This article was downloaded by: [University of Bath]On: 02 November 2014, At: 09:19Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Research in ChildhoodEducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujrc20

An Asset Model: Preparing PreserviceTeachers To Work With Children andFamilies “of Promise”MaryJane W. Blasi aa Northern Arizona UniversityPublished online: 03 Nov 2009.

To cite this article: MaryJane W. Blasi (2002) An Asset Model: Preparing Preservice Teachers To WorkWith Children and Families “of Promise”, Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 17:1, 106-122,DOI: 10.1080/02568540209595003

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02568540209595003

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

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

Journal of Research in Childhood Education200 2. Vol. 17. No. I

Copyright 2002 by the Association forChildhood Education Intern ational

0256-8543/02

An Asset Model: Preparing Preservice Teachers ToWork With Children and Families "of Promise"

Mary.lane W. BlasiNorthern Arizona University

Abstract. Th e purpose ofthis study was to investigate the preparation ofpre serviceteachers to work with children and famil ies "of promise," based on the perceptionsand experiences of students in the course titled "Princip les of In terprofessionalCollaboration" and in field site experiences in family literacy programs. Datawere gathered through: 1) pre Ipost, open-ended questionnaires completed by stu­dents enrolled in the course; 2) journals maintained weekly by students for reflec­tion and dialogue about their readings and field experiences; and 3) a focus group,which met bimonthly. Th e research exam ined teacher educators' and students'changing perspectives. As a result ofcourse content and field experiences at fam­ily literacy si tes, students' views changed to a "family first" perspecti ve, consider­ing children and families to be "of promise" rather than "at risk." Students alsoindi cated they had gained confidence in their own ability to understand and workwith children and families "of promise," understood the necessity for working inteams, and understood th e importance ofparent invo lvement.

Early childhood programs today are beingasked to serve an increasing population ofethnically and culturally diverse children,many of whom are characterized "at risk"because of inadequate health care, familyinstability, and insufficient economic re­sources (Kagan & Garcia, 1991; NationalCommission on Children, 1991). Based onprojected data by the U.S. Census Bureau,the number of children living in povertybetween 1984 and 2020 is expected to risefrom 14.7 million to 20 .1 million, an in­crease of 37% (Pallas, Natriello, & McDill,1989).

Most of the research on "at-risk" childrentakes an epidemiological approach, focus­ing on the presence of risk factors in thesocial environment that are correlated withpoor school achievement. Identifying chil­dren who are "at risk" because of family cir­cumstances and understanding their needsis important in enabling teachers to sup­port their growth and development (Leroy& Symes, 2001). Family factors includehaving parents who are young, single, andlack education.

106

Research has shown that teacher knowl­edge about families of children "at risk" isoften uneven and inaccurate (Cassanova ,1990). In their study, Leroy and Symes(2001) found that teachers' knowledge ofeach student's home circumstances varieda great deal, depending on the relationshipthey had with the particular child or fam­ily. Sometimes, information came from sec­ondary sources, such as colleagues or socialworkers who had worked with the families .In some cases of particular children thoughtto be "at ri sk," the teachers admitted toknowing nothing at all about the familysituation.

Teacher Beliefs and UnderstandingsLadson-Billings and Gomez (2001) dis­cussed the collaboration between them­selves and a group of elementary teacherstrying to advance the emergent literacyabilities of children at risk of school fail­ure. They met on a monthly basis withseven teachers to discuss methods of sup­porting student literacy. Their model ofcollaboration involved asking critical ques-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ath]

at 0

9:19

02

Nov

embe

r 20

14

PREPARING TEACHERS TO WORK WITH FAMILIES "OF PROMISE"

tions to stimulate conversation. They hy­pothesized that the conversations wouldstimulate teachers to think about their ownwork and to make pedagogical changes thatwould benefit the students at risk of read­ing failure. The researchers also spent timein the classrooms collecting field notes ofobservations and later shared their sum­maries with the teachers.

Initially, the teachers seemed intent onexpressing their frustrations about the chil­dren and their families, focusing on familydissolutions, imprisoned parents, home­lessness, etc. In their discussions, Ladson­Billings and Gomez encouraged thinkingabout students' capabilities. The question"What strengths does this child have?" pro­voked the teachers to think about the re­sources the students already had, andidentifying strengths to build on. Ladson­Billings and Gomez began to see shifts inthe ways the teachers talked about theirstudents. They observed how listening toone another's struggles and solutionsserved as a catalyst for changing their waysof thinking about students who previouslyhad experienced school failure.

Winfield's (1986) research on teachers'beliefs about children termed "at risk" ishelpful in understanding the kinds of strat­egies teachers may use to deal with studentfailure . She terms as "tutors" the teacherswho believe that students at risk of schoolfailure can improve, and who believe theyare responsible for that improvement.Teachers who do not believe studentstermed "at risk" can improve, and who be­lieve the students can only be maintained,are called "custodians." They are the teach­ers who keep struggling students in theirrooms quietly focused on busy work thatfails to improve their skills. Winfield's ru­bric is helpful for looking at schools orga­nized in traditional ways, with each teacherworking alone or in isolation. The develop­ment of a professional community, like theone described in Ladson-Billings andGomez's 2001 study, makes public thoseactivities and behaviors that were once pri­vate. Evidence from their research showsthat improving teachers' knowledge and

supporting changes in pedagogical practiceis a slow process that must be grounded ina specific school/community context.

Leroy and Symes (2001) examined theways that teachers think about children "atrisk," particularly in reference to familybackgrounds. Teachers saw familial diffi­culties as risks for children but also high­lighted systemic problems, such as lack ofsupport for families in poverty. "They alsoseemed to empathize with single parents,and believed that the cultural backgroundsoflndian and Metis students were a sourceof strength for Aboriginal children whenthey were at risk" (p. 45). One teacher ex­plained that her perception of children "atrisk" was based on a combination of thingsin the home and in school. Another teacheridentified negative outcomes for certain stu­dents while recognizing the potentially un­acceptable nature of her views.

Another important finding of Leroy andSymes's 2001 study was the extent to whichthe teachers believed that lack of parentalinvolvement and communication with theschool contribute to the risks faced by chil­dren . It seemed that some contexts ofteacher-family relationships were more con­ducive to open communication than others."For example, it may be that when theteacher and school are seen as part of a net­work of social support services, parents aremore likely to be open about the challengesthey face when raising children" (p. 60).

