Download - Preservice teachers’ notions of families and schooling

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Teaching and Teacher Education 19 (2003) 719–735

*Correspondin

608-263-9992.

E-mail addre

0742-051X/$ - see

doi:10.1016/j.tat

Preservice teachers’ notions of families and schooling

Elizabeth Graue*, Christopher P. Brown

Department of Curriculum and Instruction, University of Wisconsin Madison, 225 N. Mills, Madison, WI 53726, USA

Received 25 May 2002; received in revised form 25 April 2003; accepted 23 June 2003

Abstract

Although there is widespread support given to the idea of strong home–school relations, little attention is paid to the

issue in teacher education programs. To understand the perspectives prospective teachers bring to their professional

program about working with families, we surveyed students just beginning elementary and secondary teacher education

programs. Results of the survey indicate that teacher education students enter their professional preparation with

constructions of family and education that reflect their own experience and that assume that families support teacher

work in the classroom. Out of these assumptions, prospective teachers develop strategies for interaction with families in

the future. These limited constructions and expectations of families constrain opportunities for support, knowledge,

and collaboration by holding parents at a distance. Thus, teacher education programs must provide opportunities for

students to expand their theoretical background while gaining experience working with families in a variety of settings.

r 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Biography; Family; Family school relationship; Home–school relationship; Parent involvement; Preservice teacher

education; Preservice teachers; Teacher knowledge

In the United States, many local, state andnational initiatives designed to promote qualityoutcomes for students focus on home–schoolrelationships (Cutler, 2000). Educators, policy-makers and the public generally endorse thepotential contribution this resource can make toeducation and to individual student achievement(National Education Goals Panel, 1998). Despitethis commitment, the relationship is fraught withtensions. Families and teachers have been de-scribed as natural enemies (Waller, 1932), asworlds apart (Lightfoot, 1978), and as workingin overlapping spheres of influence (Epstein, 1995).

g author. Tel.: +1-608-263-4600; fax: +1-

ss: [email protected] (E. Graue).

front matter r 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserv

e.2003.06.002

Stories of miscommunication, mistrust, andmissed opportunities are inevitable in the facultylounge, the parent group and the bus stop,illuminating the power that this potential resourcehas in the educational process.

Even with the value placed on home–schoolrelations and its tenuous nature, little attention ispaid in US teacher education programs to theprocess of building and maintaining relationshipswith parents and families (Broussard, 2000; Chavkin& Williams, 1988; de Acosta, 1996; Morris &Taylor, 1998; Shartrand, Weiss, Kreider, & Lopez,1997). Given its importance and the inherenttensions in the relationship, scholars have spentmuch time trying to understand the nature of thehome–school relationship, mostly with inserviceteachers. We found this work interesting, but it did

ed.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

E. Graue, C.P. Brown / Teaching and Teacher Education 19 (2003) 719–735720

not address how to promote inclusive attitudes andpractices among preservice teachers. If the home–school relationship is so important, if it is typically atroubled one that is little explored in professionalcoursework, what do teacher educators need toknow about the ideas prospective teachers bring intotheir education to support interactions with families?It is that question that prompted this study.

In this paper, we describe the notions aboutfamilies and schooling held by a group ofpreservice teacher education students as they begintheir professional sequence at a large Midwesternpublic university in the United States. Viewingtheir beliefs as a baseline, we hope to understandhow our efforts to help prospective teachers workeffectively with families might be mediated by alifetime of experience of home and school. Webegin by briefly reviewing the literatures related tothis topic. We examine work on parent involve-ment and home–school interactions, the relation ofbelief and practice for educators, and the nature ofcurriculum content on home–school relations inteacher education programs.

1. Forging links between home and school

The scholarship used to justify US policies tostrengthen the links between home and schooltypically focuses on the notion of parent involve-

ment, which describes the various ways thatparents and schools can interact to promotelearning. Most representative of this genre ofinquiry is the work of Joyce Epstein and colleagueswho have developed a typology of six types ofparent involvement ranging from assistance withparenting to full partnered collaboration betweenhome and school (Epstein, 1995). This typologydescribes a wide range of involvement and it isexpected that communities would have somecombination of at least some of the types. Thevaried actions are described below:

Type 1
Parenting: Assistance with parentingskills, development, and educationalhome environments.
Type 2
Communicating: Fostering home-to-school and school-to-home communica-
tion about school programs and studentprogress.

Type 3
Volunteering: Coordinating recruitment,support, and scheduling of families towork at school or other locations tosupport student learning.
Type 4
Learning at home: Developing activitiesto promote home-based learning.
Type 5
Decision making: Involving families inschool decision making and governance.
Type 6
Collaboration: Coordinating communityactors to support school programs andstudent learning.
Surveys of teachers indicate that elementaryschools are more likely to have stronger positiveprograms of parent involvement than secondaryschools. Parent involvement is better predicted bythe types of involvement activities promoted byschool people than by family characteristics suchas family structure or socioeconomic status(Becker & Epstein, 1982; Dauber & Epstein,1993): Some researchers argue that increasingparent connections to school results in higheracademic achievement, improved attendance, andbetter grades for students, more positive attitudesfor parents and students, improved parent andteacher satisfaction, and reduced parental stereo-typing by teachers (Foster & Loven, 1992; Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler, 1997).

While the bulk of literature on parent involve-ment asserts positive outcomes, some scholars aremore skeptical about the adequacy of our knowl-edge base. A recent review suggests that theresearch overstates the benefits of parent involve-ment given the methodological weaknesses ofstudies cited (Mattingly, Prislin, McKenzie, Ro-driguez, & Kayzar, 2002). This review points to alarge gap between beliefs about parent involve-ment and the empirical evidence about its efficacy.

The descriptive work on home–school relationshas been very effective in mapping the terrain ofwhat is—it represents current practice withinprevalent assumptions of roles and responsibilitiesof families and educators. It is essentially norma-tive in its framing of the problem reflecting thecommitments of schools as the authorities andhomes as supporters. What this work does not

ARTICLE IN PRESS

E. Graue, C.P. Brown / Teaching and Teacher Education 19 (2003) 719–735 721

address is the way that social, political andeconomic forces shape interactions between parentsand teachers. For that, we must turn to scholarshipthat takes these forces as a central theme.

Interpretive studies have utilized constructs likecultural capital, the role of culture, ethnicity, andgender to illuminate the complex tensions ofhome–school relations (Biklen, 1995; Brantlinger,2003; Graue, Kroeger, & Prager, 2001; Heath,1983; Henry, 1996; Lareau, 1989; Lightfoot, 1978;Valdes, 1996). This genre of inquiry has shownthat home–school relations are multidimensionalinteractions that are situated within the forces ofhistory, power, and culture. From an interpretiveperspective, interactions between families andeducators are theorized to illuminate the how ofthese relationships. This work, which is laborintensive and focused on small groups, moves usbeyond description of practice to the underlyingdynamics that catalyze relations. Interpretive studiesrarely find their way into policy frameworks ofhome–school relations because they are not seen astying directly to prescriptions for practice. Relatingthis to our interests, we did not find in theinterpretive literature a critical look at how teacherscame to the beliefs they hold about parents.

