VOLUME

33
School
ISSUE Community
2
Journal
A FREE, PEER-REVIEWED,
ONLINE JOURNAL

ACADEMIC

SINCE 1991 DEVELOPMENT

INSTITUTE

ADI
Inge

www.schoolcommunitynetwork.org/scj.aspx
Academic Development Institute
nu
it

© ACADEMIC DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE a EST 1984

y

nd
Se
rvic
e
School Community Journal
Fall/Winter 2023 Lori G. Thomas, Executive Editor
Volume 33, Number 2 Grace Sheley, Editor
School Community Journal Advisory Board
Paul J. Baker William H. Jeynes
Illinois State University (Emeritus) California State University, Long Beach
Normal, Illinois Witherspoon Institute, Princeton, NJ
Alison A. Carr-Chellman Arti Joshi
University of Dayton The College of New Jersey
Dayton, Ohio Ewing, New Jersey
James P. Comer Karen L. Mapp
Yale Child Study Center Harvard Graduate School of Education
New Haven, Connecticut Cambridge, Massachusetts
Rollande Deslandes Denise Maybank
Universite du Quebec a Trois-Rivieres City University of New York
Quebec, Canada New York, New York
Patricia Edwards Toni Moynihan-McCoy
Michigan State University Corpus Christi Independent School District
East Lansing, Michigan Corpus Christi, Texas
Joyce L. Epstein Eva Patrikakou
Johns Hopkins University DePaul University
Baltimore, Maryland Chicago, Illinois
Patricia Gándara Janice M. Rosales
UCLA Graduate School of Education Educational Consultant
Los Angeles, California Villa Park, Illinois
Raquel-Amaya Martínez González Lee Shumow
Universidad de Oviedo Northern Illinois University (Emeritus)
Oviedo, Spain DeKalb, Illinois
Anne T. Henderson Loizos Symeou
Annenberg Institute for School Reform European University-Cyprus
Washington, DC Nicosia, Cyprus
Esther Sui-Chu Ho Heather Weiss
The Chinese University of Hong Kong Global Family Research Project
Hong Kong SAR, China Boston, Massachusetts
Kathleen V. Hoover-Dempsey
Peabody College, Vanderbilt University
Nashville, Tennessee
SCHOOL COMMUNITY
JOURNAL
Fall/Winter 2023
Volume 33, Number 2

Academic Development Institute

ISSN 1059-308X
©2023 Academic Development Institute
Cover design by Emily Gerdts
Business and Editorial Office
School Community Journal
121 N. Kickapoo Street
Lincoln, IL 62656 USA
Phone: 217-732-6462
Email: [email protected]
Requests for Manuscripts
The school can function as a thriving community. The School Community Journal includes
articles related to the school as a community of teachers, students, parents, and staff. Family–
school relations, site-based management, homework, sociology of education, systems theory,
the classroom community, and other topics concerning early childhood and K–12 education
are covered. SCJ publishes a mix of: (1) research (original, review, and interpretation), (2)
essay and discussion, (3) reports from the field, including descriptions of programs, and (4)
book reviews. The journal seeks manuscripts from scholars, administrators, teachers, school
board members, parents, and others interested in the school as a community.
Editorial Policy and Procedure
School Community Journal is committed to scholarly inquiry, discussion, and reportage of
topics related to the community of the school. Manuscripts are considered in the four catego-
ries listed above. Note: The journal generally follows the format of the APA Publication Manual,
7th Edition; when online sources appear in the reference list, we prefer direct links. Please make
sure electronic links cited are accurate and active. Use italics rather than underlining. Do not
use tabs to format paragraphs or tables; please use the Insert Table function for tables and the
First Line Indent function for paragraphs. Color for tables or figures is acceptable.
Contributors should send the following to [email protected], via email attachments (in Word):
1. The blinded manuscript, including an abstract of no more than 250 words in the
same file, plus any tables or figures; and
2. A one paragraph description (each) of the author(s) and a mailing address, phone
number, and email address where each author can be reached.
The accompanying email cover letter should state that the work is not under simultaneous
consideration by other publication sources. A hard copy of the manuscript is not necessary.
As a refereed journal, all submissions undergo a blind peer review as part of the selection
process. Therefore, please include the author’s description and other identifying information
in a separate electronic file. Further submission instructions may be accessed on our website:
http://www.schoolcommunitynetwork.org/SCJ.aspx
Subscription to the School Community Journal
School Community Journal has been published twice annually since 1991—Spring/Summer
and Fall/Winter. School Community Journal is now a free, open access, online-only publication.
Therefore, we are no longer accepting subscriptions. If you would like to receive a free email
notice when new journal issues are posted online, contact [email protected] and ask to be add-
ed to journal notices. Please include your mailing address, also. The searchable archives of the
journal may be accessed (free) at http://www.schoolcommunitynetwork.org/SCJ.aspx
Contents

Comments from the Editors and a Call for Papers.........................................7

Parental Involvement in a Low-Income Middle School: Influences................9

on Student–Teacher Connectedness
Mitzi C. Pestaner, Deborah E. Tyndall, and
Travis E. Lewis

Augmenting Relationships Among Families With Refugee Backgrounds.......35

and Their Children’s Teachers Using a Meeting Protocol: A Pilot Study
Shana J. Haines, Cynthia C. Reyes, and
Gabriel T. McGann

A Community-Based Organization in North Carolina: Facilitating Tran-....63

sitions From High School to College for Refugee-Background Students
Alison M. Turner and Jennifer C. Mann

“Now I Feel That the Parents Are Partners and Not Enemies”: Training.......97
Preservice Teachers to Work in Partnership With Parents of Students
With Disabilities
Alicia Greenbank

Exploring the Impacts of Community Services on Student Reading..........115

Achievement in a Title I School
I-Chien Chen, Nai-Cheng Kuo, and Breanna Smith

The 2020–21 Future Forward Literacy Program: Implementation and......133

Impact During the COVID-19 Pandemic
Curtis Jones, Marlo Reeves, and Dongmei Li

Mi Pequeño Mundo: An Evaluation of a Pilot Montessori-Based...............155

Home Visiting Program for Families With Children 0–3 Years
Valerie Ponce Diaz, Mary-Genevieve Moisan,
Roxana Linares, Diana Alvares Forero,
Andrea Heras, and Mary O. Hearst

Contents continued next page

Cultural Models of Parent–School Involvement: A Study of African..........175
American, Caribbean, and Hispanic Parents and Teachers in an
Urban U.S. School District
Daniell Carvalheiro, Sara Harkness,
Charles M. Super, and Caroline Mavridis

Museum Education and Yemeni American Children’s Immigrant..............205

Identity From a Vygotskian Perspective: A Mother’s Diary
Navaz Peshotan Bhavnagri and Hanan Taha Muhsin

Parents’ and Teachers’ Perceptions of Parental Involvement and.................237

Practices in the Education of Students with Learning Disabilities
in Greece
Dimitra Eleftheriadou and Anastasia Vlachou

Contributions To School-Related Risk and Protective Factors, Five...........265

Years After a Municipal Youth and Family Master Plan
David B. Tataw

Book Review—The Heartbeat of the Youth Development Field:....................301

Professional Journeys of Growth, Connection, and Transformation
Timothy D. Flewelling
Editors’ Comments and Call for Papers
We once again have an issue with a variety of articles related to our goal of build-
ing strong school communities. They go about it in myriad ways, and we hope you
will find something helpful in each one. In planning for future issues, I invite you
to ponder some questions with us and consider how this might spur future research,
fieldwork, and journal articles.
Our journal has always focused on ways to help all students succeed in school
and life by helping the adults around them, primarily their family and teachers, work
together for their success. True collaboration among teachers, among parents, and be-
tween teachers and parents can be hard, but that is the essence of community building
to support every student. As Sam reminds us, “Devotion to children they know, love,
and call by name is a powerful motivation.”
When SCJ began more than three decades ago, our concerns were homework prac-
tices and reading in the home. The articles and the activities the articles recommended
flowed naturally from these and similar topics. Without looking away from the essen-
tials like homework and reading, we must acknowledge that the most basic need for
all children in all times is sufficient attention, guidance, and instruction from caring
adults. Primarily, this is their families and their teachers and other school personnel,
but of course it also means, for some children, adults in their churches and other faith-
based or community groups and volunteers who come to school.
Recently we have been reminded in publications including Dr. Melissa Kearney’s
well-researched book The Two-Parent Privilege that the child’s needs do not lessen
when fewer adults are available to them, are available for less time, or are distracted by
the hectic demands of their lives. Other research, including that from Harvard Med-
ical School and the Center on Media and Child Health, suggests that children’s time
with caring adults is also stolen away by excessive screen time—the hours kids spend
in front of computers, televisions, and smart phones.
Our simple question, and one that we hope will inspire a flurry of article submis-
sions to SCJ is: How can a school better function as a community to do what other
schools (that do not function as communities) cannot? This leads to other questions,
for example: How can better relationships be built among adults to support each and
every child? Can we systematically examine the amount and quality of attention each
and every child gets from caring adults and devise ways to fill in the voids? How can
we offer more effective support and practical advice for harried parents? What would
organized, family-to-family assistance look like? How are people ramping up volun-
teer programs? Our imagination is limited, but the problem is great, and we know that
SCJ readers and writers will respond to our appeal with stories of what school commu-
nities are already doing and ideas for what they could do.

Lori G. Thomas, Executive Editor

Sam Redding, Editor Emeritus
November 2023
Editorial Review Board
Jeffrey A. Anderson Diana Hiatt-Michael Oliver Moles
Indiana University, Bloomington Pepperdine University, Consultant
Kimberly R. Avila Malibu, CA Sandy Spring, MD
George Mason University, Amy Hilgendorf Shadrack Msengi
Fairfax, VA University of Wisconsin–Madison Southern Illinois University,
Ji-Hi Bae David Housel Edwardsville
Sungshin Women’s University, LaGuardia Community College Mary Heather Munger
Seoul, Korea (CUNY), Long Island City, NY University of Findlay, OH
Pamela Hudson Baker Tim Jay Judith Munter
George Mason University, Loughborough University, San Francisco State University, CA
Fairfax, VA Loughborough, United Kingdom Marilyn Murphy
Brian R. Beabout Hui Jiang Temple University,
University of New Orleans, LA Ohio State University, Columbus Philadelphia, PA
Michael L. Boucher, Jr. Arti Joshi Mary M. Murray
Texas A&M University, San Antonio The College of New Jersey, Ewing Bowling Green State University, OH
Davin Carr-Chellman Sol Bee Jung Professor Emeritus
University of Dayton, Ohio Johns Hopkins Univeristy, MD Osamha M. Obeidat
Mary L. Cavey Kate Gill Kressley Hashemite University, Jordan
Chicago (IL) Public Schools NYU Metro Center for Research Reatha Owen
Cheng-Ting Chen on Equity & Transformation Illinois Association of School
Chung Yuan Christian University, Kara Lasater Boards, Springfield
Taiwan University of Arkansas, Fayetteville Reyes Quezada
Margo Collier Yvette Latunde University of San Diego, CA
University of New Mexico, University of La Verne, CA Cynthia J. Reed
Albuquerque Robert Leier Kennesaw State University, GA
Susan DeMoss U.S. Department of State/ Timothy Rodriguez
School Administrator, Georgetown University English University of Toledo, OH
Oklahoma City, OK Language Fellow Mavis Sanders
Tina Durand Xinyue Liu University of Maryland,
Boston University, MA Utica University, Utica, NY Baltimore County
Jody L. Eberly Lusa Lo Steven B. Sheldon
The College of New Jersey, Ewing University of Massachusetts, Johns Hopkins University, MD
Karen Estep Boston Martha Strickland
Grand Canyon University, Vera Lopez Penn State Capital College,
Phoenix, AZ Arizona State University, Tempe Middletown, PA
Margaret Ferrara Angela Louque Loizos Symeou
University of Nevada, Reno California State University,
(Emeritus) European University,
San Bernadino
Laureen Fregeau Nicosia, Cyprus
Pamela Loughner
University of South Alabama, Consultant, Huntingdon Laura Szech
Mobile Valley, PA University of North Carolina–
Claudia Galindo Wilmington, NC
Marga Madhuri
University of Maryland, University of La Verne, CA Elise Trumbull
College Park Independent Consultant,
Charmaine Mangram
Alyssa R. Gonzalez-DeHass San Rafael, CA
University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa
Florida Atlantic University, Patricia Willems
Kyle Miller
Jupiter, FL Florida Atlantic University,
Illinois State University, Normal
Shana Haines Davie, FL
Regina Mistretta
University of Vermont, Burlington Jianzhong Xu
St. John’s University, Queens, NY
Mississippi State University, MS
Parental Involvement in a Low-Income
Middle School: Influences on Student–Teacher
Connectedness
Mitzi C. Pestaner, Deborah E. Tyndall, and Travis E. Lewis

Abstract

School connectedness is associated with a broad range of positive academic

and mental health outcomes. A dimension of school connectedness, student–
teacher connectedness, is related to improved academic progress and may be
an important protective factor against risk-taking behaviors, particularly for
low-income students and for those with limited parental support. The purpose
of this qualitative secondary data analysis was to explore teacher perceptions of
parental involvement in a low-income, rural middle school serving a diverse
student population and the influence on student–teacher connectedness. Data
were taken from transcripts from five focus groups comprised of middle school
teachers, administrators, and clinicians (n = 26). Thematic analysis included
first and second cycle coding followed by developing Venn diagrams to depict
categories and patterns before reaching consensus on themes. Three themes were
identified: (1) parental support of students; (2) parental modeling for students;
and (3) parental interaction with teachers. Overall, teachers perceived a lack of
parental involvement in this low-income diverse middle school which led to
missed connections between students and teachers. This disconnect may be the
result of multiple factors, including perceived low levels of parental support for
students, differing expectations between parents and teachers, and perceived
poor quality interactions between parents and teachers. When formulating
strategies to enhance student–teacher connectedness, consideration should be
given to the extent and importance of the role of parental involvement.

School Community Journal, 2023, Vol. 33, No. 2 9

Available at http://www.schoolcommunitynetwork.org/SCJ.aspx
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

Key Words: parental involvement, middle school students, student–teacher

connectedness, teacher perceptions, parents, teachers, low income

Introduction

School connectedness, defined as the perception by students that adults and

peers within school care about them and their learning (Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, 2009), is associated with a broad range of positive
academic and mental health outcomes (Datu & Yuen, 2020). Mental health
outcomes, such as reduced suicidal thoughts and behaviors and lower levels
of depression and anxiety, have been found in adolescents with positive per-
ceptions of school connectedness (Carney et al., 2018; Datu & Yuen, 2020;
Marraccini & Brier, 2017; Whitlock et al., 2014). Academic outcomes, such
as enhanced school motivation, engagement, and achievement are associated
with higher levels of school connectedness (Datu & Yuen, 2020). Each di-
mension of school connectedness—including student–peer, student–parent,
and student–teacher connectedness—is associated with various facets of ac-
ademic performance and behaviors (Datu & Yuen, 2020). The dimension of
student–teacher connectedness is related to improved academic progress and
less risk-taking behaviors, aggression, disciplinary issues, and internalizing
symptoms associated with depression (Biag, 2016; Foster et al., 2017; Ramsey
et al., 2016). Overall, students who feel more connected to teachers have a low-
er prevalence of mental health concerns (Jones et al., 2022; Malta et al., 2022).
Student–teacher connectedness can be engendered through enhanced pa-
rental involvement (Thompson et al., 2006). Parental involvement refers to
the manner any parent or adult acting in a parental role works with their child
and school to promote positive academic outcomes (Hill et al., 2004). Encom-
passing home and school, parental involvement includes parents’ style of life;
expectations, rules, and supervision at home; participation in school activities;
interactions with school staff; and direct or indirect communication to their
child about education (Caridade et al., 2020; Curtis et al., 2021; Henderson et
al., 2020). The intersectionality between parent and teacher has the potential
to influence student–teacher connectedness with significant implications for
student outcomes.
While high quality, recurrent parent–teacher interactions promote commu-
nication about students and their progress at school, perspectives may vary.
VanValkenburgh et al. (2021) found disagreement between teachers and par-
ents as many parents felt that they were not given guidance to assist students
with learning at home or the opportunity to make decisions about student dis-
cipline or placement in courses. These types of conflicting views are concerning

10
 PARENTS & CONNECTEDNESS

as students’ perception of a weak relationship between the parent and teacher

may be a factor in whether the student has problems at school or may nega-
tively influence existing school problems (Serpell & Mashburn, 2012). Studies
have also found that teachers who perceived low levels of parental involve-
ment were likely to appraise students as having problem behaviors, incivilities,
and poor social skills (Caridade et al., 2020; Thompson et al., 2017) or con-
tributed to mistrust between the school and families (Lasater, 2019). Teacher
impressions about families from different socioeconomic and racial/ethnic
backgrounds can significantly impact perceived levels of parental involvement
and are predictive of student outcomes (Hilgendorf, 2012). For example, Luet
et al. (2018) found that teacher beliefs that students in a high-needs school
district with a racially diverse student body had difficult home lives some-
times informed and guided lowered academic expectations. This may be of
particular concern in middle school when student–parent relationships may
be challenging and there is typically a significant drop in parental involvement
(VanValkenburgh et al., 2021).
Studies have shown that student–teacher connectedness serves as an import-
ant protective factor against risk-taking behaviors, particularly for low-income
students and for those with limited parental support (Brooks et al., 2012;
García-Moya et al., 2019; Nasir et al., 2011). While studies about school
connectedness are vast and research exists regarding teachers’ perceptions
of parental involvement, more research is needed on the dimension of stu-
dent–teacher connectedness, particularly in schools with diverse populations
(García-Moya et al., 2019). To add to the current knowledge, this study aimed
to expand understanding of teacher perspectives regarding parental involve-
ment in a low-income middle school serving a diverse student population and
how those perspectives may influence student–teacher connectedness. Under-
standing this association is important for the future development of strategies
to strengthen relationships that facilitate student–teacher connectedness.
Bronfenbrenner’s Social–Ecological Model of Human Development
The social–ecological theory of human development by Urie Bronfenbren-
ner (2005) guided this research and is an effective framework for studying
student–teacher connectedness within the context of parental involvement.
The main proposition of the theory is that the dynamic relationship between
the child and the context, comprised of nested levels or environmental systems,
establishes the human development process (Bronfenbrenner, 2005). While
the multilevel contextual relations that occur are interactive and reinforce the
effects of each other, the child is an active agent embedded within the sys-
tem and contributes to the evolving process of development (Bronfenbrenner,

11
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

2005). These nested systems include the microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem,

and macrosystem.
The interactions between all systems are influential in indirectly predicting
the contextual support of the child, but the microsystems of family and school
independently and directly affect the developing child (Chappel & Ratliffe,
2021). These person–context relations can be modified or altered in a manner
that positively impacts the way the child develops (Bronfenbrenner, 2005),
such as enhancing student–teacher connectedness by altering individual- and
microsystem-level forces in the home and school (Allen et al., 2016).
The focus of this study is within the mesosystem in which parent–teacher
interactions and relationships indirectly and directly intersect and may be influ-
ential in determining the quality of student–teacher connectedness within the
school microsystem (Chappel & Ratliffe, 2021; Crespo et al., 2013). Because
Bronfenbrenner’s theory emphasizes the significance of the interdependence
between systems and how interactions within one setting can be shaped by the
interactions in another, it provides an appropriate framework to explore the in-
fluence of parental involvement on student–teacher connectedness.
Purpose of Study
Previous research was conducted in a low-income, racially and ethnically
diverse, rural public middle school to examine teacher perceptions of students’
mental health needs and the use of student–teacher connectedness strategies
to address these needs. While results from this research are reported elsewhere
(Tyndall et al., 2022), it is important to note here relevant data that led to
this secondary data analysis. Survey data from the primary study indicated
the majority of teachers reported a lack of parental involvement as a barrier to
positively connecting with students. Findings also revealed a theme of “Missed
Connections” described as missed opportunities for teachers to connect with
students. While the primary research focused on factors contributing to stu-
dent–teacher missed connections, our team noted that parental involvement
was an underlying theme which also affected student–teacher connectedness.
As a result, a more focused secondary analysis was warranted to further ex-
amine this underlying theme. Therefore, the purpose of this secondary data
analysis was to explore teacher perceptions of parental involvement in a low-in-
come, racially and ethnically diverse, rural middle school and the influence on
student–teacher connectedness.

Methods

To investigate additional questions not explored in the primary study, a

qualitative secondary analysis was undertaken (Heaton, 2008). Specifically, a
12
 PARENTS & CONNECTEDNESS

supplementary analysis (Heaton, 2008) was used to conduct a more in-depth

exploration of student–teacher missed connections within the context of pa-
rental involvement. This qualitative secondary data analysis was guided by the
following research question: How do teachers perceive the influence of parental
involvement on student–teacher connectedness in a low-income, rural middle
school serving a diverse student population?
Primary Study Setting
In January 2019, co-author Deborah Tyndall participated in our uni-
versity’s Engagement and Outreach Scholars Academy (EOSA). During the
academy, Tyndall developed a partnership with a rural, public middle school
in the Southeastern United States. This Title I middle school served a stu-
dent body (n = 430) of sixth, seventh, and eighth grade students comprised of
56% African American and Black, 22% Hispanic and Latino/a, 17% Europe-
an American, and 0.03% of two or more races (National Center for Education
Statistics [NCES], 2019). The majority of students (72%) were eligible for
free or reduced-price lunches, which was higher than the state average of 44%
(State Department of Public Instruction [SDPI], 2018). For the academic year
2018–19, short-term suspensions, criminal acts, and incidences of bullying/
harassment, were four to nine times higher as compared to the county and
state averages (SDPI, 2019). Additionally, the school had a record of low lit-
eracy achievement on standardized assessments and has been challenged with
constant teacher turnover. To meet Title I requirements (U.S. Department
of Education, 2018), the school hosts several parental engagement activities
during the academic year including open house, use of school-issued technolo-
gy events, and educational fairs on accessing community resources.
Study Participants
Teachers within the school were recruited to participate in one of four fo-
cus groups. Out of 22 teachers, 20 (91%) agreed to participate. The sample
represented core teachers from the sixth, seventh, and eighth grade levels and
teachers who taught electives. Teacher participants were mostly female (65%)
and identified as White (n = 15) and African American (n = 5). Data from a
fifth focus group with six school administrators and clinicians (i.e., counselor,
social worker, school nurse) were included to provide additional perspective
on parental involvement. Administrators/clinicians were mostly female (67%)
and identified as White (n = 5) and African American (n = 1). Most partici-
pants (77%) were new to the school and had been employed for three years
or less. Five participants had been employed in the school 4–5 years, with one
participant employed in the range of 6–10 years. The majority of participants

13
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

ranged in age from 45–54 years (42%), followed by ages 35–44 (23%), less
than 34 (23%), and greater than 55 (12%).
Data Collection
Data for the primary study were collected during August through Novem-
ber of 2019 after receiving approval from the university’s Institutional Review
Board (IRB). Data were generated from five audiorecorded focus groups, each
lasting approximately 60 minutes, which were held at the middle school.
Each of the focus groups consisted of 4–6 participants and was conducted in
a conference room during teacher planning periods or team meeting times. A
semistructured interview format was used to elicit participant experiences with
students with emotional health needs. Sample questions included: What are
your concerns working with students who may have mental health needs? What
strategies do you use to manage mental health needs? As this secondary analysis
was using an existing database to elaborate on a theme not fully analyzed in the
primary study, additional IRB review was not warranted. Researchers involved
in the primary study are the same researchers who conducted this secondary
data analysis, which strengthens credibility and trustworthiness of the findings
(Ruggiano & Perry, 2019).
Analytic Strategy
Six phases of thematic analysis were followed to establish trustworthiness:
(1) familiarizing with the data, (2) generating initial codes, (3) searching for
themes, (4) reviewing themes, (5) defining and naming themes, and (6) re-
porting (Nowell et al., 2017). Using clean, uncoded focus group transcripts,
data were reanalyzed to examine parental involvement as a contributing factor
to student–teacher missed connections. A deductive approach to coding was
undertaken initially to explore the theme “Missed Connections” from the pri-
mary study. First and second cycle coding (Saldaña, 2016) was completed by
the first two authors using a newly generated coding scheme, analytic mem-
os, and peer debriefings. After second cycle coding, the third author joined
the analytic process which began with extracting noteworthy data elements.
Three noteworthy examples from each focus group were shared via Google
Jam board, an interactive online whiteboard workspace. The iterative pro-
cess continued with each researcher developing a trinity configuration using a
Venn diagram to depict categories and patterns generated from the exemplars
(Saldaña, 2016). Through continued dialogue and peer debriefings, parental
involvement surfaced as a predominant influence on teachers’ perceptions of
their connectedness with their students.

14
 PARENTS & CONNECTEDNESS

Researchers’ Positionality
At the time of data collection, the first author was in the role of graduate
research assistant on the project. Both Pestaner and Tyndall co-led the first fo-
cus group, with subsequent focus groups being conducted by one of us with
one to two undergraduate research students assisting with logistics and note-
taking. For two years following data collection, both researchers worked on
various other projects within the school using a community-engaged research
approach. Additionally, we attended open houses at the school for the purposes
of parent/student research recruitment which gave us an opportunity to meet
and interact with parents. By the time of the final analysis phase, we had be-
come familiar with some of the school’s inner workings and challenges faced
by administrators, teachers, and support staff. In an effort to assess potential
influences of the first two authors’ positionality on interpretation of findings,
the third author joined the project during the analysis phase to bring addition-
al perspective. Lewis’s background includes practice and research experience
in school counseling and school district leadership. The authors were all em-
ployed at the same university during the research analysis and are dedicated to
community-engaged research and scholarship. While Tyndall is a past EOSA
Scholar, Lewis and Pestaner are enrolled in the academy’s current cohort. Tyn-
dall lives in the same community as the middle school, and all of us grew
up in surrounding counties and attended either low-income or rural schools
in the public education system. While our practice experiences are different
from those of our participants, there are some similarities. The authors have
worked in service professions in public sectors, including nursing and school
counseling, which may have influenced our position of interpreting participant
experiences in under-resourced and short-staffed environments. While engag-
ing with reflexivity, we dialogued about influences and potential biases of our
experiences and employed investigator triangulation (Denzin, 1970) to bring
about a comprehensive understanding of the data. Among the influences and
potential biases noted is that all three researchers are White from middle-class
backgrounds, investigating the involvement of predominantly Black parents
with a school consisting of a majority White teaching staff. As such, our po-
sitionality should be thoughtfully considered by the reader with regard to the
design of the study and the interpretation of findings herein (Holmes, 2020).
We acknowledge that our positionality is shaped by our privilege, our biases,
and our access to resources and spaces, thus undoubtedly influencing our re-
search. We continually strive to be humble and seek to actively listen to those
participants and colleagues with different lived experiences than our own.

15
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

Results

Teacher retention has been challenging for this Title I school, as noted
in the reporting of the primary study (Tyndall et al., 2022). Notably, of the
22 teachers employed at the time of data collection, three retired and 10 re-
signed during the following two-year period. The authors feel it is important
to note that many participants became emotional and tearful during the fo-
cus groups. Some expressed feelings of burnout and frustration with the lack
of school and community resources to support students, as well as pressure to
improve academic performance. While focus group questions were aimed to
understand student–teacher dynamics, perspectives regarding levels of parental
involvement emerged. Reanalysis yielded three themes where more parental in-
volvement was desired by teachers to support student–teacher connectedness:
Parental Support of Students, Parental Modeling for Students, and Parental
Interaction with Teachers. Understanding teacher perspectives as presented in
these themes was important in facilitating the identification of opportunities
to enhance parental involvement at the mesosystem level to promote a more
positive influence on the quality of student–teacher relationships at the school
microsystem level. Still, the reanalysis of focus group data revealed that many
participants viewed parental involvement through a deficit lens that may be
based on values imposed by traditional educational power structures reflecting
Eurocentric, White, middle-class notions of how parental involvement should
be defined.
Parental Support of Students
As participants discussed the emotional health needs of students, they
speculated that for many of their students there was a need for more parental
support. Participants felt this lack of parental support resulted in some stu-
dents coming to school with emotional baggage and displacing their emotional
pain onto others. It was felt that the demands of work life resulted in parents
teetering between no parental presence and an extreme parental presence. One
participant perceived that some students were hurt individuals who inflicted
hurt onto others in the school as a way of releasing suppressed anger.
We do have some parents, especially mothers, that work a lot or work
shifts where they’re not home when their kids are home…and I think
it ends up being like extreme parenting when they can. Where it might
be [parents are] handling this issue, but then [they] don’t have the time
to do it consistently. It’s more like “I’m going to fuss at you and punk
you down”…but then, because [the student] felt that way, [they want

16
 PARENTS & CONNECTEDNESS

to] punk someone else down [to] show how big [they are] because that
happened to [them]. Hurt people hurt people.
Participants sensed these students would come to school and “act out” and
that their emotional pain was often substituted with being “mean to every-
body.” Teacher participants labeled “acting out” behaviors as disrespect toward
others, verbal and physical aggression, and peer bullying. The school’s bullying
rates had been significantly higher than the state averages over the previous few
years prior to the study, and several participants shared that “teachers also get
bullied.” Some referred to these behaviors as a “lack of empathy” toward oth-
ers and thought them to be a continuation of a “behavioral cycle” originating
from home life experiences. One participant questioned if student–parent re-
lationships might have an influence on low empathy, which was contributing
to teachers having difficulty making positive sustained connections with their
students.
I just wish the sense of empathy could be created in these students. I
don’t know the best way to create that understanding of what empathy is
for others, but they don’t have a connection. Whether it is social media
creating that disconnect…or the disconnect between parents and [stu-
dents]. How do you develop empathy in them? I don’t know, but they’re
lacking it, and I think that’s the root of a lot of their bad decisions.
Teachers reported that some of their middle schoolers had a transient life-
style and were raised by multiple family members in different households.
Other students lacked parental support, while others were exposed to forms
of traumatic stressors, such as parental drug use and incarceration. Many spec-
ulated that students felt minimized or emotionally hurt by these parenting
behaviors and were guarded toward others in school to compensate for their
own hurt. One participant shared an encounter with a parent during a prog-
ress report meeting. She recalled it being a “devastating” moment in her career
when she felt a parent could be contributing to a student’s withdrawn behavior:
We have a student…he was so quiet all the time, so I’d make an effort to
constantly try to talk to him…or constantly praise him for doing stuff.
And then when his mother came to one of our progress report nights, it
was kind of just a light bulb moment. She was like, “Oh, I’m surprised
he’s doing well in piano, he’s so stupid.” I was like, this is why this child is
behaving the way he’s behaving…I think it’s the way their parents talk to
them which in turn is how they come to school and approach education
in general, like their self-worth and mental [state].
In addition to the need for more emotional support from parents, partici-
pants felt support in the area of academics was also needed. Participants shared

17
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

how some parents at the school demonstrated a general disdain for or disin-
terest in schooling, which may have carried over in how students viewed and
engaged in school. Further, examples were provided where parents did not
seem to value all aspects of schooling. Others in the group supported a state-
ment by their colleague who shared that a parent dismissed notification of their
child having a C grade in one of their elective classes. The participant stated
the parent’s response was, “Well they don’t need that to pass, do they?” This
low regard seemed to seep into how children felt about school and approached
learning. Participants speculated that the need for more supportive parenting
hindered student–teacher connectedness as students’ emotional needs impact-
ed their engagement with learning in the classroom.
Parental Modeling for Students
Teachers indicated that some of their students struggled with conduct-
ing themselves in school in a socially appropriate manner, often resulting in
disciplinary problems. The descriptions of this struggle seemed to relate to ex-
pectations by teachers of the students to utilize social norms for appropriate
behavior within the school or classroom. Several participants provided insight
into the struggle students had with perceived appropriate versus inappropriate
behavior at school when they were expected to adhere to “two sets of rules.”
One participant perceived there was a lack of rules and expectations in the
home, and when students tried to adjust to school expectations of behavior “it
doesn’t go over too well.” Another teacher was empathetic, stating,
You’ve got one set of [home] rules, but then we want them to walk
through the door and completely shut those rules out and follow [school]
rules, and we’re asking kids who are still developing to do that. I mean,
it’s honestly just a struggle.
Although participants indicated that students conducting themselves in ac-
cordance with school norms and expectations was a skill the middle schoolers
were still developing, they also felt that a lack of parental or family modeling
and reinforcement of these behaviors may stunt skill development.
While behavioral norms were promoted through school rules and classroom
expectations, not all parents seemed to be in congruence with the school in this
regard. For example, several participants indicated that some parents have en-
couraged their students to fight, clearly in opposition to school efforts to teach
children how to manage conflict peacefully. Participants had firsthand experi-
ence with “bully-like” behaviors from parents and felt students were learning
these types of “survival behaviors” in their home environments and then bring-
ing those coping behaviors to school.

18
 PARENTS & CONNECTEDNESS

Their parenting behaviors are what the students are emulating…and a

lot of their parenting behaviors are bully-like behaviors where they get
what they want by being very brash….That’s where we try very hard as
a school to break down and help them understand there’s other ways to
tackle issues and problems…so, I feel like I need to be modeling all of
those positive behaviors.
The disconnect between parental expectations for acceptable behavior in the
home and teacher expectations for acceptable behavior in the school exacer-
bated the divide between these two critical influences in children’s lives and,
ultimately, may have left students confused. This confusion may have created
resentment and mistrust towards teachers, possibly impacting students’ ability
to build relationships with their teachers and vice versa.
Participants speculated that, for some of their students, the lack of ability to
follow school norms and expectations when stepping onto school grounds was
due to them functioning as “the adult” at home. One participant noted a mis-
alignment with parent–child roles due to a lack of supervision, stating, “Some
of these children that we’re asking to listen to us are the parent at their home,
and that’s part of their problem.” This misalignment influenced teachers’ abili-
ties to enforce socially appropriate behaviors in the classroom and likely created
tension that presented barriers for student–teacher connectedness. Another
participant referred to it as “self-policing among children” as she often saw
students off-campus who were unsupervised and lacked structure. One partic-
ipant elaborated with:
I hate to speculate on what somebody’s home life is like, but it seems like
at home, they’re probably allowed to do whatever they want. Possibly,
they don’t really have anybody at home that is guiding them…so what-
ever feels good, they do it. And I think that [students] bring that in, and
that struggle that we have of what [students] do at home is one thing,
what you do at school is something else.
While a few participants considered the failure to follow school norms and
expectations as a typical adjustment in adolescence, most thought that unac-
ceptable student behaviors were from a “lack of being taught.” Participants did
acknowledge external influences that were most likely making it difficult for
students to meet school expectations for behaviors. As such, there exists a mis-
alignment among parents and teachers regarding a shared set of expectations
for school behaviors and attitudes towards education.
Parental Interaction With Teachers
Participants felt that fostering student–teacher connectedness was some-
times difficult because there were parents who had a “distrusting relationship”

19
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

with the school. This lack of trust likely contributed to parents withholding
information about their children’s emotional and mental health, which in turn
inhibited how well teachers could connect with their students. Participants
noted that information sharing depended on what parents were willing to
share. Parents did not always see the value of informing the school of situations
impacting their child’s well-being. One participant expressed frustration about
two students who had mental health issues and the parents did not inform the
school until several months into the academic year. The participant felt this
information was critical because “we’re going to handle this child a little bit
differently because of the history.” In other situations, parents seemed to avoid
the school’s attempts to reach out because of concern over a noted decline in
the student’s mental health.
We called parents and they wouldn’t even answer the phone. We would
invite them and send mail; they would send back saying they aren’t com-
ing. They never showed up, not once. Mom had kicked him [the stu-
dent] out of the house because she couldn’t handle him anymore.
These examples of limited, or a lack of, communication resulted in participants
feeling there was a need for better parental interaction with teachers.
Issues with communication between the parents and the school may have
been influenced by a high teacher turnover rate at the school. Notably, the
majority of teachers had been employed with the school for three years or
less. Participants were not oblivious to the impact this was having on student–
teacher connectedness. They recognized that relationship-building and trust
was needed so students and parents would not see teachers as a “stranger” and
for them to “see you as part of them…so they work with you.” To engage par-
ents, several participants identified strategies to improve communication with
parents. For example, a few participants were creative in their approach to
engage parents by using Class Dojo©, a classroom communication app. This
communication app seemed to be a helpful strategy to connect with parents in
an efficient manner “because it’s like a text, which is much easier to do during
the day than to stop and make a phone call.” One participant commented on
several features of the app:
I use it for positive rewards and negative rewards, and…its’ got a built-
in translator so…this parent was non-English speaking, so she sent me
a message in Spanish about an issue that her child was having….If it is
something more important, then it’s also documentation that we can
print later that’s date- and time-stamped, of “we had this communica-
tion previously.”

20
 PARENTS & CONNECTEDNESS

These participants felt such an app fostered parental involvement as it “helps

parents feel comfortable” with communicating minor issues like students for-
getting an assignment. The app was also used to denote positive and negative
rewards based on student performance and gave parents the ability to see and
comment on teacher posts.

Discussion

The findings suggest there are factors surrounding parental involvement

within the home and school that may influence student–teacher connected-
ness. Teachers described their perceptions of student–parent relationships and
circumstances at home that may have implications on how students interact
with others in school, react to school expectations, and respond to teacher
attempts to build relationships. Student capacity for relationship-building in
school may be influenced by the quality of student–parent relationships (Cre-
spo et al., 2013; Oldfield et al., 2016). As such, poor quality student–parent
relationships may have a negative influence on the way students build relation-
ships with others, including teachers, since student interactions with parents
are often mirrored in student–teacher interactions (Chan et al., 2013; Crespo
et al., 2013).
Participants described a lack of parental support and perceived some par-
enting practices as harsh. Living in impoverished neighborhoods may be
challenging for parents due to unemployment, crowded housing, and decreased
access to healthcare, resulting in higher stress levels relating to parenting and
more tenuous relationships between children and parents (Chappel & Ratliffe,
2021; Foster et al., 2017). While some teachers expressed negative perceptions
of parenting practices, it may be that these perceptions are based on monolin-
gual, White, middle-class values and not reflective of the low-income, diverse
student body (Ho & Cherng, 2018). Approximately 78% of the student popu-
lation are youth of color (NCES, 2019) compared to mostly White focus group
participants. Similar to Henderson et al. (2020), White middle-class teachers
may perceive the parenting abilities or involvement of socioeconomically and
racially diverse parents as less than optimum (Ho & Cherng, 2018). White
teachers may view Black students from impoverished backgrounds as lacking
positive role models and proper supervision in the home or having parents that
place minimal value on education (Hines, 2017). This framing of Black stu-
dents with a deficit-oriented view perpetuates the assumptions that academic
failure is the result of these deficits rather than the pedagogical or systemic prac-
tices within schools dominated by White cultural norms (Hines, 2017; Hyland,
2005). These perceptions may influence student–teacher connectedness since

21
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

negative teacher opinions about students have been associated with teacher be-
liefs that poor parenting practices adversely affect students’ academic progress,
particularly among families of color (Ho & Cherng, 2018).
Participants described the home situations of many students as disrup-
tive, transient, or unsupervised. Since familial disruption negatively influences
connectedness with others (Poland & Ferguson, 2021), discord within these
students’ home situations may also be influencing student–teacher connected-
ness. Participants speculated that homelife stressors, such as parental drug use
and incarceration, and “bully-like” behaviors by parents were causing emotion-
al difficulties for students resulting in displacement of those emotions onto
others. Student emotional responses were described as disrespectful, verbally
and physically aggressive, and bullying toward peers and teachers. Notably,
the school’s bullying and in-school suspension rates were both higher than
the county or state average rates (SDPI, 2019). Students with higher levels
of problem behaviors have been shown to have lower levels of connectedness
with school (O’Connor et al., 2021); as such, behaviors that may be emanating
from stressors outside the school and possibly rooted in emotional needs may
be contributing to missed connections with teachers.
The findings of this study suggest that teacher expectations for student be-
havior and attitudes toward education are not supported and modeled by all
parents. Parents’ expectations and values regarding education that don’t align
with middle-class norms may be viewed as deficient resulting in a disconnect
between parents and teachers about what should be considered appropriate
(Hilgendorf, 2012). For teachers and schools to be successful, this disconnect
cannot be ignored, given that parental attitude toward education is the most
significant predictor of the behavior children exhibit in school (Bobic & To-
sic, 2016). Notably, some parents may have had negative experiences in school
themselves as children, which may carry over into how they view education
and interact with teachers (Baker et al., 2016).
There may be conflicting views between teachers and parents about what
is meant by high quality parental involvement (Chappell & Ratliffe, 2021),
which may stem from misalignment of the values of White teachers with those
of parents of color (Henderson et al, 2020). Henderson et al. (2020) found that
teachers often perceived that parental involvement encompasses only in-school
participation, without considering in-home educational interactions that may
be occurring between parent and child as a valuable component of parental
involvement. Parents may experience barriers that prevent them from being
as involved with in-school participation as they desire, due to lack of resourc-
es or work commitments, particularly among low-income and racially diverse
populations (Chappell & Ratliffe, 2021; Ho & Cherng, 2018). Additionally,

22
 PARENTS & CONNECTEDNESS

parents may be concerned that their absence from school activities is viewed as
a lack of interest or involvement in their child’s education, and this may dimin-
ish motivation to interact with teachers (Hilgendorf, 2012). Teachers in the
current study discussed a lack of communication from parents about student
issues that teachers perceived to be of importance, such as mental health needs.
Just as there may be conflicting views about what is meant by high quality pa-
rental involvement, there may be a disconnect about what information parents
feel they should share with the school. This divide between parent and teacher,
particularly for youth of color, may result in parent–teacher misunderstand-
ings leading to distrust of teachers and poor quality relationships (Henderson
et al., 2020).
The mistrust between parents and teachers may be the result of factors ema-
nating from both parent and teacher attitudes and actions. Teacher perceptions
about low-income parents of color may emanate from a deficit lens that may
influence their attitudes and involvement with parents (Lasater, 2019). The
perception that parents place minimal value on education can further erode
trust between parents and teachers (Lasater, 2019). Conversely, parents may
only communicate with teachers if there is a problem with their child and may
view teacher-initiated communications about their child as critical instead of
supportive (Lasater, 2019). It may be that parents within the middle school
were reluctant to communicate with teachers about the mental health needs
of their child because of distrust of teachers or the educational system due to
past traumas related to minoritization (Hine, 2022). Additionally, stigma often
exists within rural communities, and parents and caregivers may prefer to deal
with problems within the family (Semke & Sheridan, 2012). To enhance com-
munication and trust between parents and teachers, parents must perceive that
teachers’ attempts to communicate with parents are genuine and authentic ges-
tures of wanting to support their child (Lasater, 2019). Accordingly, teachers
must understand that as representatives of the school within the parent–teach-
er dyad, they may be perceived as the dominant force within the dyad, whereas
parents may feel vulnerable and at risk for betrayal of their trust, particularly
among low-income parents of color (Hine, 2022; Khalifa, 2018).
Another barrier to trust building between parents, teachers, and students
may be the high rate of teacher turnover. Schools serving youth of color in
areas of concentrated poverty, particularly in rural regions, are challenged to re-
tain experienced, qualified teachers that are sorely needed in these schools with
static academic scores and graduation rates (Orfield, 2013; Semke & Sheri-
dan, 2012). Since most of the teachers had been employed at this school for
three years or less, it may be that they had minimal, if any, experience working
with students and families from low-income communities. Teachers new to the

23
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

profession are often placed in low-income schools and may not understand the
strengths and needs of the student population and their families, particularly
if they did not grow up in such a community (Luet et al., 2018). As such, they
may lack understanding about the knowledge students and families bring into
the school and may expect less from students (Luet et al., 2018), creating ad-
ditional challenges between parents and teachers. High teacher turnover may
be a source of constant disruption of relationships within the school (Ford &
Forsyth, 2021). Since trust, an essential element of student–teacher connect-
edness, evolves over time (Brake, 2020), teacher turnover may have hindered
relationship-building with students and may account for students’ guarded
behavior toward teachers and was likely also reflected in parent–teacher inter-
actions. In schools that are already struggling and subject to state and district
pressures to improve achievement through accountability measures and sanc-
tions, such as those in impoverished neighborhoods with a majority of students
of color segregated by race and poverty, the adverse effects of high rates of
teacher turnover on academic success are more pronounced (Erichsen & Reyn-
olds, 2020; Orfield, 2013; Sorensen & Ladd, 2020).

Practice Implications

Similar to this low-income diverse middle school, many schools have dif-
ficulty connecting with parents (Dikkers, 2013). The home, the school, and
the community are overlapping spheres of influence on the development of a
child (Epstein, 2011). When parents are connected with their child’s school,
academic performance and engagement improve for their child (Rodriguez et
al., 2013; Wolfe, 2014). Additionally, students’ relationship with their parents
has significant implications for the quality of relationships with others, includ-
ing teachers (Chan et al., 2013; Crespo et al., 2013). Therefore, strategies to
enhance parental involvement should start with schools supporting the stu-
dent–parent relationship. Collaborating with the community to offer resources
to parents or to facilitate school events focused on student–parent activities
could be strategies to improve connectedness, particularly during the middle
school years when student–parent relationships may be tumultuous (Foster et
al., 2017; Joyce & Early, 2014; VanValkenburgh et al., 2021). While encourag-
ing parents to become involved in school activities and extracurricular activities
may facilitate connectedness, consideration should be given to more focused
efforts among diverse school populations (Thompson et al., 2006).
Supporting students’ emotional needs by providing teachers with relevant
training and strategies may facilitate opportunities to enhance student–teacher
connectedness. For example, creating a positive classroom environment com-

24
 PARENTS & CONNECTEDNESS

prised of supportive learning and social activities can foster connectedness with
students while assisting them to build social–emotional skills (Midford et al.,
2017). These skills empower students to manage and cope with stressors (Mid-
ford et al., 2017), such as the homelife stressors described by participants that
many of these students encounter. School-based social–emotional programs,
such as mindfulness training, have demonstrated positive outcomes including
increased emotional control, prosocial behavior, and academic performance
and decreased peer aggression (O’Connor et al., 2017). Similarly, supporting
the development of peer relationships by facilitating opportunities for group
work and cooperative learning may enhance prosocial behavior (Oldfield et
al., 2016). One way to mediate the challenges resulting from a lack of paren-
tal involvement is to encourage cohesive peer relationships (2016). This may
be particularly important in this school which is challenged with maintain-
ing consistency among peers resulting from seven feeder elementary schools
creating a new social dynamic in middle school. Since students with more
numerous and positive connections with their peers transition more success-
fully from school to school as they matriculate (Kingery et al., 2011), this
adds an additional barrier to developing student connections with one another
and with the school overall. As such, policy changes to this relatively unique
attendance pattern for a rural school should be considered when developing
strategies to build positive social connections among students and between
students and teachers. Consideration of such changes must be accompanied by
policies to battle housing inequities and residential segregation (Lawrence &
Mollborn, 2017) that otherwise lead to disparities in the quality of education a
student receives based upon their race or ethnicity or income.
A partnership between families and schools toward supporting a student’s
learning by establishing agreed-upon expectations and a regular system of
authentic and intentional communication is recommended (Lasater, 2019).
Teacher agency, whereby teachers assist parents in overcoming obstacles to
involvement in their child’s learning, such as by using Class Dojo© or oth-
er supportive technology applications, is an important component of such a
partnership (Hilgendorf, 2012). Using Class Dojo©, a practice referenced by
several participating teachers, shows promise for establishing regular, efficient
communication with parents. Informal communication facilitated by tools
such as Class Dojo©, particularly in low-income schools, has been shown to be
a more effective means to engage parents over traditional methods (Chappel &
Ratliffe, 2021). This family and school partnership should foster parent agen-
cy and engagement, rather than merely parent attendance or involvement in a
teacher- or school-led information session (Epstein, 2011; Goodall & Mont-
gomery, 2014).

25
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

Identifying a parent liaison may be instrumental in bridging racial/ethnic

differences and facilitating an approachable space for parents within the school
(Chappel & Ratliffe, 2021; Henderson et al., 2020). When school staff com-
municate effectively and create a welcoming environment for both students
and parents, they establish the conditions necessary for positive parent en-
gagement, which in turn builds relational trust (Constantino, 2016; Mapp
& Kuttner, 2013; Weiss et al., 2018). Additionally, if parents are provided
the space and encouragement to lead conversations with other parents around
the schooling of their children while acknowledging the needs of teachers and
schools to safely and effectively educate their students, distrust of school of-
ficials or educational systems may be mitigated. Such partnerships create a
shared sense of responsibility for learning among educators, families, and the
community at large (Epstein, 2011; Henderson et al., 2007).
Educators must also recognize the inherent power inequity between schools
and parents (Khalifa, 2018). The social, economic, and cultural capital that
individuals possess in terms of knowledge, assets, and norms are often gauged
by those in positions of power (Crumb et al., 2022), which may influence the
way teachers perceive parents. Parents with limited access to capital assets may
not have the ability nor means to be physically present and participate with
in-school activities (Hilgendorf, 2012). Parents of students that grow up in
homes that do not fit within what some teachers may consider to be an appro-
priate family structure may be judged to be less supportive and involved with
the student’s education (Hilgendorf, 2012). While it is important for teach-
ers to acquire knowledge about the lives of students outside of school and the
strengths that each family brings to the educational process, it may be difficult
for teachers to realize those strengths among students from socioeconomic and
cultural backgrounds different from their own (Delpit, 2006). Therefore, it is
incumbent upon teachers to reflect upon their perspectives and, instead of in-
sisting that parents strive to procure school capital, to become more culturally
responsive by seeking to understand the capital assets that parents can bring
to the school and their child’s learning (Gonzalez et al., 1995; Lynch, 2021).
Cultural competency training may provide teachers with an understanding of
how to effectively engage diverse parents and inform teaching strategies, as
culturally competent professionals expect variations in student perceptions of
safety and connectedness (Daniels, 2021; Henderson et al., 2020). While ca-
pable teachers are able to build strong student–teacher connectedness in the
absence of a parent–teacher relationship, a parent–teacher relationship com-
prised of mutuality, reciprocity, and validation of the strengths of each party
is ideal (Lynch, 2021). Perhaps, more importantly, educating teachers on po-
tential biases about parental involvement may shift their perceptions of what

26
 PARENTS & CONNECTEDNESS

is considered high quality parental involvement and facilitate more effective

parent–teacher engagement and improve student outcomes (Thompson et
al., 2017; VanValkenburgh et al., 2021). While these strategies are important
considerations, they require funding, and in rural and low-income schools,
funding is often a barrier to implementing programs that may enhance par-
ent-teacher relationships (Semke & Sheridan, 2012).
Limitations and Future Research
There are several limitations to this research. First, findings were generat-
ed from a secondary data analysis collected from a single setting. The setting
represented one low-income, rural school serving 78% students of color, with
high teacher turnover, and therefore, findings may not be transferable across
other Title I middle schools. While we had a high response rate (91%) with
teacher participation in focus groups, we acknowledge that this research only
captures the perceptions of teachers within the school at one point in time.
Since perspectives may vary between teachers and parents regarding levels of
parental involvement, further research is needed to capture parent voices. A
mixed-methods approach is recommended, in which parents complete sur-
veys measuring the extent of parental involvement, such as the Parent–Teacher
Involvement Questionnaire (Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group,
1991) or a similar survey, followed by focus groups to explore perceptions
about parental involvement. Multiple perspectives would provide a deeper
understanding of the dynamics of parental involvement and student–teacher
connectedness rather than a lone perspective (Halcomb & Hickman, 2015).
Finally, since the focus group data were collected prior to the pandemic, it like-
ly does not capture the additional stress on schools and communities and its
impact on parental involvement nor student–teacher connectedness.

