adoption as a diversity issue in professional preparation: perceptions of preservice education...

This article was downloaded by: [UOV University of Oviedo]On: 28 October 2014, At: 00:51Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

Adoption QuarterlyPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wado20

Adoption as a Diversity Issuein Professional Preparation:Perceptions of PreserviceEducation ProfessionalsJuliana M. Taymans a , Sylvia A. Marotta a , Sharon J.Lynch a , Debbie B. Riley b , Deanna M. Oritz a , JeanM. LaFauci Schutt a , Coretta J. Mallery a & JeanneL. Embich aa George Washington University , Washington, DCb Center for Adoption Support and Education ,Bethesda, MDPublished online: 12 Dec 2008.

To cite this article: Juliana M. Taymans , Sylvia A. Marotta , Sharon J. Lynch ,Debbie B. Riley , Deanna M. Oritz , Jean M. LaFauci Schutt , Coretta J. Mallery &Jeanne L. Embich (2008) Adoption as a Diversity Issue in Professional Preparation:Perceptions of Preservice Education Professionals, Adoption Quarterly, 11:1, 24-44,DOI: 10.1080/10926750802291377

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10926750802291377

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wado20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/10926750802291377

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10926750802291377

or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UO

V U

nive

rsity

of

Ovi

edo]

at 0

0:51

28

Oct

ober

201

4

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Adoption as a Diversity Issue in ProfessionalPreparation: Perceptions of Preservice

Education Professionals

Juliana M. TaymansSylvia A. MarottaSharon J. LynchDebbie B. RileyDeanna M. Oritz

Jean M. LaFauci SchuttCoretta J. MalleryJeanne L. Embich

ABSTRACT. This research explored preservice teachers’ and counselors’perceptions of the needs of adopted children in schools. Using a quasi-experimental survey design, this study examined the views of preserviceteachers and counselors toward adoptive families before and after an edu-cational intervention. Findings from this research support the effectivenessof a brief, standardized intervention in increasing preservice education pro-fessionals’ awareness of particular challenges adopted children and theirfamilies may face in school settings. Qualitative data indicated preserviceeducation professionals’ awareness of adopted children and their families in

Juliana M. Taymans,∗ Sylvia A. Marotta,∗ and Sharon J. Lynch∗ are from TheGeorge Washington University, Washington, DC.

Debbie B. Riley is from the Center for Adoption Support and Education,Bethesda, MD.

Deanna M. Oritz, Jean M. LaFauci Schutt, Coretta J. Mallery, and Jeanne L.Embich are affiliated with The George Washington University, Washington, DC.

∗Joint first authors.Address correspondence to: Juliana Taymans, 2134G St. NW, 3rd Floor,

Washington, DC 20053 (E-mail: [email protected]).

24

Adoption Quarterly, Vol. 11(1), 2008Available online at http://www.haworthpress.comC© 2008 by The Haworth Press. All rights reserved.

doi: 10.1080/10926750802291377

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UO

V U

nive

rsity

of

Ovi

edo]

at 0

0:51

28

Oct

ober

201

4

Taymans et al. 25

their internship experiences. Learning about adoptive families can be partof sensitizing education professionals’ to the growing diversity of familiesand children in U.S. schools.

KEYWORDS. Teacher preparation, counselor preparation, adoption sen-sitivity intervention

INTRODUCTION

About 2.5% of U.S. children are adopted (U.S. Census, 2003), and40% of U.S. adults report seriously considering adoption (Dave ThomasFoundation for Adoption & Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute, 2002).Adoption as a way to form a family is a frequently occurring fact of lifein the United States (Child Welfare Information Gateway, 2004); how-ever, the means of adoption and values surrounding adoption have rapidlyand dramatically changed over the last 20 years. Increasingly, Americansseek to form families by means of international adoption, with significantincreases over the last decade in adoptions from China, Russia, and theUkraine, while the frequency of adoptions from Central and South Americacontinue to remain stable (Dave Thomas Foundation for Adoption & EvanB. Donaldson Adoption Institute, 2002). In addition, domestic adoptionand kinship adoptions, both formal and informal, continue to be commonways to form a family. Children may be adopted at birth with arrangementsmade well before the child is born or after having spent months or yearsin institutions (orphanages) or foster care. Multicultural adoptions are in-creasingly common, with families forming with diverse linguistic, cultural,and ethnic backgrounds. Adoption has become increasingly diverse in theUnited States, and children and parents reap its benefits as new familiesemerge.

However, given the changing rate and face of adoption, there is relativelylittle information on adoption specifically aimed at teachers and othereducation professionals (such as school counselors, school psychologists,and pupil personnel workers) who work with adopted children in schools.Education professionals can be divided into two groups. One group ispreservice educators who are enrolled in a training program to learn theknowledge and skills associated with their intended profession. Theseindividuals typically engage in internships as part of their preparation. Theother group is in-service educators who are already licensed and working

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UO

V U

nive

rsity

of

Ovi

edo]

at 0

0:51

28

Oct

ober

201

4

26 ADOPTION QUARTERLY

in schools. Both groups of educators have the potential to affect the livesof adopted children and their families.

