building family partnerships: the journey from preservice preparation to classroom practice

This article was downloaded by: [University of Kiel]On: 26 October 2014, At: 05:05Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Early Childhood TeacherEducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujec20

Building Family Partnerships: TheJourney From Preservice Preparation toClassroom PracticeEva Zygmunt-Fillwalk aa Department of Elementary Education , Teachers College, Ball StateUniversity , Muncie, Indiana, USAPublished online: 23 Feb 2011.

To cite this article: Eva Zygmunt-Fillwalk (2011) Building Family Partnerships: The Journey FromPreservice Preparation to Classroom Practice, Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 32:1,84-96, DOI: 10.1080/10901027.2010.547653

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10901027.2010.547653

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

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujec20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/10901027.2010.547653

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10901027.2010.547653

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

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

Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 32:84–96, 2011Copyright © National Association of Early Childhood Teacher EducatorsISSN: 1090-1027 print / 1745-5642 onlineDOI: 10.1080/10901027.2010.547653

Building Family Partnerships: The Journey FromPreservice Preparation to Classroom Practice

EVA ZYGMUNT-FILLWALK

Department of Elementary Education, Teachers College, Ball State University,Muncie, Indiana, USA

This study reports the relationship of an undergraduate course in family and communityrelations to the teaching practices of 1st-, 2nd-, and 3rd-year elementary and earlychildhood education graduates of a mid-sized Midwestern university. Sixty studentswere surveyed using the Peabody Family Involvement Survey (Katz & Bauch, 1999),with a treatment group (n = 21) having taken the course, and a control group (n = 39)who did not, in order to both quantify and qualify a difference in practices based onpreservice preparation. Quantitative measures indicated minimal differences betweengroups. Qualitatively, however, treatment group members reported engaging familiesin creative, less standardized levels of involvement than members of the control group.Treatment group members articulated a theoretical and practical understanding of thebenefits of family involvement. They emphasized importance of collaboration betweenhome and school, while control group members expressed frequent antagonism andambivalence toward families.

The relationships between family, school, and community settings are powerful influenceson children’s development, and early and engaging relationships set the stage for futuresuccess. Beyond factors such as socioeconomic status and parental education, the extent towhich families are involved in children’s education at home and at school has been shownto have a strong relationship to student academic success (Henderson & Berla, 1994).

Researchers have documented a multitude of benefits when families are involvedin their children’s education (Henderson & Mapp, 2002). Children whose families areinvolved in home/school partnerships evidence higher test scores, better attendance, lessretention, less participation in special education, higher rates of graduation, and moreattendance at college (Henderson & Mapp; Jeynes, 2005; Kreider, Caspe, Kennedy, &Weiss, 2007; Reynolds & Clements, 2005). Additionally, when involved in children’s edu-cation, families report more sensitivity to children’s social, emotional, and intellectualneeds, and more confidence helping children with schoolwork at home. The earlier thisinvolvement begins in a child’s educational experiences, the more positive outcomes arerealized (Kreider, 2002). Additionally, the higher the level of involvement, the greater theopportunity for maximal benefits (Henderson & Mapp).

While the research cited above supports teachers’ ability to effectively involve fami-lies as principal to children’s success, a review of state teacher certification requirements

Received 24 October 2009; accepted 13 January 2010.Address correspondence to Eva Zygmunt-Fillwalk, Department of Elementary Education,

Teachers College, Ball State University, Muncie, IN 47306-0600, USA. E-mail: [email protected]

84

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

iel]

at 0

5:05

26

Oct

ober

201

4

Building Family Partnerships 85

reveals that a majority of states neither encourage nor require teacher preparation in familyinvolvement (Epstein, 2001). In a national study of teacher educators, 88.5% of profes-sors surveyed suggested that preservice teachers in their program did not receive sufficientinformation about how to work with families in ways that promote effective communica-tion between home and school (Wright, Daniel, & Himelreich, 2000). Similarly, the authorsreport that 57% of teachers responded that they did not receive sufficient information abouthow to work with families in their preparation programs.

Pepperdine University conducted a survey of 147 colleges and universities withteacher education programs (Hiatt-Michael, 2001). The survey raised questions on thenumber of courses, types of courses, topics, and class instructional methods related tofamily involvement. According to Hiatt-Michael, respondents indicated that either parentinvolvement issues were not included in any coursework, or that, if included, such top-ics were woven into existing teacher education courses such as special education, readingmethods, and other instructional methods courses. Only 15% of respondents indicated thattheir college or university offered a course devoted to parent involvement, although thecourse was generally an elective, and not required for K–12 teacher licensure. Equallyproblematic is research suggesting school districts’ inability to provide family involvementtraining to a workforce generally unprepared in their undergraduate preparation programs(Kessler-Sklar & Baker, 2000).