Teaching practices (including parental involve-ment) are shaped by professional experiences andpersonal beliefs. Individuals come into theirprofessional education with cultural scripts thatshape interaction and meaning making (Biklen,1995; Goldstein & Lake, 2000; Hollingsworth,1989; Kagan, 1992; van den Berg, 2002). Thesebeliefs, which provide a framework for appropria-tion of knowledge and values in professionaldevelopment, are quite stable and form thefoundation for the emerging professional identity.Images of education figure prominently in theformation of beliefs, shaped by notions of goodteachers, ideas of the self as teacher, and memoriesof self as student (Kagan, 1992; van den Berg,2002). We can better understand current practicesof home–school relations by examining the beliefsheld by prospective teachers as they begin theirprofessional program.

The content of teacher education programs is anindication of the importance placed on particularissues and topics. Researchers have examined the

attention paid to home–school relations in teachereducation programs—this work is primarily con-cerned with what is not there, critiquing theconspicuous absence of attention to home–schoolrelations in most teacher education programs. In asample of US teacher education programs, Chav-kin and Williams (1988) found that only 4% ofteacher educators reported a self-standing coursein parental involvement in their programs andonly about 1/3 taught even a single class period onthe topic. Family friendly language was found invery few mission statements in a representativesample of teacher education programs, with earlychildhood programs being more likely to includeattention to parents, family, and community thanother teacher education programs (Broussard,2000). Most students in teacher preparationprograms do not feel adequately prepared tofacilitate interactions with families (Foster &Loven, 1992; McBride, 1991; Tichenor, 1997,1998). Without content knowledge focused onfamily school relationships, prospective teachersmust rely on what they already know, which islikely to mirror their own experience (Morris &Taylor, 1998).

What we know from the literatures cited is thathome–school relations are diverse in their contentand focus, that they are shaped by social andcultural factors, that the practice of teaching isbased on teacher biography and beliefs about theroles of schools, and that teacher educationprograms largely ignore the issue of families ineducation in their curricula. With this knowledgein mind, we developed a study that describes thebeliefs preservice teachers hold at the start of theirprofessional programs. Recognizing that theybring a lifetime of experience to their professionaldevelopment, we wondered how this foundation ofbiography and belief is activated in a teachereducation program. The project posed the follow-ing questions:

1. What memories do prospective teachers hold oftheir own family’s school involvement?

2. How do they conceptualize the knowledge androles of parents and teachers in education?

3. How do they anticipate that they will involvefamilies in their own teaching?

ARTICLE IN PRESS


2. Methods

We took up this project for multiple purposes.Empirically, we hoped to describe how teachereducation students just entering a professionalprogram thought about home–school relations tobetter understand the practices in today’s schools.Instructionally, our goal was to make our curri-culum more responsive to the experiences andbeliefs of our students. With a commitment tosupporting more equitable relationships betweenparents and teachers, we wanted to help prospec-tive teachers see parents as collaborators ineducation who had much to contribute. To dothis we needed to develop a baseline for theirknowledge, experience and beliefs; the surveyreported here provides this baseline.1 With thesedual goals we designed a study that wouldprovide descriptive examination of incomingteacher education students’ conceptions of home–school relations, balancing attention to the largenumbers of students in our programs with thecomplex challenge of understanding belief andexperience.

We recognize the limitations and resourcesprovided in a short survey of a midsize group ofstudents. The aggregate nature of survey researchmisses the nuances interpretive work can examine.But at the same time, the survey provides awindow on the beliefs and memories of approxi-mately 130 students as they begin their teachereducation programs. This glimpse into the toolsfor understanding they bring to their professionalprogram might be thought of as a snapshot in timethat gives information to us locally to help us planstrategies of instruction. But is also a snapshotthat is of value to broader audiences interested inunderstanding home–school relations.

1This survey is part of a broader project examining students’

development of beliefs about home–school relations during a

teacher education program. This broader project includes

surveys across the five semesters of their professional programs,

analyses of course syllabi, interviews with instructors and

interviews with a small sample of prospective teachers as they

make their way through the program. We report only the

results of the first semester survey in this paper.

2.1. Participants

Participants in the study were 130 newlyadmitted undergraduate teacher education stu-dents at a large public university in the Mid-western United States in the fall of 2001.The teacher education programs admit studentsin their junior year who have completed atleast two years of general studies in theuniversity. We surveyed 75 students in theelementary program and 55 students inthe secondary program during a core course inthe first month of their professional sequence. Wechose this time so that we could assess theirperspectives before they experienced course con-tent in the program. We explained that participa-tion was voluntary and that the informationgenerated would be used to guide the teachereducation program and for research purposes.

2.2. Instrument

The survey,2 developed by the first author, isdesigned to assess the beliefs, memories, andproposed practices of prospective teachers toilluminate the social and cultural understandingsteachers bring to their professional education. Theitems were designed to represent all six levels ofEpstein’s (1995) typology of parent involvementand to represent a variety of family structures andpractices. For example, the items asking partici-pants to describe their own family experience ofinvolvement or to imagine how they will involvefamilies in their own teaching were designed toaddress activities ranging from schools providinginformation on parenting to parental participationin school governance. The items on parent andteacher knowledge and ascription of levels ofinvolvement for various cultural and social sub-groups of parents were derived from interpretivescholarship. The survey had a total of 90 items (87ratings and 3 open response) and took an averageof 20min for students to complete.

The demographic section provided informationabout gender, race/ethnicity, date of birth,

2 Individual items are presented in the data displays later in

the paper.

ARTICLE IN PRESS


mother’s highest level of education, childhoodcommunity, and parental status. Because parentinvolvement is typically rated by researchers,teachers, and parents most highly in the earlyyears of schooling (Epstein, 2001) and to provide acomparative anchor point across certificationprograms, the memory section asked them to‘‘Describe your parents’ activities during yourelementary years in terms of the rating scaleprovided’’ on a 4-point scale from never (0) toalways (3). Thirteen items representing a range ofpotential activities included items like Agreed with

the teacher, Attended school events, Helped in the

classroom, Supervised homework. Standardizedinter-item Cronbach’s alpha reliability for thissection was 0.87. They were also asked whichparent was most involved in their elementaryeducation. The parent knowledge and teacher

knowledge sections each had 17 items and askedparticipants to rate parent and teacher knowledgeon a scale of rarely (1), frequently (2) or always (3)for issues relevant to education such as likeLearning goals, Child’s academic strengths, Child’s

disposition, How child functions in a group,

Families’ cultural practices. Inter-item reliabilityfor these two sections were quite comparable, withparent knowledge section 0.81 and teacherknowledge 0.82. The 16 item expectations sectionasked participants to rate expectations for parentinvolvement on a 3-point scale of little (1) to high(3) levels of positive involvement for variedsubgroups like Fathers, Gay/lesbian parents, Work-

ing parents, Parents with disabilities. Alpha relia-bility for this section was 0.92. The involvement

section asked them to think forward to their ownteaching and rate their potential use of 16strategies for home–school relations on a 3-pointscale of no (0), perhaps (1) and yes (2). Examplesof items include Ask for parent input on child’s

program, Do parent–teacher conferences, Call

home, Work with parents on school committees &

fund raising, Go on home visits. Inter-item relia-bility for this section was 0.78. Open-ended items

ask them the grade level they hope to teach, todescribe appropriate roles for parents in educa-tion, biggest worries about working with families,and how they anticipated learning about workingwith parents.