Conclusion

Connectedness can be bolstered between students, parents, and teachers by

instituting activities in the classroom that facilitate a supportive learning en-
vironment, providing school-based social–emotional programs, encouraging
positive peer relationships, and ensuring that parents are aware of commu-
nity resources and supports. Establishing family–school partnerships is an
important tool for schools to build trusting relationships with parents. Such
partnerships encourage teacher agency whereby teachers support parents’ in-
volvement with their child’s education by meeting parents where they are
situated and fostering parent agency so that parents can assume a leadership
role in educating their children. Teacher training on cultural competency and

27
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

biases about perceptions of parental involvement may stimulate a recognition

of the knowledge and strengths of parents to support the educational needs
of their children in low-income, racially and ethnically diverse schools. These
biases may have shaped teacher perceptions of parental involvement in this
school system embedded with ideals that may differ from its low-income, di-
verse community members. Teacher perspectives about parental involvement
were often viewed through a deficit lens. These deficit-based perspectives may
be more problematic than the actual quality and quantity of parental involve-
ment, particularly given the implications to student–teacher connectedness,
when teachers believe that parental involvement is lacking. Unless perspectives
are viewed through a lens of understanding and validation of the community
and its members, there will continue to be a misalignment of parent–teacher
expectations and values which will negatively impact student outcomes.
During our third year of partner engagement, we learned that the local
Board of Education elected to close this Title I school. News outlets report-
ed there were several factors behind the decision including a high number
of reassignment requests, numerous staff vacancies, and underutilization by
half of the school’s capacity. This is unfortunate, as student–teacher connect-
edness takes time to build and is disrupted by school closures, which likely
had a negative impact on many students. Funding to support the success of
similar low-income schools at risk for closing should be prioritized at the local
and state levels. While speculative, some of the factors that led to the school’s
closure may reflect disengagement by teachers and parents from each other, re-
iterating the significance of connectedness between teachers and the families
they serve.
This article is not an easy read, because it addresses reality. Our intent here is
not to be critical of these teacher participants or their stories, but to offer oppor-
tunities for dialogue in a safe, non-judgmental space as we are appreciative for
their voices and how this research offers additional insight into student–teacher
connectedness. Schools are made up of humans and their interactions—teachers,
students, family members, administrators, countless other staff, and communi-
ty members. Each of those people can and will make bad choices at times. We
can blame the institution or the system or the individual, or all of the above.
The question is, though, what can we do about it in the small window of time
we have with any given student and parent/caregiver? How can we support the
teacher to reach out to that parent, and whether or not that effort is successful,
how can the teacher and the rest of the school community best support the stu-
dent? Yes, we must work to improve the system, but policy and culture shifts
take time, and students cannot wait (Redding, 2021). When formulating strat-
egies to enhance student–teacher connectedness, consideration should be given

28
 PARENTS & CONNECTEDNESS

to the extent and importance of the role of parental involvement, as well as the
influence of the broader systems surrounding the micro- and mesosystems on
the contextual support of students.

References
Allen, K. A., Vella-Brodrick, D., & Waters, L. (2016). Fostering school belonging in secondary
schools using a socio-ecological framework. The Educational and Developmental Psycholo-
gist, 33(1), 97–121. https://doi.org/10.1017/edp.2016.5
Baker, B. D., Farrie, D., & Sciarra, D. G. (2016). Mind the gap: 20 years of progress and re-
trenchment in school funding and achievement gaps. ETS Research Report Series, 2016(1),
1–37. https://doi.org/10.1002/ets2.12098
Biag, M. (2016). A descriptive analysis of school connectedness: The views of school person-
nel. Urban Education, 51(1), 32–59. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085914539772
Bobic, A., & Tosic, A. (2016). The relevance of parents’ beliefs for their involvement in children’s
school life. Educational Studies, 42(5). https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2016.1230049
Brake, A. (2020). Right from the start: Critical classroom practices for building teacher–stu-
dent trust in the first 10 weeks of ninth grade. The Urban Review, 52, 277–298. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11256-019-00528-z
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Toward an experimental ecology of human development. Ameri-
can Psychologist, 32, 513–531. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.32.7.513
Bronfenbrenner, U. (Ed.). (2005). Making human beings: Human biological perspectives on hu-
man development. Sage.
Brooks, F., Magnusson, J., Spencer, N., & Morgan, A. (2012). Adolescent multiple risk be-
haviour: An assets approach to the role of family, school, and community. Journal of Public
Health, 34, i48–i56. https://doi.org/10.1093/pubmed/fds001
Caridade, S. M. M., e Sousa, H. F. P., & Dinis, M. A. (2020). The mediating effect of parental
involvement on school climate and behavior problems: School personnel perceptions. Be-
havioral Sciences, 10(129), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs10080129
Carney, J. V., Hyunhee, K., Hazler, R. J., & Guo, X. (2018). Protective factors for mental health
concerns in urban middle school students: The moderating effect of school connectedness.
Professional School Counseling, 21(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/2156759X18780952
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2009). School connectedness strategies for
increasing protective factors among youth. https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/5767
Chan, C. S., Rhodes, J. E., Howard, W. J., Lowe, S. R., Schwartz, S. E. O., & Herrera,
C. (2013). Pathways of influence in school-based mentoring: The mediating role of par-
ent and teacher relationships. Journal of School Psychology, 51, 129–142. https://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.jsp.2012.10.001
Chappel, J., & Ratliffe, K. (2021). Factors impacting positive school–home communications:
A multiple case study of family–school partnership practices in eight elementary schools
in Hawaiʻi. School Community Journal, 31(2), 9–30. https://www.adi.org/journal/2021fw/
ChappelRatliffeFW21.pdf
Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group (CPPRG). (1991). Parent–Teacher Involvement
Questionnaire: Parent Version. Duke University.
Constantino, S. M. (2016). Engage every family: Five simple principles. Corwin.
Crespo, C., Jose, P. E., Kielpikowski, M., & Pryor, J. (2013). “On solid ground”: Family and
school connectedness promotes adolescents’ future orientation. Journal of Adolescence, 36,
993–1002.

29
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

Crumb, L., Chambers, C., Azano, A., Hands, A., Cuthrell, K., & Avent, M. (2022). Rural cul-
tural wealth: Dismantling deficit ideologies of rurality. Journal for Multicultural Education,
17(2). https://doi.org/10.1108/JME-06-2022-0076
Curtis, K., Anicama, C., & Zhou, Q. (2021). Longitudinal relations among school context,
school-based parent involvement, and academic achievement of Chinese American children
in immigrant families. Journal of School Psychology, 88, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jsp.2021.07.002
Daniels, E. (2021). Building a trauma-responsive educational practice: Lessons from a corrections
classroom. Taylor & Francis Group.
Datu, J. A. D., & Yuen, M. (2020). Students’ connectedness is linked to higher gratitude
and self-efficacy outcomes. Children and Youth Services Review, 116, 1–8. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105210
Delpit, L. (2006). Lessons from teachers. Journal of Teacher Education, 57(3), 220–231. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0022487105285966
Denzin, N. K. (1970). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods. Aldine.
Dikkers, A. G. (2013). Family connections: Building connections among home, school, and
community. Childhood Education, 89(2), 115–116. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00094056
.2013.774247
Epstein, J. L. (2011). School, family, and community partnerships: Preparing educators and im-
proving schools. Westview Press.
Erichsen, K., & Reynolds, J. (2020). Public school accountability, workplace culture,
and teacher morale. Social Science Research, 85, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssre-
search.2019.102347
Ford, T. G., & Forsyth, P. B. (2021). Teacher corps stability: Articulating the social capital
enabled when teachers stay. Journal of Educational Administration, 59(2), 233–252. https://
doi.org/10.1108/JEA-02-2020-0036
Foster, C. E., Horwitz, A., Thomas, A., Opperman, K., Gipson, P., Burnside, A., Stone, D. M.,
& King, C. (2017). Connectedness to family, school, peers, and community in socially vul-
nerable adolescents. Child Youth Services Review, 81, 321–331. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
childyouth.2017.08.011
García-Moya, I., Bunn, F., Jiménez-Iglesias, A., Paniagua, C., & Brooks, F. M. (2019). The
conceptualisation of school and teacher connectedness in adolescent research: A scoping
review of literature. Educational Review, 71(4), 423–444. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131
911.2018.1424117
Gonzalez, N., Moll, L. C., Tenery, M. F., Rivera, A., Rendon, P. Gonzalez, R., & Amanti, C.
(1995). Funds of knowledge for teaching in Latino Households. Urban Education, 29(4),
443–470. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085995029004005
Goodall, J., & Montgomery, C. (2014). Parent involvement to parental engagement: A contin-
uum. Education Review, 66(4), 399–410. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2013.781576
Halcomb, E., & Hickman, L. (2015). Mixed methods research. Nursing Standard, 29(32),
41–47.
Heaton, J. (2008). Secondary analysis of qualitative data: An overview. Historical Social Re-
search, 33(3), 33–45. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20762299
Henderson, A. T., Mapp, K. L., Johnson, V. R., & Davies, D. (2007). Beyond the bake sale: The
essential guide to family–school partnerships. The New Press.
Henderson, L. J., Williams, J. L., & Bradshaw, C. P. (2020). Examining home–school dis-
sonance as a barrier to parental involvement in middle school. Preventing School Failure:
Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 64(3), 201–211. https://doi.org/10.1080/10
45988X.2020.1719964

30
 PARENTS & CONNECTEDNESS

Hilgendorf, A. E. (2012). Through a limiting lens: Comparing student, parent, and teach-
er perspectives of African American boys’ support for school. School Community Journal,
22(2), 111–130. https://www.adi.org/journal/2012fw/HilgendorfFall2012.pdf
Hill, N. E., Castellino, D. R., Lansford, J. E., Nowlin, P., Dodge, K. A., Bates, J. E., & Petit,
G. S. (2004). Parent academic involvement as related to school behavior, achievement,
and aspirations: Demographic variations across adolescence. Child Development, 75(5),
1491–1509. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2004.00753.x
Hine, M. G. (2022). Words matter: Differences in informative and negative school communi-
cation in engaging families. School Community Journal, 32(1), 157–185. https://www.adi.
org/journal/2022ss/HineSS22.pdf
Hines, M. T. (2017). White teachers, Black students: In the spirit of yes to African American stu-
dent achievement. Rowman & Littlefield.
Ho, P., & Cherng, H. Y. S. (2018). How far can the apple fall? Differences in teacher percep-
tions of minority and immigrant parents and their impact on academic outcomes. Social
Science Research, 74, 132–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2018.05.001
Holmes, A. G. D. (2020). Researcher positionality: A consideration of its influence and place
in qualitative research – A new researcher guide. Shanlax International Journal of Education,
8(4), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.34293/education.v8i4.3232
Hyland, N. E. (2005). Being a good teacher of Black students? White teachers and uninten-
tional racism. Curriculum Inquiry, 35(4), 429–459. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3698537
Jones, S. E., Ethier, K. A., Hertz, M., DeGue, S., Le, V. D., Thornton, J., Lim, C., Dittus, P.
J., & Geda, S. (2022). Mental health, suicidality, and connectedness among high school
students during the COVID-19 pandemic—Adolescent behaviors and experiences sur-
vey, United States, January–June 2021. MMWR supplements, 71(3), 16–21. https://doi.
org/10.15585/mmwr.su7103a3
Joyce, H. D., & Early, T. J. (2014). The impact of school connectedness and teacher support
on depressive symptoms in adolescents: A multilevel analysis. Children and Youth Services
Review, 39, 101–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2014.02.005
Khalifa, M. (2018). Culturally responsive school leadership. Harvard Education Press.
Kingery, J. N., Erdley, C. A., & Marshall, K. C. (2011). Peer acceptance and friendship as pre-
dictors of early adolescents’ adjustment across the middle school transition. Merrill-Palmer
Quarterly, 57(3), 215–243. https://doi.org/10.1353/mpq.2011.0012
Lasater, K. (2019). Developing authentic family–school partnerships in a rural high school:
Results of a longitudinal action research study. School Community Journal, 29(2), 157–181.
https://www.adi.org/journal/2019fw/LasaterFW2019.pdf
Lawrence, E., & Mollborn, S. (2017). Racial/ethnic patterns of kindergarten school enroll-
ment in the United States. Sociological Forum, 32(3), 635–658. https://doi.org/10.1111/
socf.12352
Luet, K. M., Morettini, B., & Vernon-Dotson, L. (2018). “It’s pretty bad out there”: Chal-
lenging teacher perspectives through community engagement in a mentor training pro-
gram. School Community Journal, 28(2), 159–188. https://www.adi.org/journal/2018fw/
LuetEtAlFall2018.pdf
Lynch, J. (2021). Elementary school teachers’ and parents’ perspectives of home–school en-
gagement and children’s literacy learning in a low-income area. School Community Journal,
31(1), 127–148. https://www.adi.org/journal/2021ss/LynchSS21.pdf
Malta, G. D., Bond, J., Conroy, D., Smith, K, & Moller, N. (2022). Distance education
students’ rmental health, connectedness, and academic performance during COVID-19:
A mixed methods study. Distance Education, 43(1), 97–118. https://doi.org/10.1080/015
87919.2022.2029352

31
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

Mapp, K. L., & Kuttner, P. (2013). Partners in education: A dual capacity-building framework
for family–school partnerships. U.S. Department of Education and SEDL. http://www.sedl.
org/pubs/framework/FE-Cap-Building.pdf
Marraccini, M. E., & Brier, Z. M. F. (2017). School connectedness and suicidal thoughts and
behaviors: A systematic meta-analysis. School Psychology Quarterly, 32(1), 5–21. https://
doi.org/10.1037/spq0000192
Midford, R., Cahill, H., Geng, G., Leckning, B., Robinson, G., & Ava, A. T. (2017). Social and
emotional education with Australian year 7 and 8 middle school students: A pilot study.
Health Education Journal, 76(3), 362–372. https://doi.org/10.1177/0017896916678024
Nasir, N. S., Jones, A., & McLaughlin, M. (2011). School connectedness for students in
low-income urban high schools. Teachers College Record, 113(8), 1755–1793. https://doi.
org/10.1177/016146811111300805
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2019). Search for public schools – common
core of data. U.S. Department of Education.
Nowell, L. S., Norris, J. M., White, D. E., & Moules, N. J. (2017). Thematic analysis: Striving
to meet the trustworthiness criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16(1),
1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917733847
O’Connor, C. A., Dyson, J., Cowdell, F., & Watson, R. (2017). Do universal school-based
mental health promotion programmes improve the mental health and emotional well-be-
ing of young people? A literature review. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 27(3–4), e412–e426.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.14078
O’Connor, K. E., Sullivan, T. N., Ross, K. M., Marshall, K. J. (2021). “Hurt people hurt peo-
ple”: Relations between adverse experiences and patterns of cyber and in-person aggression
and victimization among urban adolescents. Aggressive Behavior, 47(4), 483–492. https://
doi.org/10.1002/ab.21966
Oldfield, J., Humphrey, N., & Hebron, J. (2016). The role of parental and peer attachment
relationships and school connectedness in predicting adolescent mental health outcomes.
Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 21(1), 21–29. https://doi.org/10.1111/camh.12108
Orfield, G., Frankenberg, E., & Associates. (2013). Educational delusions? Why choice can deep-
en inequality and how to make schools fair. University of California Press.
Poland, S., & Ferguson, S. (2021). Youth suicide in the school context. Aggression and Violent
Behavior, 64,101579. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2021.101579
Ramsey, C. M., Spira, A. P., Parisi, J. M., & Rebok, G. W. (2016). School climate: Perceptual
differences between students, parents, and school staff. School Effectiveness and School Im-
provement, 27(4), 629–641. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2016.1199436
Redding, S. (Ed.). (2021). Opportunity and performance: Equity for children from poverty. In-
formation Age.
Rodriguez, A. J., Collins-Parks, T., & Garza, J. (2013). Interpreting research on parent in-
volvement and connecting it to the science classroom. Theory into Practice, 52(1), 51–58.
https://doi.org/10.1080/07351690.2013.743775
Ruggiano, N., & Perry, T. E. (2019). Conducting secondary analysis of qualitative data:
Should we, can we, and how? Qualitative Social Work, 18(1), 81–97. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1473325017700701
Saldaña, J. (2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Sage.
Semke, C. A., & Sheridan, S. M. (2012). Family–school connections in rural educational
settings: A systematic review of the empirical literature. School Community Journal, 22(1),
21–48. https://www.adi.org/journal/2012ss/SemkeSheridanSpring2012.pdf

32
 PARENTS & CONNECTEDNESS

Serpell, Z. N., & Mashburn, A. J. (2012). Family–school connectedness and children’s early
social development. Social Development, 21(1), 21–46. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
9507.2011.00623.x
Sorensen, L. C., & Ladd, H. F. (2020). The hidden costs of teacher turnover. AERA Open,
6(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858420905812
State Department of Public Instruction [SDPI]. (2018). School Report Cards.
State Department of Public Instruction [SDPI]. (2019). School Report Cards.
Thompson, A. M., Herman, K. C., Stormont, M. A., Reinke, W. M., & Webster-Stratton, C.
(2017). Impact of Incredible Years® on teacher perceptions of parental involvement: A latent
transition analysis. Journal of School Psychology, 62, 51–65. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
jsp.2017.03.003
Thompson, D. R., Iachan, R., Overpeck, M., Ross, J. G., & Gross, L. A. (2006). School
connectedness in the health behavior in school-aged children study: The role of student,
school, and school neighborhood characteristics. Journal of School Health, 76(7), 379–386.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-1561.2006.00129.x
Tyndall, D. E., Pestaner, M. C., Powell, S. B., Lewis, T. E., & Melendez, C. R. (2022). Teach-
er use of school connectedness strategies with underrepresented youth in a low-income
middle school. Journal of Community Engagement and Scholarship, 15(1), https://doi.
org/10.54656/jces.v15i1.485
U.S. Department of Education. (2018). Title I, Part A Program. https://www2.ed.gov/pro-
grams/titleiparta/index.html
VanValkenburgh, J., Putnam, J., & Porter, M. (2021). Middle school parent involvement:
Perceptions of teachers and parents. Middle School Journal, 52(4), 33–42. https://doi.org/
10.1080/00940771.2021.1948299
Velez-Agosto, N., Soto-Crespo, J. G., Vizcarrondo-Oppenheimer, M., Vega-Molina, S., &
Coll, C. G. (2017). Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological theory revision: Moving culture from
the macro into the micro. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(5), 900–910. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1745691617704397
Weiss, H. B., Lopez, M. E., & Caspe, E. (2018). Carnegie challenge paper: Joining together to
create a bold vision for next generation family engagement. Global Family Research Project.
Whitlock, J., Wyman, P. A., & Moore, S. R. (2014). Connectedness and suicide prevention
in adolescents: Pathways and implications. Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior, 44(3),
246–272. https://doi.org/10.1111/sltb.12071
Wolfe, V. (2014). The voice of the parent: Perceptions of the United Kingdom resilience pro-
gramme. Educational & Child Psychology, 31(4), 58–71.

Mitzi C. Pestaner is an assistant professor at East Carolina University College of

Nursing. Her nursing experience includes caring for patients as a staff nurse and in ad-
ministrative roles in mental health acute care and community settings. She practiced
law in North Carolina representing clients in child custody and abuse and neglect
cases. Her research interests include the role of protective factors in adolescent mental
health and suicide prevention and the influence of mental health courts on recidi-
vism and mental health outcomes for justice-involved individuals within the context
of social justice. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Dr.
Mitzi C. Pestaner, East Carolina University College of Nursing, 3173 Health Sciences
Building, Greenville, NC 27858, or email [email protected]
Deborah E. Tyndall is an associate professor at the University of North Carolina
Wilmington School of Nursing. Her research is aimed at improving the emotional and
33
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

mental health needs of school-aged children in collaboration with K–12 administra-

tors, teachers, support staff, and school nurses. Dr. Tyndall uses community-engaged
and mixed methods to partner with school districts serving underrepresented youth
in low-income, rural communities in North Carolina. She is a 2021 recipient of an
Engaged Scholarship Consortium (ESC) grant which examined school connectedness
through teacher practices and middle school student experiences.
Travis E. Lewis is an assistant professor in educational leadership at East Carolina
University. He has over 20 years of experience in K–12 education as a school counsel-
or and district administrator. Dr. Lewis’s research focuses on the influence of school
leadership practices on K–12 teacher recruitment and retention, the effects of social
and emotional learning on student outcomes, and leadership education pedagogy.

34
Augmenting Relationships Among Families
With Refugee Backgrounds and Their Children’s
Teachers Using a Meeting Protocol: A Pilot Study
Shana J. Haines, Cynthia C. Reyes, and Gabriel T. McGann

Abstract

A necessary move to dismantle educational injustice for historically mar-

ginalized populations is to create equitable family–school partnerships built
on trusting relationships. Inequitable practices and implicit norms and bias-
es must be intentionally counteracted to establish trusting relationships. The
meeting protocol described in this article, RAFT, was born through com-
munity-based participatory action research to instigate and provide time for
structured, student-centered conversations to build relationships between
families with refugee backgrounds and their children’s teachers. This article de-
scribes the qualitative pilot study and the community-based iterative process
for designing RAFT. All 12 families and 16 school professionals who imple-
mented RAFT expressed satisfaction with it, and teachers without exception
expressed eagerness to implement RAFT with more regularity and with more
participants. Themes that emerged include: (a) the importance of focusing on
the child/student and the care and commitment expressed by taking the time
to focus on developing a relationship between educators and families; (b) the
flexibility and freedom of RAFT not being tied to required parent–teacher
conferences which have a rushed timeframe and set location; (c) the increased
appreciation and knowledge of the student and each other, paving the way
for further collaboration; and (d) the effectiveness of elements drawn from re-
storative practices. We include implications for practice and further research,
including measuring RAFT’s outcomes and scaling up its use to determine its
effectiveness.

School Community Journal, 2023, Vol. 33, No. 2 35

Available at http://www.schoolcommunitynetwork.org/SCJ.aspx
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

Key Words: family–school collaboration, partnerships, engagement, home visits,

parent–teacher conferences, refugees, meetings, multilingual learners, families

Introduction

Although collaboration and negotiation between families and their chil-

dren’s teachers are built into the structure of the U.S. educational system, the
roles of families and educators in these relationships are not explicit (Harry &
Ocasio-Stoutenburg, 2020), and institutional norms that have resulted in his-
toric marginalization shape educational practice relating to families (Herrera
et al., 2020; Ishimaru, 2020; Ladson-Billings, 2021; Park & Paulick, 2021).
The crux of the matter is that collaboration between families and teachers has
the potential to increase equity in the education system, but educator prac-
tice geared towards families is typically based on mainstream cultural and
implicit institutional norms and therefore often perpetuates and deepens in-
equity (Greenfield et al., 2000; Harry & Ocasio-Stoutenburg 2020; Ishimaru,
2020; Tadesse, 2014). In Ladson-Billings’ (2021) call for a “hard re-set” of the
U.S. educational system post-pandemic, she states that “families will occupy a
central role in teaching and learning. This means that schools will need to ne-
gotiate with families and caregivers about roles and responsibilities for teaching
and learning” (p. 75).
A necessary move to dismantle educational injustice for historically margin-
alized populations is to create equitable family–school partnerships. Building
off Turnbull et al.’s (2022) definition of “trusting family–professional partner-
ships” (i.e., a relationship “characterized by an alliance in which families and
professionals confidently build on each other’s word, judgment, and wise ac-
tions to increase educational benefits for students and themselves,” p. 9), we
(the researchers writing this article) define family–school partnerships as recip-
rocal relationships between families and school personnel aimed at supporting
student growth. We use “school” rather than “professional” in recognition
that developing partnerships with families is a systemic school (rather than
an individual professional) responsibility and the conditions for creating such
partnerships must be fostered systematically. Actively strengthening fami-
ly–school partnerships with historically marginalized populations is one step
towards transforming the educational future to be more sustainable, holistic,
and just (Haines et al., 2017; Haines et al., 2022; Harry & Ocasio-Stouten-
burg, 2020; Ishimaru, 2020, Ladson-Billings, 2021).
In previous community-engaged research investigating the relationships be-
tween families with refugee backgrounds new to the United States and their
children’s teachers in New England, we found that participating teachers

36
 REFUGEE FAMILIES & TEACHERS

and families had limited relationships (Haines & Reyes, 2023; Haines et al.,
2022). Reasons for the limited relationships included schoolcentric practices
shaped by rigid institutional norms, language differences, familial and teacher
role construction, and assumptions about each other’s priorities. The implic-
it institutional norms around appropriate and expected communication and
responsibility/role construction emerged as impediments to family–school
partnership formation. The findings of that exploratory study pinpointed the
need to instigate organized meetings between teachers and families with ref-
ugee backgrounds—meetings that were dedicated to relationship building as
well as discussing preferred communication methods and potential roles and
responsibilities in schooling. To meet this need, we partnered with local edu-
cators to collaboratively design and pilot a tool to guide explicit conversations
between teachers and families with refugee backgrounds as a step towards es-
tablishing family–school partnerships.
The purpose of this article is to describe the process through which we cre-
ated this tool, RAFT (Relationships Among Families and Teachers), and then
answer the research question: How do participants perceive RAFT? We first ex-
plore perspectives on the multifaceted dynamics of family–school partnerships
related to families with refugee backgrounds. Then we describe our commu-
nity-based participatory action research process (Maiter et al., 2008; Minkler,
2005) through which we developed and piloted RAFT. Afterwards, we share
the results of the pilot study of RAFT by presenting participants’ perceptions
of its implementation. Finally, we discuss implications for practice and research
stemming from this study.
Literature Perspectives
Understanding the phenomenon of refugee resettlement is crucial for de-
veloping intentional family–school partnerships with families who have
experienced it. Refugee status is based on external circumstances that force
individuals to flee, resulting in displacement from their homes (UNHCR,
2020). After the required paperwork for resettlement has been processed and
assessment of families completed, resettled refugee families are permanently re-
located to another country (UNHCR, 2020a). The determination of location
occurs with little input from the individual or family unless they have family in
a resettlement country (Mott, 2010). The resettlement process directs refugees
to specific inviting municipalities who receive relatively significant numbers of
newcomers into their communities (Bose, 2021). Once resettled, families with
refugee backgrounds must navigate myriad new systems, including resettlement
agencies, personal networks, social service agencies, and education systems.
Understanding and appropriately navigating the education system is critical for

37
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

families with refugee backgrounds, yet resettlement agencies typically end their
support within this system upon initial school enrollment. The move to U.S.
schools is a significant transition for families with refugee backgrounds and one
in which the implicit norms can be confusing (McBrien, 2011).
Developing meaningful relationships with families is a way schools can help
families navigate the education system (Isik-Ercan, 2010). For such partner-
ships to blossom, they must be centered, appreciated, and attended to, and the
conditions for partnership must be cultivated (Haines et al., 2022; Haines et
al., 2015). A requisite step in creating partnerships is fostering an environment
where educators and families get to know each other and appreciate each oth-
er’s strengths. Simply put, families and educators need to build a relationship
to effectively partner in support of students (Haines et al., 2017).
Although families with refugee backgrounds, like most families experienc-
ing a new school system, are motivated to learn about U.S. school systems
(Birman et al., 2001; Dachyshyn & Kirova, 2008; Haines et al., 2015; Ta-
desse et al., 2009; Walker-Dalhouse & Dalhouse, 2009), such partnerships are
still underdeveloped among this population. The most glaring reason for this
lack of partnership is that the educational system has implicit expectations of
families’ roles, responsibilities, and linguistic and navigational skills that may
differ signifi­cantly from the norms to which families with refugee backgrounds
are accustomed (Haines et al., 2015; Koyama & Bakuza, 2017; Kupzyk et al.,
2015; McBrien, 2005, 2011; Perry, 2009; Tran & Birman, 2019). In addi-
tion to varying conceptualizations of family–school partnerships (Haines et al.,
2015; Lawson, 2003) and construction of roles in children’s education (Geor-
gis et al., 2014; Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler, 1995), competing demands on
educator time (Haines et al., 2015), lack of preparation for family–school part-
nerships (Francis et al., 2021; Kyzar et al., 2019), and the lack of intentionality
around creating such relationships (Haines et al., 2022) also hinder family–
school partnership development.
Educational policy in the U.S. articulates the rights of families to be
involved in the educational planning for their children, but the operationaliza-
tion of this policy is highly variable, and too often schools do not adequately
plan or prepare to implement this policy with families who are not aware of or
do not understand their rights (Haines et al., 2022; Mandarakas, 2014). Bar-
riers to partnership exist for both educators and families. Studies have shown
that teachers have minimal preservice training on how to develop relation-
ships with families (Francis et al., 2021; Kyzar et al., 2019). Due to this lack
of training and preparation, teachers often lack the confidence and capacity to
partner with families (Haines & Reyes, 2023; Mapp & Bergman, 2021). There
is also a historical lack of clarity around what a family–school partnership can

38
 REFUGEE FAMILIES & TEACHERS

or should look like (Haines et al., 2017). This leads to a misunderstanding

of expectations for both families and school professionals (Blue-Banning et
al., 2004). Ambiguity around the expectations of family–school partnership
may impact families’ motivation to invest time and energy in partnering, and
the hierarchal power dynamics of family–school relationships create barriers to
partnership (Koyama & Bakuza, 2017).
Families with refugee backgrounds may seek to be more involved in their
children’s formal education, but their efforts may not be recognized by the
school system. Koyama and Bakuza’s (2017) ethnographic study of refugee
students in the Northeastern U.S. explored how their families and schools in-
teracted. Through 230 semi-structured interviews with refugees, resettlement
agency and support staff, school personnel, and community members, they
found families with refugee backgrounds were engaged in their children’s edu-
cational success through advocacy for their children and seeking collaborations
with school and community members to understand the local educational
system and culture. Participants also helped create safe spaces and policies, im-
proving educational outcomes for students.
Walker-Dalhouse and Dalhouse (2009) studied Sudanese refugee fami-
lies and their children’s teachers. They found that participating families, who
were low-income and Black, believed teachers held prejudices against them
and wrongly assumed that they were disinterested in their children’s academ-
ic experience. Furthermore, Cun (2020) found that Burmese refugee families
struggled to understand teachers and materials sent home but also sought and
expected opportunities to be involved in school activities. Georgis et al. (2014)
demonstrated that collaborating with families with refugee backgrounds in
school improvement efforts surrounding family–school partnerships was a
great way to strengthen family–school partnerships for participating families
and others.
Theoretical Foregrounding
This project was grounded in Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological systems
theory with a focus on the mesosystem, Paris and Alim’s culturally sustaining
pedagogies (2017), and community-based participatory action research (Mai-
ter et al., 2008; Minkler, 2005). Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological model
of human development provided us with a holistic framework for examin-
ing interactions between families and schools, especially with their children’s
teachers. We expand on this ecological model by emphasizing asset-based
approaches when working with families with refugee experiences, emphasizing
the opportunities and resources that families bring into conversations about
their children’s schooling.

39
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

We drew upon culturally sustaining pedagogies because the concept pro-

motes asset-based approaches for recognizing heritage practices of nondominant
communities (Paris & Alim, 2017). Reframing the way some researchers viewed
the literacy practices of youth of color, Paris and Alim (2017) asserted that ed-
ucational research has mostly created an overly deterministic narrative of the
ability of children of color, framing “access” and “equity” from a deficit perspec-
tive that focused on teaching working class and children of color how to speak
and write like their White middle-class peers. Drawing upon Paris and Alim’s
envisioning of what scholarship and practice could look like by reexamining
traditional pedagogies, we aspire to describe culturally sustaining family–school
partnerships with families within refugee communities that is humanizing and
embraces the perspectives of the families (Reyes et al., 2021).
In their community–university partnership study, Campano et al. (2016)
made explicit the agreed-upon norms directing the ethical protocols of their
study and the relationships that informed those protocols. They described a
professional stance underlying their work that acknowledged the boundary
crossing nature of community-based research and community organizing that
“require a specialized theoretical and practical knowledge base that informs re-
sponsible, wise, and selfless judgement for the betterment of a greater good in
the face of [uncertainty]” (p. 117). A similar principle guided the meetings in
this study between community members and university partners as we devel-
oped a mutual understanding to support community wisdom and knowledge
production.
Several fundamental assumptions drove the collaborative development of
the RAFT protocol and pilot study. These included: (a) stronger relationships
between families with refugee backgrounds and teachers can increase ed-
ucational equity for students with refugee backgrounds; (b) a tool to guide
conversations can ensure the conversation stays culturally sustaining and
strengths-based since the questions are scripted collaboratively with a diverse
stakeholder group; (c) the training provided to teachers, interpreters/liaisons,
and families prior to using the tool can increase equity in participation as all
participants know what to expect and their role in the process; (d) the elements
of restorative practices embedded in the tool can increase equitable opportuni-
ties for participation because everyone has equal opportunity to share; and (e)
the student’s participation in the conversation can deepen the results.

Methods
Overview of Project
We partnered with two school districts to collaboratively design the tool to
build stronger relationships between families with refugee backgrounds and
40
 REFUGEE FAMILIES & TEACHERS

their children’s teachers, which was a stated goal for both districts. We worked
with school administrators and home–school liaisons to assemble an Adviso-
ry Council, which consisted of 10 school personnel (i.e., two administrators,
three English learner (EL) teachers across grade levels, one general education
teacher, and four home–school liaisons who were also refugee community lead-
ers) from our partner districts. All Advisory Council meetings took place in a
school after school hours.
Before meeting with the Advisory Council, we put together a draft pro-
tocol as a starting point. We modified the McGill Action Planning System
(Vandercook et al., 1989), also referred to as Making Action Plans or MAPS.
MAPS is a research-based person-centered planning tool that increases student
self-advocacy and self-determination and builds trust between families and
professionals as they learn about the student’s background, family and student
perceptions and expectations, and cultural variances between families and pro-
fessionals (Haines et al., 2018; Vandercook et al., 1989). We also drew upon
restorative practice, an Indigenous and First Nation’s practice that emphasizes
“justice philosophy and practice” (Mirsky, 2004, p. 1) and uses conversation
circles to create an inclusive and relational community (Kervick et al., 2019;
Pranis, 2005; Thorsborne & Blood, 2013). These conversation circles are de-
signed to promote equitable participation through the use of a talking piece,
which each participant uses to indicate explicitly whether he or she wishes to
speak. Holding on to the piece means the person wants to talk; passing the
piece to the next person means they decline to talk. Using a talking piece in this
manner enables a participant to choose to pass on speaking rather than needing
to initiate entry into the conversation in order to share.
At our first Advisory Council meeting, we modified MAPS into a relation-
ship-building tool appropriate for use with families with refugee backgrounds,
which we later named RAFT. We drew upon the knowledge and expertise of
the Advisory Council for deeper understanding of the cultural and linguistic
heritages of the families to ensure that the tool was culturally sustaining (Paris
& Alim, 2017). School-based partners expressed concern about time for imple-
mentation; paradoxically, we knew the tool had to be efficiently implemented
in less than two hours in order to be successful, but we also know building re-
lationships takes time. Therefore, the specific purpose of using RAFT was to
begin to develop these relationships by enabling the teacher to learn about the
family and the family’s hopes and dreams for the student and for the family to
learn about the teacher and the teacher’s relationship with their child without
taking up too much time.
The final version of RAFT, shown in Figure 1, involves bringing togeth-
er a student, family members, and key educators to engage in a relaxed yet

41
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

structured conversation through which families can get to know their children’s
teachers and teachers can learn a tremendous amount about students and their
families, including how values inherent to the U.S. educational system and pro-
cesses may conflict with family expectations and experiences. All participants,
including students, received training in RAFT before the meet­ing. Participants
sat in a circle. A facilitator started the RAFT with an overview of agreed-upon
norms. The facilitator made sure the interpreters had am­ple time for interpre-
tation. Ideally, families chose a talking piece to be used. The facilitator, who
did not participate in the discussion, asked each prompt. Each prompt was
followed by as many rounds of the talking piece, which was passed around the
circle, as desired by participants. Home–school liaisons participated as inter-
preters (interpreting so the family can understand what oth­ers say in English
and also voicing the family’s contributions in English) and also as participants
themselves since they usually knew the families and stu­dents well. The facilita-
tor took notes and provided a summary at the end of the RAFT meeting.
We used a community-based approach with a qualitative case study design
to develop, refine, and pilot RAFT (see Table 1 for details). As explained above,
the documented need for this project came from our longitudinal research
within the two partner school districts (Haines & Reyes, 2023; Haines et al.,
2022; Reyes et al., 2021; Reyes et al., 2023). The Advisory Council reviewed
our initial protocol, provided input via survey, and participated in a struc-
tured discussion of each component of RAFT. We modified RAFT according
to their feedback. The school administrators on the Advisory Council recruit-
ed three EL teachers to implement RAFT. In one school district, each of the
three teachers (one elementary, one middle level, and one high school) imple-
mented RAFT with three different families with a refugee background at three
different points in the year (i.e., November, January, and March or April), and
in the other school district, the three teachers implemented RAFT only once,
in March or April, with three families with a refugee background. Of the 12
families, 11 chose to hold the meeting in which RAFT was implemented at
their home. One family chose to hold RAFT at the school. After each round of
implementation, we presented a case built around each participating student
to the Advisory Council and sought their feedback on modifications to RAFT.
This iterative process resulted in a refined tool after three revisions.

42
 REFUGEE FAMILIES & TEACHERS

Figure 1. RAFT Procedure and Norms

Pre-meeting: Train teachers, liaisons, and families on tool use
Implementation Meeting:
Time: 1.5 hours total Location: Where families prefer (home, school, or community location)
Norms:
• Talking Piece and Flag:
o We will use a talking piece, but the order of speakers might vary.
o The talking piece will go around the circle clockwise.
o Families or facilitators decide what to use for the talking piece.
o Whoever holds the talking piece is the one who speaks. Everyone else listens.
o When appropriate, interpreters will interpret, using the flag when speaking. This notifies
everyone that the words are interpretations of what someone else has said.
o Liaisons will participate in the discussion as individuals, as well, and will use the talking
piece for that activity.
• Child Role:
o Family decides if child is present, and we strongly encourage it.
o If present, child participates.
• Responses:
o Everyone has the opportunity to respond to all prompts, but they can pass if they choose.
o A different person starts each response, so the responses are staggered (moving the talking
piece each time).
o At any point in time, any participant can withdraw from the study and process.
• Facilitations:
o If disagreement occurs, facilitators will amend the questions to seek resolution.
o For this round, researchers will facilitate the process.
o Facilitators will summarize the meeting before closing.
• Notes: For this round, a researcher will take notes.
The purpose of RAFT is to build relationships so we can work together to support this child’s success.
RAFT Prompts:
1. Who is ________?
2. Who should be involved in _______’s education and how?
3. What are your hopes for _______ in general, long-term?
4. What are your hopes for _________ this year?
5. How can we work together this year to make these hopes come true?
a. What can the teacher do?
b. What can the family do?
c. What can the student do?
d. What can others do?
6. How should we continue this conversation?
7. End with a summary of responses and ways forward.
43
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

Table 1. Major Activities and Methods

Activities Participants Objectives
Meeting w/ School o Principal Investigators • Plan project
District Reps. o School district administrators • Generate sampling grid
o 5 members of the refugee com-
munity, including 4 home–
Advisory Council
school liaisons • Design Tool
Meeting
o 2 school administrators
o 3 teachers (2 EL and 1 gen. ed.)
o 3 families • Understand relation-
Pre-implementation o 3 EL teachers ships and history
interview o 3 home–school liaisons (all mem- • Learn about their goals
bers of the Advisory Council) for the student/child
Pre-implementation
trainings (separate
o 3 families (including children)
for all families; con-
o 3 EL teachers • Explain norms and
ducted in dominant
o 3 home–school liaisons (all mem- process
language; conducted
bers of the Advisory Council)
as groups for liaisons
and teachers)
o Each implementation was led by
a researcher, had a researcher ob-
• Conduct the actual
serving, and included:
Implementations relationship-building
o 1 family and child
conversation
o 1 home–school liaison
o 1 EL teacher
o Separate interviews with: • Understand partici-
Post-implementation o 3 families and children pants’ experiences
interview o 3 home–school liaisons • Solicit feedback on im-
o 3 EL teachers proving RAFT
Write up interim case
o Researchers • Analyze experiences
studies
• Explain experiences
Advisory Council
o Advisory Council • Seek feedback for tool
Meeting
revision
• Respond to feedback
RAFT Revision #1 o Researchers from participants and
Advisory Council
o 3 families (including children)
• Understand relation-
o 3 EL teachers (same as previous)
Pre-implementation ships and history
o 2 general education teachers
interview • Learn about their goals
o 3 home–school liaisons (2 same
for the student/child
as previous)

44
 REFUGEE FAMILIES & TEACHERS

Table 1, continued
o 3 families (including children)
Pre-implementation • Explain norms and
o 2 general education teachers
training process
o 1 home–school liaison
o Each implementation was led by
a researcher, had a researcher ob-
serving, and included:
o 1 family and child • Conduct the actual
Implementation o 1 home–school liaison relationship-building
o 1 EL teacher conversation
o 1 General education teacher
(w/1 exception, as the student
was not in gen. ed. classes)
o Separate interviews with:
• Understand partici-
o 3 families (including children)
Post-implementation pants’ experiences
o 3 EL teachers
interview • Solicit feedback on im-
o 2 general education teachers
proving RAFT
o 3 home–school liaisons
Write up interim case
o Researchers • Analyze experiences
studies
• Explain experiences
Advisory Council
o Advisory Council • Seek feedback for tool
Meeting
revision
• Respond to feedback
RAFT Revision #2 o Researchers from participants and
Advisory Council
o 6 families (including children) • Understand relation-
Pre-implementation o 5 EL teachers ships and history
interview o 4 general education teachers • Learn about their goals
o 6 home–school liaisons for the student/child
o 6 families (including children)
Pre-implementation • Explain norms and
o 4 general education teachers
training process
o 3 home–school liaisons
o Each implementation was led by
a researcher, had a researcher ob-
serving, and included:
o 1 family and child • Conduct the actual
Implementation o 1 home–school liaison relationship-building
o 1 EL teacher conversation
o 1 General education teacher
(w/2 exceptions, as 2 students
were not in gen. ed. classes)

45
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

Table 1, continued
o Separate interviews with:
• Understand partici-
o 6 families (including children)
Post-implementation pants’ experiences
o 5 EL teachers
interview • Solicit feedback on im-
o 4 general education teachers
proving RAFT
o 3 home–school liaisons
Write up interim case
o Researchers • Analyze experiences
studies
• Explain experiences
• Seek feedback for tool
revision
Advisory Council o Advisory Council
• Plan future use of RAFT
Meeting o Researchers
• Present summary and
analysis of activities to
be included in report
Publish final RAFT
on website and make • Make RAFT publicly
o Researchers
training materials in available
multiple languages
• Receive transcripts of
62 interviews, all imple-
mentation sessions, and
Compile data o Researchers all Advisory Council
meetings
• Enter transcripts and
field notes in NVivo
• Code data with emer-
Conduct initial cod-
o Researchers gent themes
ing
• Refine and define codes
Conduct second-level • Code all original data
o Researchers
coding with revised codebook
Condense codes into • Clump codes into
o Researchers
themes themes
Present themes to
• Check accuracy and
Advisory Council
o Researchers completeness with Advi-
and participating
sory Council
school districts
Note. We also met as a research team every other week and additional times as needed.

Research Methods
Table 1 shows all data sources used in this study. In addition to imple-
menting RAFT with each of the 12 families with a refugee background, we

46
 REFUGEE FAMILIES & TEACHERS

conducted trainings and pre- and post- interviews with all involved. We con-
ducted a total of 62 interviews; Please see Table 2 for student participant details.
We conducted all interviews in English, and, when interviewing families and
students, interpreters relayed the questions and responses in the appropriate
languages in the moment. Pre-implementation interviews were aimed at un-
derstanding participants’ backgrounds and relationships that existed between
families and educators. These were typically carried out before the training in
RAFT and lasted from 15 to 45 minutes. We audiorecorded all RAFT im-
plementation meetings. We conducted interviews with all participants after
implementation; typically, these interviews with families took place immedi-
ately following the implementation, while we were still in their homes or they
were still at school. We sought to understand their perspective on participating
in RAFT and how they suggested improving it for future use. These interviews
included the students and families together and lasted between 10 and 30 min-
utes. Post-implementation interviews with educators and liaisons took place
on a separate day. Due to time constraints, some teachers who participated in
multiple implementations emailed us the answers to our interview questions
after conducting a RAFT meeting.
In addition to these interviews, data collection included transcriptions from
the RAFT implementation and Advisory Council meetings and field notes
(Emerson et al., 1995) and jottings (Agar, 2005) from all events. Three un-
dergraduate students served as research assistants and wrote observation notes
during all meetings and interviews. We also collected the chart papers on which
we took notes during the RAFT meetings.
Data analysis was ongoing and recursive. We met biweekly as a research
team for case analysis meetings (Miles et al., 2014), which included a discus-
sion of the trainings, pre-implementation interviews, implementation sessions,
and post-implementation interviews. We referred to our fieldnotes during these
meetings (which we recorded), and a research assistant took notes to ensure we
captured salient discussions. We drew upon these notes to form interim case
studies (Miles et al., 2014) of each participating student, which we presented
to the Advisory Council. The within-case analysis we conducted for these ex-
amples informed our Advisory Panel’s understanding of RAFT in process, and
the Advisory Council deepened our analysis by asking questions and bringing
forth new ways of interpreting data.

47
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

Table 2. Participants
Name Grade Dominant
Implementation Site
(pseudonym) (age) Language
A Sara 3 (8) Kirundi
First Round of Implementation:
A Faneel 3 (8) Nepali
Fall
A Sejum 7 (13) Nepali
A Anas 3 (9) Arabic
Second Round of Implementation:
A Ooma 4 (10) Swahili
Winter
A Winona 5 (12) French
A Suleymaan 7 (13) Mai-Mai
A Johari 4 (10) Swahili
Third Round of Implementation: A Rayon 10 (16) Swahili
Spring B Ping 10 (16) Vietnamese
B Juddah 10 (15) Nepali
B Abiral 9 (16) Nepali

Professionals or research assistants transcribed all audio files, including

the Advisory Panel discussions. After the conclusion of the pilot study, we
compiled the transcriptions, field notes and jottings, and research team and
Advisory Council meeting notes into a database in NVivo. The first author
reread all transcripts, coding all instances where participants explained their
perceptions of RAFT implementation with the broad “Perceptions of RAFT”
category to reduce the data. Next, she reread all data in this code and open cod-
ed it into child codes. After leaving the coding for a few weeks, she reread the
child codes and their definitions and merged them into four broader themes in
second-cycle coding (Miles et al., 2014). The second author then read all data
and agreed with the codes. The resulting coding corresponds to the themes pre-
sented in the following section in response to the guiding question: How did
participants perceive RAFT implementation? We presented these themes to
the Advisory Council and wrote a summary report for the partner school dis-
tricts with a request for feedback; no changes were requested but requests for
follow-up implementation ensued.

