (55%) of the Japanese
mothers were working for pay, with the majority of these employed part-time.
All mothers were married at Time 1, but three mothers were divorced at Time
3. The average family size was 2.19 children (SD = .68). The target child was
the first born in 44% of the families, second born in 40%, and third or later
born in 16% of the families (see Table 1). Attrition analyses revealed that the
Japanese women who responded to the third survey did not differ from the
original group in terms of residential location, age, years of education, household income, number of children, or focal child’s gender. Women who had
older children were somewhat less likely to respond to the third survey, t(114)
= 2.05, p < .05.
In the U.S., 121 mothers with a child attending one of 17 preschools in
a single urban county participated in the Time 1 study. Preschool directors
51
distributed survey packets to all English-speaking mothers of children who
were expected to attend kindergarten the following year; approximately 40%
of those mothers responded to the survey. The average age of the mothers was
38 (SD = 4.24) and the average age of children was 55 months (SD = 4.02).
The majority (89%) of mothers were non-Latina White, with an additional 4%
Latina or Hispanic, 3% Asian American, and 3% other ethnicity. All foreignborn mothers (n = 16) came to the United States at age 3 or younger. Mothers’
education level varied from high school diploma or GED to master’s degree
with an average of 15 years. In general, the sample was composed of relatively
highly educated middle- and upper-middle-class families. Twenty three percent indicated an annual household income of $60,000 to $100,000. Twelve
percent earned less than $60,000, and 62% earned more than $100,000.
Table 1. Demographic Information of Participants at Time 3
Japan
(n = 98)
13.37 years (1.48)
38 (38.8%)
16 (16.3%)
30 (30.6%)
14 (14.3%)
35.59 years (4.02)
5 (5.1%)
U.S.
(n = 78)
15.60 years (1.83)
8 (10.3%)
3 (3.8%)
12 (15.4%)
55 (70.5%)
37.29 years (4.59)
3 (3.8%)
30–34
35 (35.7%)
12 (15.4%)
35–39
39 (39.8%)
40 (51.3%)
40 and older
19 (19.4%)
22 (29.6%)
9.83 hours (12.94)
19.34 hours (15.80)
Full-time
8 (8.2%)
19 (22.4%)
Part-time
44 (44.9%)
37 (47.4%)
No work
43 (43.9%)
22 (28.2%)
1.75 (.78)
1.73 (.78)
43 (43.9%)
39 (39.8%)
16 (16.3%)
34 (43.6%)
34 (43.6%)
10 (12.8%)
Mother education (years)a (Time 1)
GED/High school or less
Vocational/professional school
Associate’s degree (AA)
Bachelor’s degree (BA) and above
Mother’s ageb (Time 1)
29 or younger
Mothers’ work hours/weeka (Time 3)
Focal child’s birth order (Time 1)
First born
Second born
Third born or later
Note. Numbers and parentheses indicate means and standard deviations, respectively. Indented
numbers and parentheses indicate counts and percentages, respectively.
a
Significantly different means between nations based on t-test results, p < .001.
b
Significantly different means between nations based on t-test results, p < .05.
52
Of the American participants, 78 (64% of the original sample) remained in
the sample at the Time 3 project, when the children were in second grade and
were 7 or 8 years old. At that time, close to 90% of the mothers were working
for pay, with the majority of these employed part-time. Nine mothers were divorced. The average family size was 1.73 children (SD = .78). The target child
was the first born in 44% of the families, second born in 44%, and third or
later born in 13% of the families (see Table 1). Attrition analyses revealed that
the American women who responded to the third survey did not differ from
the original group in terms of age, years of education, household income, number of children, age of child, focal child’s gender, or focal child’s birth order.
In order to compare the equivalence of the samples across the two countries
(N = 176), we ran t-tests (two-tailed) and chi-squares on the demographic indicators. Gender of the target child did not differ significantly across the two
countries nor was there a difference in number of first-born vs. later-born children. American mothers were significantly older, t(174) = -2.58, p < .05, more
educated, t(174) = -9.06, p < .001, and worked longer hours, t(171) = -4.27,
p < .001, than Japanese mothers.
Measures
Descriptive information for each scale in the survey can be found in Table 2.
Parenting Self-Efficacy
We developed this measure specifically for the study in accordance with
Bandura’s recommendation that self-efficacy be evaluated with respect to the
specific activities under investigation (Bandura, 1997; Bandura et al., 1996).
Mothers indicated on a scale from 1 (not at all confident) to 6 (very confident)
how confident they were in teaching and disciplining their children with respect to 20 items related to child development and educational progress (see
Appendix A). We selected these items by examining the content of scales derived in the United States, as well as parent surveys developed by Japanese
government agencies and private educational organizations (e.g., Benesse Educational Research Institute, 2000; hereafter Benesse). We also consulted with
advisory panels of Japanese and American child development experts (teachers, parent education specialists, university researchers) about child rearing
issues of importance to Japanese and American parents. In recent years, several
studies have shown the instrument to be associated with conceptually related
measures in cross-cultural contexts (Azizi, Mahmoudi-Gharaei, Mirzaei, Tajeri,
& Eshaghbeygi, 2008; Balat, Zembat, & Acar, 2010; Holloway, Suzuki, Yamamoto, & Behrens, 2005; Suzuki, Holloway, Yamamoto, & Mindnich, 2009).
By calculating the mean score of the 20 items, we created a composite variable,
parenting self-efficacy, α = .93 for the full sample (U.S. and Japan combined).
53
Maternal Role Construction
The maternal role construction measure was developed by the authors as
well. Using several items from the parenting self-efficacy measure, we asked
mothers to indicate the relative percentage of responsibility that the family and
the school, respectively, should be accorded in teaching a child six cognitive
and academic-related skills (Appendix B). For each item, mothers allocated a
total of 100 percentage points between the two possible sources of responsibility. The composite variable, maternal role construction, was the mean number of
points designated as the maternal responsibility across the six items. A higher
score on an item indicated greater emphasis on the mothers’ views about their
responsibility for helping the child learn that particular skill. The internal consistency of the six items was high; α = 83.
Teacher Invitations
Mothers indicated on a three-point scale (1 = not at all, 2 = once or twice, 3
= more than twice) how much the teacher of their target child invited communication with parents. The three items, which we developed to reflect aspects of
parent–teacher interaction identified in the parental involvement literature and
in the subsample mothers’ descriptions during interviews, included “invited to
talk about child,” “invited to attend or help with school events,” and “provided
suggestions.” Using the mean score of the three items, we created a composite
variable, teacher invitations, α = .64. Although this internal consistency coefficient is relatively low, it is important to remember that the composite consisted
of only three items. We also note that the three items were all significantly correlated with each other at the .02 level or higher.
Homework Engagement
Mothers indicated how often they helped with their child’s homework,
checked their child’s homework for completeness, checked for accuracy, and
helped with their child’s writing or math on a five-point scale, from 1 (less
than once a month) to 5 (almost always; adapted from Benesse, 2000; HooverDempsey & Sandler, 1997). Using the mean score of the 4 items, we created a
composite variable, homework engagement, α = .81.
Cognitive Engagement
Mothers also indicated how often they were engaged in cognitive and intellectual activities with their children on a five-point scale from 1 (less than once
a month) to 5 (almost always). The six items included activities such as reading books to their children, playing on computers with their child, taking their
child to a library, visiting a museum/zoo/aquarium with their child, engaging
in an activity of their child’s interest, and playing card games with their child
54
(adapted from Eccles & Harold, 1996; Kariya, Shimizu, Shimizu, & Morota,
2002). Using the mean score of the 6 items, we created a composite variable,
cognitive engagement, α = .64.
School-Based Engagement
Mothers reported how many times in a year they had done each of the following: spoken to the teacher at a conference, visited the classroom, contacted
the teacher about homework, volunteered in the classroom, and exchanged
notes with the teacher. The reported score for each item ranged from 0 to
10. We adapted these items from studies which assessed parents’ involvement
in school reported in Eccles and Harold (1996) and Hoover-Dempsey and
Sandler (1997; see also Walker et al., 2005). Using the mean score of the 5
items, we created a composite variable, school-based engagement.
Demographic Variables
Control variables included mothers’ education, mothers’ work hours, and
target child’s birth order. Mothers’ education was computed by assigning a numerical value corresponding to the number of years of education associated
with their attained educational level completed (junior high school = 9, GED
or high school = 12, professional/vocational training or AA/AS = 14, BA/BS =
16, post-graduate = 18). The item called “mothers’ work hours” was based on
self-reported average hours per week spent working outside the home. The target child’s birth order was coded as first- or later-born.
Analytical Strategies
We conducted data analysis in three steps. First, to obtain a sense of what
types of engagement were present in each country, we conducted descriptive
analyses of the three parental engagement composites and examined them to
see if there were any cross-national differences using independent samples ttests (two-tailed). We also ran Pearson product moment correlation analyses
with the three parental engagement composites and the three focal predictors.
Then, to achieve the second and the third goals of this study, we conducted a
hierarchical linear regression for each type of parental engagement. In the first
step, we included the three control variables and a dummy code for country
(0 = Japan, 1 = U.S.). In the second step, we added the three focal composites:
maternal role construction, parenting self-efficacy, and teacher invitations. We
also tested for interaction effects between country and the focal composites.
The regression analyses enabled us to determine whether the focal composites
accounted for any country-level effects, as well as to evaluate the contribution
of each focal composite to parental engagement.
55
Table 2. Means and Standard Deviations of Parental Engagement Variables,
Maternal Role Construction, Parenting Self-Efficacy, and Teacher Invitations
by Country
Japan
Composites
Parent engagement:
Homework engagement
Cognitive engagement
School-based engagement
Maternal role construction
Parenting self-efficacy
Teacher invitations
M
SD
3.46
2.31
2.48
.57
4.43
1.45
1.21
.66
1.25
.13
.68
.55
U.S.
M
SD
3.99
2.87
4.20
.64
5.18
2.16
.87
.56
1.81
.14
.51
.45
t
-3.38 (173)*
-5.96 (173)**
-7.13 (173)**
-3.24 (173)*
-8.35 (174)**
-9.12 (174)**
Note: Sample sizes vary from 97 to 98 in Japan and 77 to 78 in the U.S. depending on missing
data.
Parentheses indicate degrees of freedom.
*p < .01. **p < .001.
Results
Descriptive Analysis
On average, American mothers reported being significantly more involved
in all three forms of parental engagement than Japanese mothers (see Table
2). Moreover, American mothers reported a stronger sense of responsibility
in supporting their children’s schooling, felt more efficacious in teaching their
children school-related skills, and rated their child’s teachers as significantly
more inviting than mothers in Japan. Analysis of covariance revealed that these
differences remained significant even after controlling for mothers’ education.
Correlation Analysis
Homework engagement was positively correlated with parenting selfefficacy and teacher invitations but not maternal role construction. Cognitive engagement was significantly and positively correlated with maternal role
construction, parenting self-efficacy, and teacher invitations. School-based
engagement was significantly correlated with maternal role construction, parenting self-efficacy, and teacher invitations. Homework engagement, cognitive
engagement, and school-based engagement were all significantly and positively
correlated with each other (see Table 3).
56
Table 3. Correlations Among Major Variables
1. Homework engagement
2. Cognitive engagement
3. School-based engagement
4. Maternal role construction
5. Parenting self-efficacy
6. Teacher invitations
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
1
2
3
4
5
.46***
.23**
.14
.28***
.19*
.34***
.32*** .24**
.40*** .26*** .31***
.39*** .52*** .27*** .37***
Regression Analysis
Homework Engagement
Because the distribution for homework engagement was not normal and
demonstrated positive skewness, we computed a logarithmic (log 10) transformation of the original values (Howell, 2007; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). In
the first step, the effect of country was significant, but it ceased to be significant
in the second step when the three focal predictors were added to the model. In
the full model, only parenting self-efficacy was a significant predictor of homework engagement (see Table 4). This result suggests that different degrees of
homework engagement across the two countries may be attributable to different degrees of parenting self-efficacy. The final model was significant (p < .01),
but explained only 7% of the variance. We conducted the same analysis using
the untransformed homework engagement composite and obtained the same
findings. There was no interaction effect between country and parenting selfefficacy on homework engagement.
Cognitive Engagement
The distribution of cognitive engagement was normal, so we used the original composite variable in the hierarchical multiple regression analyses. In the
first step, the effect of country was again significant. In the second model, maternal role construction, parenting self-efficacy, and teacher invitations were
all significant, and country ceased to be significant. The model was significant
at the level of p < .001 and accounted for 25.6% of the variance. If mothers
reported a stronger sense of responsibility in educating their children, higher
parenting self-efficacy, and a perception of their child’s teacher as more inviting, they were more likely to be involved in cognitive and intellectual activities
with their children. There were no interaction effects between country and any
of three predictors on the cognitive engagement variable.
57
Table 4. Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analyses for Homework, Cognitive, and School-Based Engagement (N = 170)
Control Variables
Country (Japan=0,
U.S.=1)
Mother education (yrs)
Mother work hours
Child birth order
Maternal role construction
Parenting self-efficacy
Teacher invitations
R2
Homework
Engagement
B
SE β
Cognitive
Engagement
B SE β
.32
.25 .15
.15 .14 .11
-.04
.00
.19
.35
.32*
.06
.07
.05
.01
.17
.65
.14
.16
School-Based
Engagement
B
SE β
.27**
-.07 .04 .03 .11 .04*
.02 .00 .00 .02 -.01*
.09 .06 .09 .04 .03
.03 .89* .36 .18 .33
.21 .19* .08 .20 -.02
.03 .19* .09 .17 .24***
.26
.36
.09
.27
.02 .18
.00 -.17
.06 .03
.24 .09
.05 -.04
.06 .31
Note. Regression coefficients reported for final model.
*p < .05. **p < .01.*** p < .001.
School-Based Engagement
Because the distribution for school-based engagement demonstrated negative skewness, we computed a square-root transformation (Howell, 2007;
Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). In the first step, mothers’ education, work hours,
and country were significantly associated with school-based engagement. In
the second step, the teacher invitations composite was significant, along with
mothers’ education, work hours, and country. The model was significant at the
level of p < .001 and explained 35.7% of the variance. If mothers lived in the
U.S., were more educated, worked fewer hours, and reported teachers as being
more inviting, they were more likely to be involved in school-based activities.
We ran the same analysis using the untransformed school engagement variable
and obtained similar results. We also tested the effect of interaction between
country and each of the three key variables on school-based engagement, and
the results were not significant.
Discussion
The goals of this study were to examine home-based and school-based parental engagement among mothers in Japan and the U.S. and to evaluate the
effectiveness of three factors identified by Hoover-Dempsey and colleagues in
predicting parental engagement in the two nations. One major finding was that
country-level differences in maternal engagement could be largely explained by
58
the three psychological factors identified within the Hoover-Dempsey model.
In particular, Japanese mothers’ lesser involvement in their children’s homework and cognitive activities compared to American mothers can be explained
by their lower sense of responsibility, lower parenting self-efficacy, and perception of limited teacher invitations.
As we predicted, however, between-country differences in school-based engagement remained significant, even after the three psychological factors were
included in the model. This country difference may be an artifact of a cultural
response set and therefore should be interpreted with caution. Nevertheless, it
is interesting to note that these findings run counter to the often-cited claims
regarding the assiduousness of Japanese parents’ engagement (e.g., Stevenson
& Stigler, 1992) and suggest that other social and cultural factors—including,
perhaps, other features of the educational system—play an important role in
determining the levels of Japanese mothers’ relatively lower engagement at the
school site. For instance, it is important to note that Japanese mothers are more
likely to use supplementary schooling to boost their children’s achievement
(Kariya, 2004; Roesgaard, 2006; Yamamoto, 2015). Mothers may view the
management and expenditure of resources on such educational opportunities
as a more effective way of being engaged than interacting extensively with their
children’s regular school. Our study did not capture this dimension of parent engagement. Additionally, surveys of maternal expectations regarding their
children’s education reveal that contemporary Japanese mothers are less optimistic than those of previous generations regarding the benefits of advanced
education, particularly for females (Holloway, 2010). Such lowered expectations may have contributed to a diminished perception regarding maternal
engagement in schooling. In the U.S., on the other hand, educational attainment continues to be seen as essential for economic security, and parents are
adopting increasingly “intensive” strategies for supporting their children’s academic progress (Ochs & Kremer-Sadlik, 2013).
The third goal of our study was to determine the independent contribution
of maternal role construction, parenting self-efficacy, and perceived teacher invitations in these various forms of parental engagement in these two nations,
as well as to examine whether one or more of these theoretical determinants
was more important in one nation than another. We found that parenting selfefficacy was significantly associated with homework engagement and cognitive
engagement in both countries. This finding supports previous analyses demonstrating the importance of parenting self-efficacy for mothers’ home-based
engagement in Japan during children’s preschool and early school years (Holloway et al., 2008; Yamamoto et al., 2006). Because mothers’ teaching and
disciplining skills are critical when they supervise homework or when they are
59
engaged in various activities with their children, mothers who feel efficacious
about their parenting may feel more motivated to interact with children and
support their children’s academics at home. However, as we predicted, parenting self-efficacy—as assessed in our study—was not associated with mothers’
school-based engagement in either country.
We also found that mothers’ role construction was positively associated
with their engagement in cognitive activities. In both countries, mothers who
perceived themselves as being responsible for their children’s educational processes were likely to be more engaged in cognitive and intellectual activities
with their children at home. On the other hand, maternal role construction
was not critically associated with mothers’ school-based engagement. This
finding also coincides with previous findings from a qualitative analysis of interview data indicating that middle-class Japanese mothers who demonstrated
a keen sense of responsibility in educating their children tended to provide
educational support for their children’s education outside of school rather than
negotiating with teachers and making requests to teachers to enhance their
children’s academic progress (Yamamoto, 2015). However, our current finding also demonstrated that maternal role construction may not be critical for
mothers’ support for their children’s homework. Since homework completion
is a mandatory requirement articulated clearly by the school, mothers’ individually varying convictions about their role may be less influential for this
activity than for other types of engagement that are not required by school,
such as enrollment in supplementary lessons.
Mothers’ perception regarding invitations from the teacher was an important predictor of cognitive and school-based engagement but not homework
engagement. Teachers’ encouragement may help mothers realize the importance of cognitive activities in children’s educational processes. When teachers
provide advice about home-based practices, they are also likely to convey to the
parents values regarding literacy and cognitive activities such as reading to their
children (Eccles & Harold, 1986; Epstein & Sanders, 2002). Regardless of
the structural differences in their educational systems, when mothers perceive
their children’s teachers as more inviting, they are more likely to volunteer in
classrooms, initiate contacts with teachers, and communicate with teachers. In
addition to the role of teacher invitations in stimulating maternal engagement,
these actions by school personnel may also increase maternal role construction
and parenting self-efficacy as suggested by the significant correlations displayed
among these variables in our data (see also Whitaker & Hoover-Dempsey,
2013). In future work, these causal processes—which could not be assessed in
our cross-sectional sample—deserve further study in the U.S. and Japan.
60
Limitations
Our study relied on a small, convenience sample, and thus our findings cannot be generalized to all parents in these highly diverse and complex nations.
Additionally, it is important to note that we obtained self-reports from mothers, and it is possible that some mothers provided socially desirable responses,
particularly with respect to their degree of engagement at home and in the
school. While we believe that mothers are likely to be the best informants concerning their engagement, beliefs, and perception of teacher invitations, future
studies should also incorporate other types of assessment including teacher
ratings or independent observations of parent engagement. A third limitation
of this study is that we did not examine children’s responses to maternal engagement (Hoover-Dempsey et al., 2005). Future work should consider the
inclusion of children’s interpretation of the meaning and motivation of parental engagement, which is likely to affect their responses to it when it occurs.
Implications for the Schools
Our findings highlight the importance of teacher invitations on maternal
engagement or, more broadly, parents’ engagement in a cross-cultural context.
Teachers’ attitude toward parents and the amount of effort they put into developing clear and inviting communication with them have great potential to
facilitate parents’ school-based engagement and their engagement in cognitive activities with their children regardless of their cultural backgrounds (Park
& Holloway, 2013). In the future, researchers can extend this work to better
understand parents who are highly involved in the home but do not tend to
participate at the school site (Holloway & Kunesh, 2015; Mau, 1997; Sy &
Schulenberg, 2005). Few studies in the U.S., for example, have investigated
why Asian immigrant parents actively support children’s academic achievement at home and in their communities but not at the school site, although Li
and her colleagues (2008) have suggested that immigrant Chinese parents do
not recognize the value of school–family partnerships in U.S. schools because
such forms of engagement are not expected in their country of origin.
Our study also holds clear implications for Japanese policymakers and educational practitioners. As Onoda (2013) has noted, Japanese parents who
make requests of their children’s school are often accused of challenging teacher authority and disrupting school routines. The question is whether Japanese
teachers actually desire substantial parental involvement at the school site, or
whether they prefer parents to play a minor supportive role. As Japan continues to experience increasing diversity in terms of ethnicity and social class, it
is important to identify effective ways of supporting all students (Tsuneyoshi,
61
Okano, & Boocock, 2010; Yamamoto, 2014). Japanese policymakers are beginning to embrace the notion of school–family partnerships, but the extent to
which these will be fully welcomed by the schools is not yet clear.
In summary, our results underscore the importance of teacher invitations in
the U.S. and Japan. Teachers’ effort and communications have great potential
to facilitate parents’ school-based engagement and their engagement in cognitive activities with their children outside of school. Reassuring teachers about
the power of their encouragement and invitations may increase teachers’ confidence in facilitating parent–teacher communications.
References
Allison, A. (1996). Producing mothers. In A. E. Imamura (Ed.), Re-imaging Japanese women
(pp. 135–155). Berkeley & Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.
Anderson, K. J., & Minke, K. M. (2007). Parent engagement in education: Toward an understanding of parents’ decision making. Journal of Educational Research, 100(5), 311–323.
Azizi, A., Mahmoudi-Gharaei, J., Mirzaei, A., Tajeri, S., & Eshaghbeygi, N. (2008). Validity
and reliability of preschool, first, and second grade versions of Berkeley parenting selfefficacy scale. Iranian Journal of Psychiatry, 4, 23–30.
Balat, G. U., Zembat, R., & Acar, M. (2010). Berkeley parenting self-efficacy scale, second
grade version: Reliability-validity studies among Turkish families. Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 2166–2170.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Freeman & Company.
Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G. V., & Pastorelli, C. (1996). Multifaceted impact of
self-efficacy beliefs on academic functioning. Child Development, 67, 1206–1222.
Benesse Educational Research Institute. (2000). Dai 2 kai youji no seikatsu ankeeto houkokusho
[A survey on the socialization of preschool-aged children in Japanese homes]. Tokyo, Japan: Benesse Corporation.
Bornstein, M. H., Haynes, O. M., Azuma, H., Galperin, C., Maital, S., Ogino, M.,…Wright,
B. (1998). A cross-national study of self-evaluations and attributions in parenting: Argentina, Belgium, France, Israel, Italy, Japan, and the United States. Developmental Psychology,
34, 662–676.
Buchmann, C. (2002). Getting ahead in Kenya: Social capital, shadow education, and achievement. In B. Fuller & E. Hannum (Eds.), Schooling and social capital in diverse cultures (pp.
133–159). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
Coleman, P. K., & Karraker, K. H. (1997). Self-efficacy and parenting quality: Findings and
future applications. Developmental Review, 18, 47–85.
Dumais, S. A. (2002). Cultural capital, gender, and school success: The role of habitus. Sociology of Education, 75, 44–68.
Eccles, S., & Harold, R. D. (1996). Family engagement in children’s and adolescents’ schooling. In A. Booth & J. F. Dunn (Eds.), Family–school links: How do they affect educational
outcomes? (pp. 3–35). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Epstein, J. L. (1987). Toward a theory of family–school connections: Teacher practices and
parent involvement across the school years. In K. Hurrelmann, F. Kaufmann, & F. Losel
(Eds.), Social intervention: Potential and constraints (pp. 121–136). New York, NY: Mouton
de Gruyter.
62
Epstein, J. L., & Sanders, M. G. (2002). Family, school, and community partnerships. In M.
H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting: Vol. 5. Practical issues in parenting (2nd ed., pp.
407–437). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Fan, X., & Chen, M. (2001). Parental engagement and students’ academic achievement: A
meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 13(1), 1–22.
Gao, L. (2012). Impacts of cultural capital on student college choice process in China. Lanham,
MD: Lexington Books.
García Coll, C., & Marks, A. K. (2009). Immigrant stories: Ethnicity and academics in middle
childhood. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Green, C. L., Walker, J. M. T., Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., & Sandler, H. M. (2007). Parents’
motivations for engagement in children’s education: An empirical test of a theoretical model of parental involvement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 532–544.
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.), New directions for child and adolescent development (pp. 93–108). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Grolnick, W. S., & Slowiaczek, M. L. (1994). Parents’ engagement in children’s schooling:
A multidimensional conceptualization and motivational model. Child Development, 65,
237–252.
Hirao, K. (2001). Mothers as the best teachers: Japanese motherhood and early childhood education. In M. Brinton (Ed.), Women’s working lives in East Asia (pp. 180–203). Stanford,
CA: Stanford University Press.
Holloway, S. D. (2000). Accentuating the negative: Views of preschool staff about mothers in
Japan. Early Education & Development, 11, 617–632.
Holloway, S. D. (2010). Women and family in contemporary Japan. New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press.
Holloway, S. D., & Kunesh, C. E. (2015). Cultural processes and the connections among
home, school, and community. In S. M. Sheridan & E. M. Kim (Eds.), Processes and pathways of family–school partnerships across development (pp. 1–15). New York, NY: Springer.
Holloway, S., Suzuki, S., Yamamoto, Y., & Behrens, K. (2005). Parenting self-efficacy among
Japanese mothers. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 36(1), 61–76.
Holloway, S. D., Yamamoto, Y., Suzuki, S., & Dalesandro, J. (2008). Determinants of parental
involvement in early schooling: Evidence from Japan. Early Childhood Research & Practice,
10(1).
Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., Bassler, O. C., & Brissie, J. A. (1992). Explorations in parent–school
relations. Journal of Educational Research, 85, 287–294.
Hoover-Dempsey. K. V., & Sandler, H. M. (1997). Why do parents become involved in their
children’s education? Review of Educational Research, 67, 3–42.
Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., Walker, J. M. T., Sandler, H. M., Whetsel, D., Green, C. L., Wilkins,
A. S., & Closson, K. (2005). Why do parents become involved? Research findings and
implications. The Elementary School Journal, 106, 105–130.
Howell, D. C. (2007). Statistical methods for psychology (6th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson.
Kariya, T. (2004). Gakuryoku no kaisousa wa kakudai shitaka [Have socioeconomic discrepancies in academic achievement increased]? In T. Kariya & K. Shimizu (Eds.), Gakuryoku
no shakaigaku (pp. 127–151). Tokyo, Japan: Iwanami Shoten.
Kariya, T., Shimizu, K., Shimizu, M., & Morota, Y. (2002, July). Kyouiku no kaisousa wo
ikani kokufuku suruka [How can we overcome social class differences on education]? Ronza, 24–43.
Kazui, M. (1997). The influence of cultural expectations on mother–child relationships in
Japan. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 18, 485–496.
63
Kondo, D. K. (1990). Crafting selves: Power, gender, and discourses of identity in a Japanese workplace. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Lareau, A. (2000). Home advantage: Social class and parental intervention in elementary education (2nd ed). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Lareau, A. (2003). Unequal childhoods: Class, race, and family life. Berkeley, CA: University of
California Press.
Lewis, C. C. (1995). Educating hearts and minds. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Li, J., Holloway, S. D., Bempechat, J., & Loh, E. (2008). Building and using a social network:
Nurture for low-income Chinese American adolescents’ learning. New Directions for Child
and Adolescent Development, 121, 9–25.
Matsuoka, R., Nakamuro, M., & Inui, T. (2015). Emerging inequality in effort: A longitudinal investigation of parental effort and early elementary school-aged children’s learning
time in Japan. Social Science Research, 54, 159–176.
Mau, W. (1997). Parental influences on the high school students’ academic achievement: A
comparison of Asian immigrants, Asian Americans, and White Americans. Psychology in
the Schools, 34(3), 267–277.
Ochs, E., & Kremer-Sadlik, T. (Eds.). (2013). Fast-forward family: Home, work, and relationships in middle-class America. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Okagaki, L., & Sternberg, R. J. (1993). Parental beliefs and children’s school performance.
Child Development, 64, 36–56.
Okano, K., & Tsuchiya, M. (1999). Education in contemporary Japan: Inequality and diversity.
New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Onoda, M. (2013). Futsuu no kyoushi ga futsuu ni ikiru gakkou: Monsutaa parento ron wo koete
[Schools where ordinary teachers can live normally: Beyond monster parents]. Tokyo, Japan: Jiji Tsuushin Sha.
Park, S., & Holloway, S. D. (2013). No parent left behind: Predicting parental engagement in
adolescents’ education within a sociodemographically diverse population. Journal of Educational Research, 106(2), 105–119.
Pomerantz, E. M., Moorman, E. A., & Litwack, S. D. (2007). The how, whom, and why of
parents’ engagement in children’s schooling: More is not necessarily better. Review of Educational Research, 77, 373–410.
Roesgaard, M. H. (2006). Japanese education and the cram school business: Functions, challenges,
and perspectives of the juku. Copenhagen, Denmark: NIAS Press.
Sheldon, S. B. (2002). Parents’ social networks and beliefs as predictors of parent engagement.
The Elementary School Journal, 102, 301–316.
Shimizu, K. (2008). Kouritsu gakkou no teiryoku [Power of public schools]. Tokyo, Japan: Chikuma Shobou.
Stevenson, H., & Stigler, J. (1992). The learning gap: Why our schools are failing and what we
can learn from Japanese and Chinese education. New York, NY: Summit Books.
Suzuki, S., Holloway, S. D., Yamamoto, Y., & Mindnich, J. D. (2009). Parenting self-efficacy
and social support in Japan and the United States. Journal of Family Issues, 30, 1505–1526.
Sy, S. R., & Schulenberg, J. E. (2005). Parent beliefs and children’s achievement trajectories
during the transition to school in Asian American and European American families. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 29(6), 505–515.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston, MA:
Allyn & Bacon.
Teti, D. M., & Gelfand, D. M. (1991). Behavioral competence among mothers of infants
in the first year: The mediational role of maternal self-efficacy. Child Development, 62,
918–929.
64
Trumbull, E., Rothstein-Fisch, C., Greenfield, P. M., & Quiroz, B. (2001). Bridging cultures
between home and school. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Trumbull, E., Rothstein-Fisch, C., & Hernandez, E. (2003). Parent involvement—according
to whose values? School Community Journal, 13(2), 45–72. Retrieved from http://www.
Tsuneyoshi, R., Okano, K. H., & Boocock, S. S. (2010). Minorities and education in multicultural Japan. New York, NY: Routledge.
Valdés, G. (1996). Con respeto: Bridging the distances between culturally diverse families and
schools. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Walker, J. M., Ice, C. L., Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., & Sandler, H. M. (2011). Latino parents’
motivations for engagement in their children’s schooling: An exploratory study. The Elementary School Journal, 111(3), 409–429.
Walker, J. M., Wilkins, A. S., Dallaire, J., Sandler, H. M., & Hoover-Dempsey, K. V. (2005).
Parental engagement: Model revision through scale development. The Elementary School
Journal, 106(2), 85–104.
Wang, D. (2008). Family–school relations as social capital: Chinese parents in the United
States. School Community Journal, 18(2), 119–146. Retrieved from http://www.schoolcommunitynetwork.org/SCJ.aspx
Whitaker, M., & Hoover-Dempsey, K. (2013). School influences on parents’ role beliefs. The
Elementary School Journal, 114(1), 73–99.
Yamamoto, Y. (2014). Immigrant families and children’s schooling in Japan: Trends, challenges, and implications. In R. Dimitrova, M. Bender, & F. R. C. van de Vijver (Eds.), Global
perspectives in well-being in immigrant families (pp. 55–74). New York, NY: Springer.
Yamamoto, Y. (2015). Social class and Japanese mothers’ support for young children’s education: A qualitative study. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 13, 165–180.
Yamamoto, Y., & Brinton, M. (2010). Cultural capital in East Asian educational context: The
case of Japan. Sociology of Education, 83(1), 67–83.
Yamamoto, Y., Holloway, S. D., & Suzuki, S. (2006). Maternal involvement in preschool
children’s education in Japan: Parenting beliefs and socioeconomic status. Early Childhood
Research Quarterly, 21, 332–346.
Yoko Yamamoto is an adjunct assistant professor in the Department of
Education at Brown University. Her research interests include parental involvement in education and children’s educational processes in immigrant,
socioeconomic, and cultural contexts. She is currently involved in various research projects that examine educational and socialization processes in Japan
and the U.S. Correspondence concerning this article may be addressed to Dr.
Yoko Yamamoto, Department of Education, Brown University, 340 Brook St.,
Providence, RI 02912, or email [email protected]
Susan Holloway is a professor in the Graduate School of Education at the
University of California, Berkeley. Her research explores the role of parents in
supporting children’s cognitive and social development and in fostering their
motivation to engage in academic work. She also conducts work on the contextual conditions that affect parents’ perceptions of their childrearing efficacy,
particularly among populations that face extraordinary challenges.
65
Sawako Suzuki is a professor of educational research in the Educational
Leadership Program at Saint Mary’s College of California. She teaches community-based research and data-based decision making. Dr. Suzuki is currently
conducting research on parenting self-efficacy in the U.S., Japan, South Korea,
and China in collaboration with Dr. Susan D. Holloway.
Appendix A. Parenting Self-Efficacy Items
Q. “How confident do you feel in doing the following?”
1. Listen to your child
2. Understand your child’s feelings
3. Control your emotions in front of your child
4. Avoid over-reacting when your child misbehaves
5. Create a peaceful, happy home
6. Set a good example by being polite and respectful to others
7. Explain things so that your child will understand
8. Praise your child when he/she does well
9. Discipline your child firmly when he/she misbehaves
10. Let your child know you love him/her
11. Teach to do things neatly and precisely
12. Teach to complete whatever she/he has been working on
13. Teach to have a strong will so that she/he is not easily swayed by friends
14. Teach to behave well without being told to do so by an adult
15. Teach not to be self-centered when it is obviously inappropriate
16. Teach to finish homework in a timely manner
17. Teach to go to bed on time/early
18. Teach to tell parents when something significant happened at school
19. Teach to be an open and honest person
20. Teach not to bully other students
Appendix B. Parent Role Construction
Q. What percentage of the responsibility should preschool and family members have
for teaching your child to…. (The total should be 100%).
Preschool Family
Express his/her thoughts and ideas clearly
Continue trying even when something is difficult Tell time
Do things independently
Identify the letters of the alphabet
Be interested in learning new things
66
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
A Squandered Resource: The Divestment
of Mexican Parental Involvement in a New
Gateway State
Eleanor Petrone
Abstract
Parental involvement plays an important role in the academic success of
children. Schools in new gateway states where there has not been a longstanding tradition of immigration often lack the cultural knowledge and linguistic
resources necessary to serve immigrant youth and their families effectively. By
examining the experiences of Mexican parents with Mexican schools and contrasting them to their experiences with U.S. schools in a new gateway state, the
author provides insights into some of the challenges of eliciting the involvement of Mexican parents in a way schools deem appropriate. The constraint of
English proficiency as a prerequisite for engaged parental involvement in U.S.
schools is highlighted throughout the author’s findings. Suggestions for school
practices and teacher training that would promote Mexican parents’ involvement are provided.
Key Words: immigrant parents, Mexican schools, parental involvement, language barriers, Latino families
Introduction
Latinos comprise the largest and fastest growing ethnic minority in the
United States, and their academic success has significant implications for the
future of this country (Gándara & Contreras, 2009). Although dropout rates
67
for Latinos have decreased considerably, they continued to be the highest of
any ethnic group at 14% in 2013 (Pew Research Center, 2014c). In addition,
the academic attainment gap between Hispanics and non-Hispanic, White students persists (Pew Research Center, 2009). Educators and researchers alike
have grappled with the myriad reasons for the underperformance of Latinos
in U.S. schools. In an attempt to serve this growing population, schools have
had to contend with both cultural and language differences in the midst of increased high-stake testing and accountability practices. There is a tendency for
educators who are frustrated by the situation to turn to Latino parents as the
source of the problem, claiming that they are not adequately invested in their
children’s education (De Gaetano, 2007; Goldenberg, Gallimore, Reese, &
Garnier, 2001; Olivos, Jiménez-Castellanos, & Ochoa, 2011; Ramirez, 2003;
Valencia & Black, 2002; Valencia & Solórzano, 1997). According to the National Survey of Latinos: Education conducted by the Pew Hispanic Center in
2004, Latino parents themselves were more likely than White or African American parents to say that the achievement gap between non-Hispanic, White
students and Latino students was a result of too many Latino parents being
unwilling to push their children to work hard (Pew Research Center, 2004).
Significant academic achievement can be attained when parents and family
members are involved in a student’s education (August & Hakuta, 1997; Bermudez & Marquez, 1996; Lee & Bowen, 2006; Henderson & Mapp, 2002),
and some research suggests that parental involvement plays an even greater
role in the academic achievement of Latino students than it does for White,
non-Hispanic students (Darder, 1991; Delgado-Gaitán, 2004; Zuniga, 2006).
In order to better serve Latino students, it is imperative that educators are informed about the ways in which culture and language influence the parental
involvement practices of the families they serve. If schools want to engage and
involve Latino parents, they cannot continue to rely on traditional parental involvement practices initially designed to meet the needs of U.S.-born parents
who speak English.
By comparing the participants’ experiences with schools in Mexico to schools
in North Carolina, educators in new gateway states may gain insights into how
an increase in linguistic and cultural diversity necessitates a change in the ways
that schools work to foster parental involvement. This article will examine the
following questions through a qualitative case study: How did Mexican parents
and students experience parental involvement in their native country? How
did these experiences differ from what they have experienced in North Carolina? What are these families’ overall impressions of the expectations that schools
in North Carolina have of them regarding their involvement in the schools?
What have been the most salient challenges in meeting these expectations? By
68
PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT IN MEXICO & U.S.
better understanding the experiences of Mexican parents in their home country and the challenges they have faced in North Carolina concerning parental
involvement, schools—particularly those in new gateway states—will be better
positioned to create practices that foster stronger home–school connections.
Strong home–school connections and the symmetrical communication that is
needed to create these connections are at the core of implementing what Moll
and his colleagues called a “participatory pedagogy” that draws on the funds
of knowledge that all students bring to the classroom (Moll, Amanti, Neff, &
Gonzalez, 1992).
Parental Involvement, Latino Families, and U.S. Schools
The perception that Mexican students do not succeed in U.S. schools because they come from families that do not value education harks back to the
cultural deprivation literature of the 1960s (Hawkes & Frost, 1966; Hellmuth, 1967). Valdés (1997) refers to this explanation for student failure as
the “cultural background explanation” and states that scholars who take this
perspective fail to recognize or examine the different treatment that children
from minority backgrounds receive. In response to the charge that there is
something culturally deficient about Latino students and their families, many
scholars have argued that the unwillingness on the part of U.S. schools to
meet the diverse needs of culturally and linguistically marginalized students
has discouraged their families from engaging with the schools (Doucet, 2011;
Durand & Perez, 2013; Lee & Bowen, 2006; Ramirez, 2003; Rothstein-Fisch
& Trumbull, 2008; Valdés, 1996; Valenzuela, 1999; Wortham, Murrillo, &
Hamann, 2002). Many parental involvement programs have been designed
around assimilationist models in which parents are marginalized and expected
to abandon their cultural stance (Gitlin, Crosland, & Doumbia, 2003). Not
only are these parents asked to leave behind their cultural perspectives on childrearing and education when they enter U.S. schools, they are often subject to
parental education programs which deem their parenting skills as insufficient
and try to “fix” them by holding up a White, middle-class model as being superior (De Gaetano, 2007; Gibson, 1995; Valdés, 1996).
Both qualitative and quantitative studies examining Mexican parental involvement and the value placed on education within Mexican families have
illustrated that education is highly valued in these families, and parental involvement is clearly evident (Delgado-Gaitan 1992; Goldenberg et al., 2001;
Lee & Bowen, 2006; Lopez, 2001; Jasis & Ordoñez-Jasis, 2012; Moreno &
Valencia, 2002; Poza, Brooks, & Valdés, 2014; Ramos, 2003; Valdés, 1996;
Vera et al., 2012). Furthermore, a national survey of Latinos conducted by the
Pew Research Center in 2004 highlighted the ways that Latino families value
69
education. Latino parents were more likely to attend a PTA meeting than either their White or African American counterparts. They were more likely to
provide daily homework help than White parents, and they were more likely
to meet with their children’s teachers on a monthly basis than were their White
counterparts. This research demonstrates that Latino parents take part in traditional parental involvement practices.
It is important to note, however, that parental involvement manifests itself
differently across different class and cultural groups. When our conceptualization of parental involvement is limited solely to the ways that parents support
the schools—participating in school fundraisers, attending back-to-school
nights, chaperoning class trips—the ways that many less visible families involve themselves in their children’s education are missed. Jeynes (2010) found
that it is the more subtle aspects of parental involvement that best support the
educational outcome of a child. Jeynes argues that a loving home, academic
expectations accompanied with consistent support, and healthy parent–child
communication are the most vital forms of parental involvement.
Valencia and Black (2002), in a case study of transgenerational parental
involvement, examined the internal and external acts of educational involvement on the part of Mexican families. Their findings illustrated that, although
not necessarily in accordance with White, middle-class concepts of parental
involvement, the Mexican families interviewed were actively involved in the
education of their children and conveyed strong academic expectations which
were often transmitted through personal testimony. Parents and grandparents
used their own lack of educational opportunity and the menial jobs they had
to take as testament to the importance of educational attainment.
Poza, Brooks, and Valdés (2014) examined the different ways that Latino
immigrant parents participate in their children’s education and found that Latino parents’ involvement often bypasses the schools; thus, Latino parents do
not receive credit for their involvement. Their findings highlighted the ways
that Latino parents seek information from individuals and organizations that
have experience successfully navigating the public schools, attend events and
participate in organizations they believe to be supportive of their children’s
education, and augment or alter their children’s educational experience to improve the outcome. Fundamental to their findings was the sense of agency that
the parents exhibited in overcoming the myriad barriers placed before them.
Valdés (1996), in a seminal three-year qualitative study of 10 Mexican families, examined how parents were preparing their children to function within
the family, the outside community, and the school setting. The original objective of her study was to understand how multiple factors, including language,
culture, and socioeconomics, affected the academic performance of Mexican
70
children. Her findings illuminated the cultural disconnect that existed between
U.S. schools in border towns of the Southwest and many Mexican families.
Parents were significantly involved in the education of their children as it related to the moral well-being of their children, family participation, and respect
for others. The Mexican parents in her study saw education as it pertained to
academic achievement to be the domain of the schools and teachers.
Jeynes (2012), in a meta-analysis that examined different programs designed
to increase parental involvement, found that the most effective programs were
those that fostered collaboration between the home and school. Jeynes (2012)
recommended that schools might make better use of their resources by working harder to support parents at home, instead of focusing their energies on
getting parents to support teachers at school. Jasis and Ordoñez-Jasis (2012)
examined three highly successful parental involvement projects in California,
two of which were spearheaded by Latino parents and one that worked in tandem with a community organization. The parents met independently of the
schools and were able to discuss—in Spanish if they desired—issues that directly impacted the education of their children. The parents experienced an
increased sense of agency as a result of their participation, which led to more
open partnerships between the parents and the schools. Their study demonstrates the importance of providing a space for parents to have a voice in the
schools their children attend. Unfortunately, parents, particularly minority
parents, are often not given a voice in schools. Ferrara (2009) examined the
attitudes and perceptions of school administrators, teachers, and other school
personnel and found that, when surveyed, parents were often viewed as “nonessential members of the school team” (p. 140).
Theoretical Framework: Care Theory and Subtractive Schooling
This study is grounded theoretically in both Noddings’ theory of care (1984,
2005) and Valenzuela’s concept of subtractive schooling (1999). I was drawn
to the literature on care theory after one research participant conflated parental involvement with the term “care.” As she saw it, the desire of schools in the
United States to foster Mexican parental involvement was a direct result of the
school’s level of care for Mexican students. She believed the schools did not engage Mexican parents in dialogue or try to elicit their involvement because they
did not care about Mexican children. Noddings (1984, 2005) cites dialogue
as one of the essential components of care. When no dialogue exists between
Mexican parents and American teachers, Mexican parents and students are left
feeling uncared about as an effect.
Stemming from Cummins’ idea of subtractive bilingualism, which divests
native language skills from non-English speaking children (Cummins, 1981,
71
2000), subtractive schooling as defined by Valenzuela (1999) is schooling that
divests Mexican students of both their language and culture. Valenzuela states:
School subtracts resources from youth in two major ways. First, it dismisses their definition of education which is not only thoroughly grounded
in Mexican culture, but also approximates the optimal definition of education advanced by Noddings (1984) and other caring theorists. Second,
subtractive schooling encompasses subtractively assimilationist policies
and practices that are designed to divest Mexican students of their culture and language. (p. 20)
The current article draws from Valenzuela’s work, which focused on the effects
of subtractive schooling on Mexican students, to show that a similar phenomenon occurs when schools marginalize Mexican parents and erode the role they
play in the education of their children.
Research Site
North Carolina has experienced a significant demographic shift as a result
of immigration. From 1990 to 2010, there was a 943% increase in the Latino
population in North Carolina, and Latinos made up 25% of the state’s population growth in the last two decades (Zabala, 2013). The majority of North
Carolina’s Latino population is Mexican or of Mexican descent. In an attempt
to serve this growing population, schools have been confronted with many
new issues: cultural differences, language differences, and a rapid demographic
shift that upset a longstanding racial binary between African American and European American students (Wainer, 2004). Unlike traditional gateway states,
North Carolina does not have a previous history with large scale immigration.
Furthermore, small cities and rural areas have been destination points for many
immigrants settling in the new gateway states of the South (Marrow, 2011).
The aim of this qualitative study is to give voice to the personal experiences of
the Mexican families who are part of this new Latino diaspora in North Carolina (Wortham et al., 2002).
Study Design
The objective of this research was to investigate the participants’ experiences
of parental involvement in Mexico and in the U.S. By examining the experiences of Mexican parents in Mexican schools, U.S. educators may gain insights
into why many Mexican parents have erroneously been seen as uninvolved
and why U.S. teachers have not been successful in eliciting the involvement of
Mexican parents in a way that is deemed appropriate by U.S. educators. The
72
ultimate goal of this research was to create more effective, culturally responsive
parental involvement practices in U.S. schools for Mexican families.
The primary data collection strategy was the semi-structured interview
(Spradley, 1979). An initial five interviews were conducted in 2006. In an attempt to further explore and expand on the initial findings, I conducted seven
more interviews in the spring of 2013. All interviews were conducted in North
Carolina. Given the small sample size and the qualitative nature of this study,
the study’s findings are not meant to be generalizable to all Mexican immigrant
populations. Instead, the goal of this research is to explore the participants’
perspectives and experiences in a new gateway state in the Southeastern U.S.
It is my hope that the following qualitative data reveal the regional challenges
schools and non-English-speaking families face when trying to foster stronger
parental engagement practices.
Research Participants
As a former ESL teacher, I had extensive connections to Mexican families
with children in the area. Because I was interested in families with children
who had attended schools in Mexico and the United States, I used the purposeful selection process of criterion sampling (Patton, 2002). The initial five
research participants were three students who had attended both U.S. and
Mexican schools and a Mexican mother and father who had children who attended both U.S. and Mexican schools (see Table 1). One of the female student
participants was the child of the married couple. The students, one male and
two female, had attended and graduated from high school in North Carolina
after completing their primary and middle grades in Mexico. Despite their label of “limited English proficiency,” two of the three students graduated with
honors and were on the college track throughout their high school career. At
the time of the interviews, none of the students were enrolled in college. The
students all had younger siblings or cousins who were attending middle or
elementary schools in the U.S. Because the high school graduates had a better command of English than their parents, they were often called upon to
navigate the schools for their younger family members. Their experiences with
U.S. schools were more informed than those of their parents—they had more
contact with teachers and administrators—so I included their perspectives and
insights with my research.
The two parents interviewed in 2006 had raised their children until adolescence in Mexico, at which time they moved their family to the U.S. for reasons
of economic necessity. While in Mexico, the participants’ socioeconomic status
ranged from lower-middle to middle class. In the U.S., the participants are lower working class. Despite the present socioeconomic status of the participants,
73
four of the five interviewees highlighted their advanced level of education and
sophistication in contrast to the majority of Mexican immigrants, whom they
described as coming from rural backgrounds with limited education.
Table 1. Summary of Research Participants—2006
Family
Relation
Languages
# of
Spoken Children
Yrs. w/
Children
in Mexican
Schools
Type of Schools/
State Attended
in Mexico
Yrs. w/
Children
in U.S.
Schools
Mother
Spanish
3
11
Urban/Coahuila
4
Father
Spanish
3
11
Urban/Coahuila
4
Yrs. in Mexican Schools
Female w/
younger
cousins
Male w/
younger
cousins
and sibling
Female w/
younger
siblings
and nieces
Spanish
English
Spanish
English
Spanish
English
Yrs. in U.S.
Schools
N/A
10
Urban/Coahuila
4
N/A
11
Urban/Coahuila
3
N/A
9
Rural/
Aguascalientes
4
The 2013 research participants were five mothers and two fathers (see Table 2). All participants had children who had previously attended schools in
Mexico and were currently attending schools in North Carolina. With the exception of one father, who had himself immigrated to North Carolina at the
age of 16 and attended high school for three years in two public high schools,
all of the 2013 research participants had completed their schooling in Mexico.
All of the 2013 research participants had children attending schools ranging
from elementary to high school.
74
Table 2. Summary of Research Participants—2013
Yrs. w/Chil- Type of Schools/
Family Languages
# of
dren in Mexi- State Attended in
Relation Spoken
Children
can Schools
Mexico
Yrs. w/
Children
in U.S.
Schools
Mother
Spanish
3
14
Urban/Jalisco
5
Father
Spanish
3
14
Urban/Jalisco
5
Father
Spanish/
English
2
2
Rural/
Aguascalientes
3
Mother
Spanish
2
2
Rural/
Aguascalientes
2
Mother
Spanish
1
3
Rural/
Aguascalientes
4
Mother
Spanish
5
11
Rural/
Aguascalientes
9
Mother
Spanish
9
12
Rural/
Aguascalientes
12
Entry
In my role as a K–12 ESL teacher and coordinator, I worked in the community for almost a decade starting in the late 1990s, establishing connections
to many Mexican families. Former students from my first years of teaching as
well as the parents of more recent students were able to connect me to appropriate research participants for this study. I was not working in the schools at
the same time that I conducted this research; however, my experiences as a former ESL teacher helped to inform this study. I was often one of only a couple
of teachers who spoke Spanish in the schools where I worked, and I quickly
became the Spanish-speaking parents’ go-to person for problems such as difficulties with homework, unsupportive teachers, medical issues, scheduling of
classes, and issues around school cancellations due to inclement weather. Although I am not a native speaker of Spanish nor am I of Mexican origin, my
connection to the students and families I worked with awarded me insights
into what it is like to navigate a monolingual school when you don’t speak the
language. While one could argue—and quite fairly—that my lens is biased as a
result of working with Spanish-speaking families in this capacity, it should also
be noted that I have considered these issues from multiple lenses, all of which
75
are informed by the various subject positions that I have occupied: teacher, administrator, researcher, advocate, community organizer, and teacher educator.