Dauber and Epstein (1993) reported the extent to which families are involved in chil-dren’s education is directly linked to teacher practices encouraging such involvement.Furthermore, the attitudes teachers hold regarding family involvement inform the extentto which they attempt to implement family involvement programs (Swick & McKnight,1989). Furthermore, Xu and Gilosino (2006) found teachers’ role in establishing and main-taining a good teacher–parent partnership as a positive determinant of student performance.To this end, the ability to foster positive attitudes toward such partnerships and facilitate thedevelopment of strategies to achieve such collaboration is paramount to creating effectiveconnections that strengthen student academic success.

A growing body of research supports the effectiveness of specific preservice prepara-tion in encouraging both positive attitudes toward family involvement, and in supportingthe development of a personal perceived efficacy in beginning such work (Garcia, 2004;Katz & Bauch, 1999; Zygmunt-Fillwalk, 2006). However, how such attitudes and percep-tions of efficacy are subsequently translated into practice has been minimally examined,yet is all important in substantiating the need for deliberate, focused undergraduate prepa-ration that prepares teachers to build effective partnerships with families. The presentstudy sought to address this gap in research by investigating the difference in familyinvolvement practices among 1st-, 2nd-, and 3rd-year teachers whose preparation includedfamily involvement curriculum compared to their peers whose training did not involve suchcoursework.

This study builds on previous work detailing the effects of a specific course in familyinvolvement on preservice teacher attitudes and subsequent perceived efficacy in involv-ing families in their children’s education (Zygmunt-Fillwalk, 2006). Results of the studyindicated significantly different attitudes and levels of efficacy dependent upon having aspecific course as part of the undergraduate teacher preparation sequence. Those havingcompleted the course exhibited more positive attitudes, higher levels of preparation, andincreased personal efficacy in beginning their work with families than those who were notexposed to this content during preservice preparation. A desire to examine the extent towhich these attitudes inform actual practice was borne from the original analysis, resultingin the present study.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

iel]

at 0

5:05

26

Oct

ober

201

4

86 E. Zygmunt-Fillwalk

Sample/Methodology

First-, 2nd-, and 3rd-year program graduates were surveyed using both quantitative andqualitative measures to ascertain the extent to which having a course in family involve-ment could be correlated with differing practices than those of peers for whom the coursewas not included in the scope of preparation. Two hundred (200) 1st-, 2nd-, and 3rd-yearteachers drawn from a sample of a mid-sized Midwestern university’s elementary and earlychildhood education graduates were invited by U.S. mail to complete the Peabody FamilyInvolvement Survey (PFIIS) (practicing teacher version) (Katz & Bauch, 1999), whichwas enclosed with their invitation. Thirty-one of the surveys were returned as undeliver-able, and 60 were returned completed, resulting in a 36% rate of return. Of the 60 returnedsurveys, 21 had taken a course in family involvement and 39 had not. Of the 21 who hadtaken the course, 11 were early childhood education majors, and 10 were elementary edu-cation majors. All 39 respondents who had not taken the course were elementary educationmajors.

In the program from which the sample was drawn, the course “Family and CommunityRelations” is required for all students seeking certification in early childhood education(birth through age 8) and is frequently taken as an elective by elementary education majors.The class explores the complex role of the teacher in establishing family partnerships thatfoster mutual trust and respect. Important and relevant family issues are discussed, alongwith appropriate strategies for promoting collaboration. A historical perspective on familyinvolvement provides a context through which preservice teachers can explore issues ofthe changing American family.

Specifically, objectives for the course include: understanding the value of build-ing trust and respect as one partners with families; demonstrating an understanding ofdiverse families (family patterns, religion, culture, socioeconomic status); demonstratingan understanding of the role of the teacher in establishing a partnership with families (com-munication and collaboration); demonstrating an understanding of the role of the family asthe child’s first teacher in establishing a partnership with the teacher and the school; anddemonstrating an understanding of the role of the school and community in establishing apartnership with families (Staley, 2009).

Course assignments directed toward the achievement of the objectives outlined aboveinclude reading, discussion, and reflection on topical family involvement literature, cou-pled with practical and experiential learning. Students in the course are charged withcreating materials through which to communicate with and support families includingwelcome letters, topic-based family support kits, and materials presented at a “mock”parent/teacher conference. Experiential learning occurs through students’ participation ina poverty simulation, bus tour of the community, and extensive interview with familiesexploring cultural characteristics and their impact on teaching and learning.