While the majority of adoptive families do not need or seek additionalschool support or services, some families may face special challengesas the adopted child progresses through the school years (Brodzinsky &Steiger, 1991; Howard, Smith, & Ryan, 2004; Meese, 1999; Miller, Fan,Christensen, Grotevant, & van Dulmen, 2000). For some adopted children,these challenges are taken in stride as the child matures and makes senseof his or her place in the family, school, and community. But for otheradopted children, schooling presents significant problems and, in turn,has been identified as one of the greatest stressors on emergent families(Howard et al., 2004; Moss & St. Laurent, 2001).

The research base supports the claim that developmental issues andlater problems of adjustment within families may lead to disproportionatenumbers of adopted children in need of mental health interventions andspecial education services (McWey, 2004; Meese, 1999). The overrepre-sentation of adopted children in special education is certainly one indicatorthat many adopted children experience social and learning issues related toschool adjustment (Brodzinksy & Steiger, 1991; Howard et al., 2004; vanIjzendoorn, Juffer, & Poelhuis, 2005). Some adopted children’s and adoles-cents’ difficulties cover a wide range of issues including lack of prenatalcare, problems during institutionalization or foster care, and difficultieswith post-adoption adjustment (Howard et al., 2004). These issues are es-pecially important for children not adopted as infants who may have hadmultiple care providers or detrimental early childhood experiences. How-ever, the research base offers conflicting accounts of the frequency andseverity of adjustment issues (Weger, 2000). In addition, Warren (1992)found that the relatively high incidence of referrals for learning or psy-chological difficulties for adopted children may be in part due to adoptiveparents’ willingness to seek out services more frequently than parents ofnon-adopted children. This skews perceptions of the proportions of adoptedchildren in need of special support.

Little is known about education professionals’ perceptions of workingwith adopted children and their families. Education professionals’ knowl-edge, beliefs, and attitudes may reflect the range of possibilities present inour society as a whole. Some may see adoption as “second best,” othersmay assume adopted children and adolescents come to school with emo-tional and learning deficits, and still others may see adoption as a wonderfulopportunity to form a family.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UO

V U

nive

rsity

of

Ovi

edo]

at 0

0:51

28

Oct

ober

201

4

Taymans et al. 27

In his book Adoption Nation: How the Adoption Revolution is Trans-forming America (2000), Adam Pertman claims that adopted children,especially at the elementary level, are often victims of an insensitive cul-ture that is ignorant of adoptive family issues. The flippant language usedby students when talking about adoption as “giving away” a baby or byteachers who assign “Adopt-A- ” projects or “family tree” projects maydo lasting harm to the self-esteem and identity development of adoptedchildren. Similarly, Stroud, Stroud, and Staley (1997) assert that earlychildhood classrooms need to become adoption-aware in order to betterserve both adoptive parents and adopted students. Some education pro-fessionals may also jump to conclusions about the relationship betweenadoption and academic and behavioral difficulties. Education professionalsare advised to avoid inadvertent discrimination against adopted children byassuming that school issues are indicative of a disability in need of specialservices (Meese, 1999; Stroud et al., 1997). Instead, education profession-als need to understand that some adopted children will have temporarystress reactions related to their adoptive experience.

Stroud et al. (1997) state, “Generally speaking, teachers are no moreknowledgeable about adoption than the general public and need assistancein understanding the strengths and special needs of adoptive families”(p. 229). Considering that millions of U.S. children are adopted and inschools, educational professionals must be aware of this form of familydiversity in order to properly serve adopted children and their families.However, a review of the literature reveals no evidence that teacher andcounselor preparation programs provide instruction on adoption and itspredictable effects on aspects of normal child development or on how toaddress problems that may arise in the classroom for adopted children(Lynch & Tuckweiller, 2005).

Preservice education professionals should know more about adoptivefamilies in all their incarnations. Preparation programs might help themunderstand both the common and unique circumstances that adoptive fam-ilies bring to the school community in order to develop the skills andsensitivities to work effectively with adopted children and their familiesif complexities arise. Without this, it seems likely that adoptive fami-lies will continue to encounter inadvertent discrimination and misunder-standing in schools, and adopted children may suffer educationally andemotionally.

Education professionals who are knowledgeable and accepting of di-verse types of families are able to approach adoption in a way that respects

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UO

V U

nive

rsity

of

Ovi

edo]

at 0

0:51

28

Oct

ober

201

4


the adoptive family and child, positively influencing classroom dynamicsfor both adopted and non-adopted children alike. For families and childrenin need of extra support services, knowledgeable education professionalsshould be able to provide information about special resources for assis-tance and team with parents and outside agencies to support the child’slearning and emotional development.

RESEARCH PURPOSE AND GUIDING QUESTIONS

Adoption advocacy agencies want to help adoptive families and edu-cation professionals work more effectively to facilitate adopted children’ssocial, emotional, and cognitive growth (Pertman, 2000). Educational pro-fessionals play a major role in facilitating positive school experiencesthat affect the whole adoptive family. However, no empirical studies todate have examined the effectiveness of providing preservice educationprofessionals with an intervention that expands their understanding ofworking with adopted children and their families. The purpose of thisresearch was to explore preservice education professionals’ perceptionsabout working with adopted children in schools directly after a specificintervention was introduced and later during their internships and workexperiences.

To conduct this study, university researchers partnered with the Cen-ter for Adoption Support and Education (CASE), a nonprofit adoptivefamily support center that provides post-adoption counseling and edu-cational services to families, educators, child welfare staff, and mentalhealth providers in three mid-Atlantic states. CASE staff has offeredin-service professional development sessions to teachers and counselorsfor several years and has developed the SAFE (Support for AdoptiveFamilies by Educators) at School (Schoettle, 2003) manual and otherpublications to increase education professionals’ knowledge and skillsin working with adoptive families. However, CASE had not previouslyextended its work to preservice teachers or counselors prior to thisstudy.