Findings
RAFT’s purpose was to instigate and provide time for structured, stu-
dent-centered conversations to build relationships between families with
refugee backgrounds and their children’s teachers, and the pilot resulted in

48
 REFUGEE FAMILIES & TEACHERS

positive perceptions by participants. All liaisons, teachers, and families who

implemented RAFT expressed satisfaction with it, and teachers without excep-
tion expressed eagerness to implement RAFT with more regularity and with
more participants. Themes that emerged include: (a) the importance of focus-
ing on the child/student and the care and commitment expressed by taking the
time to focus on developing a relationship between educators and families; (b)
the flexibility and freedom of RAFT not being tied to required parent–teacher
conferences which have a rushed timeframe and set location; (c) the increased
appreciation and knowledge of the student and each other, paving the way for
further collaboration; and (d) the effectiveness of elements drawn from restor-
ative practices. Please note that all names used are pseudonyms.
Focus on Child and Family
Participants underscored the importance of taking the time to shine a caring
light on the child (from the families’ perspective)/student (from the teachers’
perspective; hereafter referred to as “youth”). The mutual commitment to the
youth’s success helped them to feel seen and the adults to form relationships.
Judy’s (a teacher) statement summarized how many participants felt:
I think this meeting helped to build our relationship a little more. This
meeting with his parents helped me see how much Anas’s parents value
education. They commented on how lucky Anas is to have the educa-
tional opportunities in this country and wanted him to take advantage
of it. I felt a tremendous amount of support from them. I hope they also
felt that we wanted to work with them as a team, home and school, to
help Anas learn the most he could learn. This meeting helped us become
more of a team working together.
Youth were struck by the amount of time everyone spent focusing sole-
ly on them. Anas “was proud that we had come to his house.” Constantine
(Central African community home–school liaison) reported that “having the
RAFT team to come in their [Winona’s family’s] home, that was uplifting for
them. They felt like, hey, I think now my child is going to be successful.” When
talking about Sara, a quiet and unassuming 10-year-old, her teacher expressed
seeing this. The teacher stated: “I think it was one of those experiences [when]
the kids are like, ‘Whoa!…Like who are these people in my house?’” Juddah
explained that he felt the support and commitment from the adults involved
in RAFT, and that the process “gave me a lot of boost, because they all support
me to do work. I’m thankful for everyone to be here and help me.” Johari was
able to understand what his teacher had been trying to tell him in school when
she told him at his house during RAFT implementation. He said:

49
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

I remember what my teacher said—that I wasn’t focusing, and I was

going from different places instead of focusing—when she was talking
to my dad. So, I just got that, and I am going to change that.…Making
sure that I follow her direction for what she wants me to do when we are
reading, when we are writing.
Families were also impressed by the care and commitment teachers and liai-
sons expressed by the act of implementing RAFT. One father reflected:
What’s striking me the most is the fact that you just left everything which
you have to do today. You wanted to come here to talk to us, and that
shows how much you care about these children. You want to know how
they are doing. How are we going to help them? That is important for us.
This focus was also appreciated by the home–school liaisons, who are often
rushed by the urgency of multiple tasks and too little time. Sinh (Vietnam-
ese-speaking community home–school liaison) explained that he loved having
the time allotted to focusing on just one specific youth. He stated:
There’s a focus on Ping, and we have, we had over an hour to talk about
Ping and to hear from everyone…and I think it’s really powerful, also,
the way that everyone gets a turn. And that there’s no interrupting. And
nothing gets missed.
Later in the interview, he came back to talking about the ability to have such a
“deep conversation” focused on just one student. He said:
We know really well about Ping and his goal. And somehow with them,
other students too, if we have another interview for all those students—
you know? We can see them more, you know? Sometimes we’re guessing
more than interacting. We see Ping, his hope, very clear now. We can see
his future pretty clear, and we see he’s eager to reach to that goal.
Understanding teachers’ commitment to the youth increased families’ trust
in them. One father explained:
In this process I just…see how much she loves, you know, my child. And
I came also to learn that she is a good person. By speaking, by talking,
you can feel that she is a good person. She cares.
Interviewer: Would you say you trust her more now?
Father: Yes.
Families felt that RAFT was an important use of their time, in addition, be-
cause they formed a relationship with the teachers through the spotlight on just
their child and their family. After RAFT implementation, Suleymaan’s moth-
er asked the teacher and home–school liaison several questions about another

50
 REFUGEE FAMILIES & TEACHERS

one of her children, demonstrating that she felt more comfortable and trusting
of them. Sinh stated that the RAFT implementation could help others under-
stand the importance of the connection between home and school: “We care
about the relationship between families and staff at school.…This project will
help other people see it’s very important, the connection between school and
families. So important.” At the end of the implementation for Sara, her father
spoke to the home–school liaison with enthusiasm. Constantine stated that
the father was “sincerely happy,” felt that he had an important role to play in
communicating with teachers (instead of relying on the home–school liaison
to communicate with teachers on behalf of the family), and invited us to come
back to do RAFT again in the near future. In the past, this father wanted Con-
stantine to attend school events on his behalf because he did not see the point
in participating. Constantine further explained:
You don’t say come back just to make somebody happy. You know you
could just say a thank you, but you know when he said come back, he
was sincere, and this is a guy who remind me every time when we have
parent–teacher conference—hey, Constantine, you are there for us; I am
not there, you are there. You have to help the children so that they can
learn, and if there is a problem, please, ask the teacher to invite me.
Flexibility in Time and Place of RAFT
Families had a choice of where and when RAFT implementation occurred.
Of the 12 families, 11 chose to conduct RAFT at their homes, and all RAFT im-
plementations occurred either after school or on the weekend. Family members
said things like, “I like it at home. It’s more comfortable for me.” As mentioned
above, youth and families were impressed by the care and commitment teach-
ers expressed by making the trip to their home. Furthermore, we scheduled a
starting time but not a finishing time for the RAFT implementations, enabling
them to continue until finished and minimizing the pressure of time.
Teachers also expressed that meeting with families in their homes was help-
ful or “more beneficial” than meeting in the schools. A teacher explained that
she thought Ooma was “very pleased to have me in her home.…This home visit
and interaction will help me next year when I have her brother in my room—
this is a beginning!” Another teacher explained that she learned so much more
from the meeting because it occurred in the youth’s home:
I greatly enjoyed sitting in Johari’s home talking with him and his family.
It is so worthwhile and enlightening to sit in their home, chat about Jo-
hari, and see Johari from a different perspective. I had no idea he wants
to be a pastor! It was time very well spent, and I wish I could do it for all.

51
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

Teachers and liaisons also expressed that going into families’ homes for
RAFT affected the dynamic of the meeting to be more family-centered. Kate
(EL teacher) said, “It really is different when we come into the home.” Con-
stantine explained that youth may be more forthright in their own homes:
Winona was kind of quite clear. “I don’t like reading.” And that was
important. If she can be upfront saying that I don’t like reading, that
was something to show the teacher that, hey, maybe you couldn’t get this
answer if we had to meet in school.
Participants also expressed that RAFT enabled them more time to engage
in deeper discussions. One participant stated, “The time at the home was not
rushed, like it normally is at parent–teacher conference time.” Judy (third grade
teacher) commented:
I really enjoyed this experience with RAFT and Anas’s family. It was
great being in their home and having time to hear ideas from all sides.
We have met only during parent conferences this year, and the time is
limited so I do most of the talking because they want to know how Anas
is doing. I heard some of their concerns at that time, but this RAFT time
provided so much more time to hear from them. This is important.
The deeper, multi-way discussion during RAFT implementation enabled
participants to build on each other’s thoughts. One participant observed that:
People who were, “Oh you said that, and I agree with that, and I see that
too.” Or the teacher saying, “Oh he’s quiet with these kids, or he’s loud at
school” and the families ask “What do you mean?” So I think just having
it kind of organic…and just letting it unfold was helpful too.
Participants could ease into the RAFT process, facilitating their participation
in the deeper discussions. Amina mentioned that Anas “said he was nervous at
first, but as we all talked, he started to feel better and liked that we wanted to
hear his ideas.”
Increased Appreciation and Knowledge
RAFT resulted in increased understanding of youth, families, liaisons, and
teachers. In addition, participants better understood dynamics between indi-
viduals. Participants shared examples of how their appreciation for each other
grew through the RAFT process of relationship building. They also discussed
that RAFT paved the way for further collaboration, and they expressed hope
that collaboration would continue to grow.
Educators developed a deeper understanding of the youth by interacting
with them within their family unit. One teacher stated that RAFT was “very

52
 REFUGEE FAMILIES & TEACHERS

insightful into the quiet personalities of the family and that reflects so much
on Ooma’s personality and behavior.” Serena (middle school EL teacher) noted
that it was “very valuable for me to have the whole family here together. Be-
cause you get, I get to see how the family interacts with each other, and that
also helps me get to know Sejum better.” It was also insightful to learn how
families talked about youth and how they expressed their hopes and dreams for
their child’s education.
Understanding the youth within the family context also highlighted im-
portant aspects of the youth’s development. According to Serena, Sejum often
appeared too playful and unfocused for the seventh grade. She reported he did
not connect well with others at school, including his peers and teacher. During
RAFT implementation, which was the first time both of his parents were pres-
ent, Serena said that she had never seen Sejum “interacting eye to eye” with
anyone the way he did with his parents. She “appreciated that perspective of
him.” Beth (high school EL teacher) commented on seeing how hard it was for
Rayon, a 16 year-old, to self-reflect, especially when his parents were there with
him. Commenting on the “Who is…” opening prompt of RAFT, Beth said:
Hearing Rayon say I don’t have anything good or bad to say…was, you
know, that shows me…hmm…maybe we need to work more on that
self-reflection piece, like being able to, you know, think about who I
am as a person. And if I need to work on…or even be able to say some-
thing positive, like he couldn’t even say anything positive about himself,
which, you know, he has a lot of positive attributes.
Anas benefitted greatly from the increased appreciation and knowledge his
family and educators gained through RAFT. He was described during RAFT
as “quiet and sometimes argumentative, talkative, trying to figure out where
to put down his feet.” School professionals explained that he seemed tired and
disengaged during school. Although he sometimes talked to the teachers in the
morning, he did not often talk to other students, would stop talking during
academic times, and did not complete most of his work. The liaison described
him as lacking self-determination and only focusing on schoolwork when she
sat with him and forced him to focus. During the RAFT implementation at
the family’s home, it emerged that Anas sometimes stayed up all night playing
video games for “8–10 hours” with friends who were still living in Iraq (in a
different time zone). We also learned that culturally, children are not perceived
as needing as much freedom as they have in the U.S. and, in addition, his fam-
ily had experienced so much danger during their time in Iraq and Jordan that
they wanted Anas to stay safe inside, not playing outdoors or interacting with
other children unsupervised. His dad said, “He is always quiet at home and al-
ways really busy with his Xbox and playing games, [we] don’t see him when he

53
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

comes back [from school] from 3:30 until next morning, no one sees Anas.”
Amina (Arabic-speaking home–school liaison) continued:
When they came here, its more secure to stay inside because he has no
language, he has no friends, and it’s kind of a pattern now: He has no
friends. So, all dad does, really [is] buy him games, and he likes Anas to
be inside of the house.
After the RAFT implementation, all participants remarked that Anas was a
drastically different student both in school and at home. His family set a two-
hour per day limit on his Xbox time and required that he read for 30 minutes
before he was allowed to play. Anas worked with educators to set goals for
himself, and he stayed motivated to reach those goals. He took ownership of
his work and made significant progress. His educators worked with his moth-
er and communicated via a home–school notebook. After RAFT, the literacy
work educators started at school continued at home: “I have been doing that
with Anas like since beginning of the year. We could see little change. But
when the family [got] involved, that’s when we make a big change.” Three
months later, Amina updated us:
He take [sic] it seriously after the meetings, and we sit and we talk how
to improve his academic and socials. And how important [it is] to listen
to the teacher and to Mom and Dad. And they feel like, even so, during
his meeting, one of us talk about it’s really important to like what you
want but to hear adults and consider their opinion. Because, “Mom and
Dad don’t talk English, I’m not going to listen to them. They don’t un-
derstand anything here.” But during the meeting we give Mom and Dad
a big window to talk and say what they like for their child, and he is kind
of, start listening to his parents more. It’s really affect that part a lot, and
he start sitting with his mom, daily hour.
Families also learned a lot about the youths through RAFT. Constantine
highlighted that Winona’s family members were surprised to discover her desire
to learn more about mechanics: During RAFT implementation, “she ask Dad
all these questions around, you know, mechanics…so [the] parent was learning
her role.” Suleymaan’s mother stated, “It’s great gift to get together this morn-
ing. It’s through this interview, I know my son better. I know his goal clearly.”
Faneel’s father also appreciated learning about the teacher’s ideas for his son
through RAFT. He said, “The consciousness about the children’s attitude and
behavior…the teachers were giving more suggestions about the child’s future.”
Participants expressed such positive outcomes associated with RAFT that
they wanted to continue it and include more people. Constantine stated: “We
need to do this project to every kid who is new to U.S. Even those who have

54
 REFUGEE FAMILIES & TEACHERS

been here with us for three years, four years, we should do this…the families…
are really comfortable. They are happy.” Rayon’s father expressed: “I want God
to bless a person who is going to do a follow-up on this project.” Johari’s father
exclaimed, “It’s like God loves me, because he just sent you guys here.” Sinh
explained that he wanted more school personnel to participate. Specifically, he
said, “I think if advisor here, I think it’s good too. One more people. I think, to
me, advisor is—or counselor…he should be here to see…who the real Ping is.”
Elements Drawn from Restorative Practices
The elements from restorative practices we adopted included sitting in a
circle, using a talking piece, being able to pass on responding to the prompt,
having a facilitator, having a drawing done by the youth that included their
picture at the center of the circle, and making the norms explicit. After the
first round of implementation, we decided to make the drawing and picture of
the youth optional because it caused some participants stress, which detracted
from the process.
Sitting in a circle and passing the talking piece numerous times proved
very helpful for inviting everyone to contribute to the conversation. Several
educators expressed that they typically communicated only with the father of
the youth. Especially when gender affected the women’s participation, having
the talking piece passed to them meant that, if they did not want to partic-
ipate, they needed to take the initiative to pass on participation rather than
sit passively. In other words, the talking piece served as an equalizer to enter
the conversation. Constantine explained that, culturally for the families from
central Africa, the mothers needed to yield to the fathers to talk with the teach-
ers. However, we heard mothers’ voices when we used the talking piece and
could see the mothers become more and more comfortable talking as the con-
versation continued. Furthermore, using a talking piece resonated with some
participants’ cultures, as Sara’s older sister, who was part of the RAFT imple-
mentation for Sara, explained. She commented that her father enjoyed the
talking piece. She said that “in Africa we use the tool…like the same thing, like
we did, in the elders meeting.”
The circle format and ability to pass the talking piece numerous times en-
abled deeper discussion and brought participants together. The circle format
kept the group focused on the student. Noni (elementary EL teacher) said,
“And to have a circle that is focused just around one student, just around
Juddah, I think it was really powerful. And helpful for the student, for the
families, the teacher, liaison, everyone involved. And I really enjoyed it.” Mary,
an undergraduate student researcher, commented, “We went around the circle
maybe like four times with that one question, and each time it changed a bit,
and it got a little more in depth.”
55
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

Discussion
RAFT’s purpose was to instigate and provide time for structured, stu-
dent-centered conversations to build relationships between families with
refugee backgrounds and their children’s teachers, and the pilot resulted in
positive perceptions by all participants. Themes that emerged include: (a) the
importance of focusing on the child/student and the care and commitment
expressed by taking the time to focus on developing a relationship between ed-
ucators and families; (b) the flexibility and freedom of RAFT not being tied to
required parent–teacher conferences which have a rushed timeframe and set lo-
cation; (c) the increased appreciation and knowledge of the student, paving the
way for further collaboration; and (d) the effectiveness of elements drawn from
restorative practices. This study demonstrates that RAFT is a promising prac-
tice for building relationships with resettled families with refugee backgrounds,
a ubiquitous population whose needs should be addressed in an ongoing man-
ner. Furthermore, RAFT holds potential as a tool for forming family–school
partnerships with any family.
Family–school partnerships start with relationships and can lead to trans-
formational change towards more equitable systems (Ishimaru, 2020), and
home visits are a promising strategy (Sheldon & Jung, 2018) that must be
thoughtfully designed to support the cultural and linguistic strengths of diverse
families (Park & Paulick, 2021; Paulick et al., 2022). RAFT represents what
Park and Paulick (2021) call for: “home visits that are culturally sustaining so
that educators can have models” (p. 24). RAFT made norms and goals explic-
it, interrupted typical power dynamics by incorporating aspects of restorative
practices and using an outside facilitator, and amplified family and student
voice. Participants appreciated the time dedicated to building relationships and
focusing on a specific student and family. RAFT successfully instigated rela-
tionships among the participants in our pilot study, and relationships are the
foundation of family–school partnerships (Turnbull et al., 2022). The home
visits also fostered conditions that enabled teachers to authentically and hu-
manly engage with families. Both families and teachers were able to share a
collective and more expanded awareness of the knowledge and strengths they
perceived in the student. RAFT is significant in its potential to increase equity
in the way schools and families relate to support student success.
RAFT is a promising part of what must be a comprehensive systematic
change in how we conceptualize power, relationships, and outcomes of family–
school partnerships. Participants in this study craved a follow up and wanted
to include more participants. To effectively promote sustained partnerships be-
tween families and teachers, RAFT must be a part of a coherent system that

56
 REFUGEE FAMILIES & TEACHERS

prioritizes collaboration and seeks to dismantle implicit deficit-thinking and

power dynamics. As Mapp and Bergman (2021) assert:
Such power dynamics have persisted because our sector has never pri-
oritized authentic, solidarity-driven engagement. The vast majority of
educators in America have never been exposed to equitable family en-
gagement practices that emphasize the humanity and wellness of fami-
lies and communities. Without training and exposure, many educators
unsurprisingly do not see this type of practice as realistic. Thus, we have
an education sector where many cannot imagine a world in which their
work is inextricably tied to authentic partnerships with families. Models
for effective family engagement have not been baked into our education-
al system. (p. 9)
As a relationship-building tool, RAFT is a perfect fit for building the
“process conditions” specified in the Dual Capacity-Building Framework
for Family–School Partnerships (Version 2) because it is “relational, built on
trust; linked to learning and development; asset-based; culturally-responsive
and respectful; collaborative; and interactive” (Mapp & Bergman, 2021, p.
11). The “organizational conditions,” however, must be in place. Specifical-
ly, family–school partnerships must be systematic, integrated, and sustained.
Family–school partnership initiatives must take into account that relational
trust takes time, and building it must be part of teachers’ explicit workloads
(Mapp & Bergman, 2021). There also must be a stronger focus on profession-
al learning and preservice teacher preparation in family–school partnerships
(Francis et al., 2021; Kyzar et al., 2019; Mapp & Bergman, 2021).
Although models of family engagement and family partnerships abound,
there is limited research on specific strategies, protocols, or scripts to guide
meetings with families, especially those who have refugee backgrounds. Specif-
ic strategies or protocols must ensure enough flexibility to be effectively nimble
in a variety of circumstances yet have essential elements that can be implement-
ed with fidelity in order to conduct research on their effectiveness. One such
strategy is the Parent Teacher Home Visit model. This model has been widely
implemented and has promising results (McKnight et al., 2022; Sheldon &
Jung, 2018), yet it does not incorporate the elements of restorative practices
or participant training that aim to level power dynamics, and it also does not
follow a set protocol or make norms explicit. We propose that RAFT could
potentially work within, and enhance, a home visit model that schools already
have in place. Furthermore, although we piloted RAFT with resettled families
with a refugee background, it could be a useful tool when working with any
family, especially immigrant families whose children may feel resentful of or
alienated from their families (Vasquez-Salgado et al., 2015).

57
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

RAFT represents a budding strategy of building relationships between

families and educators that can be an important part of comprehensive family–
school partnerships. More research is needed to determine how well it works,
how it works best, and the feasibility of its implementation. Future research
should also explore how schools make time for such rich conversation to occur.
This study is limited by its small size of only 12 participating families and its
reliance on only qualitative data. Future research should focus on developing
an outcome measure for RAFT that can enable measuring its effect and deter-
mine how it fits into systematic family–school partnership initiatives.

References
Agar, M. H. (2005). The professional stranger: An informal introduction to ethnography (2nd ed.).
Academic Press.
Birman, D., Trickett, E. J., & Bacchus, N. (2001). Somali youth report. The Maryland Office
for New Americans. https://springinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/17-mary-
landreport.pdf
Blue-Banning, M., Summers, J. A., Frankland, H. C., Nelson, L. L., & Beegle, G. (2004). Di-
mensions of family and professional partnerships: Constructive guidelines for collaboration.
Exceptional Children, 70(2), 167–184. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290407000203
Bose, P. S. (2021). Refugees and the transforming landscapes of small cities in the U.S. Urban
Geography, 42(7), 958–978. https://doi.org/10.1080/02723638.2020.1785202
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and de-
sign. Harvard University Press.
Campano, G., Ghiso, M. P., & Welch, B. J. (2016). Partnering with immigrant communities:
Action through literacy. Teachers College Press.
Cun, A. (2020). Concerns and expectations: Burmese refugee parents’ perspectives on their
children’s learning in American schools. Early Childhood Education Journal, 48(3), 263–
272. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-019-00983-z
Dachyshyn, D., & Kirova, A. (2008). Understanding childhoods in-between: Sudanese refu-
gee and children’s transition from home to preschool. Research in Comparative and Interna-
tional Education, 3(3), 281–294. https://www.doi.org/10.2304/rcie.2008.3.3.281
Emerson, R. M., Fretz, R. L., & Shaw, L. L. (1995). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes. The Uni-
versity of Chicago Press.
Francis, G. L., Kilpatrick, A., Haines, S. J., Gershwin, T., Kyzar, K., & Hossain, I. (2021).
Special education faculty decision-making regarding designing and delivering family–
professional partnership content and skills in the U.S. Teaching and Teacher Education,
105, 103419–103429. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2021.103419
Georgis, R., Gokiert, R. J., Ford, D. M., & Anas, M. (2014). Creating inclusive parent en-
gagement practices: Lessons learned from a school community collaborative supporting
newcomer families with refugee backgrounds. Multicultural Education, 21(3/4), 23–27.
Greenfield, P. M., Quiroz, B., & Raeff, C. (2000). Cross‐cultural conflict and harmony in the
social construction of the child. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 87,
93–108.

58
 REFUGEE FAMILIES & TEACHERS

Haines, S. J., Francis, G. L., Kyzar, K. B., Aldersey, H. A., & Adams, N. B. (2018). Family–
professional partnerships with refugee families of children with disabilities. International
Review of Research in Developmental Disabilities, 54, 5–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.ir-
rdd.2018.07.002
Haines, S. J., Francis, G. L., Mueller, T., Chiu, C. Y., Burke, M., Holdren, N., Shepherd, K.
G., Aldersey, H. A., & Turnbull, A. P. (2017). Reconceptualizing family–professional part-
nership for inclusive schools: A call to action. Inclusion, 5(4), 234–247. http://www.doi.
org/10.1352/2326-6988-5.4.234
Haines, S. J., & Reyes, C. C. (2023). Teacher perspectives on fostering collaborative relation-
ships with families with refugee backgrounds. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice.
Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2023.2212359
Haines, S. J., Reyes, C. C., Ghising, H. T., Alamatouri, A., Haji, M., & Hurwitz, R. (2022).
Family–professional partnerships between resettled refugee families and their children’s
teachers: Exploring multiple perspectives. Preventing School Failure, 66(1), 52–63. https://
doi.org/10.1080/1045988X.2021.1934375
Haines, S. J., Summers, J. A., Turnbull, A. P., & Turnbull, H. R. (2015). Family partnership
with a Head Start agency: A case study of a refugee family. National Head Start Research
Association’s Dialog, 17(4), 22–49. https://journals.uncc.edu/dialog/article/view/168/354
Harry, B., & Ocasio-Stoutenberg, L. (2020). Meeting families where they are. Teachers College
Press.
Herrera, S. G., Porter, L., & Barko-Alva, K. (2020). Equity in school–parent partnerships: Cul-
tivating community and family trust in culturally diverse classrooms. Teachers College Press.
Hoover-Dempsey, K., & Sandler, H. (1995). Parental involvement in children’s education:
Why does it make a difference? Teachers College Record, 97, 310–331.
Ishimaru, A. (2020). Just schools: Building equitable collaborations with families and communi-
ties. Teachers College Press.
Isik-Ercan, Z. (2010). In pursuit of a new perspective in the education of children of the
refugees: Advocacy for the “family.” Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 12(4), 3025–
3038.
Kervick, C. T., Moore, M., Ballysingh, T. A., Garnett, B. R., & Smith, L. C. (2019). The
emerging promise of restorative practices to reduce discipline disparities affecting youth
with disabilities and youth of color: Addressing access and equity. Harvard Educational
Review, 89(4), 588–610.
Koyama, J., & Bakuza, F. R. (2017). A timely opportunity for change: Increasing refugee
parental involvement in U.S. schools. Journal of Educational Change, 18(3), 311–335.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-017-9299-7
Kupzyk, S. S., Banks, B. M., & Chadwell, M. R. (2015). Collaborating with families with
refugee backgrounds to increase early literacy opportunities: A pilot investigation. Califor-
nia Association of School Psychologists, 20, 205–217. https://www.doi.org/10.1007/s40688-
015-0074-6
Kyzar, K. B., Mueller, T. G., Francis, G. L., & Haines, S. J. (2019). Special education teacher
preparation for family–professional partnerships: Results from a national survey of teach-
er educators. Teacher Education and Special Education, 42(4), 320–337. https://www.doi.
org/10.1177/0888406419839123
Ladson-Billings, G. (2021). I’m here for the hard re-set: Post pandemic pedagogy to preserve
our culture. Equity & Excellence in Education, 54(1), 68–78.
Lawson, M. A. (2003). School–family relations in context: Parent and teacher perceptions of parent
involvement. Urban Education, 38(1), 77–133. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085902238687

59
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

Maiter, S., Simich, L., Jacobson, N., & Wise, J. (2008). Reciprocity: An ethic for communi-
ty-based participatory action research. Action Research, 6(3), 305–325.
Mandarakas, M. (2014). Teachers and parent—school engagement: International perspectives
on teachers’ preparation for and views about working with parents. Global Studies of Child-
hood, 4(1), 21–27. https://doi.org/10.2304/gsch.2014.4.1.21
Mapp, K. L., & Bergman, E. (2021). Embracing a new normal: Toward a more liberatory ap-
proach to family engagement. Carnegie Corporation. https://media.carnegie.org/filer_pub-
lic/f6/04/f604e672-1d4b-4dc3-903d-3b619a00cd01/fe_report_fin.pdf
McBrien, J. L. (2005). Educational needs and barriers for refugee students in the United States:
A review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 75(3), 329–364.
McBrien, J. L. (2011). The importance of context: Vietnamese, Somali, and Iranian refugee
mothers discuss their resettled lives and involvement in their children’s schools. Compare,
41, 75–90.
McKnight, K., Venkateswaran, N., Laird, J., Dilig, R., Robles, J., & Shalev, T. (2022). Par-
ent Teacher Home Visits: An Approach to Addressing Biased Mindsets and Practices to Sup-
port Student Success. RTI Press Publication No. OP-0077-2209. RTI Press. https://doi.
org/10.3768/rtipress.2022.op.0077.2209
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods
sourcebook (3rd ed.). Sage.
Minkler, M. (2005). Community-based research partnerships: Challenges and opportunities.
Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine, 82(2), ii3–ii11.
Mirsky, L. (2004). Restorative justice practices of Native American, First Nation, and other
Indigenous people of North America: Part one. EForum: Restorative Practices.
Mott, T. E. (2010). African refugee resettlement in the US: The role and signifi-
cance of voluntary agencies. Journal of Cultural Geography, 27(1), 1–31. https://doi.
org/10.1080/08873631003593190
Paris, D., & Alim, H. (2017). Culturally sustaining pedagogies. Teachers College Press.
Park, S., & Paulick, J. H. (2021). An inquiry into home visits as a practice of culturally sustaining
pedagogy in urban schools. Urban Education. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085921998416
Paulick, J., Park, S., & Cornett, A. (2022). Power dynamics and positioning in teacher home
visits with marginalized families. American Journal of Education, 129(1), 53–78.
Perry, K. H. (2009). Genres, contexts, and literacy practices: Literacy brokering among Suda-
nese refugee families. Reading Research Quarterly, 44(3), 256–276. https://doi.org/10.1598/
RRQ.44.3.2
Pranis, K. (2005). The little book of circle processes. Skyhorse.
Reyes, C. C., Haines, S. J., & Clark/Keefe, K. (2021). Humanizing methodologies in education-
al research: Centering nondominant communities. Teachers College Press.
Reyes, C. C., Haines, S. J., & Ghemari, A. (2023). Examining community cultural wealth
of multicultural liaisons during COVID-19. Voices in Urban Education, 51(1), 122–133.
https://doi.org/10.35240/vue.23
Reyes, C. C., Haines, S. J., Ghising, H. T., Alamatouri, A., Hurwitz, R., & Haji, M. (2021).
“Your eyes open and so do your ears”: Centering knowledge of families with refugee back-
grounds during a follow-up interview. Journal of Family Diversity in Education, 4(1), 1–19.
https://familydiversityeducation.com/index.php/fdec/article/view/157
Sheldon, S. B., & Jung, S. B. (2018). Student outcomes and Parent Teacher Home Visits. Johns
Hopkins University. https://pthvp.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/student-outcomes-
and-parent-teacher-home-visits.pdf

60
 REFUGEE FAMILIES & TEACHERS

Tadesse, S. (2014) Parent involvement: Perceived encouragement and barriers to African refu-
gee parent and teacher relationships. Childhood Education, 90(4), 298–305. https://doi.or
g/10.1080/00094056.2014.937275
Tadesse, S., Hoot, J., & Watson-Thompson, O. (2009). Exploring the special needs of African
refugee children in U.S. schools. Childhood Education, 85, 352–356.
Thorsborne, M., & Blood, P. (2013). Implementing restorative practices in schools: A practical
guide to transforming school communities. Jessica Kingsley.
Tran, N., & Birman, D. (2019). Acculturation and assimilation: Qualitative inquiry of teach-
er expectations for Somali Bantu refugee students. Education and Urban Society, 51(5),
712–736. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013124517747033
Turnbull, A., Turnbull, R., Francis, G., Burke, M., Kyzar, K., Haines, S., Gershwin, T., Shep-
herd, K., Holdren, N., & Singer, G. (2022). Families and professionals: Trusting partnershps
in general and special education (8th ed.). Pearson.
UNHCR. (2020). UNHCR - What is resettlement? https://www.unhcr.org/publications/bro-
chures/5fe06e8b4/unhcr-what-is-resettlement.html
UNHCR. (2020a). Global trends in forced displacement – 2020. https://www.unhcr.org/statis-
tics/unhcrstats/60b638e37/global-trends-forced-displacement-2020.html
Vandercook, T., York, J., & Forest, M. (1989). The McGill Action Planning System (MAPS):
A strategy for building the vision. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handi-
caps, 14, 205–215.
Vasquez-Salgado, Y., Greenfield, P. M., & Burgos-Cienfuegos, R. (2015). Exploring home–
school value conflicts: Implications for academic achievement and well-being among Lati-
no first-generation college students. Journal of Adolescent Research, 30(3), 271–305.
Walker-Dalhouse, D., & Dalhouse, A. D. (2009). When two elephants fight the grass suffers:
Families and teachers working together to support the literacy development of Sudanese
youth. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(2), 328–335.

Authors’ Note: Funding for this study was generously provided by the Braitmayer
Foundation.

Shana Haines is an associate professor in the College of Education and Social

Services at the University of Vermont. Her main area of research is studying family–
professional partnerships between educators and families of children with disabilities
or families with refugee backgrounds. Correspondence concerning this article may be
sent to Dr. Shana Haines, 446 Waterman, Burlington, VT 05405, or email Shana.
[email protected]
Cynthia Reyes is professor and associate dean for academic and faculty affairs for
the College of Education and Social Services at the University of Vermont. Dr. Reyes’s
responsibilities focus on ensuring the integrity and quality of undergraduate educa-
tion curricular and academic affairs processes, supporting faculty progression through
rank-mentoring-RPT programming, and other related tasks and initiatives. Her re-
search and service passions include diversity, equity, and inclusion; family and school
professional partnerships; digital literacies; and educational policy and language.
Gabriel McGann has recently completed doctoral work in the Department of Ed-
ucation at the University of Vermont. His research interests include school–family
partnerships, the interactions of the U.S. education system and refugee resettlement,

61
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

community integration, and service learning education, as well as measuring relation-

al outcomes between school personnel and families with refugee backgrounds.

62
A Community-Based Organization in North
Carolina: Facilitating Transitions From High
School to College for Refugee-Background
Students
Alison M. Turner and Jennifer C. Mann

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to explore how one community-based organi-

zation supports adolescents through the transition from high school to college,
specifically looking at the experiences of three late-arriving refugee-background
students who successfully gained access to higher education. Through the crit-
ical conceptual framework of community cultural wealth (Yosso, 2005), we
present this case study in hopes of ultimately sharing what community-based
organizations can do to support schools and refugee-background students in
their transition to higher education. We found that this organization helps ref-
ugee youth to (1) build social connections and a sense of community through
mentoring and networking; (2) navigate a new environment by “walking
alongside” students; and (3) bolster aspirations to go beyond by celebrating
their successes. Additionally, we describe how the support is perceived by the
students and how the support impacts them. Finally, we share implications for
practice for the focus organization, other community-based organizations, and
educators of refugee-background students.

Key Words: community-based organizations, refugee-background students,

community cultural wealth, college access, higher education, educational at-
tainment

School Community Journal, 2023, Vol. 33, No. 2 63

Available at http://www.schoolcommunitynetwork.org/SCJ.aspx
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

Introduction

Daily, upwards of 100 students filter in and out of the small community
classroom located in the heart of the apartment complex where “Coalition for
Refugees” (CFR; Note: all names are pseudonyms) holds its many meetings.
Staggering times between 2:30 pm and 8:30 pm on weekdays, kindergarten
through college students come and go, seeking support from the dozens of
volunteers who sit around crowded tables. Sounds of talking, reading, and
laughing fill the small space as students receive help on their schoolwork.
In this study, we illuminate the experiences of refugee-background students
during their adolescence and the support provided by CFR, a communi-
ty-based organization (CBO) in a large metropolis area in North Carolina, to
better understand the integral role it plays for students as they transition from
high school to higher education. Given that only 6% of refugees worldwide
currently attend college (UNHCR, 2023), CFR’s support has been significant
to the success of students. In this article, we focus on three late-arriving ref-
ugee-background students who have successfully graduated from high school
and matriculated into college: Amora, an Afghan refugee from Iran; Sue Mar, a
Karenni refugee from Burma; and Gabriella, a Congolese refugee from Burun-
di. All three of these young women arrived in the U.S. during their adolescence
with minimal English proficiency. In conversation with these students, they
have each attributed their success in part to their participation with CFR
during high school which therefore is the focus of this current research study.
CFR began serving the community in 2007 and offers a variety of sup-
port programs for refugee and immigrant families including nightly homework
help; early learning classes for three- to four-year-olds; the College Bound pro-
gram intended to mentor junior and senior students through graduation and
into higher education; ESL classes for adults; liaisons with local schools to fa-
cilitate communication between families and teachers; medical support to help
transport patients to appointments and communicate needs to health workers;
fellowship picnics and social gatherings; summer camp for school-aged chil-
dren, among other services. Data provided by CFR indicate the success that
their efforts have already made. From the 2020–21 school year, 14 of the 15
participants in the College Bound program went to institutes of higher edu-
cation following high school graduation. In the 2021–22 school year, 15 of
15 participants graduated and went to college. Most recently, in the 2022–23
school year, another 15 of 15 participants graduated from high school and
went to community colleges and universities. The program has consistently
had 15 seniors, though there is no cap or stipulation on the number of students
who can participate. The College Bound program currently has a total enroll-

64
 CBO & REFUGEE STUDENTS

ment of 28 students for the 2023–24 school year. The cumulative effects of
going to college extends beyond the student to his or her family and has lasting
positive effects, including breaking the cycle of poverty (Haycock, 2015; Stre-
itwieser et al., 2020). Streitwieser and colleagues (2020) explain:
The provision of higher education has significant implications for any
human being, whether living in a developing country or in the so-called
developed world. But learning opportunities beyond secondary school
are a major component in successful societal (re)integration, where the
employment market values and rewards higher-order credentials and
specializations. (p. 205)
Therefore, we consider refugee background students’ movement into higher
education a success for them and their greater communities. Driven by the
desire to extend and amplify the practices that have paved the way towards
success for students and their families at CFR, we share the students’ stories so
that all refugee students can, as Gabriella remarked, “reach the goals…[and]
win life.”
Purpose of the Study
Author 2 spent more than a decade striving to provide the needed academic,
emotional, and financial support to the newly arrived multilingual students in
her English language arts ninth grade classroom and to their families. She felt
committed to the community connections she had developed but felt unable
to meet the needs of all of her immigrant and refugee-background students.
During the routine home visits she made, Author 2 met Cynthia who be-
gan working to help settle newly arrived refugee families in 2007 and later
founded CFR, a CBO in North Carolina. Partnering with her church, Cyn-
thia recruited volunteers to assist refugee families and provide needed resources
and educational support as they transitioned to the new country. Author 2
acknowledged that if CFR had existed when she was still teaching at the high
school, the families who she worked with would have received more robust
support. Retrospectively, Author 2 was motivated to better understand how
CFR is now helping former students of hers and other refugee-background
students navigate the educational terrain.
The purpose, then, of this study is to share how the CBO supports stu-
dents as they transition into higher education so that it might be amplified and
expanded into other communities with immigrant and refugee background
families and students. Therefore, in this study we set out to explore the follow-
ing questions: (1) What does CFR do to support high school students’ success
moving into college? (2) How is the support perceived by the students, and
how does the support impact them?

65
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

In this article, our goal is to reduce barriers to college-going for refugee-back-

ground students by sharing stories from those who have successfully made their
way to higher education. Secondly, we will present findings about the work
of CFR and share suggestions that other CBOs and educators may borrow
to better support refugee and immigrant students in the transition from high
school to college. Lastly, we write this article as a demonstration of our resis-
tance against deficit perspectives and low expectations of students from refugee
backgrounds (Alford, 2014; Murillo, 2002; Shapiro, 2014).
Geographic and Social Context
North Carolina (NC), a new immigration gateway state, has seen a steady
increase in immigrant and refugee families since the 1990s (Rong et al., 2017).
In fact, at the pinnacle of the fourth-wave immigration to the United States,
NC’s foreign population grew at a rate of 625% between 1990 and 2000
(Rong et al., 2017). As of 2018, immigrants and refugees made up approxi-
mately 8% of NC’s total population (American Immigration Council, 2020)
and 18% of the total K–12 students in NC report a primary language other
than English is spoken in the home (North Carolina Department of Public
Instruction, 2022). In addition, NC consistently ranks tenth in the nation for
refugee resettlement, with one in four refugees settling in the large metrop-
olis region (Refugee Processing Center, 2022) which is served by CFR. This
CBO is headquartered within the community center of an apartment com-
plex where hundreds of refugee families reside. Originating from an outreach
program within a nondenominational, evangelical church, today CFR part-
ners with over 18 religious organizations and has as a part of its mission the
commitment to “respecting the dignity and competence of everyone and sup-
porting families as they continue to grow and flourish in a new environment”
(organization website). Their presence now exceeds the walls of the community
center. CFR rents apartments for increased program space and recently secured
a lease on a large facility next door. Additionally, many staff members live in
the apartment complex.
North High School, where most of the students attend and where Author
2 taught for 10 years, is close to the students’ apartments. The school’s student
population is made up of 16% former or current English language learners and
has the largest number of refugee students in the state (personal communica-
tion, ESL teacher). CFR works closely with North High School, particularly
the ESL and sheltered-content teachers. The school–community liaison from
CFR regularly emails teachers and visits families to share information from the
school.

66
 CBO & REFUGEE STUDENTS

Theoretical Framework

We approach this study through the critical conceptual framework of com-

munity cultural wealth (Yosso, 2005) with an eye on emphasizing the assets
inherent in the refugee community and pushing back on deficit perspectives
readily espoused about this population. The framework guided our analysis of
the data collected, the findings, as well as the implications for future practice.
Community Cultural Wealth
Community cultural wealth centers knowledge and experiences possessed
by culturally and linguistically diverse learners and pushes back on deficit per-
spectives, “one of the most prevalent forms of contemporary racism in U.S.
schools” (Yosso, 2005, p. 75). Deficit perspectives focus on what the students
lack rather on the strengths that they bring (Valenzuela, 1999). Recognizing,
and perhaps more importantly, giving room for students to use and share their
community cultural wealth, has the power to “transform the process of school-
ing” (Yosso, 2005, p. 70) by validating students’ knowledge and experiences
as worthy of inclusion at school. The goal should not be to change the refu-
gee students to better fit school norms. Rather, the goal is to learn from and
transform the educational institutions to better fit the experiences, skills, and
needs of the students that enter the school doors. Yosso (2005) identified six
categories of community cultural wealth that students from culturally and lin-
guistically diverse backgrounds bring with them to school: aspirational capital,
linguistic capital, familial capital, social capital, navigational capital, and re-
sistant capital. Jimenez (2020) added a seventh category of capital: migration
capital (see Table 1 in the Implications section for more information on com-
munity cultural wealth types of capital).
In this study, we will use the lens of community cultural wealth to explore
the “multifaceted portfolio of cultural assets and resources [which] facilitate
the survival and resistance of communities of color” (Yosso & Garcia, 2007, p.
155), in this case, refugee communities. Cultural capital is “accumulated, like a
deposit in the bank, but cultural wealth is meant to be shared” (Yosso, 2006, p.
77), making an important distinction between the individual nature of capital
and the communal nature of wealth. Therefore, possessing, utilizing, and grow-
ing community cultural wealth enriches the entire community. For example,
familial capital, one aspect of community cultural wealth, includes a “commit-
ment to community well-being” (Yosso, 2005, p. 79) and the desire to help
others “transcend the adversity in their daily lives” (Yosso, 2005, p. 80), thereby
shifting the focus from the individual to the collective. Community cultural
wealth is also a valuable tool for viewing students through an asset perspective

67
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

because it identifies skills, strengths, and advantages that they already possess
due to their life experiences. Bañuelos (2021) explained, “...community cul-
tural wealth highlights the unique and valuable information, obligations, trust,
and norms that pool in communities of color because and in spite of their his-
torical marginalization” (p. 1).
Therefore, we will analyze the efforts of CFR through the lens of commu-
nity cultural wealth, highlighting how the organization is focused on students’
assets and supports students’ transitions from secondary to higher education.
We will also use community cultural wealth as a framework to examine ele-
ments that are missing or are underdeveloped in the CBO and propose ways to
further strengthen its offerings and better support of the refugee community
and, most importantly, help refugee-background students achieve their goals of
attending college and pursuing their dreams.

Literature Review
Obstacles and Aids for Refugees Accessing Higher Education
Refugees come to the U.S. to escape violence, poverty, and extreme condi-
tions (UNHCR, 2020). They also come with greater educational opportunities
in mind for their children (Suárez-Orozco et al., 2008) and go to great lengths
to ensure that their children have access to quality education. However, de-
spite their interest and dedication to their children’s educational achievement,
there are many well-documented reasons explaining the struggles refugees face
with schooling. First, the process of migration for refugees often involves emo-
tional trauma and may result in post-traumatic stress disorder (Tuliao et al.,
2017). Therefore, the loss, grief, and uncertainty that refugee students face may
understandably distract them from their studies. El Yaafouri (2022) calls this
“transition shock” to describe the multiple factors, including “persistent stress,
transition-related anxiety, trauma, traumatic stress, high incidence of adverse
childhood experiences, vulnerability, and culture shock,” that affect children as
newcomers to the U.S. (p. 2).
Another factor relating to lower academic achievement for newcomer stu-
dents are gaps in children’s formal education before and during the resettlement
process (Daniel & Zybina, 2019). Students with limited or interrupted formal
education (SLIFE) have had at least two fewer years of schooling than their
peers and have varying levels of formal education (Hos, 2016). One Haitian
student explained how school was intermittently in session due to violence in
the community: “You always have to ask when there is school. They are always
doing something strange in the street—killing. You can’t get an education. My
father wanted me to come [to the U.S.] so that he can give me an opportunity

68
 CBO & REFUGEE STUDENTS

for tomorrow” (Suárez-Orozco et al., 2008, p. 30). In addition, many refugees

who come from nonindustrialized areas may have limited technological skills
and formal education (Tuliao et al., 2017), further complicating their ability to
catch up to school-aged peers in the U.S.
In addition, adjusting to a new community is itself a difficult task, “situat-
ing oneself within a new context of language, culture, community, and shifting
personal identities” (El Yaafouri, 2022, p. viii). Central to their adaptation is
learning the English language which has been shown to take significant time
(Daniel & Zybina, 2019; Hoff & Armstrong, 2021; Hos, 2016; Roxas & Roy,
2012). Cognitive academic language proficiency (CALP), language used in ac-
ademic instruction, has been shown to take five to seven years to develop once
immersed in English (Cummins, 1996). Yet, students are routinely put at a
disadvantage in schools when they are denied the opportunity to translanguage
(García & Kleyn, 2016), or draw from their home language, a practice shown
to be effective for new language learners, and instead are forced to complete
all assignments in English (Kleyn, 2016). Furthermore, refugee students of-
ten face mixed reception by community and school personnel (Roxas & Roy,
2012). While initially welcomed into the host community, hostility and resent-
ment often grow after a few years in the U.S. (Roxas & Roy, 2012). Tuliao et
al. (2017) explains the many competing demands on immigrants, “they are ex-
pected to juggle new roles while simultaneously learning English, adapting to
a new country, finding a job or working, and studying” (p. 17). Teachers may
not be aware of the circumstances regarding the students’ migration experienc-
es and may deem student work as demonstrating deliberate laziness on class
assignments. For example, one teacher criticized a refugee background student
when, in fact, he was “working relentlessly to finish assignments, but was over-
whelmed” (Roxas & Roy, 2019, p. 479).
Overall, there is evidence of a continued deficit perspective held by teachers
and administrators towards immigrant and refugee students and a subsequent
lack of access to rigorous learning opportunities (Alford, 2014; Daniel & Zy-
bina, 2019; Lau, 2012; Ngo, 2017; Ryu & Tuvilla, 2018; Suárez-Orozco &
Suárez-Orozco, 2001). Shapiro (2014) noted that refugees are often “presumed
to be educationally deficient, not predicted to reach high levels of achievement,
and therefore may not be encouraged to challenge themselves academically
(p. 397)” (as cited in Daniel & Zybina, 2019, p. 351). There also tends to
be a lack of sufficient ESL programs, qualified teachers, and translators (Rox-
as & Roy, 2012). Refugee students, like other English language learners, are
often filtered into low-track classes that do not adequately prepare them for
postsecondary opportunities, including education and work (Alford, 2021;
Darling-Hammond, 2010; Shapiro, 2014; Valenzuela, 1999). Shapiro (2014)

69
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

explains that English language learners “spend much of their day in separate
academic tracks, where the primary focus is linguistic remediation and not the
learning of grade-level content” (p. 387). These factors contribute to isolation
and rejection by peers and teachers at school and culminate in lower achieve-
ment on standardized tests and higher dropout rates (Barton & Tan, 2020;
Juvonen, 2007; Nasir et al., 2011).
While there is much research into the barriers for young refugee students,
there is far less research surrounding the factors that contribute to their successful
completion of secondary education and enrollment and attendance in college.
One factor that has been explored as playing positive roles in students’ success
is mentorship by a caring adult (Hos, 2016; Roxas & Roy, 2012; Stewart, 2015;
Symons & Ponzio, 2019; Wooley, 2009). Hoff and Armstrong (2021) call this
“ethical care,” explaining, “building caring relationships with educators helped
refugee-background students feel supported and encouraged” (p. 3). Likewise,
El Yaafouri (2022) discusses the four essential pillars for working successfully
with refugee-background youth: (1) connect—building and maintaining au-
thentic relationships with students; (2) protect—cultivating trust and safety in
the learning space; (3) respect—fostering student voice, choice, and collabora-
tion; and 4) redirect—facilitating self-efficacy and sustainability.

Methodology

Through the use of a qualitative case study methodology, we focus on the

nuanced situation of late-arriving refugee-background youth navigating col-
lege enrollment and the supporting role that one CBO, CFR, provides to these
students (Baxter & Jack, 2008; Creswell & Poth, 2018; Merriam, 2009; Stake,
1995). Case study provides us with a robust approach to research that is best
used in the pursuit of highly contextualized knowledge (Baxter & Jack, 2008,
Flyvbjerg, 2006; Merriam, 1998, 2009; Stake, 1995). It explores a real-life,
bounded system through a detailed and thorough collection and analysis of
multiple sources and forms of data, and then subsequently reports the findings
in a descriptive manner (Creswell & Poth, 2018; Merriam, 1998, 2009; Stake,
1995). Our case study is nuanced, contextualized, and personal. It is bounded
by the confines of CFR and makes use of numerous sources of data including
semi-structured 1:1 and group interviews, data from the CBO, and documents
such as letters from teachers, personal writings, and awards. Case study allows
us to refine our understanding as we seek to closely explore alternate and multi-
ple perspectives (Stake, 1995), also affording the opportunity to illuminate this
specific case and provide in-depth insight into the ways CFR supports refugee
youth during critical years of high school. In this study we focus not just on the

70
 CBO & REFUGEE STUDENTS

staff at CFR, but on three late-arriving refugee students who named CFR as a
central factor in their success.
Data Collection and Analysis
This article reflects data collected from a three-year-long case study in which
Author 2 first followed the trajectory of two of her former high school stu-
dents, Amora (from Afghanistan) and Sue Mar (from Burma), as they moved
into and navigated higher education. The case study was expanded to include
a third refugee student, Gabriella (from the Congo), who participated in the
College Bound Program at CFR and enrolled in community college in 2022.
In this study we draw from multiple semi-structured interviews (1:1, group,
and asynchronous) conducted with these three refugee college students as they
reflected on their support during high school. We also interviewed the founder
and director of CFR; the coordinator of the College Bound Program; the liai-
son with the high school; a mentor in the College Bound Program and former
guidance counselor at North High School; and the community college liaison
who has served as a facilitator for refugee students entering the community
college. Other sources of data include document analysis of letters from teach-
ers, personal essays, and school awards related to Sue Mar’s high school work as
well as an interview with the English teacher–researcher (Author 2). Data was
also collected from CFR on student success in the College Bound Program (see
the Appendix for the list of the data sources).
Interviews lasting 30–60 minutes were conducted with each of the refu-
gee-background students and personnel associated with CFR between one
and three times. The interviews were conducted and recorded via a video con-
ferencing platform, providing a partial transcript of the conversation. The
transcripts were then corrected by watching the interview and filling in missed
and incorrect words. Using a video recording was helpful, especially with ref-
ugee students, because understanding the message was sometimes reliant on
body language and facial expressions. The interviews gathered information on
students’ experiences at school and at CFR as well as other information about
the process of applying to college and their future plans. Interviews with CFR
support personnel focused on practices, goals, and outcomes of their outreach
programs, particularly the College Bound Program.
A key strategy in data analysis was adding interviewer notes. These described
the context of the interview and key parts where the data glowed and produced
wonder (MacLure, 2013). Authors 1 and 2 hand coded the data for emergent
themes independently of one another and shared our codes during meetings.
Some codes that emerged at this stage were persistence, asking questions, men-
tal fortitude, and educator support. Codes were clarified and condensed during
subsequent readings of the data.
71
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

We used additional documents to help triangulate data from multiple sourc-

es (Baxter & Jack, 2008; Merriam, 1998; Stake, 1995). For example, we used
the documents collected to triangulate codes identified in Sue Mar’s interview
transcripts. Initial data collected in preliminary interviews directed subsequent
data collection to clarify details during follow-up and asynchronous interviews.
In the second round of data analysis, we overlaid the types of capital iden-
tified by Yosso (2005) and Jimenez (2020) in community cultural wealth to
analyze the data and identify ways in which the students, teachers, staff, and
mentors in CFR recognized and made connections to student assets. Refu-
gee-background students bring experiences and knowledge that are valuable
to their lives and to the interactions in community spaces such as the class-
room and school. The role of CFR is not to provide or give these students
“missing assets” that they need. Rather, CFR serves as a conduit between the
refugee-background students and the new context in North Carolina.
Furthermore, it is important to note that the ability to clearly delineate be-
tween forms of community cultural wealth is difficult given that they overlap
and are reliant upon another. For example, a student may have navigational
capital, understanding how to negotiate educational spaces, but also needs as-
pirational capital to move forward, especially in the face of adversity. Success
for students, measured here as entry into higher education, is dependent then
upon the harmony of multiple forms of capital working simultaneously. There-
fore, we reviewed the transcripts for a third time for how students and refugee
support staff described support from the school, other adults, other refugees,
and CFR. This round of coding led us to insights about the role of the CBO
in identifying and making connections to the assets that the refugee women
possess. It also pointed out places where the CBO could strengthen its practic-
es. Lastly, we analyzed the data a fourth time, using values coding (Miles et al.,
2020) to determine the students’ perceptions of the support and the impact
on them.
Positionality
Author 1 is a White, bilingual educator in higher education. She has focused
her work on understanding the impact of involving families and communities
in K–12 classrooms to support teachers and their students. For example, as a
high school Spanish teacher, she involved her students in the community by
seeking opportunities to speak Spanish locally and interact with neighbors.
Later, she connected Spanish-dominant and English-dominant parents at their
dual language school through language classes and cross-cultural conversation
time. She values the contributions of CBOs in facilitating these connections
between school and home.