The focus of the course includes the benefits of family involvement for children,families, and schools; and the respective roles of teachers, families, and communities incontributing to positive student outcomes. Above all, an ecological approach to familyinvolvement frames the discussion, and informs the menu of strategies that are exploredand practiced throughout the semester. Integral to the course is a case study approachthat affords students valuable opportunities for practical application of strategies. Roleplay, a documented means through which to problem-solve and gain confidence with var-ious approaches to family involvement (Shartrand, Weiss, Kreider, & Lopez, 1997), isemployed as a strategy through which preservice teachers can build empathy with familiesand develop a respect for their complex roles as children’s first teachers.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

iel]

at 0

5:05

26

Oct

ober

201

4


The PFIIS, used to survey program graduates, addresses the extent to which theclassroom teacher employs a variety of family involvement strategies, including both quan-titative and qualitative items. Specifically, teachers were asked to provide informationon their employment of family involvement practices, the frequency of these activities,and the types of strategies used to involve families. Content of the PFIIS (practicingteacher version; Katz & Bauch, 1999) is consistent with The National Association forthe Education of Young Children’s (NAEYC) (2003) standards for programs preparingearly childhood professionals. NAEYC’s emphasis is on “knowing about and under-standing family and community characteristics; supporting and empowering families andcommunities through respectful, reciprocal relationships; and involving families in theirchildren’s development and learning” (p. 32). It lays the foundation for assessing teacherbeliefs relative to these standards. The PFIIS assesses attitudes toward nine categoriesof family involvement that are consistent with Joyce Epstein’s nationally recognized andresearched-based model (Epstein, Coates, Salinas, Sanders, & Simon, 1997). These cat-egories include: a) introductory home/school activities; b) written communication withfamilies; c) phone communication with families; d) family involvement as volunteers;e) family participation in meetings for children with special needs; f) home visits; g) elec-tronic communication with families; h) family participation in committee meetings andevents; and i) parent/teacher conferences.

For three of the nine categories listed above the PFIIS requires a response to twodimensions of the particular component. Item 3 addresses teacher use of phone commu-nication for purposes of both positive and negative feedback. Item 8 requests a responseregarding teacher participation in committee meetings/events with family members thatare PTA/PTO- or policy/governance-related. Finally, item 9 requests a response related tothe occurrence of both scheduled and unscheduled parent/teacher conferences. As three ofthe nine categories include two separate dimensions upon which to assign a ranking, thereare 12 separate measures upon which teachers were surveyed.

The PFIIS also measures teachers’ perceived level of preparation for implementingfamily involvement practices. Perceptions are indicated by teachers’ choice of: (1) veryprepared; (2) need more training; or (3) no preparation, in response to the question, “Howwell prepared were you from your coursework to implement such practices?” Levels ofpreparation correspond to the nine core categories of family involvement, and not the sub-sections within categories. The survey also asks teachers to report the number of familiesinvolved in the core areas. These numbers are indicated by teachers’ choice of: (1) few;(2) less than half ; (3) most; or (4) all.

Quantitative Findings

Quantitative data was analyzed using ANOVA to determine the significance of differencein scores between the treatment group of practicing teachers having taken a family involve-ment class (n = 21), and a control group consisting of those who did not elect to do so aspart of their teacher preparation sequence (n = 39). Results of analysis indicated no sig-nificant difference in the extent to which all teachers surveyed participated in the itemizedfamily involvement activities. Comparing those who took the course (n = 21) and thosewho did not (n = 39) on the mere employment of all activities yields little difference(Table 1).

The only area even approaching significance was home visiting, where 23% of treat-ment group respondents reported visiting the homes of families, compared to only 7%of control group members (p = .114). The small percentage of teachers overall (13%)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

iel]

at 0

5:05

26

Oct

ober

201

4


Table 1Employment of Family Involvement Activities

Took family course

Yes No TotalExact sig.(2-sided)

Introductory home/schoolactivities

Count 21 36 57 .534% within group 100 94.7 96.6

Written progress notes tofamilies

Count 19 36 55 .611% within group 90.5 94.7 93.2

Calling family members byphone

Count 21 38 59 1.00% within group 100 97.4 98.3

Family members asvolunteers in classroom

Count 19 31 50 .470% within group 90.5 79.5 83.3

Meeting with parents ofchildren with special needs

Count 20 36 56 1.00% within group 95.2 92.3 93.3

Conducting home visits Count 5 3 8 .114% within group 23.8 7.7 13.3

Communicating throughrecorded messages/websites

Count 11 19 30 1.00% within group 52.4 48.7 50

Participating in committeemeetings


Conducting scheduledparent/teacher conferences

Count 21 38 59 1.00% within group 100 97.4 98.3

Conducting unscheduledparent/teacher conferences


participating in home visits indicates this as a much less frequently employed activitycompared to others more commonly used to connect with families.