Results from a pilot study of 44 preservice teachers indicated that anintervention based on materials from CASE positively affected their aware-ness of adoption issues in education settings from pre- to post-intervention.This research study standardized the previous intervention, expandedthe number of participants, included preservice school counselors in the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UO

V U

nive

rsity

of

Ovi

edo]

at 0

0:51

28

Oct

ober

201

4

Taymans et al. 29

sample, and added a comparison group. The following research questionsguided the study:

1. Is there a significant difference in the perceptions of preservice edu-cation professionals toward adopted children and their families fol-lowing a CASE intervention compared to a similar group who didnot receive the intervention?

2. How do preservice education professionals who participated in theCASE intervention evaluate it?

3. During internships/work experiences, do preservice education pro-fessionals find information on working with adoptive children andtheir families relevant to their roles and responsibilities?

METHODOLOGY

Participants

This study drew its sample from master’s-level students attending aprivate mid-Atlantic urban university. These preservice education profes-sionals were enrolled in one of the following degree programs: counseling,elementary education, secondary education, early childhood/infancy spe-cial education, secondary special education, or behavioral and emotionaldisabilities. For each degree program, the research team identified pairs offall courses that addressed diversity issues. Each half of the pair was ran-domly assigned to either an intervention or comparison condition. Courseinstructors were then contacted and asked to participate in the study. Allinstructors agreed to allow their students to participate in the study duringregularly scheduled class time.

Participants were 160 preservice students who were enrolled in master’sdegree programs in order to qualify for positions in their field of study (Ta-ble 1). Of the 160 participants, 14 had missing data, leaving 146 completecases. The final sample consisted of 21 men and 125 women. The majorityof participants were single with no children (n = 105), 7 were single withchildren, 17 were married with no children, and 17 were married withchildren.

The sample was ethnically heterogeneous, with 98 European Americans,20 mixed-ethnicity participants, 19 African Americans, 5 Asian Ameri-cans, and 3 Latino participants. One participant chose not to respond to theethnicity question.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UO

V U

nive

rsity

of

Ovi

edo]

at 0

0:51

28

Oct

ober

201

4


TABLE 1. Demographic Characteristics

Comparison (n = 81) Intervention (n = 65)

n % n %

SexFemale 71 87.7 54 83.1Male 10 12.3 11 16.9

Ethnic background*African American 13 16 6 9.2Asian American 4 4.9 1 1.5European American 50 61.7 48 73.8Latino American 2 2.5 1 1.5Mixed ethnicity 12 14.8 8 12.3

Age group, y≥ 46 6 7.4 5 7.736–45 7 8.6 5 7.726–35 32 39.5 16 24.621–25 36 44.4 39 60

ProgramsCounseling 19 23.5 15 23.1Elementary education 5 6.3 14 21.5Secondary education 27 33.3 11 16.9Special education 30 37.0 25 38.5

Marital/parental statusSingle/no children 57 70.4 48 73.8Single/children 3 3.7 4 6.2Married or partnered/no children 11 13.6 6 9.2Married or partnered/children 10 12.3 7 10.8

Experience with adoption**Adopted status 1 1.2 0 0.0Adopted children 2 2.5 1 1.5Immediate family 7 8.6 5 7.7Extended family 29 35.8 25 38.5Friends/acquaintances 59 72.8 44 67.7Worked with 39 48.1 36 55.4Learned through media 47 58 53 81.5Educational experiences 20 24.7 18 27.7

*One member of the intervention group chose not to respond to the ethnicity question. **Participantsmay have chosen more than one response to the “experience with adoption” item.

The modal age range was 21 to 25 years (n = 73). One of theparticipants identified himself or herself as being adopted, and threeparticipants reported having adopted children. Twelve participants re-ported having an adopted child in their immediate families, 54 par-ticipants reported having adopted children in their extended families,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UO

V U

nive

rsity

of

Ovi

edo]

at 0

0:51

28

Oct

ober

201

4

Taymans et al. 31

103 participants reported having friends with adopted children, and 75participants reported working with an adopted child at some point intheir career. The majority of the participants (n = 100) reported learn-ing about adopted families previously through the media, while only38 respondents reported learning about adopted families through formaleducation.

While the treatment and comparison groups were similar in many de-mographic indicators, there were a few differences. The majority of thecomparison group comprised individuals aged 26 and older, while thetreatment group’s majority age range was between 21 and 25 years.Treatment and comparison groups also differed in the number of pre-service elementary educators and secondary educators, with the treat-ment group having a larger representation of elementary educatorsand the comparison group having a larger representation of secondaryeducators.