A Renewed Appreciationfor the Role of Families

Recent research has provided new under­standings regarding the critical role of par­ent involvement and community support ineffective early childhood programs, particu­larly those serving children from disadvan­taged circumstances (Comer, Haynes,Joyner, & Ben-Avie, 1996). This renewedappreciation for the role of families andcommunities in the education of their chil­dren, especially those termed "at risk," hasstimulated a growing movement for earlychildhood programs to include support ser­vices for children and families (Calfee,Wittwer, & Meredith, 1998).

107

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ath]

at 0

9:19

02

Nov

embe

r 20

14

BLASI

The definition of "family" in the UnitedStates has significantly changed, due to avariety of complex societal variables. Ac­cording to Springate and Stegelin (1999),these variables include: violence in the livesof children and families, female employ­ment and welfare reform, divorce and theincreasing numbers of single-parent fami­lies, loss of extended family, economic un­certainty, and poverty. Rising rates ofviolence (bot h in the streets and in thehome) produce a constant state of fear andanxiety for families, who find it increasinglydifficult to provide a safe and trusting en­vironment for their children. Teachers canplay an important role in identifying chil­dren who may be targets of violence orabuse and neglect. Communication withfamilies , particularly regarding child man­agement and discipline methods, can pro­vide more appropriate methods of responsein managing their children.

The increased number of mothers whowork outside ofthe home accounts for manyadditional stresses and required adapta­tions for children, their parents, and theschools. Child care is now a necessity forworking families. Procuring high-quality,affordable child care in the United Statesis a difficult task, adding another source ofextreme stress and concern for families.

Another notable change affecting U.S.families is the increasing number of mar­riages ending in divorce, with many chil­dren living in families headed by oneparent. Divorce places an inordinateamount of stress on families , both emotion­ally and financially. In trying to cope withtheir own losses, and emotional stress, par­ents are often unable to help their childrendeal with the anxieties they experience asa result of their new living situation.

Economic uncertainty and child povertyare perhaps the most significant stressorsfor children and families today. Child pov­erty escalates a number of risk factors , in­cluding poor nutrition, inadequate healthcare and immunization, inadequate hous­ing, substance abuse, and chronic violence(Edwards & Young, 1992).

Given the variety of complex issues fami-

lies are dealing with today, children andparents remain amazingly resilient. Teach­ers who look for potential, strengths, andresilience are most likely to succeed in theirinteractions with families . Community andschool personnel can exert influence andextend resources to compensate for miss­ing family social resources (Springate &Stegelin, 1999). "Until schools acknowledgethe range of dispositions, backgrounds, ex­periences, and strengths among families,efforts to establish sound home/school com­munication and partnerships will falter"(Edwards & Young, 1992, p. 76).

Children and families termed "at risk"need to be understood in the social and cul­tural contexts of their lives. Indeed, nu­merous highly regarded researchers havedocumented the strengths ofthese families"of promise" (e.g., Auerbach, 1996; Heath,1983 ; McCaleb, 1994; Quintero, 1995; Tay­lor & Dorsey-Gaines, 1988; Valdes, 1996).Rather than the notion of "filling up" defi­cits, the challenge for educators becomesone of building on these children's existingst rengths. Teachers must accept the vital­ity of cultural characteristics if they are tohelp families educate themselves.

The Community SchoolThese are precarious times for democraticeducation. In many respects, our futurerests on the ability of schools of educationto prepare teachers to discover pathwaysthat help all students learn, and to createcommunity among cultures where there isnow dissension. In the United States, ef­forts to rethink schooling have been stimu­lated by the need to prepare a more diverseand inclusive group of future citizens andworkers to locate and use new resources andtechnologies, and work cooperatively tosolve problems. These changes in societyrequire a new mission for education andteaching: one that requires schools to gobeyond "deliveri ng instructional services"by ensuring that all students learn; one thatrequires teachers to do more than "coverthe curriculum" by enabling diverse learn­ers to construct their own knowledge anddevelop their talents (Darling-Hammond,

108

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ath]

at 0

9:19

02

Nov

embe

r 20

14

PREPARING TEACHERS TO WORK WITH FAMILIES "OF PROMISE"

cited in King, Hollins, & Hayman, 1997).Yet it now seems harder for social insti­

tutions to work together for common goals.Families have more worries and responsibili­ties, and children have fewer advocates. Dif­ferent visions of what schools should be aresurfacing. A significant number of profes­sionals and community members have takenthe position that education is more than thethree R's. In recognition of lifestyle diver­sity and multiculturalism, it makes sense forall residents to come together in makingcommunities and schools more productive inorder to accommodate the diverse needs offamilies today (Barbour & Barbour, 1997).

The Full-Service SchoolHistorically, the model or paradigm of pub­lie school education in the United Statesprimarily has been one oflabeling individu­als and their problems, segregating complexfamily problems into small pieces to makethe problems understandable, and evalu­ating program effectiveness by counting"cases" rather than individual successes. Inorder to "tr eat the problem," the paradigmassumes that only a professional knowsbest. Acknowledging the complex natureof today's societal needs, the paradigm isshifting to more of a collaborative, process­oriented focus. Responding to the complexissues involving families is not the sole re­sponsibility of anyone agency, institution,or school. Teachers and administrators arebeginning to accept that delivery of humanservices and restructuring of education areinextricably linked (Calfee, Wittwer, &Meredith, 1998).

The full-service school initiative is basedon these shifts in thinking. The state ofFlorida's Interagency Workgroup on Full­Service Schools described the full-serviceschool concept this way:

a full-service school means a schoolwhich servesas a central point of delivery, a single "commu­nity hub ," for whatever education, heal th , so­ciaVhuman, and/or employment services havebeen determined locally to be needed to supporta child's success in school and in the commu­nity. Such a school is locally planned and de-

signed to meet the holistic needs of studentswithin the context of their families. The full­service school becomes a family resource center,a "one stop service," for children and familiesand , where appropriate, for people in the sur­rounding community. (Calfee, Wittwer, &Meredith, 1998, p. 7)

J ames Comer's SchoolDevelopment Program

In School Power: Implications of an Inter­vention Project, James Comer (1980) de­scribes how a private university child studycenter, a public school system, and a com­munity of teachers and parents could es­tablish a long-term collaboration with theprimary goal of benefiting the children inthe schools. Comer recognized the power­ful forces that influence perceptions ofschool administrators and teachers con­cerning the roles of schools and the needsand abilities of children and families . Hedeveloped a framework for changing schoolsbased on interventions, outcomes, develop­mental theory, and a belief that teachers,parents, and administrators could define andpursue shared objectives (Comer et al ., 1996).