When examining both the number of families involved, and teachers’ perceived prepa-ration for involving families in specific involvement activities, differences begin to emerge.While there appears to be minimal difference in the number of families involved, Table 2illustrates teachers’ perceptions of preparation in introductory home/school activities(p = .029), written progress notes (p = .008), phone contact with families (p = .000),home visiting (p = .000), electronic communication (p = .012), participation on com-mittees with family members (p = .015), and parent/teacher conferences (p = .007) assignificantly different than their peers not having this experience as part of their under-graduate course sequence. Notably, the number of families teachers called with positivenews (p = .071) as well as teachers’ perception of preparation for classroom volunteers (p= .060) closely approaches a significant difference when comparing treatment and controlgroup teachers.

Qualitative Findings

Qualitative data was analyzed using a constant comparison method to determine anythemes or patterns emerging in teachers’ reports of their practices to involve families inchildren’s education, and how these differed based on their undergraduate preparation.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

iel]

at 0

5:05

26

Oct

ober

201

4


Table 2Preparation for Family Involvement Activities and Number of Families Involved

Took courseYes/no

Mean t dfSig.

(2-tailed)

Number of families involved inintroductory home/school activities

Yes (n = 20) 2.85 1.287 54 .204No (n = 36) 2.53

How well prepared for introductoryhome/school activities

Yes (n = 21) 2.714 2.240 55.073 .029∗No (n = 37) 2.356

Number of families involved inwritten progress notes

Yes (n = 19) 3.32 1.055 53 .296No (n = 36) 3.03

How well prepared for writtenprogress notes

Yes (n = 21) 2.667 2.747 55 .008∗No (n = 36) 2.125

Number of families you called withpositive news

Yes (n = 21) 2.262 1.839 57 .071No (n = 38) 1.763

Number of families you called withnegative news

Yes (n = 21) 1.619 −.330 51 .743No (n = 32) 1.688

How well prepared for calling familymembers

Yes (n = 21) 2.786 5.195 56.900 .000∗∗No (n = 38) 1.987

Number of family memberclassroom volunteers

Yes (n =19) 1.95 1.612 48 .113No (n = 31) 1.55

How well prepared for classroomvolunteers

Yes (n = 21) 2.476 1.924 53 .060No (n = 34) 2.088

How well prepared for special needsmeetings

Yes (n = 21) 2.095 −.084 55 .933No (n = 36) 2.111

How many home visits to families Yes (n = 5) 2.20 −.114 6 .913No (n = 3) 2.33

How well prepared for home visits Yes (n = 15) 2.233 5.314 22.840 .000∗∗No (n = 24) 1.167

How many families involved withrecorded messages/websites

Yes (n = 11) 2.55 .051 28 .960No (n = 19) 2.53

How well prepared for recordedmessages/websites

Yes (n = 18) 2.500 2.617 46.756 .012∗No (n = 33) 1.955

How often for committee meetings Yes (n = 17) 1.53 −.319 41.059 .751No (n = 29) 1.59

How well prepared for committeemeetings

Yes (n = 19) 2.789 2.527 49 .015∗No (n = 32) 2.281

How many scheduled conferences Yes (n = 21) 3.48 1.537 54.119 .130No (n = 37) 3.14

How many unscheduled conferences Yes (n = 21) 1.71 1.143 34.596 .261No (n = 35) 1.49

How well prepared forparent/teacher conferences

Yes (n = 21) 2.810 2.780 57 .007∗No (n = 38) 2.342

∗significant at p < .05; ∗∗significant at p < .001.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

iel]

at 0

5:05

26

Oct

ober

201

4


A cross-case analysis was employed whereby all data were combined and categorized,irrespective of treatment or control status. Data were examined according to specificinvolvement activity, categorized, and compared. Following refinement of categories, datawere then separated according to control/treatment group status to determine any patternsof response unique to individual groups.

Upon review, a qualitative difference between treatment and control group teacherswas apparent as respondents specified the nature of activities initiated with families. Whilequantitative findings only minimally differentiated the two groups, the qualitative narrativeprovided by respondents distinguished a depth, breadth, and richness of outreach to fami-lies by treatment group teachers, which was unparalleled by their control group peers. Ineach area of the survey, distinct differences emerged in teacher comments regarding theirspecific interactions with families, as detailed below.

Introductory Home/School Activities

Treatment group members reported initiation of creative introductory activities, includingconferences prior to the beginning of school, home visits, classroom visits before schoolstarted, postcards/letters prior to the beginning of school, all-about-me books in orderto learn from families, and “meet-the-teacher” nights, in addition to the more traditionalopen house/generic introductory letter/kindergarten roundup that control group membersreported.

Treatment group members reported satisfaction with their preparation for creativeways to engage children and families before the start, and at the beginning of school.Conversely, control group members expressed regret in lacking strategies from which todraw. When control group members did report creative strategies, they overwhelminglystated that these were learned in student teaching, and not through university coursework.