Data Collection and Analysis
The interviews in 2006 and 2013 were structured around the same questions, and participants from both time periods resided in the same county of
North Carolina. I conducted all but one of the parent interviews in Spanish,
as one bilingual father preferred to speak with me in English. The interviews
with students who had recently graduated were conducted in both Spanish
and English, as they were accustomed to translanguaging (Garcia & Wei,
2014) when speaking with other bilinguals. The interviews ranged from 30–
90 minutes in length. The majority of the interviews were conducted in the
participants’ homes; however, one of the 2006 interviews was conducted in a
restaurant, and one in 2013 was conducted in a café. All interviews were recorded and transcribed. I translated the Spanish interviews initially and had
them back translated by a native Spanish speaker to ensure that no nuanced
speech acts had been lost in the initial translation. The transcripts were then
coded using indigenous typologies (Patton, 2002) in which categories were
created based on the participants’ responses and understandings. The data was
analyzed recursively throughout the study, and themes that reoccurred regularly and demonstrated both internal and external plausibility were included in
the study’s findings (Marshall & Rossman, 1999; Patton, 2002).
Parental Involvement in Mexico
Throughout the 2006 and 2013 interviews, participants described a sense
of shared responsibility between parents and teachers in Mexico. A child’s development was not compartmentalized into academic, social, and emotional
realms, but rather seen more holistically by Mexican educators and parents
(Greenfield, Trumbull, Rothstein-Fisch, & Quiroz, 2001). Participants spoke
of there being consistent communication between parents and teachers. At the
primary level, parents met with teachers almost daily and a minimum of once
a month at the secondary level. One mother of three spoke of communicating
with her son’s teacher on a daily basis to informally monitor his academic progress as well as his overall behavior. When asked to elaborate on her experience
with her son’s school in Mexico, she said:
It was better. It was really good. Of course there were a lot of students in
one class, but for me it was better. It was good because I could help him
with his work. We spent a lot of time with the teachers. I could ask the
76
teacher what my son needed daily because there was a lot of communication. How is he doing in math? Spanish? Because one teacher taught all
the subjects, so every day I could check. What does my son need? If my
son needs something, please just send me a note or call me. There was a
lot of communication between us. I would help my kids with their work
and bring them to school every day. For me it was really good.
Several mothers reminisced about the benefits of having their children come
home for lunch and then return for afternoon classes, stating that this allowed
teachers to inform them if their child had not completed work or had misbehaved. Built into the academic structure of the day was fluidity between home
and school. By having students come home for lunch and then return to the
school in the afternoon, a problem could be addressed and rectified in the same
day. The school, particularly at the primary level, was seen as the students’ second home. One father spoke of how teachers often disciplined students in a
similar manner as a parent would. Most of the participants described a harmonious relationship where all parties had the best interest of the child in mind.
One of the research participants who attended a particularly small rural school
had this to say about the relationship between teachers and parents:
You see, in Mexico, all the time the parents like the teachers. They are
always nice with them and everything like that. If they say something
like “your child did this bad thing,” they don’t get mad at them. They are
like, “Oh, okay. I’ll have to tell him not to do it again.”…The majority
of the people love the teachers, and they invite them to their house. They
are close, maybe because it is a small community.
There was a sense of collaboration between the teachers and parents. Parents did not contradict or challenge teachers’ judgments but rather supported
teachers by attending to their children’s physical and social development in order to ensure that their children were ready to learn.
In the majority of the interviews, parents spoke of the school’s expectations of them as having more to do with teaching children the importance of
good behavior and making sure they were punctual, clean, and well nourished.
While some of the mothers talked about helping students with school work,
they did not see it as their responsibility to ensure that their child knew their
letters by a certain age or had been read to consistently before attending school.
One mother talked about monthly meetings with her children’s teachers in
Mexico during which the school principal would also address any concerns the
parents might have regarding students’ academic or social performance. New
school programs and policies would be discussed at these monthly meetings.
The expectation that teachers and administrators had for parents was that they
77
would support their children at home by ensuring that they completed their
school work and attended class regularly. If there were additional expectations
or needs that the school held for the parents, they would be brought up at these
monthly meetings. In the following description of these meetings, the mother
highlights the sense of collaboration that the schools were able to foster with
the parents:
We had meetings with the teachers every month. All the parents would
come to the classroom. We would ask questions to the teacher or the director. The director would tell us how our children were doing and check
to make sure that we didn’t need anything. It was a good experience.
This mother’s account demonstrates the sense of collaboration that existed
among the parents, teachers, and administrators. A structure was provided
by the schools to foster two-way communication through which expectations
were clearly stated and parents were provided the space to obtain any necessary
clarification.
Parents also spoke of having a significant role in the running of their children’s schools in Mexico. At the primary level, many of the Mexican parents
interviewed talked about their participation in organizing school festivities and
helping out with some of the school’s administrative duties, such as acting as
the school treasurer. At the secondary level, parents were expected to attend the
oral exams of their children and to meet with teachers regularly to receive quarterly report cards. In comparing the opportunities for parental involvement in
Mexico with the U.S., one mother had this to say:
I felt here they don’t involve the parents too much in what the school
is doing. The parents have to get involved not because the teachers are
asking them to. In Mexico, it is the opposite. The school gets the parents
involved.
Education vs. Educación
The melting of boundaries between home and school is in keeping with
the Mexican conception of educación. The primary focus of an American education is to equip students with the skills necessary for material survival. The
Mexican concept of education is much broader in scope; it entails moral, social, and relational aspects that are more concerned with one’s conduct in the
world than the acquisition of marketable skills (Valdés, 1996, Valenzuela,
1999; Villenas, 2002). To be bien educado (well educated) is to be a highly
moral individual who exhibits family loyalty and preserves cultural values. Developing this broader idea of education in a child requires the joint effort of
family and school.
78
When asked what the teachers and administrators in Mexico expected from
the parents, the majority of parents cited nonacademic tasks such as walking their children to school, getting them to bed early, making sure they were
bathed and had clean clothes, providing a nutritious lunch, and teaching them
the importance of being respectful to teachers. One of the mothers whose
daughter attended first and second grade in an urban school in Mexico gave
the following description when asked about her involvement in her daughter’s
education in Mexico:
We went to school together. I brought her lunch and participated in
all the events that they had.…We were expected to educate them in
the house and send them to school with clean nails, clean clothes, and
combed hair.
Only one mother interviewed mentioned being expected to read and practice counting with her kindergartener. All parents mentioned the expectation
that they would “support” their children so that they could learn in school;
however, this support did not necessarily entail advocating for their child in
school, monitoring their child’s academic progress, or playing a role in the development of school policies via parent–teacher organizations and other school
committee work—all of which are typical expectations of parental involvement
for American middle-class parents (Epstein, 1995; Moreno, Lewis-Menchaca,
& Rodriguez, 2011). In Mexico, “support” was understood to mean that parents would create home practices that were conducive to students being ready
to learn and well behaved when at school. Among many Mexican parents, a distinction is made between educar [to educate] and enseñar [to teach]. Teaching
is left to the teachers, while educating a child on proper behavior and cultural
expectations is the responsibility of the family (Rodriguez-Brown, 2010).
Parental Involvement in the United States
The experiences of parental involvement in Mexico contrasted sharply with
what these families found in U.S. schools. All participants felt strongly that in
U.S. schools the onus of involving oneself in the school fell primarily on the
parents. This was true for parents of children in primary through secondary
school. Unlike their experiences in Mexico, they felt that the schools did little
to help facilitate their participation. Parents were not kept abreast of school
events other than the issuing of report cards, which could be easily circumvented by a devious child. Neither of the 2006 parent interviewees spoke of
feeling any type of partnership with the schools in educating their children.
One young Mexican woman who had recently graduated from a U.S. high
79
school commented that when parents were notified, it was usually to inform
them of something negative their child had done, saying:
In here, they just call them [parents] when you get in a fight, when
you’ve skipped class, when you’ve done something bad. But if we didn’t
do anything, they don’t call them. I remember in Mexico, when the
teachers used to call them. You know, so they could see the grades, and if
I was doing bad the teachers had to talk to them, and my parents would
make me study more, and here I never felt that my parents were pressuring me to study more because they didn’t know how I was doing.
The 2013 interviewees, in general, had more positive things to say about the
quality of education their children received in U.S. schools. Two mothers made
mention of the individualized attention they felt their children were receiving.
A father of three said that he was happy because his children were progressing
well in their education as a result of the help they received from their teachers.
Another father of an elementary student commented on the higher standards
of U.S. schools, particularly as these standards related to teacher preparation.
He had this to say when comparing his daughter’s elementary school in the
U.S. to the one she attended in Mexico:
The level was a lot lower in terms of education.…It was a small school,
and I don’t know if a lot of people had gone to university in the school
she was in. My guess is that about 98% of the teachers had not.
Parents also appreciated that the schools did not require parents to buy uniforms, pay tuition, or provide transportation, which were often requirements
for the parents when enrolling their children in Mexican schools.
Parental Involvement as an English-Only Endeavor
In both the 2006 and 2013 interviews, the issue of language was repeatedly
raised when discussing parental involvement in U.S. schools. All participants
saw parental involvement as an English-only endeavor. Parents who were not
able to make themselves heard in English had little hope of communicating
with teachers and administrators. Furthermore, the skills and cultural capital
of Mexican parents who did not speak English were rarely tapped into as a result of the language barrier. Parents, who were more than willing to help out
with school events, were rarely asked to do so because they didn’t speak English. One young woman who had recently graduated from high school and had
three younger siblings currently attending U.S. schools said of her mother in
reference to school functions:
My mom always wants to go. She always wants to help, but she can’t
because of the language. So she just helps with what she can, like selling
tickets or something.
80
One of the fathers interviewed in 2013 noted that the only information
sent home in Spanish were surveys requesting parents’ feedback on the school’s
performance. The rest of the information was sent home in English. The district where his child attended school served 1,736 designated English language
learners, and just less than 12% of its student population was Hispanic.
Two of the mothers interviewed in 2013 were unaware of any opportunities
to become more involved in their children’s schools. Neither of these mothers
spoke English, and the schools that their children attended had never provided
an interpreter for them. They both claimed to have little contact with their
children’s teachers as a result of not being able to communicate with them.
When asked about the expectations of her daughter’s school, one of the mothers said, “I don’t know. There is very little communication with my daughter’s
teachers because I don’t speak English and they don’t speak Spanish.”
In direct contrast, one mother spoke positively about her experiences with
her daughter’s teachers and stated that she attended meetings and events regularly. She did not speak English nor did her daughter’s teachers speak Spanish,
but an interpreter was always provided. She was the only parent interviewed,
from either 2006 or 2013, to have been provided an interpreter by the schools.
She was not able to give any particular reason why she was provided an
interpreter; nevertheless, her positive experiences with the schools and her involvement in her daughter’s education underscore the importance of schools
working to bridge the language barrier.
In 2013, when I asked a mother of nine whose children have been in U.S.
schools since 2000 whether the schools had gotten more responsive to the
needs of English language learners and their families, she replied:
No, but things have gotten better because I have more experience with
the schools and my children can fix their own problems now that they
are older, but not because the schools provide any more help. Also my
older children, who now speak English, can help. Things have gotten
easier.
It is important to note that the improvement that she experienced was not a
result of the responsiveness of the school district to better meet the needs of
Spanish-speaking parents, but rather her older children’s acquisition of English
and the length of time that she has had children in U.S. schools.
One father cited time, not language, as the major barrier to being more involved in his daughter’s education. When asked what the major challenge was
in staying involved in his daughter’s education, he responded:
Time, because I work. There are a lot of things that I probably don’t
do. I am the only one that can get involved because my wife does not
81
speak that much English, and she doesn’t know what is going on.…The
few times that I have helped my daughter at school, I really saw a lot of
progress.
While he was aware of the importance of chaperoning field trips, attending meetings with teachers, and helping his daughter with her school work, as
the only English speaker in the family and the primary money maker, he often
did not have the time to be as involved in his daughter’s education as he would
have liked. He complained about having to read all the papers that the school
sent home in English and translate them for his wife who did not speak English. His wife, who worked part-time and had more free time to attend school
functions, did not attend because of her discomfort with being in an Englishonly setting, leaving the bulk of parental involvement to fall on her husband.
One student who was interviewed in 2006 reflected on the role that language played in her mother’s ability to help her younger siblings in the U.S.
with their school work compared to the help she received when she was their
age in Mexico.
When I was in Mexico, my mother always helped me with my homework, all the time, and now she cannot help my sisters because she
doesn’t understand. She doesn’t speak English. Like right now, my sister
is missing some homework assignments because she doesn’t know how
to help her. It is really difficult because she always used to help us.
If schools do not attempt to bridge the language barrier, then they are
promoting subtractive schooling for their students who do not come from
English-speaking families. Not only are these students being deprived of the
benefit of their parents’ involvement, but the schools are depriving themselves
of what could be a valuable resource. Where there was a sense of fluidity and
partnership between Mexican parents and the Mexican schools their children
attended, the majority of the Mexican parents interviewed viewed the U.S.
schools their children attended as an English-only community, where the talents of students and parents alike went unrecognized if they were not expressed
in English. The result of this monolingual school community was that parents
who spoke Spanish were often unaware of the schools’ expectations of them.
When asked what the schools could do to increase parental involvement, one
of the female participants from the 2006 interviews had this to say:
Maybe if there were more people who speak Spanish—I think the parents cannot learn English because it is too late. If nobody speaks Spanish, how can they do things…because, I mean if there were more people
who speak Spanish, they would know what the parents like, what they
can do, and what they are interested in. Parents would participate more.
82
The Constraints of an Unauthorized Status
In addition to the obstacle that language presented, the unauthorized legal
status of many of the Mexican parents was seen as a hurdle in the way of promoting honest parent–school dialogue. Mexican parents who are not authorized to
be in the country hold a precarious position in U.S. society (Suárez-Orozco,
Yoshikawa, Teransishi, & Suárez-Orozco, 2011). Highly conscious of this position, many unauthorized parents see the schools as representative of a higher
government authority and therefore as a place to be avoided. Given this perception, these parents are unlikely to force the issue of communication and
dialogue. One young Mexican man interviewed in 2006 said the following
about this situation:
The parents are immigrants; they are illegal, so they have that limit to
come out and say something or do something because they are afraid,
and maybe nothing is going to happen, but they are afraid that something is going to happen, and they are going to be sent back to Mexico.
While this sentiment is more than likely still a reality for many unauthorized
parents, especially those who have recently immigrated to the United States,
it was not raised in any of the 2013 interviews as a factor that would limit parental involvement. Although it is impossible to ascertain for certain why this
was not raised as a challenge in the 2013 interviews, it is possible that immigrants are more informed about their rights as a result of the growing number
of activists working toward immigration reform in the Southeast. There has
also been a decrease in the number of unauthorized immigrants following the
economic downturn of 2007 (Pew Research Center, 2014a).
School Expectations of Mexican Parents as an Act of Caring
Overall, the Mexican parents interviewed either did not feel that the schools
expected anything of them in regard to parental involvement, or they felt that
they were unable to fulfill the schools’ expectations because of their limited
proficiency in English. They did, however, recognize that their involvement
was very important to the academic welfare of their children and tried to overcome the obstacles placed before them. The solicitation of their involvement in
the schools their children attended in Mexico was seen as an act of caring. In
contrast, the seeming lack of interest in Mexican parental involvement on the
part of U.S. schools was seen as a lack of caring. When asked what she thought
American teachers expected of parents, one young woman had this to say, “I
don’t know, nothing. I don’t know, probably, yeah, some teachers care. They
would like the parents to have some connection. Yeah, I think some care.”
83
Much of what came out of the interviews was the participants’ belief that
as long as Mexican parents were unable to initiate or participate in a dialogue
with the schools in English, they would continue to be uncared for and further marginalized. This sentiment was equally as strong in the 2006 interviews
as in 2013; however, the latter interviewees were more aware of opportunities
to be involved in the schools but felt that they could not take advantage of
these opportunities because they did not speak English. The following Mexican
mother’s commentary about the expectations and opportunities for parental
involvement was reiterated by the majority of the 2013 interviewees: “There
are [opportunities], but because of the language, there is not a lot of communication. I don’t go much because I can’t communicate.”
By putting the onus of initiating parent–school dialogue on Mexican parents, the schools described by the research participants in this study were
essentially requiring Mexican parents to learn English and to assimilate to the
prevalent Anglo culture. Although some of the parents interviewed were able to
learn enough English to negotiate the school system, the majority of first generation Mexican parents often cannot (Pew Research Center, 2014b). When
Mexican parents are neither involved in the formal education of their children
nor given a voice in important educational decisions affecting their children,
subtractive schooling occurs (Valenzuela, 1999).
According to Noddings, “Responsiveness is at the heart of caring.…It is
obvious that caring demands a response from us. When we care for others,
we attend and respond as nearly as we can to expressed needs” (2005, p. xxv).
When schools define parental involvement as an English-only endeavor, they
send a message to their language minority students that they are not cared for
and that their families’ voices aren’t valued.
The Process of Reification—It’s a “Hispanic Thing”
Whether parents were aware of the schools’ expectations of them and unable to meet these expectations because of the language barrier, or whether they
were unaware of the schools’ expectations because of their limited communication with schools as a consequence of the language barrier, the end result is
the same: Teachers and administrators are more likely to view Mexican parents
as not placing as much importance on education as their English-speaking
counterparts who are more visibly active in the schools their children attend. If
this misperception were limited to how individual parents were viewed, rather
than how an entire group—that is, Mexican parents—were viewed, the effects
would not be as detrimental. However, because all of these parents share the
same nationality, the tendency by both school personnel and parents, including
Mexican parents, is to view the lack of visible Mexican parental involvement
84
as a cultural trait (Olivos et al., 2011; Valencia & Black, 2002). The following
is a Mexican father’s articulation of the process by which the perceived lack of
Mexican parental involvement is reified into a cultural trait of indifference on
the part of “Hispanic” parents concerning their children’s education:
Father: Usually, most people I know, all they want to do is send their kids
[to school], and that’s it, and let teachers do their job, and that’s all.
I don’t see a lot of people getting really involved in their kids’ education…you don’t think it’s a Hispanic thing, sending their kids and
that’s all?
Author: What do you think?
Father: Yeah, maybe.
If schools in new gateway states embrace an English-only culture by conducting the majority of school business in English, then it is understandable
that parents who don’t speak English would not involve themselves in school
functions. Furthermore, when asked what it meant to provide support for the
education of one’s child, the majority of the Mexican parents interviewed provided examples related to teaching their children to be respectful and making
sure they were well nourished, clean, and ready to learn, all of which occurs in
the home. Yet, as the father’s quote demonstrates, to send your child to school
and “let the teachers do their job” is seen as not being involved in the education
of one’s child. The father’s expressed understanding that this lack of perceived
involvement is a “Hispanic thing” and not the result of a school system that
has failed to bridge the language gap and make expectations around parental
involvement explicit to non-English speaking parents places all of the responsibility on the Mexican parents and none on the schools. Unfortunately, his
rendering of the situation is often shared by the teachers and school personnel
who directly work with Mexican-origin children (Olivos et al., 2011).
Implications for Practice
What the individuals interviewed in this study convey is that Mexican parents care deeply about their children’s education. While in Mexico, these families
played active roles in the education of their children. Furthermore, Mexican
parents have made the substantial sacrifice of leaving everything familiar to
them in the hopes of accessing the economic and educational opportunities
present in the U.S. Unfortunately, many frustrated teachers and administrators who have not been able to narrow the educational achievement gap have
attempted to diminish their role in the situation by charging that Latino parents are not adequately involved in their children’s education (Zentella, 2005).
85
As the children of Mexican-born parents continue to enter U.S. classrooms,
it will become increasingly important that educators engage in dialogue with
Mexican and Mexican American communities to better understand the different interpretations of what it is to be “well educated” as opposed to bien
educado. If we consider that Latino students currently make up nearly onequarter (23.9%) of the nation’s public school enrollment and this number is
predicted to increase with time (Pew Research Center, 2012), it should be a
prerequisite for U.S. teachers to have some understanding of Mexican culture,
as well as the cultures of other Latin American countries, in order to bridge the
cultural differences that often exist between Anglo teachers and Latino families
(e.g., collectivism vs. individualism; Trumbull, Rothstein-Fisch, Greenfield, &
Quiroz, 2001).
Furthermore, American educators need to recognize the obstacles that have
been placed before Mexican parents when trying to become involved in the
education of their children—the most paramount being the often tacit understanding that parental involvement requires English proficiency. Bridging the
linguistic barrier would require a solid commitment on the part of the schools,
but it is in no way insurmountable. This obstacle could be tackled by altering
and adding a number of school practices. To begin, schools such as the ones
described in this article need to hire more bilingual and preferably bicultural personnel and compensate them fairly for any additional bilingual services
they provide. More schools could also provide ESL classes to their non-English
speaking parents, as many currently do. By doing this, schools not only help
parents to communicate with a primarily English-speaking staff, but they redefine the school as a community center that has valuable resources to offer its
non-English-speaking parents. Considering that many Spanish-speaking parents would like to be more involved in their children’s schools, schools could
help to facilitate the creation of Latino parental involvement projects in which
Spanish-speaking parents had a multilingual space to share their ideas and concerns. Jasis and Ordoñez-Jasis’ (2012) study on Latino parental involvement
demonstrates how participants who were involved in such projects developed a
sense of agency and an appreciation for the role that education played in their
children’s lives. Schools could also help to organize their bilingual parents and
staff to help non-English-speaking parents negotiate events like back-to-school
night, school orientations, and parent–teacher meetings. Durand and Perez’s
(2013) research on Latino families and school involvement underscores the
need for Latino parents to support one another in creating “vibrant schools
that educate and empower children, celebrate children’s cultural heritages, and
serve as sites of change within communities” (p. 75).
86
Research on schools that have been able to successfully bridge cultural and
linguistic barriers (Araujo, 2009; Durand & Perez, 2013; Jasis & Ordoñez-Jasis,
2012; López, Scribner, & Mahitvanichcha, 2001; Panferov, 2010) repeatedly
demonstrates the importance of having bilingual staff at the school site. In Durand and Perez’s (2013) study of a dual language school, Latino parents viewed
the bilingual atmosphere as being one of the most significant factors in creating an environment in which they felt welcomed and valued. Obviously, this
would be challenging for schools that speak a multitude of languages, but nearly half of all immigrants in the U.S. are Spanish-speaking (Brown & Steplen,
2015), and 13% of North Carolina’s total K–12 public school population is
Hispanic (Pew Research Center, 2012). To argue that schools shouldn’t offer
bilingual spaces to Spanish-speaking parents—or any other widely spoken language group—because they don’t have the staff to offer these same spaces to
speakers of less widely spoken languages is to use a rigid application of equity as
a justification for not providing services that could and should be offered. Over
80% of English language learners in North Carolina speak Spanish as their first
language (Batalova & McHugh, 2010), which should warrant the provision of
bilingual services and spaces for Spanish-speaking families.
In preparing our future teachers, schools of education should reexamine
their foreign language requirements. Most universities require two years of
a foreign language, but this often does not lead to proficiency in a second
language. Research has demonstrated that teachers who have a working knowledge of a student’s first language provide these students with better instruction
(Dixon et al., 2012). Requiring proficiency in a second language for preservice
teachers would help schools bridge the language barriers that exist for many
of our immigrant parents. It would also help to promote a culture of multilingualism in which languages other than English were viewed as a resource and
not a limitation (Gándara & Hopkins, 2010). If schools are to truly meet the
challenge of a global society, then they need to cultivate a teaching force that
is prepared to work with a culturally and linguistically diverse population of
students. This means that, ideally, teachers should have a basic proficiency in a
language other than English.
Similar to the findings in other studies (see Araujo, 2009; Ramirez, 2003),
the findings of this study clearly underscore the need for more dialogue between the families interviewed and the schools their children attended. Schools
need to carefully and purposefully design practices that will ensure the inclusion of their non-English-speaking families. It is not enough to say, “Let them
learn English,” especially when research shows that it takes between seven to
ten years to develop native-like speaker performance (Cummins, 1981; Thomas & Collier, 1997). Nor is it realistic to think that the demographic shift is
87
going to reverse itself. As educators work to meet the academic needs of a more
diverse student body, they must also create policies and practices that ensure
that all families can participate in their children’s education.
References
Araujo, B. E. (2009). Best practices in working with linguistically diverse families. Intervention
in School and Clinic, 45, 116–123.
August, D., & Hakuta, K. (1997). Improving schooling for language minority children: A research
agenda. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Batalova, J., & McHugh, M. (2010). Top languages spoken by English language learners nationally and by state (ELL Information Center Fact Sheet Series. No. 3). Washington, DC:
Migration Policy Institute.
Bermudez, A. B., & Marquez, J. A. (1996). An examination of a four-way collaborative to
increase involvement in schools. Journal of Educational Issues of Language Minority Students,
16(3), 1–16.
Brown, A., & Steplen, R. (2015). Statistical portrait of the foreign-born population in the United
States, 1960–2013. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.
pewhispanic.org/2015/09/28/statistical-portrait-of-the-foreign-born-population-in-theunited-states-1960-2013-key-charts/
Cummins, J. (1981). The role of primary language development in promoting educational
success for language minority students. In California State Department of Education (Ed.),
Schooling and language minority students: A theoretical rationale (pp. 3–49). Sacramento,
CA: California State University. Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power, and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire. Towanda, NY: Multilingual Matters.
Darder, A. (1991). Culture and power in the classroom: A critical foundation for bicultural education. Westport, CT: Bergin & Harvey.
DeGaetano, Y. (2007). The role of culture in engaging Latino parents’ involvement in school.
Urban Education, 42, 145–162.
Delgado-Gaitán, C. (1992). School matters in the Mexican American home: Socializing children to education. American Educational Research Journal, 29(2), 495–513.
Delgado-Gaitán, C. (2004). Involving Latino families in schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Dixon, L. Q., Zhao, J., Shin, J., Wu, S., Su, J., Burgess-Brigham, R.,…Snow, C. (2012). What
we know about second language acquisition from four perspectives. Review of Educational
Research, 82(1), 5–60.
Doucet, F. (2011). Parent involvement as ritualized practice. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 42(4), 404–421.
Durand, T. M., & Perez, N. A. (2013). Continuity and variability in the parental involvement
and advocacy of beliefs in Latino families of young children: Finding the potential for
a collective voice. School Community Journal, 23(1), 49–79. Retrieved from http://www.
Epstein, J. L. (1995). School/family/community partnerships: Caring for the children we share.
Phi Delta Kappan, 76(9), 701–712.
Ferrara, M. (2009). Broadening the myopic vision of parent involvement. School Community
Journal, 19(2), 123–142. Retrieved from http://www.schoolcommunitynetwork.org/SCJ.
aspx
88
Gándara, P., & Contreras, F. (2009). The Latino education crisis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Gándara, P., & Hopkins, M. (2010). English learners and restrictive language policies. New York,
NY: Teachers College Press.
Garcia, O., & Wei, L. (2014). Translanguaging: Language, bilingualism, and education. New
York, NY: Palgrave Pivot.
Gibson, M. A. (1995). Additive acculturation as a strategy for school. In R. G. Rumbaut & W.
A. Cornelius (Eds.), California’s immigrant children (pp. 77–106). San Diego, CA: Center
for U.S.–Mexican Studies.
Gitlin, A., Crosland, K., & Doumbia, F. (2003). The production of margin and center: Welcoming–unwelcoming of immigrant students. American Educational Research Journal,
40(1), 91–122.
Goldenberg, C., Gallimore, R., Reese, L., & Garnier, H. (2001). Cause or effect? A longitudinal study of immigrant parents’ aspirations and expectations and their children’s school
performance. American Educational Research Association, 38(3), 547–582.
Greenfield, B. Q., Quiroz, B., Rothstein-Fisch, C., & Trumbull, E. (2001). Bridging cultures
between home and school: A guide for teachers with a special focus on Latino families. Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hawkes, J., & Frost, G. R. (1966). The disadvantaged child. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin.
Hellmuth, J. (1967). Disadvantaged child. Boston, MA: Bow Historical Books.
Henderson, A., & Mapp, K. (2002). A new wave of evidence: The impact of school, family, and
community connections on student achievement. Austin TX: SEDL.
Jasis, P. M., & Ordoñez-Jasis, R. (2012). Latino parent involvement: Examining commitment
and empowerment schools. Urban Education, 47(1), 65–89.
Jeynes, W. H. (2010). The salience of the subtle aspects of parental involvement and encouraging that involvement: Implications for school-based programs. Teachers College Record,
112(30), 747–774.
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.
Lee, J., & Bowen, N. K. (2006). Parent involvement, cultural capital, and the achievement
gap among elementary school children. American Educational Research Journal, 43(2),
193–218.
López, G. R. (2001). The value of hard work: Lessons on parental involvement from an (im)
migrant household. Harvard Educational Review, 71(3), 416–437.
López, G. R., Scribner, J. D., & Mahitivanichcha, K. (2001). Redefining parental involvement:
Lessons from high-performing migrant-impacted schools. American Educational Research
Journal, 38(2), 253–288.
Marrow, H. (2011). New destination dreaming: Immigration, race, and legal status in the rural
American South. Redwood City, CA: Stanford University Press.
Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (1999). Designing qualitative research (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
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.
Moreno, R. P., Lewis-Menchaca, K., & Rodriguez, J. (2011). Parental involvement in the
home: A critical view through a multicultural lens. In E. M. Olivos, O. Jiménez-Castellanos, & A. M. Ochoa (Eds.), Bicultural parent engagement: Advocacy and empowerment (pp.
21–38). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
89
Moreno, R. P., & Valencia, R. R. (2002). Chicano families and schools: Myths, knowledge, and
the future directions of understanding Chicano school failure and success: Past, present, and
future (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge Falmer.
Noddings, N. (1984).Caring: A feminine approach to ethics and moral education. Berkeley, CA:
University Press.
Noddings, N. (2005). The challenge to care in schools. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Olivos, E. M., Jiménez-Castellanos, O., & Ochoa, A. M. (2011). Bicultural parent engagement:
Advocacy and empowerment. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Panferov, S. (2010). Increasing ELL parental involvement in our schools: Learning from the
parents. Theory Into Practice, 49, 106–112.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Pew Research Center. (2004). National survey of Latinos: Education. Washington, DC: Pew
Hispanic Center. Retrieved from http://www.pewhispanic.org/2004/01/26/pew-hispaniccenterkaiser-family-foundation-national-survey-of-latinos-2/
Pew Research Center. (2009). Between two worlds: How young Latinos come of age in America. Washington, DC: Pew Hispanic Center. Retrieved from http://www.pewhispanic.
org/2009/12/11/between-two-worlds-how-young-latinos-come-of-age-in-america/
Pew Research Center. (2012). Demographic profile of Hispanics in North Carolina, 2011. Washington, DC: Pew Hispanic Center. Retrieved from http://www.pewhispanic.org/states/
state/nc/
Pew Research Center. (2014a). Unauthorized immigrant population trends for states, birth countries, and regions. Washington, DC: Pew Hispanic Center. Retrieved from http://www.
pewhispanic.org/2014/12/11/unauthorized-trends/
Pew Research Center. (2014b). Statistical Portrait of Hispanics in the United States, 2012. Washington, DC: Pew Hispanic Center. Retrieved from http://www.pewhispanic.org/2014/04/29/
statistical-portrait-of-hispanics-in-the-united-states-2012/#language-spoken-at-home-andenglish-speaking-ability-by-age-race-and-ethnicity-2012
Pew Research Center. (2014c). U.S. high school dropout rate reaches record low, driven by improvements among Hispanics, blacks. Washington DC: Pew Hispanic Center. Retrieved from
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/10/02/u-s-high-school-dropout-rate-reachesrecord-low-driven-by-improvements-among-hispanics-blacks/
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. Retrieved
from http://www.schoolcommunitynetwork.org/SCJ.aspx
Ramirez, A. Y. (2003). Dismay and disappointment: Parental involvement of Latino immigrant parents. The Urban Review, 35(2), 93–110.
Ramos, C. S. (2003). “Estudia para que no te pase lo que a mi”: Narrativas culturales sobre
el valor de la escuela en familias Mexicanas [“Study so that what happened to me doesn’t
happen to you”: Cultural narratives about the value of school in Mexican families]. Journal
of Latinos in Education, 2, 197–216.
Rodríguez-Brown, F. V. (2010). Latino families: Culture and schooling. In E. Murillo, S. Villenas, R. Trinidad Galván, J. Sanchez Muñoz, C. Martinez, & M. Machado-Casas (Eds.),
Handbook of Latinos and education: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 350–360). New York,
NY: Routledge.
Rothstein-Fisch, C., & Trumbull, E. (2008). Managing diverse classrooms. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Spradley, J. P. (1979). The ethnographic interview. New York, NY: Holt, Rhinehart, & Winston.
90
Suárez-Orozco, C., Yoshinkawa, H., Teranishi, R. T., & Suárez-Orozco, M. (2011). Growing
up in the shadows: The developmental implications of unauthorized status. Harvard Educational Review, 81(3), 438–472.
Thomas, W. P., & Collier, V. (1997). School effectiveness for language minority students. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse of Bilingual Education.
Trumbull, E., Rothstein-Fisch, C., Greenfield, P. M., & Quiroz, B. (2001). Bridging cultures
between home and school: A guide for teachers. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Valdés, G. (1996). Con respeto: Bridging the distances between culturally diverse families and
schools. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Valdés, G. (1997). Dual language immersion programs: A cautionary note concerning the
education of language minority students. Harvard Educational Review, 67(3), 391–429.
Valencia, R. R., & Black, M. S. (2002). “Mexican Americans don’t value education!” On
the basis of the myth, mythmaking, and debunking. Journal of Latinos and Education, 1,
81–103.
Valencia, R. R., & Solórzano, D. G. (1997). Contemporary deficit thinking. In R. R. Valencia
(Ed.), The evolution of deficit thinking: Educational thought and practice (pp. 160–210).
Washington, DC: Falmer Press.
Valenzuela, A. (1999). Subtractive schooling: U.S.–Mexican youth and the politics of caring. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Vera, E. M., Israel, M., Coyle, L., Cross, J., Knight-Lynn, L., Moallem, I.,...Goldberger, N.
(2012). Exploring the educational involvement of parents of English learners. School Community Journal, 22(2), 185–202. Retrieved from http://www.schoolcommunitynetwork.
org/SCJ.aspx
Villenas, S. (2002). Reinventing educación in new Latino communities: Pedagogies of change
in North Carolina. In S. Wortham, E. Murillo, & E. Hamann (Eds.), The new Latino diaspora (pp. 16–35). Wesport, CT: Ablex.
Wainer, A. (2004). The new Latino South and the challenge to public education. Claremont, CA:
Tomas Rivera Policy Institute.
Wortham, S., Murillo, E. G., & Hamann, E. T. (2002). Education in the new Latino diaspora.
Wesport, CT: Ablex.
Zabala, G. (2013). Demographic trends of Hispanics/Latinos in North Carolina. Raleigh, NC:
Governor’s Office of Hispanic/Latino Affairs.
Zentella, A. C. (2005). Premises, promises, and pitfalls in language socialization research and
Latino families and communities. In A. C. Zentella (Ed.), Building on strength (pp. 13–31).
New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Zuniga, K. (2006). Latino/a parental involvement and student achievement in rural North Carolina. Paper presented at the Latin American Studies Association, Puerto Rico.
Eleanor Petrone is an assistant professor at Western Carolina University
where she directs the TESOL program. Her teaching and research interests
include the acculturation process of bilingual/bicultural students, the experience of language minority students and their families with schooling in new
gateway states in the Southeast, and parental involvement practices that facilitate the inclusion of culturally and linguistically diverse families. Previously,
Dr. Petrone worked as a bilingual social studies teacher in the New York City
public schools and later as an ESL teacher and program coordinator in the
91
North Carolina public schools. Correspondence concerning this article may be
addressed to Dr. Eleanor Petrone, 417 Coulter, Western Carolina University,
Cullowhee, NC 28723, or email [email protected]
92
(Re)Imagining School as Community:
Lessons Learned From Teachers
Terri N. Watson and Ira Bogotch
Abstract
The purpose of this explanatory sequential mixed methods study was to utilize teacher perceptions to identify best practices for school leaders who seek
to transform their school into a school as community. First, a large urban high
school was purposefully selected based on data obtained from the Department of Education. After examining the quantitative data, teacher interviews
were conducted to explore their perceptions of the principal’s efforts to transform the school into a school as community. Based on the quantitative and
qualitative findings, four practices emerged as lessons learned from teachers in
(re)imagining school as community: learning to lead, trusting in time, making
the connections, and managing change.
Key Words: school as community, teachers’ perspectives, change management,
leadership, urban high school, principal, academy
Introduction
Community is a complex phenomenon. On the one hand, the notion of
community evokes feelings of trust, safety, love, and fellowship. In other
contexts, a community may be depicted as irreparable and pathological when
its members are wrought by racism, violence, and continuous cycles of poverty
(Limperopulos, 2014). As an ideological concept, the term community is fundamental to fields such as sociology and ecology. Interestingly, as we explore
93
the meaning of community, what is clear not only in relation to education, but
in sociology and ecology, is that the word “community” has no distinct definition (Bender, 1978).
Community varies by context and purpose. In regards to schools, much
of the ambiguity surrounding the word community comes from the fact that
the term is often used in two distinct ways: in the first, the school itself is
a community; in the second, the school’s engagement with its surrounding
neighborhood is deemed the practice of community. With respect to the first
definition of community, there is a need to distinguish between community as
measured by climate relationships and community as measured by professional
practices (Merz & Furman, 1997). The following quote by Bauer and Brazer
(2012) illustrates this frustration: “We cringe when someone tells us that their
school ‘does professional learning community’—a professional learning community is something your school becomes, not something you or a few people
on a team do” (p. 280).
With respect to the second definition of community, external relationships,
it is unfortunate and factual that through structural and programmatic designs
many public schools have severed ties with outside members (Merz & Furman,
1997). In addition, today’s reform efforts, which include school closure and
the expansion of citywide, magnet, and charter schools serve to further broaden the gap between public schools and surrounding neighborhoods (Orfield,
2013; Ravitch, 2013).
Dewey (1938) repeatedly argued that schooling must be the practice of
community for it is within schools where one learns how to participate in the
larger society. Sergiovanni (1996) observed that if schools were to function as
communities, then school leaders must also serve as moral agents and should
adapt their practices and theories to meet the needs of their respective school
sites. Hence, his argument was to replace “school as an organization” with
“school as community.”
Interestingly, while the literature has validated the merits of school as community generically, there continues to be a need for more studies that (a)
explain the dynamics of school as community in terms of teacher–principal
perspectives and actions, and (b) highlight how unique contexts (in this case
an urban high school) determine one of the many meanings of schools as community. This study is an effort to fill this void.
In order to explain the dynamics of school as community we employed
a sequential mixed methods approach, grounded in teacher perspectives (of
principal behaviors) to identify best practices for urban high school principals
who seek to transform their school into a school as community. The central research question we asked was: How does an urban high school principal transform
a school into a school as community?
94
(RE)IMAGINING SCHOOL AS COMMUNITY
The next section, the literature review, explored schools as communities historically as well as in the context of post-Brown v. Board of Education (1954)
reform efforts. Unlike previous reviews of literature on schools as communities
which adhere to the internal–external dichotomy, we offer a holistic and contextual view on this topic.
Literature Review
Public Schools
When first conceived, public schools were deemed change agents and
charged with raising the collective aspirations of the masses to foster social,
economic, and political shifts (Gilbert, 1904). Paradoxically, for many people of color, public schools became tools for subjugation and marginalization
(Greer, 1972). Kozol’s (2005) five-year study of 60 public schools in 11 states
affirmed the latter findings. In the opening lines of his keynote address delivered at the 2013 Annual Brown Lecture in Research Education, professor and
civil rights activist Gary Orfield noted that despite the promise of Brown and
overarching federal legislation (see Elementary and Secondary Education Act
of 1965; Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015; No Child Left Behind Act of
2001), the nation’s public schools proffer disparate student outcomes as they
remain inherently separate and unequal.
The inequity that Orfield (2013) spoke of is predicated, in part, by racist and
economically motivated housing patterns that have caused the nation’s public
schools to become increasingly segregated (Reardon, Grewal, Kalogrides, &
Greenberg, 2012). Most distressing, an overwhelming majority of students of
color were found to attend schools staffed by less qualified teachers who utilize
inadequate teaching materials (Orfield, Kucsera, & Siegel-Hawley, 2012). Relatedly, in a report issued by the Schott Foundation for Public Education, racial
isolation and poverty were found to “redline” Black and Hispanic students who
attend New York City’s public schools; Holzman found most of the city’s 1.1
million children “languish in schools that lack the resources and capacity to
meet their academic or social needs” (2012, p. vii).
Excellence, access, and equity were thought to be the function of Brown and
are at the heart of today’s school reform measures. Ironically, many reformers
have attempted to redress public schools while ignoring their external communities. Warren (2005) noted how the two are inextricably bound, and Riley
(2009) explained, “How schools and communities work together is unique to
each context and based on intensively personal relationships, which need to be
developed” (p. 60). On a larger scale, Ravitch (2013) found public education
95
to be symbiotic with society and urged readers not to be swayed by manufactured crises aimed at removing schooling from the civic realm.
What is clear from Warren (2005), Riley (2009), and Ravitch (2013) is that
schools alone are inadequate means to meet the needs of all students. Meaningful connections with external communities are essential to the efficacy of
public schools. Yet as Warren (2005) pointed out, public schools lost the connections—both family and familiar—they established with neighborhoods at
the beginning of the 20th century when Progressive Era reforms centralized
control of schooling by adopting professionally run district administrations
(Reese, 2002). Subsequently, educators, mayors, and community developers
have operated in separate spheres, both institutionally and professionally (Bogotch, Nesmith, Smith, & Gaines, 2014).
Schools as Communities
Despite the aforementioned findings, much of the literature on schools as
communities rings positive. Furman (2004) and Warren (2005) build on the
works of Sergiovanni (1994, 1996) and Starratt (1994, 2003) who framed the
schoolhouse as an ethical and moral community poised for transformation.
Royal and Rossi (1997) noted that a school community flourishes when faculty
and students establish a clear vision, a sense of purpose, and a values system.
Redding (2001) examined the literature on school community and characterized the term as “inclusive of families of students and some elements of the
community beyond the school doors” (p. 1) and as exemplifying attributes
such as “shared values, trust, expectations, and obligations rather than tasks,
rules, and hierarchies” (p. 1).
Ironically, many of the concepts of schools as communities ignore the politics
involved, such as what happened in the late 1960s in Ocean Hill–Brownsville,
Brooklyn, when parents and community activists rallied for better schools and
community services. They demanded “social reform as well as school reform”
(Lewis, 2013, p. 5). To explain, on the heels of the Civil Rights Movement,
Black community members were attempting to participate in the governance
of their local schools. In doing so they clashed with progressive labor forces
who were bidding to organize teachers for better working conditions across the
city. In the end, the collision of these two progressive forces altered history in
the sense that both sides came to distrust one another. Going forward, we as
a nation have not been able to forge a post-progressive national urban education agenda.
At the start of the 21st century, notwithstanding the recession and its effects
on teacher pensions and municipal budgets, collective bargaining and teacher
unions have been prominent agenda issues in urban education. Similarly, as
96
labor issues conflated with notions of teacher specialization and teacher professionalism expanded, the role of the external community and, more specifically,
parental involvement in schools has diminished, making local and parent governance pedagogically questionable and practically more difficult (Jeynes,
2014; Watson & Bogotch, 2015). In sum, the concept of school as community has become an urban legend.
(Re)Imagining Public Schools as Communities
In the book Schools as Imagined Communities: The Creation of Identity, Meaning, and Conflict in U. S. History, the authors challenge the purpose of schools
and the notion of school as community. Specifically, Cobb-Roberts, Dorn, and
Shircliffe (2006) posit, “As we look beyond the superficial nature of what we
believe schools to be and delve into the many purposes schooling has served
and the many practices that schools have used, a different portrait emerges” (p.
2). The authors go on to explain how schools are exclusive by design and serve
to maintain the status quo as they, by and large, are restricted populaces based
on class, location, and student characteristics. As such, the concept of school as
community extends a reality that never truly existed.
Boske’s (2012) research contradicts Cobb-Roberts et al.’s (2006) conclusions. Through a series of case studies she demonstrated how, within a school’s
unique context, it was necessary to tailor projects to build internal and external relationships for community. Similarly, Tooms, Lugg, and Bogotch (2010)
defined community as a process and equated successful communities to those
spaces and places that establish meaningful relationships and what the researchers refer to as “fit” between individuals and organizations. Boske (2012) echoed
Dewey (1938) who maintained that schools must be places where democracy
and citizenship are shaped and communities thrive.
In her text, School as Community: From Promise to Practice, Furman (2002)
presents the practice of community in schools from various perspectives. Based
on her research, Furman noted that while researchers endeavor to assess community in schools, they oftentimes only focus on its attributes, “e.g., shared
values, common work goals, and level of communication and collaboration”
(p. 12), not its existence. Interestingly, she defined “community” in schools as
an “affective experience or psychological state” (p. 11) that must be experienced
by students and teachers in order for it to subsist. Based on our experiences as
teachers, school leaders, and researchers, we concur with Furman’s definition of
community in schools. We believe that schooling serves a moral purpose that
can be found in the practices of school leaders who foster an ethic of community (Sergiovanni, 1994, 1996). In the next section, this study’s methodology
is presented. We utilized this approach to answer the following question: How
does an urban high school principal transform a school into a school as community?
97
Methods
Setting
This study is situated in a large urban city in the U.S. The school district
serves a primarily Hispanic and Black student populace. These demographics are reflected in the student body of Lucille Campbell Green High School
(LCG; a pseudonym). More than 60% of the students are Hispanic, 33%
are Black, 4% are Asian, and 1% are White. According to the most recent
school data, 75% of the student body (approximately 1,300 students) are eligible for free and/or reduced lunch. The school’s demographics, however, are
not reflective of its surrounding community. As with many historically Black
neighborhoods throughout the Northeast and Midwest, gentrification is causing property values to significantly increase while simultaneously changing the
face of its residents.
LCG is an anomaly of sorts, as it is one of the city’s few remaining largescale high schools. To explain, when the mayor was given control of the city’s
schools, a great majority of high schools were deemed “dropout factories”1 (Balfanz et al., 2013). Hence, they were restructured and, instead of one large high
school consisting of 1,000 or more students, several small high schools, each
consisting of several hundred students, were created in an effort to increase
teacher efficacy and, ultimately, graduation rates. LCG, due to its influential
alumni and strong legacy, remained intact; it was the first collaborative effort
between the city’s university and the city’s board of education. And, in the
1980s, despite the fact that the crack cocaine epidemic nearly decimated the
surrounding neighborhood, hundreds of students applied each year for admission to LCG as it provided a trajectory to postsecondary education and
improved life outcomes.
Unfortunately, nearly two decades after it opened, LCG began to decline.
While the high school continued to carefully screen students for admissions (reviewing student transcripts, attendance records, and standardized test scores),
its waning reputation no longer made it a school of “first” choice.2 Students
who once would have applied to the “school on the top of the hill” now chose
to attend the city’s “test-only”3 high schools. Moreover, LCG’s academic programs no longer provided the curricula and learning outcomes that helped to
establish its once strong reputation. While the school continued to advertise
specific curricula and state certifications, it no longer possessed the appropriate
faculty and/or resources and so could provide neither the academic outcomes
nor the experiences required for state accreditation. In sum, LCG, while once
known for its strong curriculum and stellar graduates, was now plagued by a
weak curriculum sanctioned by a succession of unexceptional school leaders.
98
Scandal
From 2006–2011, LCG’s principal was dogged by charges of incompetence, harassment, and—most pressing—academic negligence. To explain the
latter claim, one need only review the school’s 2010 data: four-year graduation
rates catapulted by 30 points, ranking amongst the highest in the city, only to
plummet the next academic year. Then, during the summer of 2011, several
of the school’s teachers contacted the superintendent of schools to report the
principal’s abuse of the district’s Credit Recovery Policy (CRP). This policy and
related programs were implemented to afford students the opportunity to recover credit for a course that should have been earned during the school year in
a traditional classroom setting. However, for whatever reasons (i.e., truancy, no
motivation, lack of skills), the credit/s were not earned, and the student’s credit
accumulation was not where it should have been, and, more often than not,
timely graduation was at stake. Thus, in an effort to improve 4-year graduation
rates and to assist students who found themselves overage and undercredited,
many districts instituted CRP. LCG is part of one such school district.
While LCG’s principal was cleared of any wrongdoings regarding the
school’s policies and practices related to CRP, the damage was done. Morale
plummeted, and many veteran teachers resigned at the start of the next school
year. With this said, the 2011 academic year would prove to be a challenge for
the now infamous high school. LCG was in need of a new school leader and
several key faculty members to replace those who submitted resignation letters
in the fall. In addition, the school’s letter grade and other evaluation metrics
continued to decline. LCG was nowhere near the top of the choice schools.
Also, the school’s relationship with the city’s university seemed to stall. Many
precollege programs housed in the university’s colleges seemed to no longer
want to work with the students and teachers at the high school despite the fact
that they shared a campus. Moreover, internal and external community members wondered if LCG would close its doors, as many high schools in the city
had been closed over the previous decade due to dismal student performance
and low graduation rates.
A New Day
In the fall of 2013, LCG was met with good news. The school was poised for
a comeback based on its 2012–13 Learning Environment Survey. The school’s
grade increased by one letter, and several of the teachers who left in the summer of 2011 returned to their former positions. District officials and faculty
members attributed the noted changes to the novice interim principal who was
officially named LCG’s principal in the spring of 2013. In the next section, this
study’s quantitative and qualitative findings are explicated.
99
Study Design
This study utilized quantitative and qualitative data to shed light on the
perspectives of teachers in response to the research question: How does an urban high school principal transform a school into a school as community? Mixed
methodologies were found to be particularly useful as quantitative and qualitative data combined provide a rich context in which to understand a complex
social phenomenon (Creswell, 2012). Specifically, this study used an explanatory sequential mixed methods design. As such, quantitative data—teachers’
responses to questions centered on the actions of the principal—were first
analyzed. Then, using a semi-structured questionnaire (Drever, 1995) adapted from the International Successful Schools’ Principals Project (ISSPP; Day,
2010), qualitative data were gathered to explain the quantitative findings.
Thus, while the quantitative data provided an outline, the qualitative findings
provided essential details to answer the research question.
Sample
Purposeful sampling (Patton, 1990) was used to select the school site and
individuals for this study. To explain, this case study (Creswell, 2012) is drawn
from our research that examined the practices of a successful school principal
(see Watson & Bogotch, 2015). We reviewed the 2011–13 School Survey Reports found on the city’s Department of Education (DOE) website to identify
the principal. The evaluation tool is often referred to as the Learning Environment Survey (LES); it is one of the largest national school-based assessments.
The DOE administers the LES annually to students, parents, and teachers in
Grades 6–12 to ascertain their perceptions of their respective school site and
its leadership.
The LES has four components: Academic Expectations, Communication, Engagement, and Safety and Respect. These practices are fundamental
to school leaders who operationalize “community in school” (Furman, 2002).
Based on 2011–13 LES growth data (see Table 1), Dr. John Brown (a pseudonym) was identified as a successful school principal. Dr. Brown serves as the
principal of LCG, one of the few comprehensive high schools in a sizeable urban school district in the northeastern U.S.