Intervention and Comparison Conditions

The intervention consisted of a reading assignment using CASE’s pro-fessional development manual titled SAFE at School (Schoettle, 2003)and an interactive presentation during regularly scheduled class time givenby the executive director of CASE (the fourth author of this paper). TheSAFE manual describes child and adolescent development issues facedby adopted children that can be exacerbated by school experiences andways in which teachers and counselors can create positive school envi-ronments for adoptive families. The standardized 75-minute course pre-sentation addressed developmental issues associated with adoption, howadopted children and their families can be affected by school situations,and possible positive responses by education professionals. During theinteractive presentation, participants were divided into groups and pre-sented with four scenarios related to situations between education pro-fessionals and adopted children and their families. One scenario was dis-cussed by each small group, followed by a large group discussion. Por-tions of the intervention delivery were videotaped for fidelity checkingprior to data analysis to ensure standardization of delivery. The compar-ison condition consisted of regularly planned class sessions. None of thecourses included information on working with adopted children and theirfamilies.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UO

V U

nive

rsity

of

Ovi

edo]

at 0

0:51

28

Oct

ober

201

4


Instrumentation

Perceptions About Adoption Scale

Given the narrow focus of this research and the lack of validated instru-ments in the literature, the researchers developed the Perceptions AboutAdoption Scale (PAS) based upon a review of the small literature base.The PAS was analyzed by a group of experts and tested in the pilot study.Internal consistency coefficients on the piloted PAS ranged from .60 to.74. The PAS consists of 15 items measuring preservice education pro-fessionals’ perceptions about adopted children and their families. Sampleitems include, “If a child was adopted as an infant, he/she seldom questionshis/her identity in his/her adoptive family,” and “Ethnic/racial or linguisticdifferences are unimportant within adoptive families in our diverse U.S.society.” Participants rated their agreement with each item using a 5-pointLikert scale. Total possible scores range from 1 to 75, with high scoresindicating increased awareness of the needs of adopted children and theirfamilies in school settings. Cronbach’s alpha for the current study was .66.

Evaluative Items

Four evaluative items measured intervention participants’ responses tothe CASE intervention using a 5-point Likert scale. An example of anevaluative item is, “Based on the CASE activities, I have greater insightinto the importance of my role as a teacher or counselor in working withadopted children, their families, and other students in my class.”

Open-Response Questions

Intervention groups received 12 open-response questions addressingawareness, sources of information, learning, responsiveness, and addi-tional information desired. These questions address participants’ experi-ences with adopted children and their families subsequent to the CASEintervention.

Demographic Items

Demographic information was requested to capture information aboutparticipants’ sex, age, education, degree program, and familiarity withadoption information.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UO

V U

nive

rsity

of

Ovi

edo]

at 0

0:51

28

Oct

ober

201

4

Taymans et al. 33

Procedures

During the fall semester, intervention and comparison participants firstcompleted the pretest (PAS and demographics). After completing thepretest, intervention participants were assigned a reading from the SAFEmanual (Schoettle, 2003) to be completed before the upcoming class pre-sentation by the executive director of CASE. During the class presentation,they participated in the CASE intervention and completed the posttest (PASand evaluative items). Comparison participants completed the posttest atthe end of the fall semester during regularly scheduled class time. Inthe final month of the spring semester, the researchers administered thefollow-up (PAS, evaluative items, and 12 open-response questions) to theintervention participants.

Data Analysis

Quantitative Data Analysis

An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using SPSS version 12.0 wasselected to answer the first research question about differences in percep-tions of preservice education professionals toward adopted children andtheir families following the intervention, when compared to a similar groupwho did not receive intervention. ANCOVA can be problematic when usingnonexperimental designs, but this limitation was mitigated by randomizingthe intact groups to either intervention or comparison conditions. The othertwo methods of determining intervention effects, change scores or repeatedmeasures analyses, do not adjust for pretest differences, while ANCOVAdoes do this and also compares regression effects.

Qualitative Data Analysis

Two members of the research team entered information provided byparticipants for each of the 12 open-response questions into a spreadsheet.Each response was coded by a participant identification number and courseinstructor. Responses to 10 questions were first given a dichotomous (e.g.,yes/no, positive/negative) or a categorical code by one of the researchers.A second member of the research team then examined this coding andeither verified or questioned the initial coding. The two researchers thendeveloped decision rules for the final coding and applied them systemati-cally to the entire sample. When there were a sufficient number of narrativeresponses, these were further grouped into subcategories within positive

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UO

V U

nive

rsity

of

Ovi

edo]

at 0

0:51

28

Oct

ober

201

4


TABLE 2. Perceptions About Adoption Scale (PAS) Mean Scores

Comparison Intervention

n mean (SD) Adjusted mean (SD) n mean (SD) Adjusted mean (SD)

Pretest 77 50.92 (5.08) NA 76 50.79 (4.41) NAPosttest 80 50.86 (5.40) 43.10 (5.37) 63 58.64 (4.62) 50.86 (4.62)Follow-up NA NA 58 56.02 (4.49) 55.58 (4.52)

Reliability of PAS (Survey 1) = .66

and negative responses to provide a frequency of similar explanations orelaborations.

RESULTS

Research Question 1: Intervention vs. Comparison

Following the CASE intervention, there was an increase in overallknowledge and changed perceptions about adopted children and their fam-ilies for participants who received the CASE intervention as evidencedby increases on the mean total item PAS score (Table 2). ANCOVA wasused to control for pretest effects. As shown in Table 2, the result ofthe ANCOVA with adjusted posttest means supported the interventioneffect for the intervention from pre-CASE to post-CASE; F (1, 134)= 116.753, P = .000; η2 = .466. At follow-up, the results remainedconsistent.