2.3. Data analysis

Our analysis is interpretive, using bothdescriptive quantitative methods and inductivequalitative inquiry. We use descriptive statisticalanalyses to depict the range and patterns ofparticipant characteristics and their memories,beliefs, and proposed practices of familyinvolvement. In some cases, indices were createdto depict aggregate scales that represented adisposition. Analagous to a scale that woulddepict those with high interest in sports tothose with low interest in sports by summingthe ratings of interest in cricket, hockey, iceskating, skiing, and swimming we summed in-dividual ratings of memories of family involve-ment in education to portray high and lowinvolvement families. The scales are used inconjunction with the individual ratings to showboth individual variation and patterns of involve-ment. Means and comparison of means bysubgroup were calculated if the comparison didnot violate assumptions of the analysis. Wetranscribed the written responses to the open-ended questions and analyzed them usingNUD� IST. Both authors coded the openresponses, working to develop a joint understand-ing of the issues presented. This analyticalprocess had both inductive and deductivecomponents. Some codes came directly fromthe research questions (e.g., memory,parent knowledge) while others were identifiedthrough repeated readings of the data (i.e.,parent who do not care). Codes were generatedby grouping similar responses and lookingfor patterns by subgroup (Erickson, 1986;Graue & Walsh, 1998). This analysis wasthen used in conjunction with the quantitativeanalysis to triangulate interpretations. Ourfindings are representative of this multimodalprocess of question generating from constructs inthe literature, comparisons of ratings and open-ended responses, and inductive and deductivecoding. In developing a text that presents ourresults, we provide examples of open-endedresponses in conjunction with the quantitativedata to provide multiple perspectives on ourfindings.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 1

Survey sample characteristics

Number Percent

Gender

Female 97 74.6

Male 33 25.4

Race/ethnicity

African-American 1 0.8

Asian 3 2.3

Hispanic/Latino 3 2.3

White 119 91.5

Other 3 2.3

Mother’s highest education

Elementary 1 0.8

Secondary 28 21.5

Some college 30 23.1

College graduate 71 54.6

Childhood community

Rural 29 22.0


3. Results

The sample for this study mirrors the currentteaching population in the United States in manyways (Ladson-Billings, 2001). Across the elemen-tary and secondary groups just entering theprograms, three quarters were women, they wereoverwhelmingly white, and had mothers who werelikely to have attended college. Over half wereraised in the suburbs and about 1/4 were fromrural communities. Few of the prospective teacherswere parents themselves. True to the genderedpattern of home–school involvement (Smith,1989), 2/3 of the students noted that mothers werethe most likely to be involved in education and 1/4recognized both parents. Table 1 provides thedemographic characteristics of the sample.

3.1. Past as a foundation for the present

Suburban 76 58.5

Urban 14 10.8

More than one type 11 8.5

Are they parents currently?

No 120 93.0

Yes 9 7.0

Certification program

Elementary 75 58.0

Secondary 55 42.0

Adult most involved in your education

Father 10 7.7

Mother 86 66.2

Other 1 0.8

Both parents 31 23.8

I came from a home where BOTH my parentswere active in the classroom and active at home.I believe if parents can spend time in aclassroom they can see how their kids andothers socially interact. I also think that parentsshould ask DAILY how school was, what theylearned and what happened (Elementary stu-dent 58).3

Working from the assumption that biographyshapes present and future practice for teachers, wewere interested in the memories of home–schoolinteractions held by prospective teachers. UsingEpstein’s notions of levels of interaction rangingfrom general support to active involvement in thegovernance of a school, we posed categories ofinvolvement and asked participants to rate theirfamilies’ activities on a 4-point scale (0=never,1=sometimes, 2=frequently, 3=always). Wepresent a sorted display of the responses inTable 2. For these prospective teachers, familyinvolvement in education was more passive thanactive, with parents responsively involved under

3Open responses are presented to illuminate the themes from

the quantitative data. They came out of questions ‘‘What

should parent roles be in education?’’ ‘‘What concerns do you

have about working with parents?’’ and ‘‘Where will you learn

strategies to work with families?’’

school direction. Families were respectful and theyattended school events. They were less likely toinitiate school-based activity, rarely taking the firststep in communication or participating in thegovernance of the school.4 These prospectiveteachers experienced a particular model of family

4While acting as decision makers in curriculum and hiring

was unlikely in the period these students were in elementary

school some parents participated in kind of volunteer decision

making that occurs in Parent–Teacher Organizations involving

fund raising, allocation of discretionary funding, etc. This type

of role is different from the role of classroom volunteer.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 2

Prospective teachers’ memories of family involvement in

educationa

Mean SD

Show respect for school 2.75 0.48

Respond to school 2.50 0.70

Discuss school with child 2.32 0.81

Attend school events 2.26 0.82

Read to child 2.20 0.85

Agreed with teacher 2.12 0.54

Supervise homework 1.72 0.92

Discuss student with teacher 1.52 0.76

Sought advice on school issues 1.26 0.82

Called school to monitor 1.15 0.87

Helped in class 1.03 0.83

Participate in school governance 0.74 0.92

Suggest strategies to teacher 0.48 0.67

aQuestion framing: Listed are some activities parents can do

related to schooling. Describe your parents’ activities during

your elementary years in terms of the rating scale provided.


involvement, with teachers/schoolpeople as pro-fessionals and families as clients. Their biographydoes not include home–school collaboration;instead, they saw support at a distance. Mappingto Epstein’s six-level typology, these students hadseen involvement in levels 2 and 3, communicatingand volunteering at school.

We were interested in a more global notion offamily involvement and how that might differ bycertification level. To make this possible, wecreated an index of family involvement by sum-ming the ratings of the categories in the memorysection. Using this strategy, we could portraymemories of highly involved families (larger index)in relation to memories of those who were lessinvolved (smaller index). This approach is logicalgiven that all the items are ways that familiesmight be involved in schooling. Cases wereexcluded if they had missing values on any of the13 items in this section, a total of 119 out of 130cases were complete. If all items were rated never,the index would be 0, if all were rated sometimes itwould be 13, if all were frequently the index wouldbe 26 and if each was rated always, the indexwould be 39. The index had a range of 4 (primarilyratings of never) to 34 (primarily ratings of always)and a mean of 19. One in four respondents hadindices of 15 or less (an average item rating of

rarely); another 25% had ratings over 23 (averageratings between sometimes and frequently). Thisindicates that the majority of these prospectiveteachers had experiences of moderate involvement(providing responses in the sometimes to fre-quently range) in their own families.

A comparison of students coming into theelementary and secondary certification programsfound slight but statistically significant differencesbetween the composite involvement indicesF=4.938 (1,117) po0:05: Elementary programstudents had memories of slightly greater familyinvolvement than students who had just come intothe secondary group. Interestingly, this follows thepattern of less involvement with families insecondary programs.