Based on data contained in the LES for the 2011–12 and 2012–13 academic years, while all high schools citywide made gains (right column) as well
as LCG’s peer schools (middle column), LCG made the greatest gains (left column). In other words, LCG bested the city’s high schools (overall) and its 39
peer schools4 in making the most growth during the 2012–13 academic year.
100
Table 1. 2011–13 LES Growth Comparisons
LES Categories
LCG
Peer Schools (39)
Citywide
Academic Expectations
1.8
.8
.5
Communication
2.3
1.1
1.0
Engagement
2.1
.6
.3
Safety & Respect
1.7
0
.3
Note. Adapted from data obtained from the DOE’s website.
Quantitative Phase
For the 2012–13 LES, 303 (25%) students, 192 (15%) parents, and 61
(94%) of LCG’s teachers were assigned confidential access codes by the DOE
and participated in the survey. This study was centered on those teachers in the
first, quantitative phase (n = 61). In the second, qualitative phase, participants
(n = 5) were given pseudonyms to protect confidentiality.
Data Collection
LCG’s teachers responded to a total of 57 items on the 2012–13 LES; 11
questions centered on their perception of the principal, Dr. Brown. Possible responses included: “Strongly Agree,” “Agree,” “Disagree,” “Strongly Disagree,”
and “Does Not Apply.” Responses were converted to percentages and reported
as a number ranging from 0–10; the highest possible score was 10. These questions and responses are reported in the findings.
Data Analysis
The LES framework and the teachers’ responses to the 11 items were utilized to quantitatively answer this study’s research question. The discussion
section integrates the quantitative and qualitative results.
Qualitative Phase
After the Institutional Review Board at the primary author’s university and
the city’s DOE approved this study, flyers were placed in the teachers’ mailboxes
at LCG. The flyers advertised this study and invited the participation of teachers who taught at LCG for at least three years and took part in the 2012–13
LES. Five teachers voluntarily agreed to participate in this phase of the study
and were interviewed as described below. The interviewees consisted of three
females and two males. Three were White, speaking English as their primary
language, while one was a Hispanic whose primary language was Spanish, and
one was from the Middle East and spoke Arabic as well as English.
101
Along with teacher interviews, descriptive field notes (Bogdan & Biklen,
1982) were gathered during monthly School Leadership Team meetings.
Archived documents and data obtained from the school’s website were also
included as part of the qualitative data for this study. These data provided the
thick, rich details essential to describing phenomena (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).
The International Successful School Principals’ Project (ISSPP)
Adding to the validity of this study, the ISSPP interview protocol was
followed. The ISSPP began in 2001 in Nottingham, England and was developed by a team of educational researchers from across the globe. It is the most
comprehensive study of successful school principals (Day, 2010). The project
proffers new empirical research on effective school leadership and seeks to improve student achievement and school communities. The primary aim of the
project is to collect data from multiple perspectives to better understand “personal qualities and professional competencies” (Day, 2010, p. 8) of successful
school leaders.
This study, in particular, serves to identify the knowledge base, skills, and
dispositions a principal utilizes in implementing successful leadership practices
at a large, urban high school in the U.S. This study may also inform LCG’s
leadership while serving as a resource for other school leaders in similar policy
and social contexts.
Data Collection
Using a semi-structured questionnaire (Drever, 1995) adapted from the ISSPP (Day, 2010), five teachers were interviewed one-on-one for one to two
hours each. Semi-structured interviews, based upon a series of open-ended
questions, are the most effective means of reconciling the aim of encouraging
respondents to talk freely about what they perceive to be significant (Drever,
1995). The questionnaire is included in Appendix B. This interview data were
collected to help explain this study’s quantitative results.
Data Analysis
Several steps were taken to analyze the qualitative data. First, the transcripts
were audiorecorded and professionally transcribed. Then the data were read
and reread employing a constant comparative method of analysis (Glaser,
2011; Glaser & Strauss, 1967) to identify how, based on the LES framework
(“Academic Expectations,” “Communication,” “Engagement,” and “Safety and
Respect”), Dr. Brown operationalized school as community. Finally, findings
and understandings were discussed throughout this process to insure consistency and reliability (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).
102
Limitations and Trustworthiness
This case study was limited as it focused solely on the perception of teachers. While the views of teachers are crucial for leadership development, the
voices of students, parents, staff, and of course, school leaders, should not be
ignored. Next, this study focused on the opinions of teachers in a large, urban
high school. As such, the findings should not be generalized as context matters
and differs based on the school environment and the school community. Last,
it must be noted that the intent of this study was to shed light on the perceptions of teachers at LCG and to inform the practices of the school’s leader and
others in similar social and political contexts.
In an effort to ensure the trustworthiness of this study, member checks
were conducted (Creswell, 2012). Participants reviewed their transcripts and
were given the opportunity to provide clarity and feedback. Finally, before this
manuscript was sent to the publishers of this journal, participants were offered
the opportunity to review this document to ensure that their perspectives were
accurately portrayed. The next section presents the qualitative and quantitative
findings for this study.
Findings
Quantitative Phase
Most (94%; n = 61) of LCG’s teachers participated in the 2012–13 LES.
They responded to 57 multiple-choice questions; 11 questions focused on their
perceptions of Dr. Brown and are included in this phase of the study. Possible
scores for each question range from 0–10 with 10 serving as the highest. The
questions and average scores are presented in Table 2.
Qualitative Phase
Based on teacher interview data, descriptive field notes, and archived documents obtained from the school’s website, the following narrative was gathered
and framed by the four components of the LES.
As discussed, LCG’s once highly lauded academies began to falter at the
start of the new millennium. Students who hoped to graduate with transcripts
that delineated specific curricula and certifications were often disappointed
when they learned that their chosen academy was in name only. Accordingly,
at the start of the 2012–13 academic year, Dr. Brown restored the Engineering
Academy by dedicating several classrooms, teachers, and technology to this
initiative. As a result, all of the teachers interviewed for this study were proud
103
Table 2. Quantative Results From the LES
Survey Sections and Relevant Questions
Score
Do teachers feel that the school develops rigorous and meaningful academic
goals that encourage students to do their best?
The principal at my school…
Places the learning needs of children ahead of personal and political in9.0
terests.
Communication
Do teachers feel that the school provides them with information about the
school’s educational goals and offers appropriate feedback on each student’s
learning outcomes?
Communicates a clear vision for our school.
8.8
Encourages open communication on important school issues.
8.9
Makes clear to the staff his or her expectations for meeting instructional
9.0
goals.
Is an effective manager who makes the school run smoothly.
8.6
How much do you agree with the following statement?
I trust the principal at his or her word.
8.8
Engagement
Do teachers feel engaged in an active and vibrant partnership to promote
learning?
Understands how children learn.
9.0
Knows what’s going on in my classroom.
8.5
Participates in instructional planning with teachers.
8.3
To what extent do you feel supported by the following people?
Your principal.
8.0
Safety and Respect
Do teachers feel that the school creates a physically and emotionally secure environment in which everyone can focus on student learning?
How much do you agree with the following statement?
I feel respected by the principal at my school.
9.0
104
to boast of LCG’s new Engineering Academy and improved school culture.
One teacher observed, “It’s a noticeable change in the environment and culture
of the school since [Dr. Brown] arrived.” Another teacher attributed the new
“tone” in the building to Dr. Brown and spoke of his foresight. She ascertained,
“He knew what he was walking into. I think that made the difference.…He
went in and did his homework.”
Part of Dr. Brown’s “homework” may be attributed to the fact that he is a
former teacher and is considered by many of LCG’s teachers to be an instructional leader. Moreover, he makes it a point to observe every teacher at LCG
at least twice a year. This practice is greatly appreciated by the teachers under
his charge. For example, a teacher with nearly 20 years of experience at varying high schools in the district, when asked, “How do you describe the kind of
leadership in the school?” compared Dr. Brown to her previous principals and
responded as follows:
Sometimes people [school leaders] will come and observe you, and they
don’t know what they’re looking for, and they don’t know how to help.
I’ve had the pleasure of having [Dr. Brown] come to my class, observe
my class, and then sit down with me and have a constructive conversation giving me really fantastic examples of how I could have improved
certain aspects of that lesson. For me, as a teacher, that really makes me
respect him more because he knows strategies. He knows teaching. He’s
a teacher. He’s a teacher first. That is very helpful.
Another teacher with less than five years of experience noted how Dr. Brown
sets the tone for high academic expectations. She said, “He wants us to become
better teachers, and he wants our students to be successful in their learning,
and that is very obvious.” Similarly, one of the science teachers interviewed for
this study noted how the newly designed schedule made it possible for him to
collaborate with other members of his department, an essential component in
aligning academic expectations. He remarked, “This is the first school in all of
my years with the Department of Education where we actually meet as a department to collaborate within subject areas. [Dr. Brown] set it up….” In each
interview with LCG teachers, it was clear that Dr. Brown set the tone and processes for high academic expectations.
Safety and Respect
LCG is one of the few remaining comprehensive high schools in the district, and the majority of its peer schools require students and visitors to pass
through metal detectors upon entry. While this safety measure is an option for
LCG and is mandated by district officials intermittently, the school’s leadership
team has never considered the full-time use of metal detectors. It was reasoned
105
that the majority of LCG’s students live in the surrounding community and
are childhood friends. Furthermore, while there is an issue with student attendance, particularly lateness, the school’s Incident Report is not alarming.
The report is a compilation of violent and disruptive incidents that occur in
the school building. All public schools in the state must file a report with the
district each time an incident occurs at the respective school site. In turn, the
district reports this data to the state in order to comply with federal safety law,
specifically, the Safe Schools Against Violence in Education (SAVE) Act.
In an effort to address student lateness (and to increase students’ time on
task), Dr. Brown instituted floor monitors in the middle of the fall semester. Several teachers mentioned this during our conversations, and one teacher
posited, “I will say that since [Dr. Brown] arrived, I believe that this school
has become much safer.” When I asked her to unpack this statement, she explained that before Dr. Brown arrived, tens of students would wander around
the school building, cutting classes and looking to cause havoc. Once Dr.
Brown arrived, he assigned monitors (usually a teacher) to each of the school’s
seven floors and equipped them with a walkie-talkie and clipboard to monitor
and report students who were not authorized to be outside of their respective
classrooms. This remedy has proven to be effective and is the primary reason
why the teachers we interviewed described LCG as a “safe school” where learning takes place.
In regards to respect, many teachers appreciate the fact that Dr. Brown
treats them as professionals and is transparent in his words and actions. A veteran teacher shared the following description of Dr. Brown:
He’s pretty straightforward with us. I think that’s part of the culture
change, too; like the previous principal was very evasive; he would use
this language that wasn’t direct with us. But [Dr. Brown] has spoken to
us like we’re actually colleagues and that we kind of could contribute to
the conversation, which is nice.
Contrarily, based on my field notes, respect between the principal and teachers at LCG is not always reciprocated. This finding (or lack thereof ) was most
evident at the second School Leadership Team meeting (a monthly meeting
held with the principal’s leadership team, lead teachers, and student representatives) when several key members of the faculty either walked in late or were
reticent when discussing the school’s Comprehensive Educational Plan, an annual document produced by the team and intended to drive the direction of
the school’s leadership practices.
Engagement
Principals play a vital role in creating conditions conducive to student
achievement: engagement is an important component in this effort. As noted,
106
LCG is located on the campus of a university. Unfortunately, the school’s relationship with the university was compromised due to a scandal involving
the previous school leader. Nonetheless, Dr. Brown is working in earnest to
mend this rift, and many of the teachers we spoke with acknowledged his efforts. Further, one teacher cited his resourcefulness in bringing much needed
community-based organizations and pedagogical resources to the school (i.e.,
Catholic Charities Community Services, Education for a Better America, Inc.)
to improve teacher efficacy, noting:
He [Dr. Brown] is very effective in doing his best to support us with
what resources he has.…He always encourages our professional development. Whenever I am interested in attending a professional development and bring it to his attention, he will, nine out of ten times, give me
the green light.
Based on our conversations with LCG’s teachers, it is obvious that Dr.
Brown is vested in helping teachers build their capacity. A participant shared
the following to explain Dr. Brown’s efforts to engage LCG’s teachers: “He [Dr.
Brown] makes you feel like he really actually wants to help you succeed because
he wants to build up his community.” One of the teachers we interviewed explained how this practice has impacted the teachers at LCG. He explicated,
“For example, if I say to someone in my department, ‘Hey, can I come observe
you today because I am having a hard time with this?’ The response is always,
‘Of course’ and/or ‘Tell me about it.’”
It must be noted that in relation to the principal’s efforts to encourage the
practice of school as community, one of the teachers we met with disagreed
with her colleagues, as she felt Dr. Brown was so interested in developing the
internal school community that he was ignoring the external school community. She stated, “We’re so focused on working on the inside, like internally, to
get the structure right in here, that we’re not really focusing on how to get the
community involved as much as we should.” This finding was an anomaly as
the other four teachers we interviewed spoke of Dr. Brown’s effort to engage
external stakeholders.
Communication
Interestingly, while Dr. Brown appears to be well regarded by many of the
teachers at LCG, many are hesitant to converse with him, especially one-onone. One of the teachers surmised the feelings of many of her colleagues when
she stated:
I think people are still in a culture shock.…There is [sic] a lot of people in the building that have been through all the different transitions
of leadership. This new guy, I think they like what’s going on, but I
think they think it’s a temporary thing right now. I think maybe another
107
couple of years, it will be like “Okay, this is the way; it’s going to be like
this; it’s going to be good.” Hopefully it won’t change.
One teacher who has worked with Dr. Brown on several district initiatives
found him to be a “straight shooter.” He remarked,
He [Dr. Brown] is very open; he’s very transparent about what his goals
are and where he needs to bring us. His expectation is that we’re equally
as transparent with him so that he really gets [to] the bottom of, like,
what’s happening with us and what’s happening with our students. I’d
say one of his [Dr. Brown’s] strongest assets is the fact that he’s very
transparent.
Hopefully, LCG’s teachers will continue to embrace the new leadership at
the school site, and Dr. Brown will continue to be transparent. In the next
section, the findings are extrapolated and lessons learned are proffered to Dr.
Brown and school leaders who seek to transform their school into a school as
community.
Discussion
The quantitative and qualitative data for this study revealed that school as
community for LCG is in, as one teacher said, “its infancy stage.” Teachers indicated that by doing his homework and building the components to each
academic program mindfully, Dr. Brown is on the right path. He knew who
LCG once was, where they were headed, and, more importantly, who they
could be. During the data collection and analyses for this study we found that
schools, like communities, are complex. We also realized that if schools as communities are to be efficient and meet the needs of their members, school leaders
must (re)imagine school as community. The following paragraphs posit the lessons learned from LCG’s teachers.
Learning to Lead
History is oftentimes the best teacher, and communities both whole and
healthy as well as those in need all have histories. Therefore, in reimagining
school as community, school leaders must learn the history of their school community and then learn from it (Stack, 2004). Stack described in his 2004 book,
Elsie Ripley Clapp (1879-1965): Her Life and the Community School, how she
as a principal and her urban school faculty studied the community—Ballard,
Kentucky—before beginning the school year. They constructed a curriculum
based on the experiences and interests of the students, not just to meet academic needs, but also to “bond learning with living” (Stack, 2004, p.174). Ms.
Clapp’s work in community schools caught the attention of Eleanor Roosevelt
108
who invited her to consider designing a new school in West Virginia; Ms.
Clapp agreed, but with one stipulation—that she could bring most of her experienced staff with her.
Today, the conditions for learning to lead in large urban school districts
are quite different. That is, Dr. Brown inherited a faculty and staff, and so
the learning and living had to take place concurrently. Notwithstanding, Dr.
Brown met the challenge by studying LCG’s record of academic achievement
and then meeting with teachers individually and in small groups to ascertain
where and how LCG could grow. Based on these conversations, he was able to
begin the process of collaborating with the teachers to set and attain new academic and community-oriented goals. These small steps also served to raise the
levels of positive climate and culture at LCG.
In addition, Dr. Brown’s decision to first rebuild the Engineering Academy
further enhanced the reimagining of school as community internally and externally. The redesigned initiative allowed the school to partner with a national
organization and enhanced its reputation and collaborative efforts amongst
faculty and administrators at the neighboring university.
Trusting in Time
When Dr. Brown arrived at LCG, morale was low, and scores of community
members wondered whether the mayor would close the school. Additionally,
while some teachers welcomed Dr. Brown’s arrival as he came from an “A”
rated “test only” school, some questioned his appointment at LCG. They wondered if he would stay at LCG to help rebuild the school or if was he part of
the DOE’s plan to dismantle one of the last large comprehensive high schools
in the city. With this said, in reimagining school as community, school leaders
must foster an environment where members—in this case, teachers—feel safe,
physically as well as professionally (Gregory, Cornell, & Fan, 2012). Dr. Brown
is making progress in this regard.
Dr. Brown is gradually earning the respect of the faculty and is not using
positional power alone to do so. Gregory et al. (2012) noted how both support and structure are needed for safety. Throughout our conversations with
the teachers, many noted his prior classroom experience and appeared to trust
his judgment on matters that pertain to the curriculum and classroom management. However, many of the teachers, senior faculty members in particular,
have yet to align themselves with Dr. Brown as the school’s leader. By not adding a metal detector (as the school never had one and doesn’t feel it needs one)
and establishing an open door policy (a safety issue in terms of speaking honestly), Dr. Brown is slowly gaining the faculty’s trust. Hence, trust, in life and
in reimagining schools as communities, happens over time.
109
Making the Connections
Student success must be the overall function and goal of a school as community. In order to be successful, students need all members of the school
community (both internally and externally) to work together in meaningful
ways (Ikemoto, Taliaferro, & Adams, 2012). One of the functions of a principal is to be a steward of this praxis: the connecting of ideas to actions within an
educative conceptual framework. In reimagining school as community, principals must collaborate in and outside of the school community (Stack, 2004).
Dr. Brown is working diligently to reestablish relationships with the local university. In fact, throughout the spring semester, in addition to meeting with
Dean of the College of Engineering, he met with several university officials to
discuss collaborative initiatives. Dr. Brown should continue these efforts and
seek to partner with a greater number of community-based organizations.
Managing Change
It must have come as a refreshing surprise to the faculty of LCG when Dr.
Brown consulted with them on a wide range of issues, from curriculum and
academics to safety to parent and student engagement. While the literature
supports such efforts as effective best practices for school leaders (Frazier, 2015;
Whitaker, 2013), it does not explain how faculty should respond to changes
in leadership and how long it might take for behavioral changes to become the
norms of the school community. In this light, and in reimagining school as
community, school leaders must be change agents.
Based on teacher interviews and field notes from the school site, many of
LCG’s teachers feel as if they are treading on uncertain waters, and while they
are pleased with Dr. Brown thus far, they are not quite sure of his leadership
practices. Hence, as a change agent, Dr. Brown must continue to collaborate
and encourage internal and external members of the school’s community to
work together for the best interests of the children charged to their care.
Conclusions
(Re)Imagining schools as communities requires new rules and new job
boundary-spanning activities. As researchers, we translated the four Learning Environment Survey categories into four leadership processes: Learning
to Lead, Trusting in Time, Making the Connections, and Managing Change.
Thus, reimagining school as community is a long-term and deliberate strategy
that recognizes demographic statistics and trends, geographic spaces (propinquity), living and housing conditions, and the cultural heritage of students and
110
families. This requires new and different policies redefining the roles and work
of educators.
(Re)Imagining school as community is in and of itself a communal process
involving members of the school community embracing best practices beyond
textbook adoptions and prescribed curricula. This cannot be done overnight
or by fiat. The practices of school as community must be sewed back into the
fabric of public education. It is not enough to know that such work was more
common 100 years ago. We need to (re)imagine school as community based
on our current realities and the lived experiences of teachers and administrators
working with students, families, industry, colleges, and universities.
Endnotes
A dropout factory is a high school in which twelfth grade enrollment is 60% or less of the
ninth grade enrollment three years earlier.
2
In this district, while students attend elementary and middle schools based on their locale,
they may apply to attend any of the high schools in the district.
3
State law sanctions “test only” high schools. The sole criterion for admission to these select
schools is a test given to the city’s students in the fall of their eighth grade year.
4
Peer schools are created using a “nearest neighbor” matching methodology, which examines
the mathematical difference between a school and its potential peers based on a prescribed set
of benchmarks; schools with the least difference across all characteristics are “peered together.”
1
References
Balfanz, R., Bridgeland, J., Bruce, M., & Fox, J. H. (2013). Building a grad nation: Progress and
challenge in ending the high school dropout epidemic—2013 annual update. Washington, DC:
Civic Enterprises, the Everyone Graduates Center at Johns Hopkins University School of
Education, America’s Promise Alliance, and the Alliance for Excellent Education.
Bauer, S., & Brazer, S. (2012). Using research to lead school improvement: Turning evidence into
action. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Bender, T. (1978). Community and social change in America. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers
University Press.
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (1992). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to
theory and methods (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Bogotch, I., Nesmith, L., Smith, S., & Gaines, F. (2014). Urban school leadership and fit. In
R. Milner & K. Lomotey (Eds.), Handbook of urban education (pp. 305–324). New York,
NY: Routledge.
Boske, C. (2012). Educational leadership: Building bridges among ideas, schools, and nations.
Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Shawnee County, Kansas. 347 U. S. 483, 74 S. Ct. 686
(1954).
Cobb-Roberts, D., Dorn, S., & Shircliffe, B. (Eds.). (2006). Schools as imagined communities:
The creation of identity, meaning, and conflict in U.S. history. New York, NY: PalgraveMcMillian.
111
Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative
and qualitative research (4th ed.). New York, NY: Pearson.
Day, C. (2010). Conducting research on successful school principals: Associate member’s guide.
Nottingham, UK: University of Nottingham.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York, NY: Collier Books.
Drever, E. (1995). Using semi-structured interviews in small-scale research. A teacher’s guide. Edinburgh, UK: Scottish Council for Research in Education.
Elementary and Secondary Education Act, 20 U.S.C. §§ 6301–8962 (1965).
Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015, Pub. L. No, 114–195.
Frazier, E. (2015) Positive school climate: Changing the culture of one high school (Unpublished
master’s thesis). California State University at San Marcos, CA.
Furman, G. C. (2002). School as community: From promise to practice. Albany, NY: SUNY
Press.
Furman, G. C. (2004). The ethic of community. Journal of Educational Administration, 42(2),
215–235.
Gilbert, N. (1904). Pedagagoical commentary. In A. Wray, Jean Mitchell’s School. Bloomington, IL: Public School Publishing.
Glaser, B. (2011). Getting out of the data: Grounded theory conceptualization. Mill Valley, CA:
Sociology Press.
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
Greer, C. (1972). The great school legend: A revisionist interpretation of American public education. New York, NY: Penguin Books.
Gregory, A., Cornell, D., & Fan, X. (2012). Teacher safety and authoritative school climate in
high schools. American Journal of Education, 118(4), 401–425.
Holzman, M. (2012). A rotting apple: Education redlining in New York City. Cambridge, MA:
The Schott Foundation for Public Education.
Ikemoto, G., Taliaferro, L., & Adams, E. (2012). Playmakers: How great principals build and
lead great teams of teachers. New York, NY: New Leaders.
Jeynes, W. (2014). Parent involvement for urban students and youth of color. In R. Milner &
K. Lomotey (Eds.), Handbook of urban education (pp. 149–166). New York, NY: Routledge.
Kozol, J. (2005). The shame of a nation: The restoration of apartheid schooling in America. New
York, NY: Crown Publishers.
Lewis, H. (2013). New York City public schools from Brownsville to Bloomberg: Community control and its legacy. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Limperopulos, N. (2014). I’ve done my sentence, but committed no crime. In A. Normore
& J. Brooks (Eds.), Educational leadership for ethics and social justice: Views from the social
sciences (pp. 179–201). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. New York, NY: Sage.
Merz, C., & Furman, G. (1997). Community and schools: Promise and paradox. New York, NY:
Teachers College Press.
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107–110, § 115, Stat. 1425 (2002).
Orfield, G. (2013). A new civil rights agenda for American education [Lecture notes]. Retrieved from http://www.aera.net/AnnualMeetingsOtherEvents/AnnualBrownLectureinEducationResearch/PastBrownLectures/tabid/11090/Default.aspx
Orfield, G., Kuscera, J., & Siegel-Hawley, G. (2012). E pluribus… Separation deepening double
segregation for more students. Los Angeles, CA: UCLA Civil Rights Project.
112
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park,
CA: Sage.
Ravitch, D. (2013). Reign of error: The hoax of the privatization movement and the danger to
America’s public schools. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf.
Reardon, S. F., Grewal, E. T., Kalogrides, D., & Greenberg, E. (2012). Brown fades: The end
of court-ordered school desegregation and the resegregation of American public schools.
Journal of Policy Analysis Management, 31, 876–904.
Redding, S. (2001). The community of the school. School Community Journal, 11(1), 1–24.
Retrieved from http://www.schoolcommunitynetwork.org/SCJ.aspx
Reese, W. J. (2002). Power and promise of school reform: Grassroots movements during the progressive era. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Riley, K. A. (2009). Reconfiguring urban leadership: Taking a perspective on community.
School Leadership & Management, 29(1), 51–63.
Royal, M. A., & Rossi, R. J. (1997). Schools as communities (Issue Brief ). Seattle, WA: ERIC
Clearinghouse on Educational Administration.
Sergiovanni, T. J. (1994). Building community in schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Sergiovanni, T. J. (1996). Leadership for the schoolhouse. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Stack, S. (2004). Elsie Ripley Clapp (1879-1965): Her life and the community school. New York,
NY: Peter Lang.
Starratt, R. J. (1994). Building an ethical school: A practical response to the moral crisis in schools.
London, UK: Falmer.
Starratt, R. J. (2003). Centering educational administration: Cultivating meaning, community,
responsibility. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Tooms, A., Lugg, C., & Bogotch, I. (2010). Rethinking the politics of fit and educational
leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 46(1), 96–131.
Warren, M. (2005). Communities and schools: A new view of urban education reform. Harvard Educational Review, 75(2), 133–139.
Watson, T., & Bogotch, I. (2015). Reframing parent involvement: What should urban school
leaders do differently? Leadership and Policy in Schools, 14(3), 257–278.
Whitaker, T. (2013). What great principals do differently: 18 things that matter most. New York,
NY: Routledge.
Terri N. Watson is an assistant professor in the Department of Leadership
and Special Education at The City College of New York. As an activist scholar,
her research examines the effective practices of urban school leaders and the
impact of school reform initiatives on communities of color. Correspondence
concerning this article may be addressed to Dr. Terri N. Watson, The City College of New York, School of Education, NAC 4/218B, 160 Convent Avenue,
New York, NY 10031, or email [email protected]
Ira Bogotch is a professor of educational leadership at Florida Atlantic University, previously on faculty at the University of New Orleans. His research
focuses on explaining why social justice is an educational construct, not a social
theory defined by non-educators—whether social scientists or philosophers.
113
Appendix A. Teacher Interview Questions
1. When did you arrive at this school?
2. What is your current position in the school now?
3. Describe the policy and social contexts of your school.
4. Identify the key aspects/characteristics of the school.
5. Identify the key aspects of success in the school.
6. Identify the role of the principal in the success of the school.
7. What do you think is the principal’s vision for the school?
8. How do you describe the kind of leadership in the school?
9. What do you think drives the principal in his job?
10.Identify/define the strategies of the principal at various levels.
114
Schools as Communities and for Communities:
Learning From the 2010–2011 New Zealand
Earthquakes
Carol Mutch
Abstract
The author followed five primary (elementary) schools over three years as
they responded to and began to recover from the 2010–2011 earthquakes in
and around the city of Christchurch in the Canterbury region of New Zealand.
The purpose was to capture the stories for the schools themselves, their communities, and for New Zealand’s historical records. From the wider study, data
from the qualitative interviews highlighted themes such as children’s responses
or the changing roles of principals and teachers. The theme discussed in this
article, however, is the role that schools played in the provision of facilities and
services to meet (a) physical needs (food, water, shelter, and safety); and (b)
emotional, social, and psychological needs (communication, emotional support, psychological counseling, and social cohesion)—both for themselves and
their wider communities. The role schools played is examined across the immediate, short-, medium-, and long-term response periods before being discussed
through a social bonding theoretical lens. The article concludes by recommending stronger engagement with schools when considering disaster policy,
planning, and preparation.
Key Words: schools, community, natural disaster policy, New Zealand, earthquakes, physical, social, emotional, psychological needs, staff, students, families, emergency planning, preparation, response, recovery, principals, teachers
115
Introduction
On September 4, 2010, a 7.1 magnitude earthquake struck the city of
Christchurch and the surrounding districts. The earthquake caused major
damage to buildings, transport links, and infrastructure such as electricity, water supply, and waste removal. A state of emergency was declared, and rescue
services began to search through the damaged buildings. Fortunately, because
the earthquake struck in the early hours of the morning, no deaths occurred.
Many residents found accommodation in emergency shelters until they were
able to assess what had happened and consider what to do next (Canterbury
Earthquakes Royal Commission, 2012).
Over the next two years, a further 12,000+ aftershocks, including four major
quakes (over 6 on the Richter scale), each causing more damage and disruption, prevented the mammoth task of demolishing, repairing, and rebuilding
from getting underway. The worst of the aftershocks occurred on February 22,
2011—a 6.3 magnitude jolt with an upthrust of twice the force of gravity. As
a result, 185 people were to die, homes and businesses were damaged, and the
city’s central business district was devastated (Canterbury Earthquakes Royal
Commission, 2012).
Following the September 2010 earthquake, many local schools became evacuation or drop-in centers for local communities. When schools reopened several
weeks later, they continued to provide support to their students, staff, families,
and wider communities. When the February 2011 earthquake occurred, this
time during the school day, school personnel played a more immediate role in
disaster response as they evacuated, calmed, and cared for students until they
were collected by family (Education Review Office, 2013). Over the next three
years, schools continued to operate, often under difficult conditions, and to
support their communities through postdisaster stresses—even when some of
the schools were earmarked by the government for postearthquake closure.
This article traces the response and recovery journeys of five primary schools
all affected by the Canterbury earthquakes. It provides an insight into schools
as communities, as well as describing the role of schools in and for their communities, especially in a time of need. The findings outline the ways in which
schools met their own and their wider communities’ physical needs—such as
provision of food, water, shelter, and safety—and the ways in which they met
emotional, social, and psychological needs. The role played by schools in this
disaster context is traced across four time periods: immediate response (the
first days after the event); short-term response (after approximately two–three
weeks); medium-term response (after approximately six months); and longterm response and recovery (after approximately three years). The findings are
116
SCHOOLS AND NEW ZEALAND EARTHQUAKES
then discussed in relation to Gordon’s (2004a, 2004b, 2007) theory of social
bonding in disaster contexts before the article concludes with a set of recommendations for emergency management policymakers and planners in order
that the valuable contributions schools make to community cohesion and resilience might be recognized and supported.
Literature Review
The literature on disaster prevention, response, and recovery is vast; the literature discussed here is kept manageable by focusing on what is most relevant
to this article—the role of schools in disaster response and recovery. Ferris and
Petz define disasters as “the consequences of events triggered by natural hazards that overwhelm local response capacity and seriously affect the social and
economic development of a region” (2012, p. xix). Winkworth also talks of
the way in which disasters shape “the sense that a group of people make of the
event—a shared identity that they have, together, been affected by a major catastrophe” (2007, p. 17). Most descriptions highlight the suddenness or lack of
preparedness, the unexpectedness of the size of the event and ensuing damage,
and the inability of existing systems to cope. There is often large-scale death or
dislocation and a lack of immediate access to food, water, shelter, and medical
aid (Cahill, Beadle, Mitch, Coffey, & Crofts, 2010; Ferris & Petz, 2012; Ferris,
Petz, & Stark, 2013; Smawfield, 2013; Winkworth, 2007).
A more detailed literature review by the author (Mutch, 2014) canvassed
the literature on the role of schools in disaster prevention, response, and recovery in mainly urban settings. That review found that the largest body of
literature focused on the role of schools in disaster risk reduction and readiness.
The second, smaller body of literature described the role of schools in recent
disaster response situations, and the smallest set of literature reported on the
school’s role in disaster recovery, although there is a larger body of literature
on wider psychological recovery postdisaster. As schools are located in centers
of population, a disaster affecting a community will impact local schools. Not
only might schools be the site of the event or suffer damage themselves, but
they will inevitably need to deal with the aftermath when affected children and
staff return to school.
The school disaster response literature is not large and includes mainly firsthand or reported accounts of how schools coped with unexpected disasters. A
useful compilation is an edited book (Smawfield, 2013) which includes chapters from the U.S., the U.K., China, Australia, and India. As well as providing
recent examples of the role of schools postdisaster, it raised questions about
better planning for the use of schools in such situations. Another firsthand example tells of what happened when a group of New Zealand school students
117
and their instructor were swept away and drowned in a flooded river in 2008.
The principal needed to deal with multiple priorities such as liaising with police, families, media, the Ministry of Education, and his own staff. He drew
on his skills as a leader and the relationships that he had already established to
bring his school through this tragic time (Tarrant, 2011a, 2011b).
Many vivid accounts have come out of the 2011 triple disaster in Japan beginning with the magnitude 9 earthquake off the coast of Japan on March 11,
2011. It hit on a school day, but there were no reported school fatalities related
to the earthquake (Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, & Technology, 2012; Parmenter, 2012). The tsunami that followed, however, required
principals and teachers to make life-saving decisions. Children were evacuated
to the top floors of their schools or to higher ground. Teachers then looked after cold, hungry, frightened children with no food, no water, and no power,
some sleeping on the floor and singing to keep children’s spirits up. Eventually, children were reunited with their parents or other relatives, where possible
(Ema, 2013; Japan Society, 2011; Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, & Technology, 2012; Parmenter, 2012).
After a disaster, school recovery is an ongoing process as buildings and
grounds are repaired or rebuilt or alternative sites or modes of learning are
established. The 2008 Sichuan earthquake in China, for example, disrupted
schooling for 2.5 million children (Zhong, 2013). Locations for schooling
needed to be found and students prioritized. Students preparing for examinations were the first priorities and were sent to neighboring provinces or housed
in prefabricated classrooms or tents. Child Friendly Spaces1 provided daycare
for young children, informal education for school-aged children, life skills
training for adolescents, and support for parents (Zhong, 2013).
Parmenter (2012), writing about the role of schools in Miyagi and Fukushima in 2011 postdisaster Japan, highlighted two themes of interest to this
article: the role of teachers in saving lives and leading communities; and the
role of schools as sites and agents of community and citizenship in disaster situations. She continues:
While the focus in normal times tends to be more on school as a community, the designation of so many schools as evacuation shelters has
highlighted their function in postdisaster Japan. For many children,
schools became home for weeks or months, as they lived, ate, and slept
with their families in the school gymnasium or classrooms. (p. 16)
The Education Review Office (New Zealand’s school evaluation agency)
undertook a study on how Christchurch schools had coped with the 2010–
2011 earthquakes and what could be learned. The study found the focus was
on people rather than procedures. They also noted how students and families
118
looked to school leadership for guidance. Principals and teachers modelled
calmness and confidence even if this was not how they felt. Schools put an emphasis on the well-being of children, staff, and families and on getting children
back into good learning routines while managing ongoing anxiety (Education
Review Office, 2013).
Most school-related disaster recovery literature focuses on strategies and resources to be in place for the social, emotional, and psychological recovery of
staff and students. Disasters can have serious long-term effects on children’s
health and well-being (Australian Psychological Society, 2013; Bonanno,
Brewin, Kaniasty, & La Greca, 2010; Brock & Jimerson, 2013; Norris et al.,
2002), but the severity of their reactions will often depend on risk factors such
as (a) preexisting experiences, for example, previous traumatic experiences or
mental illness, and (b) exposure to the event and the level of physical destruction, injuries, loss, or dislocation (Bonanno et al., 2010; Brock & Jimerson,
2013; Lazarus, Jimerson, & Brock, 2003a, 2003b).
Many children experience symptoms of distress and anxiety, but for most,
these usually reduce over time (Australian Psychological Society, 2013; Bonanno et al., 2010; La Greca & Silverman, 2009). Children might become irritable
or aggressive, not want to go to school, and display sleeping or eating disturbances, learning problems, poor concentration, or loss of interest in friends or
activities. Children displaying extreme or ongoing symptoms, however, need
specialists’ help (Australian Psychological Society, 2013; Lazarus et al., 2003a,
2003b; National Association of School Psychologists, 2008).
Children not severely impacted benefit from opportunities to process the
events without dwelling too much on the aspects they find distressing. Talking
to a caring and trusted adult, finding support from their peers, expressing their
feelings through creative activities, and maintaining normal routines are ways
that schools can support children’s reintroduction into school life (Bateman &
Danby, 2013; Cahill et al., 2010; Gibbs, Mutch, O’Connor, & MacDougall,
2013; Prinstein, La Greca, Vernberg, & Silverman, 1996; National Association
of School Psychologists, 2008).
In conclusion, there is a growing body of literature on the role of schools
in disaster settings, especially in the field of disaster risk reduction. However,
there is little literature that draws together what has been learned from the role
of schools in disaster response and recovery, although there are vivid accounts
arising from recent disasters. There is also a lack of a comprehensive, high-level
approach that integrates school building design and construction and the inclusion of schools into national and local disaster planning (Back, Cameron, &
Tanner, 2009; Smawfield, 2013; Wisner, 2006).
119
Methodology and Ethics
Research in ongoing emergency settings suggests 12–24 months after the
onset of an ongoing disaster event to be a useful time to start to review what
has happened (Bornemisza, Griekspoor, Ezard, & Sondorp, 2010). The author of the present study (who was also the lead researcher) set up the research
project “Christchurch schools tell their earthquake stories.” It was funded by
UNESCO and The University of Auckland. The funders allowed the author to
design a sensitive, flexible, facilitative, and participatory approach. The author
and her research team acted as project managers, facilitators, data gatherers,
and analyzers. The schools would receive a completed product that they could
keep as a record to share with their communities, and the research team would
get access to the raw data in order to conduct further analysis and share the insights gleaned more widely.
Because of the nature of the undertaking, a sensitive, contextual, and ethical
approach was needed. The initial concept was shared with Canterbury principals prior to the lead researcher’s university granting ethical clearance. Ethical
considerations included the common requirements of informed consent, right
to withdraw, school and parental permission for children to participate, children’s assent, anonymity, and confidentiality. It was also important to take time
to build a relationship with each school, to have support mechanisms (such as
a counsellor) available in case the interviews caused distress, and to provide
postinterview debriefing for the researchers. That some of the research team,
including the author, had been through the earthquakes themselves helped
build rapport and trust with each school.
One school was willing to get underway immediately after the author had
met with the principal and then shared the proposed research with staff and the
school community. Over time, four more schools joined the project. Participants varied from school to school but were often the principal, senior leaders,
teachers, school support staff, students, parents, and other family members.
A range of qualitative and arts-based methods was used for the inquiry (see
Mutch, 2013a; Mutch & Gawith, 2014, for more detail on the full range of
projects and outcomes).
This article focuses on data from approximately 25 semistructured, qualitative interviews mainly with principals and teachers but also some with students
and parents. Interview techniques included individual and group interviews,
which were videorecorded, audiorecorded, or recorded in note form, according to the school or participant wishes. The data were analyzed in a constant
comparative manner (Mutch, 2013b). Each set of interviews from each school
was independently analyzed for codes, categories, concepts, and themes. These
120
were then compared and contrasted horizontally (across each school) and vertically (across each timeframe). In this article, the focus is on the role of schools
in providing (a) physical facilities and services, and (b) psychosocial and emotional support as they and their communities moved through the response and
recovery phases.
After the findings, the discussion introduces a theoretical lens through
which to view the role of schools in communities in postdisaster settings. The
lens is that of social bonding (Gordon, 2004a, 2004b, 2007) which came out
of many years of research on postbushfire communities in Australia. This is
supplemented by the work of Drabek (1986) whose phases of disaster response
and recovery are well-cited in disaster literature.
Findings
Immediate Response (on the day of the event and over the next
few days)
The September 2010 earthquake was centered 40 kilometers to the west
of Christchurch city. Undamaged schools, especially those with large halls or
gymnasiums and extensive kitchen and bathroom facilities, became evacuation
shelters until people could be rehoused or felt safe enough to go home.
That [September earthquake] happened overnight, and there wasn’t anyone on site, but there was a lot of damage in our community. We were set
up as a Civil Defense base, so for the first week and a half there were families from not only our community but the other schools as well coming
here to receive support from Civil Defense. There was an overnight area
in our hall where people stayed, so we were getting a good picture of the
needs of our community. (Principal, School B)
As the need for the use of school facilities lessened, principals focused on
getting their schools ready for the children’s return. Emotional support became
a higher priority.
Within that first week and a half, we were working out the safety of our
school first. We were checking in with our staff to make sure that they
were emotionally ready to support children, and also how our families
were coping and what they [staff and students] might need when we got
them back. (Principal, School B)
Before the serious task of recovery and rebuilding could begin, a second
major earthquake struck some five months later. On February 22, 2011, most
primary and early childhood students were eating lunch in their classrooms or
were playing outside. Many secondary students had a free half day for a teacher
union stop work meeting.
121
I had no idea. I was so surprised. My friends were frightened because we
didn’t think it would happen again. Things were shaking about. Things
were falling down. Windows were smashing. Things were spread across
the floor. (Student 4, School A)
Children from one school were with teachers and parents at the local swimming complex learning a range of water skills:
My thoughts then were never, “We aren’t going to get out” or that it
would collapse, but my thoughts now when I look back is that the whole
place could have fallen in. We were so jolted that we stood up, then
we were jolted back down the force was so great. There was a group of
children in the boat, and all we could see was the whole thing swamped
with the big waves, and we couldn’t even get to them. We tried to stand
and go forward, but we were just knocked back…the lights went out,
and the children were screaming. All I remember is the siren noise, and I
went and grabbed a few of the Year 4 children out of the pool, and I just
huddled with them. I was guiding them back out, and I remember glass
being on the carpet in the foyer, and we all had bare feet. I calmly told
the children to watch out, and I walked them out. (Teacher 2, School E)
Some schools, which had suffered badly in September, had put streamlined
emergency systems in place:
At that time we had a Twitter message that we could send out to families
who [could] receive cellphone messages: “The children are all safe, assembled, and accounted for.”…The community was also aware that if no
one picked the child up, then a staff member who they feel comfortable
with—their child will be going home with them. (Principal, School B)
Other schools felt the full force of the earthquake for the first time, but their
earthquake drills were put to good use, and principals took charge:
I put on my principal’s smile. Parents arrived and were standing outside.
I realized then that I had an audience and my response needed to be
calm and instantaneous. I had to look like I was in control. (Principal,
School A)
School systems moved into automatic gear. Teachers and support staff
looked after children. At School A, office staff were meeting parents at the gate
and giving them the message that their children were okay and asking them to
act in a calm manner as they collected their children:
The school was phenomenal. The children streamed out of the classrooms and down onto the field. The teachers were incredible. It was very
prompt and calm. (Parent, School A)
122
Across Christchurch, teachers checked that children were accounted for and
then comforted them until they were picked up. This was despite the information that came in intermittently as teachers heard stories of their own houses
being damaged or their loved ones being trapped. Principals had to weigh it all:
But there were other implications to think about. There were staff who
had families elsewhere at other schools—their partners working in town.
Because the mobile network wasn’t reliable, there was no information
coming in for them, so we had to review which staff could be released
first to go for their personal reasons. (Principal, School B)
Many principals, teachers, and support staff waited until late that night
until every child had somewhere to go before they could focus on their own
families and checking the state of their homes:
We had to wait until all the parents had picked up the children. I had
one girl in my class whose mum didn’t come for a very long time. As
time went on, she got a little bit more worried, but I assured the kids that
their parents were on their way and that there would be road blockages.
When the mother arrived, she was in a real state…in tears and red-faced,
and she was like, “The Cathedral’s gone, there are people dead in the
streets….” That was like the moment of reality. (Teacher 2, School A)
Post-February, schools again became local hubs along with sports clubs,
community centers, and marae (Māori community centers). Residents came
to sleep in the school hall or in tents in the school grounds, get water from the
water trucks, use the portable toilets, get hot food, or get information from the
various agencies that located themselves there.
Short-Term Response (2–3 weeks after the event)
After September 2010, schools were checked and repaired or relocated, if
necessary, over a period of several weeks. School B was hard hit by the September earthquake. The principal said of his experience, “It’s certainly changed
the basic job description that principals have.” He found his teachers were
constantly checking on how the students were coping emotionally. Staff were
more aware of the concerns children were bringing from home. They spent
much more time supporting families, as many were struggling with the basics, let alone the extras. His school was very grateful for the support they
received from outside the region, and the donations helped replace equipment
and school uniforms and ensure no children missed out.
In February 2011, many more schools were damaged, and those still awaiting repairs from September often sustained further damage. Again schools
were inspected and temporarily repaired. Where they were unsafe, alternative
123
arrangements were made. Schools relocated, put up tents, shared sites, worked
in shifts, or set up community learning hubs. More homes were damaged and
families displaced.
We were one of the last schools to come back, mainly because of the
power and water in the area. I can’t remember the first contact we had,
I think our senior teachers e-mailed or texted or made sure we were
okay over the next few days. We obviously knew because it was state of
emergency schools would be closed anyway. We had no power out here
for two weeks at least because it was such a badly affected area. (Teacher
2, School E)
Prior to schools reopening, school personnel kept in contact with their
communities. School A reported that they wanted to create a sense of community for their school families to return to. Before the school reopened, they
were putting daily news on their school website so their community knew what
was happening. They felt it was important for families to know, step by step,
the stages of readiness of the school. Principals and staff also kept in touch with
each other:
We had a few teachers with young kids or who were solo mums so we
made sure they were being cared for and had food because they were still
living in the area. A lot of them moved in with other people. We were
more or less told not to go near school, so we had two meetings off site
instead. (Teacher 3, School E)
Before school opened, schools held teacher-only days where teachers were
encouraged to share their own stories:
We had a big debrief in the staff room. We had a chance to connect with
the other staff to find out about all their different situations as some of
the staff had lost homes and really suffered. The session was not just
about commiserating, we were also celebrating that we were all still here.
(Teacher 2, School A)
Schools also discussed how to act and what to say when the students returned:
We received support from the Ministry of Education—had a support
team come in and meet with the staff about two days before we opened,
and we talked about the kind of things we could do to support the children. To say: “It’s okay to tell your story about what happened in that
quake and the aftermath,” and that it was good to tell the children that
every story was important, and “the way you are feeling is a normal
feeling…some people might feel differently [than] you about what happened, but however you are feeling is normal.” (Principal, School B)
124
Prior to schools finally opening, principals, teachers, and caretakers returned to get the classrooms ready:
Eventually we had to build up towards coming back. It was at least 3–3½
weeks afterwards, but we had a day where we came in and cleaned up
because everything was off the shelves….All our rooms were a mess. I
had so much in the book room, and everything had come down, and we
couldn’t get in. The caretaker had to saw a hole in the door so I could
climb in and stack things back again, so that’s still there…[pointing to
the hole]. (Teacher 3, School E)
School D reported that while the September earthquake had varying impacts depending where people were that weekend, in February everyone in
the school was in the same place and endured a shared experience. The principal’s memory is of many more tears and cuddles, of parents needing to talk, of
strengthening relationships with her community. Being a lower socioeconomic
area where many families struggled anyway meant the earthquakes caused severe hardship. When several children were not able to be picked up after the
February quake, they were taken to the local marae (Māori community center)
to be cared for until family members could find their way across the city to
claim them. School D reopened weeks later not knowing what they might find:
[When school resumed] we just made ourselves out there. We had a
coffee morning straight away for the parents. We had lots of notices
around the school saying, “Kia kaha [stand tall], we’re strong, we can
work through this together.” And we kept referring to this as we welcomed the kids back. Half of them didn’t come back, of course, because
some of them had shifted [moved] away. Some of them were too scared
to come back. Some parents were too scared to let their children come
back, so there were a whole lot of different reasons why we didn’t have
our normal cohort. (Principal, School D)
Students responded positively to the way their schools welcomed them
back, and provided reassurance:
It’s really good that they talked it through with us and they shared their
experiences, and we knew that we weren’t alone. (Student 13, School E)
Schools took on a much greater pastoral care role. They looked after the needs
of families as well as their students. Principals noted that teachers put the children in the classes before their own personal situations and went out of their
way to care for them:
Teachers are great. I can’t say enough about how much strength, how
much integrity, how much they would go the extra mile to drop kids off,
125
to look after kids in their classrooms after school, to buy them special
treats, take them to McDonalds, all those sorts of things…to find clothes
for them, to find a pram for a mother who didn’t have a pram to wheel
her baby to school. (Principal, School D)
Schools across the city reviewed their emergency procedures again, not taking any chances with the further aftershocks:
One initiative we did was to put survival packs together so we knew kids
would be warm, if they were outdoors for another earthquake or major
aftershock. As a parent it gave me peace of mind that the packs were
ready, and as a teacher I didn’t have to think, “Would I have enough resources to keep the children warm so no one would be shivering on the
lawn?” (Teacher 3, School A)
Medium-Term Response (6–12 months after the event)
As the months passed, schools settled into routines as best they could.
Principal A said, “Even normal is difficult.” Schools made use of the range of
community, government, and nongovernment agencies to support students,
staff, and families. They were not just focusing on emotional and psychological support but also on very practical things such as collecting and distributing
food and clothing or helping parents access services and advice. In return,
schools reported that the relationship with their communities had strengthened as they worked together to repair schools, homes, lives, and the fabric of
the community:
We wanted to reinforce the message that we were a warm and caring
community, and that they [the children] were all in a safe place and
normality was back….From the experience of losing a school parent, we
developed a real sense of community and doing things together, especially as the school parents were taking meals to the family who had lost
their mother for six months after the earthquake. (Principal, School A)
Long after their formal use as drop-in centers, families and community
members continued to visit their local school for companionship, emotional
support, and advice.
They [the community] started caring more. They feel cared for; they
start helping others. I’ve got a whole lot of people who would’ve actually
come into the school offering to help other people in our community—
people who they felt needed help. To me, that’s the synergy of really
strong relationships in a community. (Principal, School D)
126
Through all of this time, principals and teachers came to school and put
their students first, despite their own personal tragedies, the loss of their homes
and possessions, or dislocation and fragile emotional states:
I’ve just been so amazed with some teachers in particular whose homes
were badly damaged in town, and they were offered discretionary leave
to sort out their own lives, but all of them wanted to be here for the
children, and when I asked them or pleaded with them, they said, “We
deal with that outside of school hours. This is a fantastic distraction for
us. We want to be here for our children, for our classes.” I’ve just had so
much admiration for the teachers throughout the whole process. (Principal, School B)
Schools became aware of the need to continue to look after each other. They
reported that, as a staff, they met socially off-site, at each other’s homes, and
relaxed over a meal and tried to talk over whatever they needed to:
I’ve had a really supportive team, and they have got in counsellors for
staff and children and parents. They have provided opportunities for
us to talk, just to chill out together; even when the school was closed,
we still got together as a staff and just processed everything. (Teacher 2
School E)
Long-Term Response (up to 3 years after the events)
Interviewing principals, teachers, children, and families two to three years
after the major earthquakes still revealed high levels of stress and anxiety:
We’ve always had a really strong positive school culture, but once we got
through the initial emotions of the earthquakes, we’ve galvanized a lot
more. Teachers and staff are more aware to support the children emotionally [than] they have done in the past. They’re aware that some children are in some very different situations in their homes—living in torn
apart homes; some don’t know where they are going to be living; some
have been living in caravans [campers]—children don’t always tell you
these things. We’ve had to open up the communication lines even more
with parents and children to make sure they tell their teacher. (Principal,
School B)
Principals and teachers were dealing with their own health, housing, and
family issues, then arriving at school and supporting children and their families with theirs:
We know from all the international literature that this will stay with
people. I’ve got colleagues who’ve been diagnosed with cancer, with
127
stress-related illnesses. They go to the doctor, get medical attention, but
still there has been a gradual decline in teachers’ well-being. Support staff
here have been counsellors on the phone with crying parents. (Acting
Principal, School E)
While ongoing support was available for the stages of trauma, grief, or stress
that people were going through, not every eventuality could be planned for. A
teacher at School A, who had a student in her class whose mother had died in
the earthquakes, mentioned how difficult negotiating this had been for her. In
2012, she wondered about how to deal with Mother’s Day and making cards.