Research Question 2: Summary of Evaluation of CASE Materials

Intervention participants evaluated the CASE intervention by respond-ing to four questions designed to gauge how they valued the SAFE readingmaterials, the presentation/discussion session, their insights gained on theirrole in working with adoptive families, and the relevance of the informa-tion. The average scores for these items on the posttest ranged from 4.17to 4.64 on a 5-point scale, indicating agreement to strong agreement on thevalue of the intervention. Intervention participants responded to the sameset of questions at follow-up. The average scores were slightly reduced(range, 3.78–4.27) with a modal score of 4 across the questions.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UO

V U

nive

rsity

of

Ovi

edo]

at 0

0:51

28

Oct

ober

201

4

Taymans et al. 35

Research Question 3: Relevance of CASE Intervention

The relevance of the CASE intervention to the participant’s perception ofadoption was clearly seen in their responses to the 12 open-ended questions.The open-response questions address five areas: awareness, sources ofinformation, learning, responsiveness, and additional information desired.

Awareness

Of the 49 participants actively working with children, 27 (55%) wereaware of adopted children in their school or classroom. The majority of pre-service elementary (69%) and special educators (70%) indicated that theywere either teaching or knew of adopted children in their schools. Halfof the preservice secondary educators and 38% of the preservice coun-selors indicated such knowledge. Of those aware of adopted children intheir internship/work settings, 70% reported having knowledge of adoptedchildren’s families.

Preservice elementary educators indicated the greatest awareness ofadopted families, describing experiences ranging from having a sibling ofan adopted child in his or her class to actively working with an adoptivefamily and a team of teachers. One elementary educator indicated, “I knowa couple of families. Some have wonderful relationships with each other,but some do not.”

The diversity of descriptions of adopted families mirrored the manytypes of adoption situations. One respondent described a situation associ-ated with working in a predominately Latino community: “I know a student[who] is adopted, and what is interesting about it is that nobody knew aboutit at the school. It was kept a secret in the family for some reason.” Anotherdescribed an interracial family: “I had an African American girl [in myclass] who had been adopted by two white parents.” Another respondentdescribed knowledge of an international adoption: “The family of one ofmy students adopted a child from Bolivia.”

Sources of Information

Most of those aware of adopted children (64%) indicated that they wereinformed about children’s adopted status from their internship mentor. Thenext most often indicated sources of information were the adopted child(32%) and parents (11%).

Forty-eight percent indicated that information on adoptive status wasincluded with other information about children they were teaching or

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UO

V U

nive

rsity

of

Ovi

edo]

at 0

0:51

28

Oct

ober

201

4


counseling. Only four respondents reported specifically asking for infor-mation on children’s adopted status. A different set of four respondentsreported consulting with other education or counseling professionals as aresult of their interactions with adopted children and their families.

Learning

When asked, “What have you learned about adopted children and theirfamilies as a result of these interactions [with mentors, other educators,children and parents]?”, 85% described what they had learned. The major-ity of responses indicated an increased awareness of the special challengesfaced by adopted children and their families. This theme can be summedup by the response, “Adopted children and their families face some veryreal challenges when it comes to acceptance and development.” In addi-tion, nine respondents reported greater sensitivity to adoptive families. Anexample of greater sensitivity is one counselor’s explanation of learningthe following:

Intentional adoptions (those from birth) don’t always go as planned.There was one client who was adopted at birth, and her adoptivefather decided he did not want to be a father after the adoption wascompleted, so he left the mother to raise the client by herself. It hadgreatly affected the client and her relationship with her father.

In addition, one preservice elementary educator indicated that she hadlearned about the variety of ways adoptive parents interact with theirchildren, “One parent enabled [the] child, the other set of parents pushedand loved the child into success. Adoptive families are as varied as non-adoptive families.”

Nine other responses revealed a sensitivity to the relationship between anadopted child’s behavior, adjustment issues, and school. Some respondentsreported a general awareness that schools can be responsive to adopted chil-dren (4 responses), while others gave more specific examples of realizingthe effect of challenging childhood experiences on subsequent behavioraland development (3 responses) and the challenge of discussing adoptionin school (2 responses). For example, one special educator noted that dis-cussing adoption in school in his or her school setting is challenging,“[Adoption] is not a theme that you will talk about in class openly. It’sconsidered wrong to give up a child.”

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UO

V U

nive

rsity

of

Ovi

edo]

at 0

0:51

28

Oct

ober

201

4

Taymans et al. 37

Responsiveness

Participants were asked, “If adopted children were in your class, did yourespond to them in different ways because they were adopted or make anyadjustments in your teaching or counseling practice? Describe/Explain.”Responses were placed into four categories: no adjustment (46%), ad-justments (34%), awareness (19%), mixed response (<1%). Those whoindicated making adjustments reported classroom-based practices acrossgeneral and special education settings, with changes in classroom practicesdirectly related to having students describe family relationships. One par-ticipant reported that even though he or she did not have adopted childrenin class, “I did modify some assignments to broaden the concept of fam-ily and provide alternatives to family trees.” Another participant indicatedtalking about National Adoption Month. One educator revealed adjustinga classroom practice in direct response to information he or she had abouta student:

I have a girl who was abandoned by her mother and adopted by elderlyneighbors. She is incredibly poor and inexperienced with the world.When I pose the question to the class, ‘Have you ever . . .’, I alsomade sure to name three options. For example, ask your mom, dad,brother, sister, friend, etc.