Written Progress Notes

Teachers in the treatment group reported sending daily, weekly, and monthly progressreports focusing on positive elements of the child’s school experience. Several respon-dents indicated written communication as an effective vehicle for sharing ideas of whatfamilies could do at home to support student learning. Motivation for regular writtencommunication was expressed as creating a partnership to encourage student success.

A thread of dissatisfaction characterized the responses from the control group.Specifically, these teachers stated having self-taught strategies in their repertoire, but nopreparation in the area of written communication. Others suggested that they learned thisfrom partner teachers and colleagues, but would have rather been prepared at the begin-ning on their own. Several responses indicated a satisfaction with university curriculum indeveloping skills for working with children, but evidenced disappointment in the extentto which they were prepared for effective communication with families. Treatment grouprespondents expressed satisfaction in coursework as effective preparation for this work.

Phone Communication With Families

For teachers having participated in family involvement coursework, the notion of makingpositive phone calls home surfaced as a theme throughout responses. Teachers makingpositive calls home regularly indicated an emphasis on this practice as integral to theircoursework.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

iel]

at 0

5:05

26

Oct

ober

201

4


Control group members reported having no preparation in this area, learning on theirown from experience, and needing more assistance in ways to deal with “tough” parents.Without preservice preparation, teachers reported making phone calls, sometimes daily, toreport “bad” behavior. While many indicated a desire to call with positive reports, almostexclusively, teachers reported a lack of time in doing so.

Classroom Volunteers

All teachers reported using family members as classroom volunteers, but roles of vol-unteers differed significantly between groups. While both groups reported having familymembers volunteer for field trips/class parties, and secretarial support, treatment groupteachers more regularly reported an open-door policy, with families tutoring, serving asguest readers, facilitating small groups, and doing individual assessment. There was also asentiment among teachers having completed the coursework that families could do manythings at home to support their children’s learning.

Control group teachers reported difficulty in instructing adults on what to do in theclassroom and how to negotiate conflict situations when they arose. They were also morelikely to report having fewer parents who volunteered.

Meetings for Children With Special Needs

Many teacher respondents reported participating in IEP meetings, transition meetings, andprereferral consultation, and that knowledge of these areas came from special educationcoursework. Both teachers who took coursework in family involvement, and those who didnot, reported significant challenges and disappointment in their undergraduate preparationin this area. Many reported having to self-learn the legalities of working with the specialeducation system, and not knowing what to expect as a participant in meetings.

Home Visits

For both groups of teachers, home visiting was not a common practice. Although generallynot a regular practice, teachers who took the family involvement course reported a cer-tain level of confidence in conducting home visits “when necessary” and expressed moreinterest in pursuing this practice in the future.

Control group teachers reported that this practice was never discussed as part of theirteacher preparation, and that they would need some training before they would considerimplementing such a practice. Additionally, those without the coursework were more likelyto indicate home visiting as a “dangerous” practice.

Electronic Communication

Many teachers in both groups reported the use of voice mail/e-mail/websites to facilitatecommunication with families with whom they worked, although several reported that a lackof access to technology limited both their and the families’ ability to engage. Both teachershaving taken the course, and those who did not, expressed an interest in more undergrad-uate preparation in this area. Specifically, several stated a course on website design wouldfacilitate their initiation of more digital information exchange.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

iel]

at 0

5:05

26

Oct

ober

201

4


Committee Meetings With Families

Both treatment and control teachers reported attending PTA/PTO meetings, schoolimprovement plan meetings, festivals, carnivals, etc., however, treatment group mem-bers reported more frequently being the PTO representative for the school, attending allPTA/PTO events, serving on interviewing/writing committees, and support groups forfamilies with children with special needs. Alternatively, control group members reported“having to learn by doing” as opposed to treatment group members who indicated thattheir instructors stressed the importance of closing communication gaps and workingtogether with families for the school’s, students’, and community’s benefit during theirundergraduate preparation.

Parent/Teacher Conferences

Both groups of teachers reported scheduling regular parent teacher conferences as well asparticipating in impromptu conferences, as necessary to support student success. Treatmentgroup teachers reported a confidence in conferencing that was less than the confidencereported by peers whose preparation did not include such content. Teachers who hadthe class reported having many examples of topics to discuss in conferences, as well asstrategies in discussing difficult topics. However, students who had not taken the courseexpressed a common wish that their preparation had included content on how to relate toparents, practice with mock conferences, and how to discuss difficult issues with families.Notably, control group teachers reported a fear of conferences that was uncharacteristic oftheir more well-practiced peers.