She asked her student whether he wanted to make a card and take it home or
perhaps to his mother’s grave. He did want to make a card, but he made it for
his dad who had become both mother and father to him.
It took time for some people, children and adults alike, to open up and
talk about what happened. Teacher 1 in School A said her teenage son didn’t
talk about the day of the earthquake until 18 months later when told her he
was on a bus (in an area of the city where buses had been crushed and people
killed). He finally said, “I was unlucky going on that bus,” to which she replied, “No, you were lucky. You were on the right bus.” One of the findings of
the larger project, written about elsewhere (see Gibbs et al., 2013; Mutch &
Gawith, 2014), was that as time went by, people needed opportunities at different points in time to reexamine and restory their experiences, not in a way
that focused on unhelpful rumination, but in a way that helped them move
“from the particular (‘my story’) through the more general (‘our story’) to the
conceptual (‘What does our story tell us about who we are?’)” (Gibbs et al.,
2013, p. 135). As one principal stated:
We’ve got some really strong values and beliefs, but now the children are
thinking about living them a lot more than they had before the quakes—
particularly “arohanui,” which is caring for people, being there for others,
and making sure that people are feeling okay or if they need someone to
be with. They are really resilient and want to help. (Principal, School B)
In 2012, the Ministry of Education announced that 30 Christchurch
schools would close or amalgamate as a result of earthquake damage or population movement. Principals and teachers reported being shocked and angry,
saying the proposal was “unfair and cruel.”
School is the SAFE place that they [schools] have tried to provide. Children were at school for the big February earthquake, and it created a
stronger bond in their communities, so it is very challenging when the
Ministry wants to break that up in some communities and schools.
(Teacher 3, School E)
128
Principal A was disappointed with the timing, considering the Ministry
should have instead been celebrating what schools had achieved. School D was
on the original list of schools to merge with a neighboring school, but later received a reprieve. School E was not so fortunate and closed at the end of 2013
with the staff and students being merged with another school to create a new
school. The acting principal of School E, appointed to see it through to closure,
stated, “In military terms it would be called collateral damage.” He continued:
How does that affect the staff? The emotional ties and the relationships
are torn apart; families that have been associated with the school for decades have gone. That kind of link and historical connection and knowledge of the community and the school and its involvement goes as well.
History goes; it travels with the people. [School E] has been around for
141 years…it’s not a place of recent history, we’re looking at quite a significant place in the community, and the community’s grown up around
the school. (Acting Principal, School E)
Discussion
Theorizing Community Bonding
Rob Gordon, a community psychologist, observed patterns of community
response to bushfires in Australia over 20 years (see Gordon, 2004a, 2004b,
2007). This provides a useful framework for examining the ways in which
schools supported their communities through this disaster situation. Gordon
explains community response and recovery as a process of debonding and rebonding. Prior to a disaster, communities are webs of social structures and
interactions. There are relatively predictable patterns of relationships. In the
immediate aftermath of a disaster or emergency, the focus shifts to survival.
Preexisting social relationships and patterns are disrupted. Thus, the disaster
causes social debonding. As the immediate event subsides, people begin to organize themselves in order to cope with the aftermath. A new, emergent, and
context-related social fabric emerges. This is a stage of fusion or hyperbonding, in which acts of heroism, altruism, and togetherness form new bonds. As
the disaster situation moves from response to recovery, groups become aware
that recovery is not proceeding similarly for everyone. Tensions lead to heightened perceptions of inequity and unfairness. As the differences between groups
are exacerbated, cleavage planes develop. In order to minimize cleavage and
promote community cohesion, social infrastructures need to be reestablished
through rebonding strategies. The concepts of debonding, hyperbonding, cleavage, and rebonding align well with the phases of disaster response and recovery
and echo the experiences of the schools in this study.
129
Debonding
The debonding phase focuses on immediate survival when usual networks
of interaction are bypassed. Often hierarchies of status or power are ignored.
Immediately after the earthquakes, especially in February when principals and
teachers had to take on the role of in loco parentis, their first thoughts were of
the physical safety of the children in their charge. They evacuated them, and
in the case of School E, rescued many of them, before calming and reassuring them. They had to put thoughts of their own homes and families aside
as they focused on the task in hand. They often had to calm parents, who arrived shocked and agitated on school grounds. Principals and teachers then
waited until late that night until all children had somewhere to go before they
could make their own way home to whatever awaited them. In the interests
of survival, many rules and norms were broken. School E crammed children
into cars and transported them across damaged roads and bridges, driving up
on footpaths or the shoulder of the road in order to get through. The School
D principal had to stop looters running through the school grounds because,
as she said, “the children had seen enough.” School A reported a nicer story
where a local shop gave them bags of ice cream treats because the contents of
the freezer were melting with the power outage.
Once school staff arrived at their own homes, the reality of what they had
been through and what was still facing them began to sink in. Again, survival,
safety, and security were uppermost in their minds. They reported having to
clean up their homes, help neighbors clean up, collect and look after elderly
relatives, take in people who had lost everything, contact insurance companies,
and begin repairs or pack up and leave their homes for temporary accommodation. They had little energy to go beyond their immediate responsibilities.
Yet, interestingly, principals wanted to get back to their schools to assess
the damage and get everything back up and running again. This left Principal
D very frustrated. Despite not being allowed on school property until schools
were checked and declared safe, Principal A and her caretaker ignored this,
bought hard hats, and set about surveying the damage and organizing tradespeople for repairs. After the September earthquake, Principal B found himself
arranging his school facilities to house earthquake victims and provide a base
from which local people could access food and water, services, and advice.
After the February earthquake, Principal B found himself again supporting
earthquake families, not his own this time, but those evacuated from the areas
of Christchurch worst hit in the latest quake. He felt it was his duty to return the arohanui (love and care) and manakitanga (warm hospitality) that was
shown to his school when they were in most need.
130
A Complementary Theory
These examples of courage, thoughtfulness, and care produce a stage that
Drabek (1986) calls “the honeymoon period.” In Drabek’s postdisaster sequence, the first phase is shock and disorganization. This is followed by an
altruistic or heroic phase when individuals put their lives at risk to help others. This leads to a period of high morale, called the “honeymoon period.” This
lasts until governments, aid agencies, and recovery systems are seen to not be
living up to expectations. Communities become dispirited; individuals become
depressed. Eventually reconstruction begins and a renewed sense of hope begins to emerge.
At the honeymoon stage, survivors are relieved to have survived, are proud
of how their community has pulled together, and have high expectations for
a speedy recovery process. In Canterbury there was a period of high morale
after September 2010, but the devastation and deaths in the February 2011
earthquake were extremely disheartening, and the ongoing aftershocks were exhausting. The June 2011 6.3 earthquake became known as “the one that broke
their spirit.”
Hyperbonding
In this air of despondency, people often turn towards those with whom they
have a shared experience—Gordon’s stage of fusion or hyperbonding. People
from all five schools in this study reported becoming closer to each other and
their communities. School staff kept in touch and met when they could before
their schools opened again. Similarly, the author, who at the time shared an office in a building where 18 people died in the February earthquake, met with
her colleagues on the outskirts of the city several days after the quake. They told
stories of being trapped or watching their colleagues being rescued. They cried,
and laughed a little, and cried some more. The bond they developed will stay
with them always.
In this state of fusion, members identify with each other because they
share the same experience; they feel strong emotional attachments because
of what they have undergone together and rapidly develop a shared disaster culture of stories, symbols, and memories. (Gordon, 2004a, p. 12)
This is also the case for School E. The heroics of the teachers and parents who rescued and calmed the children then guided them back to school
through treacherous conditions led to their special bond. At the end of 2013,
the parents still regularly dropped into the school, and the students returned to
visit those teachers even when they had moved to other schools.
131
Rebonding
As communities begin the recovery process, fusion can become obstructive because it creates tensions between different fused groups or between
fused groups and those not included in the fusion. This can lead to cleavage.
To minimize cleavage and support communities to rebond, Gordon (2004a)
recommends “developing a new flexible set of bonds to bind the multiple, disparate elements into relationships” (p. 20); these relationships require clear
communication channels which “facilitate opportunities for new bonds, and
new bonds lead to new structures, which in turn lead to new postdisaster identities” (p. 20). These new bonds can be achieved by rebuilding community
systems and norms, maintaining communication links, providing timely and
accurate information, and encouraging community meetings, self-advocacy,
and collective activity.
Each of the schools in this study played a significant part in rebonding their
communities. Because they were often sites of physical and material facilities
postearthquake and because they had built strong networks over time with
families and the wider community, they were natural communication and support hubs. Principals reported using multiple forms of communication: notices,
posters, newsletters, e-mail, Twitter, texts, Internet, Facebook, and face-to-face
conversations. Principal A talked of providing her school community with regular web updates. Principal D spoke of being “out there” for her community.
Counselors, social workers, and family support services were located at schools.
Schools were often the sites of fundraising for earthquake efforts or, later, for
the Japanese triple disaster, cyclones in the Pacific, and other causes.
Gordon (2004a, 2004b, 2007) also suggests building on community symbols, rituals, and identity in a way that preserves continuity with the past while
promoting a new vision. Community meetings, social events, commemorations, and memorial sites all help bring a community back together. Each of
the schools held information evenings, family fun days, and community fairs.
Each September and February, schools were, and continue to be, sites of earthquake anniversary events. In school grounds there are memorial sites. School
A has a seat; School B has a mosaic. Other schools have planted trees, created
gardens, or laid plaques. Each of the schools that eventually closed brought
their communities together to farewell the old school and, in some cases, welcome the new. School E had each school member ring the school bell before
releasing 141 balloons, one for each year of their history. Cassim (2013) suggests that personal objects, symbolic spaces, and everyday practices also allow
disaster participants to restory their lives, remember lost loved ones, and begin
to move forward.
132
Cleavage
It was not possible to completely avoid the cleavage phase. In Christchurch,
as in other urban disaster settings—such as New Orleans post Hurricane
Katrina—cleavage often settled along socioeconomic lines (Hawkins & Maurer, 2010). The city’s business district appeared to get the most publicity as
it housed many of the city’s iconic buildings, such as the ruined cathedral.
The more affluent suburbs appeared to be repaired and rebuilt more quickly.
The eastern side of the city, which was home to the most vulnerable populations and contained huge swathes of damage, appeared to be less of a priority.
When the Ministry announced the school closures, eastern suburb communities were most affected and again felt neglected and betrayed, describing the
announcements as “another aftershock.” Yet despite this, the affected teachers
and principals continued to support their students and families through this
next phase. Many questioned why the government disregarded the role that
schools had played “as the glue” of their communities during this difficult time.
In terms of Gordon’s model, it would appear to undo much of the good work
done in rebonding those communities. Yet one resilient teacher said that while
she didn’t agree, she intended to help the merger go smoothly for all concerned:
By making it a positive thing for myself, staff, and students—looking
forward and knowing that out of this we can still create another great
school. (Teacher 3, School E)
Phases of Response and Recovery
The findings from this study align well with the literature. Table 1 summarizes the stages of response and recovery with examples drawn from the study
alongside Gordon’s (2004a, 2004b, 2007) framework of social bonding and
Drabek’s (1986) disaster phases.
133
Table 1. Comparison of the Current Study’s, Gordon’s (2004a, 2004b, 2007),
and Drabek’s (1986) Phases of Disaster Response and Recovery
This
Study’s
Phases
Examples of the Role of Schools in
Disaster Response and Recovery
From This Study
• Rescuing students
• Evacuating students to safety
Shock and
Immediate
• Providing calm and comfort
Debonding DisorganizaResponse
• Keeping everyone safe
tion
• Providing for physical needs
• Providing emotional support
ShortTerm
Response
MediumTerm
Response
Gordon’s
Phases
Drabek’s
Phases
• Celebrating survival
Altruistic or • Cleaning up and repairing the school
Heroic Phase • Helping others clean up
Fusion and
• Providing food and clothing for chilHyperdren and families
High Morale
bonding
• Providing facilities, services, advice,
or Honeyand companionship for families
moon Phase
• Keeping community informed
MediumTerm
Recovery
Cleavage
LongerTerm
Response
and
Recovery
ReconstrucRebonding tion and
Hope
134
Disillusionment
• Dealing with delays and setbacks
• Coping with ongoing aftershocks
• Dealing with the toll on staff health
• Supporting children and families with
ongoing issues
• Coping with the secondary stressors,
such as school closure announcements
and process
• Keeping communication channels
going
• Providing accurate and timely information
• Creating opportunities for fun and
socializing
• Celebrating milestones
• Finding opportunities to continue
to help others
• Holding commemorative events
• Building a shared history
Conclusion and Recommendations
This study tracked five primary schools and their communities through the
first three years of their recovery from the 2010–2011 Canterbury earthquakes
in New Zealand. This article highlights the important role that schools played
in supporting their students, staff, and wider communities through the enormity of the disaster and the longevity of the recovery. Principals and teachers
gave of themselves over and above expectations, willing yet unprepared. As one
principal says:
One of the aspects of this recovery process is the fact that the teachers
have not been recognized as the first responders to this disaster. I see no
courses, no training; there’s nothing at all. And there continues to be
nothing. I don’t see any words or any conversations about it. (Acting
Principal, School E)
What Table 1 clearly shows is that through all disaster response and recovery
phases, schools were engaged in positive and helpful activities that attended to
the physical, social, and emotional needs of school community members plus
the wider community. It is surprising that most governments and local councils have not recognized the potential that schools and school personnel have to
play in a coordinated disaster preparedness, response, and recovery approach.
To conclude, here are some recommendations for policymakers to ensure:
1. When designing or upgrading school buildings, provisions are made for
adequate protection of the school population in the event of a damaging
event (as is appropriate for the school’s geographic and risk location).
2. School facilities are designed in a flexible manner so that they can be used
in a range of community ways, including in the event of an emergency.
3. The school and local community develop emergency plans and scenarios
collaboratively, in conjunction with relevant government agencies and disaster response organizations.
4. School leaders are provided with professional development in crisis planning and management.
5. Teachers and other school staff have professional development on schoolbased strategies for emergency response and recovery, including appropriate strategies for ongoing emotional support and processing of events.
These recommendations align with the literature that suggests considering
the location, design, and capacity of school buildings and facilities both for
their intended purpose and the ability to transform them into emergency relief
centers as required. The literature notes the need for increased understanding and recognition of the role of principals and teachers. The findings of this
135
study concur and also suggest better understanding of the role the schools can
play in building and sustaining community resilience and cohesion, not to
mention the extra roles taken on in times of disaster response and recovery.
While this is taken for granted in Japan, for example (Parmenter, 2012), there
was very little recognition beyond local communities of the role schools played
in the Canterbury earthquakes and of the toll that it took on all concerned.
These are lessons from which everyone can learn.
Endnote
Child Friendly Spaces: this is a generic term for places set up to cater to the physical, emotional, and educational needs of children and young people in emergency situations, such as
postconflict or postdisaster. They are often administered by aid agencies such as UNICEF.
1
References
Australian Psychological Society. (2013). Helping children who have been affected by bushfires.
Flinders Lane, Victoria, Australia: Author.
Back, E., Cameron, C., & Tanner, T. (2009). Children and disaster risk reduction: Taking stock
and moving forward. Brighton, UK: Children in a Changing Climate.
Bateman, A., & Danby S. (2013). Recovering from the earthquake: Early childhood teachers
and children collaboratively telling stories about their experiences. Disaster Prevention and
Management, 22(5), 467–479.
Bonanno, G., Brewin, C., Kaniasty, K., & La Greca, A. (2010). Weighing the costs of disaster.
Consequences, risks, and resilience in individuals, families, and communities. Psychological
Science in the Public Interest, 11(1), 1–49.
Bornemisza, O., Griekspoor, A., Ezard, N., & Sondorp, E. (2010). The interagency health and
nutrition evaluation initiative in humanitarian crises: Moving from single-agency to joint
sector-wide evaluations. New Directions for Evaluation [Special issue: Enhancing disaster
and emergency preparedness, response, and recovery through evaluation], 126(Summer),
21–35.
Brock, S. E., & Jimerson, S. R. (Eds.). (2013). Best practices in school crisis prevention and intervention (2nd ed.). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
Cahill, H., Beadle, S., Mitch, J., Coffey, J., & Crofts, J. (2010). Adolescents in emergencies.
Parkville, Victoria, Australia: Youth Research Centre, The University of Melbourne.
Canterbury Earthquakes Royal Commission. (2012). Final Report, Volumes 1–7. Christchurch,
New Zealand: Author.
Cassim, S. (2013). Remembering those lost: The role of materiality in narrative repair following a
disaster (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of Waikato, New Zealand.
Drabek, T. (1986). Human system responses to disaster: An inventory of sociological findings. New
York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
Education Review Office. (2013). Stories of resilience and innovation in schools and early childhood services. Canterbury earthquakes: 2010–2012. Wellington, New Zealand: Author.
Ema, F. (2013). Earthquake, tsunami, and nuclear disaster in Japan: The immediate aftermath.
In D. Smawfield (Ed.), Education and natural disasters: Education as a humanitarian response (pp. 149–165). London, UK: Bloomsbury.
136
Ferris, E., & Petz, D. (2012). The year that shook the rich: A review of natural disasters in 2011.
London, UK: The Brookings Institution, London School of Economics.
Ferris, E., Petz, D., & Stark, S. (2013). The year of recurring disasters: A review of natural disasters in 2012. London, UK: The Brookings Institution, London School of Economics.
Gibbs, L., Mutch, C., O’Connor, P., & MacDougall, C. (2013). Research with, by, for, and
about children: Lessons from disaster contexts. Global Studies of Childhood, 3(2), 129–141.
Gordon, R. (2004a). The social dimension of emergency recovery. Appendix C in Emergency
Management Australia, Recovery: Australian Emergency Management Manuals Series No. 10
(pp. 111–143). Canberra, Australia: Emergency Management Australia.
Gordon, R. (2004b). The social system as site of disaster impact and resource for recovery.
Australian Journal of Emergency Management, 19(4), 16–22.
Gordon, R. (2007). Thirty years of trauma work: Clarifying and broadening the consequences
of trauma. Psychotherapy in Australia, 13(3), 12–19.
Hawkins, R., & Maurer, K. (2010). Bonding, bridging, and linking capital: How social capital
operated in New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina. British Journal of Social Work, 40,
1777–1793.
Japan Society. (2011). Matsuiwa Junior High School. Retrieved from http://aboutjapan.japansociety.org/content.cfm/matsuiwa_junior_high_school
La Greca, A., & Silverman, W. (2009). Treatment and prevention of posttraumatic stress reactions in children and adolescents exposed to disasters and terrorism: What is the evidence?
Child Development Perspectives, 3(1), 4–10.
Lazarus, P., Jimerson, S., & Brock, S. (2003a). Helping children after a natural disaster: Information for parents and teachers. Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
Lazarus, P., Jimerson, S., & Brock, S. (2003b). Response to natural disasters: Helping children
and families cope. Information for school crisis teams. Bethesda, MD: National Association
of School Psychologists.
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology. (2012). Response to the Great
East Japan Earthquake. Retrieved from http://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/hakusho/html/
hpab201001/detail/1326826.htm
Mutch, C. (2013a). “Sailing through a river of emotions”: Capturing children’s earthquake
stories. Disaster Prevention and Management, 22(5), 445–455.
Mutch, C. (2013b). Doing educational research. A practitioner’s guide to getting started (2nd ed.).
Wellington, New Zealand: NZCER Press.
Mutch, C. (2014). The role of schools in disaster preparation, response, and recovery: Lessons
from the literature. Pastoral Care in Education, 32(1), 5–22.
Mutch, C., & Gawith, L. (2014). The role of schools in engaging children in emotional processing of disaster experiences. Pastoral Care in Education, 32(1), 54–67.
National Association of School Psychologists. (2008). Global disasters: Helping children cope.
Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
Norris, F. H., Friedman, M. J., Watson, P., Byrne, C. M., Diaz, E., & Kaniasty, K. (2002).
60,000 disaster victims speak: Part I. An empirical review of the empirical literature, 1981–
2001. Psychiatry: Interpersonal and Biological Processes, 65(3), 207–239.
Parmenter, L. (2012). Community and citizenship in post-disaster Japan: The roles of schools
and students. Journal of Social Science Education, 11(3), 6–21.
Prinstein, M. J. L. G., La Greca, A. M., Vernberg, E. M., & Silverman, W. K. (1996). Children’s coping assistance: How parents, teachers, and friends help children cope after a
natural disaster. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 25(4), 463–475.
137
Smawfield, D. (Ed.). (2013). Education and natural disasters: Education as a humanitarian
response. London, UK: Bloomsbury.
Tarrant, R. (2011a). Leadership through a school tragedy: A case study (Part 1: The first week).
Australasian Journal of Disaster and Trauma Studies, 2011(3), 65–76.
Tarrant, R. (2011b). Leadership through a school tragedy: A case study (Part 2: The next two
years). Australasian Journal of Disaster and Trauma Studies, 2011(3), 77–87.
Winkworth, G. (2007). Disaster recovery, A review of the literature. Canberra, Australia: Institute of Child Protection Studies, Australian Catholic University.
Wisner, B. (2006). Let our children teach us! A review of the role of education and knowledge in
disaster risk reduction. Bangalore, India: Books for Change.
Zhong, Z. (2013). Earthquake in China: A Sichuan case study. In D. Smawfield (Ed.), Education and natural disasters: Education as a humanitarian response (pp. 127–148). London,
UK: Bloomsbury.
Author’s Note: I would like to acknowledge the funding and support of The
University of Auckland and UNESCO and express my appreciation to the
principals, teachers, children, families, and the research team contributing to
this study.
Carol Mutch is associate professor and head of school in the School of Critical Studies in Education at The University of Auckland. She has worked as a
teacher, teacher educator, policy advisor, and academic. Carol has published
books, chapters, and articles on education policy, curriculum development,
research methods, social studies, and citizenship education. She teaches undergraduate and postgraduate courses in curriculum, social justice and diversity,
educational policy, and research methods. She is currently researching the role
of schools in disaster response and recovery after the 2010–2011 Canterbury
earthquakes in New Zealand. Correspondence concerning this article may be
addressed to Dr. Carol Mutch, Faculty of Education and Social Work, Epsom
Campus, The University of Auckland, Private Bag 92601, Symonds St., Auckland, 1150, New Zealand, or email [email protected]
138
“Just One More Thing I Have to Do”:
School–Community Partnerships
Hope G. Casto
Abstract
School–community partnering activities promote the education of children, the well-being of families, and the vitality of communities. This study
explores the connections that exist and are desired between a small, rural elementary school and its local community. Interviews (n = 21) with district and
school administration, teachers, parents, and community members revealed
that partnerships exist to create afterschool and summer activities for children
as well as to promote literacy and ease the transition to middle school. The primary obstacle is organization, including the time and resources to create and
maintain partnerships. Geographic isolation affects volunteer activity in the
school. Community connections are considered as horizontal (local) and vertical (school district) ties for the school. Place-based education is described as a
form of partnering that could enhance the educational experience of students
while simultaneously creating horizontal ties for the school and its community.
Key Words: school–community partnerships, small schools, place-based education, rural education, vertical ties, horizontal ties, local collaboration, elementary schools
Introduction
Educating children brings together the work of families, communities, and
schools. The confluence of these areas of a child’s life is complex, and so delineating the responsibility and work of families, schools, and communities can be
139
a complicated endeavor. When each can enhance the work of the others, all can
thrive. School–community partnering activities can enhance the education of
children, as well as the health of families and the vitality of communities (see,
e.g., Bauch, 2001; Crowson & Boyd, 1993; Sanders, 2001, 2003; Sanders &
Harvey 2002). School–community partnerships can benefit rural communities in important ways, especially through enhancing the well-being of children
and families (Barley & Beesley, 2007; Semke & Sheridan, 2012; Witte & Sheridan, 2011). This study explores the connections that exist between a small,
rural elementary school and its local community by examining the following
research questions:
1. How do school administrators, teachers, parents, and community members
conceptualize school–community relationships?
2. What school–community partnerships exist, and what types are desired
from the school and community?
Defining Terms: Community and Partnering
This study relies on a definition of community derived from The Community in America (Warren, 1978). Warren conceptualized communities as
social systems and emphasized the connections within and between these systems: “A particularly important point is the nature of the systemic linkage
between various community-based units and their respective extracommunity
social systems” (Warren, 1978, p. 51). Warren referred to the links to the extracommunity social systems as vertical ties, while the links within the local
community are called horizontal ties. This study examines the ties of one elementary school in a small village.
Partnering activities are defined broadly in this study, using the following
concepts. In Learning Together: A Look at 20 School–Community Initiatives,
which was prepared by the Institute for Educational Leadership and the National Center for Community Education, Melaville (1998) offered the following
definition of initiatives: “intentional efforts to create and sustain relationships
among a K–12 school or school district and a variety of both formal and informal organizations and institutions in the community” (p. 6). This definition
emphasizes the relationships between organizations rather than the goals or
activities of partnering. Bauch (2001) also used a broad definition focusing on
the relationship at hand: “Partnerships are built on social interaction, mutual
trust, and relationships that promote agency within a community” (p. 205).
140
SCHOOL–COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS
Literature Review on School–Community Partnerships: Goals and
Motivations
The literature on school–community partnerships illustrates the social problems that inhibit the work of the school and suggests these can be ameliorated
through partnering with social services agencies and community organizations
(e.g., Crowson & Boyd, 1993; Heath & McLaughlin, 1987; Sanders, 2001).
In other words, there are so many pressures on schools, students, and families
that schools cannot single-handedly do the job of educating children, but can
maximize their efforts by reaching beyond their walls and partnering with other organizations to best serve the needs of children. Epstein (2011) described
the potential perspectives on the responsibilities among families, communities, and schools as separate, shared, or sequential. Her theory of overlapping
spheres of influence places the shared responsibilities perspective on the relationships. While the activities of families, schools, and communities are distinct
and different, when they are shared and supportive in their goals, the boundaries among these arenas of children’s lives become more fluid and permeable.
While academic achievement can be understood as the focus of schools,
it is not the dominant reason for partnering according to the literature. Partnering is more often viewed as a way to improve the conditions in the lives of
students, families, or the school so that the work of educators can occur with
fewer obstacles (Nettles, 1991); therefore, improved student achievement becomes a byproduct rather than a focus of many partnerships. The motivations
for partnering most prevalent in the literature are for (1) school reform and improvement (Sanders, 2001), (2) support for families (Heath & McLaughlin),
(3) community development (Crowson & Boyd, 1993), and (4) the creation
of a sense of place for students (Bauch, 2001).
Partnering to Support Families
Partnerships may be created to offer support to students or families. This
can take the shape of family involvement in the schools, continuing education for parents through GED or other classes, parenting support, full-service
schools, and even the development of social capital. These wide-ranging supports are evident in the community schools movement, full-service schools,
and in traditional schools seeking to integrate services for children and families (e.g., Cummings, Dyson, & Todd, 2012; Dryfoos, 2008). These are often
formed as school-based, school-linked, or community-based networks (Crowson & Boyd, 1993). As noted in Voyles (2012), even the process of conducting
a needs assessment to develop integrated services in a school can create the conversations and shared knowledge needed to bring families and schools together.
141
Another support for students that can be created through partnering is related to Coleman’s (1988) understanding of the importance of social capital
for children and families, especially in relation to academic achievement. Arguments for the development of social capital at an individual and community
level are plentiful in the partnership literature. Driscoll (2001) argued that
schools can alleviate problems associated with the unequal distribution of social capital among children through partnerships connecting the school and
the students to community networks. In particular, Ferrara (2015) described
an intervention that creates information channels between schools and families using Parent Involvement Facilitators to “unlock social capital that can help
students succeed in school” (p. 48).
Partnering for Community Development
Partnerships can also be used as a community development tool, given
the potential reciprocity of school–community linkages (Gross et al., 2015).
Community development can occur through community service by students,
development of civic responsibility, creating economies of scale for purchasing
services across a small town, enhancing the vitality of a community through
social and human capital development, and even through the provision of
technology. Moreover, schools can act as community centers by opening the
school building to the community for use during nonschool hours. The range
of work to be done varies in the literature, including having students survey the
local business community in order to advise a chamber of commerce’s activities (Seidl, Mulkey & Blanton, 1999) and to study the effectiveness of a local
chamber of commerce’s advertising campaigns (Versteeg, 1993). Finally, in another example, a school forged a partnership with the community to not only
upgrade the school’s information technology infrastructure but to make online
access available to the community for a much lower subscription rate than any
private provider (Schafft, Alter, & Bridger, 2006).
Partnering to Develop a Sense of Place
Willems and Gonzalez-DeHass (2012) proposed that “engaging students
in activities that are consistent with environmental and sociocultural structures
existing outside school walls will ensure a greater degree of parallel between
school environments and real-life tasks that will facilitate students’ meaningful
learning of academic subject matter” (p. 10). They suggested three instructional approaches that are well suited to the context of school–community
partnerships: authentic instruction, problem-based learning, and service learning (Willems & Gonzalez-DeHass, 2012). These goals and practices are related
to those found in the literature on place-based education. While place-based
142
education is not synonymous with school–community partnering, the two
ideas can be connected, as many place-based educational projects are enhanced
through partnerships. The goals of place-based education root the educational
experience in a local geography, including the history, politics, culture, and
practices of a physical space (Gruenewald & Smith, 2008; Smith, 2002; Sobel,
2004; Theobald, 2006).
Place-based education connects children to their place, including their social, cultural, and geographic community, through educational practice. Sobel
(2004) defined place-based education as “the process of using the local community and environment as a starting point to teach concepts in language
arts, mathematics, social studies, science, and other subjects across the curriculum” (p. 7). He suggested, “Community vitality and environmental quality are
improved through the active engagement of local citizens, community organizations, and environmental resources in the life of the school” (Sobel, 2004,
p. 7). As a link between schools and communities, place-based education can
serve the goal of developing a sense of place for students, as well as the goal
of community development. “Place-based education can be understood as a
community-based effort to reconnect the process of education, enculturation,
and human development to the well-being of community life” (Gruenwald &
Smith, 2008, p. xvi). In addition, place-based education can serve as an excellent way for schools and communities to work together, because while it
strengthens the bond between the school and its surroundings, it does so without drawing attention away from the core mission of the school: academics.
Place-based education draws upon the resources of the community to meet the
educational needs of teachers and students.
Partnering in Rural Communities
The rural school plays a particular role in its community, and therefore,
the partnering activities between a rural school and its community may have a
particular focus. The presence of a school in a small, rural area has been found
to have social and economic benefits related to population growth, housing,
income, and employment (Lyson, 2002). Examining census data over time,
Lyson (2002) found a decline in community indicators after towns and villages
experienced school closure. For this reason, there are particular calls for rural
schools to be involved in community development efforts, and these efforts can
be the motivation for partnering between a school and its community. Miller
(1995) emphasized the need to develop social capital in rural communities.
This is related to community-level social capital, as opposed to the previously
discussed individual-level social capital (Coleman, 1988). Community-level
social capital relates to Putnam’s (2000) notion of a decline in social capital
143
paired with a decline in communities. Through his work with the Northwest
Regional Educational Laboratory, Miller (1995) was able to describe the efforts
of several small schools in development projects which he categorized as using the school as a community center, creating projects to sociologically study
a community (e.g., Foxfire), and school-based enterprise projects (e.g., Rural Entrepreneurship Through Action Learning). Crowson and Boyd (2001),
based on Schorr (1997), argued for a new lens through which to view the community relationship for schools. They combined the ideas of importance of
place, an ecological view of development, social capital, and individual agency
to arrive at a combination of awareness of sense of place and politics of place
that can play an important role in educational reform.
In a review of the literature on family–school connections in rural communities, Semke and Sheridan (2012) established the relevant aspects of the rural
context to partnering. They wrote that while much of the research describes
an urban context, “rural settings present unique conditions that influence the
availability and delivery of coordinated family–school services” (Semke &
Sheridan, 2012, p. 23). The geographic isolation of rural communities, as well
as shifting demographics (i.e., declining population, increasing poverty rates,
increasing migrant and ELL populations in some regions) that increase the
need for services, place rural schools in the difficult position of needing to play
a broader role in the community while also having fewer local resources to
draw upon (Semke & Sheridan, 2012; Witte & Sheridan, 2011). In addition,
Barley and Beesley (2007) found that successful rural schools have strong and
positive relationships with their communities. “The community–school connection also provides support for the high academic expectations found in each
case study school….This bond between the town and the school is characteristic of small rural schools that may not be found in nonrural small schools”
(Barley & Beesley, 2007, p. 10).
Rural school administrators have a particular role to play in the school–
community relationship:
Close relationships, both among individuals and between school and
community, are characteristic of smaller schools. The principal’s ability
to thrive in these conditions and adapt to unique characteristics of the
school and community is critical. Successful rural schools result from
the leadership these principals provide within the context of the local
environment. (Barley & Beesley, 2007, p. 10)
Not limited to the rural community, principals have a particular balancing act
to manage the instructional focus of the school while also looking beyond the
school for ways to support the academic needs of teachers and students:
144
I would add that the principals, situated at the boundary of the school
and its environment, are the best-suited individuals to undertake this
type of sense-making work. But a principal’s primary responsibility is for
what happens inside the school. That is, these probes into the external
environment are primarily a means towards the goal of improving teaching and learning within classrooms. (Beabout, 2010, p. 26)
School–community partnering can enhance the personal, social, and academic development of students, the lives of parents and families, and,
consequently, the vitality of communities. These effects can be particularly
powerful in small, rural places. This study illuminates the ways in which the
partnering activities of Maplewood Elementary, or the lack of these activities,
can serve the needs of students, families, and the community.
Research Design and Methodology
The data analyzed in this article are from a case study of a single school,
Maplewood, which was purposively chosen (Patton, 2002) because it offers an
interesting though not unique context for research. All school and place names
are pseudonyms to protect the anonymity of the participants.
Study Location
The Maplewood school was once a K–12 school in its own district; however, over the course of mid-twentieth century, the process of school and district
consolidation left it as only an elementary school (preK–5) within a broader
school district. It is now part of Oakwood City School District (OCSD) which
is centered around the small city of Oakwood. All but two of the elementary
schools in the modern district are within the city limits of Oakwood, as well
as the middle schools and the high school. Maplewood and one other outlying
school, Beechwood, are the two rural schools in an officially nonrural school
district. Maplewood has a population of approximately 3,500 residents, Beechwood’s is around 3,200, and the city of Oakwood has about 30,000 residents.
The population density of Maplewood is fewer than 100 people per square mile.
In the 2009–10 school year, Maplewood Elementary School had just under 30 classroom teachers and aides in the pre-K to fifth grade classrooms. In
addition, there were fewer than 10 general staff members, including clerical,
custodial, cafeteria, and transportation staff. The principal was in his second
year at the school during the study. The enrollment was approximately 240 students. Free and reduced-price lunch rates at Maplewood had increased from
approximately 45% in 2007–08 to 70% in 2009–10. In terms of academic
145
achievement, Maplewood reported only one subgroup of students, economically disadvantaged, with the other subgroups, including non-White racial and
ethnic groups, having too few students in them to be reported. In 2009–10,
the school made Adequate Yearly Progress in mathematics but did not for English Language Arts (ELA) due to low scores for disadvantaged students.
Participants
The participants in this study included school district and school professionals as well as parents and community members. Within the school, I spoke
with teachers (n = 5). In addition, I interviewed the superintendent, the principal, a past principal, a front office staff member, the head janitor, and the
school’s family liaison. I spoke with parents (n = 7) including the Parent–
Teacher Association (PTA) president, a parent who is also the president of the
community council, and five other parents with differing levels of participation in the school and community. Most of the parents (5 of 7) had multiple
children in various grades in the school and had been affiliated with the school
for varying numbers of years (ranging from less than 1 to more than 12). I also
interviewed community members (n = 3) without current connections to the
school as a parent or staff member.
Research Design
The research questions for this study were generated following a review
of the literature highlighting the definitions, goals, and motivations for partnering. In addition, the purposeful selection of Maplewood allowed for an
examination of the complexity of the school–community relationship for a rural school in a nonrural district, which is a position not unique to this school.
Maplewood Elementary School is situated within its small village center, and
it is connected to the families it serves in the slightly larger concentric circle
of its catchment area; however, its professional circle is geographically larger at
the school district level, which also includes the small city of Oakwood. How
does Maplewood, both the school and the village (or the school district), understand its school–community relationship? Further, as a way to concretely
consider this theoretical idea about defining the layers of community for a
school, what partnering activities exist between the school and the community,
both at the village and district level?
At the time of the study, I was a resident of Oakwood and affiliated with
a local university. Nonetheless, I was an outsider to the school and the village
of Maplewood. I entered this study through a contact with the principal; my
presence in the school and community was endorsed by this school leader.
146
Consequently, my relationship with the members of the school and community may have been affected by this endorsement. Responses among members
of the community, school, and district are used to complete a portrait of the
school and its community from multiple viewpoints.
The participants were selected in various ways. I randomly selected the
teachers who participated (n = 5) from the universe of full-time classroom
teachers (n = 14). I recruited the parents using three methods: a targeted approach by the family liaison, a request made by one teacher to her class, and
by a full-school mailing. I spoke with all the parents who responded to each
of these three recruitment strategies. These parents, due to the recruitment
methods, are a random but not representative sample of the parents at Maplewood Elementary School. I purposefully interviewed the PTA president
to understand any partnerships facilitated by the PTA. I used snowball sampling to gather the names of community members. The community members
with whom I spoke were recommended as people to contact by parents and/or
members of the school staff.
Over the course of two months during the early spring of the 2009–10
school year, I conducted semistructured interviews (n = 21). The questions for
these interviews (see Appendix A) were developed in order to understand the
participants’ conceptions and definitions of the community, the school, and
the relationship between the two. In addition, participants were asked to list
the partners of the school, describe the activities of these partnering relationships, and to recount the benefits and obstacles of these relationships. If no or
few partners were listed, I followed up by asking the participant about the relationships with the organizations listed on the school’s website as partners. The
interviews lasted between 30 and 75 minutes each. I digitally recorded these
interviews and transcribed them. These transcriptions were analyzed using Atlas.ti, a qualitative analysis program (www.atlasti.com). This program has a
wide range of functionalities. For these analyses, I used the software to code the
transcripts and to generate the output (i.e., compiled quotations) for each code
in order to thematically review the data across participants’ responses. In addition, the program completes basic counts of codes or phrases, which I report
in the findings to explain the frequency with which particular partners were
mentioned by the respondents. These findings are part of the larger study on
Maplewood. The overall findings of the study were shared with the participants
prior to being included in publications.
Data Analysis
I developed a coding scheme in light of the research questions about the
partnerships that exist or could exist between the school and its environs (see
147
Table 1). For those relationships that existed, I analyzed the benefits to the
school and community, and for those that did not exist, I coded the responses
in order to analyze the barriers to establishing these partnerships. Finally, I
connected the respondents’ conceptions of community to the descriptions of
partnering activities. I coded the partners as local or nonlocal to better explore
the following question: Is the immediate community (i.e., within the local
town borders) considered viable for partnering, or is it the larger community
(i.e., larger bordering city) that is viewed as the location of potential partners?
Table 1. Coding Scheme
Code Name
P_Exist_Who
(P: partnerships)
P_Exist_Begun
Code Definition
With whom the
school has existing
partnerships
Who began partnerships
Who and how are
P_Exist_Maintain partnerships maintained
Code Usage
This code is used to identify who the
school has current partnerships with in
the community.
This code is used to identify who initiated partnerships, particularly if it was
someone within the school or the partnering entity.
This code is used to identify who (e.g.,
specific teachers, administrators, parents,
etc.) maintains school partnerships and
what strategies (e.g., regularly scheduled
events) are used to maintain them.
P_Exist_Benefit_Sch
What benefits the
school sees from existing partnerships
P_Exist_Benefit_Com
What benefits the
This code is used for any benefits the
community sees from community experiences from the school–
existing partnerships community partnerships.
P_Desired_Who
This code is used to identify with whom
With whom are part- school staff, parents, and community
nerships desired
members believe the school could or
should be partnering.
P_Desired_Why
Why is this partnership desired
This code is used to identify why these
respondents want this partnership to exist and, in particular, what benefits they
expect.
P_Desired_
WhyNot
What obstacles exist or why does this
partnership not exist
This code is used for obstacles preventing
the partnership that is desired or other
reasons why it has not yet been created.
148
This code is used for any benefits the
school sees stemming from the existing
school–community partnerships.
Findings: Partnering and School–Community Connections
In this case study of the Maplewood community and Maplewood Elementary School, I use partnering as the avenue for exploring the school–community
connection. Based on the analyses connecting the existing partnerships and
the participants’ conception of their community, I report the existing partnerships in two sections: those within the village and those beyond the village but
within the broader school district. In addition, given the focus of this study on
a rural school and its partnering activities, I report the findings of an analysis
focused on rurality under a separate heading. Finally, those partnering relationships that do not exist for the school and its community but are desired are
reported based on an analysis of the barriers to partnering.
Partnering Within the Village: One Horizontal Tie
When asked to describe the partnering activities of the school, most respondents—including all of the school administration and staff, half of the
teachers and parents, and two of the three community members—mentioned
the Maplewood Community Council (MCC) as a partner of the school. This is
a nonprofit organization with the mission of providing services for the children
of the community. The council is made up of community members, including parents of students at Maplewood Elementary. The activities provided by
MCC include a summer camp for children, a basketball team during the school
year, and support for a Harvest Festival, among other programs for children
ages elementary through high school. The president of the council described
the activities provided by the MCC for middle and high school students from
Maplewood now attending schools in Oakwood:
We have a middle school–high school program, mostly middle school,
that does activities after school: [local camp], crafting groups, girls’
groups. There has been a group that does computer game design. We
have a program manager that we contract with through [University] develop the programs. She is very connected to the kids and usually spends
lunchtime at the middle school interacting with the kids and pulling
from that information the things that they’re interested in participating
in and then trying to find those things, and it’s one of the very special
things about her. But as a consequence, we do have some programs that
the kids are very interested in participating in.
In this way, the MCC helps to smooth the transition for the Maplewood students by placing a familiar and trusted adult in the middle school in Oakwood.
The MCC president also described the role the community plays in connection
to greater community:
149
In addition, we try and do some community events. We have a Harvest
Festival at the end of September each year, which is our primary fundraiser, but it’s also a community event, and we couple free events with
money events so that they, anybody can attend. We would like people
to attend whether they can really afford to pay for it or not. Most of our
youth programming is either very low cost or free.
The MCC is the partner most often listed by the respondents, and it is
the partner in closest proximity to Maplewood Elementary. The principal explained why it is such a strong partnership for the school:
One of the most solid partnerships that we have is with the Maplewood
Community Council because it’s very, very small, and it just serves this
community.
By serving only the children in Maplewood and of the Maplewood Elementary
School, the MCC is the primary partner to the school and seems to play an
essential role in the village. It is the only local partner and, therefore, the only
horizontal tie (Warren, 1978). The other partners mentioned by respondents
are located in the greater Oakwood area and school district.
Partnering Outside the Village: Maplewood’s Vertical Ties
The other most often mentioned partnership is a program through
which retired community members volunteer in the Maplewood Elementary classrooms; however, these are Oakwood community members rather than
Maplewood residents. The reported benefit of this program is the intergenerational aspect, meaning that children are exposed to grandparent-type figures.
Administrators, teachers, and parents alike mentioned the benefits of having
these retired volunteers in the classrooms. This program is a partner to other
schools in the district but in particular was described as being “very good about
getting into Maplewood.” This is as opposed to student volunteers from the local college and university who seem less likely to come to Maplewood than to
the other schools in the district. This was most often attributed to the distance
they would have to travel, which is less than 10 miles from either campus.
Nonetheless, the elementary schools in Oakwood are less than five miles from
each campus, and many are within walking distance or accessible by public
transportation. For example, a teacher described how offers may be made to all
the teachers of a certain grade or program in the district, except the volunteers
do not want to travel to the outlying schools:
We try really hard to make those [university] connections, and again,
it’s the distance, at least in my classroom. We’ll get all these things in
[x grade]; we have these [offers for] volunteers from such and such, but
150
they won’t come to Beechwood or Maplewood, but does anybody else
[at the city schools] want them? You get that. Because they can’t drive
the distance.
The superintendent reiterated this problem of transportation to the outlying
schools from her district-level perspective:
Transportation hurts us there, too, because…if you’re a [university] or
[college] student and you don’t have a car, it’s pretty hard to get to Maplewood. Beechwood, too, but Beechwood is on the same hill, that side,
whereas Maplewood, a lot of the college students view it as going to
Podunk, [even though it] isn’t that far away—Podunk, USA—and it’s
really hard to have them, one, think of going there, and two, have the
wherewithal to get there.
Whether the distance to Maplewood is actual or perceived, it may cause the
school to be isolated from opportunities of which other schools in the district
are able to take advantage, in this case the volunteer time of college students.
Partnering for a Rural School
Other partnering activities mentioned by the participants are made available to Maplewood particularly due to its position as a rural school in OCSD.
The district has had incidents of bullying and violence in the middle and high
schools that have been attributed to racial or socioeconomic class tensions.
These tensions are sometimes attributed to the populations of students who
are separated in the elementary schools and who then come together for the
first time in the middle schools. In particular, the separation of the rural and
urban children is thought to add to these tensions because of the differing
demographics (i.e., racial/ethnic background, economic class) of the student
populations. To alleviate these problems, the district has focused on programs
that partner the rural elementary schools with the urban elementary schools for
fieldtrips and pen pal activities. The former Maplewood principal who now has
another position in OCSD described one of these programs:
It combines classrooms within the district with other classrooms, particularly building the bonds that those children will have when they go
to middle school, just so they know some of those other children.
One parent spoke about this program from her perspective with one child in
middle school and one still in elementary school: “I don’t think it’s been effective.” She went on to question if a fieldtrip in fifth grade would really make a
child seek a friendship in middle school; however, this mother wondered if her
younger child (we’ll call her Susie), who she described as being on the autism
spectrum, might benefit from this program:
151
It’s not going to work with a typical child that knows how to make
friends and makes friends easily. It’s not going to affect her at all. Susie,
on the other hand, something like that could be highly beneficial.
It was my understanding that this program would pair the same two classrooms for multiple events or activities across several grades, thereby enhancing
the possibility that bonds could form among the students in different elementary schools. However, the teachers described how the classrooms with which
they are paired change: “[We are paired] with another class, who is supposed to
be a feeder that goes to the same middle school. It’s not always the same class.”
Regardless of how the program is structured and whether there are unintended
benefits for children with special needs, this districtwide program is attentive
to the rurality of the two outlying schools in the district.
The other partnering activity described from which Maplewood in particular appears to benefit is due both to the rurality and the poverty of the students
in the school. The superintendent described the college access program:
There’s another Oakwood Youth Bureau program. It’s called the College
Discovery Program…it’s specific to [the poorest city school] and Maplewood. There are students that have been together, now I think they’re
entering the high school, and they’ve been together since fifth grade. It is
a support program to help the families and the students realize that they
can go to college. But we [the district] paired an urban school and a rural
school with regard to that, and that’s forged friendships that have been
really very, very beneficial.
I also spoke with a community member who works with the program and lives
in Maplewood. He described in more detail the activities of the program:
Basically it is a program that identifies kids at the end of fifth grade who
have good academic potential but probably aren’t thinking about going
to college. Either because, this is an and/or, either because the economic
means to think about it don’t exist or because they’re in families where
it isn’t, it’s not just that it isn’t an expectation, it isn’t even part of the
thought process. And so this program identifies these kids. Half come
from the rural areas, primarily Maplewood, and the other half come
from downtown. And they’re included in a mentorship program with
homework clubs and scholastic tutors and weekend activities and summer activities and help and college visits and help applying to college,
etcetera, until they graduate. It’s been very successful. The first, actually,
the first cohort of kids is about to graduate, and they’re all heading on to
further education.
152
This program is targeted at children from socioeconomically poor families with
both few financial resources and little experience with higher education. In
OCSD, the two poorest schools, as measured by the percentage of students
qualifying for free and reduced price lunch, are one urban and one rural school.
In this way, the college access program is for the poorest families and also serves
to pair urban and rural children and their families from fifth grade through the
end of high school in an attempt to open the doors of college to these students
who may not otherwise consider it as a possibility.
Barriers to Partnering
The barriers to partnering and reasons listed as to why particular partnerships do not exist or no longer exist can be summed up in one word: time.
The most often reported reason for a lack of partnering is that the time and
effort required to organize partnerships prevent them from being formed and
maintained. Partnerships formed by the MCC or by the PTA are created and
supported by members of those organizations, predominately by parents who
may have more time to spend on those activities. Administrators and teachers
seem to have much less time available to forge and maintain partnerships. But
when asked about how to form partnerships, with the large university in Oakwood in particular, the principal responded that he has found help from others
who have existing partnerships:
I hadn’t been the first person from here to initiate [a partnership]; I had
a lot of help from my extended day coordinator who is constantly on the
search for extensive partnerships for the extended day program. So she
has found the contact for me…there are multiple contacts [at the university]…even though [the university] has tried really hard to streamline
things, it’s been pretty haphazard. You just need to know someone who
knows someone.
One teacher described her impression of how hard it is to know what kinds
of partnerships are even possible:
I think that [university] and [college] both offer things that I don’t have
a clue about. Because they’re just out there, and there’s no real formal
way to get the information to the teachers or to the administrators. I just
kind of happen on it and go, “Whoa, this is really good,” and…so I guess
that’s what I would like to see, something more organized.
Another teacher echoed this need for organization:
Organization. I think it’s just not, everybody has really good ideas, but
it’s in little bits and pieces. This is a good idea, so let’s do this, and then
you start to do it and then, but it doesn’t get spread, it doesn’t spread out.
153
Another teacher also seemed to discredit her own initiatives to involve partners
in her teaching, either because as the previous quotation suggests it is just in
“little bits and pieces” or because it is not formalized:
Some of the girls I went to high school with are scientists up at [university], and so they come down [to my classroom]. But that’s little pockets
here and there.
I asked this teacher if there was a centralized point to go to find out about the
partnering activities she could engage in with the university. She said, “There
might be. I am sure there probably are.” She continued with an explanation of
why she might not know about them:
You know how it is. When you are teaching, you think “Oh my gosh. I
could teach them that ‘o-a’ says ‘o’ like coat so they can read.” You focus
on what you focus on. I am driven by pressure, by expectations, by your
own expectations, your own perceptions of what is stressful and what is
not. I could do more, and I probably don’t.
For this teacher, finding out about possible partners may detract from her
teaching by taking time away from her planning and instruction time. There
are multiple pressures on teachers, and partnering seems not to be a priority in
comparison to the importance of teaching literacy, for example.