Five participants described being aware of adoption as a relevant schoolissue but did not perceive a need to make specific adjustments to theirteaching or counseling practice. When asked about whether adjustmentswere made in relation to adoption, a general educator’s response was,“Not really, except to be mindful about the fact that they were adopted,just in case it came up.” This contrasted with three special educators whoconsidered adoption as part of responding to students’ special needs and notas a specific consideration, as indicated by one special educator’s response,“[I] responded to [adopted children’s] individual needs whether they werebecause of adoption or not.”

One preservice counselor provided a mixed picture of his or her aware-ness of adopted clients’ needs:

I did not respond to them differently. They may have had someconcerns surrounding being adopted that were addressed and talkedabout, but I handled it the same way I would have handled an issuewith non-adopted clients . . . but I guess I am more aware of thepossibility that [all children] may have questions about adopted clientsin their group therapy.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UO

V U

nive

rsity

of

Ovi

edo]

at 0

0:51

28

Oct

ober

201

4


When asked whether non-adopted children shared any questions or con-cerns related to their adopted peers, the majority of respondents (76%)indicated that they did not have to respond to such questions. Those whodid indicate receiving questions from non-adopted children described sup-portive and respectful queries from their peers.

Additional Information

The survey question, “What additional information would you like tohave about working with adopted children and their families?” yieldedfar-ranging responses from 38 respondents. Although four individuals in-dicated that they did not desire more information, 34 did provide positiveresponses. Six were comments revealing personal information such as, “Igrew up with an aunt who was a foster mother and adoptive mother. I knowfirsthand some of the emotional problems that can accompany an adoptedchild.” Others provided opinions like, “Teachers should always be awareof adoption issues by finding ways to educate themselves.” The remainingentries indicated a wide range of desired additional information relatedto the following topics: classroom-related activities, counseling adoptedchildren and interacting with adoptive families, social-emotional and de-velopmental issues related to adoption, types of adoption, and children infoster care and group homes.

Fourteen participants provided additional comments related to the in-tervention. Three individuals provided negative comments. One stated,“There are too many pressing priorities to use any of the adoption in-formation. However, if my students are harassed or made fun of in anyway, I will deal with this situation.” The other two indicated that they didnot believe that the information was relevant. Nine comments conveyed apositive response to the CASE intervention. One participant commented,“I think this is a very important project. The issues adoptive students facewere unknown to me previous to this project, and I feel much more awareand prepared to be sensitive to the needs of adopted students and theirfamilies.” Another participant related the CASE intervention to broaderissues in educator preparation:

I think [my graduate program] doesn’t do enough to prepare usto work with diverse families. We look at diversity in terms ofrace/religion/language, but not in terms of adoption, gay parents, orparents with disabilities. Programs such as CASE should definitelybe incorporated into teacher preparation course work.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UO

V U

nive

rsity

of

Ovi

edo]

at 0

0:51

28

Oct

ober

201

4

Taymans et al. 39

DISCUSSION

Interpretation of Findings

The purpose of this quasi-experimental research was to explore pre-service education professionals’ perceptions about working with adoptedchildren and their families after they were given a specific interventionand later as they engaged in internships and work experiences. The in-vestigation also compared their responses to those of a similar group ofpreservice education professionals who were not exposed to the interven-tion. This study addressed a gap in the research literature on adoption byexamining preservice education professionals’ understanding of their rolesin affecting the school experiences of adopted children and their families.

The purpose of the CASE intervention was to provide preservice edu-cation professionals information on unique developmental issues faced byadopted children and their families and simple strategies preservice edu-cation professionals to support adopted children in school situations. Bothquantitative and qualitative findings from this study support the effective-ness of the CASE intervention in increasing preservice education profes-sionals’ knowledge and awareness of particular challenges adopted chil-dren and their families may face in school. The effectiveness of the CASEintervention was apparent in the statistically significant PAS posttest resultsfor the intervention compared to the comparison group. The interventiongroup’s pretest to posttest changes were maintained at follow-up, whichoccurred at the end of the subsequent semester. In addition, preserviceeducation professionals’ responses to the evaluation questions indicatedthat they valued the CASE intervention.

The qualitative findings from the follow-up provide a glimpse of whatpreservice education professionals experience in internship/work settingsvis-a-vis adoption. The majority of participants indicated an awarenessof adopted children in their school or classroom, with most gaining thisinformation from their internship/work mentor. This suggests that men-tors regarded information about children’s adopted status as relevant tothe services they provide. The meaning education professionals give toinformation about a child’s adoptive status could be open to personal in-terpretation and possible bias, especially if education professionals onlyhave their personal experiences as a basis to interpret such information.

A high percentage of participants reported that one of the outcomesof their internship/work experience following the CASE intervention wasadditional learning about adopted children and families. The knowledge

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UO

V U

nive

rsity

of

Ovi

edo]

at 0

0:51

28

Oct

ober

201

4


they gained through their field experiences helped sensitize them to theunique challenges faced by the adoptive families and children they met.However, although most participants indicated an increased awarenessand sensitivity about adoption across the open-response questions, fewreported modifying their teaching or counseling practices. This is notsurprising given the limited scope of the CASE intervention. However, thevast majority of respondents clearly indicated a desire for more informationand training on working with adopted children and their families.