3.2. Who knows what

Parents should know what is going on in theschool—how their child is doing socially andacademically, what homework has been as-signed each day, how their child gets along withtheir teacher, etc. They should be supportive oftheir child’s involvement in school programsand encourage good study skills. Parents shouldalso be advocates for their child’s education andwell being in the school system without beingover-protective or unrealistic (Elementary stu-dent 31).

The roles developed in education could be seenas related to the knowledge ascribed to variousactors. This is especially true for prospectiveteachers developing professional expertise thatgives them the authority to be decision makers.We asked our participants to conceptualize knowl-edge about schooling and students for bothparents and teachers to assess how they attributedexpertise and authority. Using a 3-point ratingscale (rarely, frequently, always), participantsprovided insight into the types of knowledge theyassumed individuals brought to the practice ofschooling. The average ratings for these items arepresented in Table 3, which is sorted by parentknowledge.

Despite the fact that both teachers and parentshave relationships with the same child, partici-pants found expertise to be specialized. Parents

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 3

Ascribing knowledge to parents and teachersa

Knowledge Parent Teacher

Mean SD Mean SD

Curriculum 1.56 0.57 2.84 0.36

Achievement compared to others 1.71 0.56 2.64 0.56

Ways to deal learning problems 1.77 0.55 2.25 0.55

Child functioning in group 1.86 0.56 2.39 0.52

Best strategies to support learning 1.90 0.47 2.12 0.35

Way child learns best 2.02 0.56 2.05 0.47

Social relationships 2.03 0.50 2.04 0.61

Learning goals 2.06 0.49 2.35 0.51

School expectations 2.08 0.58 2.75 0.52

Social development 2.16 0.51 2.02 0.57

Academic strengths 2.22 0.47 2.26 0.47

Socio-emotional needs 2.42 0.58 1.87 0.52

Disposition 2.64 0.53 2.06 0.45

Physical skills 2.65 0.51 1.91 0.52

Developmental history 2.77 0.44 1.59 0.57

Family cultural practices 2.81 0.48 1.39 0.49

aQuestion framing: Parents and teachers each have unique expertise about children. Please rate the knowledge that parents and

teachers have.


were seen as having highly local, historical andindividual knowledge about the family and child,while teachers’ knowledge was professional,school-based, and normative. Shared knowledgewas either individual to the child in school (ways achild learns best) or was generic to the workings ofschooling (school expectations). This allocation ofexpertise could be seen as complementary, adepiction which is certainly congruent with thecalculated correlation of the means for eachcategory r ¼ �0:82 (po0:05). The key to under-standing this rating probably lies in the degree towhich this ascription of knowledge is seen as afoundation for collaboration rather than speciali-zation that is alienating.

I think it is not only appropriate but NECES-SARY for parents to have an open relationshipwith teachers. Parents and teachers should beable to express concerns or desires regarding thestudent; parents should help in classrooms. Theline should be drawn so that teacher or parentsdo not disrespect each other’s roles by insertingthemselves too much in the other’s sphere(Elementary student 33).

Among these participants, there was a clearconcern about specific knowledge held by familiesand educators and about border skirmishesbetween the two. At its most basic level, parentalknowledge was not conceptualized as extendingbeyond the household and family. Parents couldnot understand how the school context mightshape student activity, ‘‘Some parents don’t seetheir children outside the home setting and oftentimes parents will say, ‘Well, my child would neverdo that.’’’ (Elementary student 71)

This situated view of expertise recognized thatparent and teacher action is located withindifferent systems of meanings and value. Therewas a strong suspicion of parental self-interest,which was not reflected in their views of theteaching staff. Parents were seen as the fly in theointment, a group that must be managed andbrought to understand the problems, rather thancompetencies, of their children:

From talking to teachers, parents can be thebiggest challenge. I’m worried about hard-to-manage parents or parents who don’t want toadmit that their child can have problems/

ARTICLE IN PRESS


difficulties or families that just don’t care(Elementary student 42).

A parent should not influence how a teachertreats other students in comparison to theirchild. For example, a parent should not demandattention to their child at a cost to the otherstudents. I believe that there will be individualrelationships formed that will always be depen-dent on the amount of input from parents(Elementary student 43).

Parents should have a big role. They shouldalways be able to come to me with concerns, butNOT in a negative way. They cannot pretend toknow what goes on with each child. Someparents expect special treatment, but I will giveEQUAL treatment (Elementary student 70).

Suspicion about parent actions relative to theirchildren was fairly prevalent in the open responseitems on concerns about working with parents. Akey teacher skill was to protect the group from thedemands of needy parents. Only one respondentworried that her/his knowledge might limit inter-actions with parents:

I’m not a parent. I’m not a single-mother tryingto make ends meet. I’m worried about not beingrespected enough. I know that I will try to domy best to understand where the family iscoming from (Elementary student 47).

While this prospective teacher was aware of theways that identity constrained understanding ofstudents’ families, her/his focus was on respect—many of the respondents assumed that theirprofessional status came in part from professionalknowledge which brought with it authority. Giventeacher knowledge, parents should defer:

Providing input yet trusting teachers’ judgmentsand respecting his/her decisions. Keeping up-dated with teacher on child progress. Helpingwith homework, willingness to supplement withadditional home support to ensure early start topositive self-esteem (Elementary student 25).

Working with parents who think they knowmore than me and who question the way I dothings constantly (Elementary student 48).

Parents should be involved in educationthrough helping with homework, conferences,special activities, etc. They should not try to tellthe teacher exactly how to run the classroom,but they should give input as necessary (Ele-mentary student 28).

Everyone who does take an interest in thelearning process probably has some idea of howthey should make it work if THEY wereteaching the class. I do not want to compromisemy educational beliefs by making everyonehappy (Elementary student 30).

The ideal parent is someone who is attentive anddeferentially responds to teacher requests. This is aparent who knows her place, who is supportive butrecognizes that she does not have the professionalknowledge held by the teacher. While parents wereseen as having knowledge, it was not knowledgethat counted in educational decision making. Anasymmetrical relationship between home andschool, with teachers having the upper hand, isforeshadowed here.

3.3. Expectations of involvement

We wanted to get a sense of how prospectiveteachers thought about various groups of parents,assuming that they brought to their professionaleducation conceptions of families that were some-times positive and hopeful, and other timesnegative and pessimistic. In this section, wesuggested subgroups of parents who representeddiversity in gender, work status, education, sexualidentity, culture, family structure, and age thathave been suggested in the literature to havespecific needs and orientations to working withschools. We recognize that individuals enacthybrid identities, being situated in multiple com-munities simultaneously. We have found however,that the literature on parent involvement oftenuses a single-identity approach to suggest cultu-rally appropriate treatment of diverse parents—books have chapters on how to deal with Latinofamilies or families with gay parents (Hamner &Turner, 2001), capitalizing on cultural valuesidentified in relation to white middle-class hetero-sexual practices (Trumbull, Rothstein-Fisch,

ARTICLE IN PRESS


Greenfield, & Quiroz, 2001). We asked students toestimate the potential involvement that particulargroups might have with the schools using a 3-pointscale (little positive, moderate positive, and highpositive involvement). We report participants’conceptions of varied subgroups involvement inTable 4.