The principal described his role in regard to partnering and explained that
the time require to forge and maintain the partnerships is something he does
not want to force upon his staff:
The difficulty in creating partnerships is that you have to coordinate
that. So I’m finding there are lots of partnerships that are available, but
the problem I’m finding is coordination with it. So my dream world
would have a coordinator or someone that’s dedicated at least part time
to making sure that things run smoothly, that the correct people are contacted and having systems for that. There are many, many willing organizations, groups, and individuals that are just there for the asking. But
it’s about the phone time and the contact, and I just don’t have the time
to and the other resources to do that, and I can’t ask any of the staff to
do that. Again, we’ve relied on people and their projects and who they’ve
known for this many years, but when that person is gone, the partnership is gone, unless they’ve made some kind of system for it to continue.
The dream world would be a coordination of that.
In addition, he found himself having to buffer his staff from some of the opportunities available, and he only shared some of the possibilities with the staff
so as to not overwhelm them:
154
There’s a push and pull—always a push and pull between the district
saying that we have to have these partnerships and we will foster these
partnerships and teachers who are saying this is just another thing that
I have to do—and some going through the motions and some very interested and involved in it. Sometimes I am at meetings saying we really
can’t do this, being that active buffer. And things that are sent by email or
something saying that this person really would like to work with people,
I use my discretion of whether my teachers are going to be interested in
certain things. Like I just sent out something about some fire dog that is
from the Red Cross to the K–2 teachers, and it’s up to them to contact
this organization. But other things, everyone wants a piece of you, so I
really try to be judicious in how I send things out so as not to overwhelm
people because that’s what will sink us.
The principal described not only that there is a “push and pull” between
what is expected and even required from the district and what teachers can do,
but he also articulated his own strategy for developing the partnering activities
of the school. He planned to move slowly and carefully so as not to overwhelm
his teachers because “that’s what will sink us.” This raises the question of what
types of partnering may be easiest to begin and maintain and, in particular,
may feel the least like “just another thing I have to do” for teachers. As described in the following sections, place-based pedagogy can offer a balance for
teachers who are interested in partnering and yet find that it takes away from
the time they spend on traditional academics, like teaching that the letters “oa” sound like “o.”
Discussion
The partnering activities defined by the Maplewood school employees, parents, and community members reflect the definitions of partnerships in the
literature (Bauch, 2001; Melaville, 1998). The notable aspects of the findings
are discussed in further detail in this section with particular attention to the
local/nonlocal partners, the support for families through partnering, and the
potential development of a sense of place for children in Maplewood. Although
few partnerships may exist, each respondent was able to speak about at least
one connection the school has with the community; there are, however, differences to note between those partnerships within the most local community,
Maplewood, and those within the larger community of Oakwood. These local/
nonlocal tensions can be viewed using Warren’s (1978) vertical and horizontal
ties. These horizontal and vertical ties may represent different types of support
for the families in Maplewood. Finally, some of the partnering work of the
155
school was noted as being related to the rurality of the school. These responses
reflect the aspects of the existing literature on partnering that describe the role
of partnerships as compensating for deficits in the community, families, or lives
of the students (e.g., Crowson & Boyd, 1993; Heath & McLaughlin, 1987;
Sanders, 2001). If reenvisioned from an asset-based perspective, this rurality
could be the basis for place-based education.
Partnering Within and Outside Maplewood Village: Horizontal
and Vertical Ties
The case of Maplewood Elementary School sheds light on a plethora of
contemporary issues, especially the potential of, yet challenges with, school–
community partnering. While the story of consolidations, closures, and mergers
is what lays the historical foundation for Maplewood Elementary School’s current position within OCSD, a detailed analysis of the arguments and policies
related to these particular issues is beyond the scope of this article. The fact
that Maplewood is isolated within its own school district as a rural school in
a nonrural district reflects the residual effects of district and school consolidation and mergers. As the respondents—community and school members
alike—recounted, Maplewood is different than the other schools in the district. The families are rural, many poor, and the children miss out on many of
the opportunities the children in the city have. There are resources within the
community of Maplewood; nonetheless, if the teachers cannot connect these
strengths to the classroom, then they will remain untapped for the children in
relation to their formal education. The differences between Maplewood and
Oakwood and between Maplewood Elementary School and the city schools
leaves the outlying school in the situation of having a local community that is
separate, distinct, and different from the school district.
Maplewood’s local and nonlocal (meaning Oakwood) partnering activities
also can be understood using Warren’s (1978) horizontal and vertical ties. The
partnership within the community with the MCC is the horizontal tie of the
school. Warren’s vertical ties most often are associated with connections to state
or national-level entities. Nonetheless, using a different level of analysis, the
connections for Maplewood Elementary School to Oakwood and OCSD can
be considered vertical ties. In this way, these ties are essential but could serve
to diminish the local community as they are simply played out on the stage of
the Maplewood community but offer little benefit to the immediate local community. An awareness that these ties are necessary for the school but could be
harmful to the community sheds light on the need for the school to have both
horizontal and vertical ties.
156
Maplewood’s Partnering Relationships: Support for Families
The partnering relationships described by the respondents in Maplewood
serve the multiple goals outlined in the relevant literature, including support
for families, community development, and the development of a sense of place
for children. The one partnering relationship within the village with MCC
supports families through the provision of afterschool and summer programming for local children. In addition, by having an adult from MCC present
in the Oakwood middle school, children’s transition to the city school is eased
through the network created by their connection to this person. In this way,
MCC develops a form of social capital for students at Maplewood on which
they can rely in middle school (Driscoll, 2001; Ferrara, 2015). The vertical tie
represented by the retirees who volunteer in Maplewood could establish this
same form of social capital for children; however, it is unlikely to do so as these
intergenerational relationships are formed with people outside the village who
the children are unlikely to encounter in their middle and high school lives. A
horizontal tie of this type, for example, if the volunteers were recruited from
among retirees living in Maplewood, could form a stronger network for the
children because they might then be able to maintain the relationships outside
of school and beyond elementary school. Finally, the college discovery program supports families by exposing children to the possibility of college and
to needed advising along the way. This intervention provides knowledge (and
thus social capital) to families who may have little experience with college.
Partnering Through Pedagogy: Place-Based Education
Directly related to the conceptions of community that this study has highlighted are the implications for partnering. It appears that there are no potential
partners in Maplewood other than MCC. There are no local businesses other
than a corner store/gas station. The organizations, businesses, and potential
partnerships all seem to be located in Oakwood. Yet Maplewood Elementary
School’s strongest partner is MCC because it is the one partner that is able to
focus only on that community rather than spreading its attention across all the
schools in OCSD. This is not unique to Maplewood: “As proximity narrows
the field of potential partners for schools, schools that are not close to their
community’s organizations may have difficulty establishing partnerships that
involve students, in particular” (Hands, 2005, p. 78). How can the school find
other ways to make use of the resources in its most local community, Maplewood? I see opportunities even in a small community with increasingly fewer
apparent partners. The history, geography, politics, and people can all provide
resources to be tapped by the school for the benefit of the students (Gruenewald & Smith, 2008; Smith, 2002; Sobel, 2004; Theobald, 2006).
157
I asked teachers, administrators, parents, and community members if they
had experienced the use of the local community in the education at Maplewood Elementary. One teacher described a project she had done with one of
her classes in the past, which is an excellent example of place-based education
but which was extremely time consuming for her:
There are some really good things that I’ve done with [local college media literacy initiative]. But they’re huge, and they’re really difficult to
maintain year to year because they’re so huge. It was certainly worth it
when I did it, but I could not maintain it every year because it requires so
much time, but it was definitely worth it. We did a study of Maplewood
and took pictures, snapshots, and made an iMovie and did all kinds of
things all over the community, but it required a great deal. I know why
producers get the big bucks, because I spent on a 15-minute DVD, it
probably took me 100 hours to get stuff together.
The principal and some of the teachers describe how the grounds of the
school were used in the past or are currently used by the students. There are orchards, vineyards, and gardens that were once tended to by the community and
students together. There is currently a garden maintained by the pre-K class as
a butterfly garden. In the winter the students are able to take advantage of the
rural surroundings by cross-country skiing in gym class. Each of these activities takes energy, time, and effort by administrators and teachers who may not
have any of those resources to spare. The question remains as to how to make
such activities more deeply entrenched in the school, particularly in the academic practices.
Over the course of my case study, I heard about the history and stories of
the Maplewood community. I heard parents, staff, teachers, and community
members describe the community and the resources within it, particularly the
resources found in the people of Maplewood. The town historian and other
community members with whom I spoke know the community intimately,
as do the veteran staff members, and one or more of these people could help
teachers introduce the history of Maplewood to their students. The grounds
of the school have been used before by teachers and community members and
could once again be used and included in social studies, science, and mathematics lessons. In addition, while there were once many more, there are a few
remaining farms in the area. In particular, there is an active sugarbush where
maple trees are tapped and maple syrup is produced. These resources could
be included in the coursework of the school, thereby forging new partnerships
with the most local community. In addition, partnerships centered on notions
of reciprocity (Hands, 2005) could serve to support students and families,
as well as potentially spurring community development efforts. Ultimately,
158
partnerships between a school and its community that enhance the well-being
of schools, children, families, and the community will feel more essential and
less like “just one more thing I have to do.” To this end, Sanderson (2016) describes the benefits of partnerships that are designed for mutual benefit, for
example, with attention to reducing teachers’ overall workload.
As the Maplewood principal mentioned, to make this type of work possible, it may take an employee being designated as a partnering coordinator or
the development of a community of practice focused on the use of the local
space for instructional purposes, as described by Ferreira, Grueber, and Yarema
(2012) in a study of an urban gardening initiative in Detroit. Once embedded
in the curriculum, the practice of the educators maintaining these ties could
become part of the school day routine, as important as teaching that “o-a”
sounds like “o.”
Conclusion and Implications for Practice
The overlapping spheres of schools, families, and communities (Epstein,
2011) are the context for the education of children. Understanding and appreciating these overlaps can create a mutually beneficial environment supportive
to children within their schools, families, and communities. This article offers
a review focused on school–community partnerships, especially their goals of
family support, community development, and sense of place development. Using a small, rural school as a case, the existing partnerships are examined for the
benefits to children, families, the school, and the local community. This study
finds that horizontal ties may be especially important for small, rural places
and offer the support to children and families described in previous studies
(Semke & Sheridan, 2012). The challenges the school faces in partnering activities are connected to the lack of time educators have to organize and maintain
partnerships. In addition, the school’s geographic isolation offers challenges
as well. Finally, this study suggests that place-based education may combine
the benefits of horizontal ties with a practice that ameliorates the challenges of
time and isolation.
Given the types of school–community partnerships that exist and the rural
context of this school, the findings of this study suggest that additional horizontal ties would benefit the school in order to strengthen the school–community
connection, as well as to enhance the education of students. Respondents described how effective the most local partnership with MCC is for them, at least
in part because the resources are not spread across any other school. In addition, the findings describe the challenges to partnering, most specifically the
organization, time, resources, and transportation required to sustain partnering activities. For these reasons, place-based education and the partnering it
159
can establish with local resources can be a form of partnering well-suited to isolated rural communities. This approach can make use of otherwise untapped
local resources and keep educators tightly focused on the core activity of the
school: instruction.
Place-based education may offer a way for Maplewood to focus on the academic work of the school, while partnering with and perhaps enhancing the
vibrancy of its most immediate surroundings. Additional research is needed
addressing the connection between school–community relationships and placebased education, especially the degree to which it can become entrenched in a
school because of its position in the core activity of education. Can place-based
education be a viable method for creating additional horizontal (local) ties
for a school? Additionally, future work can address the role of administrators
and teachers in the implementation of place-based education. More detailed
analysis of my own data as well as future studies may also shed light on the
connections of a teacher’s own sense of place, whether it is in the school’s local
community or not, to their interest or ability to deliver a place-based education
to their students. It will be necessary to consider the role of community studies
and theories of place in teacher education programs. A teacher’s own ability to
recognize the importance of place in their own life and the lives of their students may enhance the school–community relationship, partnering, and the
development of place-based education.
References
Barley, Z. A., & Beesley, A. D. (2007). Rural school success: What can we learn? Journal of Research in Rural Education, 22(1). Retrieved from http://jrre.vmhost.psu.edu/wp-content/
uploads/2014/02/22-1.pdf
Bauch, P. A. (2001). School–community partnerships in rural schools: Leadership, renewal,
and a sense of place. Peabody Journal of Education, 76(2), 204–221.
Beabout, B. R. (2010). Urban school reform and the strange attractor of low-risk relationships.
School Community Journal, 20(1), 9–30. Retrieved from http://www.schoolcommunitynetwork.org/SCJ.aspx
Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. The American Journal of
Sociology, 94, S94–S120.
Crowson, R. L., & Boyd, W. L. (1993). Coordinated services for children: Designing arks for
storms and seas unknown. American Journal of Education, 101, 140–179.
Cumming, C., Dyson, A., & Todd, L. (2012). Beyond the school gates: Can full service and
extended schools overcome disadvantage? New York, NY: Routledge.
Driscoll, M. E. (2001). The sense of place and the neighborhood school: Implications for
building social capital and for community development. In R. L. Crowson (Ed.), Community development and school reform (pp. 19–41). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science.
Dryfoos, J. (2008). Centers of hope. Educational Leadership, 65(7), 38–43.
Epstein, J. L. (2011). School, family, and community partnerships: Preparing educators and improving schools. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
160
Ferrara, M. M. (2015). Parental involvement facilitators: Unlocking social capital wealth.
School Community Journal, 25(1), 29–51. Retrieved from http://www.schoolcommunitynetwork.org/SCJ.aspx
Ferreira, M. M., Grueber, D., & Yarema, S. (2012). A community partnership to facilitate urban elementary students’ access to the outdoors. School Community Journal, 22(1), 49–64.
Retrieved from http://www.schoolcommunitynetwork.org/SCJ.aspx
Gross, J. M. S., Haines, S. J., Hill, C., Francis, G. L., Blue-Banning, M., & Turnbull, A. P.
(2015). Strong school–community partnerships in inclusive schools are “part of the fabric
of the school….We count on them.” School Community Journal, 25(2), 9–34. Retrieved
Gruenewald, D. A., & Smith, G. A. (2008). Place-based education in the global age: Local diversity. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hands, C. (2005). It’s who you know and what you know: The process of creating partnerships
between schools and communities. School Community Journal, 15(2), 63–84. Retrieved
Heath, S. B., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1987). A child resource policy: Moving beyond dependence on school and family. Phi Delta Kappan, 68(8), 576–580.
Lyson, T. A. (2002). What does a school mean to a community? Assessing the social and
economic benefits of schools to rural villages in New York. Journal of Rural Research in
Education, 17(3), 131–137.
Melaville, A. (1998). Learning together: The developing field of school–community initiatives.
Washington, DC: Institute for Educational Leadership.
Miller, B. A. (1995). The role of rural schools in community development: Policy issues and
implications. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 11(3), 163–172.
Nettles, S. M. (1991). Community involvement and disadvantaged students: A review. Review
of Educational Research, 61(3), 379–406.
CA: Sage.
Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New
York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
Sanders, M. G. (2001). The role of “community” in comprehensive school, family, and community partnership programs. The Elementary School Journal, 102(1), 19–34.
Sanders, M. G. (2003). Community involvement in schools: From concept to practice. Education and Urban Society, 35(2), 161–180.
Sanders, M. G., & Harvey, A. (2002). Beyond the school walls: A case study of principal leadership for school–community collaboration. Teachers College Record, 104(7), 1345–1368.
Sanderson, D. R. (2016). Working together to strengthen the school community: The restructuring of a university–school partnership. School Community Journal, 26(1), 183–197.
Schafft, K. A., Alter, T. R., & Bridger, J. C. (2006). Bringing the community along: A case
study of a school district’s information technology rural development initiative. Journal of
Research in Rural Education, 21(8), 1–10.
Schorr, L. B. (1997). Common purpose: Strengthening families and neighborhoods to rebuild
America. New York, NY: Anchor Books.
Seidl, A., Mulkey, D., & Blanton, D. (1999). Youth in rural community development: High
school survey researchers in Immokalee, Florida. Journal of Extension, 37(1).
Semke, C. A., & Sheridan, S. M. (2012). Family–school connections in rural educational
settings: A systematic review of the empirical literature. School Community Journal, 22(1),
21–47. Retrieved from http://www.schoolcommunitynetwork.org/SCJ.aspx
161
Smith, G. A. (2002). Place-based education: Learning to be where we are. Phi Delta Kappan,
83(8), 584–594.
Sobel, D. (2004). Place-based education: Connecting classrooms and communities. Great Barrington, MA: Orion Society.
Theobald, P. (2006). A case for inserting community into public school curriculum. American
Journal of Education, 112(3), 315–334.
Versteeg, D. (1993). The rural high school as community resource. Educational Leadership,
50(7), 54–55.
Voyles, M. M. (2012). Perceived needs of at-risk families in a small town: Implications for
full-service community schools. School Community Journal, 22(2), 31–63. Retrieved from
Warren, R. L. (1978). The community in America (3rd ed.). Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
Willems, P. P., & Gonzalez-DeHass, A. R. (2012). School–community partnerships: Using
authentic contexts to academically motivate students. School Community Journal, 22(2),
9–30. Retrieved from http://www.schoolcommunitynetwork.org/SCJ.aspx
Witte, A. L., & Sheridan, S. M. (2011). Family engagement in rural schools. In S. Redding,
M. Murphy, & P. Sheley (Eds.), Handbook on family and community engagement (pp. 153–
156). Lincoln, IL: Academic Development Institute. Retrieved from http://www.schoolcommunitynetwork.org/downloads/FACEHandbook.pdf
Hope Casto is an associate professor in the Education Studies Department
at Skidmore College. Her research interests include school–community connections, rural education, prekindergarten policy, and teaching the social foundations
of education. Correspondence concerning this article may be addressed to Dr.
Hope G. Casto, Skidmore College, 815 North Broadway, Saratoga Springs, NY
12866, or email [email protected]
Appendix A: Interview Protocol
Community Definition:
• How do you define community? How do you define your community?
o(Probe) The community of _? City of _? _ City School District? _ county? Beyond?
o(Personal community? Professional community?)
School–Community Connections:
• What community does the school serve? Should it serve?
• How does the school serve the community? How could it?
Partnerships:
• What school–community partnerships exist? (If many given, pick one to focus on.)
oHow was this partnership started? How is it maintained? What role does the district
play in this? How does it benefit the school and/or community? (If none, ask about
list from website.)
o_ Cooperative Extension; _ Retirees Volunteering in Schools; _ University Public
Service Center; _ Community Council; Family Reading Partnership; _ College;
_ Public Education Initiative; _ Youth Bureau; _ University; _ County Health
Department; _ County Sheriff: D.A.R.E.; _ BOCES; Town of _
• What partnerships would you like to see between the school and community? (Specify
community in connection to definition given above.)
oHow could this be started? What opportunities exist? Obstacles?
162
Impact of Adopt-A-Classroom Partnerships
Between K–12 and University Faculty
Elizabeth Smith, Heather D. Kindall, Vinson Carter, and
Maggie Beachner
Abstract
There is often a disconnect between K–12 schools and postsecondary institutions. While this gap has grown consistently, the need for collaboration
between systems is greater than ever. The Adopt-A-Classroom program was
created to address the need for greater university faculty involvement in public
schools by providing opportunities for collaboration between K–12 and higher education faculty. A qualitative research study was designed and conducted
using an electronic survey. Both K–12 and university participant responses reflected an overall positive impact on students and teaching. Responses implied
that K–12 teachers viewed this program as an opportunity to grow professionally, while university participants saw Adopt-A-Classroom as an opportunity
to provide service to the community. In some cases, the K–12 teachers did gain
a greater depth of content knowledge, which was one of the original goals of
the program. Additionally, the program provided K–12 students with greater
opportunities to learn about going to college and visit the college campus.
University faculty also gained appreciation for the challenges of being a K–12
educator. Adopt-A-Classroom might be considered by other colleges and universities striving to develop deeper connections between their faculty from all
academic backgrounds and nearby K–12 educators and their students.
Key Words: school–university partnerships, Adopt-A-Classroom program, collaboration, postsecondary faculty, teachers, schools, students, content, Arkansas
163
Introduction
Historically, K–12 schools and higher education have operated independently of each other (Kirst, 2005; Thelin, 2011). American high schools were
first designed to educate students for life skills, not prepare them for college.
As high schools grew and the number of students attending increased following World War II, two tracks developed: one for students who would attend
college and one for those who would not. Because college preparation was not
the primary focus of high schools, the gap between K–12 and higher education
has consistently widened, making the need for collaboration between systems
greater than ever (Kirst, 2005). Given a recent nationwide push for implementing college and career readiness standards for K–12 schools, schools are
looking to colleges and universities to augment teacher content knowledge.
University faculty and staff can provide expertise in their focus areas as well as
access to tangible resources through school–university partnerships.
History of the Program
In 2005, Education Renewal Zones were established in the state of Arkansas
to promote collaboration between higher education and public schools. The
Arkansas Department of Education currently funds six Education Renewal
Zones throughout the state through a model that is unique to Arkansas. Education Renewal Zone directors are employees of their respective institutions
who also work alongside the Arkansas Department of Education. Programs are
created to provide the institution of higher education’s resources to and address
the needs of partner K–12 schools, as assessed through both formal and informal means (Arkansas Department of Education, n.d.).
The University of Arkansas Education Renewal Zone was awarded funds to
begin an Education Renewal Zone in Summer 2012. Schools were nominated
to participate in the Education Renewal Zone by school superintendents. Immediately upon the creation of the office, the newly hired Education Renewal
Zone director conducted interviews with partner school superintendents and
principals to assess needs and began brainstorming along with a 40-member
advisory board about how the University of Arkansas might support the stated
needs of school partners.
Upon coding the responses from these administrator interviews, a common theme emerged: the desire to have University of Arkansas faculty present
in partner schools. Superintendents and principals asked the Education Renewal Zone to facilitate greater faculty involvement in their schools for a few
stated reasons. First, they wanted to connect K–12 faculty to the content expertise of postsecondary faculty. A 2012 study found that knowledge about
164
ADOPT-A-CLASSROOM PARTNERSHIPS
the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) was growing rapidly among educators while teachers simultaneously expressed concern over not having deep
enough content knowledge to implement the standards (ASCD, 2012). Anecdotes from interviews with Education Renewal Zone partner school principals
and superintendents supported this finding. While CCSS requires teachers to
teach less material for deeper student understanding, partner administrators
indicated that educators could benefit from a more profound grasp of the content by collaborating with university faculty (Riddile, 2012).
Another reason for the desired partnership with postsecondary faculty was
to influence students’ perceptions toward college faculty and higher education
in general. Partner school administrators hoped that providing a connection between their students and university faculty would contribute to greater college
matriculation for students graduating from their districts. Additionally, partner
school administrators expected that deeper connections between K–12 teachers
and postsecondary faculty would result in collegiate educators having a greater
appreciation for the challenges of being a K–12 teacher. Adopt-A-Classroom
(AAC) was created by the Education Renewal Zone to address these purposes.
Literature Review
There is scant literature discussing partnerships between K–12 and higher
education faculty, thus finding the appropriate body of literature with which
to frame this project has proven to be a challenge. Most of the existing literature regarding successful school–university partnership revolves around teacher
preparation in terms of creating professional development schools and utilizing public schools as teacher training sites. The AAC’s focus is not centered on
teacher preparation and training but intends to promote partnerships beyond
colleges of education. Therefore, the literature on professional development
schools and teacher training programs is not directly aligned with this study.
John Dewey is credited with founding the first laboratory school in an effort to close the gap between theory and practice in education (Greene &
Tichenor, 1999; Mayhew & Edwards, 1965). In the late 1980s, the Holmes
Group brought professional development schools to the forefront as a prevalent type of school–university partnership for teacher preparation (Callahan
& Martin, 2007). John Goodlad established the concept of school–university
partnerships as opportunities for simultaneous renewal, creating the prospect of a mutually beneficial relationship (Goodlad, 1998). While these giants
in the field of school–university partnerships provide excellent guidance on
partnerships in the context of teacher education, little work has been done in
considering partnerships between K–12 teachers and university faculty outside
of teacher education programs.
165
Throughout the United States, K–12 and postsecondary institutions largely
exist and operate independently of each other. School–university relationships
often promote a “one-way street” mindset in which only one side of the partnership actually benefits, creating an unfortunate divide between universities
and K–12 teachers (Parker, Templin, & Setiawan, 2012, p. 32). The division
between K–12 and higher education has proven to be problematic for all students, especially those that are underrepresented in higher education. This
barrier may create a lack of knowledge about the preparation required for college success as well as a lack of understanding at the collegiate level about the
challenges faced by K–12 educators. Ultimately, the weak connection between
K–12 and postsecondary education contributes to the epidemic of students
who are not prepared for the colleges in which they enroll, a substantial factor
in the low numbers of college graduates (Kirst, 2005). One symptom of the
rift between K–12 and higher education is that faculty from the two distinct
systems may not have opportunities to interact on a consistent basis, especially
outside of teacher education faculty partnerships.
Domina and Ruzek (2010) engaged in a longitudinal study considering the
impact of school–university partnership programs. Their study showed that
comprehensive partnership programs improved high school completion rates
and college access for underrepresented students. Magiera and Geraci (2014)
conducted a study based on a 22-year rural school–university partnership that
served students with disabilities and at-risk students. The researchers analyzed
participant responses in regard to benefits for stakeholders and why they believed the program had such longevity. Themes that emerged from participant
responses included “increased academic benefits for students and teacher candidates” and “interpersonal benefits for all stakeholders” (Magiera & Geraci,
2014, p. 14). In addition, Parker et al. (2012) contended that both K–12 and
university participants can benefit from a collaborative partnership. In their
study, not only did K–12 teachers and teacher candidates gain real-world experiences to apply to learning and teaching, but university faculty also took
advantage of opportunities for producing scholarly works through the process
(Parker et al., 2012). The Greater Milwaukee Catholic Education Consortium
(GMCEC) was created to foster relationships between higher education institutions and Catholic elementary and secondary schools to support the growth
and sustainability of Catholic education (Henk, Maney, Baxter, & Montejano, 2013). Three key benefits came from analysis of the impact GMCEC
had on the school–university partnerships: greater resources and opportunities
for professional development, a stronger mission and identity, and increased
organizational effectiveness (Henk et al., 2013). The discussed advantages
166
of school–university partnerships were attributed to several factors revolving
around true cooperation and sincere desires for improvement.
Ferreira (2007) indicates that partnerships between K–12 teachers and university professors can assist in creating a sense of community among partners.
In this case, university professors included real-world application for the K–12
students through hands-on science and math activities. Additionally, Ferreira
found that such academic partnerships introduced K–12 students to the possibility of attending postsecondary institutions when it previously did not seem
attainable. Parker et al. (2012) noted, “Like any relationship, cooperation is
the key as people come together for a shared purpose” (p. 32). Fostering relationships between K–12 educators and university faculty can provide mutually
beneficial opportunities for growth and sustainment of quality education. Programs similar to these partnerships are the key to developing vibrant modes of
instruction, professional development, scholarship, and integrated educational
initiatives.
Adopt-A-Classroom Program Overview
The AAC program was created in response to feedback from partner schools
and was designed to provide opportunities for collaboration between K–12
and higher education faculty. Adopt-A-Classroom exists to:
• Build collaborative relationships between K–12 and higher education;
• Provide opportunities for University of Arkansas faculty/staff to offer upto-date content knowledge and share information about resources in their
respective fields;
• Provide opportunities for K–12 teachers to offer insight into current school
practices; and
• Provide opportunities for K–12 students to learn more about higher education and, ultimately, have greater access to postsecondary options.
The program is designed to evolve throughout six stages: recruitment,
matching, training, classroom visits, concluding event, and yearly evaluation.
Each year, university faculty and K–12 teachers from Education Renewal Zone
partner schools (both suburban and rural) are invited through e-mail to participate in the AAC program. Although most of the participants in the program
were university faculty, several participants were staff members in academic
positions such as research librarians, research associates, and research lab supervisors. Figure 1 illustrates the key components of the program.
167
Adopt-A-Classroom Program Key Components
Recruitment
Matching
Training
Classroom
Visits
Concluding
Event
Yearly
Evaluation
University faculty and staff members and K–12 teachers are recruited
through media outreach and departmental and school presentations.
University faculty and staff members are matched with K–12 teachers based on requested content areas and age group (elementary,
middle, or high school).
University faculty and staff members complete half-day training to
learn about the program components, current practices in education,
and resources available. K–12 teachers later attend a two-hour training alongside faculty/staff to learn about program components and
plan for their partnership.
During a full year of implementation, university faculty and staff are
asked to visit partner classrooms at least six times over a seven-month
period (October–April). [During the one semester pilot program,
university faculty and staff were asked to visit K–12 classrooms once
a month over a three-month period (February–April).]
In April, university faculty and staff, K–12 teachers, and the supervisors of all participants are invited to attend a Celebration Reception.
At this event, selected participants share about their experiences, and
all participants are honored.
One week following the Celebration Reception, a digital survey consisting of 16 questions (both ordinal and open-response) is sent to all
participants.
Figure 1. Summary of the key elements in the AAC program.
The Education Renewal Zone staff pairs university faculty and K–12 volunteers according to subject area or interest. University faculty must commit to
teaching in their K–12 partner teacher’s classroom once per month throughout the course of one academic year. This time commitment may vary from
1–2 hours to all day depending on the grade level and needs of the adopted
classroom. At the training (following recruitment and matching), participants
discuss the expectations of the program, possible challenges, and the overall
purpose of AAC. Additionally, the professors learn about the Common Core
State Standards and hear more about the current climate in public schools
from University of Arkansas education faculty who are former K–12 teachers.
The university faculty are encouraged to plan a lesson with the K–12 partner
teacher once a month to expand upon content already being taught within the
K–12 curriculum and that align with the university faculty’s area of expertise.
Additionally, university faculty are asked to bring K–12 students to visit the
168
university campus and engage in special projects. Furthermore, university faculty may choose to involve their undergraduate and/or graduate students in
their partnership.
Following the training for university faculty, the Education Renewal Zone
hosts all participants at the Welcome Reception. This event provides an opportunity for the participants to meet for the first time and plan for the remainder
of the school year. After the Welcome Reception, the partners are released to
collaborate through the University of Arkansas faculty member’s monthly visits to the partner school classroom. Once a semester, the university faculty
participants and Education Renewal Zone Director meet to discuss the program’s progress and brainstorm solutions to any issues that may have arisen.
A Celebration Reception is held at the end of the year. At this event, participants speak about the impact of the program on their teaching practice and
their students’ perceptions of the program. The Education Renewal Zone invites partner school and university administrators so they can learn about the
impact of the program. All participants are recognized and thanked for their
participation at this event, and it marks the conclusion of the formal AAC
partnerships for the year. University faculty participants are encouraged to renew their commitment to the program for the following year. The final piece
to the program cycle each year is an evaluation sent to all participants and subsequent data analysis to improve the program for the next year.
Throughout the one-semester pilot program and first full year of implementation, 34 university faculty and staff members partnered with 33 K–12
teachers, a total of 67 participants (one pair of university participants worked
together with a single teacher). As shown in Table 1, more than three-fourths
of the university participants were from the College of Education and Health
Professions (although not necessarily from teacher education programs) and
the Fulbright College of Arts and Sciences. These two colleges represent the
largest on campus. The positions and rank of participating faculty and staff
varied greatly from tenured full professors to graduate students.
K–12 teacher participants volunteered from an assortment of schools within 50 miles of the university campus. More than 72% of the K–12 teachers
taught at small, rural schools. Nineteen of the 34 teacher participants (55.8%)
taught secondary students, while the remainder taught in elementary schools.
Secondary teacher participants represented a variety of subject areas, as shown
in Table 2.
169
Table 1. Academic Colleges of Faculty/Staff Adopt-A-Classroom Participants
Number of
Participants
College
Agriculture, Food, and Life Sciences
Faculty
Academic Staff
Graduate Teaching Assistants
1
0
1
Arts and Sciences
Faculty
Academic Staff
7
1
2
Business
Faculty
Academic Staff
1
0
1
Education and Health Professions
Faculty
Academic Staff
7
6
2
Engineering
Faculty
Academic Staff
1
0
1
Other
Diversity Affairs Administration
University Libraries Administration
Percent
5.9
29.4
5.9
44.1
1
2
5.9
8.8
Table 2. Academic Content Area of Secondary Teacher Participants
Content Area
English
Math
Science
Social Studies
Number of Secondary Teacher Participants
4
3
3
3
Other (electives)
6
Research Questions
The researchers designed and conducted a qualitative study involving open
response survey data in an effort to better understand the following three research questions:
170
1. What impact did participation in AAC have on K–12 students?
2. What impact did participation in AAC have on the teaching practice of
K–12 and university faculty?
3. What impact did participation in AAC have on research practices of university faculty?
Methods
This study was designed and conducted using select open response items
from an emailed program questionnaire. Participants were sent an initial email
with the link to a survey and then a reminder email to encourage more to complete the evaluation. The overall questionnaire included open response and
Likert-scale response items designed to elicit information about participant
experience.
Participants
All 67 participants (33 K–12 teachers and 34 university faculty/staff members) were sent the evaluation survey. There were 33 total respondents to the
survey (49% of the total participant pool) regarding the opinions, benefits, and
challenges of participating in the AAC program. These respondents included
19 K–12 public school teachers (57.6%) and 14 university faculty and staff
members (42.4%). The only identifying information collected about the survey completers was their status as either a K–12 teacher or university faculty/
staff member. Additional demographic data was not collected in order to protect the anonymity of respondents.
Data Collection
Data collection occurred over two periods in May 2013 and May 2014
at the conclusion of the one-semester pilot program and the first full year of
implementation, respectively. A questionnaire was sent electronically to all
program participants with a final response rate of 49%. The responses from
the questionnaire were collected and recorded anonymously using an Excel
spreadsheet. This researcher-created survey was a combination of ordinal and
open-ended response items. The questions were created to evaluate program
effectiveness based on the goals of AAC for future program improvement. The
original survey consisted of 16 questions, but only four were open-ended response questions. The four open-ended survey questions pertaining to the
impact of the AAC program were chosen to be analyzed in this study:
171
1. For K–12 teachers: What impact, if any, did your participation in AAC
have on your students?
2. For K–12 teachers: What impact, if any, did your participation in AAC
have on your teaching?
3. For university faculty/staff: What impact, if any, did your participation in
AAC have on your students?
4. For university faculty/staff: What impact, if any, did your participation in
AAC have on your teaching and/or research?
Data Analysis
Marshall and Rossman (2010) report that when a researcher employs a survey as the primary means of data collection, beliefs and attitudes of individuals
or groups may be precisely collected and quantified through self-reporting. The
research team for this study consisted of the director of the Education Renewal
Zone and three education professors that have participated in the AAC program. While the survey questions were intended to measure program impact,
the researchers acknowledge that the self-reported data instead identified the
beliefs, attitudes, and perceptions of participants.
Data from each of the four selected questions were analyzed inductively
through a process that began with a collaborative component for open coding
or the process in which data is coded for its major categories of information
(Creswell, 2007; Patton, 2002). To follow Lincoln and Guba (1985), peer debriefing was used in order to positively influence credibility and assure the
subsequent findings were grounded within the data. For open coding, each
peer read through the open-ended questionnaire responses and noted potential understandings of that central data source using in vivo codes (Creswell,
2007). Following this process and a discussion of initial understandings, the researchers returned to the entirety of the data set (questionnaire items 1–4) and
noted 62 open codes (see Table 3) as they emerged and were confirmed with
data excerpts. The examples in Table 3 were chosen to illustrate the researchers’
process of data analysis.
Once finished with the open coding process, researchers collaborated to determine themes as they read through each open code, independently grouped
them into categories, and then compared their understandings of them. This
process allowed the researchers to take 62 open codes and reduce them into 14
themes, constructs of the open codes that contributed to an understanding of
them. This process was completed separately for each of the four open response
questions.
172
Table 3. Data Analysis Coding Examples
Question
Theme
Open Code
Participant Response
It helped my students realRealistic
ize that a 4-year univerK–12 teachers: What
college opporsity…is a realistic opportuimpact, if any, did
tunities
College
nity for them.
your participation in
Access
AAC have on your
It opened the door for
Opened the
students?
conversations about them
door to college
going to college!
New ways to
I learned many new activiK–12 teachers: What
challenge stu- ties and new ways to chalimpact, if any, did
dents
lenge my students.
your participation in Innovation
I hadn’t thought about doAAC have on your
ing lessons like she did in
New
ideas
teaching?
our classroom.
My students felt very differently about themselves
and their university after
taking part in the program.
Nuances of
Other professors may not
students
have engaged their own
University faculty/
classroom the way I did,
staff: What impact, if
Student
but it was important to me
any, did your particiDevelopbecause I think it has mupation in AAC have
ment
tual benefits.
on your students?
It made me think much
University
more often about what
students’ past
they have potentially alexperiences
ready experienced in a language classroom.
That awareness makes
Awareness and
me more sensitive to the
sensitivity to
varied backgrounds in
students’ backUniversity faculty/
language classes that my
grounds
staff: What impact, if
students may have had.
any, did your particiImproved
I did like coming up with
pation in AAC have
Teaching
ideas and then gathering
on your teaching and/
Coming
up
resources...these activities
or research?
with ideas
had me interacting with
other people in the department….
173
Findings
Tables 4–7 present the open codes and themes as they emerged from the
dataset. Survey question 1 addressed the first research question. The survey
question asked K–12 teachers to discuss the impact that participation in AAC
had on their students. The researchers identified six themes: real-world view,
new experiences, college access, enjoyment, connections, and challenging students
(see Table 4).
Table 4. Survey Question 1, for K–12 teachers: What impact, if any, did your
participation in AAC have on your students?
Theme
Open Code
Real-World View
•
•
•
•
•
Real-world application
Broader world view
Real face/scientist
Real life
Career focus
New Experiences
•
•
•
•
Unique/new experiences
Different teaching approaches
Application of new ideas
Exposing external resources
College Access
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
College major—agent of change
Recruitment
Realistic college opportunities
College and career preparation
College insight
College interest—science
Able to see themselves as college students
Opportunity for students to visit a college campus
Opened the door to college
Enjoyment
•
•
•
•
•
Class loved the guest teacher
Class enjoyed the lessons
Change of pace
Class enjoyed the visits
Students are focused and excited
Connections
• Working with adult professionals
• Personal connections
Challenging
Students
• Challenged to make predictions and problem solve
• Forced to make predictions and problem solve
174
College access, derived from nine open codes, was the theme occurring most
frequently. Participants reported that AAC impacted their students in a positive way, including “several students changed their planned major,” attending
a university became a “realistic opportunity,” and “more students are interested in college.” Real-world view and enjoyment emerged as secondary themes,
each from five open codes. Examples of participant responses related to the
theme real-world view included discoveries that students “learned about realworld jobs and applications,” experienced a “broader world view beyond what
we typically discuss,” and were provided with “a ‘real face’ to what ‘scientist’
means in real life.” Additionally, the theme enjoyment developed from participant responses that included “they really enjoyed learning the things [the guest
instructor] was teaching to us,” and “I think the students enjoyed the change
of pace.”
Survey questions 2 and 3 (see Tables 5 and 6) provide data to address the
second research question: What impact did participation in AAC have on the
teaching practice of K–12 and university faculty?
Table 5. Survey Question 2, for K–12 teachers: What impact, if any, did your
participation in AAC have on your teaching?
Theme
Open Code
Rethinking
Teaching
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Useful lessons and topics
More open to release control
Impacted teaching
Fantastic activities and lesson plans
Students loved activities
Relatable lessons/discussions
Adjusted lessons
Will incorporate demonstrations and comparisons
Restructuring projects
Innovation
•
•
•
•
Learned new things
New information to share with students
New activities
New ways to challenge students
Collaboration
•
•
•
•
•
Resources
Ideas for lessons
Ideas from partner
Learned from partner
Future collaboration with university faculty
Real-World
Connections
• Real-world examples
• Brought culture into history lessons
• Preparing students for college
175
Survey question 2 asked K–12 teachers to discuss the impact that participation in AAC had on their teaching practice. The researchers identified four
themes: re-thinking teaching, innovation, collaboration, and real-world connections (see Table 5). The theme re-thinking teaching emerged from nine open
codes and was the theme with the highest frequency. The K–12 teachers identified that AAC caused them to re-think teaching by providing opportunities
to “restructure projects,” to be “more open to release control,” and more “willing to incorporate demonstrations and comparisons.” The theme collaboration
developed from five open codes. Examples of participant responses related to
collaboration included learning about “resources,” “new ideas for lessons,” and
planning for “future collaboration with university faculty.”
Table 6. Survey Question 3, for university faculty/staff: What impact, if any,
did your participation in AAC have on your students?
Theme
Open Code
Increased
Exposure
• Exposure for grad students
• Exposure to K–12 classroom
• Students felt differently about themselves and university
Student
Development
• Insight into student development
• Nuances of students
• Relating to university students’ past experiences
The university faculty and staff that participated in the AAC program answered survey question 3. This question asked what impact their participation
had upon their university students. Two themes were identified: increased exposure and student development, with three open codes contributing to each theme
(see Table 6).
Some participants reported directly involving their university students in
their AAC projects within the public schools. The increased exposure these university students received allowed them to feel “very differently about themselves
and their university” and provided “mutual benefits” to the schools, faculty
members, and university students. University faculty and staff participation in
AAC gave them access to “examples for classes” they teach and provided graduate students with exposure to real classrooms.
Participants mentioned that their understanding of student development increased due to their participation in AAC. The benefit participants cited in
regard to this emerging theme was that it will “make me a bit more tolerant of
some of the nuances that students bring to the classroom.” The partnership allowed university faculty, who may be somewhat removed from K–12 students,
176
to gain a fresh perspective on student development in the years immediately
preceding entrance to college. This knowledge may have an impact both on
university faculty and university students.
Survey question 4 (see Table 7) provides data to address the third research
question: What impact did participation in AAC have on research practices of
university faculty?
Table 7. Survey Question 4, for university faculty/staff: What impact, if any,
did your participation in AAC have on your teaching and/or research?
Theme
Open Code
Improved
Teaching
•
•
•
•
•
•
Research
• Methods
• Protocol
Innovation
Teaching examples
Coming up with ideas
Gathering resources
Made me a better teacher
Awareness and sensitivity to students’ backgrounds
Survey question 4 was also addressed to the university faculty and staff participants. They were asked to discuss the impact of their participation on their
teaching and/or research. The themes that emerged from the data set were
grouped into two areas: improved teaching and research (see Table 7). Six open
codes combined to form the theme improved teaching, and two open codes
made up the theme research.
Several participants mentioned that work in the K–12 schools made a
positive impact upon their university teaching. Individual responses included “examples in classes” they teach, forming collaborative relationships “with
other people in the department,” and becoming a “more sensitive” instructor.
Another participant responded that the project led him/her to “appreciate” his/
her job more, “which probably made me a better teacher day-to-day.” Gathering resources to use in the K–12 schools was also mentioned as a positive
experience associated with the AAC project.
Two participants mentioned research in their response to survey question 4.
Both of these individuals used their work with AAC to develop and hone a research question leading to a larger project. One participant referred to this idea
of using the AAC project in research as “innovative.” Additionally, two other
participants spoke about not pursuing research with this partnership because
they do not typically conduct research in K–12 education.
177
Discussion
The process of teaching and learning is cyclical with research being the vehicle that fuels and strengthens this process (Gredler, 2009). The AAC program
seeks to weave all three of these components into a partnership involving K–12
public schools and university faculty and staff so that the benefits received are
mutual (Goodlad, 1998). However, the K–12 participants and the university
participants in this study had differing points of view on the impact of participation in the program. K–12 teachers’ responses implied that they viewed
the AAC program as an opportunity to grow professionally. They focused on
positive impacts the program had on their students as well as influential outcomes on their teaching practices. The minimal responses to Survey Question
4 from university faculty and staff illustrates that there was some connection to
teaching improvement and research. Anecdotal evidence from the before and
after meetings, as well as the researchers’ participation in the program lead this
team to believe the lack of responses may indicate that the university faculty
and staff view their participation in the program with a service mindset rather
than a change mindset.
Overall, K–12 teachers indicated that their participation provided greater
access to real-world connections and application for them and their students,
a finding echoing Ferreira (2007). Teachers appreciated the opportunity to rethink their instructional strategies and how they could influence their students’
future educational choices. Additionally, K–12 teachers pointed out that the
AAC program enhanced motivation and engagement in the classroom. Several
teachers discussed students’ enjoyment of this collaborative experience.
University faculty and staff responses also indicated a positive impact on
their students and teaching. Faculty and staff noted that the program helped
them better understand university students’ development and experiences,
which improved teaching practices. Graduate students who participated benefited from exposure to K–12 classrooms. Some participants also reported that
the AAC program influenced their research or caused them to consider research opportunities in K–12 education.
One area within the AAC program that could be strengthened would be
more explicit communication about the mutual benefit goals of the program to
all participants. Goodlad’s (1998) idea of simultaneous renewal should be clearly communicated. While it appears to be an expectation of the K–12 teachers
that they will witness innovative teaching approaches, gain access to additional
resources through the university faculty and staff, and see an increased motivation in their students to work toward a future in college, the university
faculty and staff need to understand that there are benefits beyond service to
178
the community in their participation. It is the hope of the AAC program that
university faculty and staff will come away with a newfound appreciation for
their K–12 partners and public schools. University faculty and staff will also
benefit by witnessing innovative teaching strategies that could strengthen their
university teaching. Additionally, university faculty and staff could structure the
partnership experience as a research project that would benefit their career and
contribute to the body of literature available in their disciplines. K–12 schools
are focusing their attention on accelerating achievement and getting students
ready to enter college and career fields (Calkins, Ehrenworth, & Lehman,
2012). It makes sense to structure the AAC program in a manner that would
provide a seamless transition between K–12 and higher education.
Limitations
This study was not without limitations which may have influenced results
and outcomes. The sample size was small due to the inaugural nature of the
program, which included 33 respondents. An increased number of participants would allow for further transferability to other populations (Lincoln &
Guba, 1985). However, this limitation may be offset by the diverse sample
of participants which represented a wide array of content areas within K–12
schools and university faculty and the overall response rate of 49%. This study
included data from the first year and a half of the program. In the future, annual evaluations will be collected and analyzed to add to the body of knowledge
surrounding K–12 school–university partnerships. Another limitation is that
participants self-reported responses on a researcher-created survey which was
designed to gather input from participants for future improvement of the AAC
program. In contrast, the process of peer-debriefing during the analysis phase
of the study enhanced credibility of outcomes and themes that emerged from
the raw data responses.
Conclusion
The AAC program provides opportunities for collaboration between K–12
teachers and university faculty. In some cases, the K–12 teachers did gain a
greater depth of content knowledge, which was one of the original program
purposes as expressed by school administrators. Additionally, it provided K–12
students with greater opportunities to learn about going to college and visit
the college campus. University faculty also gained appreciation for the challenges of being a K–12 educator. As the program grows, success stories from
K–12 and university participants will assist in recruiting and expanding the
number of participants. Additionally, the university has shown its support for
179
the program by including it as a recurring budget item. AAC might be considered by other colleges and universities seeking to develop deeper connections
between their faculty from all academic backgrounds and nearby K–12 educators and their students.
References
Arkansas Department of Education. (n.d.). Education Renewal Zones. Retrieved from: http://
www.arkansased.org/divisions/learning-services/education-renewal-zones
ASCD. (2012). Fulfilling the promise of the Common Core State Standards: Moving from adoption to implementation to sustainability. Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/ASCD/pdf/
siteASCD/commoncore/CCSSSummitReport.pdf
Calkins, L., Ehrenworth, M., & Lehman, C. (2012). Pathways to the Common Core: Accelerating achievement. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Callahan, J. L., & Martin, D. (2007). The spectrum of school–university partnerships: A typology of organizational learning systems. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 136–145.
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches
(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Domina, T., & Ruzek, E. (2010). Paving the way: K–12 partnerships for higher education
diversity and high school reform. Educational Policy, 26(2), 243–267.
Ferreira, M. M. (2007). The development of a learning community through a university–
school district partnership. School Community Journal, 17(1), 95–112. Retrieved from
Goodlad, J. (1998). Educational renewal: Better teachers, better schools. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Gredler, M. E. (2009). Learning and instruction: Theory into practice (6th ed.). Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Pearson.
Greene, P. K., & Tichenor, M. S. (1999). Partnerships on a collaborative continuum. Contemporary Education, 70(4), 13.
Henk, W. A., Maney, J., Baxter, K., & Montejano, F. (2013). Supporting Catholic education through effective school/university partnerships: Two models from the 2012 Catholic
higher education collaborative conference. Journal of Catholic Education, 17(1).
Kirst, M. W. (2005). Separation of K–12 and postsecondary education governance and policymaking: Evolution and impact. Retrieved from http://web.stanford.edu/group/bridgeproject/
Separation%20of%20K-12%20and%20Postsec%20Ed%20Governance%20and%20
Policymak.pdf
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Magiera, K., & Geraci, L. M. (2014). Sustaining a rural school–university partnership: A
twenty-two year retrospective of an after-school tutoring program. Rural Special Education
Quarterly, 33(1), 12–17.
Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2010). Designing qualitative research (5th ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mayhew, K. C., & Edwards, A. C. (1965). The Dewey School: The Laboratory School of the University of Chicago 1896–1903. New Brunswick, NJ: Aldine Transaction.
Parker, M., Templin, T., & Setiawan, C. (2012). What has been learned from school–university partnerships. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance, 83(9), 32–35.
180
CA: Sage.
Riddile, M. (2012). What’s new about the Common Core State Standards? Principal Leadership, 12(7), 38–42.
Thelin, J. R. (2011). A history of American higher education (2nd ed.). Baltimore, MD: Johns
Hopkins University Press.
Elizabeth Smith is the Director of Academic and Institutional Effectiveness at Oklahoma Wesleyan University where she oversees accreditation and
assessment. She is also a doctoral student in public policy at the University of
Arkansas. Her research interests include P–20 partnerships, the use of community capital in partnerships, and the role of the federal government in P–20
education.
Heather D. Kindall is an assistant professor in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction at the University of Arkansas. She currently serves as the
program coordinator for the Childhood and Elementary Education programs
and as director of the newly created University of Arkansas Clinic for Literacy.
Research interests include literacy education and assessment in the elementary schools, the process of teacher change, and the impact of authentic and
intensive experiences on teacher preparation. Correspondence concerning this
article may be addressed to Dr. Heather D. Kindall, University of Arkansas,
Department of Curriculum and Instruction, 207 Peabody Hall, Fayetteville,
AR 72701, or email [email protected]
Vinson Carter is an assistant professor in the Department of Curriculum
and Instruction at the University of Arkansas. He teaches and advises STEM
education students. His research interests include integrated STEM education,
teacher preparation, and project-based curriculum development.
Maggie Beachner is an assistant professor in the Department of Teacher
Education at Missouri Southern State University. She serves as the graduate
program coordinator for the department and teaches and advises education
students. Her research interests include preservice teacher preparation and program evaluation.