Teacher Rationale for Involving Families

When responding to a final inquiry “What has been the most determining factor in yourdesire to involve families?” teachers approached the question from qualitatively differentperspectives based on the extent to which they participated in family involvement course-work. Control group teachers were much more likely to indicate that their desire to involvefamilies stemmed from an opportunity that was personal or self-serving in nature. Forexample, these teachers stated that families were “much more on my side” when theywere involved, and that, as teachers, they “needed” this support in order to be successful.Teachers who did not participate in family involvement coursework were also more apt tostate that involving families was most helpful when they needed assistance with studentmotivation and behavior. More frequently than their peers for whom family involvementcoursework was part of their preparation, these teachers willingly stated that their role wasto teach parents the importance of education, and on how to help at home.

Control group members expressed a frustration with families, approaching an “us vs.them” mentality as opposed to a partnership orientation. In qualitative responses, therewas a frequently stated hesitancy or blatant lack of desire to involve families, expressingthe negative nature of negotiation, with one teacher in particular stating “sometimes it’s notworth the battle—it’s better to tough it out on your own”. Overwhelmingly, these teachersexpressed dissatisfaction in their preparation for this work. Many indicated a desire to de-emphasize lesson planning in undergraduate coursework, and to emphasize the importanceof the real and day-to-day world of teaching.

Treatment group teachers had a decidedly different orientation regarding this question.They expressed much more satisfaction regarding the extent to which they were prepared

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

iel]

at 0

5:05

26

Oct

ober

201

4


with a variety of strategies from which to choose in working with families, while at thesame time acknowledging that this work was a learning process.

Their rationale differed from those having not taken a course in that their purpose ininvolving families was much less self- and more student- and family-driven. It was com-mon for teachers to pronounce parents as “students’ first teachers” and to work toward thevalidation of this ethic. They noted the value of family involvement for children, families,and schools, rather than just for themselves. The notion that families share an equal roleas educators was a common thread in responses. It was important to the teachers for thechild to understand that the family and school shared a common understanding so thatlearning could be maximized. The notion of partnership and collaboration between homeand school replaced the antagonism and ambivalence experienced by control group peers.It was a common statement that a family involvement course should be required of allprogram graduates.

Discussion

Although research suggests that intentional teacher behavior is a principal factor in encour-aging family involvement (Dauber & Epstein, 1993), many teachers underestimate theirresponsibility in this area and feel unprepared to initiate such partnerships (Morris &Taylor, 1998; Zygmunt-Fillwalk, 2006). In the absence of preparation which emphasizesthe role of partnering with families as integral to child, teacher, and school success, teach-ers are left on their own to either self-learn, or adopt strategies of their peers, many ofwhom likely lacked family involvement curriculum in their undergraduate sequence. Sinceresearch suggests the tendency of teachers in their first years to focus on survival strategies(Katz, 1972), it is critical that their foundational repertoire include strategies to developsuch partnerships.

Although both the treatment and control group reported participation in all familyinvolvement strategies, the qualitative nature of their efforts and their perceived level ofsuccess differed significantly. In the sample under investigation, teachers without a theo-retical and practical understanding of family involvement experienced the frustration of alack of strategies from which to draw, as well as perceived inefficacy and discouragementwhen their attempts were not met with success. This trial and error approach can lead toalienation between home and school, prompting teachers to question the merit of contin-ued effort. This finding suggests that merely requiring teachers to implement involvementstrategies, in the absence of training through which to maximize potential of efforts, maybe misdirected and have unintended outcomes.

When family involvement coursework is integral to the preparation sequence, preser-vice teachers report that practices are not only important, but are feasible (Katz & Bauch,1999; Zygmunt-Fillwalk, 2006). When this belief is present and teachers feel well equippedwith a tool kit of strategies to begin their work with families, they are much more likely tohit the ground running, considering this work as integral to their teaching (Garcia, 2004).

Whether teachers took the course in family involvement or not, they equally reporteda lack of confidence in working with children with special needs and navigating the legali-ties of special education. This finding is supported in research by Chang, Early, and Winton(2005) whose findings suggested a lack of confidence linked to deficits in teacher candi-dates’ preparation and experience working with this population of children and families.This is supported by additional research suggesting that while teachers have a conceptualsupport of inclusion, they feel ill-prepared to address the needs of children and families in

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

iel]

at 0

5:05

26

Oct

ober

201

4


such settings effectively (Hines & Johnston, 1997; Mastropieri & Scruggs, 2000; Singh,2002).

Similarly, there was minimal difference between the two groups regarding the imple-mentation of home visits, with neither group fully implementing this approach to familyinvolvement. While Meyer and Mann (2006) report that teachers making home visits reporttheir efforts as a means through which to strengthen home/school partnerships, manybeginning educators report a lack of preparation and confidence in this area (Katz &Bauch,1999; Zygmunt-Fillwalk, 2006). Since home visits are accepted in the literature as a pre-mier strategy through which to partner with families (Gomby, 2003), increasing teacherefficacy in the area of home visiting stands to increase the frequency of this strategy.