Limitations

A limitation of this study is the self-report nature of the PAS question-naire such that participants may choose responses that are socially desirableinstead of choosing responses that reflect their true perceptions or behav-iors. There is no way of knowing the extent to which this phenomenonmay have affected the research. Further studies are currently in progressto continue to improve the PAS in terms of its construct validity. In ad-dition, all intervention participants were instructed to complete a readingassignment after pretest and prior to the CASE presentation. It is unknownwhether participants did the assigned reading, which may have affectedtheir comprehension of adoption issues. Further, participants completedthe follow-up questionnaire outside of regularly scheduled class time. Thisextra time demand at the end of the semester may have affected the amountof time participants chose to spend on completing the survey. Therefore,the follow-up administration may have influenced the level of detail andamount of writing participants provided in the open response section, withsome participants not responding to the open-ended questions. This wasespecially common among those who reported no experience with adoptedchildren or families. Finally, adoption issues are not an official part ofstandard teacher or counselor preparation curricula, and participants werenot held accountable for their knowledge of adoption issues or their useof the information presented. This may have affected whether participantsvalued the information presented and if they choose to integrate what waslearned into their emerging practice.

Future Research

Since adoption is a frequently occurring way to form a family inthe United States, future research is needed to better understand therelationship between education professionals and adoptive families andthe ways in which educational professionals’ perceptions and practices

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UO

V U

nive

rsity

of

Ovi

edo]

at 0

0:51

28

Oct

ober

201

4

Taymans et al. 41

influence adoptive families’ school experiences. This research was afirst step in beginning to understand this complex topic. Much additionalresearch is needed to gain a more in-depth understanding of the diversityof experiences, beliefs, and practices that affect educational professionals’interactions with adopted children and their families. Further researchshould address how well minimal interventions, such as the one used inthis study, maintain effectiveness beyond the time frame used in this study.Researchers, adoption professionals, and teacher/counselor educators canalso investigate whether providing additional information and experiencerelated to working with adoptive families result in preservice educatorsengaging in observable behaviors that demonstrate sensitivity to adoptivefamilies. Further investigations should also study practicing educatorswho may be able to incorporate information on adoptive families moreefficiently into their preexisting professional repertoires.

Implications for Practice

Adoptive parents and professionals who work with adoptive familiesacknowledge that the school environment is a major contributor to howchildren and adolescents think and feel about adoption (Howard et al.,2004; Pertman, 2000; Shoettle, 2003). Given the importance of educa-tional professionals’ interactions with adoptive families, it appears thataddressing adoption is a worthy topic to include in preservice preparationfor teachers and counselors. Furthermore, considering that knowledge andskills in working with diverse families are included in teacher and coun-selor preparation programs (e.g., Council for Accreditation of Counselingand Related Educational Programs, 2001; Council for Exceptional Chil-dren, 2003), information on adoption expands preservice professionals’understanding of diversity and therefore is well situated in the contextof professional preparation. Yet, prior to the CASE intervention, the pre-service education professionals in this study, like most adults, reportedlearning about adoption informally through family, friends, and the media(Dave Thomas Foundation for Adoption & Evan B. Donaldson AdoptionInstitute, 2002).

As the American family becomes increasingly diverse (e.g., stepfami-lies, single parents, gay and lesbian parents), adoption can be considereda form of diversity. Adoptive families, like all families, are as differentas they are similar. Most adoptive families and their children navigatethe school years needing and receiving no special services (Brodzinsky &Steiger, 1991; Howard et al., 2004; Meese, 1999; Miller et al., 2000). These

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UO

V U

nive

rsity

of

Ovi

edo]

at 0

0:51

28

Oct

ober

201

4


families can, however, benefit from working with education professionalswho engage in open communication about adoption in ways that are ed-ucative and comfortable for children’s social, emotional, and cognitive de-velopment. Education professionals in comparison courses that addresseddiversity exhibited significantly less awareness of adoption issues in schoolsettings as indicated by their PAS scores. This finding suggests that currentapproaches to developing sensitivity toward diversity may not be specificenough to prepare preservice education professionals to recognize and ne-gotiate the potentially difficult situations adopted children may face. Theseeducation professionals may not be prepared to address blunt questionsfrom other children. Furthermore, they may inadvertently create assign-ments that force adopted children to address missing information abouttheir pre-adoption past that can make children feel uncomfortable becauseof their adoptive status (Grotevant, Dunbar, Kohler, & Lash Esau, 2000).As noted by Schoettle (2003, p. 4), “While many students can forgive theirteachers for asking them to bring baby pictures when they have none, theycannot forget the teacher who says nothing when a classmate asks, ‘Whydon’t you have baby pictures?’ ”

While most adoptive families are not in need of additional assistance,some adoptive families seek or are referred to special services to addresstheir children’s learning, behavioral, and emotional issues, which are oftenassociated with a child’s adverse conditions prior to adoption (Howardet al., 2004; Simmel, Brooks, Barth, & Hinshaw, 2001). Education pro-fessionals should be aware of the unique and various circumstances thatadopted children and their families face. This awareness requires a complexsensitivity. On one hand, it requires education professionals to not assumethat all adoptive families need assistance, while at the same time it requiresthem to be aware of curricular pitfalls or types of questions or commentsthat may negatively affect many adopted children’s sense of well-beingand normalcy. Therefore, educational professionals should be aware ofadoption issues with a sense of how and when to use this knowledge (Riley& Meeks, 2005). Adoptive families benefit from teachers and counselorswho can sensitively refer them to services or who can provide services thattake into account the possible special needs associated with adoption. Thisdraws particular attention for the need for adoption information in specialeducation and counselor education.