181
182
Working Together to Strengthen the School
Community: The Restructuring of a University–
School Partnership
Donna R. Sanderson
Abstract
This article highlights how an existing university–school partnership between a university and a kindergarten center was restructured in an attempt
to bring academic and practitioner knowledge together in a more synergistic
way in support of preservice teacher learning. In an effort to more closely connect a campus-based course that had a small field component with a newer,
richer, more time-intensive field experience in a preservice teacher education
program, a different epistemological model was envisioned with three major
changes to enhance and strengthen the overall partnership: (1) the number of
preservice teacher candidates doubled, as did their amount of classroom observation/teaching time; (2) school-based teacher experts were utilized to share
their specific areas of knowledge with preservice teacher candidates; and (3) the
university professor/partnership liaison provided intensive staff development
workshops on topics selected by the classroom teachers themselves to make
certain they were viewed as meaningful, interesting, and highly relevant to
their daily classroom work. This article explains how this restructured partnership was envisioned and brought to fruition by detailing the goals behind the
community partnership, the strengths of the program from both sides of the
partnership, the obstacles that were overcome, and testimonials directly from
the classroom teachers and the university’s teacher candidates.
Key Words: preservice teacher candidates, university–school partnerships,
community, stakeholder collaboration, professional development, teaching
183
Introduction
The purpose of this article is to describe how an existing university–school
partnership was restructured in an effort to bring academic and practitioner
knowledge together in a more synergistic way in support of preservice teacher
learning as well as classroom teacher development. It shifts the epistemology of
preservice teacher preparation from a place where academic knowledge in the
university is seen as the primary source of knowledge about teaching to a situation where academic knowledge and the knowledge of expert P–12 teachers
are treated with equal respect. This article highlights the unique qualities of the
new partnership in its infancy stages, describes some of the early obstacles it
had to overcome, and finally shares some early qualitative feedback.
University–School Partnerships: Where Have They Been?
Within the last 20 years, professional development schools—innovative
institutions formed through partnerships between professional education programs and P–12 schools—have emerged and become, for many, the sine qua
non of teacher preparation and professional development (Brindley, Lessen,
& Field, 2008/2009). These university–school partnerships and community
collaborations have also been among the most frequently recommended approaches to educational reform (Clark, 1988; Kersh & Masztal, 1998). One
reason is that universities and schools provide each other with resources and
benefits in both research and practice (Stump, Lovitt, & Perry, 1993) and need
each other to reach their common and respective goals (DeBevoise, 1986;
Goodlad, 1988; Lasley, Matczynski, & Williams, 1992). A university–school
partnership represents a planned effort to establish a formal, mutually beneficial, interinstitutional relationship (Goodlad, 1988). The purpose of the
partnership is to create a process and an accompanying structure that allows
partners to draw on one another’s complementary strengths to advance their
interests (Goodlad, 1988) for the simultaneous renewal of both parties (Goodlad, 1990). While university partnerships are not new to the world of teacher
education and much obvious strength exists in this model of collaboration,
the kindergarten center’s building administrator and I, as university professor/
partnership liaison, believed ours had room for improvement.
University–School Partnerships: Where Are They Going?
A perennial problem in traditional university-sponsored teacher education programs has been the lack of connection between university-based
teacher education courses and field experiences (Zeichner, 2010). Although
most university-based teacher education programs now include multiple field
184
RESTRUCTURING A PARTNERSHIP
experiences over the length of the program and often situate field experiences
in some type of school–university partnership (e.g., professional development
schools, partner schools), the disconnect between what students are taught in
campus courses and their opportunities for learning to enact these practices
in their school placements is often very great (Bullough et al., 1997, 1999;
Zeichner, 2007). Darling-Hammond (2009) referred to the lack of connection
between what is learned on campus and field experiences as the “Achilles heel”
of teacher education.
Research has clearly shown that field experiences are important occasions
for teacher learning, rather than merely time for teacher candidates to demonstrate or apply things previously learned (Zeichner, 1996). Rosaen and
Florio-Ruane (2008) discussed how assumptions about the purposes of field
experience in teacher education limit their value as teacher learning experiences, and they offered ideas for rethinking field experiences as more productive
learning environments. Cochran-Smith and Lytle’s (2009) ideas about using
teaching practice as a site for inquiry are an example of changing the paradigm
for thinking about the role of field experiences in educating teachers.
Over the years, teacher educators have tried a variety of approaches to
strengthen the connection between campus and field-based teacher education,
and some have even argued that clinical experiences should be the central focus of preservice teacher education from which everything else in a program
emanates (Ball & Forzani, 2009; Turney, Eltis, Towler, & Wright, 1985). These
strategies have included creating campus-based laboratory schools on university campuses where particular teaching approaches can be demonstrated and
practiced under the guidance of university faculty and staff (Fraser, 2007).
A New Direction
Focusing more on the interplay between academic knowledge that is learned
at the university and the practitioner knowledge that is demonstrated by the
cooperating teacher in the early education classroom, the partnership committee (further described below) made three major changes in an attempt to
strengthen our restructured partnership. We decided to (1) increase the number of preservice teacher candidates and the number of hours they spent in the
field-based classrooms, (2) have school-based teacher “experts” assist in teaching the preservice teacher candidates their specific areas of content knowledge
during the theory part of the course, and (3) have the university professor provide intensive staff development workshops for the cooperating teachers that
focus on topics of their choice that are meaningful, interesting, and highly relevant to their daily work.
185
The building administrator requested that we increase the number of preservice teachers and the number of hours they would spend in the classrooms in
an effort to give the teachers and young students more help in the classrooms.
It is widely known that most preservice students perceive their school-based
work as the most important part of their teacher education program (Britzman,
1986). Often, what ends up surprising the university students is the reality of
how demanding the classroom can truly be. Becoming a teacher is a complex
process, and beginning teachers are typically drawn to teaching because they
“love working with children,” but the reality often shocks them. Research states
that many beginning teachers are overwhelmed with work, begin to doubt
their place in the profession, and may question whether their teacher preparation program prepared them well to meet the challenges they face (Beach &
Pearson, 1998; Cohn & Kottkamp, 1993; Dollase, 1992; Dudley-Marling,
1997; Goodwin, 2012; Knowles, Cole, & Presswood, 1994). As a way to try
to better prepare our preservice teacher candidates for these challenges while
simultaneously providing more support to the classroom teachers and kindergarten students, we decided to increase the number of preservice teachers and
the time they spent in the classroom for everyone’s benefit.
Next, we enlisted the building specialists—the reading specialist and the
English as a Second Language (ESL) specialist—to share their explicit knowledge with the preservice teachers as a way to help the candidates become more
confident and competent in their ability to effectively teach the many different
students in their field-based classrooms. Because many of the kindergarteners
received either extra reading help, special education services, or had a different
first language, we believed having the specialists share their specific knowledge would be beneficial to the university students. Moseley, Ramsey, and Ruff
(2004) suggests that content specific, school-based experts can afford preservice
teachers with a strong knowledge base when working with students. Because
elementary teachers are considered content generalists, we decided to capitalize
on these building specialists and have them meet with and conduct presentations to the university students.
Finally, as a way to try to increase faculty motivation, we surveyed the teachers asking what topics were truly of interest to them and would help them in
their day-to-day teaching practices. Our thought was that a shift in perspective
might bolster their attitudes about staff development and make it more appealing and effective. Overall, these changes were made to strengthen the learning
of the West Chester University (WCU) preservice teachers, as well as the young
students of the K-Center (a kindergarten center) and to provide support and
assistance to the cooperating teachers of the K-Center.
186
The Partnership
The Participants
The K-Center is an early childhood, public school that specializes in the
teaching of kindergarten. The school has 16 classroom teachers, and for this
partnership we enlisted the help of all 16 of them, as they all willingly chose
to be cooperating teachers for WCU teacher candidates. This school was specifically selected to be part of this university–school partnership based on their
long-standing relationship with the university. For many years the school has
hosted preservice students in the beginning of our teacher preparation program, as well as preservice students who are in their last semester of student
teaching. The building administrator is highly cooperative and a key partner
in making this partnership successful, plus the classroom teachers are familiar
with our program and have worked as cooperating teachers with university students before and looked forward to their assistance in the classroom.
During this restructured partnership we doubled the number of WCU
preservice students that attended the K-Center for field work. This course is
typically taken by sophomore level students, and it is the first campus-based
course in the sequence offered in the Department of Elementary Education
with a field component. Because this course is relatively early in the university students’ program and it is the first course in which they go into the early
childhood classrooms at all, it has the potential to be critically important as
candidates make informed choices within their preparation program. In the
past, one section of this course, or approximately 23 university students, would
complete 30 hours of field observation at the K-Center throughout a semester.
As per the request of the building principal, we doubled the number of course
sections to two, for a total of 43 preservice students completing their fieldwork
at the K-Center. The specific breakdown was as follows: 21 students completed
their fieldwork on Monday and Wednesday mornings from 8:30 a.m.–11:00
a.m., and 22 students completed their fieldwork on Tuesday and Thursday
mornings during the same time blocks. This was the pattern that we followed
for 12 weeks of the semester so that each WCU preservice teacher candidate
ended up completing a total of 60 hours of fieldwork, compared to 30 hours
in the old partnership model.
Our WCU teacher candidates were matched up with cooperating teachers
based on their personalities. We took time in the beginning of the semester for
the candidates to fill out a questionnaire related to their personal likes, hobbies,
interests, background experiences, and thoughts on teaching. Cooperating
teachers read the questionnaire results and, with the help of the university liaison, were each matched up with a preservice teacher candidate.
187
The committee and I then had to decide how to measure the preservice
teachers’ outcomes. We discussed the most effective ways to track and record
their personal learning and growth throughout the semester. We decided to
have the teacher candidates conduct some goal setting at the beginning of the
semester and journal throughout their weeks in the field. At designated times
during the semester, the university liaison and the cooperating teacher would
conference with the preservice teacher and discuss the journal entries. This was
an opportunity to dialogue about what the preservice teacher had observed in
the classroom regarding content, teaching methods, behavior, and so on, and
an opportunity for the liaison and cooperating teacher to offer suggestions and
ways to improve the candidate’s practice in the classroom. Additionally, at the
end of the semester, all of the preservice candidates (broken into their two sections) gathered together for an opportunity to participate in a guided, critical,
oral reflection around their experiences.
The Field Placement Site
The K-Center is a specialized school in a large school district that serves
approximately 600 kindergarten students in one building. Students are bused
from across the entire district. The district borders a large, urban city in the
Eastern U.S. and is viewed as a semiurban school district with much diversity
and a high transiency rate. The K-Center’s mission is “to provide a nurturing,
safe, and fun environment that will introduce children to the exciting world of
learning. In fostering individuality, creativity, and imagination, children in the
K-Center will develop life-long friends and a life-long love of learning.”
The K-Center first opened its doors in September 1997. It was created to
meet the unique academic and social needs of children entering school for the
first time and is specifically geared toward the instruction of kindergarten students. It is considered a highly diverse school in that students who attend come
from a variety of different socioeconomic backgrounds. It is also both racially
and linguistically diverse with over 40 nationalities and languages spoken in
the school’s particular attendance area. Likewise, the school and district population is very transient as well, with many children moving both in and out of
the school at a very high rate.
Partnership Change
Collaboratively Reframing Our Goals
For years, the K-Center teachers had been wonderful role models and
warmly opened up their rooms and shared their young students with the West
Chester teacher candidates. Yet, we were ready to expand and strengthen this
188
partnership by shifting to a new model. A committee made up of a WCU
professor from the Department of Elementary Education (who acted as the
university liaison for the project), the building principal of the K-Center, the
reading specialist, and a classroom teacher met to determine the mutual goals
of the reformed partnership and to create both a process and a structure that
would bring all parties’ strengths to the forefront. Subsequently, a needs analysis was conducted so that both institutions had a clear understanding of what
the other stakeholder’s needs were and what they could offer in return. The
model of collaborative practice in the kindergarten classrooms centered on
three main goals: (1) for WCU to provide more preservice teacher candidates
with more intensive opportunities to work directly with kindergarten students
and classroom teachers, (2) to provide K-Center classroom teachers with more
help and assistance in the classroom since they were experiencing higher than
normal class size and had recently implemented a new literacy assessment program, and (3) to provide intensive literacy and math skills training to small
groups of kindergarten students to assist their learning.
Over the next three months, the committee discussions focused around
questions related to not only the structure and execution of the changing partnership, but also the rationale as to why we were making certain structural
decisions and whether they were serving to benefit the stakeholders in the partnership. Decisions were made regarding how many classroom teachers and
university students would participate in the partnership, how classroom teachers would be chosen, how we would match preservice teachers to cooperating
teachers, how many hours the university students would spend in the classrooms, how data would be tracked and monitored, and how we would measure
the preservice teachers’ outcomes. We discussed ways in which the university
liaison could benefit the staff at the K-Center and, in return, how building specialist at the K-Center could benefit the university teacher candidates. Overall,
these committee “think tank” meetings served to create a model for how this
restructured partnership would function, and it was agreed that at the end of
the school year this committee would gather again to reflect on and respond
to how the process proceeded and to make recommendations for the future.
Specific Changes in the Kindergarten Classrooms
As mentioned earlier, two of the largest changes made were the increase
in the number of preservice teacher candidates who would complete their
fieldwork at the K-Center and the amount of time they would spend in the
kindergarten classrooms. The school was only accustomed to receiving helping
hands from about 23 students each semester; now they were being infused with
43. This significant change was a response to a direct request from the K-Center
189
building principal. Likewise, the time the university preservice teacher candidates spent in the classroom as compared to candidates in previous semesters
increased dramatically. The decision to double field hours from 30 to 60 hours
in the classroom was made so that the preservice teacher candidates could be
in the classroom on a more consistent basis, giving them both more hands-on
teaching time and opportunities to make connections with the students.
The K-Center classrooms are a rich and vibrant field placement site for
WCU teacher candidates and provide a fabulous opportunity for them to
experience the linkage between academic standards, curriculum, and assessment, all while working with an extremely diverse population of students. The
teacher candidates were afforded the unique opportunity to observe classroom
teachers in highly active kindergarten classrooms while utilizing a hands-on approach to helping the young students. This change in hours logged in the field
was intentional and helped to meet the needs of the classroom teachers by providing them with more hours of assistance and also helped meet the needs of
the kindergarten students so they experienced more one-on-one or small group
instructional time with a teacher. Yet, not only did the increase in field hours
benefit the university teacher candidates by simply letting them be present for
more hours, they were able to teach intense literacy skills to small groups of
students in a format called Power Block.
Another huge change at that time was in the area of curriculum at the KCenter. Classroom teachers had recently been trained to implement two new
literacy assessment programs, and a new daily structure had emerged just at
the time this new pilot partnership was beginning. The school had recently adopted the DIBELS (Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills)
Benchmark Assessments to measure kindergarten students’ skills in the areas of
phonological awareness and the alphabetic principle. DIBELS were designed
to help educators in the early identification of students most at-risk for reading failure (Hawken, 2004). How students fared with these skills determined
what small groups, or tiers, they were placed in, and all groups received differentiated instruction based on their DIBELS scores and the phonological
continuum. Likewise, the district adopted the Response to Intervention (RtI)
process that emphasizes how well students respond to changes in instruction.
The RtI process is a multistep approach to providing services and interventions
to struggling learners at an increasing level of intensity (Klotz & Canter, 2007).
As classroom teachers were learning and implementing these new assessment
methods, the realization that extra help was needed and could be provided by
the university students seemed to come at a perfect time.
In an effort to increase student literacy, West Chester preservice teacher
candidates provided intensive, small group literacy instruction in the area
190
of phonological awareness and the alphabetic principle. University students
modeled after and shadowed their cooperating teachers and proved to be a
significant source of help during Power Block, a special time when intensive
literacy skills were taught in small groups. These specific skills and strategies
the children were taught were in direct relation to the mandatory state standards that kindergarten children in the state are required to meet. Additionally,
due to the extended amount of time the WCU teacher candidates spent in the
classroom, they were also able to effectively assist with math instruction in the
classroom. The candidates worked with small groups of learners and helped
to individualize instruction based on mathematical concepts and students’
unique needs. Under the direct guidance of the 16 classroom teachers who participated in this partnership, these preservice teacher candidates provided extra
support, encouragement, and assistance to the youngest learners in the district.
Specific Changes to This Partnership as a Whole
This particular partnership is unique in that it offered three new and exciting components not typically seen in other university–school partnerships
which helped to bring these two institutions together as reciprocal community
partners. First, we structurally reworked where the class portion of the Theory
& Field Experience course would take place when the classroom “theory” part
of the course is taught; second, we brainstormed new ways that the K-Center
building specialists could support the university learning; and lastly, we devised
ways that the university professor/project liaison could enhance the K-Center
teachers’ professional development.
The manipulation of the schedule dictating where class was held was instrumental in affording the university students more time to be in the kindergarten
classrooms with the youngsters. With the help of the building principal reworking the building schedule at the K-Center, the university professor/project
liaison was able to hold class in the library of the K-Center instead of on the
college campus. This afforded the students extra time to spend in the kindergarten classrooms leading small group lessons with students. This small change
of location yielded massive benefits to the kindergarten students, the classroom
teachers, and the university teacher candidates.
Another unique quality of this partnership was the strong linkage between
the building specialists at the K-Center and their ability to directly teach the
university teacher candidates during their class portion of the course in the library. During the “theory” part of this Theory & Field Experience course, at
separate times, the building reading specialist and the ESL teacher came to the
school library where the university students were being taught and served as
guest speakers. They lectured on their roles as specialists in the building and
191
explained how they supported the classroom teachers and students and how
children are screened to receive special services in the areas of extra reading assistance or ESL assistance. They provided digital slide presentations to explain
the new assessment programs the district adopted and how children are put into
tiers depending on their specific level of need. Having these building specialists directly teach the university students their craft was very advantageous to
the university teacher candidates and helped them more clearly understand the
overall role the reading specialist and ESL teachers hold on the school faculty.
Another unique quality of the partnership was the specialization of teacher
in-service topics planned for the classroom teachers. Early in the school year,
classroom teachers completed a survey of open-ended questions asking them
what topics they were most interested in exploring during in-service meetings.
In an effort to make the in-service topics truly relevant to their teaching, certain
educational topics were teased out from the teacher’s feedback via the survey.
Since this school is located on the edge of a major metropolitan city, the teachers were interested in professional development topics centering on: meeting
the needs of diverse learners, teaching the urban learner, brain research, and
urban culture. Looking closely at teachers’ professional development opportunities and trying to customize in-service topics to specifically match teacher
needs was deemed highly advantageous to the classroom teachers. As a result,
three in-service meetings, each one hour long, were conducted as a component
of this partnership.
Navigating Obstacles
Although the committee worked extremely well together as we restructured
this partnership and stayed cognizant of all stakeholders needs, some obstacles
became apparent. It was agreed that the one major hurdle we needed to contend with was the highly structured nature of the district’s reading program.
Little room was given for flexibility, as the instructional methods and assessments were viewed as very lock-step by the classroom teachers. This was an
issue the building principal grappled with at the administrative level as he created the master schedule, and it was also an issue the classroom teachers met
head first as they sometimes struggled with keeping pace with the highly structured and specifically ordered lessons to be taught and assessed. Overall, the
classroom teachers and university students did feel some pressure with little
wiggle room in the rigid teaching schedule, but everyone involved did manage
to adapt, and no significant problems ensued.
Another obstacle, which was viewed to be much smaller, was the long commute to and from the K-Center from the university campus. Due to the new
restructuring of the course, students were now driving to the K-Center twice a
192
week instead of once since they were spending more hours in the classrooms.
Students felt the pinch at the gas pump and were also spending more hours on
the road. Carpooling helped this situation, and university students mentioned
that when they would ride with their classmates, they ended up informally
sharing ideas and strategies related to methods they were using to teach their
small groups of students during Power Block. Although initially the driving
distance was deemed a negative, by the end of the semester teaching students
commented that they viewed this sharing time during their car rides as an unexpected benefit.
Collecting Group and Individual Feedback
Near the end of the first semester of the restructured partnership, qualitative data in the form of an open-ended written statement was collected from
all 16 classroom teachers as well as all 43 university students. Overall, many of
the K-Center teachers expressed their appreciation for the “extra hands” in the
classroom and the “extra time” the WCU preservice teacher candidates spent at
the school. Mrs. Smith (a pseudonym, as are all names used) wrote,
It has been a tremendous help having your Field and Theory students
spend more time in my classroom. My kindergarten students have benefited greatly....I have recently begun testing for upcoming report card
conferences. I am amazed at the progress my students have made since
September. I truly believe the extra help your students have been able to
provide on a consistent basis is one of the reasons for this progress.
Similarly, K-Center teacher Mr. Black expressed his views on the partnership,
The Theory & Field students are essential in contributing to the progress
of our kindergarten students here at the Kindergarten Center. I would
like to reiterate my gratitude for their time and effort in helping to move
our students to a higher level of development.
The school did receive considerable benefits from the infusion of the many
prospective teachers who helped in the classrooms. All of this helping did not
seem to get in the way or detract from the hoped-for learning, as all written
comments that were collected and informal conversations held surrounding
the help in the classrooms were consistently highly positive.
Aside from the extra help the teachers received, they mentioned the high
level of interaction the WCU teacher candidates had with the kindergarteners. Many teachers noticed the deep personal relationships that the candidates
started to develop with the young learners. They witnessed the personal connections that were made, the individual learning that occurred, and the bonds
that were strengthened by having the university students in the classroom on
a consistent basis.
193
WCU teacher candidates picked up on these personal connections they
started making with the students and shared their unique perspectives. One
student wrote,
The best part about the partnership is it allowed us to build personal
relationships with the students. We became part of their weekly routine
and were able to feel influential in the classroom. We weren’t sitting
around taking notes the whole time from a corner; we were constantly
hands-on, getting the real teaching experience. The amount of time we
put in at the Kindergarten Center gave us a better understanding of what
it is really like to be a teacher well before the last stretch of our schooling
here at West Chester.
Another student commented,
The number one thing I learned from my field experience was to get to
know each child as intimately as possible. The more you know about a
child, the better you can relate to him or her, and consequently instruct
them based on both their strengths and weaknesses.
Although the importance of rapport is not new in discussions of teacher effectiveness (e.g., Johnston, Invernizzi, & Juel, 1998; Roller, 1998), my
observations of these preservice teacher candidates suggest that personal relationships are important for teachers as well as students, as illustrated in the
teacher candidates’ comments above. Educators who have examined the roles
of relationships in families and in schools have discovered that the increased
level of comfort, trust, and closeness that occur when learners relate personally
with their teachers seem to enhance learning and motivation for the learner
(Fox, 1993).
Additionally, one of the greatest strengths of this restructured university–school partnership could be the fact that it is a real experience, with real
children, in a real school. Within this model of field-based, experiential work,
candidates do not learn how to teach by simply reading a textbook, watching
videos, analyzing case studies, or referring to teaching scenarios in the “what if
this happened” format. One student so eloquently phrased it this way,
I find it difficult to pick out a single best part of this experience because
the entire experience, especially the relationships formed with the students
and your co-op, is irreplaceable. This experience is a real glimpse at the
thrills and the ugly stuff of what teaching is really all about….The biggest strength of this partnership from my perspective is the fact that it is
so rewarding and positive for both groups. This partnership is not at the
expense of another, and by no means does it short change the other group.
This partnership, rather, positively affects many young children’s lives.
194
We also gathered feedback orally from the cooperating teachers as opposed
to just individual written feedback. At the end of the semester, at a faculty
meeting, teachers were given the opportunity to discuss and reflect on how
they mentored their university students and what they felt were the highlights
of the partnership. From this discussion, we feel as if we are beginning to
move towards embedding methods instruction and professional development
in this carefully structured field experience, and it is paired with opportunities
for guided, critical reflection around those experiences. We found our group
reflection to be highly successful in this newly restructured partnership and
seek to maintain it into the future. Zeichner believes group reflection with
which teachers “support and sustain each other” (1996, p. 205) is important
to consider when setting up learning and reflection experiences for preservice
teacher candidates and their mentoring teachers. Likewise, Worthy and Patterson (2001) believe critical reflection should help learners to move forward both
in their thinking and practice. We believe we are on the right road to forging a
stronger partnership that will help the cooperating classroom teachers, preservice teacher candidates, as well as the young kindergartners.
Celebrating Our Successes
The end of the semester was bittersweet in that the university students prepared to leave their field site, but we still made time to celebrate our successes.
During the last mornings the university students spent in the classrooms, they
had a chance to say their formal goodbyes to the students they came to know
so well all fall. Many classroom teachers had their kindergarteners make the
university students a heartfelt card or gave them another small memento to remember their time at the K-Center. Some classrooms had a small “thank you”
celebration as a way to formally close out the time the university student was
with the class of kindergartners, and on occasion it was overheard that some
university students planned on informally visiting their kindergarten classes
while they were on winter break from university classes and the K-Center was
still in session.
Plans to continue and grow this revamped university–school partnership
are currently underway. We strongly believe that this new model that we have
created is adaptable enough to be scaled up for all elementary education students at WCU, as we have seen the benefits even over the brief time this new
model has been in effect. We have begun to wonder if the infusion of more
university students produced any changes or improvements in curriculum and
instruction at the K-Center. These types of meaty questions will need to be answered in future research as we move forward with this new partnership model.
With the dedication and passion the West Chester University preservice teacher
195
candidates and K-Center faculty showed during the first semester of implementation, this innovative project is sure to reach new heights.
References
Ball, D., & Forzani, F. (2009). The work of teaching and the challenge for teacher education.
Journal of Teacher Education, 60(5), 497–511.
Beach, R., & Pearson, D. (1998). Changes in preservice teachers’ perceptions of conflicts and
tensions. Teaching and Teacher Education, 14(3), 337–351.
Brindley, R., Lessen, E., & Field, B. E. (2008/2009). Toward a common understanding: Identifying the essentials of a professional development school. Childhood Education, 85(2),
71–74.
Britzman, D. (1986). Cultural myths in the making of a teacher: Biography and social structure in teacher education. Harvard Educational Review, 56(4), 442–456.
Bullough, R., Birrell, J., Clark, C., Erickson, L., Earle, R., & Campbell, J. (1999). Paradise
unrealized: Teacher educators and the costs and benefits of school–university partnerships.
Journal of Teacher Education, 50, 381–390.
Bullough, R., Hobbs, S., Kauchak, D., Crow, N., & Stokes, D. (1997). Long-term PDS development in research universities and the clinicalization of teacher education. Journal of
Teacher Education, 48, 85–93.
Clark, R. W. (1988). School–university relationships: An interpretive review. In K. A. Sirotnik
& J. I. Goodlad (Eds.), School–university partnerships in action: Concepts, cases, and concerns
(pp. 32–65). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. (2009). Inquiry as a stance: Practitioner research in the next
generation. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Cohn, M., & Kottkamp, R. (1993). Teachers: The missing voice in education. Albany, NY:
Teachers College Press.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2009, February). Teacher education and the American future. Charles
W. Hunt Lecture, presented at the annual meeting of the American Association of Colleges
for Teacher Education, Chicago, IL.
DeBevoise, W. (1986). Collaboration: Some principles of bridgework. Educational Leadership,
43(5), 9–12.
Dollase, R. (1992). Voices of beginning teachers: Visions and realities. New York, NY: Teachers
College Press.
Dudley-Marling, C. (1997). Living with uncertainty: The messy reality of classroom practice.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Fox, M. (1993). Radical reflections: Passionate opinions on teaching, learning, and living. San
Diego, CA: Harcourt Brace.
Fraser, J. W. (2007). Preparing America’s teachers: A history. New York, NY: Teachers College
Press.
Goodlad, J. I. (1988). School–university partnerships for educational renewal: Rationale and
concepts. In K. A. Sirotnik & J. I. Goodlad (Eds.), School–university partnerships in action:
Concepts, cases, and concerns (pp. 3–31). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Goodlad, J. I. (1990). Teachers for our nation’s schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Goodwin, B. (2012, May). Research says new teachers face three common challenges. Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development, 69(8), 84–85.
196
Hawken, L. S. (2004). Using DIBELS to improve reading outcomes. The Utah Special Educator, 22–23.
Johnston, F., Invernizzi, M., & Juel, C. (1998). Book buddies. New York, NY: Guilford.
Kersh, M. E., & Masztal, N. B. (1998). An analysis of studies of collaboration between universities and K–12 schools. Educational Forum, 62, 218–225.
Klotz, M. B., & Canter, A. (2007). Response to Intervention (RtI): A primer for parents. Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
Knowles, J. G., Cole, A., & Presswood, C. (1994). Through preservice teachers’ eyes: Exploring
field experiences through narrative and inquiry. New York, NY: Merrill.
Lasley, T. J., Matczynski, T. J., & Williams, J. A. (1992). Collaborative and non-collaborative
partnership structures in teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 43, 257–261.
Moseley, C., Ramsey, S. J., & Ruff, K. (2004). Science buddies: An authentic context for developing preservice teachers’ understandings of learning, teaching, and scientific inquiry.
Journal of Elementary Science Education, 16(2), 1–18.
Roller, C. (1998). So…What’s a tutor to do? Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Rosaen, C., & Florio-Ruane, S. (2008). The metaphors by which we teach: Experience, metaphor, and culture in teacher education. In M. Cochran-Smith, S. Nemser, & D. J. McIntyre (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education (3rd ed., pp. 706–731). New York,
NY: Routledge.
Stump, C. S., Lovitt, T. C., & Perry, L. (1993). School–university collaboration: A year- long
effort. Intervention in School and Clinic, 28, 151–158.
Turney, C., Eltis, K., Towler, J., & Wright, R. (1985). A new basis for teacher education: The
practicum curriculum. Sydney, Australia: University of Sydney Press.
Worthy, J., & Patterson, E. (2001). “I can’t wait to see Carlos!”: Preservice teachers, situated learning, and personal relationships with students. Journal of Literacy Research, 33(2),
303–344.
Zeichner, K. (1996). Designing educative practicum experiences for prospective teachers. In
K. Zeichner, S. Melnick, & M. L. Gomez (Eds.), Currents of reform in preservice teacher
education (pp. 215–234). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Zeichner, K. (2007). Professional development schools in a culture of evidence and accountability. School–University Partnerships, 1(1), 9–17.
Zeichner, K. (2010). Rethinking the connections between campus courses and field experiences in college and university-based teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1–2),
89–99. doi:10.1177/0022487109347671
Donna R. Sanderson is an associate professor at West Chester University in
the Department of Early and Middle Grades Education. Dr. Sanderson teaches
many different field-based courses and supervises both practicum students as
well as student teachers. Her research interests are in the areas of early childhood education, community service, and community partnerships between
universities and child care/elementary-level schools. Correspondence concerning this article may be addressed to Donna R. Sanderson, Ed.D, Department
of Early & Middle Grades Education, 110 Recitation Hall, West Chester University, West Chester, PA 19383, or email [email protected]
197
198
Promoting Family Literacy Through the Five
Pillars of Family and Community Engagement
(FACE)
Nai-Cheng Kuo
Abstract
Family literacy involves factors beyond what is done at home between parents and children. To help preservice teachers develop their understanding
of the multiple dimensions of family literacy, this study uses the five pillars
of family and community engagement (FACE)—early literacy, family involvement, access to books, expanded learning, and mentoring partnerships
(Scholastic, 2013)—to examine how these five elements influence preservice
teachers’ knowledge of and practices in family literacy. While each of the five
pillars of FACE is critical to the needs of family literacy development and is
well described in the literature, there is limited research on the impact of the
five pillars of FACE on preservice teachers’ knowledge of and practices in family literacy. Thus, grounded theory methodology (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) was
incorporated in the present study to investigate the actualities in the classroom.
After completing 20 sessions of in-class activities and 30 hours of fieldwork,
the results indicate that the use of the five pillars of FACE not only increased
the participants’ knowledge of the multiple dimensions of family literacy but
also positively influenced their practices in fieldwork.
Key Words: family and community engagement (FACE), early literacy, parental involvement, access to books, expanded learning programs, mentoring
partnerships, preservice teachers, summer, home, families, fieldwork
199
Introduction
When asked: “What is your definition of family literacy?” in the first class
session of a family literacy course, a group of preservice teachers responded:
“Anything a family does to better their child’s understanding of literacy;” “the
involvement of the family in a child’s efforts to grasp reading;” “the way that
children and family members communicate at home;” “when both the parents
and the child learn and read together;” “when parents are involved in helping
the child with literacy;” and “how a child’s literacy develops with the influence
of family.” (Note: These responses are excerpted from the participants in the
present study.) The responses indicate that these novice teachers viewed family literacy as the types of literacy activities parents or guardians do with their
children at home.
Taking into account a lack of awareness of the multiple dimensions of family literacy, it is not surprising to see how narrowly novice teachers viewed
family literacy. According to the Florida Reading Association (2014), family
literacy is defined as “the ways parents, children, and extended family members
use literacy at home, at work, at school, and in their community life” (p. 2).
Because family literacy involves factors beyond what is done at home between
parents and children, teacher education should focus family literacy instruction not only on what family members do with their children at home but also
how cultural and social situations impact a child’s literacy development.
Thus, to help preservice teachers develop their understanding of the multiple dimensions of family literacy, this study uses the five pillars of family and
community engagement (FACE)—early literacy, family involvement, access
to books, expanded learning, and mentoring partnerships—to examine how
these five elements influence preservice teachers’ knowledge of and practices in
family literacy. The five pillars of FACE compiled in Scholastic (2013) are discussed in the following sections.
Early Literacy
It is believed that a child’s literacy development starts from birth if he or she
is raised in a literate environment (Bennett-Armistead, Duke, & Moses, 2005).
Through exposure to literacy-rich environments, children build the knowledge of language and the world around them as well as cultivate their reading
motivation. Researchers argue that children’s later school achievement can be
predicted by how much they are immersed in literacy-rich environments in
their young years (Bennett-Armistead et al., 2005).
A child’s overall literacy ability grows along with their literacy fundamentals, such as phonological awareness and word knowledge. These fundamentals
200
FAMILY LITERACY THROUGH FACE
stimulate the maturation of children’s brains for dealing with input information and output expression (Duke & Carlisle, 2011). To develop these essential
literacy skills, adults need to attend to their children’s different stages of comprehension development and incorporate evidence-based practices, such
as sharing story books, dialogic reading, reading aloud, text talk, and print
referencing in their learning environments (Bernhard, Winsler, Bleiker, Ginieniewicz, & Madigan, 2008; Biemiller & Boote, 2006; Duke & Carlisle, 2011;
Lane & Wright, 2007).
It is important to note that children’s early literacy development may differ
for various reasons. For example, poor family and neighborhood socioeconomic status are correlated with lower quality of books and insufficient learning
resources for children (Neuman & Celano, 2001). Thus, community-wide efforts on the development of children’s early literacy, the quantity and quality of
books, schools and teachers, and individual learners’ different abilities all have
potential impacts on how a child’s early literacy skills will be developed (Kids
Count, 2010; Paratore, Cassano, & Schickedanz, 2011; Snow & Juel, 2005).
Family Involvement
Family involvement is an important predictor of children’s academic success and social relationships. When children know their parents care about
their school lives and provide them with needed assistance, they tend to work
harder in school, possess more positive personality traits, and have better relationships with their peers (Bogenschneider & Johnson, 2004; Bouffard &
Stephen, 2007; Henderson & Berla, 1994; Henderson & Mapp, 2002). To engage parents or guardians in children’s school lives, schools need to make efforts
to build good school–family partnerships (Epstein, 2011). Such efforts involve
creating a sense of welcome, recognizing the value of all members and their input, having focused goals, and being aware of barriers to family involvement,
including both school and social factors (Henderson & Mapp, 2002; Warger,
Eavy, & Associates, 2009). Delpit (1988) encourages educators to acknowledge the existence of the culture of power that is reflected in the classroom and
to explicitly communicate with parents and students about each other’s expectations. By doing so, it is likely to create a more inclusive school environment
where parents and students of minority groups are willing to engage in school
activities (Cook-Sather, 2002; Cothran & Ennis, 1997; Delpit, 1988).
Promoting family involvement requires both policy and research support
as well. Federal laws, such as the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) and the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), have clearly described the
essentials of school–family partnerships (NCLB, 2002; IDEA, 2004). In addition to federal laws, most state governments have their own programs to
201
promote family involvement in education. For example, the Georgia Department of Education (2014) has adopted the Parent Teacher Association (PTA)
National Standards Assessment Guide for family–school partnerships. These
programs incorporate evidence-based practices, such as differentiated family
support (Edwards, 2011), school assistance systems (Ferguson & Rodriguez,
2005), a positive school climate for parental involvement (Hoover-Dempsey
et al., 2005), awareness of cultural and linguistic diversity (Lopez, Barrueco,
Feinauer, & Miles, 2007), and consultation for families of children with disabilities (Patrikakou, 2011).
While it is important to be aware that parents from different cultural backgrounds have different expectations for education and have different ways to
interact with the teachers of their children, Dantas and Manyak (2010) caution that educators should not view families from the same cultural groups as
homogenous entities. Instead, educators should expand their conceptualization of family differences and view each family as an individual entity which
possesses its own identity. Also, creating an environment where educators and
parents feel safe to share their struggles regarding family involvement is crucial
to establish effective home, school, and community partnerships. This can be
done through multiple means, such as creating an inviting school culture or
using anonymous survey questionnaires. Without a safe environment, people
tend to provide politically correct responses and not their real thoughts or
opinions, which in turn helps little with the promotion of family involvement
(Edwards, 2004).
Access to Books
Although there may be some improvements with more services available
to diverse learners in different neighborhoods, Neuman and Celano’s (2001)
study pointed out that, on average, one child in a middle-income neighborhood has access to approximately 13 books, while one book in a low-income
neighborhood is shared by 300 children. The differences of access to books in
different neighborhoods are particularly obvious when schools are closed for
a summer break. Many studies reveal that children from families with higher socioeconomic status learn more over the summer than their counterparts
from families with lower socioeconomic status (Alexander, Entwisle, & Olson,
2007; Allington & McGill-Franzen, 2010; Burkam, Ready, Lee, & LoGerfo,
2004). Consequently, the differences of having access to books widen socioeconomically disadvantaged children’s summer learning gap, which is known
as the Matthew Effect: “the rich get richer and the poor get poorer” (Stanovich,
1986; Walberg & Tsai, 1983).
202
Therefore, children from low-income families need outside help in order to
prevent them from falling behind their peers especially during summer months.
Researchers argue that home libraries have a substantial effect on children’s educational attainment (Evans, Kelley, Sikora, & Treiman, 2010). Teachers can
work with parents and seek book donations through programs like “Reach
Out and Read” or “Reading is Fundamental” (RIF). If having a home library
seems challenging to some parents, teachers can encourage parents to use public libraries or school libraries to support their children’s literacy development.
Materials or activities like storytelling, family recipes, and newspapers are also
great resources to support family literacy. At school, teachers can incorporate
evidence-based practices to help students read better, allocate time for students
to read independently, and take fidelity into consideration when providing
interventions to struggling students who are from socioeconomically disadvantaged areas (Allington, 2013).
Expanded Learning
Expanded learning opportunities, such as afterschool and summer programs, provide a means to reinforce the skills that have been taught in school
and to prevent children from engaging in delinquent activities (Little, 2009).
Research shows that high-quality expanded learning opportunities improve
children’s learning outcomes and social interactions with peers and adults and
reduce children’s disciplinary problems and dropout rates (Council of Chief
State School Officers, 2011; Little, 2009; Vandell, Reisner, & Pierce, 2007).
Although the benefits of expanded learning opportunities are many, schools
and nonprofit organizations cannot sign children up for expanded learning
programs if parents are not aware of these opportunities.
It is found that children from lower income families have less access to
expanded learning programs than their more affluent and advantaged peers
(Little, 2009; Posner & Vandell, 1999). Therefore, offering educational support for families, particularly in lower income areas, is necessary to maximize
the potential of expanded learning opportunities and to strengthen the overall
literacy development of family members. Redd et al.’s (2012) study highlights
that schools and communities play an important role in providing children
with high-quality expanded learning opportunities and differentiated support.
Mentoring Partnerships
Studies have shown there is a significant correlation between mentoring
partnerships and children’s development (Rhodes, 2008; Rhodes & DuBois,
2008). Mentoring partnerships increase positive outcomes in children’s cognitive, social, emotional, and identity development (Rhodes, 2005) and help
203
children stay in school (Bridgeland, Dilulio, & Morison, 2006). These occur
because mentors can challenge negative views that children hold of themselves,
their peers, or their parents (Bridgeland et al., 2006; Rhodes, 2005). Mentors can help children better understand, express, and regulate their emotion
and behaviors through guidance, modeling, activities, and examples (Rhodes,
2005), and redirect their attitude towards literacy and education. Furthermore, when mentors understand what support needs to be provided within
the school and within the home, it increases the chances of fostering effective
communication between families and schools. Mentoring programs can take
on many different forms, such as counselling for parents or for students as well
as teens helping early elementary students.
When incorporating mentoring programs, schools and communities need
to carefully monitor the different stages of relationship development between
the mentor and the mentee. Keller (2005) identified the stages of mentoring
relationship development as follows: (a) contemplation—“anticipating and preparing for relationship;” (b) initiation—“beginning relationship and becoming
acquainted;” (c) growth and maintenance—“meeting regularly and establishing
patterns of interaction;” (d) decline and dissolution—“addressing challenges to
relationship or ending relations;” and (e) redefinition—“negotiating terms of
future contact or rejuvenating relationship” (p. 86). Although these stages are
sequential, the effects of each stage are intertwined and lead to different qualities of mentoring (Keller, 2005).
Cultural diversity is another important issue in mentoring partnerships. On
one hand, families of children with disabilities often feel uncomfortable with
having novice mentors work with their children (McDonald, Balcazar, & Keys,
2006). On the other hand, families may have stereotypes against certain racial
groups and thus do not want their children to work with mentors who are from
these racial groups (Sánchez & Colón, 2005). Also, families from different
cultural backgrounds may have different values regarding mentoring, such as
collectivism (i.e., village raising a child) in African, Asian, and Latino cultures
versus individualism (i.e., Big Brothers Big Sisters which emphasizes one-onone mentoring) in western countries (Sánchez & Colón, 2005). Due to the fact
that parents’ feelings can impact the way they react to additional help outside
the home, schools and communities must take cultural diversity into consideration when offering mentoring programs to children and their families.
Conceptual Framework
The five pillars of FACE—early literacy, family involvement, access to
books, expanded learning, and mentoring partnerships—promote a broader
204
view of family literacy which goes beyond the interaction between parents
and children at home around literacy. The five pillars of FACE involve multiple theories and research-validated evidence, such as literacy fundamentals
(Bennett-Armistead et al., 2005; Duke & Carlisle, 2011; Henderson & Mapp,
2002; Lane & Wright, 2007), parental engagement (Bogenschneider & Johnson, 2004; Bouffard & Stephen, 2007), the Matthew Effect (Stanovich, 1986;
Allington, 2013), and mentoring (Redd et al., 2012).
While each of the five pillars of FACE is critical to the needs of family literacy development and is well described in the literature, there is limited research
on the impact of the five pillars of FACE on preservice teachers’ knowledge of
and practices in family literacy. Thus, this research aims to explore: (1) to what
extent did the use of the five pillars of FACE impact the preservice teachers’
knowledge of family literacy? and (2) to what extent did the use of the five pillars of FACE impact the preservice teachers’ practices in family literacy?
Method
Participants and Setting
This study was conducted in a family literacy course which utilized the
five pillars of FACE in course construction. There were a total of 11 preservice teachers enrolled in this course taught by the researcher. These preservice
teachers were all undergraduate students majoring in special education at a
midsize public university. Among the 11 preservice teachers, 10 students (all
female; 3 African Americans, 7 Caucasians) were willing to let the researcher
analyze their course assignments for the purpose of this research study. Participating in this study was completely voluntary, and the participants signed
an IRB-approved consent form. All preservice teachers completed the same
course assignments regardless of participating in the study, including 30 hours
of fieldwork at a nonprofit literacy center where free 1:1 tutoring was provided
to low-income students (K–12) during the summer months.
Course Description
The intensive course, “Family Literacy,” was three credit hours. Each week’s
class discussions and activities focused on one of the five pillars of FACE. Each
pillar was covered through four sessions, and each session was 105 minutes,
including a 5-minute break. There were a total of 20 sessions throughout the
semester (four sessions per week for five weeks). Class activities included lectures, group activities, and leading discussions. The texts used in this course
were: (a) Patricia A. Edwards’s (2004) book Children’s Literacy Development:
Making It Happen Through School, Family, and Community Involvement; and
205
(b) selected articles related to the five pillars of FACE compiled in Scholastic
(2013). When the participants were doing their 30 hours of fieldwork at the
literacy center, the director of the literacy center, two coordinators, and the researcher were observing their practices to ensure the integrity of the fieldwork.
Table 1 shows the course schedule.
Table 1. Course Schedule
Weekly Topic
Week 1: Introduction & Early Literacy
Week 2: Family Involvement
Week 3: Access to Books
Week 4: Expanded Learning
Week 5: Mentoring Partnerships & Recap
Total hours
Fieldwork
(Literacy Center)
6 hours/per week
6 hours/per week
6 hours/per week
6 hours/per week
6 hours/per week
30 hours
In-Class Session
(On-Campus)
7 hours/per week
7 hours/per week
7 hours/per week
7 hours/per week
7 hours/per week
35 hours
Note. The fieldwork happened during the same five weeks as the in-class sessions.
This course was designed to help preservice teachers: (a) understand how literacy develops and predicts later academic success of children who are at risk or
have special needs; (b) promote family involvement in school and the literacy
performance of children in low-income communities; (c) explain why access to
books matters and how family system and culture have an impact on children’s
access to books; (d) expand the learning opportunities of children in culturally
diverse contexts; (e) improve mentoring partnerships to help children achieve
day-to-day successful living; and (f ) practice competencies in field placements
under the supervision of collaborating teachers and university professors. Class
sessions were delivered face-to-face, and course assignments included readings,
quizzes, fieldwork reflection papers, and personal projects.
Data Collection Procedures
This study utilized grounded theory methodology (Glaser & Strauss, 1967)
to explore the impact of the five pillars of FACE. A grounded theory research
design is used to generate or modify a theory through qualitative procedures
(Creswell, 2015). An important characteristic of grounded theory research design is that “the inquirer collects data more than once and keeps returning to
data sources for more information throughout a study until the categories are
saturated and the theory is fully developed” (Creswell, 2015, p. 444). Adopting a grounded theory design is important for this study because even if the
existing literature has revealed the importance of each pillar of FACE, there is
206
limited research on how the use of the five pillars of FACE can impact preservice teachers’ knowledge of and practices in family literacy. Exploring such an
impact can maximize the use of the five pillars of FACE in family literacy. The
data collection for this study included participants’ fieldwork reflection papers,
personal projects, and a survey questionnaire.
Fieldwork Reflection Papers
The class sessions and fieldwork were scheduled from Monday to Thursday
for five weeks. At the end of each week, the participants turned in a one-page
single-spaced reflection paper based on the lesson focus in class and their fieldwork experiences at the literacy center during the week.
Personal Projects
Throughout the semester, the participants were developing and working
on their personal projects at their own pace. These projects related to family
literacy could be art projects, book reviews, interviews, research projects, practitioner articles, literature reviews, or video modeling. The researcher served as
a consultant to facilitate the completion of the participants’ personal projects.
One check-in point was arranged in the middle of the semester when the participants shared their project’s progress, and they received feedback from the
class members. A self-evaluation checklist was provided to enhance the quality
of the projects.
The Survey Questionnaire
To understand the participants’ perspectives toward the use of the five pillars of FACE in the family literacy course, an open-ended questionnaire was
conducted in class at the end of the semester. The survey question was: How
do the five pillars of FACE help you understand family literacy? This open-ended
question allowed the participants to address the topic based on their own experiences without being constrained to any presumed answers. The participants
were given approximately 15 minutes to complete the questionnaire.
Data Analysis
The researcher began with identifying open coding categories and used the
emerging themes from the participants’ responses to discuss the impact of the
five pillars of FACE on participants’ knowledge of and practices in family theory. Several steps of the coding process suggested by Creswell (2013) and Tesch
(1990) were taken. First, the researcher and two trained graduate research assistants tried to get a sense of the entire data by reading through the data. Second,
they picked one of the most in-depth responses to each data source in order to
brainstorm possible ways of coding. Third, they began to code the qualitative
207
data. After coding all responses and making a long list of all code words, they
began to reduce the list of codes by clustering them into themes. Coding disagreement among the researcher and the two graduate research assistants was
resolved through revisiting the data multiple times, discussing, and consulting
until the agreement was reached. Lastly, each participant, as well as any student
they mentioned by name in their writing, was assigned a pseudonym. The visual model of exploring the theory is shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Using a grounded theory to examine the use of FACE.
Figure 1 indicates that the five pillars of FACE were identified as the grounded theory of the present study. The researcher then integrated the theory into a
family literacy course to examine whether a new theory would be generated or
the existing theory should be modified. Finally, the evidence was used to support the argument of the study.
Results
Theme 1: Early Literacy
Most of the participants did not work with students young enough to engage in topics of early literacy. However, during the week they learned about
early literacy, their reflection papers were already making connections between
early literacy and other topics of the course/family literacy development.
Children With Special Needs
The participants noticed that some of the children at the literacy center
seemed to have special needs such as autism, attention deficits, or language disorders. For example, participant Ada stated:
Student C was a young man who worked on the fifth grade level. I believe this student had some type of special needs. Although the young
man had no trouble reading each word, it was challenging to understand
208
him. I typically tried to ask a question after each page, however getting
him to stop reading was challenging. In many instances, I had to physically cover the book for about two seconds. He would then look up at
me to hear the question, and then retrieve the answer from the text.
Like Ada, other participants also worked with children who had special
needs. Lilian, for instance, expressed that “my second day working in the literacy center I was given a student who was supposed to be going into third grade
but was on a first grade reading.”
Instructional Methods
To meet the needs of the students, the preservice teachers began by discovering the children’s strengths and weaknesses and then incorporated
evidence-based practices to help them develop literacy skills. This excerpt from
Sarah’s paper illustrates how she worked with the children at the literacy center:
The students were drawing upon prior knowledge when I asked them
questions about the story, describing experiences that related to the text.
Furthermore, we delved into some of the five components of reading.
We manipulated letters and letter sounds, using them in different words.
At the end of each activity in a young boy’s book, there was a fill-in the
blank sentence. I chose to use the repeated reading method from class
discussion. I read the sentence twice, he read with me, and lastly independently.
At the same time, all participants strived to have interaction with the parents of
the children at the literacy center to promote early literacy at home.
Theme 2: Family Involvement
Interaction With Parents
It was not surprising to see how challenging it could be for these novice
teacher candidates to initiate a dialogue with parents. Some parents were engaged in the dialogue while some were not. For example, Ada described in her
paper, “When I began telling her about the child’s tutoring session, the mother
quickly interrupted saying, ‘we have to go, we are late for an appointment.’”
Although initiating and maintaining an effective dialogue was hard, the participants still tried to be understanding and reflective and to apply different
strategies to meet parents’ different needs. Ada wrote, “For parents consistently
on the go, I will write a note on a sheet of paper that can be quickly handed to
them.” Sarah also stated, “I decided to end five minutes earlier to allow time for
discussion. The extra time helped those parents to feel less rushed. I sought to
involve them by giving them take home activities and notes detailing the day’s
209
lesson.” Similarly, Janet’s reflection paper exemplifies how the participants responded to parents’ diverse needs:
I would like to make a dialog journal to send home with each family. I
would also love to create home literacy bags to send home to better help
a struggling child. I plan to show that I am willing to collaborate with
them. I will stay positive and make an effort every time to talk to someone who is a part of that child’s life.
The participants’ responses imply that it might not be a matter of whether
or not they had positive or negative experiences when interacting with parents.
Through the texts and activities in class, the participants knew they should not
take parents’ reaction personally, and they should keep trying different strategies to engage with the children’s parents.