72
 CBO & REFUGEE STUDENTS

Author 2 is a White, monolingual doctoral candidate and researcher who has

been an educator in North Carolina public schools for 16 years and has been
deeply concerned with educational inequities since she first recognized them
in her own life. Born to teenage parents in a low-resourced rural community,
she recalls being cognizant of educational inequities as early as Kindergarten.
These memories serve as a catalyst for her commitment to educational equity.
She spent a decade as an English teacher, teaching sheltered English literature
to classes of newly arrived immigrant and refugee adolescents, and later be-
came an elementary English as a second language teacher, where she worked
to help ensure greater academic access to curricular content for her students.
Amora and Sue Mar, study participants, are former students of hers who have
now gone on to higher education. Her aim has always been to create more op-
portunities for success for students for whom success did not feel guaranteed.
We, as researchers, approach this study placing great value on immigrant
and refugee-background students’ experiences and knowledge which they
bring to the classroom and community. We see our work with them to honor
and share their stories with educators and community members. We feel it is a
privilege to be invited and welcomed into the lives and experiences of Amora,
Sue Mar, and Gabriella and the work that CFR does in the community. These
spaces have been generously opened to us.

Findings

In this section, we will share our findings on how CFR supported stu-
dents’ success moving from high school to institutions of higher education by
recognizing and making connections to their community cultural wealth. Spe-
cifically, it was found that CFR helps refugee-background students (a) promote
social connections and sense of community; (b) navigate a new environment;
and (c) bolster aspirations to go beyond. We will also present how CFR’s sup-
port was perceived by the refugee-background students and how the support
has impacted them long-term. Our findings are presented with an intentional
centering of all the participants’ voices to honor the valuable wisdom and in-
sight they bring to this research. This is essential, because in Ramsay and Baker’s
(2019) meta-scoping study of 46 papers on students from refugee backgrounds
in higher education contexts, they found a stark lack of refugee-background
student voices and issued a directive for researchers to “reduce the dominance
of our own voices” (p. 81), and that is what we are seeking to do in this article
by centering the voices of others.

73
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

Promoting Social Connections and Community: “It’s Kind of

Like You Are Family”
CFR offers important support to refugee-background students like Amora,
Sue Mar, and Gabriella by promoting social connections and creating a sense
of community among refugee families. The CBO hosts community gatherings
frequently, often every week. Amora explains,
Honestly, [the] community center, they always have parties or some-
thing. They invite all students and their families and kind of spend time
with them. Which all of us gonna go, and, it’s kind of nice. You talk
with some of them. Especially moms…they all getting friends with each
other.
Amora likewise described the role that these social relationships play for her
mother:
You can talk to them [refugee-background individuals who live at the
apartment complex], and then some people also like learning the language
and some words from them, which is nice.…They are always talking
[about] what they want to do in the future.…My mom just learned from
them and wanted to be friends with them. It’s like you are family.
By facilitating relationships among refugee-background families, especial-
ly mothers who tend to be more isolated in immigrant and refugee families
(Northcote et al., 2006), newer refugee families are supported by those who
have been here longer. Kayla, in her role as liaison to the schools, explained
how she noticed these connections when refugee families began to help newly
arrived refugee families. While previously she would have been the first called
by the school to pick up a child due to illness or to learn about a problem at
school, refugee mothers and families began to help one another navigate prob-
lems at school.
I ended up actually…passing it off to them and their friend, so one of
their friends that worked as the translator for it, so, instead of me being
the one that got a call. If she didn’t show up or if something happened,
I’m still on the list, but I’m now second. It’s another family from the
same country that’s been there longer that is friends with them that is
now the first contact because she can immediately call and translate ev-
erything to the parents.
The sense of community and shared purpose among refugee families pro-
vide an important support system for families who have just arrived in the
United States. With their newly acquired English, families who have been here

74
 CBO & REFUGEE STUDENTS

a little longer can understand and translate the information to the home lan-
guage of the other family. They can also serve as cultural mediators to explain
how things are typically done in the U.S. schools and classrooms from their
shared cultural perspective.
CFR also encourages students to look to other refugee-background students
for models. For example, Cynthia, the founder and executive director of CFR,
mentioned the effect of having other refugee-background students who had
gone before into higher education as having a positive effect on the current
students enrolled in the College Bound Program since they form a part of their
shared community:
So, I feel like it even expands beyond just the students that we work
with…it’s like a culture of…“I can do it.” This [refugee-background stu-
dent] did it…or this person did it…and so I can do it.
There is an aura of success at CFR and a buy-in that if others made it through
the process, they could as well.
Sue Mar often spoke of the power of talking to or learning about the ex-
perience of a fellow refugee-background person. For example, she shared that
she read the autobiography of former First Lady Michelle Obama but felt that,
while impressive, she couldn’t relate to Obama’s personal life story since she is
not from a refugee background. In contrast, when Amora met a dentist from
Iran through connections made in the apartment complex, she was inspired to
stick to her plan of becoming a dentist because he was a refugee-background
student at one time and had achieved his dream, so she might, too. She ex-
plained, “[W]hen I went to the dentist they told me—the doctor was from
Iran. So, I was talking to him, and he said that [studying to be a dentist] is not
that long. He said, ‘If you love it, just do it!’”
Help Navigating a New Environment: “Start Early—Walk With
Them…[Walk] With Them Beyond.”
CFR supports the entire refugee family in acclimating to their new environ-
ment. They help families navigate many practical necessities such as a place to
live, a job, medical care, English classes, and education support for their chil-
dren. CFR is integral in placing families in a furnished apartment and helping
them get their bearings when they first arrive. CFR’s support for students is
extensive, including homework help, school supplies, and the College Bound
Program which includes 1:1 mentors, academic skill nights, college visits, and
career nights, in which a professional from the community shares about his/
her profession. Amora explained the importance of homework help at CFR:

75
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

Honestly, that place [CFR] was really good though. Especially, like you
when you are just getting to the country, and you need help, and then
they have really nice people coming. Some of them are teachers or pro-
fessors and then some of them are really smart people. And they come to
help, honestly. They have different skill[s]—some for biology, or math, or
English which is nice. They have a lot of volunteers to help the students.
In addition to providing nightly homework help, CFR was also a place to
obtain school supplies. At the beginning of the year, school supplies including
backpacks, notebooks, and pencils could be purchased at a minimal price. The
center was also a place where students could print class notes, papers, and oth-
er documents needed for class. During the COVID-19 pandemic when classes
moved to online learning, Amora regularly went to CFR to print slide decks
from online lectures. She explained, “Mostly I’m gonna go there to print stuff
because I have [an] online class which is—they [are] all on PowerPoint, and I
have to print them and study.” Having consistent access to needed materials for
schoolwork helped ensure students could succeed even as instruction moved
online. Additionally, Amora routinely went to CFR to receive help on college
essays and yearly went for support with her financial aid application. Amora
explained that the volunteer who worked with her did not just help her to fill
out the documentation, but “he kind of teach [sic] me how to do it,” result-
ing in her completing it for her siblings in subsequent years. In this way, the
volunteer served as a literacy broker (Perry, 2009), helping bridge the cultural,
navigational understandings that were hindering Amora’s comprehension of
the application. Access to these resources was vital for the students to sustain
college enrollment, particularly during a tumultuous period.
Another key navigational component for student success is the men-
tor–refugee student relationship. The refugee-background students receive
important advice from mentors, including how to navigate school procedures
and policies, such as what to do when they miss school or struggle with class
assignments. Kayla, CFR employee and liaison to the schools who also lived in
the apartment complex with the refugee families, regularly counsels students
regarding their academic work. She explains her role in helping students see
the importance of addressing problems early on and in encouraging students
to communicate directly with teachers:
When there’s a week left of school…there’s very little I can do to help
you not fail the class, like that’s not something that’s possible, so I’ve
been trying over the last year to really emphasize that, like hey, if you
have a problem, come quickly, and teaching them to reach out to their
teachers…and the ones that I’ve seen do that are improving a lot.

76
 CBO & REFUGEE STUDENTS

Students may be unaware of the fact that teachers are often receptive to student
requests for help or more time on an assignment. Additionally, in U.S. culture,
students are welcome and encouraged to speak up for themselves. Kayla helps
them to better understand this two-way communication between students and
their teachers, making a significant difference in their ability to perform at
their optimal level.
Finally, the College Bound Program provides essential support for students
as they make the transition beyond high school to higher education. Cynthia
explained the origins of the College Bound Program after seeing the struggles
students encountered after high school graduation:
I think the reason I started the [College Bound Program] in the begin-
ning was because what I was seeing in our community was…first kid in a
family to go to high school, much less finish—like [graduation] pictures
taken…whole family, teachers, anyone that they knew, just like pictures,
pictures, pictures, and then at the end of the day when I saw the kids
back in the community, it was just like this panic of what now? What
do I do now?
Therefore, in effort to support students beyond high school graduation, the
College Bound Program was put in place, according to Cynthia, to show “that
commitment to walk with them for the long haul, and that you’re not…go-
ing to leave them at the door of college. Start early—walk with them…[walk]
with them beyond.” When students join the College Bound Program, they are
assigned to a mentor who meets with them regularly during their remaining
years in high school and into college. They also have access to daily homework
help, tutoring sessions, and academic skills nights. There are, in addition, eve-
ning informational sessions that include topics such as applying for financial
aid and scholarships, writing college applications, and deciding upon majors
and career paths. Ashley, the coordinator of the College Bound Program, ex-
pressed that college access was important because they witnessed that students
“ended up falling into the same jobs that their parents did, which are not nec-
essarily bad jobs, but they keep their family in a cycle of poverty” and helping
them to navigate access to college was a way to change students’ personal and
familial trajectory. Kayla, the school liaison, explained the role of the College
Bound Program, since it is unlikely that their parents have gone through this
process before:
We do college tours. We help with the college applications. We help with
the FAFSA applications. We help with other scholarship applications.
Just because a lot of times, like let’s face it, we knew that there were
scholarship applications because our parents were like, all right, well, it’s

77
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

time to apply for this. You’ve got to make sure you get things in [by] this
time, like those scholarships are going to close, and their parents don’t
know the American college rules.…They didn’t go through our system,
and it’s difficult to kind of find them out.
Gabriella, a recent graduate from the College Bound Program, agreed that
the program was instrumental in her decision to go to college because it intro-
duced her to the academic programs and possible careers:
From the [College Bound Program], I should say they help us a lot. Like
to make a meeting with somebody, to just share their knowledge with
us. I can say, making appointments with people [who] work in [a local
community college], [a local university], so we just meet many people
here…we [are] just meeting the doctors; we [are] meeting the dentists.
An important part of the program was encouraging students to think realis-
tically about their interests and strengths and what they might like to do with
their lives. Often mentors challenged students to think about personal goals.
Kayla explained the role of CFR in helping students navigate career choices and
the pressures that might be placed on them by parents and family members:
The biggest thing that we do with I think in the [College Bound Pro-
gram] is discussing reasonable goals and what is it that [students] actu-
ally want—helping them find a dream and a vision and a way of doing
it, because a lot of times you have a lot of pressure from parents—you
will be a doctor—and they want don’t want to be, and it’s very hard to
be a doctor.
Mentors help students identify subject areas that interest them and help them
find a career path that would align with their strengths. They sought to bring
more information and resources to the students through guest speakers and
mentoring to improve their ability to navigate the many career choices. For
example, Cynthia recalled a student thinking about becoming a hairstylist or
vet and thought that the two careers would require equal amounts of school-
ing. Therefore, the career nights have provided needed information to students
about possible careers and their degree requirements. Cynthia explained the
rationale behind career nights to highlight diversity of options:
We have career nights where we have different people come in and speak,
and we’ve kind of tried to approach it like—nursing…a lot of women
want to be a nurse. Okay, what is a nurse? And what are all the kinds of
things you could do with a nursing background, you can be a CNA—low
threshold, low pay. You could be a doctor’s office nurse—more invest-
ment of time, but probably lower on the pay scale, all the way up to being

78
 CBO & REFUGEE STUDENTS

a nurse anesthetist or a PA. And then there’s male nurses, and there are
reasons that they need male nurses, and dental hygienists, and dentists.
Luis, the recruitment and outreach officer at a local community college,
partners with CFR to facilitate the community college application process for
their students. He provides campus tours and workshops on completing an ap-
plication, applying for financial aid, and other skills. For example, he recently
conducted a workshop on mock college interviews. Luis, however, acknowl-
edged that for access to higher education, the biggest barrier for immigrant and
refugee students is their life realities, which he describes as “competing against
life.” He realizes that for refugee students, the need to make money to provide
transportation, childcare, food, and housing often supersedes the desire and as-
piration to pursue a college education. Luis explained that most low-resourced
students face “the cost of not knowing.” Students feel badly asking for help. He
explained that his role is to provide needed resources and information about
navigating the community college without them having to ask.
Collectively, these individual players—CFR’s director, the school liai-
son, other CFR staff, the homework help volunteers, the mentors, and the
community college recruitment liaison work together to accelerate the refu-
gee-background students’ navigational knowledge. They help the adolescents
to expand and apply their knowledge to a new setting, resulting in positive out-
comes for the students and, ultimately, for their communities.
Bolstering Aspirations to Go Beyond: “[We] Provide…a Com-
munity of Hope”
CFR also helped support refugee-background students by reinforcing their
aspirations for life. Amora, Sue Mar, and Gabriella demonstrated strong aspi-
rational capital as they worked to meet their academic goals while also caring
for their families by working part time jobs, helping with younger siblings,
and serving as family language and literacy brokers (Perry, 2009)—translating
during appointments, explaining important mail, and bridging the school–
home connection for younger siblings. Amora has plans to become a dentist
and is in her senior year of college. Sue Mar hopes to open a textile factory us-
ing environmentally safe methods in her home country of Burma and recently
completed her bachelor’s degree in fashion design. Gabriella expressed her goal
to become a pharmacist developing new drug compounds in the lab and is in
her first year at a community college. Gabriella’s aspiration, hard work, and de-
termination were clearly communicated, as well as her belief that her success
depends largely on her own efforts:
I want to reach the goals, because I want to win life, because many peo-
ple want to win this life, yes, want to be [at] some higher levels, [but]

79
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

they don’t want to do anything, so they [are] just sitting there, and they
want to be [at] higher levels. So me, I want to walk by my power—I
want to work by my energy. I’m going to spend my energy to get some-
thing by myself.
Unlike others that she might have observed, Gabriella feels compelled to act on
her desires and not sit idly by, merely hoping.
CFR helped celebrate and bolster the aspirations held by refugee-background
students and their families. They adopted a “culture of celebration”—celebrat-
ing all the good news in students’ lives as they progressed towards their goals.
Cynthia, the founder and executive director of CFR, explained how celebrat-
ing success had become central to their work:
[We have] kind of taken [it] on almost as a core value of celebration. Be-
cause it’s so hard. What these families are trying to do is so hard, and so
just to celebrate everything—we can celebrate every small movement, I
think, it builds [more success] too…so, I think that if I boiled everything
down…I think the thing that we do provide the best is just a community
of hope.
With a “community of hope” firmly in place, CFR relies upon relationships
between refugee-background families and volunteers to fortify their dreams.
Cynthia explained, “You have to believe that someone really cares about you.”
Gabriella attested to this fact when she shared that her CFR mentor encour-
aged her to persevere: “[She gave] me some advice, like…keeping in school and
standing by my decision. Just like she just told me to stand by my decision and
do what is right for me.” This advice gave students confidence that they were
progressing towards a better future and that they were doing the right thing.
Tammy, a mentor for students at CFR and also a former guidance counsel-
or at North High School, explained her role as a mentor to sustain and build
students’ aspirations:
It’s been a lot of, let’s talk about our classes at school, why are you not
doing well in this class, how can we improve, and let’s plan for college.…
[Her mentee] wants to take classes at [a local community college] during
her senior year, so [she] needs to go ahead and get a jump on it. So, we’ve
talked about how to go ahead and get some college classes completed
while she’s a senior.
Tammy’s insider knowledge about early college access for high school students
allows her to counsel students on how to pursue “early college,” taking col-
lege level courses without having to pay tuition, making it more likely that
her mentee will continue this path to higher education upon her graduation.

80
 CBO & REFUGEE STUDENTS

CFR’s invitation to Tammy to participate as a mentor was a strategic decision

due to Tammy’s 30 plus years as a guidance counselor at North High School
and her established community connections.
CFR’s explicit goal is stated in their motto: that all may thrive. The bolster-
ing of aspirations is central to their mission and observable in their programs
and among the refugee families in this “community of hope.” Walking around
the apartments and speaking with students and families, there is a sense of
hopefulness for what is to come in this resettlement country.
How the Support Was Perceived by the Young Women
The support provided by CFR was perceived by the refugee-background
women as helpful, kind, compassionate, and for Gabriella, the result of di-
vine intervention. For example, through her participation in homework help
at CFR, Sue Mar connected with an alum of a local four-year university. She
filled out the paperwork for Sue Mar’s transfer application from the communi-
ty college and wrote a letter requesting financial aid for her. Sue Mar reflected
on how helpful this was to her and how she felt excited and supported by the
CBO in her transition:
I’m really excited because she wrote them a letter…I was like, yeah! They
need to help you because they help a lot of people, and they [are] not
better… [they don’t just] help only the other people, [they] will help you,
too…she knows a lot of people, too. And she also went to school there.
It is really helpful that she helped me.
The interactions the students had with CFR were consistently described as
kind and compassionate. The perceived kindness and compassion are signifi-
cant because, had the students not felt this warmth, then they likely would not
have chosen to continue accessing these resources through the CBO.
Sue Mar described her interactions with volunteers from the community
organization and the overall feeling of it being helpful and compassionate.
Carrie is one of the refugee sponsors. She used to be my cousin’s sponsor,
but I got to know her through there. So, she was talking to my uncle and
everybody there, and I go to her house, and that’s how I meet her. So,
she’s supposed to not help me, but I go and ask her help.
Sue Mar found help from her cousin’s mentor even though she had not been
assigned to help her. Finally, in the week following her high school graduation,
Gabriella attributed her success to divine intervention, claiming that God had
brought CFR into her life and without this influence, she is not sure if she
would know the career she hoped to pursue as she enrolled in the local com-
munity college the following semester: “I’m not yet success. But I should say

81
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

God because he just helping me to get…peoples [from CFR] coming my way,

because without God to send them to me, I don’t know who…who I might
be.” Overwhelmingly, the young women in this study looked at CFR as a vital
resource in obtaining their future goals of higher education.
How the Support Has Impacted Them Long Term
The support from CFR has impacted each of the young women’s lives in
significant ways. Sue Mar has finished all the credits needed to graduate from
her four-year university after successfully transferring from a community col-
lege with a degree in fashion design. However, despite being provided some
financial assistance and scholarships, she has a small remaining balance, and
the university is withholding her degree until they are paid in full. Sue Mar has
been making monthly payments and will soon hopefully overcome this final
barrier and be permitted to walk across the stage and receive her diploma after
seven long years. Amora graduated in the Spring of 2023 from a four-year pub-
lic university after commuting from her home to attend classes an hour and a
half away, allowing her to save money. Gabriella is still considered a newcomer
since she has only been in the U.S. for four years at the time of this writing.
However, she has successfully graduated from high school and entered a phar-
macy program at the local community college. All three women have expressed
the desire to extend their schooling beyond a four-year undergraduate program.

Discussion

In many ways, the roles of CFR in this study reflect those in existing liter-
ature of CBOs who serve the needs of multilingual learners and their families
and are aligned with the findings of 1) providing social connections and sense of
community and 2) helping to navigate new environments. For example, Wong
(2010) demonstrated the role that CBOs play in providing needed social and
emotional support by providing a “sense of trust and caring, sense of ethnic self
and identity, sense of home and safe space, serving as role models, and sense of
being a teenager” by creating a new and hybrid third space between home and
school (p. 710). Harris and Kiyama (2015), likewise, stressed the importance
of community-based programs for establishing safe spaces built upon confian-
za (mutual trust) where relationships with caring adults were forged. Mentors
in these programs played an integral role in the students’ learning to negotiate
school spaces and resulted in higher graduation rates for students. Culturally
and linguistically diverse students’ success in school is largely influenced by the
social interactions that they have with caring adults by providing educational
expectations, social support, and “academic press,” that is pressure for students

82
 CBO & REFUGEE STUDENTS

to exhibit consistent effort at school (Woolley, 2009, p. 10). This study con-
tributes to the existing literature in that it examines the role of the CBO in
supporting refugee-background students in their move into higher education,
which has not been an area of research. Once Cynthia, director of CFR, rec-
ognized that students involved in the programs were not going on to college,
she began to emphasize students’ progress beyond high school. The College
Bound program provided by CFR, therefore, also focuses on bolstering stu-
dents’ aspirations to go beyond high school graduation, navigate the process,
and ultimately, pursue further educational goals.
While the students involved in the CFR’s College Bound Program all went
on to higher education, this is not always the case. Many refugee background
students do not go on to higher education (Streitwieser et al., 2020). Even
within their own families, there are discrepancies between members of the fam-
ily, some who clearly draw upon their community cultural wealth in this way
and those that do not. For example, Amora and Sue Mar shared frustrations
that they cannot convince their younger siblings to work hard in high school
and to apply for college. They feel that their siblings who arrived in the U.S.
at a younger age than them did not face the same challenges that they faced in
acquiring English and also do not fully comprehend the struggle and the value
of accessing college that they themselves have undergone.
We see that CFR is contributing to the success of students who enroll in
its programs. It is important to note that we are defining success in this article
as the ability to enroll in higher education. However, not only is data lacking
on the effects on students and their families of this decision in the subsequent
years, but it also fails to consider the importance of defining success more
broadly to include students’ ability to accept themselves fully including their
cultural and historical background. El Yaafouri (2022) describes a former stu-
dent who, in his opinion, achieved true success—combining elements of his
home culture and the adopted western culture:
I zoomed in on his picture and saw a confident, simple, Western-style
business suit, and a Nepali tilak on his forehead. He’d made it. Let me
clarify, though. By “made it,” I mean that he’d not only managed resil-
ience and academic accomplishment but also achieved integration. [My
student] had learned to navigate the world of his new home without
compromising the integrity of his personal and cultural identity. (p. 5)
In an effort to consider success more broadly, we looked for signs from the
participants that they too have held onto their cultural identity while also ex-
panding to adopt some features of the U.S. culture. Sue Mar demonstrates
that she has “made it” in much the same manner El Yaafouri (2022) described

83
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

success as the ability to navigate and, in some aspects, integrate the new cul-
ture while still maintaining and holding fast to one’s own cultural identity. Sue
Mar explained that the Burmese military has been suppressing and seeking
to eradicate her Karenni culture through banning their use of language, forc-
ing cultural assimilation, and the genocide of Karenni people. Over time the
Karenni people have begun to dress like Burmese people, despite having a dis-
tinct culture and dress. Sue Mar is pursuing a career in fashion design, so to
reclaim her cultural dress and integrate it with American culture, she designs
Karenni clothing and accessories which merge the cultures in such a way that
honors both countries which are important to her identity as a Karenni Amer-
ican woman. In the dress featured in Figure 1 and Figure 2, Sue Mar draws on
her culture with the traditional Karenni color of red as well as the scarf-like
fabric drawn around the waist.

Figure 1. Sue Mar’s Dress During Construction

Figure 2. Sue Mar’s Dress on a Model

In addition to the complex nature of defining success, this study has revealed
the multiple factors that interplay to determine the trajectory of students. Not
only is the CBO essential to this process, but so are the actions and beliefs of
the students themselves and the many teachers, coaches, mentors, neighbors,
and parents that also influence the lives of young people. We may desire an

84
 CBO & REFUGEE STUDENTS

easy formula to follow to ensure the success of CBOs in helping refugee back-
ground students transition to higher education, but we have to realistically
acknowledge the multifaceted nature of this situation. Success for each student
will be manifested in different ways depending upon their journeys, dreams,
and the relationships they form along the way (Mann & Turner, 2023).
Implications
When we set out to write this article, one goal was to push back on deficit
notions that persist about refugee-background students and school achieve-
ment. We want to highlight that the refugee-background students featured in
this case study, Amora, Sue Mar, and Gabriella, demonstrate personal strengths
and assets including aspirational capital, social capital, and resistant capital
that help them persist in their path to higher education. Ultimately, they are
the main catalysts of their success. Yet, the work of CFR was instrumental in
sustaining and helping direct their efforts from time to time to ensure their
success. In this section of the article and in an effort to amplify refugee-back-
ground students’ voices, we will share implications of our research for CFR,
other CBOs, and educators.
CFR plays an important role in the success of refugee-background adoles-
cents pursuing a college education by helping students build social connections
and a sense of community, navigate the new environment, and dream to go
beyond. However, an approach that is better aligned with a community cul-
tural wealth perspective would involve more focus by CFR on the strengths
that members of the refugee community possess, instead of what they may
lack. Rather than attempting to stack on new knowledge and skills that are
relevant and valued in the U.S. context, it would be more beneficial for CBOs
to first identify the skills and experiences that refugee students and their fam-
ilies already bring with them from their past experiences and lives, and then
apply those in the new context. For example, we learned that Sue Mar’s father
had been a teacher in Burma prior to their relocation and her mother was a
seamstress who clothed many people in their village. Taking the time to know
people’s backgrounds and past expertise could help fulfill needs in the new
community where they have been resettled. Sue Mar’s father could be invited
to assist with Burmese refugees’ sustaining of their home language during af-
terschool tutoring sessions. Sue Mar’s mother could assist others in fixing or
altering clothing for families. Through interviews with the leadership of CFR,
we learned that they are eager to help and feel pressure to rapidly move refugee
families into places of stability. They could, however, more deliberately con-
sider how the individuals might contribute to the caring and serving of other
refugee-background families and CFR. The relationship between CFR and the

85
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

refugee families tends to follow a top-down transmission with the members of

the CBO in control of programming decisions. However, refugee-background
families are well suited to identify concerns and needs that they want to address
for their community, and the opportunity to participate should be made readi-
ly available. Therefore, we recommend that CFR focus first on recognizing and
tapping into the refugee-background students’ community cultural wealth and
then look for ways to shape or extend these assets to serve the refugee-back-
ground students’ best interests.
Refugee students’ resistant capital could be tapped into by looking for op-
portunities to involve refugee-background individuals in leadership and in
decisions for the CBO. Currently, there are no refugee-background people
employed at CFR; a few have worked as interns at times. Refugee-back-
ground individuals can shed light on practices at CFR that might contribute
unknowingly to the discrimination and exclusion of others or reify deficit per-
spectives in the community. A better practice would be to hire members of the
refugee-background community into leadership and advising roles in their or-
ganization. The refugees served by the CBO could vote or offer their opinion
on applicants for positions within the organization.
Refugee-background families and students should be represented by some-
one who they feel understands their experiences and knows their concerns. As
Sue Mar explained, while reading about the life and work of Michelle Obama
was interesting and inspiring, it still was not the same as following the life ex-
ample of a refugee-background person who has experienced similar experiences
and challenges as she has. She said, “Cause if I see someone born in the U.S. do
something amazing, it’s like, that’s amazing, but that’s not my life… [Michelle
Obama] didn’t came from refugee, and she knew how to speak English when
she was younger.” CFR acts from a place of caring and love and could better
serve the refugee-background families if they prioritize the inclusion of refu-
gee-background individuals on their staff and board.
Additionally, refugee-background families and students could have regular
opportunities to come together in a shared space, to openly discuss their expe-
riences and identify concerns that they have as a community. Meetings could
be organized according to cultural and linguistic groups to provide spaces in
which participants could truly express themselves in their home language.
The assistance of a leader in a paid position for each cultural/linguistic group
would facilitate these meetings as well as amplify the voices of the commu-
nity. Once key concerns are identified, CFR could invite leaders within the
refugee community to help find solutions, centering the refugee communi-
ty at the heart of its organization. Additionally, the cultural/linguistic liaison
would work alongside the CFR staff to organize events based upon the needs

86
 CBO & REFUGEE STUDENTS

and preferences of the community they represent. This would shift dynamics
and allow CFR to more fully lean into the community cultural wealth that is
currently underutilized.
In order to build upon students’ existing social capital gained through years
of navigation of complex political rules, CFR could foster greater social net-
works among refugee students by more frequently inviting refugee-background
students to the center who are visiting from college or have graduated from col-
lege and are in careers. They could share what they have learned about majors,
career choices, and interacting with professors and classmates. If a large enough
group of college students and graduates are invited, discussion groups could
be created for each home language of the participants to better share intimate
knowledge.
Finally, we provide resources for those serving in educator roles so that
they may more fully recognize and bolster their students’ community cultural
wealth. In Table 1 below, we highlight the forms of capital, descriptions/defini-
tions, examples from the current study, and suggestions for teachers to tap into
and leverage these sources of cultural wealth in their multilingual students.

Table 1. Sources of Community Cultural Wealth, Examples from the Cur-

rent Study, and Suggestions for Teachers who Work with Multilingual Learners
(Adapted from Yosso, 2005 and Jimenez, 2020)
Form of Definition Example from Current Suggestions for Teachers
Capital of capital Study
by Yosso
(2005)*
Aspira- “Ability to Amora dreams of becoming a -Take students to visit local col-
tional maintain dentist and, despite hardships leges and universities in the area.
hopes and of funding, difficult classes -Have refugee background col-
dreams for with native English speakers, lege graduates come and talk to
the future, and having to commute to students about their participa-
even in the school, she is succeeding at tion in higher education so that
face of real her goal. students can “see” someone like
and per- themselves in these spaces.
ceived barri- -Have guests come to class to
ers” (p. 77) talk about career options.
-Ask students to interview a
family member or friend about
professional or educational hard-
ships they have encountered and
overcome.
-Have students create multimod-
al identity projects (Cummins
et al., 2015) about who they are
and who they want to become.

87
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

Table 1, continued
Linguis- “Intellec- Sue Mar hopes to one day -Allow for and promote
tic tual and open a fabric factory in her translanguaging practices (García
social skills home country of Burma & Kleyn, 2016) in the classroom
attained where she could provide qual- and school.
through ity employment for women -Bulletin boards, word walls, en-
commu- of her country. She has main- try ways should feature languag-
nication tained her linguistic and cul- es represented at the school.
experiences tural connections to her home -School environments should
in more than country. be text rich and in multiple lan-
one language Gabriella speaks three lan- guages allowing students to draw
and/or style” guages: French at school in upon their linguistic capital in
(p. 78) Burundi; Swahili at home; the classroom.
and Ngondi with friends (and -Encourage students to complete
is now learning English). components of assignments (re-
search, pre-writing, discussion)
in their home language or draw
pictures to express ideas.
Familial “Cultural Gabriella’s father was a nurse -Help students see the value of
knowledges in the Congo prior to their their familial expertise by in-
nurtured fleeing to Burundi. This in- viting family members into the
among famil- fluenced Gabriella’s desire to classroom to share their expe-
ia (kin), that study pharmaceutical devel- riences and knowledge about a
carry a sense opment. topic in person or via video.
of commu- Sue Mar’s grandfather taught -Conduct an oral history or re-
nity history, her mother to sew, and she cord a StoryCorps of traditions
memory, sewed clothing for her family that parents and extended family
and cultural and many in their village. members practice.
intuition… Sue Mar’s mother taught her
expands the to sew when she was just five
concept of years old. She now wishes to
family to in- pursue a career in clothing
clude a more design based upon these skills
broad under- developed at an early age.
standing of
kinship” (p.
79)
Social “Networks of The refugee community at the -Connect students with people
people and apartment complex fortified in the community that share
community Amora’s desire to be a dentist their interests and who might
resources” (p. because, through her connec- help them achieve their goals.
79) tions there, she met a dentist -Provide opportunities for social
who was a refugee from Iran. gatherings where networking can
He told her, “If you love it, occur among families.
just do it!” -Ask parents to share about their
children in family engagement
sessions.

88
 CBO & REFUGEE STUDENTS

Table 1, continued
(Social, CFR provided important ac- -Help students make connec-
contin- cess to networks of people in tions to the bilingual commu-
ued) schools, health care, and em- nity—at church/faith-based,
ployment to provide support sports, or volunteer organiza-
and opportunities for refu- tions, etc.
gee-background families. -Use social media platforms in-
cluding WeChat, LinkedIn, etc.
to create extended groups of ref-
ugees that have graduated from
the local school.
Naviga- “Skills of As refugees, parents have -Help students connect with
tional maneuver- negotiated complex problems older students and community
ing through including securing refugee members to learn from their
social insti- status and ensuring the health experiences navigating past
tutions” (p. and safety of their family challenges by creating a buddy
80) during migration. They may system in which graduates share
have developed ways to nav- what they have learned along the
igate government paperwork way.
and gain access to food and -Role play and share experiences
health care for their children. in the classroom about successful
navigation of institutions.
Resis- “Knowledges Sue Mar was told by a class- -Invite refugee-background
tant and skills mate that going to the univer- students to be a part of the lead-
fostered sity was not for her and that ership team and to shed light on
through she should apply to the com- practices that are discriminatory
oppositional munity college. This strength- and exclusionary at school.
behavior that ened her resolve to apply to -Invite parents of refugee-back-
challenges the university. ground students to take part in
inequality” Amora found that taking bi- leadership meetings and identify
(p. 80) ology class with all native En- issues of concern for their fam-
glish speakers was a challenge ilies.
due to differences in language
knowledge. She decided to
study biology as a major in
college to show that she could
master difficult things.

89
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

Table 1, continued
*Mi- “Knowl- Sue Mar traveled by foot for -Explore migration experiences
gration edges, sen- months to reside in a refugee through literature in the class-
(Jime- sibilities, camp in Thailand for many room by using a class text such
nez, and skills years before permanent reset- as When Stars are Scattered; In-
2020) cultivated tlement in the U.S. side Out and Back Again; We Are
through Gabriella lived for many years Displaced; Enrique’s Journey; My
the array of in a refugee camp in Burundi Diary from Here to There/Mi Di-
migration/ before her permanent reset- ario de Aquí Hasta Allá; We Are
immigration tlement. Not From Here/No Somos de Aquí
experiences Amora lived with undoc- -Ask students to write about and
to the United umented status in Iran for share their family’s (or a friend’s)
States or its many years while her mother migration story.
borderlands” sought to obtain permission -Identify sources of strength and
(Jimenez, to relocate to the U.S. & was knowledge from these experi-
2020, p. only granted permission due ences.
779) to her status as a widow.
Their families navigated the
complex legal process to apply
for refugee status and perma-
nently relocate to NC.

Conclusion

Looking forward, future research could examine the role of other refugee
role models in the lives of refugee-background students who are transition-
ing from high school to higher education and from a community college to a
four-year university. We have seen in this study evidence that the lives and ex-
periences of other refugees are influential for younger generations in learning
about overcoming barriers and acknowledging the hardships ahead.
We are also interested in exploring the characteristics of successful men-
torships in the CBO. The majority of mentors at CFR identify as White,
monolingual, middle class, evangelical Christians. They talk about their re-
lationships with their mentees as being “like family.” Mentees mention their
mentors as playing a role in their ability to register for college but stop short
of calling them part of their family. Is the relationship between mentors and
mentees reciprocal? How do mentors connect with and influence their men-
tees who differ culturally and linguistically from them? Are there aspects of
a training program that might improve outcomes for the success of these re-
lationships? Is there a way to support mentors so that they can sustain their
efforts across multiple mentees and therefore, apply what they have learned in
these collaborative relationships?
CFR and other refugee-serving CBOs have been grappling with many
complex issues. It is our hope that scholarly research in the area of refugee com-

90
 CBO & REFUGEE STUDENTS

munities and educational outcomes continues to grow. Specifically, we hope

to see many scholars from refugee backgrounds continuing to join this urgent
work. Article 26 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UN General
Assembly, 1948) states, “everyone has the right to education.” We, therefore,
ask that higher education truly be made accessible to all, eliminating unnec-
essary barriers and challenges to those who want to seek higher education. In
doing so, we can have a more prosperous society in which people’s lives can be
improved through educational opportunities.
It is with anticipation and expectation that we look to CBOs to continue
making a significant contribution in the lives of refugee-background students
and their families during their K–12 education. We hope to bring attention to
these efforts so that we can learn from their example what works in support-
ing students’ community cultural wealth and fostering aspirations in pursuit
of higher education so that all refugee-background students can thrive in their
communities and schools.

References
Alford, J. (2014). “Well, hang on, they’re actually much better than that!”: Disrupting dom-
inant discourses of deficit about English language learners in senior high school English.
English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 13(3), 71–88. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/
EJ1050176.pdf
Alford, J. H. (2021). Critical literacy with adolescent English language learners: Exploring policy
and practice in global contexts. Routledge, Taylor, & Francis.
American Immigration Council. (2020, August 6). Fact sheet: Immigrants in North Carolina.
https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/immigrants-north-carolina
Bañuelos, N. (2021). Community cultural wealth goes to college: A review of the literature for
career services professionals and research (WCER Working Paper 2021-6). Wisconsin Center
for Education Research. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED617922.pdf
Barton, A., & Tan, E. (2020). Beyond equity as inclusion: A framework of “rightful presence”
for guiding justice-oriented studies in teaching and learning. Educational Researcher, 49(6),
433–440. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X20927363
Baxter, P., & Jack, S. (2008). Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and imple-
mentation for novice researchers. The Qualitative Report, 13(4), 544–559. https://doi.
org/10.46743/2160-3715/2008.1573
Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among
five approaches. Sage.
Cummins, J. (1996). Negotiating identities: Education for empowerment in a diverse society.
California Association for Bilingual Education.
Cummins, J., Hu, S., Markus., P., & Montero, M. K. (2015). Identity texts and academ-
ic achievement: Connecting the dots in multilingual school contexts. TESOL Quarterly,
49(3), 555–581. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.24
Daniel, S. M., & Zybina, M. (2019). Resettled refugee teens’ perspectives: Identifying a need
to centralize youths’ “funds of strategies” in future efforts to enact culturally responsive ped-
agogy. The Urban Review, 51(3), 369–369. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11256-018-0484-7

91
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). The flat world and education: How America’s commitment to
equity will determine our future. Teachers College Press.
El Yaafouri, L. (2022). Restoring students’ innate power: Trauma-responsive strategies for teaching
multilingual newcomers. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative Inquiry,
12(2), 219–245. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800405284363
García, O., & Kleyn, T. (2016). Translanguaging theory in education. In O. Garcia & T. Kleyn
(Eds.), Translanguaging with multilingual students: Learning from classroom moments (pp.
9–33). Routledge.
Harris, D. M., & Kiyama, J. M. (2015). The role of school and community-based programs
in aiding Latino/a high school persistence. Education and Urban Society, 47(2), 182–206.
Haycock, K. (2015, May 28). Higher ed’s pivotal role in breaking the cycle of poverty. The
Education Trust. https://edtrust.org/the-equity-line/higher-eds-pivotal-role-in-breaking-
the-cycle-of-poverty/
Hoff, M. A., & Armstrong, S. L. (2021). The language–literacy ripple effect on college-going-
ness for a refugee-background student. Literacy Research and Instruction, 61(2), 137–157.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19388071.2021.1921890
Hos, R. (2016). Caring is not enough: Teachers’ enactment of ethical care for adolescent stu-
dents with limited or interrupted formal education (SLIFE) in a newcomer classroom.
Education and Urban Society, 48(5), 479–503.
Jimenez, R. M. (2020). Community cultural wealth pedagogies: Cultivating autoethnograph-
ic counternarratives and migration capital. American Educational Research Journal, 57(2),
775–807. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831219866148
Juvonen, J. (2007) Reforming middle schools: Focus on continuity, social connect-
edness, and engagement. Educational Psychologist, 42(4), 197‒208. https://doi.
org/10.1080/00461520701621046
Kleyn, T. (2016). Setting the path: Implications for teachers and teacher educators. In O. Gar-
cia & T. Kleyn (Eds.), Translanguaging with multilingual students: Learning from classroom
moments (pp. 178–193). Routledge.
Lau, S. (2012). Reconceptualizing critical literacy teaching in ESL classrooms. The Reading
Teacher, 65(5), 325–329. https://doi.org/10.1002/TRTR.01050
MacLure, M. (2013). Classification or wonder? Coding as an analytic practice in qualita-
tive research. In B. Coleman & J. Ringrose (Eds.), Deleuze and research methodologies (pp.
164–183). Edinburgh University Press.
Mann, J. C., & Turner, A. M. (2023). Portraits of young refugee women’s identities, experi-
ences, and beliefs in relation to college-going. English Teaching: Practice & Critique, 22(3),
368–380.
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. Jossey-Bass.
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. Jossey-Bass.
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2020). Qualitative data analysis: A methods
sourcebook (4th ed). Sage.
Murillo, E. G. (2002). How does it feel to be a problem?: “Disciplining” the transnational
subject in the American South. In S. Wortham, E. G. Murillo, & E. T. Hamann (Eds.), Ed-
ucation in the new Latino Diaspora: Policy and the politics of identity (pp. 215–240). Ablex.
Ngo, B. (2017). The costs of “living the dream” for Hmong immigrants: The impact of sub-
tractive schooling on family and community. Educational Studies, 53(5), 450–467. https://
doi.org/10.1080/00131946.2016.1258361

92
 CBO & REFUGEE STUDENTS

Nasir, N. S., Jones, A., & Mclaughlin, M. (2011). School connectedness for students in low-
income urban high schools. Teachers College Record, 113(8), 1755–1793. https://doi.org/
10.1177/016146811111300805
North Carolina Department of Public Instruction. (2022, March). Language diversity in North Car-
olina. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1W7oTRC36rxKFyOAzVQ6U9N8fLALmb5OL/view
Northcote, J., Hancock, P., & Casimiro, S. (2006). Breaking the isolation cycle: The experi-
ence of Muslim refugee women in Australia. Asian and Pacific Migration Journal, 15(2),
177–199.
Perry, K. H. (2009). Genres, contexts, and literacy practices: Literacy brokering among Suda-
nese refugee families. Reading Research Quarterly, 44(3), 256–276. https://doi.org/10.1598/
RRQ.44.3.2
Ramsay, G., & Baker, S. (2019). Higher education and students from refugee backgrounds: A
meta-scoping study. Refugee Survey Quarterly, 38(1), 55–82. https://doi.org/10.1093/rsq/
hdy018
Refugee Processing Center. (2022). Refugee arrivals by state and nationality fiscal year 2022:
October 1, 2021 through February 28, 2022. Retrieved February 7, 2022 from https://www.
wrapsnet.org/admissions-and-arrivals/
Rong, X. L., Hilburn, J., & Sun, W. (2017). Immigration, demographic changes, and schools
in North Carolina from 1990 to 2015: Transformations to a multiethnic, global commu-
nity. In X. L. Rong & J. Hilburn (Eds.), Immigration and education in North Carolina (pp.
3–24). Sense Publishers.
Roxas, K., & Roy, L. (2012). “That’s how we roll”: A case study of a recently arrived refugee
student in an urban high school. The Urban Review, 44, 468–486. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11256-012-0203-8
Ryu, M., & Tuvilla, M. R. S. (2018). Resettled refugee youths’ stories of migration, school-
ing, and future: Challenging dominant narratives about refugees. The Urban Review, 50,
539–558.
Shapiro, S. (2014). “Words that you said got bigger”: English language learners’ lived experi-
ences of deficit discourse. Research in the Teaching of English, 48(4), 386–406.
Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Sage.
Stewart, M. A. (2015). “My journey of hope and peace”: Learning from adolescent refugees’
lived experiences. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 59(2), 149–159. https://doi.
org/10.1002/jaal.445
Streitwieser, B., Jaeger, K. D., & Roche, J. (2020). Included yet excluded: The higher educa-
tion paradox for resettled refugees in the USA. Higher Education Policy, 33, 203–221.
Suárez-Orozco, C., & Suárez-Orozco, M. M. (2001). Children of immigration. Harvard Uni-
versity Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvjz82j9
Suárez-Orozco, C., Suárez-Orozco, M. M., & Todorova, I. (2008). Learning a new land: Im-
migrant students in American society. Harvard University Press.
Symons, C., & Ponzio, C. (2019). Spacious teaching with immigrant-origin youth: Who you
are is welcome here. English Journal, 109(1), 22–29. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26797088
Tuliao, M. D., Hatch, D. K., & Torraco, R. J. (2017). Refugee students in community col-
leges: How colleges can respond to an emerging demographic challenge. Journal of Applied
Research in the Community College, 24(1), 15–26. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cehse-
dadfacpub/76
United Nations General Assembly. (1948). Universal declaration of human rights. https://www.
un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights

93
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). (2020). Global trends: Forced
displacement in 2020. https://www.unhcr.org/60b638e37/unhcr-global-trends-2020
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). (2023). Tertiary education.
https://www.unhcr.org/tertiary-education
Valenzuela, A. (1999). Subtractive schooling: U.S.–Mexican youth and the politics of caring.
State University of NY Press.
Wong, N. W. A. (2010). “Cuz they care about the people who goes there”: The multiple roles
of a community-based youth center in providing “youth (comm)unity” for low-income
Chinese American youth. Urban Education, 45(5), 708–739.
Wooley, M. E. (2009). Supporting school completion among Latino youth: The role of adult
relationships. The Prevention Researcher, 16(3), 9–12.
Yosso, T. J. (2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community
cultural wealth. Race, Ethnicity, and Education, 8(1), 69–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/136
1332052000341006
Yosso, T. J. (2006). Critical race counterstories along the Chicana/Chicano educational pipeline.
Routledge.
Yosso, T. J., & García, D. G. (2007). “This is no slum!” A critical race theory analysis of
community cultural wealth in culture clash’s Chavez ravine. Aztlán: A Journal of Chicano
Studies, 32(1), 145–179.

Alison M. Turner is an assistant professor of Teaching English to Speakers of Other

Languages (TESOL) at North Carolina State University. She has taught Spanish, ESL,
and pedagogical methods and strategies to preservice ESL teachers for over 20 years
in North Carolina, including at the high school, community college, and university
levels. Her research interests include strategies for connecting schools, communities,
and culturally and linguistically diverse families and promoting critical consciousness
among teachers and students in the English language classroom. Correspondence con-
cerning this article can be addressed to Alison M. Turner, PhD., North Carolina State
University, Department of World Languages and Cultures, 325 Withers Hall / Cam-
pus Box 8106, 101 Lampe Dr., Raleigh, NC 27607, or email [email protected]
Jennifer C. Mann is an educational researcher at Duke University’s Center for
Child and Family Policy and a doctoral candidate in Literacy and English Language
Arts in the department of Teacher Education and Learning Sciences in the College of
Education at North Carolina State University. She has spent 16 years as an educator
specializing in instruction to culturally and linguistically diverse students. Her research
interests include critical literacy, culturally sustaining pedagogy, and the social–emo-
tional well-being of marginalized students, particularly refugees and immigrants.