The assumptions and expectations onwhich the Comer School Development Pro­gram (Comer et aI. , 1996) is based include:

1. School experiences can evoke thestrengths of children, their parents, andtheir teachers ifthe collaboration of admin­istrators, teachers and parents is fosteredand enhanced.2. Schooling cannot replace family and cul­tural conditions and expectations but canpromote the positive health and social in­gredients that are present in potential andactive forms in each family, cultural, andsocial settings.3. Teacher preparation, especially in col­leges of education, can benefit and contrib­ute to the promotion of these assumptionsand expectations.4. The continuity of school reform is en­sured if guided by a systematic evaluationprocess designed to sustain the energy ofchange in the service of children's progres­sive learning and socializing. (p , xv)

109

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ath]

at 0

9:19

02

Nov

embe

r 20

14

BLASI

Study DescriptionDuring my 18 years of working with chil­dren and families in early childhood set­tings, most of whom were termed "at risk,"I have observed strength, resilience, andpotential (or promise) in these young chil­dren and families. I also have witnessedchanges in society and in family structures,and the increased need for schools to involvefamilies in their children's education. Iworked with numerous teachers in severalstates who shared similar concerns. Theyfelt inadequately trained to serve their in­creasingly diverse school populations ,which included significant numbers of chil­dren and families living in poverty. Al­though they realized the importance ofparent involvement for a child's successfuleducation, they felt unprepared in ways toinvolve parents. When I became an assis­tant professor of early childhood education,I wondered how we might begin to developmore relevant programs to prepare teach­ers for the "real world" ofteaching in today'sdiverse and complicated society.

MethodologyUsing a multi-method approach, as pre­sented in Figure 1, I examined teacher edu­cation students' changing perspectivesduring their participation in a course titled"Principles of Interprofessional Collabora­tion." The methods included pre/post open­ended questionnaires, regular focus group

discussions with five (four female, one male)students who volunteered to participate inextended dialogue, and weekly student jour­nal entries.

For the purpose of this study, "of prom­ise " was defined to include children andfamilies:

• living in poverty• belonging to a cultural/ethnic minority• whose first language is one other than

English• whose family organization may be tradi­

tional or nontraditional (t r adit ional fam­ily was defined as: mother, father, andsiblings residing in the home together).

I was interested in conducting an in-depthinvestigation of the students' experiencesand to learn what in these experiences sup­ported understandings regarding the needsof children and families "of promise." Myresearch questions included: 1) What in­sights were developed to effect a view of"potential" versus deficiency? 2) Did thestudents' orientations change during thecourse and, if so , what facilitated thechange? The contexts for the questionswere a preservice teachers' course andfield site experiences in family literacy pro­grams. The primary questions investi­gated in this study, sources of information,and data analysis procedures are listed inTable 1.

Figure 1In struments Used To Identify Criteria, Methods, and Practices for Preseruice

Teachers Training To Work With Students "of Prom ise"

Pre- and Post-Questionnaires(n=26)

Student Journals(n=26)

110

Focus Group(n=6)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ath]

at 0

9:19

02

Nov

embe

r 20

14

PREPARING TEACHERS TO WORK WITH FAMILIES "OF PROMISE"

The nature ofthe study took into accountthe subjective natu re ofthe lives ofthe stu­dents, teachers, children, and their fami­lies. Everyone h a s his or her ownperceptions of how the worl d works, and itis within these personal contexts that thestudents, teachers , children, and familiesshape their understandings. "All too manyof us think that problems, however defin ed,have solutions. As educators and plannerswe jump to experiment with interventions"(Valdes, 1996 , p. xii ), Like Valdes, I did notplan to provide solutions, but rather sub­mitted ideas and suggestions as offeredthrough my students and the educators andfa milies with whom I worked. Th eir voicesand multi-level understandings tell a com­plex story of the challenges faced by fami­lies "of promise" and illustrate the need forteachers' understanding and sensitivitywhen working with these families.

ContextsThe preservice teachers' course. The

course "Principles oflnterprofessional Col­labor a t ion " focused on the disposit ion s ,knowledge, experiences, and skills neces­sary for successful teamwork. This coursewas designed to encourage students to ex­amine the rationale and implementation ofearly childhood programs in communitysites, to investigate professional skills androles in collaborative programs, and to ob­serve and explore the implementation ofstrategies and workable plans that supportinterprofessional collaboration and integra-

tive services for young children and theirfamilies . The course worked to expand stu­dents' understanding of their future chal­lenges in diverse settings , in order tomaximize their real-world experiences.

As part ofthe course work, students par­ticipated in literature study groups-select­ing to read, discuss in depth, and writeabout one text. The students could choosefrom Ways With Words (H eat h , 1983),Growing Up Literate (Taylor & Dorsey­Gaines, 1988 ), Rallying the Whole Village(Corner et al., 1996), or Con Respecto(Valdes, 1996). Recognition of familystrengths as well as ways families use lit ­eracy, many often not school-like, are sig­nificant themes of t hese books , whichprovide a rich background for building onand extending student understandings offamilies. My hope, with these readings,was that the students would begin to lookat children and families through a lens fo­cused on potential rather than deficiency.

Field sites. In addition to classroom dia­logue and study, students participated insix hours per week offield site experiencesfor three rotations per semester. Each ro­tation involved a four-week session: one ina public school setting, one in a preschoolenvironment, and one in a family literacysite. This study focuses on the experiencesof the students at the family literacy sites.Students had specific activities to be com­pleted during each week oftheir family lit­eracy site visitation, including a parentinterview, parent liaison interview, horne

Table 1Questions and Analytic Procedures

Research Questions Sources of Information Data Analysis Procedures

1) What insights and experiences Focus Group Data collection matrix tocharacterize preservice teachers as MeetingslDiscussions identify emergingthey prepare to work with children and Student Journals commonalities.families "of promise"?

2) Will students' perceptions about Pre- and Descriptive statisticschildren and fami lies "of promise" Post-Questionnaires were generated tochange as a result of their participation identify changingin the "Pri nciples ofInterprofessional perspectives from time 1Collaboration" course? to time 2.

III

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ath]

at 0

9:19

02

Nov

embe

r 20

14

BLASI

visit, and team meeting.Family literacy involves collaboration

among the family, school, and communityin support of students' emerging literacyskills. For many families , this effort mayinvolve children and adults learning to readand write or seeking to improve their read­ing and writing skills (McCaleb, 1994).

Several program models offamily literacyhave been organized over the last 10 years.The most well-known family literacy modelis the National Center for Family Literacyin Louisville, Kentucky, which advocates anintegrated model offamily literacy and hasdeveloped a system oftraining and supportfor instructors and program directors(Mikulecky, 1996). It is this model to whichthe family literacy sites described in thisstudy subscribed.