Parent–Tutor Partnerships
All participants expressed that parental involvement was vital to the success
of a child. Without parental involvement, it took more time for the participants to figure out where to start to help the children. For instance, Skylar
reported:
I have found it harder to prepare work for Zena to do while at the literacy center because I do not know what subject she needs to work on, as
well as I don’t know what level she’s actually functioning at. After spending my second week at the literacy center with Zena, I have observed
that she always comes 15–20 minutes late, and whoever comes to pick
her up is never on time.
Welcoming Environment
In spite of the challenges resulting from children’s different home lives, the
participants made an all-out effort to create a welcoming environment and
maintain a positive climate at the literacy center. Several participants discussed
in their papers that they wanted to make sure that all the parents, guardians,
and family members felt welcome and supported.
Differentiated Support
Moreover, many participants were aware that differentiated support must
be used to meet parents’ different needs. As Kaylee said in her paper, “we as
tutors/teachers have to differentiate the way we instruct our students. But we
also have to think about the way we approach our student’s parents. We have
to change our ways of talking to the parents and understand parents.” Echoing Kaylee, Sarah wrote, “I have to differentiate for parents as I would for their
children. The activities that I give for students to complete at home have to
210
be parentally appropriate.” The results show that the participants tried to find
ways to support parents and tailor their intervention to meet children’s different learning needs.
In sum, the findings from participants’ reflection papers show that there
were barriers to family involvement, such as parents’ time and energy, limited
room in the building for interaction, ineffective dialogue, and transition time.
However, the participants had been trying a variety of strategies to engage
parents, including sharing learning resources with parents, providing learning
logs, valuing parents’ voices, providing high-quality instruction to children,
maintaining a positive attitude, creating a welcoming environment, and differentiating parental support.
Theme 3: Access to Books
Enjoyment of Reading
The third week’s class activities brought the participants’ attention to how
access to books affects children’s perception and enjoyment of reading. For
example, Skylar had been working with two students: Lisa and Zena. Lisa’s parents had her bring a new book to read every week, while Zena never brought a
book or any kind of materials with her. She wrote:
When I see Lisa bring a new book every day, it shows me that the student
has a very large access to a variety of books at home. Even though she
needs to work on a few aspects of her reading skills, Lisa loves to read and
does it with such enthusiasm. In comparison to Lisa, Zena, who doesn’t
bring in any type of books or materials, has expressed to me that she really doesn’t enjoy reading. She’s even said that the only reason she reads
is because people at school force her to.
Children’s Home Lives
The fieldwork at the literacy center gave an opportunity for the participants
to understand the impact of children’s home lives. Angie shared that when
working with a child who always brought two workbooks, flashcards, a sight
word list, and well-sharpened pencils to the literacy center, she could tell that
the child’s family was very involved in his learning, and he had many resources
available to him at home. Unlike the child with whom Angie worked, Kaylee
mentioned in her paper that only a small handful of her students at the literacy
center brought their own materials for tutoring.
Quality of the Materials and Personnel
In terms of the book organization at the literacy center, nearly half of the
participants pointed out that it would really help if the books donated by
211
community organizations and individuals could be labeled by grade levels.
Furthermore, because the center was short-staffed and always needed volunteers, some participants noticed that there were not any specific criteria to be
a tutor at the literacy center. They were concerned that not every tutor at the
center was capable to teach literacy to children, particularly to those with special needs.
Theme 4: Expanded Learning
Tutors’ Perceptions
Most of the participants valued the literacy center for bridging the gap between grades for children during the school year and during the summer and for
helping children grow fully. As Evelyn wrote, “summer programs like the literacy center can be beneficial for anyone; they not only help with academic skills,
but with social skills as well.” Bella also stated that the literacy center is a great
expanded learning program because “it is free for the community so that parents
who cannot afford to pay for their children to be tutored can also get their children the help that they need.” The benefits of summer programs are broad and
the impact is far beyond measure. In her reflection paper, Sophia wrote:
Expanded learning programs can benefit all students no matter the age,
academic level, or ethnicity. Students who attend these programs are
provided with educational help as well as adult supervision, leading to
better decision-making and academic improvement.
Several participants further expressed that students who participate in expanded learning programs are more likely to develop better learning behaviors
and are less likely to participate in delinquent behaviors. The preservice teachers encouraged parents to incorporate some of the strategies and resources at
home to help their children maintain and generalize the skills that they gained
in expanded learning programs.
Strategy and Resource Sharing
Many participants were willing to share strategies and learning resources
with parents, including online programs, self-made materials, think-aloud
activities, self-regulation strategies, and behavior modeling. The participants
believed that the parents of the children at the literacy center were eager to help
their children succeed if they could be given more instruction and knew how
to assist their children in learning at home.
Theme 5: Mentoring Partnerships
The focus of the final week was mentoring partnerships, which covered
mentoring strategies and the characteristics of mentoring partnerships, such
212
as establishing a personal connection and positive relationships, being openminded and willing to listen, making time to follow up with the child, modeling
behavior, communicating with parents, understanding cultural diversity, and
creating a trustful and comfortable mentoring environment.
The Awareness of Mentoring Partnerships
The class activities seemed to raise the participants’ awareness of the importance of mentoring partnerships. As Ada shared, “while at my field placements,
I did not necessarily think of myself as a tutor; however, when I look back, I
can see this partnership between me and some of my students.” Furthermore,
Evelyn noted,
As I spent my time at the literacy center, I viewed myself more as a tutor
than a mentor, but in reality I was just as much as a mentor than I was
as a tutor. I feel like it is very important to model appropriate behavior.
It is evident that providing training about mentoring partnerships through
the course was helpful. It not only increased the participants’ knowledge, but
also improved their practices in their fieldwork. As Sarah described:
In my interactions with the students and children in my life, I always
strived to be honest, patient, and caring. But I have learned that there
are other qualities that mentors should have as well…I must not try to
change who the child is, rather guide them to do the best they can do.
Reflecting on this aspect of my experience, I would have made more
time for conversations with the students to learn more about their home
settings.
The Benefits of Mentoring Partnerships
Mentoring partnerships benefit both mentees and mentors. Like Sarah,
Skylar expressed that mentoring is a great opportunity to lead and influence
positive values and behavior, and individuals involved can learn and grow in
many aspects of their lives. Learning about the impact of mentoring partnerships on children’s learning and development, several participants articulated
that mentoring skills should be taught in teacher education programs to model
appropriate behavior and help children succeed academically, emotionally, and
socially.
A Cross-Theme Activity
After learning about the five pillars of FACE, all participants turned in their
personal projects across the elements of family literacy at the end of the semester with a presentation in class. Some participants completed their personal
projects in small groups, while others finished theirs individually. Among the
213
eight projects, three of them were related to family literacy activities for parents and children. One project was a report of a child’s literacy development
through the lens of the five pillars of FACE. Another project was a participant’s transforming experience of being a mentor to a child with special needs.
There was one interview project on discovering the relationship between cultural diversity and home literacy, and one project reporting how attending an
expanded learning program for children with autism influenced a boy with
autism and his family. Finally, there was one project about guiding parents to
help children develop literacy skills through the five pillars of FACE. Overall,
each project was unique with a strong focus on some or all of the five pillars
of FACE.
In one of the projects related to family literacy activities for parents and
children, Ava and Janet created station activities for a family literacy night. As
they described:
Station one requires students to work on expressive language skills. The
second station requires the students to word hunt which forces the student to recognize letters. The next station requires the student to write
and communicate with their parent. The fourth station requires the student to read each word and sort it appropriately. The fifth station requires students to look at a bottle and identify the different objects they
see. The student will then write the word. The sixth station is mad libs
in which students will be required to fill in blanks to complete a story.
When Ava and Janet demonstrated the station activities in class, the class
members were very engaged in the activities and found that the station activities were created with clarity and fun. Ava and Janet wrote in their paper that
the family literacy night activities could create opportunities for mentoring
partnerships. Additionally, the content words of these activities can be adjusted
so easily that all students from different grades and different cultural backgrounds would find these activities joyful and meaningful.
Considering cultural differences, Sophia discussed in her paper that she
developed two parallel family literacy guides for parents who have computer
access and for those who do not. In short, the products of the personal projects implied that the use of the five pillars of FACE provided a means for the
participants to deepen their knowledge about family literacy in multiple ways.
The Survey Questionnaire
The participants’ responses to the survey question were consistent with their
responses in the reflection papers and personal projects. All participants had
a positive attitude on the use of the five pillars of FACE. Some participants
stated they never recognized how multidimensional family literacy could be.
214
For example, Sophia wrote, “I now see and understand how each component
relates to one another as well as the effect each component has on a child’s
education.” All participants agreed that many factors need to be taken into
consideration when working with students, and the use of the five pillars of
FACE helped break down issues of family literacy into individual factors. They
now understood how lacking in one or the other factor could hinder a child’s
literacy development. The participants further discussed how each pillar deepened their understanding of family literacy. Sarah, for instance, wrote, “Each
pillar is pivotal for families. When there are so many families that do not have
opportunities or support for one area, the importance of each pillar becomes
even more evident.” Overall, the results of the survey provide evidence that the
use of the five pillar of FACE was beneficial to increase participants’ knowledge
and skills of promoting family literacy.
Discussion
While the importance of each pillar of FACE is acknowledged in the existing literature, this study’s focus on the use of the five pillars of FACE to
improve preservice teachers’ knowledge of and practices in family literacy offers a unique contribution to the field of teacher education for family literacy.
Prior to this course, there was a general tendency that the participants steered
family literacy away from the involvement of teachers, schools, and communities. Some participants were not even aware of the consequences of children’s
different access to books and expanded learning during summer months as
well as the importance of mentoring partnerships. As a result of incorporating
the five pillars of FACE, the findings confirm that their use not only increased
the participants’ knowledge of the multidimensional nature of family literacy
but also influenced their practices. After completing 20 sessions of in-class activities and 30 hours of fieldwork, the participants became more involved in
the development of family literacy. Some of them even requested higher level
courses in teacher education programs to help them become better mentors in
children’s lives.
As discussed earlier, both Biemiller and Boote (2006) and Lane and Wright
(2008) argue that evidence-based practices are crucial for promoting early literacy. The findings of the present study support that the participants developed
a better understanding of these evidence-based practices and employed them
in their fieldwork. The application of the evidence-based practices helped more
children at the literacy center become engaged in their learning. However, it is
important to point out that it was challenging for the participants to document
children’s learning outcomes at the literacy center. This is because the free 1:1
215
tutoring at the literacy center is mainly to provide children from low-socioeconomic households and communities with additional support after school
or during summer, and there is no specific curriculum used at the center. Additionally, children’s attendance was not mandatory, and while some students
attended regularly, others did not. When children do not show up, the literacy
center staff have to readjust tutors. This highlights the importance of administrators improving scheduling and parents making the effort to bring their
children to expanded learning programs on time and on a regular basis.
Regarding family involvement, it is encouraging to learn how the participants strived to involve parents or guardians. The participants were aware of the
barriers to family involvement, such as cultural and linguistic diversity (Lopez
et al., 2007; Warger et al., 2009) and the climate of environments (HooverDempsey et al., 2005). More importantly, the participants took action to
involve parents by offering them differentiated family support as suggested in
their text (Edwards, 2011). The participants’ reflection papers provide a conjecture on why involving parents at the literacy center was not an easy task.
Without the training of family involvement embedded in this course, the participants might have developed negative attitudes or shied away from engaging
parents when constantly facing the same challenges. This finding also suggests
that when the participants built a repertoire of family involvement skills, they
become more willing to confront the challenges when parents did not seem to
be actively engaged in children’s learning.
The use of the five pillars of FACE not only raised the participants’ awareness of children’s differing access to books (Allington, 2013; Neuman &
Celano, 2001) and expanded learning opportunities (Redd et al., 2012), but
also helped the participants develop a critical view of the “quality” of the access.
For example, many participants expressed their concerns about the organization of the books and the quality of the tutors at the literacy center. Moreover,
an overwhelming majority shared educational resources and learning opportunities with parents, and they guided parents to build home libraries (Evans
et al., 2010) and incorporate literacy activities at home. While no participants
discussed in their reflection papers if parents actually built home libraries for
their children or got more involved in expanded learning programs after receiving their advice, the participants’ effort has certainly moved the development
of family literacy forward by giving parents new perspectives.
Lastly, rather than prioritizing tutoring at the literacy center as delivering
knowledge to children, the participants began to think about how mentoring
partnerships could serve the whole child academically, behaviorally, emotionally, and socially (Rhodes, 2005). The participants’ critical reflection on their
practices indicates that they were aware of positive and negative impacts of
216
their role modeling for the children at the literacy center, and so they strived
to be the best they could be. Although a related strand in the literature argues
that parents of children with disabilities may feel uncomfortable for their children to work with novice mentors (McDonald et al., 2006; Sánchez & Colón,
2005), this study provides evidence that novice teachers can still be good mentors and work well with children and their families if they are properly trained.
While this study used several measures to ensure the rigor of the data
analysis such as triangulation among different data sources and long-term engagement in fieldwork (Erickson, 1986), there are some important limitations
to this study. First, this study drew on the five pillars of FACE. There are still
many other factors that also need to be taken into consideration when preparing teachers for family literacy, such as the qualities that teachers bring to the
classroom and situational factors (Kennedy, 2010). Future research can include
additional factors to expand the scope of the five pillars of FACE.
Second, although the major goals of this study are to explore the impact of
the five pillars of FACE on preservice teachers’ knowledge of and practices in
family literacy, it would have provided a more comprehensive picture of the use
of the five pillars of FACE in relation to children’s learning outcomes if formal
assessments were conducted. Systematically monitoring children’s progress will
lead to the betterment of intervention and services. Alternatively, expanded
program providers can utilize a social validity measurement to ensure that the
intervention and services of their programs meet children’s and parents’ needs.
Moreover, exploring the reasons that parents do not bring their children to
expanded programs on time or on a regular basis is important. Future studies
could investigate the quality of expanded programs, such as their scheduling
and book organization as pointed out by the participants, to discover how it
impacts the frequency of parents bringing their children to the programs on
time and on a regular basis. It is important to note that, ideally, it would be
beneficial if each preservice teacher could work with the same student throughout the five weeks of fieldwork (6 hours per week). In this way, they could
know their students better and provide instructional support more consistently. However, one challenge of such a free, open-to-the-public summer program
was that tutoring program attendance was not mandatory. Thus, when students did not show up or were late, tutors would be assigned to work with
different students. Finding solutions that improve student attendance in expanded programs is needed.
Last, the order of introducing the five pillars of FACE to preservice teachers
should be adjusted for future practice. For example, when fieldwork experiences are embedded in coursework, introducing how to establish a good mentoring
partnerships with students at the beginning of the course will be beneficial to
both preservice teachers and their students.
217
In conclusion, the five pillars of FACE could powerfully inform frameworks
for promoting family literacy through teacher preparation programs. Preservice
teachers need to be given opportunities to learn that family literacy goes beyond literacy-related activities that parents or guardians do with their children
at home. By doing so, it is more likely that future teachers (and the community
as a whole) can effectively promote the development of family literacy.
References
Alexander, K. L., Entwisle, D. R., & Olson, L. S. (2007). Lasting consequences of the summer
learning gap. American Sociological Review, 72(2), 167–180.
Allington, R. L. (2013). What really matters when working with struggling readers? The Reading Teacher, 66(7), 520–530.
Allington, R., & McGill-Franzen, A. (2010). Addressing summer reading set back among economically disadvantaged elementary students. Reading Psychology, 31(5), 411–427.
Bennett-Armistead, S., Duke, N., & Moses, A. (2005). The importance of literacy-rich activities and environments for young children. Literacy and the youngest learner: Best practices for
educators of children from birth to 5. New York, NY: Scholastic.
Bernhard, J. K., Winsler, A., Bleiker, C., Ginieniewicz, J., & Madigan, A. L. (2008). “Read
my story!” Using the early authors program to promote early literacy among diverse, urban
preschool children in poverty. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 13, 76–105.
Biemiller, A., & Boote, C. (2006). An effective method for building meaning vocabulary in
primary grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(1), 44–62.
Bogenschneider, K., & Johnson, C. (2004). Family involvement in education: How important
is it? What can legislators do? In K. Bogenschneider & E. Gross (Eds.), A policymaker’s
guide to school finance: Approaches to use and questions to ask (Wisconsin Family Impact
Seminar Briefing Report No. 20, pp. 19–29). Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Center for Excellence in Family Studies.
Bouffard, S. M., & Stephen, N. (2007). Promoting family involvement. Principal’s Research
Review, 2(6), 1–8.
Bridgeland, J. M., Dilulio, J. J., & Morison, K. B. (2006). The silent epidemic perspectives of
high school dropouts. Seattle, WA: The Gates Foundation.
Burkam, D. T., Ready, D. D., Lee, V. E., & LoGerfo, L. (2004). Social-class differences in
summer learning between kindergarten and first grade: Model specification and estimation. Sociology of Education, 77(1), 1–31.
Cook-Sather, A. (2002). Authorizing students’ perspectives: Toward trust, dialogue, and change
in education. Educational Researcher, 31(4), 3–14.
Cothran, D. J., & Ennis, C. D. (1997). Students’ and teachers’ perceptions of conflict and
power. Teaching and Teacher Education, 13, 541–553.
Council of Chief State School Officers. (2011). Connecting high-quality expanded learning opportunities and the Common Core State Standards to advance student success. Washington,
DC: Author.
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Creswell, J. W. (2015). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative
and qualitative research (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
218
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.
Delpit, L. (1988). The silenced dialogue: Power and pedagogy in educating other people’s
children. Harvard Educational Review, 58(3), 280–298.
Duke, N. K., & Carlisle, J. F. (2011). The development of comprehension. In M. L. Kamil, P.
D. Pearson, E. B. Moje, & P. Afflerbach (Eds.), Handbook of reading research, Vol. IV (pp.
199–228). London, UK: Routledge.
Edwards, P. A. (2004). Children’s literacy development: Making it happen through school, family,
and community involvement. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Edwards, P. A. (2011). Differentiating parent supports. In S. Redding, M. Murphy, & P. Sheley (Eds.), Handbook on family and community engagement (pp. 113–116). Lincoln, IL:
Academic Development Institute. Retrieved from http://www.schoolcommunitynetwork.
org/downloads/FACEHandbook.pdf
Epstein, J. L. (2011). School, family, and community partnerships: Preparing educators and improving schools (2nd ed.). Boulder, CO: Westview.
Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 119–161). New York, NY: MacMillan.
Evans, M., Kelley, J., Sikora, J., & Treiman, D. (2010). Family scholarly culture and educational success: Books and schooling in 27 nations. Research in Social Stratification and
Mobility, 28, 171–197.
Ferguson, C., & Rodríguez, V. (2005). Engaging families at the secondary level: What schools can
do to support family involvement. Austin, TX: SEDL.
Florida Reading Association. (2014). Federal definition of family literacy. Retrieved from http://
www.flreads.org/Family-Literacy/factsheet_federaldef.pdf
Georgia Department of Education. (2014). Parents and educator partnerships. Retrieved from
http://www.gadoe.org/Curriculum-Instruction-and-Assessment/Special-Education-Services/Pages/Parents-and-Educator-Partnerships.aspx
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative
research. New York, NY: Aldine.
Henderson, A. T., & Berla, N. (1994). A new generation of evidence: The family is critical to
student achievement. Washington, DC: Center for Law and Education.
Henderson, A. T., & Mapp, K. L. (2002). A new wave of evidence: The impact of school, family,
and community connections on student achievement. Austin, TX: SEDL.
Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., Walker, J. M. T., Sandler, H. M., Whetsel, D., Green, C. L., Wilkins,
A. S., & Closson, K. E. (2005). Why do parents become involved? Research findings and
implications. Elementary School Journal, 106(2), 105–130.
Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. § 1400 (2004).
Keller, T. E. (2005). The stages and development of mentoring relationships. In D. DuBois &
M. Karcher (Eds.), Handbook of youth mentoring (pp. 82–99). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kennedy, M. M. (2010). Attribution error and the quest for teacher quality. Educational Researcher, 39, 591–598.
Kids Count. (2010). Early warning! Why reading by the end of third grade matters. Baltimore,
MD: Annie B. Casey Foundation.
Lane, H. B., & Wright, T. L. (2007). Maximizing the effectiveness of reading aloud. The Reading Teacher, 60(7), 668–675.
Little, P. M. (2009). Supporting student outcomes through expanded learning opportunities. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Family Research Project. Retrieved from http://www.hfrp.org/outof-school-time/publications-resources/supporting-student-outcomes-through-expandedlearning-opportunities
219
Lopez, M. L., Barrueco, S., Feinauer, E., & Miles, J. C. (2007). Young Latino infants and families: Parental involvement implications from a recent national study. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
Family Research Project.
McDonald, K. E., Balcazar, F. E., & Keys, C. B. (2006). Youth with disabilities. In D. DuBois
& M. Karcher (Eds.), Handbook of youth mentoring (pp. 493–507). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Neuman, S. B., & Celano, D. (2001). Access to print in low-income and middle-income communities: An ecological study of four neighborhoods. Reading Research Quarterly, 36(1),
8–26.
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107–110, § 115, Stat. 1425 (2002).
Paratore, J., Cassano, C., & Schickedanz, J. (2011). Supporting early (and later) literacy development at home and at school. In M. L. Kamil, P. D. Pearson, E. B. Moje, & P. Afflerbach
(Eds.), Handbook of reading research, Vol. IV (pp. 107–135). London, UK: Routledge.
Patrikakou, E. (2011). Families of children with disabilities: Building school–family partnerships. In S. Redding, M. Murphy, & P. Sheley (Eds). Handbook on family and community
engagement (pp. 131–135). Lincoln, IL: Academic Development Institute. Retrieved from
http://www.schoolcommunitynetwork.org/downloads/FACEHandbook.pdf
Posner, J. K., & Vandell, D. L. (1999). After-school activities and the development of low-income urban children: A longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 35(3), 868 –879. Retrieved from http://joygreenberg.typepad.com/files/after-school-activities-and-low-incomechildren-1.pdf
Redd, Z., Boccanfuso, C., Walker, K., Princiotta, D., Knewstub, D., & Moore, K. (2012).
Expanding time for learning both inside and outside the classroom: A review of the evidence base. Child Trends. Retrieved from http://canatx.org/CAN-Research/Reports/2012/
Child_Trends-2012_08_16_RB_TimeForLearning.pdf
Rhodes, J. E. (2005). A model of youth mentoring. In D. DuBois & M. Karcher (Eds.), Handbook of youth mentoring (pp. 30–43). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Rhodes, J. E. (2008). Improving youth mentoring interventions through research-based practice. American Journal of Community Psychology, 41, 35–42.
Rhodes, J. E., & DuBois, D. L. (2008). Mentoring relationships and programs for youth. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17(4), 254–258.
Sánchez, B., & Colón, Y. (2005). Race, ethnicity, and culture in mentoring relationships. In
D. DuBois & M. Karcher (Eds.), Handbook of youth mentoring (pp. 191–204). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Scholastic. (2013). FACE: Family and community engagement. Retrieved from http://teacher.
scholastic.com/products/face/about.html
Snow, C. E., & Juel, C. (2005). Teaching children to read: What do we know about how to do
it? In M. Snowling & C. Hulme (Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (pp. 501–520).
London, UK: Blackwell.
Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21. Retrieved from http://
www.psychologytoday.com/files/u81/Stanovich__1986_.pdf
Tesch, R. (1990). Qualitative research: Analysis types & software tools. Bristol, PA: Falmer Press.
Vandell, D., Reisner, E., & Pierce, K. (2007). Outcomes linked to high-quality afterschool programs: Longitudinal findings from the study of promising afterschool programs. Irvine, CA:
University of California.
Walberg, H. J., & Tsai, S. L. (1983). Matthew effects in education. American Educational
220
Research Journal, 20, 359–373.
Warger, C., Eavy, P., & Associates. (2009). Reaching out to families and the community: How
some high-performing schools are engaging families and citizens to support student achievement
(Issue Brief ). Washington, DC: Center for Comprehensive School Reform and Improvement. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED505235.pdf
Nai-Cheng Kuo is an assistant professor of special education at Augusta
University. Her research interests include literacy, applied behavior analysis
and autism, response to intervention (RTI), and teacher preparation. Correspondence concerning this article may be addressed to Dr. Nai-Cheng Kuo,
Department of Teacher Education, Augusta University, 2500 Walton Way, Augusta, GA 30904, or email [email protected]
221
222
Child and Parent Voices on a Community-Based
Prevention Program (FAST)
Melodie Fearnow-Kenney, Patricia Hill, and Nicole Gore
Abstract
Families and Schools Together (FAST) is a collaborative program involving
schools, families, and community-based partners in efforts to prevent substance use, juvenile delinquency, school failure, child abuse and neglect, mental
health problems, and violence. Although evaluated extensively, there remains
a dearth of qualitative data on child and parent perceptions of the FAST program. The present study helps to fill that gap with the implementation and
evaluation of the FAST program using two school communities in Central
Virginia. Qualitative data were collected via child focus groups and parent
open-ended survey responses. Data were analyzed using a process called Concept Mapping. The results of this research are used to identify key strengths of
the program components as well as potential adjustments to implementation
arising from the views of child and parent participants. Particular attention is
paid to the one-on-one “special play” as viewed from the target and non-target
child. Relevance of these findings to the implementation and evaluation of
other school–community programs are discussed.
Key Words: prevention, children, Families and Schools Together, parents, community, FAST program, voices, participants, family perspectives, qualitative
Introduction
Families and Schools Together (FAST) is a community-based, multifamily
support program which begins with eight weeks of family sessions and then
223
transitions into a two-year follow up segment called FASTWORKS (McDonald et al., 1997). The program involves families of children ages five to twelve
who request participation or have been identified by their schools as being at
risk for academic failure and social problems. Developed in 1988 by Dr. Lynn
McDonald, FAST is based on well-known theories of family systems, child
development, and risk resiliency. The primary goals of the program are to enhance family functioning, prevent substance abuse by the child and family,
expand social relationships, increase parent involvement in school, improve
parent–child relationships, prevent school failure, and improve child behavior
(McDonald, Frank, & Price, 2006). FAST is backed by more than 15 years of
evaluative research and has received recognition as an effective program from
national organizations such as the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention (OJJDP, n.d.) and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration (SAMHSA, 2003).
FAST has earned the designation of an effective program due to years of
research documenting its effectiveness across diverse populations. Recent studies have found it to be adaptable and effective with diverse cultural and ethnic
groups such as European (McDonald, FitzRoy, Fuchs, Fooken, & Klasen,
2012), immigrant Latino (Guerra & Knox, 2008), low-income urban Latino (McDonald, Moberg, et al., 2006), and American Indian families and
children (Kratochwill, McDonald, Levin, Bear-Tibbetts, & Demaray, 2004).
The latest FAST evaluations have demonstrated program effects on important
outcomes, namely, prevention of child aggressive behavior (Guerra & Knox,
2008; Knox, Guerra, Williams, & Toro, 2011), promotion of child prosocial
behavior (Crozier, Rokutani, Russett, Godwin, & Banks, 2010), enhancement
of parent–child communication (Knox et al., 2011), and reduction of family
stress (Ackley & Cullen, 2010).
Evaluations of FAST, however, have not all demonstrated program success across all outcomes. For example, Knox and colleagues (2011) found no
differences in aggression between FAST and control group children. Layzer, Goodson, Creps, Werner, and Bernstein (2001) observed no differences
in teachers’ report of positive changes in children who participated in FAST
as compared to those in a control group, despite the fact that FAST parents
reported improved behavior. In addition, there were few significant differences between FAST and control families in the year following completion of
the program (Layzer et al., 2001). Moberg and colleagues (2003) conducted
a two-year randomized trial of FAST and observed significant improvements
in academic outcomes but few other significant differences between the FAST
and control children.
224
CHILD & PARENT VOICES ON FAST
When proven preventive interventions fail to produce anticipated program
effects, evaluators often examine issues related to fidelity of implementation
and consumer (participant) experience (e.g., Olds, Sadler, & Kitzman, 2007).
Fidelity has been defined as the degree to which programs are implemented
as program developers intended (e.g., Fagan et al., 2011). Programs differ in
terms of how much of the program can be adapted and still retain a high degree of effectiveness. According to the program developers (McDonald et al.,
2012), 60% of FAST can be adapted. Core components make up only 40% of
the group processes, lending a fair amount of room for local adaptations. FAST
teams are actually encouraged by the developers to adapt the program to the
needs of the community they are serving as one way of respecting the cultural
values of the participants. Therefore, a need exists for a systematic method of
determining which, if any, adaptations should be made by FAST teams.
A few recent evaluations have attempted to address this need by collecting
qualitative program feedback from FAST parents. Knox and colleagues (Knox
et al., 2011) conducted two parent focus groups in which FAST parents reported, after participation in FAST, that they were better able to relate to and
communicate with their children, and they saw improved behavior particularly among their older children. Similarly, Ackley and Cullen (2010) used the
open-ended parent comments provided as part of the FAST, Inc. Evaluation
Report as evidence of consumer satisfaction. With the exception of these two
publications, there remains a dearth of research on parent perspectives of the
FAST program, and there is no research on the FAST process and outcomes
from the voice of child participants.
The scarcity of qualitative data on child and parent perceptions of the FAST
program exists despite evidence to suggest that the success of a program depends in large part on the degree to which parents’ and children’s concerns and
motivations are integrated into the implementation design (Olds et al., 2007).
The current study contributes to the FAST research base by being the first to
assess and analyze the child, as well as parent, perspectives of the program from
two community implementations.
The first aim of this paper is to examine child qualitative feedback on the
FAST program. The authors have particular interest in child perceptions regarding the “special play” that is a core component of the FAST program.
During “special play,” a designated target child participates in one-on-one,
parent-mediated play, while the non-target children engage in supervised freeplay (McDonald et al., 1997). The play period lasts 15 minutes, and parents
are instructed to focus on child-initiated play without directing or criticizing.
Parents are encouraged to continue “special play” between FAST sessions and
over the next 2 years. It was hypothesized that non-target siblings would have
225
negative reactions to not being the “special play” child and may feel jealous of
the special time that the target child experiences with the parent. Therefore,
child focus group interviews were conducted separately with target and nontarget children. These qualitative data are expected to provide valuable insight
on the child FAST experience that can be used to make adaptations to the
FAST sessions and potentially impact outcomes of all participating children.
A second aim of this paper is to summarize the qualitative data that is typically collected at the end of a FAST cycle as “parent comments” on the Kids
FAST evaluation questionnaire (McDonald & Creer, 2012, 2013). Parents are
asked to rate their satisfaction with the FAST program and experience with the
FAST target child. These data provide important information about unmeasured outcomes and ideas for future program implementation from the parent
perspective.
Method
Participants
Participants were children and parents/grandparents from two communities
near Richmond, Virginia. Nine families participated in the FAST program at
an elementary school in an urban community. Eleven families participated at a
second school that is located in a rural community. Demographic characteristics of evaluation participants are presented in Table 1. Some families were not
in attendance when focus groups and questionnaires were conducted; therefore, the values in Table 1 reflect a subset of program participants at each site.
Table 1. Demographic Characteristics of Participants
Group
Gender
Age
Ethnicity
Target (“Special
Play”) Children
38.5% (5) male
61.5% (8) female
Mean: 8.08
Mode: 8.00
Range: 6–11
100% African
American
Non-Target
Children
55.6% (5) male
44.4% (4) female
Mean: 9.67
Mode: 8.00
Range: 7–13
100% African
American
Mean: 37.85
Mode: ≤ 32
Range: ≤ 32 – ≥ 32
69% African Amer.
6.3% Amer. Indian/
Alaskan Native
12.5% Caucasian/
White
Parents/
Guardians
226
25% (4) male
62.5% (10) female
12.5% (2) missing
Design and Procedure
Child Procedures and Parent Consent
All questions, consent forms, and procedures for this study were approved
by a review committee of the sponsoring community organization and the
partnering school. The evaluator and FAST coordinators worked together to
develop focus group guidelines and eight questions with prompts for the child
focus groups. At the beginning of each FAST cycle, the evaluator met with
parents at both sites to discuss the child focus group questions and procedures.
Parents were able to ask questions and provide parental consent for their children to participate via written consent. Although the children at each site did
not meet the evaluator at that time, they saw her interacting with the FAST
coordinators and parents.
At the last session of the FAST cycle, the evaluator conducted two separate
child focus groups at each community site: one for the target/“special play”
children and one for the non-target children. Focus groups were selected as
the data collection strategy for two important reasons: (1) to minimize any
child discomfort related to meeting alone with an unknown adult, and (2) to
maximize child interactions which can lead to rich data (Horowitz et al., 2003;
Stafstrom, Havlena, & Krezinski, 2012). Focus groups were held in a classroom or cafeteria of the school that hosted the FAST program the children
were attending; thus, the environment was familiar to them. The evaluator and
introduction to the focus groups were presented to the children by the FAST
facilitators who had worked with the children during the FAST cycle. The evaluator/focus group facilitator was well trained in focus group methods and had
more than 20 years of experience interacting with diverse groups of children in
school and community programs.
Children were asked to provide feedback on the FAST program in their
own words. Several steps were taken to prevent socially desirable responses, including: (1) explanation regarding the confidentiality of responses, (2) use of
focus group questions that illicit both positive and negative valuations of the
program/experiences, (3) assurance that “there are no right or wrong answers,”
and (4) validation of all child responses, positive or negative. The child focus
group questions mirror the open-ended questions completed by parents on the
adult evaluation survey. The evaluator took notes and audio recorded the focus
groups, which each took about 30 minutes to complete. Audio recordings were
deleted after transcription.
The questions with prompts were:
1. What did you like most about FAST? What do you enjoy most that involves the entire family?
227
2. What did you like least about FAST? What did you not like?
3. What would you change about the program if we were to start over? What
would you add to the program? What would you take out?
4. Do you ever think about FAST on non-FAST days? When? Can you give
examples?
5. Has being in FAST changed anything between you and your family? Can
you give examples of things that have changed?
6. Has being in FAST changed anything related to your friends? Has it changed
how you make friends or how you communicate with friends?
7. What did you think of the “special play” time?
8. Can you tell me anything that happened in your life as a result of participating in FAST?
Adult Procedures
At the end of each FAST cycle, parents completed a questionnaire that is
part of the Kids FAST evaluation (McDonald & Creer, 2012, 2013). In addition to ratings on targeted program outcomes, parents provided open-ended
feedback on program impact and what they enjoyed most and least about
FAST. The questions are listed below:
1. What has been most valuable about your FAST experience?
2. What kind of changes have you seen in your FAST child since attending
FAST?
3. Has the FAST program and/or team helped you? Please explain.
4. Has being in FAST changed your relationship in any way with the following?
-FAST child
-Spouse/partner
-School personnel
-Other FAST parents
-Community agencies/organizations
5. What did you most enjoy about FAST?
6. What did you enjoy least about FAST?
Two additional questions asked about what the participant’s child enjoyed most
and least about FAST, but because the children answered these questions for
themselves, the parent responses are not presented here.
Analyses
The procedure used to analyze and organize the children’s focus group data
and the open-ended parent feedback is known as Concept Mapping. This
methodology is often used by social scientists and others to interpret qualitative input from multiple participants (Trochim, Cabrera, Milstein, Gallagher,
228
& Leischow, 2006; Trochim, Marcus, Mâsse, Moser, & Weld, 2008). The resulting “maps” provide a framework or structure for guiding action planning
or, in this case, informing program developers and implementers of program
components that seem to be working and those in need of revision or adaptation for a particular target group (e.g., school or community). Transcripts of
the children’s focus groups and the parent open-ended feedback were reviewed
by the evaluation team (i.e., evaluator and FAST coordinators), and responses
were sorted into groups corresponding to the questions asked of the children
and parents. Similar ideas or feedback were combined and given a descriptive
label. A concept map (graphic illustration) was created for each of the three
groups (i.e., target children, non-target children, and parents) to structure
the concepts within the questions/categories. Relationships between concepts
were represented with connecting arrows, and responses receiving multiple endorsements are presented in bold. Despite the urban/rural differences between
the two FAST sites, qualitative feedback across the two sites was very similar.
Therefore, the results presented are collapsed over sites as is recommended by
the FAST developers (McDonald et al., 1997). The concept maps for target
children, non-target children, and parents are presented in Figures 1–3.
Results
Target (“Special Play”) Children
Insights from the two groups of target children are depicted in Figure 1.
Target children reported enjoying most aspects of the FAST program including gym/outside time, the dinners, spending time with family, the “special
play” time, songs, and playing games. A few children reported not liking the
“Hello” song, having to go home, “having to stop playing with [siblings] because of the ‘special play’ time,” and “having to go to the library and not go
to the gym.” Suggested changes to the program were to add more free time
to play with friends, increase the length of the program (i.e., the time of each
session), and add more interesting songs. Improvements in parent/family relationships included being closer to family, better communication, getting
along better, and doing more things together. Improvements in relationships
with friends included better communication, respecting others, having more
friends, choosing friends more wisely, and being able to speak up to bullies. “I
am happy that I am playing with so many kids.” Changes in their lives as a result of participating in FAST were making better decisions, knowing how to
control anger, getting smarter/better grades, being closer to family, and being
happier. “Me and my family are closer.”
229
Figure 1. Target child concept map.
Non-Target Children
As illustrated in Figure 2, non-target children enjoyed being active/playing,
getting help with homework, having fun conversations, playing games with
their families, and talking about feelings. They did not like when the FAST
routine had to be changed, and a few did not like having to do homework
while attending a FAST session (because a parent said they must do it). Recommended changes were to make the program longer, provide healthier foods,
and allow for more free time with parents to play games. Most non-target
children reported having closer relationships with parents since participating
in FAST, communicating more and better with family members, and treating
family members better.
Since participating in FAST, non-target children reported being better at
identifying friends, being a good friend, and communicating better. They felt
they had a more positive attitude and handled conflict better as a result of the
FAST program. They also reported having more friends, including friends they
made through FAST.
230
When discussion turned to the “special play,” non-target child feedback was
conflicted. Younger siblings stated that the “special play was not fair,” and “I
was upset and mad that my brother got to go in there [for “special play”] with
my mom.” Some reported dissatisfaction with not being able to play with the
sibling because she/he had to leave a game or activity to attend the “special
play” time: “I wanted to play with my brother, but he had to leave.” However,
older non-target children, especially those who reported being the target child
in previous FAST cycles, stated that “special play is fair because she [sibling] is
younger.” They also explained that it was the younger sibling’s turn because “I
had special play before.”
Figure 2. Non-target child concept map.
Parents
Overall themes identified from parent open-ended responses on the Kids
FAST evaluation questionnaire (McDonald & Creer, 2012, 2013) are depicted
in Figure 3. Parents enjoyed spending quality time with family members, the
parent-only component, developing friendships with other parents, and “special play.” “The most valuable experience was [that] FAST helped me make
time to read my kids’ story books to them and to listen to them more than before.” Parents were less fond of having the same session routine every week, and
231
232
Figure 3. Parents concept map.
they thought that the program included too few sessions. “The program is too
short (week wise). I wish it was longer.”
In terms of FAST impact on family relationships, parents reported learning
a great deal from other families, spending more time together as a family, communicating better with family members, and having a better relationship with
the target child. “My child has been more interactive with the family and more
attentive to details at home.” “FAST has made me very aware of the importance of family time.” Most parents felt they had a good relationship with their
spouse/partner prior to attending FAST.
Although a few parents reported being better able to talk to their child’s
teacher, most reported no relationship changes with school personnel. Many
parents felt they had a good relationship with the school prior to participating in FAST. Parents also reported becoming more aware of the community
resources available to them.
Parents shared that participation in FAST had helped them communicate
better with their children, raised their awareness of the importance of family time, allowed them to open up and share with others, and made them
more aware of community resources. The most valuable program experiences,
in their views, were parent time, “special play,” meeting new parents and families, and spending quality time with family. “[FAST] makes me realize there are
other parents in the same situation as me, and they are here to talk.”
Parent-observed changes in FAST target child included being eager to learn
and participate in FAST, having better behavior at home and at school, and
being more independent and outgoing. Others stated that their child was the
“same great child.”
Discussion
Families and Schools Together (FAST) is a multifamily prevention program
designed to empower parents to take advantage of community and school resources, communicate and interact with their children in positive ways, and
build supportive relationships with other families in the same school or community. Despite the program emphasis on parent and child engagement, few of
the numerous evaluations of FAST have collected and analyzed qualitative data
reflecting the parent perspective (exception: Knox et al., 2011), and none have
examined the child perspective. These are critical omissions given the evidence
that the success of parenting programs rests largely on the degree to which
the program and the implementation design takes into consideration participant perceptions and needs (Miller & Rollnick, 2002; Olds et al., 2007). The
present study sought to fill a void in the research by collecting and analyzing
233
qualitative data from both child and parent participants of two community
implementations of FAST.
The qualitative data collected in the form of child focus groups were overwhelmingly positive, and few differences between the target (“special play”)
children and non-target children were observed. Children enjoyed most components of the program, including playing games (e.g., scribbles, feelings
charades), being active outside or in a gym/multipurpose room, talking about
feelings, and spending time with family. The children in both groups reported
experiencing many benefits from participation in the program. They described
being closer to their parents/family, knowing how to communicate more effectively, having more and better friends, and being able to handle conflict
while avoiding aggression (i.e., fighting). Target children reported being happier, getting better grades (“being smarter”), and making better decisions since
participating in FAST.
Target and non-target child perceptions of the “special play” time differed
slightly. Target children enjoyed the special one-on-one time with a parent,
with only one child not liking “special play” because she/he had to stop playing with an older sibling. Younger non-target children were more likely to react
negatively to the “special play,” feeling that it was unfair that a sibling could
play alone with a parent. However, older children, especially ones who had previously participated as the FAST target child in the past, felt that “special play”
was fair and understood the importance of it for their younger sibling. The differences in child perceptions of “special play” can inform the manner in which
children are prepared for this specific component of the program, as discussed
in the Implications section below.
Consistent with the child qualitative data, the data collected as part of the
FAST evaluation parent questionnaire provide support for parent engagement
and buy-in of the FAST model. Parents enjoyed family time, the “special play,”
and the time spent in discussion with other parents. They described improved
relationships with family members, the FAST target child, and other community agencies/resources. Perceived benefits of participating in FAST included
targeted program outcomes such as enhanced communication with children,
increased quality family time, and improved child behavior both at home and
at school.
An intriguing and important finding related to schools is the consensus that
parent relationships with school personnel did not change as a result of participation in FAST. Although a representative of the school personnel at each
community site was a member of each FAST team, except for recruiting and
interviewing parents at the beginning of the program, that individual typically
did not participate in the parent groups or engage with parents in any other
234
purposeful way. Instead, the school partner primarily carried out administrative duties such as collecting pre- and post-test surveys, sending weekly FAST
reminders, helping with set-up/break-down, and assisting with Kids Time
while parents participated in the Parent Group. The local FAST team members echoed this concern by stating that the school teachers are not directly
integrated into the program in a way that would impact outcomes including
parent–teacher relationships, parents’ school involvement, child classroom behavior, and child academic performance. Other FAST evaluations have also
observed mixed results in terms of school involvement (Crozier et al., 2010).
Finally, the current authors argue that systematic investigation of child and
parent perceptions and program feedback can and must be conducted in order to maximize the cultural fit and responsiveness of the program and to take
advantage of the adaptable nature of school- and community-based programs
such as FAST. Giving the child and parent participants a voice and responding to those voices as much as possible ensures the fit and sustainability of the
program in a community. The qualitative methods used in this project can be
easily replicated by evaluators of other school- and community-based parenting
programs to inform developers of possible revisions to the program and to provide local facilitators with sources of potential adaptations of implementation.
Implications
Consistent with other program evaluation research (e.g., Stafstrom et al.,
2012; Vessey, DiFazio, & Strout, 2016), the child focus groups in this study
were effective at gaining insight into the perceptions of child participants in
the FAST program. The child participants in this study went willingly with
the evaluator to the classrooms where the focus groups were conducted, presumably because the environment (i.e., school) was familiar to them and the
evaluator and focus group procedures were introduced by the FAST facilitators with whom they were comfortable. The children openly provided their
views on different aspects of the program (e.g., “special play”), changes they
would like to see made to the program and/or schedule, and perceived impact.
Although most of the focus group feedback was positive, the children also
shared “dislikes,” suggested changes, and expressed negative feelings toward
the “special play” component, making it less likely that a social desirability bias
contaminated the findings.
The child focus group questions and analytic strategy used in the present
study can easily be used by communities implementing FAST or adapted for
use with other community-based preventive interventions. Likewise, openended program feedback from parents can provide important information for
meeting family needs and responding to any concerns that arise.
235
Although older children appeared to understand the importance of a younger sibling experiencing “special play” with a parent, younger children who have
not had this experience could benefit from a discussion with a FAST team
member and parent regarding this component of the program. Reassurance
from FAST team members and the parent that the non-target child is important and loved will help to ease feelings of jealously toward the target sibling.
The FAST team can also encourage parents to engage in “special play” with the
non-target child outside of the FAST program sessions.
The FAST program views the family and school as interrelated components
of a larger system. The program is often held in a school building, yet school
personnel (e.g., teachers, principals, guidance counselors) may not be actively
involved in the program. Given the fact that parent involvement in schools has
been linked to important outcomes such as student achievement (Gonzalez &
Jackson, 2013; Ross, 2016), student engagement (Kraft & Dougherty, 2013),
and improved parenting skills (Webster-Stratton, Reid, & Stollmiller, 2008),
program developers may want to consider ways in which school personnel can
be more actively engaged with parents during the weekly sessions. These methods should reflect the culture of the families and schools but could include
school open houses, parent–teacher lunch meetings, and opportunities to volunteer in the classroom. Adding a brainstorming session at the beginning of
a program session for parents, teachers, and other school personnel may help
generate ideas for enhancing the parent–school relationship and reaping the
potential child, school climate, and family benefits.
References
Ackley, M. K., & Cullen, P. M. (2010). Strengthening families through community collaboration: Implementing the Families and Schools Together (FAST) program. Children &
Schools, 32(3), 183–186.
Crozier, M., Rokutani, L., Russett, J. L., Godwin, E., & Banks, G. E. (2010). A multisite
program evaluation of Families and Schools Together (FAST): Continued evidence of a
successful multifamily community-based prevention program. School Community Journal,
Fagan, A. A., Arthur, M. W., Hanson, K., Briney, J. S., & Hawkins, J. D. (2011). Effects of
communities that care on the adoption and implementation fidelity of evidence-based prevention programs in communities: Results from a randomized controlled trial. Prevention
Science, 12(3), 223–234.
González, R. L., & Jackson, C. L. (2013). Engaging with parents: The relationship between
school engagement efforts, social class, and learning. School Effectiveness and School Improvement: An International Journal of Research, Policy, and Practice, 24(3), 316–335.
Guerra, N., & Knox, L. (2008). How culture impacts the dissemination and implementation
of innovation: A case study of the Families and Schools Together program (FAST) for preventing violence with immigrant Latino youth. American Journal of Community Psychology,
41(3), 304–313.
236
Horowitz, J., Vessey, J., Carlson, K., Bradley, J., Montoya, C., & McCullough, B. (2003).
Conducting school-based focus groups: Lessons learned from the CATS project. Journal of
Pediatric Nursing, 18(5), 321–331.
Knox, L., Guerra, N. G., Williams, K. R., & Toro, R. (2011). Preventing children’s aggression
in immigrant Latino families: A mixed methods evaluation of the Families and Schools
Together program. American Journal of Community Psychology, 48(1–2), 65–76.
Kraft, M. A., & Dougherty, S. M. (2013). The effect of teacher–family communication on
student engagement: Evidence from a randomized field experiment. Journal of Research on
Educational Effectiveness, 6(3), 199–222.
Kratochwill, T., McDonald, L., Levin, J., Bear-Tibbetts, H., & Demaray, M. (2004, September). Families and Schools Together: An experimental analysis of a parent-mediated
multifamily group program for American Indian children. Journal of School Psychology,
42(5), 359–383.
Layzer, J. I., Goodson, B., Creps, C.,Werner, A., & Bernstein, L. (2001). National evaluation
of family support programs: Volume B. Research studies (Final report). Cambridge, MA: ABT
Associates.
McDonald, L., Billingham, S., Conrad, T., Morgan, A., Nina, O., & Peyton, E. (1997). Families and Schools Together (FAST): Integrating community development with clinical strategies. Families in Society, 78(2), 140–155.
McDonald, L., & Creer, G. (2012). Kids FAST evaluation report for Henrico Area Mental Health
& Developmental Services, Richmond, VA, Date of Cycle: October 9, 2012–December 5,
2012.
McDonald, L., & Creer, G. (2013). Kids FAST evaluation report for Henrico Area Mental Health
& Developmental Services, Richmond, VA, Date of Cycle: March 5, 2013–April 30, 2013.
McDonald, L., FitzRoy, S., Fuchs, I., Fooken, I., & Klasen, H. (2012). Strategies for high
retention rates of low-income families in FAST: An evidence-based parenting programme
in the USA, UK, Holland, and Germany. European Journal of Developmental Psychology,
9(1), 75–88.
McDonald, L., Frank, M., & Price, K. (2006). FAST evaluation report for Moulden Park School
& Neighbourhood Centre, Palmerston, Northern Territory, National Training and Evaluation Centre, Madison, WI.
McDonald, L., Moberg, D., Brown, R., Rodriguez-Espiricueta, I., Flores, N., Burke, M., &
Coover, G. (2006). After-school multifamily groups: A randomized controlled trial involving low-income, urban, Latino children. Children & Schools, 28(1), 25–34.
Miller, W. R., & Rollnick, S. (2002). Motivational interviewing: Preparing people for change.
New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Moberg, D. P., McDonald, L., Brown, R., & Burke, M. (2003, June). Randomized trial of
Families and Schools Together (FAST). Paper presented at the 11th annual meeting of the
Society for Prevention Research, Washington, DC.
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP). (n.d.). Model programs guide.
Retrieved from http://www.ojjdp.gov/mpg/
Olds, D. L., Sadler, L., & Kitzman, H. (2007). Programs for parents of infants and toddlers: Recent evidence from randomized trials. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry,
48(3–4), 355–391.
Ross, T. (2016). The differential effects of parental involvement on high school completion and
postsecondary attendance. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 24(30/31), 1–38.
Stafstrom, C. E., Havlena, J., & Krezinski, A. J. (2012). Art therapy focus groups for children
and adolescents with epilepsy. Epilepsy & Behavior, 24(2), 227–233.
237
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). (2003). Sciencebased prevention programs and principles 2002: Effective substance abuse and mental health
programs for every community (DHHS Publication No. 03-3764). Rockville, MD: Author.
Trochim, W. M., Cabrera, D. A., Milstein, B., Gallagher, R. S., & Leischow, S. J. (2006).
Practical challenges of systems thinking and modeling in public health. American Journal
of Public Health, 96(3), 538–546. Retrieved from http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/
research/PracticalChallengesOfSystemsThinkingAndModelingInPublicHealth.pdf
Trochim, W., Marcus, S. E., Mâsse, L. C., Moser, R. P., & Weld, P. (2008). The evaluation of
large research initiatives: A participatory integrative mixed methods approach. American
Journal of Evaluation, 29(1), 8–28.
Vessey, J., DiFazio, R., & Strout, T. (2016). Qualitative approaches appropriate in instrument
development for children, youths, and family members. Nursing Research, 65(2), 70–71.