94
 CBO & REFUGEE STUDENTS

Appendix. Data Sources

Name/
Role Data Sources
Pseudonym
Author 2 Teacher–Researcher 1:1 Interview

Refugee College Student who received Three 1:1 interviews

support from CFR One group interview
Amora
One asynchronous inter-
Pursuing a career in dentistry view

Refugee College Student who received Three 1:1 interviews

support from CFR One group interview
Sue Mar Documents including
Pursuing a career in fabric develop- letters from teachers, per-
ment and production sonal writings, and awards

Refugee College Student who partici-

pated in the College Bound Program
Gabriella and received support from CFR One 1:1 interview
Currently attending the community
college to earn a degree in pharmacy

One 1:1 interview

Founder & Executive Director of the
Cynthia One asynchronous inter-
CBO, CFR
view
Coordinator of College Bound Pro- One 1:1 interview
Ashley gram—a CFR program bridging the One asynchronous inter-
gap between high school and college view
Staff member of CFR; Lives at the
Kayla apartment complex and served as a li- One 1:1 interview
aison between families and the schools
Mentor in the College Bound Program One 1:1 interview
Tammy & former high school student services Two asynchronous inter-
counselor to Amora & Sue Mar views
Local community college recruitment
Luis One 1:1 interview
liaison
College # of students enrolled in the College Data drawn from the
Bound Pro- Bound Program & number of students years: 2019, 2020, 2021,
gram Data who go on to higher education 2022, 2023

95
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

96
“Now I Feel That the Parents Are Partners and
Not Enemies”: Training Preservice Teachers to
Work in Partnership With Parents of Students
With Disabilities
Alicia Greenbank

Abstract
The aim of this study was to examine whether, following their participation
in a relevant course, preservice teachers (i.e., undergraduate students) changed
their perceptions and attitudes toward partnership with parents of students
with disabilities. This unique course was the first to take place in Israel and
incorporated meetings with parents of students with disabilities. A total of 22
fourth-year preservice teachers in the Department of Special Education par-
ticipated in the course, which incorporated meetings with seven parents of
students with disabilities. Changes in the preservice teachers’ perceptions re-
garding partnerships with these parents were examined through reports that
were written by the preservice teachers before and after every meeting with the
parents and at the end of the course. The findings showed that courses that in-
clude preservice teachers and parents of students with disabilities could be very
beneficial for teachers’ training. The preservice teachers who participated in the
course developed an awareness regarding the challenges and experiences that
are encountered by these parents; the course also changed their perceptions
about the place of the parent within such a partnership and provided partici-
pants with applicable insights into the importance of creating an atmosphere
and communication channel that promotes partnerships with parents.

Key Words: partnership, parents, special education, children with special needs,
students with disabilities, parents’ involvement, family engagement

School Community Journal, 2023, Vol. 33, No. 2 97

Available at http://www.schoolcommunitynetwork.org/SCJ.aspx
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

Introduction

The two most significant systems for the child are the familial system and
the educational system (including the kindergarten and the school). Both
systems play significant roles in the socialization of the child with regard to ac-
quiring values, knowledge, and tools for individualization, which enables the
formation of personal identity and self-utilization (Reschly & Christenson,
2012). Research literature consistently points to the importance of the con-
nection between the two systems, a connection which promotes the healthy
development of the child. Cooperation and optimal communication between
the educational system and the parents has an impact on the welfare of the stu-
dent, on his motivation for learning and his academic progress, as well as on
his social and emotional adaptation (Jeynes, 2022; Lusse et al., 2019; Park &
Holloway, 2018).
Considering the importance of the connection between the familial and ed-
ucational systems, the Ministry of Education in Israel has been trying in recent
years to reinforce the connection and the partnership between them from the
time that the child first enters the education system in preschool. In accordance
with the instructions of the Ministry of Education in Israel, the members of the
educational staff are responsible for establishing methods of dialogue with the
parents, for initiating dialogues, and for including parents in decision-making
discussions (Ritvo et al., 2018). The Ministry of Education in Israel places the
responsibility on the educational staff, even though staff often lack the skills to
create and maintain contact with the parents. School and kindergarten teach-
ers who lack knowledge and skills in working with parents will continue to
treat parents in a hierarchical, traditional, and non-cooperative way (Murray et
al., 2008). This situation could lead the educational staff to show concerns and
lack of confidence in their work with parents and to develop negative attitudes
towards parental involvement. Lack of preparation for working with parents
might be one of the factors for teacher burnout and for the teacher leaving the
teaching profession at the beginning of his professional path (Nygaard, 2019).
Partnership Between Educational Staff and Parents of Students
With Disabilities
The connection between school and kindergarten teachers and parents of
students with disabilities is a unique connection. This connection is long-lasting
and intense compared to the connection of school and kindergarten teachers
with parents of students without disabilities (Ferguson, 2008). The connection
begins often at the preschool age when the child is placed in a special kinder-
garten and ends at the age of 21. Legislation on special education, which first

98
 PRESERVICE TRAINING IN ISRAEL

came into existence in the state of Israel in 1988, designates a significant place
for the parents and defines them as full partners. This legislation requires the
involvement of parents from the initial stage of making the decision regarding
eligibility for special education services for the child and continues throughout
the duration of the child’s studies in the educational system. The new amend-
ment to the Special Education Act, Amendment Number 11 (Israeli Knesset,
2018), even gives the parents the right to select the educational setting for their
child.
In accordance with the new amendment, school and kindergarten teachers
are required to include the parents in all stages of the placement process and
educational–therapeutic interventions, to make accessible to the parents all
the information about different committees, and to accompany the parents
through the process of selecting the type of educational setting for their child.
The discussing and decision-making process at the committees regarding the
eligibility for special education services, determining the types of support and
their scope, creating the personal program, and updating it regularly—all of
these must be based on a respectful dialogue with the parents and in full coop-
eration with them (Israeli Ministry of Education, 2018).
In practice, even many years after the legislation came into effect, partner-
ship between parents of students with disabilities and educational staff is rare
and not easy to achieve (Mueller, 2017; Oranga et al., 2022). School and kin-
dergarten teachers often find it difficult to maintain a partnership with the
parents. The connection between the parties is loaded with emotions, which
may lead to a power struggle and to mutual doubt regarding the ability of each
of the parties to optimally handle the child and provide a suitable response to
his needs (Kurth et al., 2020). The attempt to establish a partnership often
leads to many conflicts. These conflicts are expressed in loaded relationships,
judgmental attitudes, lack of trust and mutual respect, difficulties in commu-
nication, and lack of attention. This situation might damage the self-esteem
of the parents and their ability to stand up in favor of their child (Gershwin,
2020). On the other hand, school and kindergarten teachers might feel that
there is no sufficient appreciation by the parents for their investment, and their
attitudes towards the involvement of parents might be negative (Reschly &
Christenson, 2012; Tucker & Schwartz, 2013).
Training Preservice Teachers to Work With Parents
On the one hand, research literature supports the need to train school and
kindergarten teachers, even during their initial teacher training, to work with
parents in general and with parents of students with disabilities in particular.
On the other hand, there is an agreement that this training does not actually

99
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

exist, or it is very limited, and it does not provide tools and skills that will as-
sist school and kindergarten teachers in their work with parents (Collier et al.,
2015; De Bruïne et al., 2014; Kyzar et al., 2019; Thompson et al., 2018).
Some research has found that preservice teachers changed their attitudes
and developed more empathy following a few meetings with parents of stu-
dents with disabilities (Broomhead, 2013; Forin & Hopewell, 2006). However,
meetings in which preservice teachers and parents of students with disabilities
take part and work together towards a partnership can only be found in a few
programs documented in professional literature (e.g., Collier et al., 2015; Graff
et al., 2020; Koch, 2020; Murray et al., 2013; Murray et al., 2018). Collier et
al. (2015) reviewed a program called Families as Faculty (FAF) implemented in
a course for master’s degree students in special education at a university in the
USA. The preservice teachers met parents of children with disabilities during
the visits they held in their homes. The home visits gave the parents an oppor-
tunity to tell their stories and gave the preservice teachers an opportunity to
learn from parents in an authentic setting. Also, Graff et al. (2020) presented
a qualitative study in which 22 preservice special education teachers experi-
enced, wrote about, and reflected upon their perceptions of families of children
with disabilities over a semester-long course built on the FAF model.
Another university program in the USA provides multiple opportunities to
interact with parents of students with disabilities; for example, a professor and
the parent of a child with a disability co-teach the class. In this co-taught class,
parents participate in the class together with in-service and/or preservice teach-
ers (Murray et al., 2008; Murray et al., 2013; Murray et al., 2018). Koch (2020)
also reviewed a program for preservice general teachers at a college in the USA;
the data set for this research was reflection papers written as part of a class as-
signment after the preservice teachers participated in a discussion panel with
parents of children with disabilities at an introductory special education course.
The preservice general education teachers were asked, after listening to parents’
stories and experiences, to consider the perspectives of parents, their role in the
special education process, and the importance of their active participation.
In all the above programs, the courses for preservice teachers included
meetings with parents of students with disabilities. Following the program,
the preservice teachers reported a change in their attitudes towards the parents
and reported that they had acquired tools for the creation and management
of optimal connections with them. As for the parents, the program enriched
knowledge, empowered their sense of belonging and their self-capability, and
enabled them to hold close contact with members of the staff and to learn
about their professional work. The researchers concluded that involving par-
ents in training programs for preservice teachers empowers both the parents

100
 PRESERVICE TRAINING IN ISRAEL

and the college students, and it might lead to a more effective connection be-
tween the parties in educational settings.
The purpose of the current study was to examine whether, following their
participation in a relevant course, preservice teachers changed their perceptions
and attitudes toward partnership with parents of students with disabilities. The
course is the first course in Israel in which parents of students with disabilities
were incorporated into a course for preservice teachers in the field of special
education. The current article focuses on changes the preservice teachers ex-
perienced following the interactions with the parents who took part in the
course. The article examines the question of how incorporating meetings with
parents of students with disabilities in a course for preservice teachers contrib-
uted to a change in preservice teachers’ perceptions and attitudes towards the
partnership between educational staff and parents of students with disabilities.

Method
The research took place at the Giv’at Washington Academic College of Ed-
ucation in Israel. The course “Partnership Between Parents of Students With
Disabilities and Educational Staff” is a semester-long course for preservice
teachers during their fourth year at the Department of Special Education. The
course included 14 meetings; each one lasted an hour and a half. The course in-
cluded seven parents—six mothers and one father—of students in the age range
of 5 to 21 (M = 9) with a variety of disabilities: cerebral palsy, learning disability,
developmental– emotional–cognitive impairment, and the autistic spectrum.
Approximately 70% of the students studied in special education settings: kin-
dergartens or schools. The others studied in special education classes or were
incorporated in regular classrooms in general education schools. The parents
were recruited via an advertising pamphlet which was published on social me-
dia, in educational settings, and in local town support centers. Parents who were
interested in the course voluntarily contacted the course organizer and took part
in it without receiving any financial reward for their participation.
Participants
Participants included 22 preservice special education teachers at an age
range of 23 to 33 (M = 25). The preservice teachers were in their fourth year of
studies, which is their first year of working in an educational setting.
Ethical Aspects of the Research
The preservice teachers received an explanation of the study and expressed
their willingness and consent to participate in it. Ethical approval was obtained
before the study was conducted by the ethics committee of the college.
101
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

Process
The preservice teachers arrived as required to each of the 14 meetings in the
course. The first three meetings took place without the attendance of the par-
ents. These meetings were opening lessons on the subject of partnership with
parents, during which the preservice teachers received an explanation about the
course and its unique framework and reviewed subjects which they had learned
in the past, such as the following: stages of coping of parents of a child with
disabilities; the place of the family of a child with disabilities in the education
system; and the legislation on the subject. During the first three meetings, the
preservice teachers were required to write a report about their sensations to-
wards working with parents of students with disabilities.
In the fourth meeting, the parents joined the course at the college classroom.
The focus on this meeting was acquaintance and coordinating expectations.
During the next meetings with the parents, there was a dialogue which fo-
cused on the causes for conflicts between parents of students with disabilities
and educational staff and suggestions to improve the partnership. These meet-
ings were based on discussing case studies, watching videos showing situations
between parents of students with disabilities and educational staff, and con-
ducting simulations.
All seven participating parents arrived at eight meetings. During the meet-
ings with the parents, most of the work took place in class in small groups,
which included both parents and preservice teachers. After each meeting with
the parents, the preservice teachers were asked to write a reflection about their
sensations, thoughts, and insights following the meeting. During those meet-
ings which were not attended by the parents, the preservice teachers learned
about the partnership between educational staff and parents of students with
disabilities by reading current professional literature on the subject, presenting
the different subjects, and discussing them. At the end of the course the pre-
service teachers submitted a summary paper which described the process they
had undergone.
Analyses
Analyzing the data was based on a division into categories in accordance
with the qualitative research paradigm. Qualitative research is effective in the
study of attitudes, approaches, opinions, and beliefs of participants. There-
fore, it is suitable to track and document responses and ways of learning and
training staff in special education (Brantlinger et al., 2005). The analysis of the
data was performed according to the constant comparison method developed
by Glaser and Strauss (Glaser & Strauss, 1967 in Kolb, 2012). This method

102
 PRESERVICE TRAINING IN ISRAEL

compares the data, matches them to categories, and formulates the categories
and their characteristics.
During the work process, all reflections submitted by the preservice teachers
after each meeting with the parents and at the end of the course were analyzed,
as well as the reports which the preservice teachers filled in prior to the arrival
of the parents to the course. Each reflection was analyzed separately in order to
identify and code the main themes. Repeated readings of the reflections assist-
ed in determining the categories in each theme. The categories and the analysis
of the words of the preservice teachers were transferred, for the purpose of the
reliability of the study, to be read by an associate researcher who specializes in
analyzing qualitative data. Agreement between researchers is vital for a reliable
analysis of the materials and for reducing biases which are the result of the atti-
tude of the researcher (Hill et al., 2005). In situations of disagreement between
the two researchers with regards to the attribution of the quotations to the
themes, they held discussions, at the end of which an agreed list of categories
for each theme was determined.

Findings

In order to examine whether there were changes in the awareness of the

preservice teachers regarding partnerships with parents of students with dis-
abilities and their desire to manage and promote this partnership, an analysis
of all the reflections they wrote was carried out. In reading the reflections, the
statements representing each one of the categories in each theme were locat-
ed. The findings are presented in accordance with three themes: awareness of
parents’ difficulties; the perception of the parent as a partner; and insights for
working with parents. All the names of the preservice teachers are pseudonyms.
Awareness of Parents’ Difficulties
In this theme there are three categories: the experience of raising a child
with a disability; parents’ difficulties with the staff; and parents’ struggle to get
their children’s lawful rights.
The Experience of Raising a Child With a Disability
Listening to parents’ stories may help preservice teachers to have a better
understanding of the real-life experiences of living with disabilities. This un-
derstanding may develop an appreciation towards the parents and a desire to
create a positive atmosphere which will lead to an optimal partnership (Broom-
head, 2013; Koch, 2020).

103
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

During the course, the preservice teachers were exposed to personal sto-
ries of the parents and learned about their experiences. An example for such
learning can be found in the words of Ronit: “The course has exposed me to
emotional moments, has enabled me to have an understanding of the copings
that these parents go through.” Anat wrote about her new vision of the parents
and their experiences:
The subject of parents of children with disabilities was for me like a dirty
window. I am from one side, trying to see, to understand, to experience,
but the window is not clean. And suddenly here I felt that I was seeing
through a clean window, that I could truly see the parents.
During the meetings with the parents, the preservice teachers were exposed
to the characteristics of the experience of parenting a child with a disability in
general and to the personal unique experiences of the parents who participated
in the meetings in particular.
Parents’ Difficulties With the Staff
One of the most difficult tasks of parents of students with disabilities is
working with educational staff members (Hodge & Runswick-Cole, 2008).
Research literature reports that many parents of students with disabilities feel
that educational staff members do not understand the unique experience which
is involved in raising a child with a disability and express frustration due to lack
of appreciation and lack of respect that they experience due to the conduct of
the members of the staff (Griffin, 2014; Tucker & Schwartz, 2013).
The preservice teachers were exposed to the difficulties of the parents with
the staff during the course; an example of this is expressed in the words of Mi-
chal:
I understood that being parents of a child with disabilities requires vari-
ous daily copings with education staff. The education staff and the par-
ents do not always agree regarding the child’s needs, and oftentimes this
causes frustration for the parent.
Similarly, Yael wrote: “I have listened to parents who have been talking a
lot about the bad attitude by school and kindergarten teachers towards them,
about the feeling that many times the educational staff does not understand
them and does not want to listen to them.” The words of the preservice teach-
ers show that the meetings with the parents during the course helped them to
develop awareness of the intensity of the difficulties experienced by parents of
students with disabilities with staff members in educational settings and of the
emotions the parents may carry over to their relationships with the schools and
their children’s teachers.

104
 PRESERVICE TRAINING IN ISRAEL

Parents’ Struggle to Get Their Children’s Lawful Rights

Many parents of students with disabilities often need to advocate, to fight,
and even to exert power in order to receive what they want for their child
(Goldman et al., 2020; Griffin, 2014). The struggle of the parents over the
rights of their children was greatly discussed in the course and also came up in
the reflections following the meetings, for example, in what Sarah wrote: “I was
sorry to hear that there are a lot of problems with the rights of the children.
There are students who do not receive what is due to them in the setting, and
their parents must fight for the rights of their children; the parents must cope
with the education system on a daily basis so that their child is provided with
the best.” Hannah related to the power of the parents in the struggle for the
rights of their children: “the strongest insight from all of the meetings with the
parents was that the parents of children in special education must be ‘lions’ and
request from the system their children’s rights.”
The preservice teachers were exposed to the struggle of the parents for the
rights of their children. The meetings with the parents allowed the preservice
teachers to see the parents in a different way: parents who are “assertive” or
“lions” care for the rights of their child and are often required to fight so that
their child receives a response for his needs in the educational setting in which
he studies.
The Perception of the Parent as a Partner
In this theme there are two categories: the parents as knowledgeable or ex-
perts, and the parents’ desire for partnership.
The Parents as Knowledgeable or Experts
The parents serve as an important source of knowledge regarding the child,
his skills, his difficulties, and his needs, information which could contribute
to the creation of an educational therapeutic program which is adapted to the
child (Adams et al., 2016). Educational staff members are not always aware of
the knowledge of the parents and believe that the knowledge is only in their
possession. Oftentimes parents feel that the staff members are not interested in
including them or in hearing their opinion with regards to the methods they
use to work with their child and may even feel that educational staff members
disrespect their knowledge (Kurth et al., 2020; McNaughton & Vostal, 2010).
The subject of knowledge and expertise of the parent with regards to his child
was greatly discussed during the meetings with the parents. Dana referred to
this topic in her words:
One of the mothers said that parents know their child the best. She has
experienced crises; she has been fighting for him her entire life. She un-
derstands better than any professional about her child’s needs.
105
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

Tamar wrote:
I have personally changed my line of thought; the parents know what
is best for their child, after all, they are the ones who know him the
best, his character, his strengths, and his weaknesses. Therefore, it is al-
ways worthy of incorporating and consulting with the parents and to
know what they think is best for their child. The staff can learn from the
knowledge of the parents.
The words of the preservice teachers reflect the change in their approach
towards the expertise of the parent following the meetings with the parents
during the course. It seems that the preservice teachers were exposed to the
knowledge that parents have, and therefore the sense of importance of enlist-
ing the parent as a significant and vital source in working with the child in the
educational setting had increased.
The Parents’ Desire for Partnership
The research literature found that parents of students with disabilities usu-
ally want to be involved in the education of their child, to hold a partnership
with educational staff members, and to influence. When the staff members
meet the parents and the parents feel that the education personnel are open
to listening to their suggestions and respecting them, their sensation of ca-
pability is reinforced and their desire to be involved in the education of their
child increases (Tucker & Schwartz, 2013). At the beginning of the course, the
preservice teachers misevaluated the strong desire of the parents in such a part-
nership, while during the course they changed their perceptions on this matter.
An example of this change appears in the words of Hodaya prior to the course
and after it; prior to the course, she said: “Many parents refuse to cooperate;
they do not show an interest; sometimes I feel that the parents are a disruptive
factor in working with the child.” At the end of the course, Hodaya changed
her attitude: “I have understood from the first meeting that all the parents want
is to be included, to be accepted, and they have a strong desire to be respected
and to have their opinion respected; it was evident that the parents are yearn-
ing for a partnership.” The preservice teachers who initially saw the parents as
indifferent, as not interested, and even as a disruptive factor for the work of
the staff in the educational setting, have succeeded during the course to change
their attitudes and have seen the parents as interested in a partnership.
Insights for Working With Parents
In this theme there are two categories: disappearing fears and increasing
confidence in working with parents, and the importance of creating a positive
atmosphere based on optimal communication with parents.

106
 PRESERVICE TRAINING IN ISRAEL

Disappearing Fears and Increasing Confidence in Working With Parents

The partnership with parents of students with disabilities requires educa-
tional staff to have empathy, acceptance, and support. However, studies have
found that teachers working in special education show more negative attitudes
towards the involvement of parents compared to teachers in regular education
(Agam Ben-Artzi & Greenbank, 2023; Thijs & Eilbracht, 2012).
In the words of the preservice teachers, prior to the meetings with the par-
ents, it was possible to identify sensations of insecurity and concerns and even
negative attitudes: “I feel that working with parents is the most difficult and
most scary thing” (Sarit); “I feel not experienced enough and lacking confi-
dence to speak with the parents” (Liat); “I heard many negative stories about
parents, and the word ‘parents’ has received a negative and threatening mean-
ing” (Orly).
During the course, following the meetings with the parents, it was possible
to notice statements which reflected a change in the emotions of the preservice
teachers and in their attitudes towards the partnership with the parents. For
example, Liat, who at the beginning expressed concern and insecurity about
working with parents, reported following the meetings with the parents a bet-
ter sense of capability for working with them:
The tools I received have reduced a little of the concern that I had in
working with parents. I think that the concern was mostly due to [the]
lack of knowledge and lack of experience I had. Today I feel more confi-
dent; I feel I have the ability to start working with parents.
Even Sarit, who initially presented working with parents as a difficult and scary
task, changed her attitude:
In the past I would judge the parents and would be afraid of coping with
them. During the course I understood that parents have a lot to cope
with, I understood that I must respect, I am not always right; now I feel
that the parents are my partners and not my enemies, from one meeting
to the next with the parents I have become more empathetic towards
them.
The Importance of Creating a Positive Atmosphere Based on Optimal
Communication With Parents
One of the main sources for the conflict between parents of students with
disabilities and educational staff members is related to communication. In
many studies (e.g., Adams et al., 2016; Azad et al., 2021; Braley, 2012) it was
found that many parents report communication that is not up front and not
continuous with the educational staff members, and even many cases of lack of

107
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

communication, which leads to the parents avoiding arriving at the education-

al setting for meetings about their child, for example, Individualized Education
Program (IEP) meetings.
The subject of communication was much discussed during meetings with
the parents in the course. The preservice teachers stated their insights with
regards to the importance of creating communication with the parents and
managing it. An example can be seen in the words of Hani:
During the work with the children, my dialogue with the parents is
very short and oftentimes nonexistent; the meetings in the course have
opened an opportunity and have also reflected the side of the parents
and how we are supposed to act in order to create good and meaningful
communication with them. I am now certain that it is important to hold
ongoing communication with the parents, and I am hopeful that I will
succeed in holding this kind of communication.
Orly added:
Open communication makes it possible to bring up topics for discussion
and to find solutions together. A parent must feel that he is also part of
what goes on with his child. A nice atmosphere must be created with the
parent.
The preservice teachers also referred to components of optimal communica-
tion with the parents. The various components were expressed in the words of
several preservice teachers. Romi referred to sensitivity, understanding, open-
ness, and trust:
There is no doubt that now I will conduct myself with the parents with
more sensitivity and understanding. I will be more open to hearing
them, their opinions, and their insights; I will do everything in order to
create trust with the parents and to keep it.
Miri referred to the ability to pay attention, understanding, and empathy:
The parents require a lot of attention, someone to just be there for them,
someone who understands them. Until now I have not understood the
enormous power I have as a teacher, to be there for them, to contribute
to them and not just to their children, to come from a place of humility
and a positive outlook.
Maya emphasized the need of accuracy and clarification and lack of judg-
ment: “I understood that I must take one more minute of thought before
having a dialogue with the parent, to pick out my words better, do not judge
them, and do not be sharp in decisions.” It is therefore evident from the words

108
 PRESERVICE TRAINING IN ISRAEL

of the preservice teachers that they developed an awareness regarding the im-
portance of holding an inclusive communication with the parents as the basis
for an atmosphere which encourages cooperation and joint work.

Discussion

The purpose of the current study was to examine whether preservice teach-
ers changed their perceptions and attitudes toward partnership with parents of
students with disabilities following their participation in a relevant course. The
course is new and the first known course in Israel to incorporate meetings with
parents of students with disabilities. In light of the reports in research literature
regarding the need to train school and kindergarten teachers for working with
parents and in light of the lack of training which is actually performed (Col-
lier et al., 2015; De Bruïne et al., 2014; Kyzar et al., 2019; Thompson et al.,
2018), it was decided to create a course with the purpose of preparing preser-
vice teachers for a partnership with parents of students with disabilities.
The findings of the current research indicate the contribution of the course
for the preservice teachers. The preservice teachers who took part in the course
reported heightened empathy and more positive attitudes towards the parents,
and it was evident that their awareness of the need to create a positive atmo-
sphere with the parents increased. These findings are consistent with findings
from previous studies which also reported about courses which incorporated
meetings with parents of students with disabilities (Collier et al., 2015; Graff et
al., 2020; Koch, 2020; Murray et al., 2013; Murray et al., 2018).
In the current study the preservice teachers changed their attitudes towards
working with parents following the meetings with them, they felt safer to work
with them, and came to see them as interested in the partnership. Murray et
al. (2008) stated that preservice teachers who acquired confidence during the
training and felt more confident in working with parents planned to encour-
age activities for the promotion of the partnership in their own educational
settings in the future. According to Murray and colleagues, it is not sufficient
to develop awareness among preservice teachers regarding the importance of
partnership with parents. Preservice teachers must see parents as potential part-
ners and not be afraid to initiate communication to promote the partnership.
The meetings with the parents and the exposure to their experiences
with their child assisted the preservice teachers in acquiring tools for opti-
mal communication with the parents, for holding a significant dialogue, and
for promoting a positive atmosphere. The preservice teachers reported new
insights with regards to the importance of creating communication with the
parents and managing it. These insights might promote positive relationships

109
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

between the parents and the staff members in the educational setting. Rela-
tionships established on security, on trust, and on empathy lead to a positive
atmosphere, to mutual communication, and to an optimal partnership (Lusse
et al., 2019).
Limitations and Recommendations
The first limitation relates to the findings that are based on reports and
reflections written by the preservice teachers. It is possible that there is a com-
ponent of social pleasing in their words, since they knew that the instructor
of the course is reading what they are writing. Therefore, it is recommended
in the future to add to the reports and the reflections a questionnaire which
the preservice teachers will answer anonymously. Another limitation is related
to the duration of the course. The course took place over 14 lessons, once a
week, and the parents joined eight sessions. It is recommended to examine the
effectiveness of a longer course and to also perform a follow-up study on the
perceptions of parents and teachers several months after the course has ended
and again one year afterwards. In the current study there were 22 preservice
teachers; it is recommended to include a larger sample.
It is further recommended to expand the principle of incorporating the meet-
ings with parents of students with disabilities in courses of regular education
for preschool ages, primary school, and high school ages. Training preservice
teachers in regular education is very important considering the amendment
of the Special Education Act and the promotion of inclusion in the educa-
tion system in Israel (Israeli Knesset, 2018), following which the number of
students with disabilities in regular settings will continue to grow. School and
kindergarten teachers in these settings who have students with disabilities in-
corporated in their classrooms also need to acquire tools for working with their
students’ parents in a collaborative manner.
The current study has focused on the changes which have occurred in the
sensations and the attitudes of preservice teachers who have taken part in the
course following the interactions with the parents who have taken part in the
course. In the future, it is advisable to examine the changes in the sensations
and attitudes of the parents who participate in this type of course, as well.
To summarize, the uniqueness of the current study is the result of the fact
that it is based on the first course in Israel which was established in order to train
preservice teachers in special education to work in a collaborative manner with
parents of students with disabilities. The course was found to contribute greatly
to supporting preservice teachers in formulating the approach and the attitudes
which are required in order to create a positive atmosphere and an optimal
partnership. Therefore, the importance of including such a course as part of

110
 PRESERVICE TRAINING IN ISRAEL

the student training is great. However, support is required not only during the
training, but also during the first years in working in the educational setting. For
that reason, it is important to create programs for novice school and kindergar-
ten teachers so they can receive support in their work with parents of students
with disabilities. These programs should encourage educational staff members
to initiate activities with parents and to promote partnership with them.

References
Adams, D., Harris, A., & Suzette-Jones, M. (2016). Teacher–parent collaboration for an in-
clusive classroom: Success for every child. Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Sciences,
4(3), 58–72.
Agam Ben Artzi, G., & Greenbank, A. (2023). Teachers’ attitudes towards parental involve-
ment in Israel: Comparing teachers in general education and in special education. School
Community Journal, 33(1), 141–163. https://www.adi.org/journal/2023ss/AgamBenArtz-
iSS23.pdf
Azad, G. F., Marcus, S. C., & Mandell, D. S. (2021). Partners in school: Optimizing commu-
nication between parents and teachers of children with autism spectrum disorder. Journal
of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 31(4), 438–462.
Braley, C. (2012). Parent–teacher partnerships in special education. Honors Projects Overview,
65. http://digitalcommons.ric.edu/honors_projects/65
Brantlinger, E., Jimenez, R., Klingner, J., Pugach, M., & Richardson, V. (2005). Qualitative
studies in special education. Exceptional Children, 71(2), 195–201.
Broomhead, K. E. (2013). “You cannot learn this from a book”: Preservice teachers developing
empathy towards parents of children with Special Educational Needs (SEN) via parent
stories. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 28, 173–186.
Collier, M., Keefe, E. B., & Hirrel, L. A. (2015). Preparing special education teachers to col-
laborate with families. School Community Journal, 25(1), 117–136. https://www.adi.org/
journal/2015ss/CollierKeefeHirrelSpring2015.pdf
De Bruïne, E. J., Willemse, T. M., D’Haem, J., Griswold, P., Vloeberghs, L., & Van Eynde, S.
(2014). Preparing teacher candidates for family–school partnerships. European Journal of
Teacher Education, 37(4), 409–425.
Ferguson, P. M. (2008). The doubting dance: Contributions to a history of parent/professional
interactions in early 20th century America. Research & Practice for Persons with Severe Dis-
abilities, 33(1/2), 48–58.
Forin, C., & Hopewell, T. (2006). Inclusion—the heart of the matter: Trainee teachers’ per-
ceptions of a parent’s journey. British Journal of Special Education, 33(2), 55–61.
Gershwin, T. (2020). Legal and research considerations regarding the importance of develop-
ing and nurturing trusting family–professional partnerships in special education consulta-
tion. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 30(4), 420–436. https://doi.or
g/10.1080/10474412.2020.1785884
Goldman, S. E., Burke, M. M., Casale, E. G., Frazier, M. A., & Hodapp, R. M. (2020). Fam-
ilies requesting advocates for children with disabilities: The who, what, when, where, why,
and how of special education advocacy. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 58(2),
158–169.

111
 SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

Graff, C. S., Manlove, J., Stuckey, S., & Foley, M. (2020). Examining preservice special educa-
tion teachers’ biases and evolving understandings about families through a family as faculty
approach. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 65(1),
20–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/1045988X.2020.1811626
Griffin, H. R. (2014). The importance of collaboration between parents and school in special
education: Perceptions from the field (Doctoral dissertation). University of North Florida.
Hill, C. E., Knox, S., Thompson, B. J., Williams, E. N., & Hess, S. (2005). Consensual qual-
itative research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 196–205.
Hodge, N., & Runswick-Cole, K. (2008). Problematizing parent–professional partnerships in
education. Disability & Society, 23(6), 637–647.
Israeli Knesset. (2018). Special Education Act, Amendment No. 11. Knesset: Law Book No. 2734.
https://main.knesset.gov.il/Activity/Legislation/Laws/Pages/LawBill.aspx?t=LawReshumo-
t&lawitemid=2065822
Israeli Ministry of Education. (2018). ‫ שירותי חינוך מיוחדים לתלמידים עם צרכים מיוחדים‬-‫ לחוק החינוך המיוחד‬11 ‫יישום תיקון‬
‫ שירותי ח‬-‫ לחוק החינוך המיוחד‬11 ‫[יישום תיקון‬Application of Amendment 11 to the Special Education Law: Special educa-
tional services for students with special needs.] https://meyda.education.gov.il/files/mosdot/
special_edu_law_amendment.pdf
Jeynes, W. H. (2022). A meta-analysis: The relationship between the parental expectations
component of parental involvement with students’ academic achievement. Urban Educa-
tion. https://doi.org/10.1177/00420859211073892
Koch, K. A. (2020). “The voice of the parent cannot be undervalued”: Preservice teachers’ ob-
servations after listening to the experiences of parents of students with disabilities. Societies,
10(3), 50.
Kolb, S. M. (2012). Grounded theory and the constant comparative method: Valid research
strategies for educators. Journal of Emerging Trends in Educational Research and Policy Stud-
ies, 3(1), 83–86.
Kurth, J. A., Love, H., & Pirtle, J. (2020). Parent perspectives of their involvement in IEP de-
velopment for children with autism. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities,
35(1), 36–46.
Kyzar, K. B., Mueller, T. G., Francis, G. L., & Haines, S. J. (2019). Special education teacher
preparation for family–professional partnerships: results from a national survey of teacher
educators. Teacher Education and Special Education, 42(4), 320–337.
Lusse, M., Notten, T., & Engbersen, G. (2019). School–family partnership procedures in
urban secondary education, Part A: Strengths and limitations. School Community Journal,
29(1), 201–226. https://www.adi.org/journal/2019ss/LusseEtAlPartASS2019.pdf
McNaughton, D., & Vostal, B. R. (2010). Using active listening to improve collaboration with
parents: The LAFF Don’t CRY Strategy. Intervention in School and Clinic, 45(4), 251–256.
Mueller, T. G. (2017). Promoting collaborative partnerships with families. In J. M. Kauffman
& D. P. Hallahan (Eds.), Handbook of special education (2nd ed.), 773–792. Routledge.
Murray, M., Curran, D., & Zellers, E. (2008). Building parent/professional partnerships: An
innovative approach for teacher education. Teacher Education, 43, 87–108.
Murray, M. M., Handyside, M., Straka, L. M., & Arton-Titus, T. V. (2013). Parent empow-
erment: Connecting with preservice special education teachers. School Community Journal,
23(1), 145–168. https://www.adi.org/journal/2013ss/MurrayEtalSpring2013.pdf
Murray, M., Munger, M. H., Colwell, W. B., & Claussen, A. J. (2018). Building capacity in
special education: A statewide initiative to improve student outcomes through parent–
teacher partnerships. School Community Journal, 28(1), 91–105. https://www.adi.org/jour-
nal/2018ss/MurrayEtAlSpring2018.pdf

112
 PRESERVICE TRAINING IN ISRAEL

Nygaard, K. (2019). The causes of teacher burnout and attrition (Thesis). Concordia University,
St. Paul, MN. https://digitalcommons.csp.edu/teacher-education_masters/10
Oranga, J., Obuba, E., & Boinett, F. J. (2022). Barriers to parental involvement in the educa-
tion of learners with intellectual disabilities. Open Journal of Social Sciences, 10, 410–423.
Park, S., & Holloway, S. (2018). Parental involvement in adolescents’ education: An examina-
tion of the interplay among school factors, parental role construction, and family income.
School Community Journal, 28(1), 9–36. https://www.adi.org/journal/2018ss/ParkHollo-
waySpring2018.pdf
Reschly, A. L., & Christenson, S. L. (2012). Moving from “context matters” to engaged part-
nerships with families. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 22, 62–78.
Ritvo, B., Look, E., & Berg, O. (2018). Relationships, connection and educational partnership
between the education staff and the students’ parents—In practice. Ministry of Education,
Israel.
Thijs, J., & Eilbracht, L. (2012). Teachers’ perceptions of parent–teacher alliance and stu-
dent–teacher relational conflict: Examining the role of ethnic differences and “disruptive”
behavior. Psychology in the Schools, 49(8), 794–808.
Thompson, I., Willemse, M., Mutton, T., Burn, K., & De Bruïne, E. (2018). Teacher edu-
cation and family–school partnerships in different contexts: A cross country analysis of
national teacher education frameworks across a range of European countries. Journal of
Education for Teaching, 44(3), 258–277.
Tucker, V., & Schwartz, I. (2013). Parents’ perspectives of collaboration with school profes-
sionals: Barriers and facilitators to successful partnerships in planning for students with
ASD. School Mental Health, 5(1), 3–14.

Alicia Greenbank is the head of the Department of Special Education at Giv’at

Washington College of Education in Israel. She serves as a director of Maagal—The
Center for Support for Students With Special Needs. Dr. Greenbank’s areas of aca-
demic specialization are families of children with special needs, treatment for learning
disabilities, and training programs for special education students. Correspondence
concerning this article may be addressed to Dr. Alicia Greenbank by email at grali-
[email protected]

113
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

114
Exploring the Impacts of Community
Services on Student Reading Achievement
in a Title I School
I-Chien Chen, Nai-Cheng Kuo, and Breanna Smith

Abstract

Low-income families face myriad stressors and challenges that often nega-
tively affect students’ reading achievement. Although community partners are
crucial in supporting K–12 students, there is little research on how different
types of community services affect students’ reading achievement in Title I
schools. The present study aims to assess the impacts of comprehensive com-
munity services funded by a nonprofit organization on K–5 students’ reading
achievement. The study employed a two-phase post-hoc design to examine
the reading achievement of 347 elementary students (ages 5–10) in a Title I
school. Reading achievement was measured by the i-Ready assessment of over-
all reading scale scores and percentile rankings. Independent samples t-tests,
regression models, and ANOVA reveal that students who received community
services had higher winter percentile rankings than their peers not receiving
community services. Additionally, students who received targeted in-school
service demonstrated the most significant improvement in i-Ready reading
during the winter semester, compared to afterschool service, holistic in-school
service, and in-home service. Implications and limitations of the present study
are discussed.

Key Words: community services, Title I school, low-income families, i-Ready

reading achievement, impacts, in-school, afterschool, home

School Community Journal, 2023, Vol. 33, No. 2 115

Available at http://www.schoolcommunitynetwork.org/SCJ.aspx
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

Introduction

Several underlying factors explain why students from low-income families

are likely to underperform in school. One of the main factors is a lack of re-
sources, which makes it hard for students living in poverty to obtain the same
level of academic achievement as students not living in poverty (Lacour &
Tissington, 2011). Other factors include higher levels of stress, poor nutrition,
reduced access to healthcare, and low psychological well-being (Claro et al.,
2016). To help combat the unequal distribution of resources in schools, the
Title I program provides federal funds through the state educational agencies
(SEAs) to local educational agencies (LEAs) to ensure that schools with a high
rate of students living in poverty will have a better chance to help their students
meet the state’s challenging academic content and achievement standards.
Despite the Title I funds, there are still teacher and resource inequities in
schools (Luebchow, 2009). Many community partners thus are involved in
supporting Title I schools in their local communities to offer free programs,
services, resources, and financial support. The collaboration between com-
munities and schools improves student success by affecting policymaking,
allocating grants and personnel, and monitoring program implementation fi-
delity (Anderson-Butcher et al., 2008; Lockwood, 1996).
School–Community Collaboration: What Has Been Found?
Epstein (2010) argued that developing a school–community partnership
is a process, not a single event. In facilitating this process, timely, deliberative,
and continuous communication among stakeholders is crucial (Badgett, 2016;
Hands, 2005). Poynton et al. (2018) emphasized stakeholder training as a
solution in which all parties stay up-to-date on intervention and project devel-
opment. Forming an effective outline for training reduces miscommunication
in planning, implementing, and assessing the service. With these factors man-
aged according to the outline, schools could optimize the use of in-school and
out-of-school resources to foster students’ development and learning. Partner-
ships are essential for collecting information to understand students’ learning
needs and factors that may affect students’ experiences in learning (Epstein &
Sanders, 2006). Gathering intervention outcome data and evaluating student
performance benefit stakeholders’ roles in their interventions and engage them
in the co-development of programs.
Over time, the partnership has been extended to include families and univer-
sities to improve student academic achievement and behavior through various
supports (Henderson & Mapp, 2002). For example, Berryhill et al. (2016)
evaluated the Elementary Parent Leadership Academy’s (EPLA) effectiveness, a

116
 COMMUNITY SERVICES AND READING

training program developed by the University of Alabama that equipped parents

and educational leaders with tools to support students, particularly in low-in-
come families. The 2014–15 EPLA report showed that EPLA participants
demonstrated increased willingness to lead and positive attitudes towards col-
laboration, enhancing their leadership development and student achievement.
Types of Community Services
Community services can be grouped into (1) in-school services, (2) after-
school services, and (3) in-home services. It is important to note that because
various community partners have different organizational missions and fund-
ing resources, each partner has different scopes and types of services, even if
they may be grouped in the same categories.
In-School Services
There are different types of in-school services offered by communities. One
example is intensive interventions of foundational reading skills such as pho-
nics and word recognition. Research shows that early interventions influence
students’ later reading skills (Wanzek et al., 2018). Intensive reading inter-
ventions positively impact students’ reading performance, especially after the
summer when they lose ground in their reading performance (Rasinski et al.,
2017). Furthermore, school-based mentoring programs also effectively pro-
mote positive youth development. Herrera and Karcher’s (2013) synthesis of
research studies showed that school-based mentoring programs promoted stu-
dents’ positive academic and social success.
A meta-analysis conducted by Ritter et al. (2009) of 21 research studies
indicated that reading tutoring programs increased student achievement, par-
ticularly in writing, letters, word recognition, and oral fluency in Grades K–8.
Additionally, Wanzek et al.’s (2018) meta-analyses of 25 reading intervention
studies showed that early reading interventions resulted in positive reading
outcomes for struggling students in Grades K–8. These successful tutoring
programs shared common characteristics: (1) a high level of standardization in
which students received structured reading interventions; (2) an emphasis on
phonological awareness, phonics, word recognition, and fluency; and (3) suf-
ficient intervention dosage or time with fidelity. Overall, intensive and explicit
interventions appear to be an effective way of improving reading outcomes.
Afterschool Services
Afterschool services foster students’ academic achievement, behavioral skills,
and well-being through interventions and peer interactions (Anderson-Butch-
er et al., 2008; Hall et al., 2003). One challenge many afterschool services face
is how to improve students’ attendance, which is affected by transportation,

117
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

parents’ work schedules, schoolwork, and funding (Nelson-Royes & Reglin,

2011). Students who consistently attend afterschool programs are more likely
to improve learning outcomes. However, this cannot be achieved without col-
laboration among families, schools, and communities.
In-Home Services
Financial and social support to students’ families also increases the likeli-
hood of student success (Greene & Anyon, 2010). Family dollars can provide
resources like computers, tablets, the internet, food, and clothes to students
in low-income families. Research shows that such support positively impacts
students’ academic achievement and school improvement (Sanders & Harvey,
2002). Financial supports and resources reduce students’ stress and help keep
them healthy, further supporting them to stay focused on their schoolwork.
Although community partners are essential in supporting K–12 struggling
students, there is little research on how different types of community services
affect students’ reading achievement in low-income families. In collaboration
with community partners and one Title I school, our research study thus aims
to address the following questions:
1. Compared to students who did not receive any community service, how did
students who received one or multiple services perform on the norm-ref-
erenced test?
2. Did students perform differently on the norm-referenced test because of
the different community services they received?
3. How did students’ achievement scores change over time, from fall (August)
to winter (December) and from fall (August) to spring (May)?

Methods
Setting
A nonprofit organization organized four community partners to help stu-
dents in a Title I school located in the state of Georgia. The school was selected
for the present study because it was a pilot school that received comprehensive
community support in and outside the school setting, which we believe would
offer valuable experiences and lessons to inform community engagement in
other Title I schools. The average of its student graduation score in the three
years from 2019–22 was 59.37 out of 100, which was lower than the average
district student graduation score (64.03) and the average state student gradua-
tion score (75.83). Upon receiving Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval,
we analyzed this Title I school students’ reading performance over time based
on whether or not they received community services and what types of com-
munity services they received.

118
 COMMUNITY SERVICES AND READING

Participants
The school had 347 students from Grades preK–5 (preK: 52, 1st grade: 68,
2nd grade: 65, 3rd grade: 53, 4th grade: 54, and 5th grade: 55) in the school
year 2019–20. The ethnic and racial composition of the sample was 91% Afri-
can American or Black, 2% Hispanic or Latino, 2% others, and 5% Caucasian.
The school had 83% of students who were qualified for free/reduced lunch. In
addition, 48% of the students were female, and 13% had IEPs. Among them,
115 students (33%), considered the most struggling students, were referred by
their classroom teachers and the school social worker to receive community
services under their parents’ permission.
Procedures
Student assessment data was collected at the beginning, middle, and end of
the school year. The school collected the i-Ready data and shared them with
the project stakeholders under the school district’s and parents’ permission.
The community partners further provided us with the lists of students who
they served. We used statistical techniques to match different data sets, using
student name identifier, gender, and state ID. The matched rate was nearly
85% between the data provided by the Title I school and the data provided
by community partners due to the fact that these community partners served
multiple schools, not just this Title I school. Fifty-one students who were not
matched across data sets were deleted in the current analysis. For students who
took the i-Ready test multiple times in each quarter, we used their earliest test
scores to avoid the overestimation of the impact of the program. We also gen-
erated a dummy variable to explore the impact of multiple test-takers. Less
than 4% of students (N < 15) were multiple test-takers each quarter. Among
347 students, 23 students had missing values in their spring i-Ready score (i.e.,
approximately 7%). Given the missing data occurred only for the spring score,
this study reported the descriptive statistics using 347 students. Stata 14.0 was
used to identify statistical relationships among the quantitative data within and
across the comparison groups.
Dependent Variables
Two outcomes were used to measure students’ reading performance, i-Ready
overall scale scores and percentile rankings. Overall scale scores, ranging from
0 to 800, inform educators about students’ reading performance, growth, and
improvement needs during the school year. Percentile rankings, ranging from
1st through 99th, show students’ reading performance compared to their peers
at the same grade level. For example, assuming that Jessie is at the 34th percen-
tile of the third-grade i-Ready reading test, this indicates that Jessie performs

119
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

better than 34% of her peers in the third grade who take the same norm-
referenced test.
Independent Variables
There were three independent variables in the present study. The first one
was service recipients, including non-service, one-service, and multiple-service
recipients. The second one was covariates, including gender, ethnicity, and
grade level. Each of them was coded with dummy variables. Gender was cod-
ed with male = 0, female = 1; ethnicity was coded with White = 0, Black = 1,
Hispanic = 2, and others = 3; grade level was coded with K = 0, Grade 1 = 1,
Grade 2 = 2, Grade 3 = 3, Grade 4 = 4, and Grade 5 = 5. The third one was ser-
vice types. The community services were organized and funded by a nonprofit
organization. Each service type is described in the following:
1. The targeted in-school service provided struggling students with systemat-
ic and intensive intervention implemented by teacher candidates from a
nearby university’s special education program. Each student received 30
minutes of reading interventions per day, four days a week. Each teacher
candidate worked with one to three students using IXL, an adapted read-
ing program to improve students’ phonological awareness. IXL was close-
ly aligned with students’ grade-level English language arts standards. One
university special program faculty member supervised the interventions
daily from 7:20 am to 10:20 am. The intervention team discussed student
learning performance for teaching improvement at the end of each day.
2. The afterschool service helped students build self-efficacy and confidence
through social and emotional activities. Literacy was incorporated into
these activities.
3. The holistic in-school service assisted school teachers through a full-time
on-site staff person and other workers from a community organization.
The additional personnel tutored students, provided them with eyeglasses,
worked with the principal to develop parent education programs, and gave
them birthday books to enhance their sense of belonging.
4. The in-home service aimed to increase educational access for low-income
and disadvantaged populations. Wraparound service dollars were provided
to families to pay electricity and utility bills and to buy food and educa-
tional materials for students, thus reducing financial stress.

Results
Non-Service, One Service, vs. Multiple Services
There were 44 students (12.68%) who received targeted in-school service,
45 students (12.98%) who received afterschool service, 44 students (12.68%)

120
 COMMUNITY SERVICES AND READING

who received holistic in-school service, and 7 students (2.01%) who received
in-home service. On the other hand, 218 students (62.68%) did not receive
any community service during the school year. Table 1 shows the mean and
standardized deviation of i-Ready reading performance between students who
did not receive services (N = 218, 62.68%), students who received one ser-
vice (N = 115, 33.14%), and students who received multiple services (N = 14,
4.18%).
Before the intervention (fall semester), students whose teachers did not re-
fer them to receive services had a significantly greater average scale score than
students referred to receive community services. After the intervention (winter
semester), the percentile rankings indicate that students who received one ser-
vice had significantly higher reading percentile rankings in winter than their
peers who did not (M = 46.43, M = 40.62, t = 1.72, p = 0.08). However, there
was no significant difference in the spring semester’s percentile rankings during
the initial COVID-19 outbreak.
For one-service recipients, there were 115 students, approximately evenly
divided across genders (44% female; 56% male). By grade level, there were
23% Kindergarteners, 20% first graders, 20% second graders, 13% third grad-
ers, 15% fourth graders, and 9% fifth graders. For multiple-services recipients,
there were 14 students. By grade level, these included 21% Kindergarteners,
21% first graders, 43% second graders, and 14% third graders. We used ANO-
VA to determine whether two or more subpopulation means were different.
In the ANOVA analysis, if the result is statistically significant, we could then
conclude that at least one group is different than the others in terms of service
types. To see which groups are different from the others, we further employed
the Tukey’s post-hoc test to make pairwise comparisons of students’ mean
scores.
There was a statistically significant difference in the i-Ready fall scale score
across non-service, one service, and multiple services as determined by one-
way ANOVA (F(2, 344) = 8.79, p = .000). These results are also consistent in
i-Ready winter scale score (F(2, 344) = 6.89, p = .003) and i-Ready spring scale
score (F(2, 323) = 8.77, p = .000). We further used a Chi-square test to examine
the group difference in community service participation by gender, race/eth-
nicity, and grade level. Our results suggest that gender (chi-square (2) =2.02, p
= .364) and ethnic/racial group (chi-square (6) =4.62, p = .594) in our sample
does not differ significantly from the hypothesized values that we assumed. For
grade level differences in the patterns of community service participation, the
results indicate a significant group difference by grade level in participating in
community service.