This study illustrates the translation of undergraduate preparation to professionalpractice. The richness of collaboration with families, compared to the requisite, often stan-dardized strategies employed by the control group, exemplify how preparation, prior toteaching, can impact both quality of experience that teachers afford families, and the extentto which such efforts are reciprocated through contribution to both the individual studentand collective school environment.

Relationships are the fruit of such labor and are the means through which students arecosupported at home and school—the two worlds of childhood (Bronfenbrenner, 1970).Bronfenbrenner (1990) asserts, “The effective functioning of child-rearing processes inthe family and other child settings requires establishing ongoing patterns of exchange ofinformation, two-way communication, mutual accommodation, and mutual trust betweenthe principal settings in which children and their parents live their lives.” (p. 36). It isthrough such support that child and school outcomes can be best realized, and throughwhich teachers and families can best develop new ways of knowing and supporting thedeveloping child. In short, through such relationships, the doors of new realities emerge,which were previously unopened. The potential then remains limitless.

Shartrand et al. (1997) called for a national network to: a) support teacher preparationin family involvement; b) evaluate the experiences and outcomes of preparing teachers towork with families; and c) strengthen state policy guidelines for teacher preparation in fam-ily involvement. While more than a decade has passed, much of this work is left unrealized.Although research has begun to mount demonstrating the positive effects of preservicepreparation on actual teacher behaviors and subsequent family engagement (Garcia, 2004;Katz & Bauch, 1999; Zygmunt-Fillwalk, 2006), the implementation of systemic familyinvolvement curriculum across higher education settings remains uncertain.

An unexamined variable in the present study is the majors of those participating andthe scope of their coursework. Slightly over 50% of candidates enrolled in the family andcommunity relations course were majoring in early childhood education. It is unknown theextent to which their other coursework enforced the ethic of family involvement and/orprovided strategies through which to partner with families.

Preparation in early childhood education is holistic in nature, emphasizing a moredevelopmental and relational approach than the content and methods focus that typi-cally characterizes preparation in elementary education. In the early childhood educationpreparation sequence, children are understood within the context of the families and thecommunities in which they are growing and learning. This tenet underlies all other sub-stance integral to programs of early childhood education preparation. With this as a focusthroughout the scope and sequence of their study, students pursuing this degree have aqualitatively different orientation than others, and thus their responses are likely influ-enced by their experience. Further dissection of the early childhood course sequence todetermine areas of overlap that may have influenced perception and practice may yield

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

iel]

at 0

5:05

26

Oct

ober

201

4


interesting insight into responses obtained. It is important to note, however, that the ele-mentary education majors having taken the course reported similar practice, indicatinga strong relationship between taking the course and increased partnership, regardless ofcoursework extraneous to this study.

The present study reinforces the potential of undergraduate preparation to qualitativelyaffect the extent to which teachers and families engage in collaborative and reciprocalefforts that strengthen student learning. Implications for reform in higher education toensure an optimum level of preparation in family involvement for all future teachers aresupported by research on benefits to children, teachers, families, and schools when a patternof involvement is established (Barnard, 2004).

Caspe, Lopez, and Wolos’ research brief (2006) summarizes the latest evidence baseon the linkage between family involvement and outcomes for children. Integral to this briefare recommendations for policy, practice, and continued research as we refine what weknow and what we must subsequently do to encourage the involvement that affects change.While the roles of the family and child are pivotal in this equation, the schools that elicitinvolvement are staffed by teachers whose preparation, readiness, and commitment to fam-ilies are the variables upon which success will be fostered. The proper staffing of a schoolthat fosters family involvement is predicated upon the selection of those with knowledge,skills, and dispositions needed for this work. Results of the present study demonstrate thatclearly, a responsibility to equip future teachers with such tools lies well within the boundsof the academy.

References

Barnard, W. M. (2004). Parent involvement in elementary school and educational attainment.Children & Youth Services Review, 26(1), 39–62.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1970). Two worlds of childhood: U.S. and U.S.S.R. New York, NY: Russell SageFoundation.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1990). Discovering what families do. In D. Blankenhorn, S. Bayme, & J. B.Elshtain (Eds.), Rebuilding the nest: A new commitment to the American family (pp. 27–38).Milwaukee, WI: Family Service America.

Caspe, M., Lopez, E., & Wolos, C. (2006). Family involvement in elementary school chil-dren’s education. Harvard Family Research Project. Retrieved from http://www.hfrp.org/family-involvement/publications-resources/family-involvement-in-elementary-school-children-s-education

Chang, F., Early, D., & Winton, P. (2005). Early childhood teacher preparation in special education.Journal of Early Intervention, 27, 110–124.