ParticipantsTwenty-six third-year preservice teachereducation students who enrolled in thecourse "Prin ciples ofInterprofessional Col­laboration" participated in the inquiry. Sixwere Hispanic, one was Asian American,and 19 were Caucasian. The studentsranged in age from 18 to 35; 23 were be­tween the ages of 18 and 23.

A volunteer focus group of five students(four women, one man) met twice a monthfor approximately one hour to reflect on anddiscuss their experiences in more depththan the class time allowed.

Data Collection and AnalysisData collection was carried out for 18 weeksduring the fall semester at a university inthe southwestern United States. Multiplesources provided data for analysis. Datawere gathered by administering a pre/postquestionnaire to the students, student fo­cus group discussions, and weekly studentjournals. Based on my own experiencesworking with children and families "ofpromise," and a literature review of familyliteracy, "at risk" community schools, andpreservice teacher education, I designed aPreservice Teacher Questionnaire-a 12­item, open-ended survey. Weekly studentjournals provided examples of reflection

and dialogue about the readings and expe­riences. I grouped these data into two dif­ferent types:

1) Open-ended questionnaire completed byteacher candidates at the beginning andconclusion of the semester (Question #2) .2) Journals maintained weekly by the stu­dents for reflection and discussion; focusgroup meetings (Question #1).

Students participated six hours per weekin three different field sites: a family lit­eracy program, a preschool, and a publicschool setting. Elicitation of students' be­liefs at the beginning of this course wascritical in establishing a base line ofrespon­dent ideas and how they changed duringthe course of this study. Experienced andnovice teachers hold beliefs about the na­ture of child development and facilitationofthis development and learning. However,many are often unaware of their underly­ing assumptions regarding the process ofteaching (Kagan, 1992 ). The challenge forteachers is to confront and examine theirpersonal beliefs and consider how their per­ceptions may blind them to the possibili­ties of teaching situations (Bullough &Baughman, 1997).

Data analysis was conducted simulta­neously with data collection and interpre­tation. In this ongoing, cyclical process, Isynthesized information across sources,looking for emergent patterns and relation­ships. The interpretation involved attach­ing meaning and significance to thediscovered patterns and relationships(Pat ton, 1987 ).

During data analysis, the data were ini­tially organized categorically and chrono­logically, repeatedly reviewed and revised,and continually coded in an attempt to un­derstand emergent patterns and themes.The primary strategy utilized in this projectto ensure external validity was the provi­sion of rich, thick, detailed descriptions.Internal validity was gained through tri­angulation or multiple methods of data col­lection (interviews, pre/post surveys, focusgroup discussions, student journals) and

11 2

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ath]

at 0

9:19

02

Nov

embe

r 20

14

PREPARING TEACHERS TO WORK WITH FAMILIES "OF PROMISE"

analysis; these methods also strengthenedreliability (Merriam, 1988). Qualitativecategorical data analyses included focusgroups and student journals.

Focus group discussions were transcribedand regularly reviewed. Alist of major ideasthat surfaced were chronicled (Merri am,1988). Careful and organized methods ofcategorizing the data were employed to en­hance rigor. As categories and their defini­tions emerged, data were coded andrelations among categories establishedearly on, so that emerging hypotheses couldbe tested.

Student journals were submitted at regu­lar intervals during the semester. In thesejournal assignments, students were reflect­ing on readings and connecting with theirfield site experiences. They were reviewedand relevant information was extracted,and key words or phrases were recorded.The journals and pre/post surveys docu­mented changes in student attitudes dur­ing the semester.

Thematic DiscoveriesThe significant themes that emerged overthe course of this study concerned workingwith families; cultural competence (under­standing the child in the context ofhislherfamily, culture, community); socioeconomicissues, including an understanding of "atrisk" and the effects of labeling; and theneed for collaboration by working in teams.In my discussion, I will focus first on thefield site journal and focus group responses,then on the pre/post questionnaires.

Working With Families:Multiple Lenses for Looking atChildren and FamiliesOne student's journal described her enjoy­ment, yet frustration, in reading ConRespecto and then her "hope" after listen­ing to a presentation by a professor fromthe family studies department whose workinvolves children and families "of promise."

What I learned from this book, Con Respecto,that I did not know before [was] where exactlythis "border" was and how difficult, yet impor-

tant, to cross (l am from the midwest where bor­ders are not mentioned), that these families areamazing-eompletely family oriented; full ofrespect, how ignorant and shameful teachersare to not respect these children or their fami­lies .. . [it] is disgusting and should never hap­pen. I enjoyed reading this book. It opened myeyes . Maybe I am being too harsh, expecting a"perfect world," but teachers mentioned in thisbook seemed unwelcoming, unenthusiastic, andunwilling to learn to go beyond.

Students envisioned their future roles asincluding a reaching out to families in non­traditional ways, particularly throughhome visits, which they had participatedin at their family literacy sites. In a focusgroup meeting, one student talked aboutthe teacher as

The other model to a child in the adult world.And I think that if you acknowledge the parentas being the primary teacher in their life that'sgoing to incorporate the parent, as well , into thechild's learning process. I think that people com­ing into this profession need to realize it's notjust the teacher and the student; it's the wholefamily there.

All agreed that home visits were criticalto successful home-school relationships,providing richer understandings ofthe childwithin the contexts ofhislher home, culture,and community. Student comments in theirweekly journals reflected their beliefs. Onestudent wrote,

I plan to reach out to my students' families inorder to provide full support for the children. Ifeel it 's most important to find out what the childalready knows and build on that. I think teach­ers sometimes focus too much on what the childcan't do.

Interestingly, students also developedideas and sometimes changed their think­ing regarding the school's responsibility tochildren and families. An example of onestudent response that shows an under­standing ofthe educator's responsibility isfound in the following journal entry:

113

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ath]

at 0

9:19

02

Nov

embe

r 20

14

BLASI

I also learned that it is the educator's role tohelp empower families . 'Ib do this, they need todevelop trusting relationships with parents,urge parent involvement in the classroom, showempathy and sensitivity, and construct success­oriented learning experiences. All ofthe thingsI came across in the article reminded me of thethings I experienced at the family literacy site.

Swadener and Lubeck (1995) believe thatearly intervention through "inoculationstyle" programs embody the medical or defi­cit model of children and families, result­ing in an emphasis on the child being readyfor school, rather than on getting the schoolready to serve increasingly diverse children.One student remarked,

You're an extension of that family. I guess it'sthe educator's and the school's responsibility tochange the way they perceive parent involve­ment. All that responsibility comes back on theeducator. You are, again, responsible. If youdon't speak their native tongue, send a notehome to them in their native language, and with­out talking down to them.