121
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics of Non-Service, One-Service, and Multiple-

Service Samples
Non-service One-service Multiple-service

Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD ANOVA a p-value

Overall SS
442.44 72.95 411.62 70.34 395.21 48.56 F(2, 344) =8.79 .000
(Fall)
Overall SS
461.02 74.07 438.50 71.43 409.43 44.31 F(2, 344) =6.89 .003
(Winter)
Overall SS
475.77 68.13 449.25 66.30 420.86 40.17 F(2, 323) =8.77 .000
(Spring)
Percentile
30.95 24.34 26.60 23.52 23.71 15.87 F(2, 344) =1.64
(Fall)
Percentile
40.62 28.43 46.43 30.68 39.00 30.65 F(2, 344) =1.35
(Winter)
Percentile
38.30 26.04 38.31 26.58 30.57 23.49 F(2, 323) =0.58
(Spring)
N 218 115 14
% 62.68 33.14 4.03
% Freq. % Freq. % Freq. Chi-square test
Male 0.48 105 0.56 64 0.43 6
Female 0.52 113 0.44 51 0.57 8 2.02 (df=2) .364
White 0.05 11 0.04 5 0.07 1
Black 0.89 195 0.94 108 0.93 13
Others 0.03 6 0.00 0 0.00 0
Hispanic 0.00 0 0.02 2 0.00 0 4.62 (df=6) .594
Grade K 0.10 22 0.23 27 0.21 3
Grade 1 0.19 42 0.20 23 0.21 3
Grade 2 0.17 36 0.20 23 0.43 6
Grade 3 0.17 36 0.13 15 0.14 2
Grade 4 0.17 37 0.15 17 0.00 0
Grade 5 0.21 45 0.09 10 0.00 0 26.67 (df=10) .003
Notes. ANOVA was applied to compare the group difference by the number of service recipi-
ents. +p < 0.1, *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001

Types of Services
Table 2 shows the group difference in reading achievement between various
service recipients. The results indicate a statistically significant difference in
i-Ready scale score and percentile rankings between various service recipients

122
 COMMUNITY SERVICES AND READING

as determined by one-way ANOVA. For scale score results, a Tukey post-hoc

test revealed similar patterns across fall, winter, and spring. Before interven-
tions, non-service recipients had a statistically significantly higher scale score
compared to the targeted in-school service recipients and the holistic in-school
service recipients. In addition, results show that afterschool service recipients
had significantly higher scale scores compared to the targeted in-school service
recipients in the fall semester (M = 446.96 vs. M = 393.72; M = 470.93 vs. M
= 420.98; M = 479.58 vs. M = 434.35). A similar situation was also observed
in the pairwise comparisons of means with the holistic in-school service recip-
ients (M = 446.96 vs. M = 384.50; M = 470.93 vs. M = 408.14; M = 479.58
vs. M = 418.32). The descriptive statistics reveal that afterschool service recip-
ients had significantly higher scale scores. However, the percentile rankings
show that the targeted in-school service recipients had a significantly higher
percentile rankings in winter than the non-service recipients (M = 55.38 vs. M
= 40.92). As indicated in Table 2, a Tukey post-hoc test for percentile rankings
revealed similar patterns across fall, winter, and spring.
Changes in Achievement Scores Over Time
We used the ordinary least squares (OLS) regression, a statistical technique
for estimating linear regression coefficients to evaluate the relationship between
one or more independent quantitative variables and a dependent variable.
Table 3 shows the results from the OLS model using the overall scale score,
suggesting one-service and multiple-service recipients had similar gains in the
winter (Model 1) and spring (Model 2) i-Ready reading score, controlling for
the fall reading score, grade level, race/ethnicity, and gender. We ran a similar
model using the winter and spring percentile rankings. Model 3 shows that
one-service recipients had significant gains in their winter percentile rankings,
controlling for the fall reading percentile and other covariates. We found limit-
ed evidence for multiple-service recipients on their winter percentile rankings.
Model 4 also shows limited evidence for both types of service recipients on
their gains in the spring percentile rankings. Overall, results suggest students
could gain greatly on the winter percentile rankings when they received one
community service compared to peers who did not receive any community
service. However, this reading improvement was observed only for the win-
ter semester and seemed not to sustain in the spring semester after the winter
break. It is worth noting that the spring semester’s i-Ready assessment was im-
plemented in February/March instead of May/June before the school closed
and transitioned to remote learning due to COVID-19.

123
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

Table 2. Mean and Standard Deviation of i-Ready Scores With Demographic

Statistics by Service Types
Targeted in- Afterschool Holistic in- In-home ser- pair-
Non-service ANO-
school service service school service vice wise
VA p-
post-
Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD value
hoc
Overall SS a, b,
442.44 72.95 393.72 52.90 446.96 67.97 384.50 63.89 409.43 60.06 .000
(Fall) c, d
Overall SS a, b,
461.02 74.07 420.98 49.00 470.93 70.34 408.14 62.80 422.14 95.33 .001
(Winter) c, d
Overall SS a, b,
475.77 68.13 434.35 44.75 479.58 63.81 418.32 62.28 433.14 70.41 .002
(Spring) c, d
Percentile b;
30.94 24.34 32.30 16.51 33.82 28.43 13.09 10.19 15.29 27.35 .000
(Fall) d; e
Percentile a;
40.92 29.84 55.38 26.26 48.73 31.53 33.57 28.68 22.57 34.59 .000
(Winter) d; e
Percentile
38.30 26.04 44.80 20.66 41.60 29.01 26.36 22.77 18.57 31.38 .000 d, e
(Spring)
N 218 44 45 44 7
% 62.68 12.68 12.98 12.68 0.20
% Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq.
Male 48.94 23 53.33 24 54.55 24 71.43 5
Female 51.06 24 46.67 21 45.45 20 28.57 2
White 8.51 4 4.44 2 2.27 1 0.00 0
Black 87.23 41 95.56 43 97.73 43 100.00 7
Others 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0
Hispanic 4.26 2 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0
Grade K 29.79 14 13.33 6 29.55 13 0.00 0
Grade 1 34.04 16 11.11 5 15.91 7 14.29 1
Grade 2 23.40 11 20.00 9 27.27 12 42.86 3
Grade 3 12.77 6 11.11 5 15.91 7 14.29 1
Grade 4 0 31.11 14 4.55 2 14.29 1
Grade 5 0 13.33 6 6.82 3 14.29 1
Notes. SD = standard deviation of Diagnostic scores; Overall = Overall i-Ready scale score in the
school year of 2019–20; Percentile = i-Ready percentile rankings in the school year of 2019–20.
The p-value indicates Tukey HSD post-hoc homogenous subsets for samples where ANOVA shows
a significant difference among types of services.
a. The Tukey post-hoc test reveals a statistical significance between non-service recipients and the
targeted in-school service recipients at the alpha level of .05.
b. The Tukey post-hoc test reveals a statistical significance between non-service recipients and the
holistic in-school service recipients at the alpha level of .05.
c. The Tukey post-hoc test reveals a statistical significance between the targeted in-school service
recipients and afterschool service recipients at the alpha level of .05.
d. The Tukey post-hoc test reveals a statistical significance between afterschool service recipients and
the holistic in-school service recipients at the alpha level of .05.
e. The Tukey post-hoc test reveals a statistical significance between the targeted in-school service
recipients and the holistic in-school service recipients at the alpha level of .05.

124
 COMMUNITY SERVICES AND READING

Table 3. OLS Regression for Non-Service vs. One-Service and Multiple Service
Model 1: Model 2: Model 3: Model 4:
Overall Scale Overall Scale Percentile Percentile
Score (Winter) Score (Spring) (Winter) (Spring)
b/se b/se b/se b/se
One-Service recipients (cf.
0.068 -0.016 0.192* 0.040
non-service recipients)
(0.05) (0.05) (0.08) (0.08)
Multiple-Service recipients -0.076 -0.183 0.069 -0.133
(0.12) (0.11) (0.19) (0.18)
Overall Scale Score (Fall) 0.827*** 0.882***
(0.04) (0.04)
Percentile (Fall) 0.654*** 0.733***
(0.04) (0.04)
Grade 1 (cf. kindergarten) -0.179* -0.041 -0.813*** -0.760***
(0.09) (0.08) (0.13) (0.13)
Grade 2 -0.121 -0.038 -0.976*** -0.807***
(0.10) (0.10) (0.13) (0.13)
Grade 3 0.034 0.087 -0.843*** -0.668***
(0.12) (0.11) (0.14) (0.14)
Grade 4 0.018 -0.076 -1.004*** -1.016***
(0.13) (0.12) (0.14) (0.13)
Grade 5 0.337** 0.297* -0.725*** -0.550***
(0.12) (0.12) (0.14) (0.14)
Female -0.017 -0.106* -0.007 -0.165*
(0.05) (0.05) (0.08) (0.07)
White (Ref. Black) -0.091 -0.134 -0.283 -0.280
(0.12) (0.11) (0.18) (0.17)
Other 0.093 0.040 -0.118 0.180
(0.18) (0.18) (0.29) (0.29)
Hispanic -0.212 -0.190 -0.275 -0.087
(0.16) (0.15) (0.25) (0.23)
Constant 0.009 0.059 0.702*** 0.738***
(0.09) (0.09) (0.11) (0.11)
R-square 0.815 0.849 0.552 0.623
N 347 324 347 324
Note. Standard errors are in parentheses. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001

125
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

To further explore the effect of three types of services on students’ gains in

reading achievement between winter and spring, we conducted six OLS mod-
els shown in Table 4 and Table 5. Students who received different types of
services have similar fall-to-winter gain scores to their counterparts, and stu-
dents who received the holistic in-school service lost greatly in their i-Ready
scale score from fall-to-spring (B = -0.152). This result is consistent with the
findings in the ANOVA analysis. Other covariates, such as students’ grade level
and gender, also influenced reading achievement, particularly for the fall-to-
spring period. Female students had significantly lower scale scores in spring,
while first grade had significantly lower ones in winter, holding constant on
other covariates. Furthermore, the fifth graders have significantly higher scale
scores and percentile rankings for both winter and spring.

Table 4. OLS Regression of i-Ready Scale Score for Community Service Types
M1A: M1B: M1C: M2A: M2B: M2C:
Overall SS Overall SS Overall SS Overall SS Overall SS Overall SS
(Winter) (Winter) (Winter) (Spring) (Spring) (Spring)
b/se b/se b/se b/se b/se b/se
Overall Scale
0.828*** 0.830*** 0.825*** 0.890*** 0.891*** 0.875***
Score (Fall)
(0.04) (0.04) (0.04) (0.04) (0.04) (0.04)
Targeted in-
0.101 0.028
school service
(0.07) (0.07)
Afterschool
0.063 0.027
service
(0.07) (0.07)
Holistic in-
-0.070 -0.152*
school service
(0.07) (0.07)
Grade 1 (cf.
-0.198* -0.201* -0.210* -0.062 -0.062 -0.078
kindergarten)
(0.08) (0.09) (0.09) (0.08) (0.08) (0.08)
Grade 2 -0.165 -0.181 -0.176 -0.098 -0.103 -0.091
(0.10) (0.10) (0.10) (0.09) (0.09) (0.09)
Grade 3 0.019 -0.002 0.002 0.056 0.051 0.063
(0.12) (0.11) (0.11) (0.11) (0.11) (0.11)
Grade 4 0.016 -0.026 -0.018 -0.096 -0.109 -0.105
(0.13) (0.12) (0.12) (0.12) (0.11) (0.11)

126
 COMMUNITY SERVICES AND READING

Table 4, continued
Grade 5 0.327** 0.293* 0.292* 0.278* 0.268* 0.270*
(0.12) (0.12) (0.12) (0.12) (0.11) (0.11)
Female -0.018 -0.017 -0.018 -0.100* -0.099* -0.099*
(0.05) (0.05) (0.05) (0.05) (0.05) (0.05)
White (Cf.
-0.092 -0.077 -0.085 -0.105 -0.100 -0.117
Black)
(0.11) (0.11) (0.11) (0.11) (0.11) (0.10)
Other 0.080 0.076 0.061 0.049 0.050 0.039
(0.18) (0.18) (0.18) (0.18) (0.18) (0.18)
Hispanic -0.227 -0.204 -0.223 -0.179 -0.170 -0.195
(0.16) (0.16) (0.16) (0.14) (0.14) (0.14)
Constant 0.032 0.054 0.072 0.063 0.068 0.092
(0.09) (0.09) (0.09) (0.08) (0.08) (0.08)
R-square 0.815 0.814 0.814 0.847 0.847 0.849
BIC 461.633 462.816 462.689 379.473 379.480 374.429
N 340 340 340 317 317 317
Note. Standard errors are in parentheses. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001 Given a small
sample of the service D recipients, we dropped those students in the regression analysis.

In Table 5, the targeted in-school service recipients have greater fall-to-win-

ter gains in their i-Ready percentile rankings (B = 0.260) than their peers who
did not receive any services or received other types of services. However, we
did not find similar reading improvement effects in other service recipients or
the spring percentile rankings compared with non-service recipients. For other
covariates, students’ grade level and gender also influenced their i-Ready per-
centile rankings.

Table 5. OLS Regression i-Ready Percentile Ranking for Community Service

Types (Continued)
M1A: M1B: M1C: M2A: M2A: M2A:
i-Ready i-Ready i-Ready i-Ready i-Ready i-Ready
percentile percentile percentile percentile percentile percentile
(Winter) (Winter) (Winter) (Spring) (Spring) (Spring)
b/se b/se b/se b/se b/se b/se

Percentile (Fall) 0.651*** 0.651*** 0.653*** 0.737*** 0.736*** 0.726***

(0.04) (0.04) (0.04) (0.04) (0.04) (0.04)

127
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

Table 5, continued
Targeted in-
0.260* 0.068
school service
(0.11) (0.10)
Afterschool ser-
0.130 0.060
vice
(0.11) (0.10)
Holistic in-
-0.009 -0.112
school service
(0.12) (0.11)
Grade 1 (Cf. K) -0.852*** -0.857*** -0.863*** -0.806*** -0.806*** -0.827***
(0.13) (0.13) (0.13) (0.12) (0.12) (0.12)
Grade 2 -1.020*** -1.053*** -1.051*** -0.874*** -0.883*** -0.889***
(0.13) (0.13) (0.13) (0.12) (0.12) (0.12)
Grade 3 -0.875*** -0.917*** -0.918*** -0.718*** -0.729*** -0.742***
(0.14) (0.14) (0.14) (0.13) (0.13) (0.13)
Grade 4 -0.998*** -1.088*** -1.071*** -1.038*** -1.066*** -1.082***
(0.14) (0.13) (0.13) (0.13) (0.13) (0.13)
Grade 5 -0.745*** -0.818*** -0.819*** -0.578*** -0.598*** -0.627***
(0.14) (0.14) (0.14) (0.13) (0.13) (0.13)
Female -0.019 -0.014 -0.017 -0.164* -0.162* -0.161*
(0.08) (0.08) (0.08) (0.07) (0.07) (0.07)
White (Cf.
-0.300 -0.264 -0.265 -0.255 -0.244 -0.255
Black)
(0.17) (0.17) (0.17) (0.16) (0.16) (0.16)
Other -0.150 -0.164 -0.185 0.181 0.184 0.174
(0.28) (0.28) (0.28) (0.28) (0.28) (0.28)
Hispanic -0.327 -0.272 -0.292 -0.083 -0.065 -0.092
(0.25) (0.25) (0.25) (0.23) (0.23) (0.23)
Constant 0.765*** 0.818*** 0.837*** 0.772*** 0.782*** 0.821***
(0.10) (0.10) (0.10) (0.10) (0.10) (0.10)
R-square 0.560 0.555 0.553 0.629 0.629 0.630
Note. Standard errors are in parentheses. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001 Given a small
sample of the service D recipients, we dropped those students in the regression analysis.

Discussion

Among 347 students in this Title I school, 115 students were referred by
their teachers, and the school worked to receive additional support from the

128
 COMMUNITY SERVICES AND READING

community partners. Our discussions focus on three aspects: (1) non-ser-

vice, one service, vs. multiple services, (2) types of services, and (3) changes in
achievement scores over time.
Non-Service, One Service, vs. Multiple Services
Students who received services, particularly for targeted in-school services,
had a positive and statistically significant improvement in percentile rankings
over those who did not receive services. This is consistent with the findings in
the existing literature about the positive impacts of community involvement
on student achievement (Dryfoos, 2000; Epstein et al., 1997; Henderson &
Mapp, 2002; Newman, 1995). Seeing that these struggling students performed
significantly better after receiving community services is encouraging. This in-
dicates that the community services can positively impact students’ reading
achievement in the Title I school and reduce the gap of educational inequality.
However, although students who received multiple community services
had positive gains, there was no statistical difference in reading achievement
between students who received one or multiple services. More data are still
needed to explain why students who received multiple services did not perform
significantly better than their peers who only received one service in terms
of reading achievement. One potential reason is that some services did not
focus on students’ reading skills but on their social and emotional skills. In
the future, if social and emotional performance data are provided, the analy-
ses will be more inclusive, covering more than reading achievement. Knowing
the data limitation is important and educational to community partners. It
reminds community partners that documenting data associated with their ser-
vices is needed for analyzing students’ overall learning outcomes. Moreover, the
number of students who received multiple services was too small to generate
statistical power. This encourages all stakeholders to work more closely in the
future when referring students to receive community services if they hope to
see the statistical significance, whether positive or negative, to hold a degree of
confidence that the results are reliable and not due to chance.
Types of Services
Both targeted and holistic in-school services were necessary and beneficial to
students, but targeted reading interventions that were explicit and systematic
had more positive impacts on the students’ reading achievement. In the pres-
ent study, the available data only allow the research team to examine students’
reading achievement. Under this limitation, it is predictable that direct and tar-
geted reading interventions would be more likely to increase students’ reading
achievement than indirect services like family dollars or social–emotional learn-

129
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

ing activities. This highlights the importance of deliberative communication

addressed by Badgett (2016), which requires all stakeholders to be thoughtful
and considerate, knowing what goals they want to achieve and what data are
needed to measure progress.
Changes in Achievement Scores Over Time
Students who received services sustained the intervention effectiveness bet-
ter from fall to winter than from winter to spring. Due to COVID-19, the
spring scores of i-Ready were gathered in February/March instead of May/June
as they would normally have been. In other words, students did not receive
an entire semester of instruction in the spring semester when they took the
end-of-the-year assessment. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that the pandemic
had negatively affected students’ reading achievement. Numerous studies show
similar outcomes: students’ test scores were lower than those of same-grade
peers before the pandemic (Kuhfeld et al., 2022). It is important to note the
Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA) requires that when schools provide
services to typical learners, they must also make these services available to stu-
dents with disabilities. Under no preparation for the pandemic that caused an
unprecedented disruption to the educational provision, the school decided to
stop all instructional activities, including community services, for the rest of
the spring semester. Because the pandemic affected all students who received
or did not receive community services, the data were not skewed in that sense.
Although many educators are aware of summer learning loss (The National
Summer Learning Association, 2017), our study indicates that winter learning
loss might also exist because both groups of students in this Title I school, re-
ceiving or not receiving community services, had lower reading achievement
after the winter break. This suggests that students in the Title I school may
need continuous support even during the winter break. The data inform com-
munity partners to redesign their services beyond school semesters. Structured,
creative, and enjoyable in-home or outdoor activities that students can do indi-
vidually or with their families may keep up their learning over the winter break.

Conclusion

In summary, our study shows that students who received community ser-
vices performed better on the norm-referenced test than those who did not
receive any community service, even after the winter break learning loss and
before the school closure due to COVID. Each community partner had a
touchpoint with the students and families they served. However, there was
no significant difference between students who received one or multiple types

130
 COMMUNITY SERVICES AND READING

of community services regarding reading achievement. The quantitative data

from OLS models indicate that direct and explicit reading intervention is more
likely to improve students’ reading achievement than other services. Still, such
results should not be overgeneralized to deny the value that different com-
munity services brought to schools and their students’ lives. All stakeholders
should communicate deliberatively to understand the specific value different
types of community services create. Each community partner should view data
collection as part of their responsibility to monitor the effectiveness of the ser-
vices they provide to K–12 schools.

References
Anderson-Butcher, D., Lawson, H. A., Bean, J., Flaspohler, P., Boone, B., & Kwiatkowski,
A. (2008). Community collaboration to improve schools: Introducing a new model from
Ohio. Children & Schools, 30(3), 161–172.
Badgett, K. (2016). School–business partnerships: Understanding business perspectives. School
Community Journal, 26(2), 83–106. https://www.adi.org/journal/2016fw/BadgettFall2016.pdf
Berryhill, M. B., Riggins, M., & Gray, R. (2016). Elementary school–university partnership:
The elementary parent leadership academy. Journal of Community Engagement & Higher
Education, 8(4), 4–17.
Claro, S., Paunesku, D., & Dweck, C. S. (2016). Growth mindset tempers the effects of pov-
erty on academic achievement. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United
States of America, 113(31), 8664–8668. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1608207113
Dryfoos, J. G. (2000). Evaluations of community schools: Findings to date. Coalition for Com-
munity Schools.
Epstein, J. (2010). School, family, and community partnerships: Caring for the children we
share. Phi Delta Kappan, 92(3), 81–96. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172171009200326
Epstein, J. L., Clark, L., Salinas, K. C., & Sanders, M. G. (1997). Scaling up school–family–
community connections in Baltimore: Effects on student achievement and attendance. Center
on School, Family and Community Partnerships, Johns Hopkins University.
Epstein, J. L., & Sanders, M. G. (2006). Prospects for change: Preparing educators for school,
family, and community partnerships. Peabody Journal of Education, 81(2), 81–120. https://
doi.org/10.1207/S15327930pje8102_5
Greene, K., & Anyon, J. (2010). Urban school reform, family support, and student achievement.
Reading &Writing Quarterly, 26(3), 223–236. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573561003769608
Hands, C. (2005). It’s who you know and what you know: The process of creating partnerships
between schools and communities. School Community Journal, 15(2), 63–84. https://www.
adi.org/journal/fw05/HandsFall2005.pdf
Hall, G., Yohalem, N., Tolman, J., & Wilson, A. (2003). How afterschool programs can most
effectively promote positive youth development as a support to academic achievement. National
Institute on Out-of-School Time.
Henderson, A. T., & Mapp, K. L. (2002). A new wave of evidence: The impact of school, family,
and community connections on student achievement. SEDL.
Herrera, C., & Karcher, M. (2013). School-based mentoring. In D. L. DuBois & M. J. Karch-
er (Eds.), Handbook of youth mentoring (pp. 203–220). Sage.

131
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

Kuhfeld, M., Soland, J., & Lewis, K. (2022). Test score patterns across three COVID-19-im-
pacted school years (EdWorkingPaper: 22-521). Annenberg Institute at Brown University.
https://doi.org/10.26300/ga82-6v47
Kuhfeld, M., Soland, J., Lewis, K., Ruzek, E., & Johnson, A. (2022). The COVID-19 school
year: Learning and recovery across 2020–2021. AERA Open, 8. https://doi.org/10.1177/
23328584221099306
Lacour, M., & Tissington, L. D. (2011). The effects of poverty on academic achievement.
Educational Research and Reviews, 6(7), 522–527. https://academicjournals.org/article/ar-
ticle1379765941_Lacour%20and%20Tissington.pdf
Lockwood, A. T. (1996). School–community collaboration. New Leaders for Tomorrow’s Schools,
2(1), 1–30.
Luebchow, L. (2009). Equitable resources in low-income schools: Teacher equity and the federal
Title I comparability requirement. New America Foundation.
National Summer Learning Association (NSLA). (2017). Summer by the numbers. The achieve-
ment gap: What happens to children during the summer? http://www.summerlearning.org/
wp-content/uploads/2017/05/SummerByTheNumbers.pdf
Nelson-Royes, A. M., & Reglin, G. L. (2011). Afterschool tutoring for reading achievement
and urban middle school students. Reading Improvement, 48(3), 105–117.
Newman, L. (1995). School–agency–community partnerships: What is the early impact on student
performance? SRI International.
Poynton, J., Kirkland, R., & Makela, C. (2018). Superintendents building public trust and en-
gagement in five public school communities. School Community Journal, 28(2), 265–296.
https://www.adi.org/journal/2018fw/PoyntonEtAlFall2018.pdf
Rasinski, T., Paige, D., Rains, C., Stewart, F., Julovich, B., Prenkert, D., Rupley, W. H., &
Nichols, W. D. (2017). Effects of intensive fluency instruction on the reading proficiency
of third-grade struggling readers. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 33(6), 519–532. https://
doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2016.1250144
Ritter, G. W., Barnett, J. H., Denny, G. S., & Albin, G. R. (2009). The effectiveness of volun-
teer tutoring programs for elementary and middle school students: A meta-analysis. Review
of Educational Research, 79(1), 3–38. https://doi.org/10.3102%2F0034654308325690
Sanders, M. G., & Harvey, A. (2002). Beyond the school walls: A case study of principal lead-
ership for school–community collaboration. Teachers College Record, 104(7), 1345–1368.
Wanzek, J., Stevens, E. A., Williams, K. J., Scammacca, N., Vaughn, S., & Sargent, K. (2018).
Current evidence on the effects of intensive early reading interventions. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 51(6), 612–624. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0022219418775110

I-Chien Chen is an assistant professor in the College of Education at Michigan

State University. Her work centers on how social contexts enhance social and emo-
tional learning, interests, and achievement.
Nai-Cheng Kuo is a professor in the College of Education and Human Develop-
ment at Augusta University. Her areas of expertise include the multitiered system of
support, applied behavior analysis, dyslexia, families and community engagement,
and special education. Correspondence regarding this article may be addressed to Dr.
Nai-Cheng Kuo, 2500 Walton Way, Augusta, GA 30904, or email [email protected]
Breanna Smith is a graduate student in counselor education at Augusta University.
Her work centers on clinical mental health counseling. She works with clients with
a range of mental and emotional needs and promotes individuals’ mental health and
wellness in communities.
132
The 2020–21 Future Forward Literacy Program:
Implementation and Impact During the
COVID-19 Pandemic
Curtis Jones, Marlo Reeves, and Dongmei Li

Abstract

Future Forward is an early elementary literacy program which, through a

family–school–community partnership approach, integrates one-on-one tu-
toring and family engagement to support literacy development at school and
at home. In the 2020–21 school year, as part of an Education Innovation and
Research (EIR) Mid-Phase grant, the impact of a modified Future Forward on
reading achievement was tested with a randomized control study of students
in nine schools. In the context of COVID-19, implementation was modified
to support virtual tutoring. Although consistent in magnitude with other stud-
ies, the modified Future Forward program was not found to have a statistically
significant impact on student achievement. Sample size limitations and imple-
mentation challenges, both resulting from COVID-19, hindered our ability to
measure an impact. Even considering these challenges, we still found evidence
that Future Forward had a positive impact on the reading achievement of Black
students (0.34 standard deviations, p =.095) and, even more so, Black male
students (0.54 standard deviation, p =.052).

Key Words: tutoring, literacy, experimental research, Future Forward, family–

school–community partnerships, COVID-19, implementation, impacts

School Community Journal, 2023, Vol. 33, No. 2 133

Available at http://www.schoolcommunitynetwork.org/SCJ.aspx
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

Introduction

Future Forward is an early elementary literacy program that combines

one-on-one tutoring with family engagement to promote student literacy de-
velopment both at school and at home. In 2011 Future Forward was funded
by a federal i3 grant to develop the program and test its impact in Milwaukee,
Wisconsin. Two randomized control trial (RCT) studies found the program
had positive impacts on literacy, reading achievement, and school attendance
(Jones, 2018; Jones & Christian, 2021). In 2017, Future Forward received an
Education Innovation and Research (EIR) Mid-Phase grant from the U.S. De-
partment of Education to expand and test its impact on students in 14 schools
across three states. As was the case across the entire education system, in the
spring of 2020, Future Forward was shut down in response to COVID-19. To
continue supporting students and families during the 2020–21 school year,
Future Forward had to modify its program to allow for virtual instruction. This
article presents the implementation and impact results of these efforts.
Tutoring Programs
There are a limited number of early primary literacy tutoring programs that
have proven effective under rigorous scrutiny. The Evidence for Every Student
Succeeds Act (ESSA) website (https://www.evidenceforessa.org/) lists only 13
tutoring programs that have, one of which is Future Forward. Tutoring pro-
grams generally focus on developing literacy skills in students behind in their
literacy acquisition. Of the 13 validated programs included on the Evidence
for ESSA website, seven use paraprofessionals or volunteers as tutors. Even us-
ing minimally trained college students serving as tutors has proven impactful
on literacy (Lindo et al., 2018). There are some conditions of tutoring pro-
grams that are necessary for them to be effective, though. In their review of
tutoring programs, Wasik (1998) concluded that successful volunteer tutoring
programs are highly structured, have quality materials, and provide strong pro-
fessional development and supervision to tutors. Future Forward meets these
conditions and goes further. It is the only validated tutoring program included
on the Evidence for ESSA website that supports literacy development at home
as well as school.
The Future Forward Approach
Future Forward has a family–school–community partnership approach
(Epstein, 2001) to promote student literacy development. An instructional
coordinator, a family engagement coordinator, and tutors staff each Future
Forward site. The instructional coordinator is typically a certified teacher who

134
 FUTURE FORWARD LITERACY

manages one-on-one tutoring provided by paraprofessionals or volunteers. The

instructional coordinator works with the school and tutors to develop a tu-
toring schedule. This involves identifying times students can be pulled out of
class to receive tutoring and finding tutors who can work during those times.
Students are tutored by the same tutor throughout their time in Future For-
ward. The instructional coordinator provides ongoing support, development,
and supervision to the tutors. Each Future Forward student is scheduled for 90
minutes of one-on-one tutoring each week for one school year. Each tutoring
session includes several phonics-based activities, such as Word Play (Wasik &
Jacobi-Vessels, 2016) and Making Words (Cunningham et al., 1998). Students
use graphic organizers to build comprehension skills and write sentences con-
nected to a Word Play activity. They may also use Elkonin boxes, which involve
segmenting words into individual sounds/boxes (Keesey et al., 2014).
The family engagement coordinator, who is typically a community member
or parent from the school, leads family outreach and communication efforts.
Although family engagement can take many forms to meet diverse family
needs, there are some structured activities within Future Forward. Sites send
home a monthly newsletter, hold monthly family events, send books home
to help build a home library and conduct home visits. Communications that
surround these activities are consistent and frequent, validating literacy de-
velopment activities already occurring at home (Nieto, 2012; González et al.,
2005) and updating families about the progress of their student’s literacy de-
velopment. Future Forward works to reduce the unequal power relationship
between the school, Future Forward, and the family that is assumed by families
and teachers at the start of their participation. It creates opportunities for over-
coming barriers to family engagement that result from mismatches between
school and home regarding language, schedules, and expectations (Lopez &
Stoelting, 2010). During COVID-19, tutoring was modified to be more flexi-
ble, as further described below.
Previous Future Forward Research/Evaluations
The current impact study is the fifth of Future Forward. The i3 grant award-
ed in 2009 produced two. The first was a pilot evaluation as the program was
developed in six Milwaukee Public Schools (MPS) during the 2011–12 and
2012–13 school years. While Future Forward had a small but significant im-
pact on reading, it did not impact school attendance. Almost all Future Forward
students received a high or moderate amount of tutoring, whereas the family
engagement component was still in development (Jones, 2018). The second
i3-funded RCT study tested the impact of the full Future Forward program
on low-income students of color in seven MPS campuses during the 2013–14

135
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

and 2014–15 school years. Implementation was strong, with 96% and 98%
of students receiving the intended amount of tutoring and family engagement,
respectively. This study found positive and statistically significant impacts on
literacy development and school attendance (Jones & Christian, 2021). While
no significant impact on reading achievement was found after two years of tu-
toring, the impact after one year, with a much larger sample, was statistically
significant and positive. Further, in a five-year follow-up study, Future Forward
was found to have significant, sustained impacts on school attendance and
reading achievement, equal to approximately one-half year of academic growth
(Jones et al., in press). Further, former Future Forward participants were less
likely (.30 the odds) to be receiving special education services than students as-
signed to business-as-usual (BAU) literacy instruction.
The EIR grant has also produced two research studies. The first of these oc-
curred during the EIR-funded program’s pilot year as it was expanded to 14
schools during the first full year of the grant in the 2018–19 school year (Jones
et al., 2023). Although a regression discontinuity study did not find a statisti-
cally significant positive impact on reading achievement or school attendance,
low statistical power and inconsistent implementation during the pilot year
limited the study’s ability to measure an impact. The second EIR study used a
RCT to examine Future Forward’s impact on reading and school attendance
during the 2019–20 school year (Jones & Li, 2023). The nationwide shutdown
of schools in spring of 2020 because of the COVID-19 pandemic limited the
study to only testing its impact on school attendance. Future Forward was
found to have a statistically significant, positive impact on school attendance.
Overall, Future Forward participants demonstrated statistically significant
improved attendance (1.4 percentage points), with greater impacts on Black
students (2.4 percentage points), students with lower school attendance (2.3
percentage points), and Black students with lower school attendance (3.6 per-
centage points).
Current Study of Future Forward
During 2020–21, in response to school interruptions caused by COVID-19,
tutoring was modified to be more flexible to the unique needs of families and
schools. Sites had the option of tutoring students online or in person. Sites
that chose the virtual option changed their scheduling to accommodate some
of the challenges of virtual tutoring. Historically, each Future Forward tutoring
session was scheduled for 30 minutes. However, virtual tutoring proved more
time-consuming to facilitate. As such, sites using virtual tutoring scheduled
two 45-minute sessions each week instead of three 30-minute sessions. Regard-
less of format, all students were provided access to the MyON online reading

136
 FUTURE FORWARD LITERACY

platform provided by Renaissance Learning. MyON provided sites and fami-

lies additional flexibility for engaging students in reading during COVID-19.
The decision to allow sites the option of providing online instruction was
not made lightly. The 2019–20 and 2020–21 programs were to serve as the
impact studies for the Future Forward EIR grant. Considering COVID-19 in-
terrupted the 2019–20 program, modifying implementation during 2020–21
meant that the EIR study would end without any formal impact evaluation of
the Future Forward program as it was designed. Future Forward was given the
option of waiting until the 2021–22 school year in the hope that in-person
tutoring and family engagement would be more acceptable to schools then.
Future Forward chose to continue to work with students, though, to help
mitigate (as best they could) the continued negative effects of COVID-19 on
students, schools, and communities. Considering the school–family–commu-
nity approach of Future Forward, program leaders felt they could not ethically
put their programmatic needs above the needs of their partners.
In the current evaluation, we examine the implementation and impact of the
modified Future Forward program on students in nine schools. While all nine
participating schools reopened and offered in-person instruction, the implemen-
tation of Future Forward was modified to accommodate a variety of restrictions
put in place by schools because of COVID-19. So while we originally planned
to test the implementation and impact of Future Forward, the changes to the
Future Forward model of delivery caused us to reframe our evaluation to be ex-
ploratory about the impact of a modified version of Future Forward.
Research Questions
• How was Future Forward implemented in schools during COVID-19?
• What was the impact of Future Forward participation on reading achieve-
ment?
• Did Future Forward have a differential impact on student subgroups?

Evaluation Methods

This evaluation study utilized an RCT design, with kindergarten, first grade,
second grade, and third grade (K–3) students randomly assigned to receive Fu-
ture Forward or only BAU literacy instruction during the 2020–21 school year.
Study Eligibility
Eligible participants were kindergarten, first, second, or third grade stu-
dents without an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) and who were not
English Learners. The specific number of students who were eligible is not

137
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

known because schools were instructed not to distribute consent forms to stu-
dents who did not meet eligibility criteria. Those later referred for specialized
services after assignment were excluded from analyses.
Informed consent was obtained from families for their students to partic-
ipate in the study in the fall of 2020. A total of 464 students were consented
for the study. Only students who participated in a fall reading assessment were
eligible. This last eligibility criteria represented a significant barrier for students
participating in the study. Of the 464 consented students, 297 completed a fall
reading assessment and were enrolled in the study.
Random Assignment
In the fall of 2020, 153 of the 297 students were randomly assigned to
Future Forward and 144 to the BAU reading instruction. Assignment was
done within blocks, defined as grade levels within schools (each grade with-
in a school was a block). Three schools included kindergarten through second
grade students in the study, two included kindergarten through third grade
students, two schools served first through third grade students, one school
served first and second grade students, and one school only included two first
grade students who had been attending Boys and Girls Club afterschool activ-
ities, resulting in 26 assignment blocks. The number of study participants per
block ranged from 7 to 22, with an average of 11. The number of study partic-
ipants within each block was twice the capacity of the program to serve, with
half randomly assigned to Future Forward and the other half to BAU literacy
instruction.
Participating Schools and Students
Nine schools participated in the study (see Table 1): four in Wisconsin,
three in Alabama (one Alabama school included only two students who were
Boys and Girls Club members), and two in South Carolina. These schools
partnered with five local Boys and Girls Clubs. The three Alabama schools
were located in an urban district, while the other six were in rural districts.
Participating schools had a history of overall literacy performance that placed
them in the lowest 20% of schools in their state or had a history of large read-
ing achievement gaps between races or economic groups. Five schools that
had previously participated in the EIR grant study were unable to participate
in the current study because obtaining parent consent in these schools proved
extremely difficult. The limited number of students consented was not enough
to include these schools in the study. Table 2 presents characteristics of study
participants. The backgrounds of the BAU and Future Forward assignment
groups were similar. Among all the participants, most were economically dis-
advantaged (67%) and White (58%) or Black (32%).
138
 FUTURE FORWARD LITERACY

Table 1. Participating Schools

Grades of Participating Students
State Community Type
(26 Grades/Blocks)
School 1 WI Rural Grades KG–2
School 2 WI Rural Grades KG–2
School 3 SC Rural Grades 1–3
School 4 AL Urban Grades KG–3
School 5 WI Rural Grades 1–2
School 6 WI Rural Grades KG–2
School 7 AL Urban Grades KG–3
School 8 SC Rural Grades 1–3
School 9 AL Urban Grade 1

Table 2. Characteristics of Study Participants

BAU FF Total
KG 26 (18.1%) 26 (17.0%) 52 (17.5%)
1st 54 (37.5%) 58 (37.9%) 112 (37.7%)
Grade Level
2nd 42 (29.2%) 46 (30.1%) 88 (29.6%)
3rd 22 (15.3%) 23 (15.0%) 45 (15.2%)
School 1 11 (7.6%) 14 (9.2%) 25 (8.4%)
School 2 19 (13.2%) 16 (10.5%) 35 (11.8%)
School 3 13 (9.0%) 16 (10.5%) 29 (9.8%)
School 4 21 (14.6%) 21 (13.7%) 42 (14.1%)
School School 5 21 (14.6%) 20 (13.1%) 41 (13.8%)
School 6 21 (14.6%) 21 (13.7%) 42 (14.1%)
School 7 24 (16.7%) 25 (16.3%) 49 (16.5%)
School 8 11 (7.6%) 17 (11.1%) 28 (9.4%)
School 9 3 (2.1%) 3 (2.0%) 6 (2.0%)
Black 43 (29.9%) 52 (34.0%) 95 (32.0%)
Race/ Ethnicity White 85 (29.9%) 87 (34.0%) 172 (57.9%)
Other 16 (11.1%) 14 (9.2%) 30 (10.1%)
Female 72 (50%) 90 (58.8%) 162 (54.5%)
Gender
Male 72 (50%) 63 (41.2%) 135 (45.5%)
Total 144 153 297
No 49 (34.3%) 49 (32.2%) 98 (33.2%)
F/R Lunch
Yes 94 (65.7%) 103 (67.8%) 197 (66.8%)
Total 143 152 295*
Note. *F/R lunch data were missing for two students.

139
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

Instruments
Seven schools used Star Reading, a norm-referenced assessment for early
literacy. Star is a short, online adaptive assessment with high internal reli-
ability (0.95) and concurrent validity with other reading assessments such as
AIMSweb, the Iowa Test of Basic Skills, and state reading tests more general-
ly (Renaissance Learning, 2021). Two used the Formative Assessment System
for Teachers (FAST) – FastBridge. The FastBridge reading assessment is also
a norm-referenced assessment with strong evidence of validity and reliability
(Christ, 2015). All nine schools administered assessments to students before
Future Forward began serving students and again at the end of the school year.
Modeling Strategy
We used generalized linear models (GLM), which uses maximum like-
lihood estimation, with linear error terms and an identity link function to
estimate the impact of Future Forward on reading achievement. Star Reading
and FastBridge scores were standardized locally, separately within grade levels,
and combined for analysis. Both measures are similar in how they assess stu-
dent reading development and are nationally norm-referenced, so combining
measures is justified. Combining the measures is further justified by the in-
clusion of block-fixed effects in the model below. What is important is that
all students within a block were assessed with the same instrument. The IBM
SPSS 26.0 statistical software package was used to conduct analyses.
Spring reading achievement was modeled using the following linear regres-
sion equation (1)
𝑀𝑀 𝐽𝐽−1

𝑌𝑌𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 = 𝛽𝛽0 + 𝛽𝛽1 (𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 ) + 𝛽𝛽2 (𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 ) + ∑ 𝛽𝛽3.𝑚𝑚 𝑋𝑋𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 + ∑ 𝛽𝛽4.𝑗𝑗 𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝑗𝑗 + 𝜀𝜀𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖
𝑚𝑚=1 𝑗𝑗=1

Where Yij is the spring reading score for the ith student in the jth block; β0 is
the intercept; β1 is the impact of Future Forward; FFij is a binary indicator for
Future Forward participation; Readingij is the baseline reading score for either
the Star or FastBridge assessment; Xmij is the mth of M additional covariates
representing demographic characteristics (e.g., gender, free/reduced lunch, and
race); Blockj is the fixed assignment block effect (grade by school); all Future
Forward and BAU students within a block received the same literacy assess-
ment (Star or Fastbridge); and εij is the error term for student i in block j.
We used robust standard errors and fixed block effects (blocks are defined
by grade levels within schools). We used fixed block effects rather than random
effects to control for any unobserved block-specific factors. We also conducted

140
 FUTURE FORWARD LITERACY

a robustness check of the results. For this, we stripped out all model parame-
ters except block fixed effects and participation in Future Forward. Assuming a
fixed program effect and 70% of the variance in outcomes explained by covari-
ates, the current study, prior to attrition, had an 80% likelihood of detecting an
impact of 0.187 standardized units. To test differential effects, we limited the
sample of students included in equation 1 to students according to each gen-
der, race, grade, free/reduced price lunch eligibility group, and baseline reading
proficiency group. Although we typically only flag impacts that have a signif-
icance level less than .05, in the current study we flag differential effects with
significant levels less than .10. This was done considering the exploratory nature
of these analyses and the small numbers of students included in each analysis.
Attrition and Characteristics of Students Included in the Final
Analysis
Of the 297 study participants, 267 remained at the end of the study. Nine
students were referred for specialized services (five BAU and four Future For-
ward students) and excluded from the study. Of the remaining 288 students,
21 attrited (7.3%). These included three students who did not complete the
spring assessment, and 18 who moved and changed schools. In total, seven
BAU (7/139 = 5.0%) and 14 Future Forward (14/149 = 9.4%) students at-
trited. The combination of overall (7.3%) and differential attrition (4.4%) is
within the conservative levels of acceptability as established by the What Works
Clearinghouse (2020).
Table 3 presents characteristics of students included in the final analysis
(after attrition). Differences in the demographic composition of the BAU
and Future Forward groups were equivalent regarding gender (Ch2 = .817, p =
0.366), race (Ch2 = .023, p = 0.989), and Free/Reduced price lunch eligibility
(Ch2 = .016, p = .898). However, nine students (one Future Forward and eight
BAU) received Tier 2 intervention during the academic year. Although schools
were instructed to provide any intervention services regardless of assignment,
one school treated Future Forward as a Tier 2 intervention and focused their
intervention resources more on BAU students. This may have affected our abil-
ity to measure an impact in that school.

141
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

Table 3. Characteristics of Students Included in Final Analysis After Attrition

BAU FF Total
KG 25 (18.9%) 26 (19.3%) 51 (19.1%)
1st 50 (37.9%) 50 (37.0%) 100 (37.5%)
Grade Level
2nd 40 (30.3%) 38 (28.1%) 78 (29.2%)
3rd 17 (12.9%) 21 (15.6%) 38 (14.2%)
School 1 11 (8.3%) 14 (10.4%) 25 (9.4%)
School 2 19 (14.4%) 16 (11.9%) 35 (13.1%)
School 3 11 (8.3%) 12 (8.9%) 23 (8.6%)
School 4 19 (14.4%) 19 (14.1%) 38 (14.2%)
School School 5 20 (15.2%) 16 (11.9%) 36 (13.5%)
School 6 19 (14.4%) 20 (14.8%) 39 (14.6%)
School 7 19 (14.4%) 23 (17.0%) 42 (15.7%)
School 8 11 (8.3%) 13 (9.6%) 24 (9.0%)
School 9 3 (2.3%) 2 (1.5%) 5 (1.9%)
Black 39 (29.5%) 41 (30.4%) 80 (30.0%)
Race/Ethnicity White 80 (60.6%) 81 (60.0%) 161 (60.3%)
Other 13 (9.8%) 13 (9.6%) 26 (9.7%)
Female 69 (52.3%) 78 (57.8%) 147 (55.1%)
Gender
Male 63 (47.7%) 57 (42.2%) 120 (44.9%)
No 44 (33.3%) 46 (34.1%) 90 (33.7%)
F/R Lunch
Yes 88 (66.7%) 89 (65.9%) 177 (66.3%)
Total 132 135 267

Future Forward Implementation Results

To what extent was tutoring implemented as intended in spite of
the disruption caused by COVID-19?
Future Forward expected to support students from October to May. As
mentioned before, though, difficulties in consenting and assessing students in
the milieu of COVID pushed the start date for sites further into the school
year. Ultimately, two sites started working with students in November, three in
December, and four in January. Five sites provided tutoring in person and four
virtually. The delay represents a significant amount of tutoring not delivered
during the fall of 2020 (see Figure 1).
A Future Forward participant who starts receiving tutoring in early October
and continues until late May should receive at least 1,680 minutes (60 minutes

142
 FUTURE FORWARD LITERACY

per week for 28 weeks) of tutoring. Students in sites that started in November
missed approximately 240 minutes of that, which represents 14% less exposure
to Future Forward. Students who started in December missed approximately
460 minutes of tutoring, representing 27% less tutoring, and students who
didn’t start until January missed 648 minutes, representing 39% less tutoring.
As shown in Figure 2, the implementation delay resulted in very few students
receiving the expected amount of tutoring (> 1,680 minutes).

Figure 1. Total Minutes of Future Forward Tutoring Provided Each Month

Figure 2. Total Minutes of Tutoring Received by Future Forward Participants

← Expected
number of
minutes
Students

Minutes of Tutoring

143
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

Once tutoring began, many students did receive the expected intensity of
tutoring. Students at four sites received tutoring in person and were scheduled
for three tutoring sessions per week (30 minutes per session). Students in the
other five received virtual tutoring and were scheduled for two sessions per
week (45 minutes per session). While historically, Future Forward provided
most of its students with at least 60 minutes of tutoring each week, because
of COVID-related challenges, it was not clear to what extent sites would be
able to continue at this level of intensity. Ultimately, however, more than half
(62%) of Future Forward students received at least 60 minutes of tutoring per
week. Further, the average Future Forward participant received 64.3 minutes
of tutoring per week (Table 4).
To what extent was family engagement implemented as intended
in spite of the disruption caused by COVID-19?
Similar to tutoring, sites experienced a significant delay in their efforts to
engage families, with very few family contacts occurring prior to January 2021
(see Figure 3). Family engagement was further inhibited by the lack of Future
Forward staff presence in schools. Families of Future Forward participants are
typically contacted at least two times each month. This adds up to 16 contacts
during the typical program period of October to May. Again, mostly because
of the delay in starting Future Forward and its virtual format, few student fam-
ilies were engaged at least that many times (see Figure 4). Once the program
was ramped up in January, though, families interacted an average of twice per
month, and 48% were contacted at least two times each month (see Table 4).

Figure 3. Total Successful Family Contacts Each Month

144
 Table 4. Implementation

Tutoring Family Engagement

Minutes Minutes of Contacts Per

First FF Online or Total Sessions Contacts Per
Per Tutoring* Month Per
Month Students In-Person (SD) Family (SD)
Session (SD) Family (SD)
School 1 Jan 13 Online 45 19.5 (4.4) 76.5 (17.2) 10.2 (7.0) 2.0 (1.4)
School 2 Jan 15 Online 45 18.1 (3.7) 71.0 (14.6) 5.1 (4.2) 1.0 (0.8)
School 3 Dec 12 In-person 30 32.4 (3.7) 63.1 (8.2) 23.0 (3.9) 3.8 (0.7)
School 4 Jan 19 Online 45 9.2 (4.9) 26.6 (14.1) 7.8 (5.9) 1.3 (1.0)
School 5 Jan 16 In-person 30 34.4 (3.6) 91.3 (9.5) 14.4 (8.4) 2.9 (1.7)
School 6 Nov 20 In-person 30 48.1 (7.0) 77.5 (11.4) 13.6 (6.7) 1.9 (1.0)
School 7 Nov 23 Online 45 25.6 (7.1) 61.3 (17.0) 11.7 (6.4) 1.7 (0.9)
School 8 Dec 13 In-person 30 23.0 (3.5) 44.5 (6.8) 12.9 (3.7) 2.2 (0.6)

FUTURE FORWARD LITERACY

School 9 Dec 2 Online 45 39.5 (3.5) 113.9 (10.2) 13.5 (4.9) 2.3 (0.8)
Overall 133 26.8 (12.9) 64.3 (24.1) 12.0 (7.4) 2.0 (1.3)
*Per Student Per Five School Days
145
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

Figure 4. Total Successful Family Contacts Per Future Forward Participant

20
Expected number of
family contacts

15
Students

10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Total contacts

Impact Results
What was the impact of Future Forward participation on reading
achievement?
Table 5 presents the unadjusted baseline (before participation) and fol-
low-up (after) reading assessment results and benchmark information for
students retained in the study. The reading achievement of Future Forward
and BAU students was equivalent at baseline (β = -0.02, SE = 0.11, p =.836).
At follow-up however, the reading achievement of Future Forward students
had improved by 0.16 standard deviations in comparison to BAU students.
This change did not correspond to a differential improvement in the reading
benchmark status of students in Future Forward.
Statistical modeling was used to make a more precise comparison of spring
reading achievement scores between Future Forward and BAU students. After
adjusting spring achievement by student characteristics, baseline achievement,
and assignment block effects, Future Forward did not have a statistically sig-
nificant impact (β = 0.09, SE = 0.10, p =.378; see Table 6). A simple model
(Robustness model), only adjusting for fixed block effects, measured a 0.10
standardized impact (β = 0.10, p = .401), which was also not statistically sig-
nificant (see Table 6).