Participant notions of involvement were rela-tively stereotypical, with patterns of the power ofgender and social class written into their inter-pretations of involvement. Stay-at-home parentsand mothers were seen as highly involved as wereparents with college education. This is interestinggiven the 2/3 of respondents remembered theirmothers as most involved. At the same time, gay/lesbian parents and parents of color were seen aspotentially highly involved. Lower levels ofinvolvement were expected for parents who werenot primary English speakers, others livingwith the child, parents living in poverty orgrandparents. We found the general optimismof the teacher candidates refreshinglypositive, with much more support for potentialinvolvement across groups than we would havepredicted.

While participants were reticent to point toparticular groups as less likely to be involved, they

Table 4

Conceptions of parental involvement for various subgroupsa

Parent group Overall mean (n ¼ 130)

Stay-at-home parents 2.83 (0.40)

Mothers 2.80 (0.42)

Parents w/college educations 2.79 (0.41)

Gay/lesbian parents 2.72 (0.49)

Parents w/preschool children 2.60 (0.52)

Parents of color 2.54 (0.56)

Fathers 2.51 (0.53)

Parents under 25 2.46 (0.68)

Divorced parents 2.46 (0.59)

Single parents 2.46 (0.56)

Working parents 2.44 (0.53)

Parents w/disabilities 2.40 (0.61)

2nd language parents 2.33 (0.73)

Other adults living w/child 2.20 (0.57)

Parents living in poverty 2.06 (0.77)

Grandparents 1.95 (0.66)

aQuestion framing: Parents vary in their involvement practices. Ple

groups.

did have a clear image of the type of parent who,as they said, ‘‘just didn’t care.’’

My biggest worry is parents who just don’t careabout their child’s school performance or socialrelationships at school. I would rather workwith a parent who disagrees with me or myapproach than one who does not have anopinion, doesn’t return phone calls, or justdoesn’t think school matters. To me, this typeof parent is setting their child up for failure thatcould impact his/her entire life (Elementarystudent 37).

Parents with no time or no interest in child’seducation. There is ALWAYS time to under-stand and be at least a little involved in a child’seducation! (Elementary student 4)

Lack of interest in involvement with child’seducation. Parents who feel hopeless aboutchanging learning/knowledge of their children oruplifting their situation (Elementary student 25).

I’m nervous that parents will not be supportiveor helpful with the child’s education. If childrenaren’t encouraged at home, they won’t want totry hard at school (Elementary student 18).

Elementary (n ¼ 75) Secondary (n ¼ 55)

2.85 (0.36) 2.80 (0.40)

2.89 (0.32) 2.73 (0.45)

2.87 (0.34) 2.71 (0.46)

2.81 (0.39) 2.60 (0.53)

2.74 (0.44) 2.41 (0.57)

2.66 (0.52) 2.42 (0.57)

2.65 (0.52) 2.37 (0.53)

2.57 (0.60) 2.33 (0.77)

2.63 (0.52) 2.46 (0.59)

2.61 (0.49) 2.24 (0.56)

2.57 (0.50) 2.29 (0.53)

2.48 (0.54) 2.28 (0.67)

2.55 (0.63) 2.00 (0.73)

2.39 (0.56) 2.04 (0.53)

2.24 (0.78) 1.78 (0.68)

2.07 (0.54) 1.73 (0.67)

ase indicate your expectations for parent involvement for these

ARTICLE IN PRESS


That parents will be stubborn and inflexible.Also that parents won’t want to get involvedtherefore be difficult to work with (Elementarystudent 19).

This concern about parents’ care relative toschooling reflects the ideal that home shouldsupport school by showing interest, modeling agood attitude, and complementing the work of theteacher. Fairly narrow boundaries were set foracceptable behavior—parents should be neithertoo passive nor assertive, they should be respon-sive and responsible:

Parents need to establish a rapport with theteacher (and vice versa) so that any problems inthe child’s progress which arise can be ad-dressed matter-of-factly and comfortably and asolution can be agreed upon. Also parents needto show that they really care about their child’sschoolwork and that they have high expecta-tions. If a parent models interest in the child’sclass work, this interest might rub off andmakes the child interested in it as well(Elementary student 64).

Parents are there to support the child’s educa-tion. Whether this means working closely withthe student to monitor their progress (andfamiliarize themselves with the works so thatthey can help and answer questions) or workingclosely with the school and educators tosupport the educational goals and expectations(Elementary student 65).

Some participants acknowledged that time wasa resource that was variably distributed and thatexpectations needed to account for this inequity.Other more vague limitations on parental involve-ment included lack of knowledge and limitedEnglish proficiency:

Parents should be actively involved in thechild’s education. For some parents with busywork schedules, it may include helping withhomework and discussing the school day. Forparents with more time, it may include volun-teering and organizing school events. It isimperative that the child knows that school isimportant (Elementary student 22).

Parents need to be a first line for most influencefor their children. Many parents may not knowhow to become involved or may not have timeand consequently may send a message to thechild that they do not care or that education isnot important (Secondary student 31).

Possibly if the parents don’t speak English(hard to communicate) (Secondary student 17).

Images of parents and their involvement inschooling depicted from the quantitative part ofthe survey were generally quite positive, with fewparents seen as potentially uninvolved. Lowerratings seemed to be related to those parentswho with fewer resources (time, economic, lan-guage). The open response data were more critical,describing parents who just did not care as themost problematic group. At the other end of theinvolvement continuum, prospective teachers alsoworried about pushy parents who would ask formore than was warranted for their child. It seemedto foretell of a love-hate relationship betweenhome and school in the future.

3.4. Into the future

These prospective teachers came into theirprofessional program with notions of their futurehome–school activities. Asked to anticipate theirprofessional involvement with families, the parti-cipants rated a list of suggested activities on a 3-point scale of no, perhaps, and yes. The means forthese evaluations are represented in Table 5, sortedby overall average. The activities ranged fromtraditional parent–teacher conferences (parentscome to school) to home visits (teachers come tothe home). These two activities in fact anchoredthe spectrum of preferred interactions. Almostevery prospective teacher favored parent–teacherconferences while only one in six anticipatedleaving school to meet a family in their home. Inbetween these two poles the options fell in acontinuum from individual communication in-itiated by the teacher to more broad-basedcommunity building and collaborative relation-ships. The anticipated activities are teacher direc-ted and relatively non-collaborative, requiringfamilies to respond to the school’s agenda rather

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 5

Anticipated parent involvement in teachinga

Involvement activity Overall (n ¼ 130) Elementary (n ¼ 75) Secondary (n ¼ 55)

Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD

Parent–teacher conferences 1.99 0.01 2.00 0.00 1.98 0.13

Ask parent to describe student 1.81 0.41 1.89 0.31 1.69 0.50

Ask parent input on child’s program 1.75 0.45 1.81 0.39 1.67 0.51

Call home 1.74 0.46 1.82 0.38 1.64 0.52

Meet with parents to set goals 1.74 0.46 1.85 0.39 1.58 0.50

Engage parents in homework 1.72 0.47 1.83 0.38 1.58 0.53

Notes to individual parents 1.70 0.48 1.79 0.41 1.58 0.53

Committees and fund raising 1.70 0.46 1.72 0.45 1.67 0.47

Invite parents to work in classroom 1.68 0.55 1.84 0.37 1.45 0.66

Students participate in conferences 1.52 0.55 1.54 0.50 1.48 0.61

Provide parenting info 1.47 0.59 1.61 0.54 1.26 0.59

Classroom newsletters 1.43 0.58 1.60 0.52 1.20 0.59

Home–school journal 1.26 0.58 1.44 0.53 1.00 0.54

Family get-togethers outside of school time 1.14 0.66 1.31 0.61 0.91 0.65

Ask parent input on curriculum 1.08 0.60 1.20 0.57 0.93 0.60

Home visits 0.88 0.66 0.97 0.70 0.75 0.58

Anticipated involvement index 23.68 3.69 25.23 3.61 21.45 3.52

aQuestion framing: How do you anticipate working with parents and families in your teaching?

Table 6

Anticipated involvement index

Group Mean SD

All participants 24.55 4.03

Elementary 26.08 3.61

Secondary 22.47 3.64


than the teacher responding to the needs andexpertise of families (Mattingly et al., 2002). Thetheme of boundaries was again apparent asparticipants anticipated how the relative responsi-bility of education might be parsed.

Much like our creation of the index thataggregated items on participants’ memories offamily involvement, we developed a composite ofanticipated family involvement practices. We feltthat composite was particularly important to ouranalysis because it could indicate a dispositionfuture teachers might take in partnering withfamilies. From this perspective, a future teacherwith a larger aggregate score on this scale mightreasonably be seen to favor diverse strategies forsupporting families in school. This compositesummed the ratings of the 16 items related toanticipated practices, which were rated no. (0),perhaps (1), or yes (2). Cases were excluded if theyhad missing values. Of 130 potential cases, 125 hadcomplete responses. This index is presented inTable 6. The range was from 13 (majority ratedperhaps) to 30 (majority rated yes) with an overallmean of 23.68. There were statistically significantdifferences (F=41.75 (1,123) po0:01) between

elementary and secondary students, with elemen-tary program students having higher ratings ofanticipated practices (25.22 vs. 21.45, respectively).While orientations to teaching roles are certainly amatter of socialization, the differences in parentinvolvement practices that exist between elemen-tary and secondary schools (Epstein, 2001) arealready evident as prospective teachers begin theirprofessional education.

4. Discussion and implications

From our analysis of student responses to asurvey about home–school relations, we concludethat prospective teachers come to their profes-sional education with well-developed notions of

ARTICLE IN PRESS


the interactions that families should have withschools. Even before they experience courseworkin a teacher education program or work insupervised field placements, they have lived a lifethat included family interactions with educatorsand have a developing conceptualization of howhome and school might productively interact. Inthis group at least, personal understandings ofpotential roles for parents were quite traditional,with moderate support of school agendas andlimited collaboration. Their ascription of parentand teacher knowledge could be described as eithercomplementary or conflicting, with very littleoverlap for the two groups. Parent knowledgewas long term, individual, biased and familialwhile teacher knowledge was professional, un-biased and based on experience with largenumbers of children. Few parents were seen aslikely to be uninvolved, primarily those wholacked the resources of time, money, or language.Respondents worried about two kinds of par-ents—those who cared too much and asked formore attention than was equitable for their childand those who cared too little, refusing to providesupport.

Anticipating their own teaching, prospectiveteachers were much more likely to do school-based activities such as holding parent–teacherconferences or calling home than they were toreach out into the community by holding out-of-school family get-togethers or do home visits.Comparing the elementary students to the second-ary students as separate groups, elementarystudents had memories of more involved parentsand also had higher ratings of anticipated familyinvolvement than those who were working towardsecondary certification.

What does all this mean for the practice ofteacher education? And what does it mean for therelationship between teachers and families? Itmakes much more understandable this contentiousrelationship. If prospective teachers come into ateacher education program with family experienceof involvement that is reactive rather thancollaborative, with expectations of practice thatfollow the same model, and images of problemparents that are either in their face or out of thepicture, parents start with one strike against them.

Because teacher attitudes are strongly related toteacher activity with families, these orientations donot promise inclusive collaboration (Epstein, 1986,2001). Coupled with the lack of attention to issuesof home–school relations in most teacher educa-tion curricula, we can only expect that thesedispositions will not be disrupted. Without frame-works for re-imagining the possibilities of relation-ships with families, professional education canonly hope to reinscribe existing relations. It is littlewonder that Mattingly et al. (2002) found limitedefficacy for parent involvement programs—theyare built on a shaky, contentious foundations.

What do we miss by giving lip service toparental roles in education but not workingsystematically to foster those roles in teachereducation? Teachers are losing key opportunitiesfor support, knowledge, and collaboration byholding parents at arms’ length. We complete thispaper by making suggestions for ways we mighthelp prospective teachers find a place for familiesin their practice. We approach this task, not fromthe typical ‘‘teach teachers how to teach parents’’viewpoint. Instead, we advocate greater attentionto families in teacher education because it is theonly way we can see to make the relationshipsmore equitable. Capitalizing on the interpretivescholarship that shows that opportunities formutually profitable home–school interaction areavailable to only certain groups, we focus onteaching as a responsive act, one that requiresknowledge and respect for the skills and compe-tencies of those being taught. If students arelocated within key family relationships, respond-ing to families is part of teaching. Given the lack ofattention to issues of working with families in mostteacher education programs, we focus in this finalsection on strategies for helping prospectiveteachers understand the rich potentials inherentin home–school relations. The suggestions arebased on both the results of the survey andprevious scholarship.

4.1. Critical reflection on views about education and

parents

Coming into their professional education pro-gram, these prospective teachers already had

ARTICLE IN PRESS


interpretive frameworks that reflected their bio-graphy and understandings of teacher roles.Biography provided a perspective—a startingpoint for learning in their professional education.As a first step, we argue that prospective teachersshould have experience reflecting on how theirviews toward education and particularly abouthome–school relations, are shaped by their pastexperience, their privilege, and their need toestablish authority as a professional. Particularlysalient to this point is the recognition that beliefsabout roles and responsibilities are culturally andsocially constructed reflecting our status andposition in a society (Brantlinger, Majd-Jabbari,& Guskin, 1996; Holland, Lachicotte, Skinner, &Cain, 1998; Lareau, 1989). If status is reflected inorientations of good parents and good teachers,we must recognize how advocacy of certainpositions and how attribution of authority tocertain groups typically furthers particular culturaland social positions rather than those of others.Given that virtually all of the prospective teacherswe worked with represented mainstream, whitemiddle-class America, their advocacy for teacher-driven relationships implies an asymmetrical re-lationship.