Although teacher and counselor educators in preparation programs maythink, as one respondent in this study indicated, that the preservice ed-ucation curricula are already too full with information on a growing ar-ray of special topics, the findings from this study indicate that preservice

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UO

V U

nive

rsity

of

Ovi

edo]

at 0

0:51

28

Oct

ober

201

4

Taymans et al. 43

education professionals found that a minimal intervention aimed at increas-ing their knowledge and sensitivity toward adoptive families was relevantto their subsequent internship/work experiences. Learning about adoptivefamilies can be part of sensitizing education professionals to the growingdiversity of families and adopted children in U.S. schools.

CONCLUSIONS

The CASE reading and class session was a relatively brief interventionthat affected preservice educators’ awareness more than their actions. Thehigh percentage of participants who reported wanting more information isalso an indication that this is a relevant topic and that more could be doneto prepare education professionals to engage in “adoption-sensitive” be-haviors. The follow-up questionnaire revealed that participants continuedto evaluate the CASE intervention positively. Participants were consistentin their positive evaluation of the quality and usefulness of the CASE in-tervention. This research found that preservice educational professionalsbenefited from the CASE intervention, suggesting that adopted childrenand their families would be better served if school personnel were moreaware of adoption as a diversity issue.

REFERENCES

Brodzinsky, D. M., & Steiger, C. (1991). Prevalence of adoptees among special educationpopulations. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 24(8), 484–489.

Child Welfare Information Gateway. (2004). How many children were adopted in2000 and 2001? Retrieved July 8, 2006, from http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/s adopted/s adopted.cfm.

Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs. (2001). 2001Standards. Retrieved July 8, 2006, from http://www.cacrep.org/2001Standards.html.

Council for Exceptional Children. (2003). What every special educator must know: Ethics,standards and guidelines for special educators (5th ed). Arlington, VA: Council forExceptional Children.

Dave Thomas Foundation for Adoption & Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute.(2002). National adoption attitudes survey. Retrieved June 30, 2006, from http://www.davethomasfoundationforadoption.org/html/resource/Adoption Attitudes.pdf

Grotevant, H. D., Dunbar, N., Kohler, J. K., & Lash Esau, A. M. (2000). Adoptive identity:How contexts within and beyond the family shape developmental pathways. FamilyRelations, 49(4), 379–387.

Howard, J. A., Smith, S. L., & Ryan, S. D. (2004). A comparative study of child welfareadoptions with other types of adopted children and birth children. Adoption Quarterly,7(3), 1–30.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UO

V U

nive

rsity

of

Ovi

edo]

at 0

0:51

28

Oct

ober

201

4


Lynch, S. J., & Tuckweiller, E. (2005). A review of literature related to adoptive fami-lies: Implications for educators. Washington, DC: Unpublished manuscript, The GeorgeWashington University, Graduate School of Education and Human Development.

McWey, L. M. (2004). Predictors of attachment styles of children in foster care: An attach-ment theory model for working with families. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy,30(4), 439–452.

Meese, R. L. (1999). Teaching adopted students with disabilities: What teachers need toknow. Intervention in School and Clinic, 34(4), 232–235.

Miller, B. C., Fan, X., Christensen, M., Grotevant, H. D., & van Dulmen, M. (2000).Comparisons of adopted and nonadopted adolescents in a large, nationally representativesample. Child Development, 71(5), 1458–1473.

Moss, E., & St. Laurent, D. (2001). Attachment at school age and academic performance.Developmental Psychology, 37, 863–874.

Pertman, A. (2000). Adoption nation: How the adoption revolution is transforming America.New York, NY: Basic Books.

Riley, D. B. & Meeks, J. (2005). Beneath the mask: Understanding adopted teens. SilverSpring, MD: The Center for Adoption Support and Education.

Schoettle, M. (2003). SAFE (support for adoptive families by educators) at school. SilverSpring, MD: The Center for Adoption Support and Education.

Simmel, C., Brooks, D., Barth, R. P., & Hinshaw, S. P. (2001). Externalizing symptoma-tology among adoptive children: Prevalence and preadoption risk factors. Journal ofAbnormal Child Psychology, 29(1), 57–69.

Stroud, J. E., Stroud, J. C., & Staley, L. M. (1997). Understanding and supporting adoptivefamilies. Early Childhood Education Journal, 24(4), 229–234.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2003). Adopted children and stepchildren 2000. Retrieved June 8,2006, from http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/censr-6.pdf.

van Ijzendoorn, M. H., Juffer, F., Poelhuis, C. W. (2005). Adoption and cognitive develop-ment: A meta-analytic comparison of adopted and nonadopted children’s IQ and schoolperformance. Psychological Bulletin, 131(2), 301–316.

Warren, S. B. (1992). Lower threshold for referral for psychiatric treatment for adoptedadolescents. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolenscent Psycology, 31(3),512–517.

Weger, K. (2000). Adoption, family ideology, and social stigma: Bias in community atti-tudes, adoption research, and practice. Family Relations, 49, 363–462.

Received: 01/15/07Revised: 05/07/07Revised: 08/29/07

Accepted: 09/02/07

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UO

V U

nive

rsity

of

Ovi

edo]

at 0

0:51

28

Oct

ober

201

4

adoption as a diversity issue in professional preparation: perceptions of preservice education...

Documents