146
 FUTURE FORWARD LITERACY

Table 5. Reading Achievement – Students Included in the Final Analysis

At Baseline (Fall)
Standardized Reading Reading Benchmark
M SD Above Benchmark Below Benchmark Students
BAU 0.01 1.00 48 (36.4%) 84 (63.6%) 132
FF -0.01 0.98 50 (37.0%) 85 (63.0%) 135
Total 0.00 0.99 98 (36.7%) 169 (63.3%) 267
At Follow-Up (Spring)
Standardized Reading Reading Benchmark
M SD Above Benchmark Below Benchmark Students
BAU -0.07 1.01 50 (37.9%) 82 (62.1%) 132
FF 0.07 0.96 52 (38.5%) 83 (61.5%) 135
Total 0.00 0.99 102 (38.2%) 165 (61.8%) 267

Table 6. Full GLM Model Testing the Impact of Future Forward on Reading
Achievement
Std. Wald
Coefficient β df p value
Error Chi-Sq.
(Intercept) 0.302 0.537 0.316 1 0.574
Group (BAU) -0.089 0.101 0.778 1 0.378
Gender (Male) -0.189 0.098 3.732 1 0.053
Race/ethnicity (Black) -0.669 0.173 15.009 1 0.000
Race/ethnicity (Neither Black nor White) 0.138 0.162 0.730 1 0.393
Free or reduced lunch status (No) 0.205 0.124 2.762 1 0.097
Standardized baseline reading 0.423 0.063 45.335 1 0.000
Overall Model Effects
Type III Wald Chi-Square df p value
(Intercept) 2.729 1 0.099
Group (FF vs. BAU) 0.778 1 0.378
Gender 3.732 1 0.053
Race/ethnicity 17.817 2 0.000
Free or reduced lunch status 2.762 1 0.097
Standardized baseline reading 45.335 1 0.000
Grade by school fixed effect 77.561 25 0.000

The overall results are qualified by the low level of implementation due to
COVID-19. Many students received less than the amount of tutoring a Fu-
ture Forward participant would typically receive. To adjust for this, we used
147
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

Treat-on-Treated modeling. This approach allows us to answer the hypothetical

question about what the impact would have been if students had received the
expected amount of tutoring. In the context of this study, this is strictly a for-
mative analysis. To conduct a Treat-on-Treated analysis, first, one models the
amount of tutoring students assigned to Future Forward or BAU would be ex-
pected to receive. One then uses this expected value to estimate the impact of
Future Forward on reading achievement. The Treat-on-Treated model results
suggest a possible larger but still not statistically significant impact (β = 0.13,
p = .364; see Table 7).
Did Future Forward have a differential impact on student subgroups?
Among the tested differential effects, only Black students were found to
differentially benefit from their participation; Future Forward had three times
the impact on Black students (β = 0.34, p =.095) than was found overall (see
Table 7). Future Forward has roughly five times the impact on Black students
with reading below benchmark at baseline (0.48 standard deviations, p = .062)
and seven times the impact on Black students with reading above benchmark
(β = 0.65 standard deviations, p < .001) than it did across all students. Future
Forward had roughly five times the impact on Black male students (0.54 stan-
dard deviations, p = .052). Even considering the small number of students (n
= 12), the impact of Future Forward on Black students with reading above the
benchmark was statistically significant. The impact was eight times larger than
the overall impact (0.74 standard deviations, p < .001). Together, these results
suggest Future Forward likely had a positive impact on underserved students
facing more challenges in learning to read (see Figure 5).

Figure 5. Standardized Impact of Future Forward on Reading Achievement

Notes. *Impact approaches statistical significance (p < .10). **Impact is statistically significant (p < .05).
148
 FUTURE FORWARD LITERACY

Table 7. Results of Models Testing the Impact of Future Forward on Reading

Achievement
Impact (β) SE p n
Full model with fixed block effects 0.09 0.10 0.378 267
Robustness model – simple model 0.10 0.11 0.401 267
Full participation effect (Treat-on-Treated model) 0.13 0.16 0.364 267
Differential effects
Black students* 0.34 0.20 0.095 80
White students -0.04 0.13 0.762 161
Female students -0.01 0.14 0.963 147
Male students 0.09 0.13 0.474 120
Kindergarten students -0.00 0.18 0.998 51
First grade students 0.14 0.17 0.425 100
Second grade students -0.05 0.19 0.804 78
Third grade students 0.43 0.33 0.191 38
Students reading below benchmark 0.08 0.14 0.543 169
Students reading above benchmark 0.12 0.15 0.396 98
Black male students* 0.54 0.28 0.052 33
Black students reading below benchmark* 0.48 0.26 0.062 55
Black students reading above benchmark** 0.65 0.14 <.001 25
Male students reading below benchmark -0.06 0.18 0.719 79
Male students reading above benchmark 0.15 0.17 0.376 41
Black male students reading below benchmark 0.46 0.40 0.248 21
Black male students reading above benchmark** 0.74 0.21 <.001 12
*p < .10, **p < .001

Conclusions and Discussion

The current EIR-funded study of Future Forward adds to the growing body of
evidence of the effectiveness of the Future Forward program and its partnership
approach to supporting student literacy development. This was a challenging
year to implement any education program, let alone one attached to a multisite
RCT. Future Forward decided to continue supporting students, even consid-
ering the difficulties, motivated by an awareness that COVID-19 was causing
many students to fall behind in their reading development. Future Forward’s
goal was to provide as much tutoring to students and support to families as

149
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

possible. Although the disruption to schools caused by COVID-19 prevented

many students from receiving the full tutoring and family engagement experi-
ence, the reduced amount of Future Forward students received seems to have
still been beneficial to participating underserved students and families.
Even considering the implementation challenges and associated reduced
power of the study, we found evidence that Future Forward had a positive im-
pact on Black students. Future Forward had roughly three times the impact
on Black students and five times the impact on Black male students than was
found overall. These results echo what we found in our 2019–20 evaluation in
which Future Forward had a large positive impact on the school attendance of
Black students (Jones & Li, 2023). Interestingly, the impact of Future Forward
on Black students was driven by its impact on the Black students meeting the
reading benchmark at the start of the year. Even though only 25 Black partici-
pants (14 Future Forward, 11 BAU) met the reading benchmark at the start of
the year, the impact of Future Forward on this group was large and significant
(β = 0.65, p < .001).
The current study’s findings are also consistent with the results of a fol-
low-up study of the i3 Future Forward grant, which was comprised primarily
of students of color (Jones & Christian, 2021). In that study, students who
started Future Forward with above average literacy skills continued to benefit
from their participation five years after finishing the program. Students with
below average literacy skills did not. However, students with above average lit-
eracy, regardless of whether they participated in Future Forward, still tended to
fall further behind in their reading development over time as they progressed
through their schooling (Jones et al., in press). Students in Future Forward did
not fall as far behind, however.
The results of the current study, the 2019–20 evaluation, and the follow-up
i3 study suggest Future Forward can be part of a solution for helping Black
students develop and retain their literacy skills. However, Future Forward is
not enough to overcome inequitable school quality (Hanselman & Fiel, 2017;
Merolla & Jackson, 2019), the impact of a pandemic (Pier et al., 2021), and a
structurally racist and biased education system (Levine, 2020). Even consider-
ing the large impact on Black students meeting the reading benchmark at the
start of the year, only seven of the 14 Future Forward participants remained
above benchmark at the end of the year.
Investigating how and why participation in Future Forward was particularly
impactful to Black students will be part of future research. Work on how schools
underserve Black students informs programs like Future Forward’s approach to
school–family–community partnerships. Existing research demonstrates how
the implicit bias of teachers negatively affects Black students as early as prekin-

150
 FUTURE FORWARD LITERACY

dergarten (Gilliam, 2005; Zinsser et al., 2022). Teachers expect less success and
more trouble from Black students (Gershenson & Papageorge, 2018). Non-
Black teachers hold lower expectations for their Black students when compared
to their Black colleagues (Gershenson et al., 2016). Witnessing a student’s suc-
cess in Future Forward may help overcome this tendency by helping teachers
in their journey to humanize all students and families in ways often antithetical
to modern-day race relations (Lawrence-Lightfoot, 2004; Legette et al., 2022).
The focus of Future Forward on engaging families has the potential to miti-
gate barriers to their participation in their student’s school often experienced by
Black parents. Black parents may have histories of negative school interactions,
microaggressions, stereotypes, and methods of exclusion and intimidation
from school staff (Koonce & Harper, 2005; Piper et al., 2022; Posey-Mad-
dox et al., 2021). The school and community-centered exchanges facilitated
by Future Forward with families potentially counter these ongoing barriers
through contextual adaptation to authentic parent engagement and facilitat-
ing collective decision-making in a student’s educational experience (Huguley
et al., 2021). Ultimately, all parents want to be treated with respect by teach-
ers (Lindle, 1989), and the Future Forward partnership approach may create
space for that to occur. Future research on Future Forward will explore how the
school–community–family partnership approach changes the ecology around
students and may provide more clarity to the results of this and other studies
of Future Forward.

References
Christ, T. J. (with Arañas, Y. A., Johnson, L., Kember, J. J., Kilgus, S., Kiss, A. J., Ternt-
man, A. M. M., Monaghen, B. D., Nelson, G., Nelson, P., Newell, K. W., Van Norman,
E. R., White, M. J., & Windram, H.). (2015). Formative Assessment System for Teachers:
Abbreviated Technical Manual for Iowa Version 2.0. https://usermanual.wiki/Document/
EFASTTechnicalManual.632105906.pdf
Cunningham, P. M., Hall, D. P., & Defee, M. (1998). Nonability-grouped, multilevel instruc-
tion: Eight years later. Reading Teacher, 51, 652–664.
Epstein, J. L. (2001). School, family, and community partnerships: Preparing educators and im-
proving schools. Westview Press.
Jones, C. J. (2018). SPARK early literacy: Testing the impact of a family–school–community
partnership literacy intervention. School Community Journal, 28, 247–264. https://www.
adi.org/journal/2018fw/JonesFall2018.pdf
Jones, C. J., & Christian, M. (2021). The results of a randomized control trial evaluation of the
Spark literacy program: An innovative approach that pairs one-on-one tutoring with family
engagement. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk (JESPAR), 26(3), 185–209.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10824669.2020.1809419
Jones, C. J., Johnson, T., Bowser, J., Price, C., Litschwartz, S., & Pyatigorsky, M. (In press).
Implementation and impact results from the first year of the EIR-funded expansion of the Future

151
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

Forward literacy program.

Jones, C. J., & Li, D. (2023). Testing the impact and scalability of the EIR-funded expansion
of the Future Forward literacy program. [Manuscript submitted for publication] https://
uwm.edu/sreed/wp-content/uploads/sites/502/2021/03/FF-attendance-impact-evalua-
tion-19-20.pdf
Jones, C. J., Reeves, M., Li, D., & Gilman, L. (2023). What is the sustained impact of Future
Forward on reading achievement, attendance, and special education placement five years
after participation? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. https://doi.org/ 10.3102/
01623737231182629
Gershenson, S., Holt, S. B., & Papageorge, N. W. (2016). Who believes in me? The effect
of student–teacher demographic match on teacher expectations. Economics of Education
Review, 52, 209–224.
Gershenson, S., & Papageorge, N. W. (2018). The power of teacher expectations: How racial
bias hinders student attainment. Education Next, 18, 64–70.
Gilliam, W. (2005, May). Prekindergartners left behind: Expulsion rates in state prekindergarten
systems. Foundation for Child Development Policy Brief. https://www.fcd-us.org/prekin-
dergartners-left-behind-expulsion-rates-in-state-prekindergarten-programs/
González, N., Moll, L., & Amanti, C. (2005). Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practices in house-
holds, communities, and classrooms. Erlbaum.
Graham-Clay S. (2005). Communicating with parents: Strategies for teachers. School Commu-
nity Journal, 15, 117–129. https://www.adi.org/journal/ss05/Graham-Clay.pdf
Hanselman, P., & Fiel, J. E. (2017). Opportunity hoarding? Racial segregation and access to
high growth schools. Social Forces, 95(3), 1077–1104.
Huguley, J. P., Delale-O’Connor, L., Wang, M. T., & Parr, A. K. (2021). African American
parents’ educational involvement in urban schools: Contextualized strategies for student
success in adolescence. Educational Researcher, 50(1), 6–16.
Keesey, S., Konrad, M., & Joseph, L. (2014). Word boxes improve phonemic awareness, let-
ter–sound correspondences, and spelling skills of at-risk kindergartners. Remedial and Spe-
cial Education, 36, 167–180.
Koonce D., & Harper, W. Jr. (2005). Engaging African American parents in the schools: A
community-based consultation model. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consulta-
tion, 16, 55–74.
Lawrence-Lightfoot, S. (2004). Building bridges from school to home. Instructor, 114(1), 24–28.
Legette, K. B., Rogers, L. O., & Warren, C. A. (2022). Humanizing student–teacher rela-
tionships for Black children: Implications for teachers’ social–emotional training. Urban
Education, 57(2), 278–288.
Levine, M. V. (2020). The state of Black Milwaukee in national perspective: Racial inequality
in the nation’s 50 largest metropolitan areas. In 65 charts and tables. Center for Economic
Development Publications, 56. https://dc.uwm.edu/ced_pubs/56
Lindle, J. C. (1989). What do parents want from principals and teachers? Educational Leader-
ship, 47(2), 12–14.
Lindo, E. J., Weiser, B., Cheatham, J. P., & Allor, J. H. (2018). Benefits of structured after-
school literacy tutoring by university students for struggling elementary readers. Reading &
Writing Quarterly, 34(2), 117–131.
Lopez, G. R., & Stoelting, K. (2010). Disarticulating parent involvement in Latino-impacted
schools in the Midwest. In M. Miller-Marsh & T. Turner-Vorbeck (Eds). (Mis)understand-
ing families: Learning from real families in our schools (pp. 19–36). Teachers College Press.
Merolla, D. M., & Jackson, O. (2019). Structural racism as the fundamental cause of the aca-

152
 FUTURE FORWARD LITERACY

demic achievement gap. Sociology Compass, 13(6), e12696.

Nieto, S. (2012). Honoring the lives of all children: Identity, culture, and language. In B. Falk
(Ed.), Defending childhood: Keeping the promise of early education (pp. 48–62). Teachers
College Press.
Pier, L., Christian, M., Tymeson, H., & Meyer, R. H. (2021, June). COVID-19 impacts on stu-
dent learning: Evidence from interim assessments in California. Policy Analysis for California
Education. https://edpolicyinca.org/publications/covid-19-impacts-student-learning
Piper, K. N., Elder, A., Renfro, T., Iwan, A., Ramirez, M., & Woods-Jaeger, B. (2022). The im-
portance of anti-racism in trauma-informed family engagement. Administration and Policy
in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 49(1), 125–138.
Posey-Maddox, L., de Royston, M. M., Holman, A. R., Rall, R. M., & Johnson, R. A. (2021).
No choice is the “right” choice: Black parents’ educational decision-making in their search
for a “good” school. Harvard Educational Review, 91(1), 38–61.
Renaissance Learning. (2021). Star Assessments™ for Early Literacy technical manual. https://
help.renaissance.com/US/PDF/SEL/SELRPTechnicalManual.pdf
Shanahan, T., & Barr, R. (1995). Reading Recovery: An independent evaluation of the effects
of an early instructional intervention for at-risk learners. Reading Research Quarterly, 30,
958–996. https://doi.org/10.2307/748206
Wasik, B. A. (1998). Using volunteers as reading tutors: Guidelines for successful practices.
The Reading Teacher, 51(7), 562–570.
Wasik, B. A., & Jacobi-Vessels, J. (2016). Word play: Scaffolding language development
through child-directed play. Early Childhood Education Journal. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10643-016-0827-5
What Works Clearinghouse. (2020). Standards Handbook, Version 4.1. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/
wwc/Docs/referenceresources/WWC-Standards-Handbook-v4-1-508.pdf
Zinsser, K. M., Silver, H. C., Shenberger, E. R., & Jackson, V. (2022). A systematic review of
early childhood exclusionary discipline. Review of Educational Research, 92(5), 743–785.

Curtis Jones is the director of the Office of Socially Responsible Evaluation in

Education at the University of Wisconsin in Milwaukee. He is interested in examin-
ing how the education research and evaluation enterprise can be better positioned to
support communities and schools. Correspondence concerning this article may be ad-
dressed to Dr. Curtis Jones, 17 W. Main St., Suite 401, Madison, WI 53703, or email
[email protected]
Marlo Reeves is currently a researcher in youth, family, and community develop-
ment at the American Institutes for Research (AIR). Her research uses sociological
frameworks to study community-based youth organizations as sites of resistance and
submission amidst growing social inequities.
Dongmei Li is a planning and evaluation coordinator for the Austin Independent
School District. Previously, she was a senior research/evaluation associate at the Of-
fice of Socially Responsible Evaluation in Education at the University of Wisconsin
in Milwaukee. Dr Li’s research interests include K–16 education policy studies asso-
ciated with access and equity, accountability, educational reform, and international
education.

153
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

154
Mi Pequeño Mundo: An Evaluation of a Pilot
Montessori-Based Home Visiting Program for
Families With Children 0–3 Years
Valerie Ponce Diaz, Mary-Genevieve Moisan, Roxana Linares,
Diana Alvares Forero, Andrea Heras, and Mary O. Hearst

Abstract

This article describes the evaluation of a pilot Montessori-based home visit-

ing program called Mi Pequeño Mundo (MPM) aimed at promoting optimal
child development in Spanish-speaking Latine children from birth to three
years old in Hennepin County, Minnesota. Phase I included World Cafés and
interviews to gather Centro Tyrone Guzman (CTG) stakeholder feedback on
program design. Thematic analysis informed the development of the program
and implementation approach. Primary input included topics for curriculum
development. Phase II included training three bilingual/bicultural community
members for home visiting (Conectores), recruiting families, data collection,
and family visits. Feasibility and acceptability measures plus pre–post assess-
ment of knowledge, self-efficacy, mindfulness parenting, child assessment, and
process data were collected. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics.
Qualitative summaries highlighted themes from open-ended questions. Phase
II included training of three Conectores who worked with 15 families for up
to 20 weekly remote visits each (due to COVID-19 protocols). Participating
families were 100% satisfied with the program and said they would recom-
mend it to a friend. Program outputs/goals were met upon the completion of
the pilot (Phase II) indicating the program was feasible and acceptable. The full
implementation phase of MPM was modified based on the first two phases and
programming was scaled to reach the broader Spanish-speaking Latine com-
munity living in Minnesota.
School Community Journal, 2023, Vol. 33, No. 2 155
Available at http://www.schoolcommunitynetwork.org/SCJ.aspx
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

Key Words: home visits, early childhood education, Latine families, evalua-
tion, Montessori-based program evaluation, Mi Pequeño Mundo, children

Background

The Latine populations in the United States have limited access to opportu-
nities that optimize early childhood development, resulting in future social and
health disparities (American Psychological Association, 2012). Successful early
childhood development includes “nurturing care,” meaning opportunities for
learning, safety and security, responsive caring, good health, and adequate nu-
trition (Nurturing Care, n.d.). Positive early childhood experiences contribute
to achieving developmental milestones such as language development and so-
cial–emotional regulation (Davies et al., 2021; Mendez Smith, 2020) and also
have a positive impact on school readiness (Davies et al., 2021). Children who
do not have the opportunity to receive nurturing care during their first three
years risk missing key developmental milestones which may limit their full po-
tential (Centro Tyrone Guzman, 2019).
Many Latine children in the U.S. enter kindergarten performing below
the average compared to their non-Latine, White peers (Palermo et al., 2018)
which increases the risk of low educational achievement (Quirk et al., 2016)
and may increase the risk of poor health outcomes. In the state of Minnesota
in 2021, 26.8% of third grade Hispanic students achieved reading standards
compared to 56.8% of White non-Hispanic students (MN Compass, n.d.). In
mathematics, 18.9% of Hispanic eighth graders in Minnesota achieved math
standards compared to 46.5% of White non-Hispanic students (MN Com-
pass, n.d.).
These disadvantages may be caused by barriers such as economic hardship,
cultural stressors (Palermo et al., 2018), and traumatic immigration experienc-
es lived by the students’ parents (Centro Tyrone Guzman, 2019; Palermo et
al., 2018). Other factors that influence early childhood development include
maternal health, parental involvement, income, and family acculturation sta-
tus (Bierman et al., 2021; Nix et al., 2018; Palermo et al., 2018). Educational
attainment is itself a key social determinant of health and has an inverse and
interconnected relationship with health and longevity (Zajacova & Lawrence,
2018). Consequently, promoting early childhood development in the Latine
community is one strategy to reduce long-term inequities.
Ansari and Winsler (2014) showed that Latine children enrolled in Mon-
tessori programs increased their academic and behavioral skills after one year
of enrollment. Its curriculum involves child-driven activities, individualized
learning, and fine motor skill development while taking into consideration

156
 MONTESSORI-BASED HOME VISITING

cultural backgrounds (Ansari & Winsler, 2014). Therefore, further implemen-

tation of a Montessori curriculum should be evaluated as a means to promote
early child development in Latine children.
About Centro Tyrone Guzman
Centro Tyrone Guzman (CTG) is a Minneapolis-based nonprofit organi-
zation that focuses on contributing to the well-being and full participation of
Latine families through education, health, and wellness (Centro Tyrone Guz-
man, n.d.). The organization offers programs for all ages to carry out its mission.
Their early childhood program focuses on improving maternal health and aca-
demically supporting Latine children ages 33 months to six years utilizing the
Montessori curriculum. The maternal health program seeks to connect mothers
to resources during pregnancy and thus improve maternal and child outcomes.
Mi Pequeño Mundo (MPM; translates as My Little World) was created in
the summer of 2020 to expand CTG’s early childhood and maternal health
programs to the community. MPM is funded through the Community Solu-
tions grant of the Minnesota Department of Health which aims to reduce
disparities and improve child development in minority groups in the state.
The purpose of MPM is to proactively support early childhood development
in Spanish-speaking Latine parents with children between the ages of birth to
three years old living in Hennepin County and rural counties in Minnesota.
By doing so, MPM will help address the inequality in access and provide ear-
ly childhood support to Spanish-speaking Latine parents and their children
(Centro Tryone Guzman, 2019).
MPM program implementation was divided into three phases. Phase I
(formative, Year 1) consisted of gathering community feedback to inform pro-
gram design. Phase II (pilot, Year 2) involved piloting the program design and
identifying room for improvement. The pilot home visiting program began in
September 2021 and concluded in March 2022. Phase III (Year 3) began in
June 2022, and its focus was on the full implementation of the program and
expanding program access, which will be disseminated at a future date. The
purpose of this current evaluation was to assess if the MPM program design
during Phase I and implementation during Phase II was feasible and accept-
able for the families and Conectores (which translates as Connectors) involved
in the program.

Methods

The evaluation followed a formative evaluation design and mixed meth-

ods analysis using program data from the formative and pilot implementation

157
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

phases. Data collected during the program included quantitative data (visit
lengths, assessments, and surveys) and qualitative data from focus groups and
open-ended questions from surveys.
Participants
In Phase I, five CTG staff and two mothers from CTG programming were
trained for five hours on how to facilitate World Cafés and phone interviews.
After a practice World Café, two virtual World Cafés (October 9 and 23, 2020)
were held with 24 community members. The first World Café had 10 partici-
pants and lasted 1 hour and 45 minutes, while the second World Café had 14
attendees and lasted two hours. Participants who attended the World Cafés
included mothers (n = 20) and fathers (n = 4). Phone interviews with an addi-
tional five men, all fathers, lasted 30 minutes each.

Table 1. Demographics of Pilot Program Participants

Parent Demographics
Total Parents n = 35
Mothers n = 20
Fathers n = 15
Average Age SD
Mother 32 7.03
Father 35.9 7.76
Education Level N (%)

None 1 5%
Primary 6 30%
High School 10 50%
Associates degree 2 10%
Graduate or professional degree 1 5%
USA Residence Length in Years N (%)
Less than 5 6 35%
5 to 10 4 24%
11+ 7 41%
Average 8.8
SD 5.9
Support Available (Family Near) N (%)
No 6 33%
Yes 12 67%

158
 MONTESSORI-BASED HOME VISITING

Families (n = 20) in the CTG community were invited to participate in the

program for Phase II. Of these families, 15 completed the program. Most (n =
13) families completed 18–20 home visits, and two families completed 15–16
visits due to other commitments. The retention of the 15 families signifies a
75% retention rate. Table 1 summarizes who the families were.
There were 20 mothers (mean age 32; SD 7.03) and 15 fathers (mean age
35.9; SD 7.76) involved in program activities. The majority of parents report-
ed having completed high school, have lived in the United States for over 11
years, and had family living nearby. Many (60%) of the families reported hav-
ing a family size of four or fewer. Furthermore, 85% of the families reported
that they had children under the age of three, and one (5%) family was ex-
pecting a baby at the start of the program. Additionally, 40% of the families
indicated they have children over the age of three.
Formative Phase (Phase I)
The focus of the formative phase was to obtain feedback and input on topics
that would be relevant and of interest to the target population and shape pro-
gram design. An advisory board was convened to provide recommendations
and feedback throughout the design and implementation of the program. It
was composed of members of the CTG community including staff of the early
childhood program, parents, members of the board of directors, an evaluation
team, and a child health academic.
Five staff members at CTG were trained in administering World Cafés and
phone interviews. World Cafés are a method of qualitative data collection that
involve the participation of community members to highlight relevant topics
within the community. Participants were recruited through snowball sampling
within the CTG network and were over the age of 18. Out of the 16 Latine
families and their children invited, 10 participated in the first World Café; 14
out of the 23 families invited participated in the second World Café.
The first World Café included families who were already part of other CTG
programs, while the second World Café included families from the broader
Latine community. The World Cafés had three discussion areas: (1) review an
infographic of data on the Latine community and discuss what was surprising,
what is needed to help children be healthy, what challenges exist, and what is
being done to address the challenges; (2) after a description of MPM, partic-
ipants were asked if the concept will be acceptable to the community, what
topics the Conectores need to know, and what barriers and solutions may be
present for Conectores; and (3) participants were asked about the feasibili-
ty and acceptability of home visiting and information that will be useful for
the Conectores to understand. Each group then generated two to three key

159
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

messages and reported to the larger group. Phone interviews were also con-
ducted to include more male perspective on the program and increase father
engagement. During the interviews, four open-ended questions such as, “Do
you think the use of Conectores will be acceptable in the community?” and
“What strategies could be used to increase male engagement in the program?”
were asked. Community members who participated in the World Cafés or in-
terviews each received a $75 gift card upon activity completion. The findings
from the World Café were compiled and used to develop the areas of training
the Conectores needed to be prepared for MPM.
The training included topics such as breastfeeding, relaxation and mindful-
ness, maternal and child health, nutrition, community resources, home visiting
basics, and how to create activities that align with the Montessori philosophy
of child development. The training was designed to be delivered in six sessions
in eight weeks during Phase II; however, this was expanded to 14 sessions due
to content and time constraints. The structure and content of the training
modules and program delivery were vetted by the advisory board.
Phase I was assessed by examining outputs including the completion of
the World Café training, the number of World Cafés completed, the number
of attendees, the training curriculum prepared, and the vetting by the advi-
sory board at each phase. Documentation was done through secondary data
checks such as advisory board meeting notes, meeting agendas, and notes taken
during World Cafés.
Pilot Implementation (Phase II)
Year 2 (July 1, 2021–June 31, 2022) of the program consisted in training
the Conectores, recruiting families to participate in the pilot, and implement-
ing the home visiting program. The primary outcomes of the pilot were to
assess family satisfaction and the feasibility of the program activities. Three bi-
lingual and bicultural community members were hired by CTG as Conectores.
The Conectores completed the training program that was delivered by CTG
staff and community experts on the topics.
After the Conectores completed their training, they were in charge of the
recruitment and consent process for families, and each was later paired with
six to seven families. Families who are familiar with CTG were contacted for
participation in MPM, and 20 families consented to participate in the pilot.
The inclusion criteria included Spanish-speaking families who were expecting
or had children between the ages of birth to three years of age. Participants
received a $75 gift card upon activity completion. Due to COVID-19, home
visits were no longer feasible. Conectores met with families via video con-
ference, phone calls, or text messages. Families and Conectores met weekly

160
 MONTESSORI-BASED HOME VISITING

for 20 weeks (approximately 5 months) and worked together on goal setting,

connecting families to appropriate resources, and completing assessments and
weekly visiting forms.
The first weeks of working with families were structured to collect established
assessments, set expectations, set goals, and connect families to community re-
sources. After these were completed, by the third week, Conectores introduced
families to the four Montessori principles and started planning activities that
aligned with their goals. If the family was interested in having their child prac-
tice fine motor skills, Conectores would guide families in activities such as
peeling an egg, coloring from bottom to top and left to right, or letting the
child dress by themselves. Other activities mentioned were visual development,
talking to babies with respect and practicing eye contact, and looking for Mon-
tessori educational resources for potty training. Conectores would follow up
with families to check on the progress on the suggested activity.
Measurement Phase II
Program outputs included program satisfaction, percent that would recom-
mend to a friend, and retention rate. To determine program satisfaction and
recommendation, a satisfaction survey was created and disseminated at the end
of the 20-week program via Google form and administered by the Conecto-
res. In some instances, the families completed the form by themselves, and in
some cases it was read to them by the Conectores. If a family did not have ac-
cess to the internet, the family was provided with low-cost internet connection
service or a hotspot. The survey posed questions including asking participants
to rate the program overall and program convenience, then asked additional
open-ended questions regarding how the program helped them in their role as
parents. The program retention rate was measured by the percentage of families
that enrolled and completed the program.
Baseline and endline data collection was implemented by the Conectores
using Google forms as the interface for data collection. All forms were trans-
lated into Spanish and were also available in English. Several assessments were
collected at baseline and follow-up over two sessions and used to assess changes
in families and identify program gaps during the pilot phase. Parenting In-
formation Sources asked whether parents receive their infant care information
through formal or informal sources (Lee, 2016). The Early Parenting Practices
Index (EPPI) is a 13-item scale that asks about parental practices relating to
newborn care in questions such as “Does your baby sleep in the same room,
and in which position do they usually sleep” (Lee, 2016). Meanwhile, the Pa-
rental Self-Efficacy Tasks Index is a 26-item tool that measures areas such as
nurture and routine (Van Rijen et al., 2014) and was used for parents with

161
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

toddlers (1–3 years old). The Karitane Parenting Practice Scale (KPCS) was used
to assess observed parenting self-efficacy in parents with newborns (Lee, 2016).
This 15-item validated assessment utilizes a four-point scale—the higher the
score, the higher the observed parental self-efficacy. The Spanish adaptation
of the Mindfulness in Parenting Questionnaire (MIPQ) measures parenting in-
volvement and discipline through 28 questions with four response categories
(Orue et al., 2020).
Finally, the Ages and Stages Questionnaire, 3rd edition (ASQ-3) and ASQ So-
cial–Emotional, 2nd edition (ASQ-SE-2) were also used as tools to determine
a child’s developmental scores. ASQs were completed by parents or received
from a recent visit to a care provider. Conectores documented each contact
including date, mode of contact (phone, video, text), topics covered, referrals,
and other relevant notations using Google Forms.
Phase II feasibility was determined through the following outputs: Conec-
tores training outcomes (duration, competency, and training objectives),
number of families recruited, number of families who completed the program
(retention rate), number of home visits, number of referrals made, supervisory
meetings and assessments, and surveys completed. Data for these outputs were
collected through surveys and program tracking documents such as monthly
and weekly home visiting forms completed by Conectores.
A virtual focus group was facilitated by CTG staff in Spanish and took place
at the halfway mark (mid-December) of the pilot program to assess progress
and make any necessary adjustments. Families were asked nine questions with
respective probes that touched on why they wanted to be part of the program,
their expectations before starting, what type of Montessori-based activities
they had tried during the program, and their relationship with the Conectores.
Notes taken during the focus group were shared with the evaluating team for
translation and analysis, as a team member is bilingual. Finally, a seven-item
satisfaction survey was sent out through a Google form to families to assess
program satisfaction and whether they would recommend the program to oth-
er families.
Analysis
Descriptive statistics of the demographics, visit length, assessments complet-
ed per visit, the number of training hours, hours of supervision, and percent
satisfaction were run. Open-ended questions were categorized and summa-
rized under major themes. Excel was used as a tool to analyze the quantitative
portion of the study, with data coded to find themes and highlight the rele-
vant information. Validated assessments were collected and scored according
to their scoring criteria and a comparison between baseline and follow-up was

162
 MONTESSORI-BASED HOME VISITING

done when appropriate (Lee, 2016; Orue et al., 2020; Van Rijen et al., 2014).
A two-tailed paired t-test was completed using Excel to understand the dif-
ferences between pre and post for the MIPQ assessment. This evaluation was
deemed exempt by the St. Catherine University Institutional Review Board.

Results
The two virtual World Cafés provided feedback on topics of interest to the
community and expressed support for MPM implementation. The phone in-
terviews were used to learn more about how to involve men in the program.
Based on community feedback and expertise from the advisory board, the cur-
riculum for the pilot phase was created. Some topics of interest and a few ways
to involve men are noted in Table 2.

Table 2. Summary of Program Elements Provided by Participating Families

During World Cafés and Phone Interviews
Program Preparation and tips for labor
Elements Information about pregnancy including hormonal changes
Breastfeeding support
Typical child development
Montessori philosophy approach
Healthy nutrition
Mental health and social support
Bonding techniques for women and men with infants (skin-to-skin)
Sexual education
Protecting the child from abuse
How to access special education specifically for Latine children
How to engage with your child’s school
Opportuni- Classes on emotional development
ties for Male Male household beyond financial provider
Involvement Playing with child
Opportunities for men to meet with other men to talk about being
fathers
General education of fathers on child development
Value of men
Strategies for couples to stay connected
Attend classes with women

Feasibility
Curriculum Development and Delivery
The feedback received during the World Cafés and phone interviews in-
dicated that families would welcome the MPM program and Conectores.

163
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

Participants also provided recommendations for topics to cover during the

Conectores training and home visits. These comments were used to design
Phase II activities and are described next.

Table 3. Summary of Training Modules for Conectores and Feedback for Im-
provement
Training Topics Hours Preparedness and Suggestions Summary
Conectores felt prepared. Information was appropriately orga-
Pregnancy
7 nized and disseminated. Suggestions: Focus on health services
Training
specifically mental health services.
Conectores felt prepared after training. Content and materials
were appropriate. They appreciated the facilitator being available
to them for questions. Suggestions: Have families meet with
Breastfeeding 4 the facilitator of breastfeeding training as part of the program.
Schedule time with this facilitator as professional development
time so that information given to families is always accurate.
Technology Conectores felt prepared and comfortable using Google Work-
4 space. Suggestions: None.
Training
Conectores felt prepared after training. Suggestions: Review
Relaxation and
training every so often to remind Conectores of their own
Mindfulness 2
mental health. Include visual material on how to implement
Training
mindfulness during the program.
Conectores felt prepared after training. The training was well
Home Visiting delivered, and the topics were relevant. Suggestions: Include
11
Basics ways to remind families that they should be committed to par-
ticipating in every visit.
Community Re- Conectores felt prepared and the facilitator of the training pro-
2
sources Training vided valuable information. Suggestions: None.
Conectores felt prepared after training. The training was infor-
Nutrition mative and valuable. Suggestions: The training was long for
2.5
Training only one session. Include recipe books in Spanish that families
can use for meal planning.
Conectores felt prepared and are appreciative of the support
Intro to
provided by each other. Suggestions: Reduce the number of as-
Home Visit 7
sessments to complete. Discuss Zoom features that can be used
Pilot Program
during home visits.
Conectores felt prepared for training however, there was men-
tion of having additional training about the topic.
Montessori
Suggestions: Include more information regarding specific ac-
Philosophy 2.5
tivities or concepts for ages 0-1 year in future training. Include
Training
hands-on material. Have a workshop delivered by a Montessori
guide (ages 0-3).

164
 MONTESSORI-BASED HOME VISITING

Training for the Conectores was divided into nine modules over 14 sessions.
Modules were delivered by professionals in their respective fields. Training took
a total of 42 hours to complete across several weeks based on trainer availabil-
ity. All Conectores completed 100% of the training modules. Post-training
feedback from Conectores indicated that they felt prepared and also resulted
in a few suggestions to improve training in the future. Table 3 summarizes the
hours, comments, and feedback from each module.
The Home Visiting Basics training took the most time and included top-
ics such as anti-bias training, domestic abuse, and Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA) for bodily fluids. Although it was not pos-
sible to determine whether the training met the training objectives set at the
beginning of the program due to data collection format, based on the feedback
received, Conectores felt that the training was appropriate and well delivered.
Additionally, the Conectores felt that they could ask questions and get support
in areas where they felt less confident.

Table 4. Summary of 20-Week Mi Pequeño Mundo Home Visiting Program

Home Visit
Total Families n = 15
Total Contacts n = 445
Time Spent on Families N (%)
Contacting 66 15
Follow-Ups 79 18
Home Visits 292 67
Home Visit Duration (Mins) N (%)
Less or equal to 60 199 68
60-120 90 31
More than 120 3 1
Average 58.1
SD 23.1

Home Visits
Due to COVID-19 safety precautions, the home visits occurred remotely.
The home visiting program lasted 20 weeks with a total of 292 home visits.
Each Conectore averaged 19 visits per month, and the average home visit du-
ration was 58 minutes (SD 23.1). It is worth noting that Conectores spent
15% of the time contacting (calling/leaving voice messages, texting) and 18%
following up (on home visiting items) with the families as seen in Table 4. The

165
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

majority of contacts were through video calls (40.7%). Phone calls (28.4%),
text messages (13.3%), and a combination of all types (17.4%) were also used
to connect with families.
Fathers’ presence during the home visits was recorded a total of 16 times.
Regarding referrals, a total of 87 referrals were made during the home visit-
ing period. The most common types of referrals included healthcare (36%),
breastfeeding or food-related (32%), and early childhood related (10%).
Furthermore, out of the 87 referrals made, 77 (88.5%) of the referrals were
followed up to ensure that families were connected to the resources needed.
Supervision of Conectores
Ongoing support was provided to Conectores during the home visiting
period by CTG program administrators. Table 5 summarizes the support pro-
vided to Conectores through supervisor meetings. A total of 121 meetings
included daily check-ins and individual meetings. Supervisory meeting topics
ranged from connecting families to resources to developing Conectores’ skills
to improve contact or connection with families.

Table 5. Summary of Supervisory Meetings With Conectores (n = 3) From the

20-Week Home Visiting Program
Supervision
Total meetings n = 121 Total Hours 93
Supervisory Meetings # Total Hrs. Mean SD
Daily Check-Ins 99 66.6 0.67 0.27
Individual Meetings 16 19.6 1.22 0.60
Meetings with New Staff 5 5.8 1.15 0.49
Misc. Meetings 1 1 n/a n/a
Meeting Topic Themes # Examples
Connect families to resources 35 Housing, utilities, immigration, and food
Mental health support for
3 Post-partum depression in parents
families
Family communication, setting boundaries
Develop staff skills 4
and gender-based violence
Programming Support 5 Print materials & forms needed
Supplies for families 4 Diapers & clothing
Health topics for families 1 Asthma, COVID-19 & special needs
About CTG Programs 2 Enrolling in Centro Programs
House management and de-escalation of
Develop family skills 3
stressful moments

166
 MONTESSORI-BASED HOME VISITING

Assessments
Results from the survey assessments completed during baseline and endline
are noted below.
ASQ-3 and ASQ-SE: The results for the ASQ-3 assessment (given at base-
line only) indicated that the majority of children appeared to be on schedule
in the areas of communication (93%, n = 13), gross motor (86%, n = 12),
fine motor (86%, n = 12), problem-solving (93%, n = 13), and personal social
(93%, n = 13). In the area of problem-solving, one (7%) had a score that fell
into the category “professional assessment recommended.” ASQ-SE scores had
similar results to the ASQ-3 scores. Most children were on schedule (81%; n
= 13). Two (13%) had a score that placed them in the “provide learning activ-
ities” category, and one scored under “professional assessment recommended.”
Karitane Parenting Practice Scale (KPCS): (n = 20) completed at baseline
only. Results indicated that 45% (n = 9) of parents perceived themselves as
having a mild lack of confidence in parenting; 35% (n = 7) had strong confi-
dence, 15% (n = 3) moderate lack of confidence, and 5% (n = 1) had a severe
lack of confidence.
Parental Self-Efficacy: (n = 8) completed at baseline only with parents who
had toddlers. Results indicated that parents scored low on discipline [Range
6–30 (mean 16.3)] and routine [Range 6–30 (mean 19.4)]. Nurture [Range
6–30 (mean 30.9)] and play [Range 6–30 (mean 25.8)] had higher scores.
Of the 15 families who completed the home visiting program, 14 complet-
ed the baseline and follow-up assessments. Results are noted below.
Parenting Information Sources: At baseline, the top five most common
sources of information included pediatricians (n = 14), their parents (i.e., chil-
dren’s grandparents; n = 12), nurses at pediatric clinics (n = 12), partner or
spouse (n = 11), and the internet (n = 10). At follow up, families indicated that
they received information from parents (n = 13), pediatrician (n = 13), nurse at
pediatric clinic (n = 11), internet (n = 10), and parenting classes (n = 10). For
parents that indicated the internet as a source of information, YouTube videos
(n = 7), Facebook (n = 2), and a Google search (n = 8) were the most common
responses.
Knowledge Assessment: At baseline, families had indicated a need for or in-
terest in gaining additional knowledge around multiple topics including health,
nutrition, child development, and Montessori domains. During the follow-up
period, families shifted from need and interest to strength in topics such as
child development, community resources, and Montessori domains. However,
health, housing, and transportation remained areas of need or interest.
Early Parenting Practices Index (EPPI): Baseline results indicated that
parents were not 100% compliant in the areas of safety (sleep and car seat utili-

167
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

zation), development promotion, and feeding. Follow-up results demonstrated

that families remained not 100% compliant, particularly in the areas of sleep
(baby’s sleeping position and where) and maintaining a regular schedule. An
increase in compliance was seen in feeding habits (86% compliant) and car seat
utilization (100% compliant).
Mindfulness in Parenting Questionnaire (MIPQ): Being in the moment
had a significant (p = 0.002) increase from baseline (mean 54.0; SD 6.54) to
the follow-up period (mean 60.0; SD 7.35). Meanwhile, a decrease in parental
self-efficacy from baseline (mean 53.6; SD 29) to follow-up (mean 47.9; SD
15) was observed. However, results indicated that this decrease was not signif-
icant (p = 0.271).
Acceptability
Focus Group
Ten mothers attended the focus group facilitated by the program admin-
istrator. Major themes from the focus group included program design and
satisfaction, qualities possessed by Conectores, and support received in areas
such as early childhood development and health. Table 7 has quotes from focus
group participants for each theme.
Satisfaction Survey
There were 16 respondents to the satisfaction survey. Results indicated that
100% were satisfied with the program, that their expectations were met, that
they would recommend it to a friend, and they felt that the program provided
tools for their day-to-day life as parents. Most (88%; n = 14) indicated that the
program was convenient. Those who indicated that the program was not con-
venient stated that “calls were too long and my baby cries” and “I did not have
enough time for the visits, but I wish I had enough time.”
When asked if the program had helped them in their lives as parents, some
answers included:
Gave me ideas about how to help my daughter enjoy food more. Gave
me tools to develop her emotional health. I felt supported during moth-
erhood’s frustrating moments.
I learned many new things about pregnancy and breastfeeding, and now
with my baby, I am learning new things about [early childhood] stimu-
lation. I loved the program.
Finally, during advisory board meetings held during the program, all three
of the Conectores reported that there were too many surveys to complete
during the home visits. They also indicated that the home visit duration of
60 minutes was too long and that the frequency of once a week was too often.
168
 MONTESSORI-BASED HOME VISITING

Table 7. Quotes from the Focus Group of MPM Mothers

“The first weeks of data collection were tough. I would suggest creating
different methods to collect the data depending on the preference of the
participant. For some people, it may be easier.”
Program
“It would have been great to be able to have the visit in person to observe
Design
the behavior of the mother and daughter and to be able to give sugges-
tions.”
“It is fine virtual and also once a week.”
“...I feel confident, a respectful relationship has been established [with
Program Conectore]. The resources received have been useful. And I am satisfied
Satisfac- with the resources received.”
tion “Of course, I will recommend it. Because it generates independence for
the children.”
“It has been a good relationship with the teacher [Conectore]; she is
Conec-
respectful, friendly, and patient.”
tores
“…she is very respectful, empathetic not only with the needs of the child
Qualities
but of the family in general. She is very consistent and professional.”
“Has received support in the knowledge of taking turns and different
Early daily routines like food, learning and using the toilet, transitioning from
Child- diapers, and working with independence.”
hood “Implement independence such as dressing alone and differentiating the
Develop- food’s name and bath time. It is a challenge, sorting dirty clothes, or even
ment gets confused with the fruits’ names. More consistency because she also
lives part of the time with her father.”

Maternal and child health:

“…encourage breastfeeding and not focus on your previous breastfeed-
ing experience. I feel supported.”
“I want to add that it has helped me a lot manage anxiety regarding the
subject of food.”
Support Resources:
Received “You are learning new skills to help and support the growth and learn-
ing of your children and your own. I also needed and received family
support.”
“[Conectore] has explained to me the portions, the importance of re-
specting the autonomy of the body, and has helped me to investigate
strategies for eating.”

Discussion

Programs that support maternal health and mother–child interactions may

promote positive early childhood development and promote academic well-be-
ing (Palermo et al., 2018). The purpose of the evaluation was to determine the

169
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

feasibility and acceptability of the Montessori-based home visiting program

“Mi Pequeño Mundo.” All of the outputs and goals for the formative and
pilot phase were accomplished. This means that, based on program resourc-
es, a weekly home visiting program is feasible. However, based on program
design feedback, home visiting frequency and duration should be modified
to fit families’ schedules. Additional recommended updates to the program
included reducing the number of surveys and changing the program format
(in-person vs. remote visits). Given the remote format, opportunities for male
engagement may have been narrowed. Therefore, increasing father or father
figure engagement in home visits should be an area of focus in future programs
(Panter-Brick et al., 2014).
Baseline and follow-up assessments provided valuable information regarding
program design. Parents look up to their own parents, healthcare professionals,
and the internet as sources to learn more about parenting practices. This is con-
sistent with other research in the Latine community (Criss et al., 2015). The
Conectores could incorporate this information into their visits, utilizing the
trusting relationships they build with parents to guide families toward trusted
sources of information.
The knowledge assessment indicated areas of future program focus such as
health, transportation, and housing which are factors that impact this com-
munity (Perez-Brescia, 2022). The knowledge assessment is consequently a
great tool for program design as it allows Conectores to plan their visits based
on family needs. KPCS, EPPI, and Parental Self-Efficacy are also useful tools
to identify areas of support. Findings indicated that parents need support in
sleeping practices, feeding, routine, and discipline. However, completing these
assessments is time-intensive, and based on feedback, the number of assess-
ments should be reduced to focus on other activities. Finally, results from the
ASQs indicated that most of the children in the program are on schedule; these
are great tools to assess a child’s needs and allow Conectores to plan activities
and connect parents with the appropriate resources.
Results from the MIPQ baseline and follow-up analysis indicated that there
was a significant improvement in “being in the moment” in parents that partic-
ipated in the program. Although parental self-efficacy decreased at follow-up,
this change was not statistically significant. Consequently, no conclusions can
be made as to why this occurred. A larger sample size may be needed to under-
stand this change.
Community feedback was used to develop the Conectores training and in-
form the topics that would be covered during the home visits. By incorporating
community feedback, MPM program design and Conectores were able to de-
liver desired resources and support to participating parents and children. Thus,

170
 MONTESSORI-BASED HOME VISITING

our program also provides a real-world example of co-designing programs with

and for communities (Mapp & Bergman, 2021; Skoog-Hoffman et al., 2023).
Overall, program participants were satisfied with the program, indicated that
they had learned valuable information to promote their child’s development,
and stated that they would recommend the program to a friend. This indicates
participant support for the program and speaks to program acceptability.
Limitations
The sample size was small, and the program duration was short; therefore,
we could not assess long-term impacts. However, with the mixed methods
methodology and feedback from Conectores and participating families, we
were able to triangulate results that indicated that the program is feasible and
acceptable in the target population.
Recommendations
Several recommendations can be made based on evaluation results. First,
in order to improve program delivery, survey assessments should be revised to
include surveys that allow staff to collect necessary information about families.
For instance, baseline assessments such as the Knowledge Assessment, MIPQ,
and ASQs could guide programming and areas of focus with families. These
could then be re-taken at the end-line stage to assess program efficacy. Fur-
thermore, baseline and end-line assessments along with proper documentation
will assist in tracking family goal completion, something that was not part of
Phases I and II but may be useful to assessing program success in Phase III.
Male family involvement in activities was not tracked in Phases I and II
but is something that can be done for the full implementation phase. Track-
ing male involvement in program activities would provide more information
regarding how and in which activities Latino fathers and father figures engage
with their family and children thus informing activity development. Finally, it
is important to consider the number of families that each Conectore can work
with. For the pilot phase, Conectores did not provide feedback regarding the
number of families assigned. If the program expands to serve more families, it
will be necessary to evaluate this ratio.
Conclusions and Future Implications
All (100%) of the participating families in the pilot phase of MPM, a 20-
week Montessori-based home visiting program, indicated that they were satisfied
with the program and would recommend it to a friend. Families were grateful
to have the opportunity to work with the Conectores and felt supported during
their journey as future mothers or mothers of children between the ages of birth

171
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

to three. Furthermore, based on the resources available, most of the program

goals and outcomes were accomplished, indicating high program feasibility.
MPM is currently in the full implementation phase. Home visits are still
completed virtually, however, in- person workshops are being offered. The
MPM program could be replicated and scaled to reach more members of this
community, and then the impact of program activities in a wider setting could
be evaluated. Programs that support Latine parents and promote early child-
hood development increase avenues of support to families and may reduce
barriers and challenges faced, leading to more positive outcomes and reducing
social disparities.