Student comments in journal entries aswell as focus group discussions paralleledthe research of Flores, Tefft-Cousin, andDiaz (1991), who contend that teachers arethe key to successfully reinterpreting theidentification of children termed "at risk,"and are the ones who need to reject deficitbeliefs, replacing them with more positiveviews of students. As one student recorded,

It is up to me, the students, and the families towork together. At my first placement, the fami­lies are talked about as often as the children,books, and snacks are. Teachers are very alert,aware, empathetic. They clearly understand thechild's family, background, and needs . Parentsare sent notes and paintings. Phone calls andhome visits are made.

Students viewed the building of honest,trusting relationships with families astheir first and most important job. Ourclassroom discussions often paralleled thefindings of McCaleb's (1994) study of Mexi-

can American families. In her study, shedescribed the follwing four major areas ofcompetency for preservice teachers: 1)classrooms as communities of learners,where every student is valued; 2) affirma­tion of each student's cultural and linguis­tic diversity; 3) collaborative relationshipsdeveloped by teachers that respect thestudent's family and community as valu­able contributors to the educational pro­cess; and 4) teachers viewing their roleas one of co-investigator in the learningcommunity.

The students were reading about and see­ing nontraditional methods of family in­volvement at the family literacy sites. Theywere seeing positive home-school connec­tions constructed and were thinking aboutinnovative ways they might build thesebridges themselves. The teachers in thePease-Alvarez, Garcia, and Espinosa (1991)study did just that, citing their most notablefinding as the discovery that effective teach­ers utilize instructional strategies thatbuild on interaction patterns from the stu­dents' homes.

Cultural CompetenceNumerous researchers (Auerbach, 1996;Heath, 1983; McCaleb, 1994; Taylor &Dorsey-Gaines, 1988; Valdes, 1996) believethat the study offamily literacy requires anunderstanding ofthe culturallyvariable fam­ily education process. An educational cur­riculum or educational agenda (the way inwhich families share their culture and com­municate to their children in the form oflan­guage, cognitive skills, and values) existswithin all families, but may take a differentshape than that ofthe school. Much ofwhathappens in the classroom is inconsistentwith home and community experiences formany children, resulting in a home-cultureconflict in which the child ultimately suffers(Huber, Kline, Bakken, & Clark, 1997).

One professor, in a presentation describ­ing his work with teams in the inner city,introduced the phrase "cultural compe­tence" to the class. His presentation ap­peared to have a profound impact on thestudents' thinking. One student wrote,

114

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ath]

at 0

9:19

02

Nov

embe

r 20

14

PREPARING TEACHERS TO WORK WITH FAMILIES "OF PROMISE"

Our guest speaker was eye-opening. I reallyenjoyed hearing and asking questions to peoplesubmersed in the issues we talk about in class .It truly brings it to life. I, unfortunately, didnot get to ask a great question, "What deter­mines a person to be 'at risk'?" It sounds likethey are walking on ice that could crack at anymoment. I jotted and appreciated how culturalcompetency was broken down: a) sensitivity­stereotypes; b) prejudices-emotion, belief; andc) discrimination-act on prejudices.

"Cu ltu r a lly relevant teaching" (La dson ­Billings, 1994), "cu ltu r a lly responsiblepedagogy" (Huber et al., 1997), and "cu l­tural competence" involve not only a respectfor the culture of the child, but also an ap­preciation for cultural differences and awillingness to learn more about the cultureof the children. One focus group partici­pant reflected,

I think it is up to the school to inform and trainteachers to be aware of the cultures within theschool. For example, Hispanic families wanttheir children to do better than them (educationwise). Teachers believe college is the only wayto get a good education.

Another student wrote in her journal,

I feel the strongest point of this reading is thatteachers must make decisions based on culturalcontexts. In doing th is, teachers must be awareof the rules that guide the behaviors offamilies.I learned that in order to promote developmentand learning in children, it is essential that theteacher doesn 't judge individual children onsociety's norms.

Labeling:Socioeconomic Issues-Cause and EffectOne student wrote,

What I found interesting was the concept thatpoverty can actually be a source of motivationfor individuals who possess resilience, but whatwas shocking was the fact stated in the videothat the U.S. has the most children in poverty.

When questioned, "What is the impact of

poverty on children?" one student wrote,"They don't have the same opportunities tosucceed in school."

Students were clearly beginning to seethe damage of multiple situational risk fac­tors and the threats these factors pose tochildren. Poverty, and the lack of opportu­nities and resources associated with it, wasthe risk factor most predominant in the stu­dents'minds. That the United States hasthe highest number of children living inpoverty among the industrialized nationswas a shocking statistic. Schorr (1988)stated that persistent and concentratedpoverty virtually guarantees the presenceof a vast collection of risk factors and theircontinuing destructive impact over time.

Threaded throughout the students' com­ments about the shocking realization ofthenumbers of impoverished children in theUnited States were also themes of under­standing the situational aspects of povertythat put children "at risk." The studentsseemed to be pulling together for them­selves ideas put forth by Bronfenbrenner(1979), even though we had only minimallydiscussed his perspectives. Bronfenbrennerdescribed the ecological-empathic perspec­tive that individuals or family units areinfluenced by the events and experiencesthat occur in their lives and that theseevents and experiences could be understoodand influenced to promote healthy modesof development and learning. One studentwrote,

I'd like to say that the impact of poverty on chil­dren stacks odds again st them but does not haveto define how they will live as adults . Perhapsa completely American point of view is that allindividuals have opportunity to be whomeverthey desire to be. The video addresses that pov­erty impacts at the level of health concerns anda lack of adult role models to reach beyond pov­erty. This , in tum, leads to generational pov­erty. Most important to me was that in poverty,one might not know the resources that are inexistence and even how to access them. Someof the risk factors cited are adult illiteracy, un­employment, chemical abuse [within) families ,single parent homes, and most profound to me

11 5

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ath]

at 0

9:19

02

Nov

embe

r 20

14

BLASI

was a general loss of hope . It seems that whenhope is lost, so is sight ofthe future, and that isa horribly grim existence for the future of achild.