Dauber, S., & Epstein, J. L. (1993). Parents’ attitudes and practices of involvement in inner-cityelementary schools and middle schools. In N. Chavkin (Ed.), Families and schools in a pluralisticsociety (pp. 53–71). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Epstein, J. L. (2001). School, family, and community partnerships: Preparing educators andimproving schools. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Epstein, J. L., Coates, L., Salinas, K. C., Sanders, M. G., & Simon, B. S. (1997). School, family, andcommunity partnerships. San Francisco, CA: Corwin Press.

Garcia, D. C. (2004). Exploring connections between the construct of teacher efficacy and fam-ily involvement practices: Implications for urban teacher preparation. Urban Education, 39,290–315.

Gomby, D. S. (2003). Building school readiness through home visitation. Sacramento, CA: First 5California Children and Families Coalition.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

iel]

at 0

5:05

26

Oct

ober

201

4


Henderson, A., & Berla, N. (1994). A new generation of evidence: The family is critical to studentachievement. Columbia, MD: National Committee for Citizens in Education.

Henderson, A., & Mapp, K. (2002). A new wave of evidence: The impact of school, family andcommunity connections on student achievement. Austin, TX: National Center for Family andCommunity Connections with Schools.

Hiatt-Michael, D. (2001). Parent involvement in American public schools: A historical perspective,1642–2000. In S. Redding & L. Thomas (Eds.), The community of the school (pp. 247–258).Lincoln, IL: Academic Development Institute.

Hines, R. A., & Johnston, J. H. (1997). Inclusion. In J. L. Irvin (Ed.), What current research says tothe middle level practitioner (pp. 109–120). Columbus, OH: NMSA.

Jeynes, W. H. (2005). Parental involvement and student achievement: A meta-analysis. UrbanEducation, 40, 237–269.

Katz, L. (1972). The developmental stages of preschool teachers. The Elementary School Journal,73(1), 50–54.

Katz, L., & Bauch, J. P. (1999). The Peabody Family Involvement Initiative: Preparing preserviceteachers for family / school collaboration. School Community Journal, 9, 49–69.

Kessler-Sklar, S. L., & Baker, A. J. L. (2000). School district parent involvement policies andprograms. Elementary School Journal, 101(1), 101–118.

Kreider, H. (2002). Getting parents “ready” for kindergarten: The role of early childhood education.Cambridge, MA: Harvard Family Research Project.

Kreider, H., Caspe, M., Kennedy, S., & Weiss, H. (2007). Family involvement in middle and highschool students’ education. Involvement makes a difference: Evidence that family involvementpromotes school success for every child of every age. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Family ResearchProject.

Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (2000). The inclusive classroom: Strategies for effectiveinstruction. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Meyer, J. A., & Mann, M. B. (2006). Teachers’ perceptions of the benefits of home visits for earlyelementary children. Early Childhood Education Journal, 34(1), 93–97.

Morris, V. G., & Taylor, S. I. (1998). Alleviating barriers to family involvement in education: Therole of teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 14, 219–231.

NAEYC, National Association for the Education of Young Children. (2003). Preparing earlychildhood professionals: NAEYC’s standards for programs. Washington, DC: Author.

Reynolds, A., & Clements, M. (2005). Parental involvement and children’s school success. InE. Patrikakou, R. Weissberg, S. Redding, & H. Walberg (Eds.), School-family partnerships:Promoting the social, emotional, and academic growth of children (pp. 109–127). New York,NY: Teachers College Press.

Shartrand, A., Weiss, H. B., Kreider, H. M., & Lopez, M. E. (1997). New skills for newschools: Preparing teachers in family involvement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Graduate Schoolof Education.

Singh, D. (2002). Regular educators and students with disabilities. Education, 123, 236–246.Staley, L. (2009). Syllabus for EDEL 231: Family and Community Relations. Muncie, IN: Ball State

University Department of Elementary Education.Swick, K., & McKnight, S. (1989). Characteristics of kindergarten teachers who promote parent

involvement. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 4(1), 19–29.Wright, K., Daniel, T., & Himelreich, K. S. (2000). Preparation for building partnerships with

families: A survey of teachers, teacher educators, and school administrators. Cambridge, MA:Harvard Family Research Project.

Xu, Z., & Gilosino, C. (2006). How does teacher quality matter? The effect of teacher-parent part-nership on early childhood performance in public and private schools. Education Economics, 14,345–367.

Zygmunt-Fillwalk, E. (2006). The difference a course can make: Pre-service teachers’ perceivedefficacy in working with families. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 27, 327–342.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

iel]

at 0

5:05

26

Oct

ober

201

4

building family partnerships: the journey from preservice preparation to classroom practice

Documents