Webster-Stratton, C., Reid, J. M., & Stoolmiller, M. (2008). Preventing conduct problems and
improving school readiness: Evaluation of the Incredible Years teacher and child training
programs in high-risk schools. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 49(5), 471–488.
Melodie Fearnow-Kenney is currently senior research associate at the
Center for School–Community Collaboration at Virginia Commonwealth
University. Her research interests are focused on alcohol and other drug prevention, primarily among youth and young adults. Melodie is actively involved
in prevention activities in her community, where she serves as grant writer
and evaluator for many nonprofit organizations. Correspondence concerning
this article may be addressed to Melodie Fearnow-Kenney, PhD, Center for
School–Community Collaboration, School of Education, Virginia Commonwealth University, 3600 W. Broad St., Suite 117, Richmond, VA 23298-2020,
or email [email protected]
Patricia Hill has worked in the field of substance abuse and treatment with
youth and families in a variety of settings. She is currently the manager of prevention services at Henrico Area Mental Health and Developmental Services.
As an adjunct professor, she has taught social work students at Virginia State
University and Virginia Commonwealth University. Her research interests focus on the substance abuse recovery experiences of women of color and on
resiliency in individuals, families, and communities who have experienced historical trauma. She was recently appointed to serve on the Virginia Statewide
Cultural and Linguistic Competency Committee.
Nicole Gore has worked with Henrico Area Mental Health and Developmental Services as a prevention coordinator for the past 12 years, facilitating
parenting programs, coordinating youth substance abuse prevention programs,
engaging in community capacity building, and providing leadership to community coalitions. She is currently a certified trainer for the FAST (Families
and Schools Together) Parenting Program.
238
The Prairie Valley Project: Reactions to a
Transition to a Schoolwide, Multiage Elementary
Classroom Design
Gregory J. Bailey, Eric P. Werth, Donna M. Allen, and
Leonie L. Sutherland
Abstract
Originating from progressive educators who saw the need for studentcentered educational designs rather than the traditional, single-age classroom
design based on Henry Ford’s assembly line, the multiage classroom design
is returning as a viable alternative to the single-age classroom. The authors
explored the perceptions of parents and teachers impacted during the transition of two elementary schools away from single-age classrooms to a multiage
classroom design. This study specifically focused on kindergarten through fifth
grade and examined the overall effect of the multiage design on these two
groups and on the elements that were important to the administration. Results
indicate that parents support the transition to a multiage design. Although
they demonstrated support, teachers were significantly more neutral than the
parents in several areas, such as family–school relationships, class size stability,
teacher assignment stability, and overall ability of students to do well in the
multiage classroom. The findings of this research will assist districts transitioning to a multiage design in identifying what elements of the design are likely to
be supported by parents and teachers.
Key Words: multiage classrooms, differentiated instruction, looping, collaboration, parent perspectives, school–family relationships, students, social skills,
teachers, school design, class size
239
Introduction
A single-age classroom is what those in the United States have come to expect of traditional education. Students are grouped by grades based on the
chronological age of the student and moved through the system in an assembly line fashion. In a multiage classroom, however, students of multiple grade
levels are combined, providing for greater flexibility in allowing students to
naturally progress socially and cognitively beyond what can be facilitated in
a single-age design (Carter, 2005; Song, Spradlin, & Plucker, 2009). The ideology of this design is supported by the work of such progressive educators
as Marietta Johnson, founder of the School of Organic Education, and John
Dewey, developer of Experimental Education, as well as being grounded in the
theories of Jean Piaget, Albert Bandura, and Lev Vygotsky who supported child
learning driven by the cognitive level that may differ from child to child at a
single age level (Bandura, 1977; Cherry, n.d.; Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, n.d; Mosteller-Timbles, 2015; Piaget, 1959; Vygotsky, 1978). While
theoretically beneficial in a number of ways, such a drastic change needs the
support of teachers and parents. This study describes the experience of parents
and teachers in a schoolwide transition from a single-age classroom design to
multiage classrooms, referred to as the Prairie Valley Project.
The Prairie Valley Project
The Prairie Valley Project began in concept in the 2009–10 academic year
with two schools in a small district located in the Northwestern United States.
School leaders had identified a variety of issues that needed to be addressed to
improve teaching and learning. Issues of primary importance included the lack
of opportunity for teachers to have collaborative partners so they could share
expertise when classes were divided by age yet some overflow students from an
unusually large grade-level population were placed in a multigrade classroom.
The multigrade approach was disliked by staff and students due to its design
which involved keeping the two grade levels separate within the classroom.
This resulted in teachers who had to instruct one grade level while the other
grade level worked independently. A concern was also identified regarding the
inability to equalize classes with this method of class placement. In addition,
there was a deep concern for the amount of time wasted at the beginning of
each year when a teacher had to spend much of the first month instructing
the students in general classroom procedures as well as getting to know the
individual learning capabilities of each student. Teachers and administrators
also determined more needed to be done to foster greater parental involvement in children’s learning. This was especially true as both schools had a high
240
MULTIAGE CLASSROOM DESIGN
population of low-income families. Finally, educators at the two schools had
discussed the potential value of creating a more natural and secure setting for
nurturing better social skills needed by many students.
Research identified the multiage classroom as a design model that has the
potential to provide a more favorable framework to improve the effectiveness
of the classroom with such elements as looping, differentiated instruction, and
teacher collaboration (Broome, 2009; Grove & Fisher, 2006; Hitz, Somers, &
Jenlink, 2011; Tobin & McInnes, 2008). The design also provides an environment conducive to enhancing the family–school relationship as well student
social skills (Broome, 2009; Carter, 2005). These improvements are supported through the procedure of looping the younger grade students back with
the same teacher for the second year of the two grade-level classroom design.
Looping, therefore, is a mechanism by which a multiage classroom can be created. This looping allows parents and teachers an opportunity to better know
each other’s needs in supporting student learning and allows students to better know other students within the classroom. Differentiated instruction can
be enhanced when the teacher is able to learn more about each student’s individual learning needs since they are teaching the student for two years instead
of one. Teacher collaboration may be enhanced by using the multiage design,
especially in smaller schools that may otherwise have had only one or two
teachers per grade level; the new design may double the number of teachers
with the same assignment, allowing for enriching, collaborative conversations.
During the 2010–11 school year, the school district piloted two multiage
classrooms in Grades K–5. Observations throughout the 2010–11 school year
as well as discussions with the teachers involved made it apparent that teachers supported a combined classroom of two grades using the multiage concept
(rather than the multigrade concept with separated grades within one room)
because students appeared to be on task more and had less down time. The
observations also helped the administration see the value this classroom design could provide in resolving other issues that had occurred when single age
or multigrade classrooms were utilized. These issues included unequally sized
classrooms, isolation of teachers and students within an overload classroom,
and reduced motivation of teachers to differentiate instruction in a single-grade
level classroom. After a year of observation, district leaders decided to transition all kindergarten through fifth grade classes to a multiage design beginning
in the 2011–12 school year. Thus, both Valley Elementary and Prairie Elementary (pseudonyms) transitioned to a schoolwide multiage classroom concept at
a time period predating this study by two years.
The design consisted of classrooms combining two grade levels: kindergarten and first grade, second and third grades, and fourth and fifth grades.
241
The specific combinations were decided because of the desire to make the entire elementary grade levels into multiage classrooms. The kindergarten–first
grade combination also provided the advantage of allowing all-day schooling
for kindergarteners by integrating them with the first graders. Previously, the
kindergarten students had attended half days. Each of these groups were called
“pods” (K–1 pods, Grade 2–3 pods, etc.). Teachers grouped students in an equitable manner between high, average, and low achieving students of both grade
levels in each classroom. The achievement level of each student was determined
by the previous year’s standardized assessment and previous teacher-designed
assessments and observations, or in the case of the kindergarten students new
to the school district, they were assessed through the kindergarten screening
that was conducted during the spring semester prior to their entry. Students
would remain with the same teacher for the two-year grade span. As such, half
of the students would exit a pod each year, and half of the students would remain for their second year with another group of students joining the pod.
Pod K/1st
Kindergarten
(Loop)
1st Grade
(Transition)
Pod 2nd/3rd
2nd Grade
(Loop)
3 Grade
rd
(Transition)
Pod 4th/5th
4th Grade
(Loop)
5th Grade
(Transition)
6th Grade and Up
Figure1.1.Student
Studentprogression
progressionthrough
throughaaschoolwide
schoolwidemultiage
multiageclassroom
classroomdesign.
design.
Figure
242
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to explore, analyze, and describe the impact
of transitioning from a single-age to multiage classroom design on the students, parents, and teachers within the Prairie Valley Project. Emphasis was
placed on providing details of parents’ and teachers’ perceptions of transitioning into a schoolwide multiage classroom design, as this was identified as a gap
in current literature regarding multiage classrooms.
Previous research, further described below, indicates that multiage classrooms embody key elements which have been identified as necessary in
supporting a student’s sense of belonging (Song et al., 2009). To determine if
transitioning to a multiage model impacted the students’ educational climate
through the embedded elements of looping, differentiated instruction, teacher
collaboration, and family–school relationships, the perceptions of both teachers and parents were examined. The following research questions formed the
basis of this study:
RQ1. What effect did the multiage classroom design have on teachers and
parents who have students in the program?
RQ2. What components of the multiage classroom explain the effect the program has on teachers and parents who have students in the program?
Review of Literature
Theoretical Foundation
The theoretical foundation of the multiage classroom and this study can be
found in the work of Jean Piaget, Albert Bandura, and Lev Vygotsky. These
theorists believed that the environment to which students were subjected impacted their academic and social development (Bandura, 1977; Cherry, n.d.;
Piaget, 1959; Vygotsky, 1978). They asserted that students develop most effectively in a safe and trusting environment as this allows students to explore,
try new things, and challenge themselves (see Cherry, “Social Development
Theory,” n.d.). The multiage classroom provides such an environment, one
that is student-centered, rich with opportunities to interact with other students
at different levels of development, providing a community atmosphere where
students feel comfortable with their teacher, and facilitating trust and communication between parents and teachers (Allen, 2010; Carter, 2005; Hitz et
al., 2007). This is not always the case in a single-age classroom design where
expectations of learning capabilities are standardized to the typical age for that
grade level and lower levels of development are considered a deficit (Bowman,
Bowman, & Conley, 2005).
243
The multiage classroom has components impacting students, teachers, and
parents both within the school itself, called within school factors, as well as
outside the walls of the school, referred to as outside school factors (Bailey &
Williams-Black, 2008; Belcher, 2000; Grove & Fisher, 2006). Within school
factors include differentiated instruction, looping, and teacher collaboration.
Outside school factors include the family–school relationship and student social skills.
Within School Factors
Differentiated Instruction
Differentiated instruction is a flexible approach to instruction allowing
students to work at their individual levels (Bailey & Williams-Black, 2008;
Driskill, 2010). This may be done through adjustments in the delivery of
instruction, assignments provided, or the method of mastery of learning objectives (Bailey & Williams-Black, 2008; Driskill, 2010). If used with the concept
that instruction should be student-oriented rather than teacher-oriented, differentiated instruction allows teachers a greater opportunity to support each
individual student in the development of his or her learning rather than continually attempting to teach to the masses (Carter, 2005; Danling et al., 1999).
A multiage design’s structure naturally forces teachers to differentiate their
instruction to meet the needs of all of their students so that students can learn
at their own developmental pace (Hitz et al., 2007). With the opportunity differentiated instruction provides for individualizing instruction, this method
should mesh well with classroom designs that consists of a wide age range or
classes that contain students at varying learning levels (Broome, 2009; Carter,
2005; Veenman, 1996). Differentiated instruction can support both learning
disabled and gifted students in developmentally appropriate ways without being removed from the classroom setting for specialized instruction (Driskill,
2010; Tobin & McInnes, 2008). Keeping students together can foster better
peer relations (Allen, 2010; Estell et al., 2009).
Looping
Looping refers to a situation in which students are with the same teacher
for multiple years. Previous research indicates that looping has merit in supporting a positive classroom climate and learning environment (Belcher, 2000;
Danling et al., 1999; Hitz et al., 2007). In the most common multiage design,
a teacher has students from two grade levels (Belcher, 2000; Hitz et al., 2007),
such as the model used by the Prairie Valley Project (see Figure 1).
The reported advantages of looping are numerous, particularly within a
multiage framework. Looping reduces the amount of time wasted at the start
244
of an academic year normally spent by students learning classroom procedures
and rules (Hitz et al., 2007; Moser, West, & Hughes, 2012). This allows students to begin academic work much earlier (Danling et al., 1999). Students
entering the classroom for the first time have the older, returning students as
peer tutors to assist them in learning the rules and procedures of the classroom.
This frees the teacher from these administrative tasks and allows him/her to focus on instructional elements (Carter, 2005).
The ability to enhance the student–teacher relationship over a longer period
of time is another previously identified benefit of looping (Beaman, 2009; Hitz
et al., 2007). Teachers who already know the abilities of returning students are
better suited to meet the students’ learning needs. Of the teachers surveyed in
a previous study, 92% stated looping provided them the time they needed to
have more awareness of students’ needs (Belcher, 2000). This is particularly important when students come to school fragile, unmotivated, or from transient
families (Grove & Fisher, 2006; Hitz et al., 2007). In a schoolwide implementation where multiple classrooms within a pod are present, as was the case
within the Prairie Valley Project, the ability is available to move students from
one classroom to another should a serious teacher–student or teacher–parent
conflict arise.
Another area where the looping design has benefited students is in social
skill development (Belcher, 2000; Hitz et al., 2007). During the second year
within the same classroom setting, students may feel more comfortable because
of increased peer relations built over time and the sense of comfort and community developed in the multiage class (Beaman, 2009; Carter, 2005; Hitz et
al., 2007). Classrooms that have a broader age range have also been shown to
improve social interactions, similar to the development that occurs in families
with multiple children (Danling et al., 1999; Grove & Fisher, 2006; Penney,
2005). Additional social benefits found in the multiage classroom include a reduction in behavioral issues like bullying, increased willingness to participate
in class, and greater ties to other students and the school community on the
part of students (Belcher, 2000; Hitz et al., 2007).
Collaboration
Collaboration is described as the ability to work within a group for the
purpose of orienting to an issue, coordinating, planning, and making connections (Kimmel, 2012). Teachers who work as a group with a common purpose
can better meet the needs of their students. Those who collaborate have been
shown to be more willing to differentiate instruction due to the time saved
by sharing responsibilities (Grove & Fisher, 2006; Levine & Marcus, 2007;
Stuart, Connor, Cady, & Zweifel, 2006). The most common concern in the
245
multiage classroom is the workload; the main cause of the increased workload identified by teachers participating in one study was the need to adapt
curriculum materials to support differentiated instruction (Song et al., 2009).
Teachers needed to pull curriculum materials from multiple sources to meet
the various levels of learning spanning the two grade levels rather than having
a single textbook as a source of curriculum. This is why it is even more important for teachers to collaborate with each other to meet the increasing demands
placed upon them (Grove & Fisher, 2006; Kobelin, 2009; Page, 2006; Stuart
et al., 2006). Through teamwork, collaboration provides the ability to share the
workload to reduce preparation time.
The multiage classroom design’s ability to standardize class groupings by
bringing multiple grades together allows students to be a community of learners as well as teachers (Broome, 2009). An example of this would be in a
scenario where—rather than having one second grade, one third grade, and
one multigrade classroom so none of the three teachers can communicate or
share work because they are teaching three fundamentally different classes—
the school has three second–third pods where the three teachers teach within a
similar design and act as a community. Providing a setting that allows teachers
to come together for a common cause is the essence of collaboration that will
benefit students (Broome, 2009; Kimmel, 2012).
Outside School Factors
While factors impacting the school environment directly are important
to student success, the multiage classroom design also influences the family–
school relationship and the student’s social skills development (Allen, 2010;
Song et al., 2009). Frequently when school systems implement a new class design, these secondary areas of impact are overlooked even though they impact
learning (Barnyak & McNelly, 2009; Bracke & Corts, 2012; Cornish, 2009).
Family–School Relationship
Family engagement can assist students, parents, and teachers in developing
a trusting community that will benefit student learning (Barnyak & McNelly,
2009; Daniel, 2011). Increased communication between schools and families
provides parents with an awareness of the educational system so they can assist
and advocate effectively for their child’s educational needs, as well as support
the teacher’s instructional goals for their child (Daniel, 2011).
Previous research supports the need for family engagement in a child’s education. Children achieve greater academic success if they have parents who are
engaged in their education, teachers who provide learning experiences that
relate to their home environment, and parents and teachers who frequently
246
communicate (Daniel, 2011; Kim et al., 2012; Smith, 2006). Furthermore,
students who have their families’ support of their educational studies are more
comfortable in the educational setting. This comfort level allows students to
be more willing to take risks in their learning (Carter, 2005). Vygotsky (1962)
emphasized the importance of the role of families as well as communities, as
well as the importance of a child’s comfort level in socializing and gaining the
opportunity to learn.
The engagement of the family with the school has been found to provide
teachers with a better understanding of the family dynamics, allowing them to
better understand how best to interact with the family in order to foster needed
support to assist the student (Barnyak & McNelly, 2009; Zygmunt-Fillwalk,
2011). Strong family–school relationships also provide teachers the knowledge
of how best to communicate with children and how best to relay information
back home (Carter, 2005).
The multiage design with educational components such as looping can help
develop a community atmosphere between families and the school (Sheers,
2010). Earlier studies have shown that parents who have students in the classroom with the same teacher for two or more years develop a deeper connection
with the teacher and are more likely to be engaged in their child’s education
(Smith, 2006). The sense of community built in a multiage looping classroom
spills over to the relationship between the school and the families of these students (Beaman, 2009; Carter, 2005). Teachers also have the opportunity to
help students bridge the different grade levels by staying in communication
with them and their families during the summer months (Hitz et al., 2007).
Student Social Skills
One attribute of the multiage design parents might have found appealing
is that the design lends itself to the creation of an environment that may positively impact student social skills (Beaman, 2009; Carter, 2005; Levine &
Marcus, 2007). This is especially true as society has been bombarded with
studies regarding the epidemic of bullying incidents (Allen, 2010; Estell et al.,
2009). Having older students in a classroom with younger students allows the
older students to provide guidance as role models. The older students are able
to introduce the younger students to the rules and procedures of the classroom,
and they are also able to encourage the younger students in their work (Carter,
2005). Students learning of social skills through interaction with older peer
mentors may prepare them to deal with future social situations (Stuart et al.,
2006). Students, when in the presence of older students within a classroom,
will often watch and simulate a higher level of social skills under the supervision of an instructor (Stuart et al., 2006).
247
By not requiring pull out services, the multiage classroom allows students
with learning disabilities to interact with their peers, a benefit not available had
they been removed from the classroom setting (Carter, 2005; Nevin, Cramer,
Voigt, & Salazar, 2008). Peer dynamics are an important part of a child’s development. Keeping students together can foster better peer relations that could
possibly reduce bullying (Allen, 2010; Estell et al., 2009). This is especially
helpful for students with mild learning disabilities who need support in developing social connections within the classroom (Estell et al., 2009).
Although the literature indicates potential positive impacts of the multiage classroom, little has been written regarding parental support of this design
(Beaman, 2009; Levine & Marcus, 2007; Niesche & Jorgensen, 2010; Smith,
2006). Multiage classrooms purportedly provide a positive and enriched environment, a focus on student achievement, and teachers meeting their students’
individual needs through the use of differentiated instruction, and they give
parents and students a sense of community and a place for their voices to be
heard (Sheers, 2010). Parental support likely plays a critical role in the effective
implementation of multiage design as previous studies highlight the importance of parental input and support in educational initiatives (Baeck, 2010;
Barnyak & McNelly, 2009; Bracke & Corts, 2012; Smith, 2006).
Methods
Research Design
The mixed methods design, an explanatory multiple-case study, was chosen
for this investigation. The explanatory multiple-case study allows the qualitative data to provide additional information to the researcher to clarify the
results of the quantitative portion of the study. The written responses to openended questions provided information that could not be obtained by interviews
due to the need for anonymity. Using a multiple-site approach allowed for the
comparison of any adaptations the two schools might have taken during the
implementation process. The mixed method approach was selected for its ability to provide a richer understanding through the use of quantitative research (a
5-point Likert scale survey) and open-ended qualitative questions (Al-Hamdan
& Anthony, 2010; Blatchford, 2005; Creswell & Garrett, 2008; Powell, Mihalas, Onwuegbuzie, Suldo, & Daley, 2008; Venkatesh, Brown, & Bala, 2013).
Participants
Parents with students in the multiage classrooms and teachers who taught
in these multiage classrooms within the Prairie Valley Project were sent a letter
asking them to participate in the study. The parent online survey was sent to
248
348 families with instructions requesting one parent or guardian of each family
to complete the survey. A letter was sent home with students seven days later to
remind parents to complete the survey. After one month, due to low response
rates, a message was sent through the school district’s mass communication
system. Of the 348 families, 122 families represent Valley Elementary School,
and 226 represent Prairie Elementary School. Of the 348 families invited to
participate, 98 completed the online survey, a 28% completion rate.
All teachers who were assigned to students in a multiage classroom design
within either of the two school sites were also asked to participate in the study.
The teacher online survey was given to all 30 teachers who taught or supported the multiage classroom setting within the district. Twenty-three instructors
completed the survey, a response rate of 76.6%. Participants were asked to only
identify the grade level to which they were assigned. The participation rate of
all subgroups was high except in the second–third pod where 37.5% of teachers responded.
Instrument
The investigator-developed survey utilized in this study consisted of a
5-point Likert scale and open-ended questions. The survey for both the teachers and the parents contained 24 statements. Three Likert scale statements
evaluated each of the seven key areas of interest (differentiated instruction,
looping, family–school relationships, teacher collaboration, class size stabilization, social skill improvement, teacher assignment stabilization), and three
statements looked at the overall perception of the participant. The study identified possible attractive elements or outcomes that occur when utilizing the
multiage design. Scale and item content validity was conducted with eight content experts following Lynn’s (1986) protocol.
Data collection began in the fall of 2013. Both quantitative and qualitative
data elements of the study were collected and studied simultaneously during
the analysis phase. The qualitative portion of the survey was nested within the
quantitative portion and used for clarification purposes (Terrell, 2012). The
following questions were posed to participants (the first three were asked of
both teachers and parents; the fourth was only asked of parents):
1. Is there any information you would like to add regarding any of the survey
questions you answered?
2. Is there any other information that you believe we should know that was
not asked in the previous survey?
3. Is there anything that you would like the school to change in regards to the
multiage classroom design?
4. If you have any other children in kindergarten through fifth grade in
249
[school district name removed for confidentiality], is there any information that you would like to share regarding different experiences that you
or your other children experienced in regards to the multiage classroom
setting?
Table 1. Multiage Elements Studied With Definitions
Multiage
Elements
Operational Definitions
Differentiated
Instruction
Tailoring instruction to student needs, which also includes scaffolding lessons and using flexible student groupings (Driskill,
2010).
Looping
Looping is defined as teachers and students moving together
from one grade level to the next as a group (Nevin et al., 2008).
Engagement of families and other stakeholders within their
Family–School
child’s education to help provide goals that are aligned with
Relationships
those of the educators (Brotherton, Kostine, & Powers, 2010).
Teacher
Collaboration
Class Size
Stability
Teachers who jointly plan, implement, and evaluate with other
school personnel (Kimmel, 2012).
The ability to maintain equitable class sizes throughout the
school system.
Social Skills
Improvement
Providing opportunities for students to learn, practice, and master skills that allow them to communicate and participate with
others.
Teacher
Assignment
Stability
The ability to allow teachers to maintain the same teaching assignment over a longer period of time so that they have the opportunity to become more knowledgeable and skilled within that
area.
Overall
Impression
The general thoughts and feelings toward a program or issue.
Data Analysis
The data was analyzed to determine the more favorable components of the
multiage classroom design as perceived by parents and teachers. To ascertain
whether parents and teachers in the two schools differed in their responses,
a Mann–Whitney U test was calculated using SPSS. To determine if survey responses differed based on the student pod level, Kruskal-Wallis H was
calculated. For all statistical analyses, p-values less than .05 were considered
significant.
250
Limitations
A limitation of this study was the sample sizes as both the parent and teacher surveys were small. This is, in part, due to the two small school districts in
which the study took place. The demographics of the school districts also resulted in the inclusion of predominantly Caucasian students and only those
in elementary school. Students identified as having a Caucasian ethnicity represented 93.33%, with other various ethnicities representing the remainder
6.67% of the student population. Fifty-four percent of the students qualified
for the free-reduced lunch program.
Another limitation to this study is the possible impact of the two schools
still being in the initial phases of transition to the multiage classroom design.
With only two complete years since the start of the transition, concern from
staff and parents about the effectiveness of the design might exist that will not
in later years.
Finally, as the primary investigator was a former superintendent of the
school district where the study took place, participants may have believed they
had to provide a socially acceptable response to items on the survey (Krumpal,
2011) or may have been concerned that their responses could be identified.
This consideration, at times, eliminated certain data gathering possibilities due
to the possible bias on the part of the researcher or fear of identification by survey participants. As primary investigator, it was important to work with the
chair of the doctoral committee and the chair of the Human Research Review
Committee during the planning and completion of the data gathering to minimize these potential issues.
Results
Frequency Distributions
The frequency of responses was identified for both the parent survey and
teacher survey and displayed in clusters representing the multiage element the
statements addressed. Scale scores were given for each item. The scale ranged
from a score of 1, which was given for the response “Almost Always True”; 2
representing “Often True”; 3 representing “Sometime True”; 4 indicating “Seldom True”; to 5, which represented “Almost Never True.” Each of the 24 items
was written as a positive statement so a mean of less than three would represent
a response that is considered positive toward the multiage classroom design.
The frequency distribution was utilized to identify the level of effect that the
overall perception, as well as each element, had on both parents and teachers.
A positive skewed distribution would demonstrate a supportive effect.
251
Quantitative Analysis
To determine the difference in responses regarding the perceptions of the
parents and teachers, a Mann-Whitney U analysis was completed using SPSS.
All areas within this portion of the research were designed to determine if there
was a significant difference between teacher and parent responses to prompts
related to differentiated instruction, looping, family–school relationships,
teacher collaboration, class size stabilization, social skill improvement, teacher
assignment stabilization, or overall perception. Although 17 responses on the
parents and teachers’ surveys were similar, some statistical differences did result; those items are shown in Table 2.
Table 2. Perception Difference of Parents and Teachers
Item
Elements
Likert Scale Item
MannWhitney
U
p
7
The multiage design has helped with
Family–School
parents feeling more comfortable with
Relationships
communication with the teacher.
274.50
0.00*
8
Family–School Parents have a better understanding of
Relationships the teacher’s expectations.
425.00
0.00*
9
Having a teacher teach their child for
Family–School
more than one year has improved parRelationships
ent communication.
386.00
0.00*
17
Class Size
Stability
Smaller class sizes are considered a
positive part of the multiage classroom.
211.00
0.00*
18
Class Size
Stability
Smaller class sizes allow teachers to
work with students individually.
620.50
0.02*
19
Teacher
Assignment
Stability
Reducing the need to have teachers
reassigned due to student populations
has allowed teachers to become more
of an expert in the classroom that they
have been assigned to.
602.50
0.02*
23
Overall
Perception
Overall, students do well in the multiage classroom.
486.00
0.00*
*p < .05
Significant differences existed between parents and teachers in the family–
school relationship portion of the survey. Perception ratings for parents (Mean
252
Rank = 44.85) and teachers (Mean Rank = 76.25) were significantly different
in relation to the multiage classroom design making parents feel more comfortable communicating with the classroom teacher and in parents having a better
understanding of the teacher’s expectations within a multiage classroom design (Parent Mean Ranking = 46.25; Teachers Mean Ranking = 71.68). These
results indicate that parents were more positive about these elements of the
family–school relationship than teachers anticipated. A significant difference
also existed in the perception of how communication between families and the
school improved when students had the same teacher a second year in a row,
with parents’ perception again being more positive than teachers believed they
would be (Parent Mean Rank = 46.21, Teacher Mean Rank = 71.68).
A Mann-Whitney U test was also used to examine differences in the perception of parents and teachers regarding the impact of transitioning to a multiage
design on the stabilization of class sizes. One reason for multiage implementation was its theoretical ability to maintain consistent class sizes throughout
the grade levels when a grade level has an influx of more students during one
year. In regards to this prompt on the survey, parent (Mean Rank = 44.07) and
teacher (Mean Rank = 83.91) perceptions were significantly different.
Other items on the survey that showed significant differences in parent and
teacher perception were whether smaller classes sizes allowed more time for
individualized instruction by the teacher, if the stability of having a teacher assigned to grades for a longer period of time makes them more of an expert in
this assignment, and the overall view of the benefit of the multiage classroom.
In regard to smaller classes leading to more individualized attention, parents
had a more positive view of the impact of the multiage design than teachers
(Parent Mean Rank = 47.46, Teacher Mean Rank = 63.02). Parents also had a
greater impression on the positive impact of the multiage design than teachers
in regards to teacher assignment stability leading to greater teacher expertise
and the overall benefit of the multiage design with the former item being significantly different at the p = .02 level and the latter at the p = .00 level.
A Mann-Whitney U test was completed between the parent group who had
students in the first year of a looped multiage classroom (K, 2nd, and 4th) versus the parent group of the students who were in the second year of a looped
multiage classroom (1st, 3rd, and 5th). No items were found to have a statistically significant difference among these two groups. In addition, the same test
was used to examine any statistically significant differences between the two
schools utilized in this study, but no significant differences were found.
To determine if any statistically significant difference existed between the
three different multiage classroom pods assessed in the study (K–1, Grades
2–3, and 4–5), a Kruskal-Wallis H test was selected for its ability to measure an
253
ordinal dependent variable with three or more independent variables (Tanner,
2012). Statistically significantly differences existed regarding a positive view
on having the same teacher for two consecutive years, the benefit of a multiage design in reducing the need to reassign teachers due to changes in student
enrollment, and the value of having a teacher assigned to a pod for multiple
years in helping a teacher gain expertise. In regards to having a teacher for two
consecutive years, the K–first pod representatives saw this as significantly less
positive than the other two pod levels (p = .03). On a survey prompt related to
whether the multiage design allows a teacher to be more of an expert in their
abilities and knowledge regarding the grade level they were teaching, results
indicated that the child’s grade impacted the parents’ perceptions. Parents of
kindergarten or first grade students were less supportive that the multiage design promoted teachers being more of an expert within their pods (p = .03).
Table 3. Grouping Variable: Multiage Pods
ChiSquare
df
Asymp.
Sig
I like that my child will have the
same teacher for two years.
6.87
2
0.03*
Collaboration
My child’s teacher shares ideas
with other teachers.
8.40
2
0.02*
19
Teacher
Stabilization
I believe my child’s teacher is an
expert at the grade levels he/she is
teaching.
10.70
2
0.01*
23
Overall
Overall my child does well in the
multiage classroom at our school.
7.16
2
0.03*
Item
Element
5
Looping
13
Likert Scale Item
Note. Kruskal-Wallis H. *p < .05
Qualitative Analysis
The qualitative portion of the survey was used to provide clarity into the
thoughts of teachers and parents in relation to the two research questions.
The open-ended questions were examined for themes or patterns that could
provide a better understanding of an effective multiage classroom (Strauss
& Corbin, 1997). The procedures used to identify the salient themes were:
“(1) organizing the data, (2) immersion in the data, (3) generating categories
and themes, (4) coding the data, (5) offering interpretations through analytic
memos, (6) searching for alternative understandings, and (7) writing the report
for presentation” (Marshall & Rossman, 2011, p. 209). During this stage, 27
254
cluster groups were generated. These clusters were analyzed through a second
level of clustering, which brought the pertinent themes forward. Nine themes
emerged from comments by the two groups of participants. Five themes came
from the comments from the four open-ended questions on the parent survey,
and four themes became apparent from the three questions on the teacher survey. The theme mentioned most frequently by parents with 28 references was
that if a large learning spectrum exists in a class, this must be addressed for a
multiage classroom to succeed. Parents also expressed their support of teachers during a time of change. The third most commonly identified theme from
parents was that social connections between students in different grade levels
within a multiage classroom take time. These three themes were followed by
two themes, one that demonstrated parents concern that ability grouping take
students away from their trusted teacher, and the other that looping develops
a connection between families and the teacher. These themes were referenced
nine and seven times, respectively. On the other hand, teachers most frequently indicated (with 28 references) that if workload increases without additional
support that teacher frustration may ensue. This theme was followed by 25 references to the teachers’ concern—which was similar to the parents—that if a
wide learning spectrum is present within a classroom, teachers are more likely
to implement ability grouping as a solution. These two themes were followed
by the common theme that teachers support collaboration when workloads are
increased during a time of change, with 13 references. The final theme with 11
references identified by the researcher was that teachers believed that without
“school skills,” kindergarten students provide a challenge for the implementation of the multiage design classroom.
Overall Perception Regarding the Multiage Design
In answering the question as to what effect the multiage classroom design
has on teachers and parents who have students in the program, the following findings emerged. Cumulatively, the responses of the survey indicated that
there was positive support for the multiage educational system. Parents perceived their children liked school more since the implementation of the new
design and that they believed their children were doing better in the classroom
environment since transitioning to the multiage design as evidenced by their
responses on the prompts, “Overall my child likes school more since the school
implemented the multiage classroom design”, and “Overall my child does well
in the multiage classroom at our school.” This conclusion was supported by
teacher responses on similarly worded survey statements.
The results did illustrate teachers were more neutral in their responses to the
design’s overall impact, meaning they were a bit more hesitant regarding the
255
benefits of the multiage design than were parents. In regards to whether they
believe the students are doing better in the multiage classroom, teachers showed
a significant difference in their perception compared to the parents. Teachers
were more neutral statistically in their responses than parents (p < .05).
Through analysis, it did become apparent teachers were greatly supported
by the parents. Qualitative responses indicated that parents understood the
additional work the teachers were doing during the transition and that they
appreciated what it had done for their child (see Table 2). Although this is a
positive outcome, comments from teachers did demonstrate there was an overall feeling that more support was needed and that frustration can occur with
the extra workload in the absence of support.
Perceptions of the Elements Within the Multiage Design
In relation to what components of the multiage classroom explain the effect
the program has on teachers and parents who have students in the program, the
analysis provided the following insight. The frequency of responses to survey
prompts showed a positive perception of the multiage design and much statistical similarity between parent and teacher responses, with the caveat that teachers
in general showed a less positive view of the success of the multiage classroom
than parents. In all cases, teachers expressed a more neutral perception of the
value of these components, while parents’ responses were more positive.
In regard to family–school relations, parents could see the multiage design
being significantly more helpful than the teachers did. This was evidenced by
p-values of less than 0.05 regarding statements of how the multiage design has
helped parents feel more comfortable communicating with the teacher and
parents’ belief that they have a better understanding of the teacher’s expectations. Moreover, having a teacher instruct their child for more than one year
was seen as facilitating improved parent communication. When reviewing the
responses relating to class size stability, the results showed there were two areas
the parents were significantly more positive than teachers as demonstrated by
a p-value of less than 0.05. Parents perceived that the ability to maintain small
class sizes contributed to helping their child’s education and that it also allowed
the teacher to have more time to work with their child individually. In regards
to teacher assignment stability, a significant difference was identified between
the parents and teachers on how the multiage design reduced the need to have
teachers reassigned due to fluctuating student populations. This stability was
also considered by parents to allow teachers to become more of an expert in the
assigned classroom. The last area that showed a significant difference between
parents and teachers was the perception that children are doing well overall in
the multiage classroom design (see Table 2).
256
Within the parent group there was a difference in perception between the
upper and lower grades within the K–first pod in the looping element. The
item stating that having students in the same classroom with the same teacher
is considered positive had a Chi-Square of 6.87, p = .03 as demonstrated using
the Kruskal-Wallis H test. Even though all groups showed some positive perceptions of the elements within the multiage design, parents with children in
the K–first pod level had significantly lower perceptions of the value of these
elements than parents of children in other pod levels within four specific areas as determined by the Kruskal-Wallis H test. In response to the statement
regarding if looping caused parents to appreciate having the same teacher for
two years, K–first pod parents showed significantly less support as compared to
higher level pods. The parents of the K–first pod students also showed a significantly different perception of their child’s teacher participating in collaboration
with other teachers. Again, the parents of K–first pod students demonstrated a
significant difference from the perception of the second–third pod and fourth–
fifth pod parents regarding how the multiage classroom helped in allowing the
teacher to become an expert in their grade level by reducing the need to change
classes. Finally, the parents of the K–first pod students demonstrated a significant difference from the second–third pod parents on their overall impression
that their child was doing well in the multiage classroom (see Table 3). The
difference with this specific pod level is pertinent to schools implementing the
multiage design because it will require teachers or administrators to educate
this group about the differences the multiage classroom can provide.
Discussion and Implications
In summary, it becomes apparent that even though all of the groups find
that the multiage classroom design is a more positive setting then the single
grade classroom, the parents of students just beginning in their educational
learning are less favorable to combining classes. This appears to be due to the
concern of a wide learning spectrum, as emphasized in the qualitative portion
of the survey. There is a fear from both teachers and parents that the learning
spectrum is too wide at this beginning level. This is contrary to what was identified in previous research where the K–first combination has been successful
(Belcher, 2000; Harmon, 2001). The current study has also revealed that the
parents saw the multiage design as improving the communication between
themselves and the teacher. This is strongly supported in previous research
(Baeck, 2010; Carter, 2005; Daniel, 2011; Song et al., 2009).
This study supports the multiage classroom as being a viable option as an alternative to the more commonly recognized single-age classroom design. Even
257
though the multiage design is typically utilized as an alternative for schools
that cannot fill a single grade classroom, there are no factors inhibiting this
design from being implemented in schools with larger populations. The ability of the multiage classroom to be adaptable in environments of varying sizes
was shown with the population differences of the two schools participating in
the study: Valley Elementary had 122 students and Prairie Elementary 324
students. Both small and large school districts can benefit from the studentcentered nature of the multiage design.
Parents believed students in a multiage classroom setting appear to be in an
environment that provides a safe and nurturing atmosphere with their peers
and teachers. This is in direct agreement with the theories of Piaget, Bandura,
and Vygotsky. This design also provides a community for students to interact
with their peers and learn from them as emphasized by Bandura and Vygotsky.
Parents with students in the multiage classroom appreciated the ability to get
to know the teacher who works with their child. The program was also designed to allow students to begin the year learning new information earlier;
because of the looping aspect, students already know classroom rules and procedures. Teachers have the opportunity to better understand their students’
family backgrounds, providing clues to their students’ learning successes and
difficulties. Finally, teachers who have received training throughout the process
and understand why such a change is occurring can send positive messages to
parents who trust them.
Implications for Professional Practice
When considering implementing a multiage classroom design similar to
the Prairie Valley Project, a school district will have a better opportunity for
success by learning about the components identified within this project that
were considered by parents and teachers to be important to the success of the
implementation. The following recommendations that arise from this study
can benefit those embarking on a similar journey. Administration and the community must understand the importance of supporting their teachers during
such a transition. The multiage classroom also supports parents in that they are
more likely to be engaged in their child’s learning, which has been identified to
be vital to student success in school. Providing information to both parent and
teacher groups regarding how the multiage classroom design can remedy the
concerns they have identified as barriers to their children’s success may allow
the school to have a greater chance of a successful transition.
To benefit teachers in utilizing collaboration to a full extent, it would be
helpful to provide training in the collaboration process. Another barrier encountered by the Prairie Valley Project arose due to the simultaneous transition
258
toward a standards-based curriculum; the district had not adopted textbooks
and materials as scheduled in order to wait for new materials to be developed
and published addressing the new standards. Adequate time for preparation
was a major hurdle for the staff members teaching in the multiage classroom.
Finally, the administrative team needs to make sure all parents with children in
the multiage classroom are aware of the transition and the reason behind the
change.
Recommendations for Future Research
It would be beneficial to conduct a similar study during the transition rather
than after the implementation to get insight into the dynamics of such a change
from this perspective. Additionally, formative data could be collected through
observations, interviews, and ongoing surveys. Replication of this study could
be expanded to include in-depth interviews with parents and teachers. These
interviews would provide a deeper understanding of how the multiage design
has impacted them. Observations of the classroom setting would also provide
valuable information for the researchers to bring more of an overall perspective
of the effects the multiage design has on teachers and students.
Conclusion
In the review of the different components studied, it was found that all of
the components evaluated were considered positive aspects of the multiage
design by parents and teachers. The ability to provide an environment that
challenges students through differentiated instruction and provide a climate
of safety through looping was found to be a strong reason for support by both
parents and teachers. In addition, parents expressed the family–school relationship supported through this design was also a perceived benefit to parents and
their children.
The response to the effects that the multiage classroom design had on parents and teachers has brought to light that the single-age classroom should not
be the only design considered to meet the needs of students. When students
and teachers have increasing demands placed upon them, they need a classroom design that can foster a positive educational community. The multiage
design, with its ability to individualize learning, improve relationships, and
support a community-like atmosphere can make the assembly line process of
today’s educational system obsolete.
259
References
Al-Hamdan, Z., & Anthony, D. (2010). Deciding on a mixed-methods design in a doctoral
study. Nurse Researcher, 18(1), 45–56.
Allen, K. P. (2010). Classroom management, bullying, and teacher practices. The Professional
Educator, 34(1).
Baeck, U. K. (2010). Parental involvement practices in formalized home–school cooperation. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 54(6), 549–563. doi: 10.1080/003138
31.2010.522845
Bailey, J. P., & Williams-Black, T. H. (2008). Differentiated instruction: Three teachers’ perspectives. College Reading Association Yearbook, 29, 133–151.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Barnyak, N. C., & McNelly, T. A. (2009). An urban school district’s parent involvement: A
study of teachers’ and administrators’ beliefs and practices. School Community Journal,
Beaman, V. A. (2009). The effects of grouping and curriculum on the self-concept of gifted children
(Master’s thesis). Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester, NY. Retrieved from http://
scholarworks.rit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2387&context=theses
Belcher, M. H. (2000). A descriptive study of loopers in four schools (Doctoral dissertation).
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA. Retrieved from http://
scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-02012001-212825/unrestricted/etd.pdf
Blatchford, P. (2005, July). A multi-method approach to the study of school size differences.
International Journal of Social Research Methodology: Theory & Practice, 8(3), 195–205. doi:
10.1080/13645570500154675
Bowman, A., Bowman, C., & Conley, S. (2005). A study of the effects of the multiage classroom
in comparison to the traditional classroom on students’ reading assessment scores in both Chattooga and Floyd County schools (Unpublished master’s thesis). Lincoln Memorial University,
Harrogate, TN.
Bracke, D., & Corts, D. (2012). Parental involvement and the theory of planned behavior.
Education, 133(1), 188–201.
Broome, J. L. (2009). A descriptive study of multiage art education. Studies in Art Education:
A Journal of Issues and Research, 50(2), 167–183.
Carter, P. (2005). The modern multiage classroom. Educational Leadership, 63(1), 54–58.
Cherry, K. (n.d.). Social learning theory: An overview of Bandura’s social learning theory. Retrieved
from http://psychology.about.com/od/developmentalpsychology/a/sociallearning.htm
Cornish, L. (2009, February 11). Teaching the world’s children: Theory and practice in mixedgrade classes. ISFIRE 2009, 117–126.
Creswell, J. W., & Garrett, A. L. (2008). The “movement” of mixed methods research and the
role of educators. South African Journal of Education, 28, 321–333.
Daniel, G. (2011, May). Family–school partnerships: Towards sustainable pedagogical practice. Asia–Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 39(2), 165–176. doi:10.1080/1359866X.
2011.560651
Danling, F., Hartle, L., Lamme, L. L., Copenhaver, J., Adams, D., Harmon, C., & Reneke, S.
(1999). A comfortable start for everyone: The first week of school in three multiage (K–2)
classrooms. Early Childhood Education Journal, 27(2), 73–80.
Driskill, K. M. (2010). A qualitative study of teacher understanding and use of differentiated
instruction to promote reading achievement (Doctoral dissertation). Available from PQDT
Open. (AAT 3437433)
260
Estell, D. B., Farmer, T. W., Irvin, M. J., Crowther, A., Akos, P., & Boudah, D. J. (2009).
Students with exceptionalities and the peer group context of bullying and victimization in
late elementary school. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 18(2), 136–150. doi:10.1007/
s10826-008-9214-1
Grove, K., & Fisher, D. (2006, March). Doing collaboration: The process of constructing an
educational community in an urban elementary school. Ethnography and Education, 1(1),
53–66. doi:10.1080/17457820500512770
Harmon, M. F. (2001). Comparison of the academic achievement of primary school students in multiage and traditional classrooms (Doctoral dissertation). East Tennessee State
University, Johnson City, TN. Retrieved from http://dc.etsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.
cgi?article=1137&context=etd
Hitz, M. M., Somers, M. C., & Jenlink, C. L. (2007, March). The looping classroom: Benefits
for children, families, and teachers. Young Children, 62(2), 80–84.
Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (n.d.). John Dewey 1859–1952. Retrieved from http://
www.iep.utm.edu/dewey/
Kim, E. M., Minke, K. M., Sheridan, S. M., Koziol, N., Ryoo, J. H., & Rispoli, K. M. (2012).
Congruence within the parent–teacher relationship: Associations with children’s functioning
(Working paper 2012–2). Retrieved from the Nebraska Center for Research: Children,
Youth, Families, & Schools website: http://cyfs.unl.edu/resources/
Kimmel, S. C. (2012). Collaboration as school reform: Are there patterns in the chaos of planning with teachers? American Association of School Librarians, 15, 1–15.
Kobelin, M. (2009, Spring). Multiage made me do it: A teacher tackles differentiation in math
instruction. Schools: Studies in Education, 6(1), 10–22. doi:10.1086/597653
Krumpal, I. (2011, November 19). Determinants of social desirability bias sensitive surveys:
A literature review. Quality & Quantity, 47, 2025–2047. doi:10.1007/s11135-011-9640-9
Levine, T. H., & Marcus, A. S. (2007). Closing the achievement gap through teacher collaboration: Facilitating multiple trajectories of teacher learning. Journal of Advanced Academics,
19(1), 116–138.
Lynn, M. R. (1986). Determination and qualification of content validity. Nursing Research,
35, 382–385.
Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2011). Designing qualitative research (5th ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Moser, S. E., West, S. G., & Hughes, J. N. (2012). Trajectories of math and reading achievement in low-achieving children in elementary school: Effects of early and later retention in
grade. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(3), 603–621. doi:10.1037/a0027571
Mosteller-Timbles, C. (2015). Marietta Johnson School of Organic Education. Retrieved from
http://www.encyclopediaofalabama.org/article/h-1883?printable=true
Nevin, A. I., Cramer, E., Voigt, J., & Salazar, L. (2008). Instructional modifications, adaptations, and accommodations of co-teachers who loop: A descriptive study. Teacher Education and Special Education, 31(4), 283–297. doi:10.1177/0888406408330648
Niesche, R., & Jorgensen, R. (2010). Curriculum reform in remote areas: The need for productive leadership. Journal of Educational Administration, 48(1), 102–117. doi:10.1108/09
578231011015449
Page, J. (2006). Teaching in rural and remote schools: Pedagogies of place and their implications for pre-service teacher preparation. Education in Rural Australia, 16(1), 47–63.
Penney, A. J. (2005). Multiage grouping perspectives (Doctoral dissertation). Available from
ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. (276607650)
Piaget, J. (1959). The language and thought of the child (3rd ed.). London, UK: Routledge &
Kegan Paul.
261
Powell, H., Mihalas, S., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Suldo, S., & Daley, C. E. (2008). Mixed methods research in school psychology: A mixed methods investigation of trends in literature.
Psychology in the Schools, 45(4), 291–309. doi:10.1002/pits.20296
Sheers, K. L. (2010). Administrator, teacher, and parent perceptions of students’ sense of community
in one elementary school (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and
Theses. (1020897230)
Smith, J. G. (2006). Parental involvement in education among low-income families: A case
study. School Community Journal, 16(1), 43–56. Retrieved from http://www.schoolcommunitynetwork.org/SCJ.aspx
Song, R., Spradlin, T. E., & Plucker, J. A. (2009, Winter). The advantages and disadvantages of
multiage classrooms in the era of NCLB accountability. Center For Evaluation & Education
Policy: Educational Policy Brief, 7(1).
Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (1997). Grounded theory in practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Stuart, S. K., Connor, M., Cady, K., & Zweifel, A. (2006). Multiage instruction and inclusion:
A collaborative approach. International Journal of Whole Schooling, 3(1), 12–26.
Tanner, D. (2012). Using statistics to make educational decisions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Terrell, S. R. (2012, January). Mixed-methods research methodologies. Qualitative Report,
17(1), 254–280. Retrieved from http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR17-1/terrell.pdf
Tobin, R., & McInnes, A. (2008, April). Accommodating differences: Variations in differentiated literacy instruction in grade 2/3 classrooms. Literacy, 42(1), 3–9.
Veenman, S. (1996). Effects of multigrade and multiage classes reconsidered. Review of Educational Research, 66(3), 323–340.
Venkatesh, V., Brown, S. A., & Bala, H. (2013, March). Bridging the qualitative–quantitative
divide: Guidelines for conducting mixed methods research in information systems. MIS
Quarterly, 37(1), 21–45.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thoughts and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Zygmunt-Fillwalk, E. (2011). Building family partnerships: The journey from preservice preparation to classroom practice. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 32(1), 84–96.
doi:10.1080/10901027.2010.547653
Gregory J. Bailey has been an education administrator for the past 24 years
and is currently the superintendent of the Moscow School District in Moscow,
Idaho. His current research interests include innovative classroom designs that
better meet the educational and social needs of K–12 students. Correspondence concerning this article may be addressed to Dr. Bailey at 429 N. Hayes
St., Moscow, ID 83843, or email [email protected]
Eric Werth is currently an assistant professor and the director of the Center
for Online and Blended Learning at Northwest Nazarene University (NNU).
In this position he guides the university in selecting and implementing various
learning technologies as well as manages the development of a new set of online associate and bachelor degree programs being developed at NNU. Prior to
this, he served Northwest Nazarene as the Director of E-Learning. Dr. Werth
262
has taught approximately 30 courses in either an online or blended format, is
a certified K–12 teacher, and is active in research and publishing related to the
impact of technology on classroom learning.
Donna M. Allen is an associate professor in the Department of Communication Studies at Northwest Nazarene University. Prior to her current position,
Dr. Allen worked as a marriage and family counselor, an instructional design consultant, and a software instructor and curriculum designer for major
computer corporations. Her current research interests include organizational
communication in faith-based organizations and interpersonal communication with family members with dementia.
Leonie L. Sutherland is a full professor in the Department of Nursing at
Northwest Nazarene University. As an immigrant to the United States, she
embodies the immigrant experience in her research. As a nursing educator, Dr.
Sutherland saw firsthand the needs of students for whom English was a second
or third language and focused her research in the area of cultural diversity. She
has expanded her research to include diabetes in the Hispanic population and
conducted a multiyear research study concerning diabetes and health status.
263
264

Spring/Summer 2016 Volume 26, Number 1

Transcription

Similar documents

STOKE CITY FC Carlo Nash - National Literacy Trust

Easy Tech - NC Wise Owl

piCk-a-boo(k)box

ampus ouse - Purdue Christian Campus House

Mon–Fri 8:00 Am - ALU LIKE, Inc.

FORESTRY INDABA 2010

New tendencies in Mexican Cinematography

Collaborative partnerships with families

The Smart, Savvy Young Consumer