CollaborationIn taking on Bronfenbrenner's perspectives,the students seemed to be seeing risk assituational, something that could be im­proved upon and something they, as teach­ers, could do something about. "What canI do? Now?" reflected a student. This samestudent later wrote,

I had just completed my personal biography foranother class , where I highlighted my desire tobecome a teacher with the idea that I'd be con­tributing to humanity one child at a time. It wasall sort of romantic theory, then I read this articleand was faced with reality. .. . I was particularlystruck by how many people or organizations couldbe involved, with good intention, focused on onefamily but each having their own agenda. In thecase example, particularly with no one organiza­tion claiming full responsib ility, it seemed the fam­ily had been lost in the abundance of differentorganizations. Collaboration needs to be ad­dressed and knowing what is expected of eachplayer, otherwise the "buck" sort of gets passedaround at the needy people's expense.

I believe the "r ela t ion ships" part ofteach­ing is key here, as reflected in the students'

thinking. One student reflected, "The pointthat human relationships [are] what wasto be stressed here, not just 'organiza­tions'-what's truly at work is people want­ing to help people and this basic humanrelation could get so jumbled by all oftheseorganizations." Organized collaboration isnecessary for participants to know theirroles, their goals, their responsibilities-tosee how they fit into and contribute to the"big picture." Again, this is exemplified inthe work ofComer, whose teams are guidedby consensus, collaboration, and "no­fault"---everyone accepts responsibility forchange (Comer et al. , 1996).

Students viewed themselves as commit­ted, critical team players, but also playersin need of confident, competent choreogra­phers. One student wrote,

Comer needs to be applauded for the longevityofhis reform. In a time of quick fixes and plentyof Band-aids, this comprehensive outline for re­form suggests accountability. Because of its lon­gevity, it has proven itselfto shape and reshapeitself based on successes and failures . How­ever, I am always skeptical when one disciplinesets forth with "the answer." It suggests to methat I see a fixed image when I look through akaleidoscope. I see ever-changing patterns re­flecting different shades of colors.

Another student remarked,

Table 2Pre- and Post-Test Results (Open-ended)

What does the term child "at risk" ("of promise") mean to you?

Pre-test• No chance to succeed• Environment• Circumstances/pressures• Problems in school

Post-test• More subject to failure• Doesn't have equal opportunities• Lacks appropriate resources• Needs service to ensure success

What does identifying a child "at risk" ("of promise") mean to parents whose child hasbeen identified in this way?

Pre-test• Help parents• Parent behaviors at home• Insult• Help child

116

Post-test• Enable parent to receive help• Makes parents think child has a deficit• Makes parents think they are at fault• Upset parents

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ath]

at 0

9:19

02

Nov

embe

r 20

14

PREPARING TEACHERS TO WORK WITH FAMILIES "OF PROMISE"

I think the biggest challenge I faced this semes­ter, in class, in my field experience, and person­ally, is that I like to think of myself as a verycompetent person. And I've realized that youdo have to work with other teachers and you dohave to work with parents and administration,and I bought that. Because I thought, when Iwalk into my classroom, it 's my classroom, andnot taking that control out of it. .. . I don't wantto be perceived as in control of the children, incontrol of my environment and my job and myskills without the influence of other people . Iknow I'm going to need that; I'm going to haveto be more open to other people's advice andskills and thinking.

Pre- / Post-QuestionnairesWhen data from the questionnaires werecompiled, most answers for each questionclustered in four responses. Examples ofresponses to the survey, given as a pre/postquestionnaire, listing the four highest re­sponses in these categories can be found inTables 2 and 3.

In response to Question #2, "Will students'perceptions about children and families 'ofpromise' change as a result of their partici­pation in the 'Principles oflnterprofessionalCollaboration' course?," students' surveyresponses evidenced positive changes.Overall , student attitudes indicated agreater awareness and understanding offactors involved in describing "at risk,"based on their class work as well as on ex­periences at the family literacy sites. In

the pre-test, students identified "at risk" asa problem and deficit; in the post-test, theyindicated unequal opportunities and lackof appropriate resources, viewing "risk" asmore situational than personal. In describ­ing the characteristics of the child "at risk,"student responses moved, again, from the per­sonal to the more situational. Course contentfocused on potential and the "promise" ofpeople, as well as on their determination toovercome obstacles to achieve goals. Stu­dents had the chance to see "promise" in ac­tion in the family literacy programs.

Both pre- and post-test responses indi­cated that students believe that "develop­ing a relationship of trust andunderstanding with families" is the mostimportant factor in working with families"at risk." In response to the question, "Whatmatters most for teachers working withfamilies termed 'at risk'?," instructions wereto "Rank-order your responses, with 1 be­ing the most important and 10 being theleast important." Responses showed dra­matic changes in rankings. "Vis it in ghomes" received no ranking above sixthplace in the pretest. In the post-test, "vis­iting homes" was ranked in the top three."Guiding them to community resources andservices" changed from no first place to 10first-place rankings. "Working in partner­ship with parents to accomplish their goalsfor the child" changed from one studentranking it in first place in the pre-test to14 students ranking it first in the post-test.

(n =26)

Table 3Pre- and Post-Questionnaire Results

Percentage of Positive Responses

Research Questions

Ifyou were offered a teaching position in aschool with a population of children termedat-risk ("of promise"), would you accept theposition?

At this time, do you feel prepared to teach!work with children and families termed at­risk ("of promise")?

117

Pre-Test

.85

.38

Post-Test

.88

.58

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ath]

at 0

9:19

02

Nov

embe

r 20

14

BLASI

Conclusions and ImplicationsAs a result oftheir experiences in the classand through field experiences, students didchange their ideas about children and fami­lies "of promise," indicating that such acourse can make a difference, particularlyin the perspectives of preservice students.Of particular interest, I believe, were thechanges in the responses of the studentswho at first looked at children and families"of promise" through a narrow lens, andthen moved to a multiple lens perspectiveat the conclusion of the course. In the pre­test, their views indicated a passive, ratherhelpless perspective. As they gained knowl­edge, understanding, and experience dur­ing the course and field experiences, theyalso gained confidence in their own abilities.They realized that "ri sk" is situational andthat many ofthese children and families havestrengths, although not necessarily thosecompatible with the school definition, andthey are not deficient but rather lack oppor­tunities and access to resources.

Students envisioned their role ofteacheras one of helping families find and use theservices available to them. They realizedthe importance of valuing and respectingparents as their children's first and mostimportant teachers, and again saw theirrole in working with families as more of a"sh ared power" within a "family first" per­spective. Responses in focus group discus­sions supported the idea of "sh ared power"as students recognized the importance ofparent involvement in the family literacyprogram, and of the teachers' desire to in­clude parents in the curriculum. Post-testresponses were strong and proactive, indi­cating acquired confidence through partici­pation in experiences in family literacy, andthe importance of understanding children

and their families . When asked ifthey wouldaccept a teaching position in a school with apopulation of children termed "at risk," stu­dents' post-test responses were positive, in­dicating their desire to teach in familyliteracy sites, as well as their realization ofthe rewards inherent in influencing childrenwho might not otherwise be reached.