There is a growing literature in teacher educa-tion that focuses on reflection on identity (Gomez,Walker, & Page, 2000; Kagan, 1992) and this worknotes that prospective teachers’ appropriation ofknowledge in a teacher education program isshaped by their prior experience, their beliefsabout education, and the nature of the contentand experiences in the professional program. Forthis reason, it is not enough to mandate courses oreven parts of courses on parent involvement or tospecify particular field experiences that allowaccess to families and schools. Because the mean-ing that teacher candidates make of courseworkand experience is generated out of what they bringto their professional education, a generic approachto program design will not promote positiverelations. Instead, teacher education’s focus onhome–school relations should begin with what thepreservice teacher knows, thinks, and feels aboutworking with families. This knowing must becritically reflective, identifying the assumptionsthat they bring to relations, the bias these

assumptions represent, and the constraints andopportunities that this potential practice provides.With reflection as a foundation, they can begin tothink beyond their biography to imagine new waysof relating. Without it, it is likely that involvementactivities will remain in the level 1–3 range(Epstein, 1995), with power residing in the schooland activity provided by the home (Mattinglyet al., 2002).

4.2. Content that portrays diverse families

As is the case in most US teacher educationprograms, the respondents to our survey repre-sented a particular cultural group—white, middle-class, female. As a starting point, prospectiveteachers, who tend to be young, single, andwithout children could benefit from thinking froma parent’s perspective (Morris & Taylor, 1998).Recognizing the complexity of parenting and thecultural specificity of the role would allow teachercandidates to take a less antagonistic perspectiveabout the motivations and needs of families. Thegender issues that come to play between teachingand mothering (Biklen, 1995; Lightfoot, 1978),particularly for elementary teachers, should berecognized and problem solved to head off thetensions inherent in the relationships.

Beyond recognition of the role differences,prospective teachers should have a theoreticalawareness of the many ways that families cancome to the process of schooling and howmismatches in beliefs and practices representmissed opportunities by school people as muchas they represent parenting that is limited in itsoutcomes. The participants in our project weremost likely to view certain kinds of difference interms of lack of involvement—parents of Englishlanguage learners for example were thought to beless likely to be involved. This orientation was alsofound by McBride (1991) in his survey ofprospective teachers at the end of their program.To build inclusive images of families, it would beimportant to develop a sense of the multiple waysfamilies can support their children. Understandinghow social class, gender, language, and ethnicityshape cultural practices like parenting and teach-ing is key to developing relations between home

ARTICLE IN PRESS


and school, particularly given the homogeneousnature of the teaching profession and the increas-ing diversity among families (Morris & Taylor,1998). There is a growing ethnographic literaturethat portrays the practices of diverse families,situating behaviors in cultural meaning systemsthat allow for greater understanding. These under-standings are more than cultural relativism; theyshould include recognition of the ways that powerand privilege are enacted in home–school rela-tions. Examples of work that might be used in ateacher education program is Ways with Words

(Heath, 1983), Con Respeto (Valdes, 1996), Parent-

school Collaboration. Feminist Organizational

Structures and School Leadership (Henry, 1996),Including Parents? Education, Citizenship, and

Parent Agency (Vincent, 2000), Home Advantage

(Lareau, 1989), Dividing Classes. How the Middle

Class Negotiates and Rationalizes School Advan-

tage (Brantlinger, 2003), and Bridging Cultures

(Trumbull et al., 2001). The first six are ethno-graphic portraits of culture and practice, while thelast uses cultural knowledge to portray differencesamong groups expressly for teacher education.

4.3. Content that portrays diverse practices of

home–school connection

The participants in this project anticipatedconnections between home and school in whichfamilies responded to teacher direction. Fewconsidered options in teachers collaborated withor responded to the needs of parents. This patternwas strikingly similar to their childhood memoriesof family involvement and was narrower than theviews cited by McBride (1991) among more seniorteacher candidates. To present a sense of thepossibilities of connective practice, teacher educa-tion programs could provide access to content thatportrays families and their experiences withschools (Greenwood & Hickman, 1991). Contentof courses should include scholarship that de-scribes the array of home–school relations (Coun-tryman & Elish-Piper, 1998; Edwards & Alldred,2000; Epstein, 1995; Graue et al., 2001). Without asense of the possibilities, most of us will fall backon what we know.

Starting with Epstein’s overlapping spheres ofinfluence, prospective teachers can gain muchgreater awareness of what can be by planningactivities across all six levels or by brainstormingpackages of involvement activities and thencategorizing them by type to assess the strengthsand weaknesses of any set of tasks for all relevantstakeholders. Concrete examples of ways toenhance relationships with families can helpprospective teachers develop tools for relationshipbuilding later in their careers. The reactiveapproach experienced by most of our participantscould be complemented through systematic atten-tion to practices of home–school relations thatproactively engage families. This might involvesimply bringing in examples of letters, activities,and materials that are used by practicing teachers.Guest speakers like home–school coordinators orteachers who have made these relations a focus oftheir practice could also add much to broaden thehorizons.

4.4. Field-based experiences with families

Beyond the classroom, several theorists havesuggested that prospective teachers should havemore access to families so that parents do not seemlike members of an exotic cultural group (deAcosta, 1996; Morris & Taylor, 1998). Fieldworkin teacher education programs is most frequentlyfocused on what is happening within the four wallsof a classroom. That approach almost alwaysleaves out opportunities for ongoing interactionswith families, unless students are working in apreschool program. Teacher education programscould enrich their students’ experiences by struc-turing varied experiences with families into course-work (Greenwood & Hickman, 1991). Theseexperiences could include bringing panels ofdiverse parents into classes to talk about theirinteractions with schools, being careful not toreinforce pre-existing dispositions by relying onlyon the easy-to-contact parent. Family basedassignments that ask prospective teachers to learnabout students by learning about families helpdevelop the tools that will be useful in laterpractice. A nice support for this type of assignmentis A Path to Follow: Learning to Listen to Parents

ARTICLE IN PRESS


(Edwards, Pleasants, & Franklin, 1999) whichmakes the case for gathering family stories as toolsfor enhancing literacy development. Placements inless formal educational contexts such as afterschool programs can often provide opportunitiesfor prospective teachers to see staff and familiesinteracting on a regular basis. In all interactions,family privacy should be a focal point, remember-ing that there is no entitlement of access to parentsor other family members.

Case-based teaching allows safe opportunitiesfor prospective teachers to explore both the typicaland difficult situations that might come about inteaching practice. The Family Involvement Net-work of Educators (http://www.gse.harvard.edu/Bhfrp/projects/fine.html) has developed a verystrong set of teaching cases that highlight keyissues in working with families. Key to the use ofthese and other case-based approaches is media-tion by the teacher educator to help discussionmove beyond pre-existing viewpoints.

Despite the strong value placed on parentalinvolvement in education, the ideas held by thisgroup of preservice teachers indicate that relationswith families are built on a rocky foundation.Without more explicit attention paid to building arelationship with families, teachers have little todraw on but their own experiences. And theexperiences of white, middle-class women in theirearly 20s may not extend to diverse ways ofunderstanding the complex relationships betweenhome and school. Recognizing the endemicimbalance of power between parents and teachers,focusing critically on cultural boundaries, andexplicitly interrogating the implications of theirfuture practices might be one step to provide moreequitable interactions.

It is clear that closer attention must be paid tothe ‘‘beliefs, attitudes, and emotions of teachers intheir working contexts’’ (p. 595) if we are tounderstand their decision making and action (vanden Berg, 2002). It is our hope that teachereducators might use the ideas presented here todevelop educational components to their programsthat provide broader awareness of the issuesfamilies face in schooling, theoretical perspectiveswith which to understand interaction betweenhome and school, and focused attention to

developing strategies for a range of relationshipswith families.

References

Becker, H. J., & Epstein, J. L. (1982). Parent involvement: A

survey of teacher practices. The Elementary School Journal,

83, 85–102.

Biklen, S. K. (1995). School work. Gender and the cultural

construction of teaching. New York: Teachers College Press.

Brantlinger, E. (2003). Dividing classes. How the middle class

negotiates and rationalizes school advantage. New York:

Routledge Falmer.

Brantlinger, E., Majd-Jabbari, M., & Guskin, S. L. (1996). Self-

interest and liberal educational discourse: How ideology

works for middle-class mothers. American Educational

Research Journal, 33(3), 571–598.

Broussard, C. A. (2000). Preparing teachers to work with

families: A national survey of teacher education programs.

Equity & Excellence in Education, 33(2), 41–49.

Chavkin, N., & Williams, D. (1988). Critical issues in teacher

training for parent involvement. Educational Horizons,

66(2), 87–89.

Countryman, G., & Elish-Piper, L. (1998). Tracing the

development of deficit perspectives in family programs.

Journal of Children & Poverty, 4(1), 39–74.

Cutler, W. W. (2000). Parents and schools. The 150-year struggle

for control in American education. Chicago: University of

Chicago Press.

Dauber, S., & Epstein, J. L. (Eds.). (1993). Parents’ attitudes

and practices of involvement in inner-city elementary and

middle schools. Albany, NY: SUNY.

de Acosta, M. (1996). A foundational approach in preparing

teachers for family and community involvement in chil-

dren’s education. Journal of Teacher Education, 47(1), 9–15.

Edwards, P., Pleasants, W. H. M., & Franklin, S. H. (1999). A

path to follow: Learning to listen to parents. Portsmouth,

NH: Heinemann.

Edwards, R., & Alldred, P. (2000). A typology of parental

involvement in education centring on child and young

people: Neogotiating familialisation, institutionalisation

and individualisation. British Journal of Sociology of

Education, 21(3), 435–455.

Epstein, J. L. (1986). Parents reactions to teach practices of

parents involvement. The Elementary School Journal, 86(3),

277–294.

Epstein, J. L. (1995). School/family/community partnerships.

Caring for the children we share. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(9),

701–713.

Epstein, J. L. (2001). School, family, and community partner-

ships: Preparing educators and improving schools.

Colorado.

Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on

teaching. In M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on

teaching (3rd ed) (pp. 119–159). New York: Macmillan.

http://www.gse.harvard.edu/~hfrp/projects/fine.html

http://www.gse.harvard.edu/~hfrp/projects/fine.html

ARTICLE IN PRESS


Foster, J., & Loven, R. (1992). The need and direction for

parent involvement in the 90’s: Undergraduate perspectives

and expectations. Action in Teacher Education, 14(3),

13–18.

Goldstein, L. S., & Lake, V. E. (2000). ‘‘Love, love, and more

love for children’’: Exploring preservice teachers’ under-

standing of caring. Teaching & Teacher Education, 16,

861–872.

Gomez, M. L., Walker, A. B., & Page, M. L. (2000). Personal

experience as a guide to teaching. Teaching & Teacher

Education, 16, 731–747.

Graue, M. E., Kroeger, J., & Prager, D. (2001). A Bakhtinian

analysis of particular home–school relations. American

Educational Research Journal, 38(3), 1–32.

Graue, M. E., & Walsh, D. J. (1998). Studying children in

context: Theories, methods, and ethics. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage Publications.

Greenwood, G. E., & Hickman, C. W. (1991). Research &

practice in parent involvement: Implications for teacher

education. The Elementary School Journal, 91(3),

279–288.

Hamner, T. J., & Turner, P. H. (2001). Parenting in

contemporary society (4th ed). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life, and work

in communities and classrooms. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge

University Press.

Henry, M. (1996). Parent-school collaboration. Feminist organi-

zational structures and school leadership. Albany, NY:

SUNY Press.

Holland, D., Lachicotte, W., Skinner, D., & Cain, C. (1998).

Identity and agency in cultural worlds. Cambridge: Harvard

University Press.

Hollingsworth, S. (1989). Prior beliefs and cognitive change in

learning to teach. American Educational Research Journal,

26(2), 160–189.

Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., & Sandler, H. M. (1997). Why do

parents become involved in their children’s education?

Review of Educational Research, 67(1), 3–42.

Kagan, D. (1992). Professional growth among preservice and

beginning teachers. Review of Educational Research, 62(2),

129–169.

Ladson-Billings, G. (2001). Crossing over to Canaan. The

journey of new teachers in diverse classrooms. San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass.

Lareau, A. (1989). Home advantage. London: Falmer.

Lightfoot, S. L. (1978). World’s apart. New York: Basic Books.

Mattingly, D. J., Prislin, R., McKenzie, T. L., Rodriguez, J. L.,

& Kayzar, B. (2002). Evaluating evaluations: The case of

parent involvement programs. Review of Educational

Research, 72(4), 549–576.

McBride, B. (1991). Preservice teachers’ attitudes toward

parental involvement. Teacher Education Quarterly, 57–67.

Morris, V. G., & Taylor, S. I. (1998). Alleviating barriers to

family involvement in education: The role of teacher

education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 14(2), 219–231.

National Education Goals Panel. (1998). The national education

goals report. Building a nation of learners, 1998. Washington,

DC: National Education Goals Panel.

Shartrand, A. M., Weiss, H. B., Kreider, H. M., & Lopez, M. E.

(1997). New skills for new schools: Preparing teachers in family

involvement. Cambridge: Harvard Family Research Project.

Smith, D. (1989). Women’s work as mothers: A new look at the

relation of class, family, and school achievement. Perspec-

tives on social problems, 1, 109–125.

Tichenor, M. S. (1997). Teacher Education and Parent

involvement: Reflections from preservice teachers. Journal

of Instructional Psychology, 24, 233–239.

Tichenor, M. S. (1998). Preservice teachers’ attitudes toward

parent involvement: Implications for teacher education. The

Teacher Educator, 33(4), 248–259.

Trumbull, E., Rothstein-Fisch, C., Greenfield, P. M., & Quiroz,

B. (2001). Bridging cultures between home and school. A

guide for teachers. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Valdes, G. (1996). Con respeto. Bridging the distances between

culturally diverse families and schools. New York: Teachers

College Press.

van den Berg, R. (2002). Teachers’ meanings regarding

educational practice. Review of Educational Research,

72(4), 577–626.

Vincent, C. (2000). Including parents? Education, citizenship, and

parental agency. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

Waller, W. (1932). The sociology of teaching. New York: Wiley.

Download - Preservice teachers’ notions of families and schooling

Top Related