Student journals proved to be rich sourcesof ideas and avenues for student expressionand deepening awareness as theychronicled their practices, reflected, ana­lyzed, and dialogued. Holly (1989) says,"There is no Book of Teaching, the teacherwrites it along the way, drawing on learn­ing from others, from theories and practicespresented during teacher preparation; and,beyond these from the everyday realities ofthe classroom" (p. 9). Purposeful, regularwriting allowed the students opportunitiesto "make connections" that might otherwisehave been overlooked and allowed me (theinstructor) to get to know the students on apersonal level as we shared ideas and con­cerns. Students who were not comfortablespeaking in class often wrote sophisticatedjournal entries. Journals provided anotheravenue for "voice."

The students realized the multifaceted as­pects of the teaching profession. "There's noway you can do it alone anymore," remarkeda student in a focus group discussion. Theywere cognizant ofthe need for collaboration,being able to work successfully on a team,and to meet the needs of children and fami­lies today. The idea of one teacher for oneclass is an outdated model , given the diver­sity in classroom populations today, par­ticularly in light ofthe inclusion of "specia lneeds" students in classrooms. Team andteaching collaboration "r equ i r es thepreservice teacher to have a multidimen-

Table 4Pre- and Post-Test Rank Order Response Receiving Most First Place Rankings (n=26)

Developing a relationship of trust and understanding

Pre-test

19

118

Post-test

22

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ath]

at 0

9:19

02

Nov

embe

r 20

14

PREPARING TEACHERS TO WORK WITH FAMILIES "OF PROMISE"

sional knowledge about students that inte­grates each student into a culturally respon­sible, developmentally appropriate, and leastrestrictive learning environment responsiveto the students' culture, development, andabilities" (Huber et al ., 1997, p. 138).

In addition to the idea of teams, manystudents expressed the wish/need for amentor, especially during their first yearsof teaching. Research does suggest thatchanges in teachers' beliefs develop whenteachers learn from colleagues and theirown practice with students rather thanfrom college course readings, lectures, andworkshops (Kagan, 1992; Pajares, 1992).This idea suggests that educators becomemore like mentors in collegial relationships,offering support and encouragement.

Understanding of self, supported by op­portunities for questioning, reflecting, andclarifying, should be a critical componentof teacher education programs. Schemataused to make sense of the physical and so­cial environments are based largely on cul­turally framed interpretations of personalexperiences. The vitality ofthese schematais supported in research showing that theattitudes and beliefs held by prospectiveteachers remain unchanged after they havecompleted preservice teacher education pro­grams (Kagan, 1992). These studies indicatethat creating dissonance is important in chal­lenging unfounded assumptions and beliefs(Hollins, 1997) . In this study, students' per­ceptions did change. I believe these changesoccurred because a dissonance was createdthat challenged their thinking about childrenand families "of promise."

Results revealed the benefits to studentsof direct experience in such situations ashome visits, team meetings, parent inter­views, and conferences, all of which werepart of the course requirements. Field­based experiences, along with simultaneouscourse work, allowed the students oppor­tunities to see immediate application oftheory into practice, while providing oppor­tunities for "connected knowing," reflectivepractice, and development of "cultural com­petence." Students need opportunities toexamine and appreciate the richness and

complexity of the home visit relationship,and to learn how to use it as a vital sourceof parent education, family support, and ap­preciation ofthe child within the context ofhislher family. It would seem beneficial forearly childhood teacher preparation pro­grams to include these types of experiences.

I believe the notion of "cultural compe­tence," also described as "culturally respon­sive pedagogy" (Huber et aI. , 1997) and"cult u r a lly relevant teaching" (Ladson­Billings, 1994), should be a component ofall teacher education programs. Cultur­ally competent teachers know how to in­corporate students' cultures and languagesinto their education and therefore are bet­ter able to communicate with students andparents. In her study of Mexican Ameri­can families, McCaleb (1994) describedsimilar areas and experiences thatpreservice teachers needed in order to de­velop their knowledge. Each student's cul­tural and linguistic diversity must beaffirmed by using the knowledge he/shebrings to school as the primary text for de­veloping literacy. Teachers must learn todevelop collaborative relationships that re­spect the student's family and communityas valuable contributors to the educationalprocess.

Teacher education programs need to edu­cate preservice teachers far beyond anawareness level, nurturing them to becomeunderstanding and caring about the reali­ties of life for families "of promise." Stu­dents need opportunities to participate inprograms that allow for multiple interac­tions with families in order to design cur­ricula that build on home and communityexperiences; this approach has been termedan "asset model" (Ladson-Billings & Gomez,2001). According to Fosnot (1989 ),preservice teachers need to be immersed inenvironments where they can be engagedin questioning, reflecting, hypothesizing,and investigating. When construction ofknowledge is emphasized, teachers becomeempowered by reflecting on their own be­liefs rather than passively imitating amodel. Nurturing students also speaks tothe characteristics and pedagogical dis po-

11 9

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ath]

at 0

9:19

02

Nov

embe

r 20

14

BLASI

sitions of the professionals working withpreservice teachers. Perhaps teacher edu­cators need to reflect on and rethink theirroles as cultivators of culturally competent,committed professionals. I agree withFosnot (1989), who believes that for reformto last, teachers will need to be able to actas articulate, influential change agents inan arena ripe for change but entrenched intraditional, outdated modes.

ReferencesAuerbach, E. (1996). Adult ESLlliteracy

from the community to the community: Aguidebook for participatory literacy train­ing. Mahwah, NJ: International ReadingAssociation.

Barbour, C., & Barbour, N. (1997). Families,schools, and communities: Building partner­ships for educating children. Upper SaddleRiver, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of hu­man development. Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press.

Bullough, R., & Baughman, K. (1997). "First­year teacher"eight years later: An inquiry intoteacher development. New York: TeachersCollege Press.

Calfee, C., Wittwer, F., & Meredith, M. (1998) .Building a full service school. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.

Cassanova, U. (1990). Rashomon in the class­room: Multiple perspectives of teachers, par­ents, and students. InA. Barona & E. Garcia(Eds .), Children at risk: Poverty, minority sta­tus and other issues in education equity (pp.135-149). Washington, DC: National Asso­ciation of School Psychologists.

Comer, J. (1980) . School power: Implicationsofan intervention project. New York: The FreePress.

Comer, J. , Haynes, N., Joyner, E., & Ben-Avie ,M. (E ds.), (1996 ). Rallying the whole village:The Comer process for reforming education.New York: Teachers College Press.

Edwards, P., & Young, L. (1992). Beyond par­ents: Family, community and school involve­ment. Phi Delta Kappan, 74(1),72-80.

Flores, B., Tefft-Cousin, P., & Diaz, E. (1991 ).Transforming deficit myths about learning,language, and culture. Language Arts, 68,369-379.

Fosnot, C. (1989) . Enquiring teachers, enquir­ing learners: A constructivist approach toteaching. New York: Teachers College Press.

Heath, S. (1983). Ways with words. Cambridge,UK: Cambridge University Press.

Hollins, E. (1997 ). Directed inquiry inpreservice teacher education: A developmen­tal process. In J. King, E. Hollins, & W.Hayman (Eds .), Preparing teachers for cul­tural diversity (pp. 97-112). New York: Teach­ers College Press.

Holly, M. (1989). Writing to grow: Keeping apersonal-professional journal. Portsmouth,NH : Heinemann.

Huber, T., Kline, F., Bakken, L., & Clark, F.(1997). Transforming teacher education: In­cluding culturally responsible pedagogy. InJ. King, E. Hollins, & W. Hayman (Eds.) , Pre­paring teachers for cultural diversity (pp. 129­145). New York: Teachers College Press.

Kagan, S. (1992 ). Implications of research onteacher belief. Educational Psychologist,27(1) , 65-90.

Kagan, S., & Garcia, E. (Eds.), (1991). Educat­ing culturally and linguistically diversepreschoolers (special issue). Early ChildhoodResearch Quarterly, 6(3),427-444.

King, J ., Hollins, E ., & Hayman, W. (Eds.).(1997 ). Preparing teachers for cultural diver­sity. New York: Teachers College Press.

Ladson-Billings, G. (1994). The dreamkeepers:Successful teachers ofAfrican American chil­dren . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Ladson-Billings, G., & Gomez, M. (2001). Justshowing up: Supporting early literacy throughteachers' professional communities. Phi DeltaKappan, 82(9), 675-80.

Leroy, C., & Symes, B. (2001 ). Teachers' per­spectives on the family backgrounds of chil­dren at risk. McGill Journal of Education,36(1), 45-60.

McCaleb , S. (1994). Building communities oflearners. New York: St. Martin's Press.

Merriam, S. (1988). Case study research in edu­cation: A qualitative approach. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.

Mikulecky, L. (1996). Family literacy: Parentand child interactions. [Electronic data tape].Bloomington, IN: Indiana University [Pro­ducer and Distributor].

National Commission on Children. (1991). Be­yond rhetoric: A new American agenda forchildren and families. Final Report of theNational Commission on Children. Washing­ton , DC: Author.

Pajares, M. (1992 ). Teachers' beliefs and edu­cational research: Cleaning up a messy con­struct. Review ofEducational Research, 62(3),307-332.

120

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ath]

at 0

9:19

02

Nov

embe

r 20

14

PREPARING TEACHERS TO WORK WITH FAMILIES "OF PROMISE"

Pallas, A., Natriello, G., & McDill, E. (1989).The changing nature of the disadvantagedpopulation: Current dimensions and futuretrends. Educational Researcher, 18, 17-22.

Patton, M. (1987). How to use qualitative meth­ods in evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: SagePublications.

Pease-Alvarez, L., Garcia, E., & Espinosa, P.(1991). Effective instruction for language­minority students: An early childhood casestudy. Early Childhood Research Quarterly,6,347-361.

Quintero, E. (1995). Magic and risk: Lessonsfor the future . In G. Weinstein-Shr & E.Quintero (Eds .), Immigrant learners and theirfamilies: Literacy to connect generations (pp.153-166). Washington, DC: The Center forApplied Linguistics.

Schorr, L. (1988). Within our reach: Breakingthe cycle ofdisadvantage. New York: AnchorBooks .

Springate, K., & Stegelin, D. (1999). Buildingschool and community partnerships throughparent involvement. Upper Saddle River, NJ:Prentice-Hall.

Swadener, B., & Lubeck, S. (Eds.). (1995). Chil­dren and famil ies "at promise." Albany, NY:State University of New York Press.

Taylor, D., & Dorsey-Gaines, C. (1988). Grow­ing up literate: Learning from inner city fami­lies . Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Valdes , G. (1996 ). Con respecto: Bridging thedistances between culturally diverse familiesand schools--an ethnographic portrait. NewYork: Teachers College Press.

Winfield, L. (1986). Teacher beliefs toward aca­demically at-risk students in inner-urbanschools. Urban Rev iew, 9, 253-267.

121

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ath]

at 0

9:19

02

Nov

embe

r 20

14

BLASI

Questionnaire

Identifying information (Il) number; age range; years working with young children; ethnic identity)

1. a. What does the term child "at risk" mean to you?b. Describe the characteristics of a child "at risk."

2. a . What is the purpose oflabeling a child "at risk"?b. What does identifying a child "at risk" mean to parents whose child has been identified in

this way?3. Do you think the label "at risk" helps or hinders children's possibilities for fulfilling their

potential? Check and explain your response._Help _Hinder _Neither _ BothExplanation:

4. If you were offered a teaching position in a school with a population of children termed "atrisk," would you accept the position?_ Yes Explain why_No Explain why not

5. At this time, do you feel prepared to teach/work with children and families termed "at risk"?_Yes Explain why_No Explain why not

6. a. What does it mean for a child to be ready for school?b. Must families be responsible for getting all children "ready" for school, or should schools

be responsible for being "ready" for children with increasingly diverse needs and abilities?7. What does empowerment of families termed "at risk" mean to you?8. What does the term children "at promise" mean to you?9. In your opinion, what constitutes good teaching and learning?10. Rank order your responses, with 1 being the most important and 10 being the least important.

What matters most for teachers working with families termed "at risk"?Developing a relationship of trust and understandingProviding emotional supportGuiding them to community resources and servicesTeaching them skillsVisiting their homesLearning about the context oftheir livesHelping them appreciate the good things that happen in their livesWorking in partnership with parents to accomplish their goals for their childHelping the child be successfulEnabling families to find ways to meet their own needs and goals

11. Check all the responses you feel apply to your understanding. Your new class is composedof children termed "at risk." This means to you that:

_ The child is not ready for school_ The child comes from a poor family_ The child is learning disabled

The child is emotionally handicappedThe child is immatureThe child lives in a single-parent homeThe child is newly relocated

12. In what ways can teachers empower families termed "at risk"?

122

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ath]

at 0

9:19

02

Nov

embe

r 20

14