References
American Psychological Association, Presidential Task Force on Educational Disparities.
(2012). Ethnic and racial disparities in education: Psychology’s contributions to understanding
and reducing disparities. http://www.apa.org/ed/resources/racial-disparities.aspx
Ansari, A., & Winsler, A. (2014). Montessori public school pre-K programs and the school
readiness of low-income Black and Latino children. Journal of Educational Psychology,
106(4), 1066–1079. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0036799
Bierman, K. L., Heinrichs, B. S., Welsh, J. A., & Nix, R. L. (2021). Sustained benefits of a
preschool home visiting program: Child outcomes in fifth grade. Early Childhood Research
Quarterly, 56, 260–271. https://doiorg./10.1016/j.ecresq.2021.03.017
Centro Tyrone Guzman. (n.d.). History. https://www.centromn.org/history
Centro Tyrone Guzman. (2019). Whole family system application proposal.
Criss, S., Woo Baidal, J. A., Goldman, R. E., Perkins, M., Cunningham, C., & Taveras, E.
M. (2015). The role of health information sources in decision-making among Hispanic
mothers during their children’s first 1000 days of life. Maternal and Child Health Journal,
19(11), 2536–2543. https://doi-org./10.1007/s10995-015-1774-2
Davies, C., Hendry, A., Gibson, S. P., Gliga, T., McGillion, M., & Gonzalez-Gomez, N.
(2021). Early childhood education and care (ECEC) during COVID-19 boosts growth
in language and executive function. Infant and Child Development, 30(4). https://doi.
org/10.1002/icd.2241
Lee, J. Y. (2016). Maternal health literacy among low-income mothers with infants. [Doctoral
dissertation, University of Texas at Austin]. UT Electronic Thesis and Dissertations.
Mapp, K., & Bergman, E. (2021). Embracing a new normal: Toward a more liberatory approach
to family engagement. Carnegie Corporation of New York. https://media.carnegie.org/fil-
er_public/f6/04/f604e672-1d4b-4dc3-903d-3b619a00cd01/fe_report_fin.pdf
Mendez Smith, J. M. (2020). Early childhood education programs as protective experiences
for low-income Latino children and their families. Adversity and Resilience Science, 1(3),
191–204. https://doi-/10.1007/s42844-020-00013-7
Minnesota Compass. (n.d.). Quality of life: Education. https://www.mncompass.org/topics/
quality-of-life/education
Nix, R. L., Bierman, K. L., Motamedi, M., Heinrichs, B. S., & Gill, S. (2018). Parent en-
gagement in a Head Start home visiting program predicts sustained growth in children’s
school readiness. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 45, 106–114. https://doiorg.pearl.
stkate.edu/10.1016/j.ecresq.2018.06.006

172
 MONTESSORI-BASED HOME VISITING

Nurturing Care. (n.d.). What is nurturing care? https://nurturing-care.org/what-is-nurturing-care/

Orue, I., Calvete, E., Gonzalez, L. F., Odriozola, J. G., Colomer, E. R., & Cortazar, N.
(2020). A Spanish adaptation of the mindfulness in parenting questionnaire/Adaptation
de la versión Española del cuestionario de mindfulness en la crianza. Psicothema, 32(1),
130–137. https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2019.260
Palermo, F., Ispa, J. M., Carlo, G., & Streit, C. (2018). Economic hardship during infancy and
U.S. Latino preschoolers’ sociobehavioral health and academic readiness. Developmental
Psychology, 54(5), 890–902. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/dev0000476
Panter-Brick, C., Burgess, A., Eggerman, M., McAllister, F., Pruett, K., & Leckman, J. F.
(2014). Practitioner review: Engaging fathers—recommendations for a game change in
parenting interventions based on a systematic review of the global evidence. Journal of
Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 55(11), 1187–1212. https://doi.
org/10.1111/jcpp.12280
Perez-Brescia, M. (2022). Factors affecting Hispanics’ access to healthcare during the
COVID-19 pandemic: An integrative review. Online Journal of Issues in Nursing, 27(3),
1–13. https://doi.org/10.3912/OJIN.Vol27No03PPT75
Stetler, C. B., Legro, M. W., Wallace, C. M., Bowman, C., Guihan, M., Hagedorn, H., Kim-
mel, B., Sharp, N.D., & Smith, J. L. (2006). The role of formative evaluation in im-
plementation research and the QUERI experience. Journal of General Internal Medicine,
21(S2), S1–S8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1525-1497.2006.00355.x
Skoog-Hoffman, A., Coleman, B., Nwafor, E., Lozada, F., Olivo-Castro, S., & Jagers, R.
(2023). Building authentic school-family partnerships through the lens of social and emotional
learning. CASEL. https://casel.org/sel-innovations-1/
Quirk, M., Grimm, R., Furlong, M. J., Nylund-Gibson, K., & Swami, S. (2016). The asso-
ciation of Latino children’s kindergarten school readiness profiles with Grade 2–5 literacy
achievement trajectories. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(6), 814–829. https://doi.
org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/edu0000087
Van Rijen, E. H. M., Gasanova, N., Boonstra, A. M., & Huijding, J. (2014). Psychometric
qualities of the short form of the Self-Efficacy for Parenting Tasks Index–Toddler Scale.
Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 45(4), 443–455. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10578-013-0414-6
Zajacova, A., & Lawrence, E. M. (2018). The relationship between education and health:
Reducing disparities through a contextual approach. Annual Review of Public Health, 39,
273–289. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-031816-044628

Authors’ Notes: This program was funded by the State of Minnesota Department of
Health through The Community Solutions Grant.
We are grateful for the co-authorship, support, and leadership of Roxana Linares,
Executive Director Centro Tyrone Guzman, who passed away on Saturday, August
26th, 2023.

Valerie Ponce Diaz is a Master of Public Health graduate of St. Catherine Univer-
sity. Her research interests include community-engaged research, health equity and
sustainability, as well as interventions that promote health and well-being in Latine
communities.
Mary-Genevieve Moisan is a Master of Public Health graduate of St. Catherine
University. Her research interests include Montessori education, older adult health

173
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

and well-being, and the intersection of these two topics.

Roxana Linares has served as the executive director for Centro Tyrone Guzman
since 2009. Her research interests are initiatives that promote the well-being of the
Latine community across all ages.
Diana Alvares Ferero oversees the Siembra Montessori Pre-K school and the ma-
ternal health programs at Centro Tyrone Guzman. Diana worked in the private and
public sectors for six years before moving to the UK. She worked in London for a
nonprofit that assisted immigrants in accessing education and legal services and subse-
quently worked in local government at the municipal level in Princeton, NJ, focusing
on affordable housing and human services. She has experience in corporate finance,
banking, human resources, and nonprofits. She is interested in child development.
Andrea Heras is bilingual in Spanish and English and has worked at Centro Tyrone
Guzman for almost seven years. Her current position there is as an Early Childhood
Community Educator, providing support to families with pregnant women and/or
children from zero to three years old in the Montessori Home Visiting program. An-
drea’s interest is ongoing research in early childhood education/intervention benefits
and activities that support the development of babies and young children. One of her
latest research interest topics is in the area of positive discipline, since it has brought a
new concept of ways a family can support a child to develop positive relationships and
skills with their caregivers, themselves, and others.
Mary O. Hearst is a professor at the University of Minnesota School of Nursing.
Her research interests are early life interventions to improve lifelong well-being and
influencing health equity and advancing methodology using community-based strate-
gies. Correspondence concerning this article may be addressed to Dr. Mary O. Hearst,
University of Minnesota School of Nursing, 308 SE Harvard St., Minneapolis, MN
55454, or email [email protected]

174
Cultural Models of Parent–School Involvement:
A Study of African American, Caribbean, and
Hispanic Parents and Teachers in an Urban U.S.
School District
Daniell Carvalheiro, Sara Harkness, Charles M. Super, and
Caroline Mavridis

Abstract

This mixed-methods study explored cultural models of parent–school in-

volvement. African American, Caribbean, and Hispanic parents, along with
teachers, were recruited from an urban school district. Participants were in-
terviewed using a semi-structured interview protocol based on Joyce Epstein’s
(1995) framework for parent–school involvement, and their responses were
thematically coded. Statistical and qualitative analyses of responses revealed
significant group differences in ideas about involvement and education across
the domains of parenting, communicating, and learning at home, but not for
volunteering. The findings suggest that conventional beliefs and practices of
parent–school involvement in the U.S. are not universal among parents of dif-
ferent cultural groups, and discrepancies between parents’ and teachers’ ideas
about involvement may therefore emerge as well. The implications of these
findings for schools’ efforts to involve parents are discussed.

Key Words: parent involvement, ethnotheories, culture, parents, teachers, cul-

tural models, African American, Caribbean, Hispanic, families, urban district

School Community Journal, 2023, Vol. 33, No. 2 175

Available at http://www.schoolcommunitynetwork.org/SCJ.aspx
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

Introduction

There is widespread agreement in the United States today that parents’ in-
volvement in their children’s education is beneficial for children’s success in
school and beyond. Despite apparently general acceptance of this proposition,
however, there is a surprising lack of consensus about what parental involve-
ment actually consists of, or how much involvement is helpful. Definitions vary
from direct involvement in activities at the child’s school (Child Trends, 2013),
to a variety of parent–child activities and interactions outside of school that are
intended to support the child’s successful development (see El Nokali et al.,
2010). Feuerstein (2000) concluded, on the basis of his review of the literature,
that parent involvement is a multidimensional construct, from which vari-
ous lists of activities and perceptions can be derived. Similarly, Wilder (2014)
comments that “parental involvement is a complex concept that encompasses
various components, such as participation in school activities, homework assis-
tance, and academic expectations for children” (p. 379). Regardless of exactly
how parental involvement is conceptualized in various studies, however, Wild-
er’s (2014) meta-synthesis of the results of nine previous meta-analyses found a
consistently positive relationship between parents’ involvement and their chil-
dren’s academic achievement across all grade levels and ethnic groups.
Reflecting this multidimensional conceptualization of parental involve-
ment, Epstein’s frequently cited model includes six types of involvement:
parenting, communicating with the child’s school, volunteering and partic-
ipating in school activities, engaging with learning at home, being involved
in decision-making for the school, and collaborating with the community to
coordinate resources and services for families, students, and schools (Epstein,
1995; Epstein & Salinas, 2004; Epstein & Sheldon, 2022). Included in each of
these types are practices in which families, schools, and communities can en-
gage. It follows that such practices may not influence students’ success directly,
but they impact children’s connectedness to school and ownership of their own
success. It is important to note that scholars have made distinctions between
involvement and engagement as they relate to parents’ and families’ roles in
children’s education and school experience (see Ishimaru, 2019). We use the
terms involvement, engagement, and partnership throughout the manuscript,
as all these terms are used in the literature on this general topic and since many
of the ideas and behaviors examined in this study relate to all three constructs.
Epstein’s model has been used for research in a variety of cultures and places;
for example, researchers at Doha University in Qatar used it to explore Doha
parents’ and school staff members’ perceptions of family–school relationships
(Ihmeideh et al., 2020). Other research informed by Epstein’s model of family–

176
 CULTURAL MODELS OF INVOLVEMENT

school partnerships includes a study of parent engagement with their children’s

transition to high school based on a diverse national sample of schools that
were mostly urban, with high percentages of minority and low-income stu-
dents (Mac Iver et al., 2015). Some scholars have critiqued Epstein’s model and
similar traditional models and views of parent involvement as biased against
nondominant families (e.g., low-income, cultural minority) and ignoring the
inequality they can experience in the U.S. educational system; they have also
explored and described ways in which such inequalities can be addressed to
promote family engagement and equity for nondominant families (e.g., Fenn-
imore, 2017; Ishimaru, 2019, 2022).
Nonetheless, there are wide socioeconomic and cultural differences in
how parents from various backgrounds participate (or not) in their children’s
school. For example, in her 2000 book Home Advantage, Annette Lareau de-
scribes how parents in two California communities related to their children’s
schools. In the first, a middle-class town, parents brought a sense of self-con-
fidence and even superiority to interactions with teachers and administrators,
and they both promoted and advocated for their children’s academic success.
In the second, a working-class community, parents were reluctant to object to
the judgments of teachers, and they believed that they could have little influ-
ence on their child’s progress in school. Teachers generally were more satisfied
with the middle-class parents (although some complained about overinvolve-
ment); in contrast, they expressed frustration with the working-class parents,
whom they perceived as either too busy or not caring about their children. Al-
though Lareau’s observations were carried out over 20 years ago, the realities
that they portray continue to be recognizable in classrooms and communities
today. In addition, continuing racial/ethnic disparities and the rapid increase
of immigrant populations add to complexities regarding how to conceptualize
parent involvement and how to promote its hoped-for beneficial effects (Curry
& Holter, 2019).
In this article, we explore ideas and reported practices of parents in three di-
verse cultural groups—African American, Caribbean, and Hispanic—which,
together, constitute the majority of families whose children attended the early
grades of public schools in an urban New England school district; we also report
on a sample of teachers of children of the same ages in the district. Our study is
based on the premise that parents’ ideas are influenced by shared cultural mod-
els of appropriate parental involvement, which are then (at least to some extent)
expressed in practices. It is important to understand these diverse cultural mod-
els which shape how parents construct their role in their child’s education, since
they may help schools develop more culturally inclusive family–school partner-
ships and environments (see McWayne et al., 2022).

177
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

As defined originally by cognitive anthropologists, cultural models are un-

derstandings shared by members of a cultural group or subgroup that “frame
experience, supplying interpretations of that experience and inferences about
it, and goals for action” (Quinn & Holland, 1987, p. 6). Building from this
concept, Harkness and Super (1996) have proposed the concept of parental
ethnotheories as a theoretical framework that begins with general “all-purpose”
cultural models, from which are successively derived particular ideas about as-
pects of children’s development and parents’ roles in supporting it, and finally
(as modified by particular parent or child characteristics or circumstances) ac-
tual practices and developmental outcomes for both the child and the family.
The present article examines patterns of similarity and difference among
parents of three cultural groups within one northeastern American city with
regard to their ethnotheories and reported practices concerning parental in-
volvement in their children’s education. Additionally, we investigate the extent
to which teachers employed in the same school district (although not teachers
of the children whose parents participated in the study) may share distinctive
ethnotheories concerning parental involvement. Although there is evidence of
cross-cultural variability in teachers’ ideas (Edwards et al., 2014; Harkness et
al., 2007), we expected that teachers’ professional training and immediate colle-
gial environment would also influence their ideas about parental involvement,
thus creating a common shared set of beliefs and practices in this domain. As
Hill (2022) describes in a commentary on parental involvement in the U.S.,
school-based perspectives on parents’ role in education are dominated by a
U.S. cultural script, which may not capture the various ways that parents from
diverse backgrounds conceptualize their role in their child’s education. In ad-
dition, early grade public school teachers in the U.S. today are predominantly
White, which could also influence their cultural models of family–school rela-
tionships (see McWayne et al., 2022).
In the U.S., teachers have the opportunity to build relationships with par-
ents of many different cultural backgrounds, including those whose voices are
less often heard. Exploration of the degree of “fit” between teachers’ and par-
ents’ ethnotheories, thus, may contribute to greater insights into the challenges
inherent in cross-cultural communication and to possible avenues for increas-
ing meaningful parental involvement in their children’s education.
Parental Involvement and Children’s School Success Among Di-
verse Cultural Groups
Research has documented that parents in diverse cultural groups in the
U.S. are involved in their child’s school through a variety of different prac-
tices. For example, the African American parents in Jackson and Remillard’s

178
 CULTURAL MODELS OF INVOLVEMENT

2005 study were involved at home by assisting their children with homework
and setting up learning activities for their children outside of school. In an-
other study, Archer-Banks and Behar-Horenstein (2008) found that African
American parents of middle school children talked about assisting their chil-
dren with homework, finding tutors for their children, participating in school
decision-making organizations, and showing interest in and support for their
children’s education. Poza et al.’s (2014) study found that Latino immigrant
families asked their children’s teacher, as well as family and friends, questions
about their children’s progress and how to support learning; they also asked
other community members how to navigate the education system and school.
These parents talked about how they attended events at school and outside that
helped them learn how to support their children’s learning, and they tried to
enhance and augment learning by enrolling their children in extra programs
and finding ways to improve the quality of their child’s education. Smith et al.’s
(2008) study found that Hispanic parents believed they should supervise their
children while they worked on homework, prepare their children for school,
and motivate their children to work hard and behave well. These parents also
mentioned several factors that inhibited their involvement, including limited
communication from the school in Spanish, inability of the parent to speak and
understand English, and a reluctance to challenge the school and advocate for
their child. Parents’ involvement in their children’s elementary school has been
linked to lower high school dropout rates and greater high school completion
for African American and Latino adolescents (Barnard, 2004), higher GPA and
standardized testing scores for African American children (Jeynes, 2016), and
fewer social and emotional problems among English language learners (Nie-
haus & Adelson, 2014).
Several studies have also identified the ways that Caribbean parents are
involved in their child’s education. For example, teachers described Afro-Ca-
ribbean parents of children in their classrooms as engaging in more home-based
involvement compared to school-based involvement (Calzada et al., 2015).
Roopnarine et al. (2006) found that both Caribbean mothers and fathers (and
extended family and non-kin) engaged in academic activities with their chil-
dren, with mothers spending at least eight hours and fathers spending at least
four hours per week in this way. Fathers’ school contact, but not mothers’,
was associated with higher expressive and vocabulary skills. Additional research
indicates that Afro-Caribbean parent–child communication about school
progress is associated with secondary school achievement (Pinder, 2012).
Asian American parents’ patterns of involvement in their children’s school
show a distinctive profile, including lower levels of contact with their children’s
schools but a high level of involvement in academic coaching at home, which

179
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

has also been found to relate positively to their children’s academic success (Sy,
2006). As with the other sociocultural groups, it is important to keep in mind
that there are strong subcultural and individual differences within the broad
categories described above.
Despite the general findings on the benefits of parental involvement, parents
in diverse cultural groups in the U.S. often face barriers to involvement, in-
cluding limited family resources, contextual barriers such as ethnic biases, and
communication barriers due to language differences. For example, Poza et al.
(2014) found that time, financial resources, and instances of bias against their
children were barriers to Hispanic parents’ involvement. In addition, Hispan-
ic families may face language barriers to being involved at school, resulting in
needing to have their children translate for them. Similarly, Hispanic parents in
Smith et al.’s (2008) study described how their children’s school did not provide
Spanish-speaking families with important documents such as letters to parents
and newsletters translated into Spanish. Language barriers can also affect Asian
parents (Cheng & Koblinsky, 2009; Collignon et al., 2001). The low-income
immigrant parents in Cheng and Koblinsky’s (2009) study reported that their
limited English proficiency inhibited their capacity to be involved. Addition-
ally, work schedules made it difficult for these parents to attend meetings at
the school. Such socioeconomic factors can also play a part in involvement for
other parents. For example, Calzada et al. (2015) found that parent education
was positively associated with teacher-rated home-based involvement for both
Afro-Caribbean and Latino parents, that income was positively associated with
teacher-rated home-based involvement for Latino parents, and that marital sta-
tus and living with a partner were also positively associated with teacher-rated
home-based involvement for Afro-Caribbean parents.
Like parents, teachers have their own ideas about how parents and teach-
ers contribute to the family–school partnership and about child outcomes of
parental involvement. A majority of the teachers who participated in a survey
study by Ramirez (1999) reported that they believed that it is important for
parents and teachers to communicate about problems that teens were facing at
home and for parents and teachers to have conferences. Some of the other ideas
they agreed with were that it is important for parents to volunteer in school,
assist their child with homework, and participate in parent organizations.
Taliaferro et al.’s (2009) study showed that school faculty and staff primarily
viewed parent involvement as consisting of at-school activities, but about half
of the participants also recognized that parents can also be involved outside of
the school. Other research has suggested that in some circumstances, low pa-
rental involvement may not be detrimental to their children’s success in school.
For example, Stormont et al. (2013) showed that students whose parents and

180
 CULTURAL MODELS OF INVOLVEMENT

teachers had low contact but high comfort with each other (defined as quality
of the parent–teacher relationship) were rated as having higher prosocial be-
haviors, lower disruptive behaviors, and higher emotion regulation compared
to both those with high contact and high comfort and those with low contact
and low comfort. Context makes a difference too: Bergman (2013) found that
preservice teachers completing field experience at an urban school, compared
to a suburban school, suggested more strategies for getting parents involved
and more forms of communication with parents, such as phone calls, emails,
in-person conversations, and home visits. Nevertheless, some teachers wor-
ried that their attempts to maintain successful relationships with parents might
not succeed. Baum and McMurray-Schwarz’s (2004) interviews with preser-
vice student teachers revealed that they were concerned about the relationships
they would have with parents and that they expected they would be in conflict
with them. More recently, Lasater et al. (2023) interviewed U.S. educators in
the context of demographic changes within their school communities. Based
on their interviews, some educators expressed a deficit perspective, emphasiz-
ing how parents needed to improve and defer to the professional opinions of
the school administration. On the other hand, another perspective expressed
by other teachers was an understanding of the structural barriers and challeng-
es that their diverse families experienced and an interest in learning from the
families and establishing partnerships.
Current Study
As this brief review suggests, there are both sociocultural and role-related
variations in ideas about involvement and parent–teacher relationships. This
variation has important implications, as it suggests that there may be discrepan-
cies between teachers’ and parents’ ideas, which can lead to misunderstanding
and discord. As noted above, in the U.S., teachers have the opportunity to build
relationships with parents of many different cultural backgrounds. Certain cul-
tural groups may find it easier to be involved and build effective parent–school
relationships if their ethnotheories of involvement match those of teachers, and
the opposite effect may occur when there is discrepancy between the ethnothe-
ories of parents and teachers. A further source of complexity is the presence of
students from several different cultural backgrounds within single classrooms.
Exploration of these ideas, thus, may contribute to greater insights concern-
ing the challenges inherent in cross-cultural communication between teachers
and parents from varied backgrounds (as well as among parents of varying
backgrounds) and to possible avenues for increasing meaningful parental in-
volvement in their children’s education. The purpose of this study, therefore,

181
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

was to examine ethnotheories about involvement and parent–teacher relation-

ships among African American, Caribbean, and Hispanic parents, as well as
teachers, from an urban U.S. school district.

Methods
Participants and Setting
Participants in the study were 49 parents (20 African American, 9 Caribbe-
an, 20 Hispanic) of children enrolled in prekindergarten through fifth grade
and 20 primary school teachers involved in the public school system of a New
England city (see Table 1). At the time of this study, there were around 20,000
students in the school district, 78% of whom were approved for free/reduced
lunch; about 51% of the students were Hispanic, 31% were Black, and 12%
were White. Although we had planned to sample Asian parents as well, these
families made up only about 3% of the school district’s student population,
and they were not available through our method of recruitment. Thus, inclu-
sion criteria for parent participation in this study were: (1) the participant was
the primary caregiver of one or more children in Grades K–4 in the public
school district where data were collected; and (2) the participant identified as
African American, Caribbean, or Hispanic (or Latino/a). The 20 teachers were
all instructors or supervisors for students in Grades K–4 in one of two schools
in the same school district. Fifteen of the teachers were female, and five were
male. Seven teachers identified as European American, six as Hispanic, and
two as African American; the remaining five chose not to identify their racial/
ethnic background.
Almost all the parents were recruited at a citywide school center where par-
ents and primary caregivers could register their children for school, submit
requests for transfer to other schools, set up bus transportation, and receive
other school-related services. Family advocates were at the center to assist with
issues of bullying, inform parents of their rights in the education system, and
provide resources to families in need. Two parents were recruited during a
school breakfast session at a public school. Teacher data were collected at two
schools: 13 at a school with primarily African American students, and seven at
a mainly Hispanic population school. Although the center was known to some
of the co-authors through other previous projects, the first author had no affil-
iation or previous relationship with the participants, the school center, or the
two schools where data were collected; this was also made clear to participants
before data were collected.

182
 Table 1. Participant Information by Group
# of
Participant Child Teacher
Group Partici- Immigrant ESL Child Grade School Role
Gender Gender Ethnicity
pants
5 prekindergarten,
African 10 kindergarten, 12 female
20 20 female 0 0
American 4 first, 6 second, 1 19 male
third, 2 fourth, 3 fifth
1 prekindergarten,
3 kindergarten, 2 first, 7 female
Caribbean 9 9 female 7 0
1 second, 1 third, 4 male
2 fourth,
8 kindergarten, 7 first,

CULTURAL MODELS OF INVOLVEMENT

13 female
Hispanic 20 18 female 4 8 3 second, 3 third,
7 male
3 fourth
3 K,
6 European
2 1st grade,
American,
2 2nd grade,
2 African
1 3rd grade,
American,
Teacher 20 15 female 3 4th grade,
1 Jewish,
5 bilingual/
6 Hispanic,
ESL,
5 Other/ Did
1 music,
not answer
3 special ed.
183
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

Procedures
Participant recruitment and data collection were carried out by the first
author of this article, who was an undergraduate student that prospective par-
ticipants would most likely perceive as a White, young adult male. He visited
the center on weekdays from early morning to late afternoon. As parents waited
to meet with center staff, the first author approached the parents and informed
them that he was an undergraduate student enrolled in a nearby public uni-
versity, explained details of the study and inclusion/exclusion criteria, obtained
participants’ verbal consent, and then initiated the interviews, which were au-
dio recorded. For two Spanish-speaking only participants, one interview was
translated by an onsite CITI-certified (Collaborative Institutional Training Ini-
tiative, required by the UConn Institutional Review Board) translator and for
the other interview a family member translated the interview; and these Span-
ish interviews were transcribed directly into English by a bilingual speaker. In
most cases, the interview took place before or after the parents’ meeting if time
permitted, in a private space to the side of the reception area. The two parents
recruited at a school were present at the school’s breakfast session, which par-
ents could attend to volunteer or just be there with their children, and they
were recruited using the same process as at the school center. The first author
approached teachers in a public environment at the two schools or as rec-
ommended by school administration or by earlier teacher participants. The
teachers were given the details of the study and inclusion criteria, and if they
agreed to participate in the study, signed their consent form. The audiorecord-
ed interview was carried out by the first author individually in the teacher’s
classroom when time was available.
After agreeing to participate, parents and teachers responded to several
questions about their cultural background, including country of origin and pri-
mary language spoken at home, as well as the age, sex, and grade level of their
children. A semistructured interview, based on Epstein’s types of involvement
(Epstein, 1995) and developed for this study, was used to explore participants’
ideas and practices related to involvement and parent–school communication
(see Appendix A and B for parent and teacher interview protocols). During the
interview, the first author asked a series of questions from the interview protocol
and, based on the participant’s response, followed up with a request for clarifi-
cation or elaboration. The interviews lasted approximately 15–20 minutes each,
and participants were compensated for their time with a $10 gift card to a local
grocery store or online shopping site of their choice. Interview recordings were
later transcribed verbatim. All identifying participant information was removed
from transcripts to ensure confidentiality. Data management was in accordance
with Institutional Review Board procedures of the authors’ university.

184
 CULTURAL MODELS OF INVOLVEMENT

Analytic Strategy
The transcribed interviews were uploaded to Dedoose©, an online qualita-
tive analysis software package (Dedoose, 2018). Based on Epstein’s framework,
the interviews were coded for themes and practices related to four domains:
parenting, communicating, volunteering, and learning at home. Epstein’s oth-
er types of parent involvement, community and decision-making, were not
included as parents rarely mentioned parent organizations and community in-
volvement was not assessed in the interview protocols. Codes for each type
of involvement were identified inductively by the first two authors through
reading the interviews and taking notes on which ideas kept recurring. Sub-
sequently, codes were marked in Dedoose and their rate of occurrence in
each interview was calculated. Codes that overlapped substantially were then
combined into broader codes (e.g., the codes “Sets High Expectations” and
“Parents Challenge Children Academically” were combined with the code of
“Academic and Grade-Focused”). Codes that were rarely used across all groups
were dropped from the coding scheme. The first author then recoded all the
interviews using the finalized coding scheme. Codes were included in the final
analyses if at least 20% of participants in at least one participant group had that
code applied to their interview. Thus, the coding system, while organized by
four of Epstein’s categories of involvement, reflected parents’ own ideas about
their perceptions, goals, and experiences with school involvement.
Quantitative analyses of the coded data included examining differences
among groups in their frequency of use of the codes in each domain. For each
code, we calculated the proportion of participants within each group who had
the code applied to a passage at any point in their interview. Higher proportions
within a group indicated a more salient theme among the participants within
that group. Fisher’s Exact Test was calculated for each code, using the fisher.test
function in the R statistical software (R Core Team, 2021) in order to identify
statistically significant differences in code response rates across the groups.
Qualitative analyses of what parents and teachers actually said were then
carried out in order to derive cultural models of school involvement and chil-
dren’s education for each of the parent groups and the teacher group. Given the
small size of samples (especially the Caribbean parents), our interpretations of
the data are meant to be suggestive rather than conclusive. This approach fits
within a tradition of cross-cultural research on parents and children that has
often relied on small samples (e.g., Harkness et al., 2007; Miller et al., 2002)
to elucidate patterns of ideas and behavior that larger-scale approaches may
miss. Our goal was not to highlight whether one group or another was better
or cared more about their children’s education, but rather to understand how

185
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

the participants’ ideas may represent distinct cultural patterns in the ways that
diverse parents and teachers think about family–school involvement.

Results
Discriminant Analysis
The three groups of parents and the teachers were in general agreement
about some of the themes identified in interviews, but, in addition, each group
tended to display some particular characteristics. In order to evaluate the dis-
tinctiveness of the cultural models evidenced by these four groups and before
going on to describe these differences, we present the results of a discriminant
function analysis using SAS Proc Discrim (SAS Institute, 2019), as shown in
Table 2. We reduced the number of predictor variables (codes) to 19 by select-
ing codes endorsed by at least 50% of at least one group; these codes can be
found in Table 3. Codes with less than 50% response across all groups can be
found in Appendix C.

Table 2. Discriminant Analysis by Group

% Classified INTO Group African Other –
Carib- Hispan-
Ameri- Teacher not clas-
bean ic
% Classified FROM Group can sified
African American n = 20 70 15 10 0 5
Caribbean n = 9 0 100 0 0 0
Hispanic n = 20 5 25 65 5 0
Teacher n = 20 0 20 5 75 0
Other – not classified n = 0 - - - - -

Values were recomputed for each individual to be the number of mentions

of each code divided by the total number of codes mentioned by that individ-
ual. Because few of these predictors displayed a normal distribution, we used
the nonparametric analytic option with k = 3, and calculated distances with the
Mahalanobis method. The procedure was able to successfully assign 77% of the
individual participants to their correct group based on the predictor variables,
a result highly unlikely by chance (χ2 (16) = 128.23, p < .0001). As shown in
Table 2, however, there was considerable variation in rates of “correct” assign-
ment of individuals to their own cultural group. The Caribbean parent group
was most distinctive, with all nine members correctly assigned. In contrast, just
under three-fourths of the African American parents were correctly assigned
to their own group, with the remainder assigned to the Caribbean group and,
less frequently, the Hispanic group (one parent could not be assigned to any

186
 CULTURAL MODELS OF INVOLVEMENT

group). The Hispanic parents were assigned to their own group at almost the
same rate as the African American parents; interestingly, most of the remainder
were assigned to the Caribbean group. Three-fourths of the teachers were cor-
rectly assigned; again, most of the others were assigned to the Caribbean group.

Table 3. Percentages of Code Response Rates (For Codes with 50% or Higher
Response) by Group
African Fisher’s
Carib- His- Teach-
Codes Ameri- Exact
bean panic er
can Test
Parenting
Academic and Grade-Focused 0.85 0.67 0.60 0.85 0.19
Check Children’s Academic Progress 0.40 0.44 0.55 0.10 0.02*
Children’s Behavior Is Important 0.20 0.67 0.35 0.45 0.10
Involvement in Children’s Education 0.50 0.44 0.55 0.70 0.52
Parents Should Motivate Children 0.80 0.67 0.60 0.30 0.01*
Rules and Discipline 0.45 0.89 0.25 0.30 0.01*
Learning at Home
Have Children Do Homework in a
0.55 0.67 0.40 0.70 0.26
Distraction Free Place
Let Children Attempt Homework on
0.50 0.22 0.50 0.10 0.01*
Their Own First
Parents Help Children w/ Homework 0.30 0.56 0.35 0.70 0.05+
Review Children’s Homework 0.25 0.56 0.15 0.30 0.18
Communicating
Both Parents and Teachers Should
0.50 0.00 0.55 0.40 0.03*
Initiate Communication
Communication is Important 0.95 0.78 0.75 0.85 0.30
Cooperation is Important 0.60 0.33 0.45 0.55 0.54
Frequent Communication 0.60 0.33 0.40 0.10 0.01*
Talk about Academics 0.65 0.33 0.50 0.65 0.33
Talk about Behavior 0.50 0.56 0.50 0.65 0.76
Volunteering
Volunteer to Get Info About Chil-
0.60 0.44 0.35 0.35 0.34
dren and Education
Volunteer to Help School w/ Activities 0.65 0.56 0.40 0.40 0.35
Important to Volunteer in School 1.00 0.78 0.95 0.90 0.17
Notes. Proportions of .50 or greater within each group column were bolded. Fisher’s Exact
Test p-values of less than .05 are denoted with a *, and p-values of .05 and greater and less
than .10 are denoted with a +.
187
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

To illustrate how particular codes within each of the four types of involve-
ment contributed to both similarity and differences across the groups of parents
and teachers, Table 3 shows their rates of occurrence across the samples. As is
evident, some codes were expressed with high frequency in all groups. These
include being academically and grade focused, being involved in the child’s
education, and (for the parents but not the teachers) expressing the idea that
parents should motivate their children to succeed in school. Almost all parents
and teachers talked about the importance of parent–school communication,
including talking about the child’s behavior at school. A great majority of par-
ents and teachers talked about the importance of volunteering at their child’s
school, with many in each group specifying various purposes of volunteering
including getting information about children and education and helping with
classroom activities.
In contrast to the similarities across groups with regard to some themes
(codes), each group’s profile of themes was distinctive in some ways. Looking
down the column of codes for the African American parents, the high rate of
academically related themes is striking, along with talk about all aspects of
communication with the school and volunteering, especially in order to get in-
formation about their child and to help with activities. The Caribbean parents
were notable in their high frequency of talking about the importance of good
behavior, and relatedly, rules and discipline. These parents also frequently de-
scribed themselves as being very present in their children’s homework, both by
helping their children and reviewing the children’s work. The Hispanic parents
were less distinctive in their talk about various themes, but they were often
most similar to the African American parents’ profiles, although with generally
lower rates of occurrence of themes across the four types of involvement. One
distinctive theme that was expressed by a quarter of the Hispanic parents was
the idea of making homework interesting for children, which was mentioned
by only one-tenth of the African American parents and not at all by the other
groups (therefore not included in Table 3). Finally, the teachers focused most
on being academic and grade-focused as well as the importance of parents be-
ing generally involved with the child’s education; on the practical side, they
also talked most about having children do their homework in a distraction-free
place at home, and parents helping their children with homework.
Cultural Models of School Involvement
Although the frequencies of particular themes and their patterns of co-oc-
currence in the parent interviews suggest interesting differences as well as
similarities across the four groups, it is essential to look at what parents and
teachers actually said in order to derive some sense of the cultural models that

188
 CULTURAL MODELS OF INVOLVEMENT

organized their thinking and actions. The following section provides some
clues to the possible cultural models that were most prevalent in each group,
keeping in mind, of course, that none of the groups were totally different from
each other, and that larger samples would undoubtedly add further dimen-
sions. The themes (codes) mentioned in this section can be found in Table 3
or in Appendix C.
African American Parents
The African American parents in this study talked about a parenting style
characterized by strong expectations for their child’s behavior and academic re-
sponsibilities, emphasizing that being strict is important to ensure their child’s
success. As one mother commented with regard to visiting her child’s school to
ensure that her child was not behaving badly:
Like I said, I make it my business to go. I want to know who my son is
dealing with, who I got to deal with for the next 180 days, because I tell
my kids in a minute, I know they are not angels. That is one thing parents
make a mistake at, is making their kids believe that they are angels. Only
in God’s eyes. Because when my back is turned, I know he ain’t an angel.
Similarly, another African American mother stressed the importance of
keeping track of children’s school attendance and participation by staying in
contact with the teacher:
I think parents just need to know what their kids are doing overall…but
a lot of them don’t know if their kids are even in school. Some of them
have just dropped their kids off, and their kids will not be there.…You
are wondering why your kid is not improving in school, but you are not
communicating with the teacher….They just leave it completely up to
the kids, and I feel that should not be left up to the kids.
Of the African American parents, 40% said that it was important for them
to check up on their child’s academic progress and behavior with the teacher,
and they talked about having their child do homework in a distraction-free
place. However, some of these parents said that the materials that their chil-
dren were currently learning were being taught differently from what they were
taught as children, which made it difficult for them to help their children with
homework. One mother commented about her struggle to help her child with
homework:
In this age, they are doing it a lot different than when I was in school. A
lot different. Like my daughter, who is in third grade last year, she would
have to explain to me how they do it, because when I showed her my
way, she would be like, “Mom, that is wrong.” And I would be like, “I
don’t understand that.” It is complicated. Things have changed.

189
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

In addition to being involved with their children’s education at home, the

African American parents in our study expressed strong support for being in
involved at school. More than half of the parents said that they believed vol-
unteering was useful because it allowed them to gain information about what
was happening in the school and what their child was learning. One mother
described the benefits of her volunteering experiences, which included learning
about education resources and networking with school staff and other parents:
It depends on what type of volunteering opportunity it is. I could learn,
like, a lot of different things. Like when he was in daycare, I volunteered
a lot of that. When he was in school, I did a lot of educational resources
and things like that, I learned a lot from it, so, it is just knowing who
[is] in the school, the principal, the teacher, and other parents—just
networking being important.
In general, the African American parents highly prioritized academics, and
they overwhelmingly supported the idea that parents should motivate their chil-
dren to succeed in school. Good communication with the teacher was perceived
as essential by almost all the parents, and at least half of them also mentioned
the importance of frequent communication about students’ behavior and aca-
demic progress. Communication between the parent and teacher was invoked
as a strategy for preventing the child from getting away with bad behavior:
Just having the communication, and like I said, the child can see that my
parent can contact my teacher, and the teacher can contact my parent.
So I can’t get away with not doing my homework. I can’t get away with
misbehaving. They are gonna be on me.
Caribbean Parents
The Caribbean parents in this study, overall, displayed a “no-nonsense”
focus on behavior and children’s social development, a responsibility to con-
tribute to their child’s education, and high expectations for their children’s
performance. As one mother described her expectations for her child’s grades:
No, I want “As” and “Bs,” so if she comes home with a “C,” then, ok,
what happened? You know what I am saying…because you know what
the answer is. Either you weren’t paying attention, or you were rushing.
That is why you got it wrong. It is not because you don’t know, so I don’t
want to hear the excuses.
Consistent with this style, most of the Caribbean parents said that parents
should maintain rules and discipline at home. At the same time, they support-
ed active roles for themselves in children’s learning, for example, by helping
children with homework, providing a distraction-free environment for doing

190
 CULTURAL MODELS OF INVOLVEMENT

it, and checking it afterwards. One parent described her role as a watchful
monitor of quality; interestingly, she was the only parent in the study who
mentioned recruiting an older sibling to share this role:
I go over it, or I would ask one of their older siblings to go over the
homework to make sure it is done correctly, make sure it looks appropri-
ate. I do not like messy work. I don’t like a lot of scribble on the paper. If
you are erasing a whole bunch of times, I think your homework should
be very presentable. Legible so the teacher can understand.
As this same mother explained, however, it was also important to allow the
child a break before getting started with homework:
I mean, she comes home, she gets a snack. She likes to unwind a little
bit. Then she gets her homework started. That takes the stress off of it.
She is just coming in, maybe a little bit fatigued. Put something in your
stomach, and then you are a little bit energized because you had your
snack. You can sit down. You can devote more time and energy and ef-
fort into actually reading the homework to make sure you understand.
Two-thirds of the Caribbean parents mentioned being concerned about
children’s behavior in school, and over half mentioned talking with the teach-
er about their child’s behavior, more so than about academics. Although the
great majority of these parents said they thought parent–teacher communi-
cation was important, fewer of them said it should be frequent, and none of
them mentioned the idea of a close personal relationship between the parent
and teacher. One mother expressed the necessity of communication between
parents and teachers when either has a concern:
I think with better communication, with like the teacher telling the par-
ent, like, “This is what your child is dealing [with]” or with the parent
going to the teacher with, “Why are my child’s grades messed up, or
what is it they need to work on?” No one is communicating, you know
what I mean? I feel that communication would be the key to everything.
Hispanic Parents
Although the Hispanic parents’ profile of themes was quite similar to that
of the African American parents, one distinctive theme expressed by a quar-
ter of the parents in this group was that it was important to make homework
interesting for their children—an idea expressed by only two of the African
American parents and none of the Caribbean parents or the teachers. One His-
panic mother described a variety of strategies she used to make homework an
interesting and fun activity for her child:

191
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

Well I try to make it fun and creative so they don’t get bored, and then
I do it. So you know I try to, let’s say here like, I put like snacks out.
Cut some food up, because my kids love fruits and vegetables, too. So I
have all that set up on the table; I will sit there. I will try to play the card
games with them first—flash cards, showing them the pictures—the an-
imals—and how to spell it, how to sound it out. We start like that.
Interestingly, fewer of the Hispanic parents talked about rules and discipline
than did either the African American or (especially) the Caribbean parents; in
this regard, the Hispanic parents’ views were more similar to those of the teach-
ers. However, like the African American parents, half of the Hispanic parents
said that children should be allowed to try doing their homework on their own
before being given help. As one mother explained, she did not immediately
help her child with homework because she didn’t want her child to be depen-
dent on her for success in completing the homework:
I’m not going to be there giving you the answers. You need to know the
answers. You need to figure out a way when I’m not there—when you
don’t have this there, then you need to figure out a way where you can
do it yourself.
Again, like the African American and Caribbean parents, about half the
Hispanic parents expressed the idea that they should be involved in their child’s
education, including checking on their child’s academic progress. One mother
emphasized this point, including moral as well as academic teaching:
It is not only the teacher’s responsibility to teach, it is the parents’ as well.
The parent has to teach the child when it comes to work and school. You
got to teach them right from wrong. You have to teach them as well.
These Hispanic parents, like all the other groups, talked about the impor-
tance of parent–teacher communication and cooperation, including children’s
behavior as well as academics. One father explained the roles of parents and
teachers as a joint effort:
You know what, there is a saying that says it takes a village to raise a kid,
and everybody has to work together. I mean as a parent, the parent has
the main authority and the main responsibility to make sure their kid
does well. But aside from the parent’s power, the parent can’t sit in the
school with the child all day, so the teacher has to do their part as well to
try to instill some educational background into that child. It starts with
the parents, it starts at home, but at the same time the teacher has got to
help this kid believe in themselves and show that they have a chance. The
parent’s influence and the teacher’s influence together make for what the
outcome is going to be, usually.

192
 CULTURAL MODELS OF INVOLVEMENT

Teachers
Given the complementary roles of teachers and parents, it is not surprising
that the teachers’ concerns were quite different in some regards from those of
the parents. In particular, a third of the teachers talked about the importance
of basic care for children by their parents. Some of the teachers commented
that students did not have proper clothing for being able to go outside for
recess during the winter season or did not have a chance to have breakfast be-
fore school. One teacher recounted struggles she faced when she had students
coming to school without having eaten beforehand, not having food for school
hours, or enough sleep:
Giving them support. Getting them here on time. The big one is break-
fast. We do give free breakfast, but a lot of the ones that take the bus
may not get here on time to get that free breakfast. You can tell which
students have not eaten before they come in—they will be sleepy or
grouchy, complaining of stomach aches, and there is only so much they
can do. The nurse doesn’t have food for 500 kids if all of them miss lunch
or breakfast.
A related concern expressed almost exclusively by teachers in this study was
how many parents in this school district were confrontational with the schools
and teachers, which made cooperation and communication difficult. One
teacher spoke of the importance of also talking about positive things going on
with the child at school instead of only talking about negative things:
But I always try to start off with a positive, because I have noticed the
parents, if you start with a negative—they are always used to hearing
so much negative that their defenses go up right away, and they are not
hearing anything else you would have to say. But if you say something
really good about their kids, I have one in particular that all her kids—it
is always negative…and she is much more receptive because she is com-
ing in with her guard up, already thinking I am going to say something
negative, so I always try to say something positive.
The great majority of teachers stated that parents should be involved in
their children’s education and focus on their children’s academic success, but
fewer teachers mentioned the importance of parents’ emotionally supporting
or motivating their children. Surprisingly, only two of the 20 teachers said that
parents should check their child’s academic progress, and only a few mentioned
the importance of parents talking with their child about school. In contrast,
almost three-quarters of the teachers stated that parents should help their child
with homework. As one teacher explained:

193
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

Definitely the parent should help, and that shows the child that there is
interest in their education. If a parent isn’t involved at least in that way,
the child doesn’t see a connection between the home and school, I think.
Almost all the teachers talked about the importance of parent–teacher com-
munication, and they equally supported the idea of parents volunteering in the
classroom. The following quote illustrates both a teacher’s ideal form of parent
helping and its hoped-for benefits:
I think it would be really nice for parents to go into classrooms to assist
teachers and support by doing copies, which is so difficult in inner cities
because it takes so much time. Things like that would be so wonderful to
help teachers have more time for instruction.…I just think it is really im-
portant that parents be part of the educational process, and that is a way
to get them in so they understand what is going on in the schools, in an
unthreatening manner.…I think that it affords some understanding of
what is really happening in the classroom and exposes them to materials
that the children are learning or what their expectations are, because a
lot of time they don’t know.

Discussion

The purpose of the current study was to explore cultural variation in par-
ents’ and teachers’ ideas about parental involvement and children’s education
in the context of an urban U.S. school district. Our results offer several new in-
sights into parents’ and teachers’ ideas about school involvement. Unlike most
other studies investigating parent involvement, this study compared three dif-
ferent parental cultural groups, as well as teachers. As a result, we were able to
describe a possible cultural model of school involvement for each participant
group. By using Epstein’s (1995) framework to construct the interview proto-
col, this study also gathered data on parents’ ideas across the four domains of
parenting, learning at home, communicating, and volunteering. Our results
show significant cultural variation across these types of involvement for this ur-
ban school district sample. Relatedly, this study indicated that these four types
of involvement were an important concern for not just the parents in this sam-
ple, but for the teachers as well.
Despite the variations found here across the African American, Caribbean,
and Hispanic parents in this study, there were also many similarities. Both the
African American and Caribbean parents talked about using a strict parenting
style. However, differences were found in that the African American parents
were more academically focused, whereas the Caribbean parents spoke more

194
 CULTURAL MODELS OF INVOLVEMENT

about children’s social development. The Hispanic parents also indicated that
they supported a variety of practices for being involved, especially regarding
homework and—uniquely—making homework interesting and fun for the
children.
The patterns of themes found in this sample concerning involvement and
family–school partnerships are generally in agreement with the existing re-
search literature. The African American parents in the present study, like those
described by Howard and Reynolds (2008) and Jackson and Remillard (2005),
talked about volunteering to gain information about their children’s progress
and stated that it is important for parents to be informed about the happen-
ings of the school and their child’s progress. Like the African American parents
studied by Archer-Banks and Behar-Horenstein (2008), the African American
parents in the current study emphasized the importance of having an effective
parent–teacher relationship. Many of the Hispanic parents in the current study
talked about ways to help their children with homework, as also found by
Smith et al. (2008). With regard to the teachers in our sample, like the findings
of Ramirez (1999), they expressed that they highly valued parents’ involvement
in their classroom.
Our study offers additional information on Caribbean immigrant parents’
ideas about involvement and children’s education. In particular, the Caribbe-
an parents in the current study talked most about rules and discipline, about
parent–teacher relationships, and about communicating about their child’s be-
havior with their teacher.
Limitations and Implications for Future Directions
The current study has several limitations, indicating possible next steps
and new avenues for future research on parents’ and teachers’ ideas about in-
volvement. The samples of parents (especially the Caribbean parents) in this
study were quite small. Future studies with larger samples, using quantitative
self-report assessments based on the findings of the current study, could test
the generalizability of the patterns we identified and cross-validate the dis-
criminant findings. Another limitation was that the parents and teachers who
participated had already shown support for school involvement by attending
the center where they were recruited or being referred by other highly involved
teachers; thus, they might not be fully representative of the larger population
of parents and teachers in the city. The parents in this study were also mainly
mothers; thus, fathers’ ideas about involvement were underrepresented. Fu-
ture studies should attempt to recruit fathers and harder-to-reach parents and
teachers to assess their ideas about involvement. Our data show that all the par-
ents and teachers in our study valued involvement and talked about their ideal

195
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

involvement strategies, in addition to ones they had already used. However, as

some of these parents and teachers mentioned, many of the parents living in
these urban environments do not have the resources, time, or knowledge to
be involved as much as they would like. Future studies should further assess
the impact of culture on parent involvement by identifying interactions that
parental ethnotheories may have with socioeconomic status, age, gender, and
family structure.
Another important factor to consider, which we could not with the small
sample in our study, was the role of teachers’ cultural background in the
school–family partnership. Purposely sampling teachers within different cul-
tural subgroups would allow for researchers to examine whether teachers’ ideas
about involvement differ meaningfully across cultural groups and whether a
match or mismatch between the cultural background of the family and teacher
matters for their communication and cooperation. Finally, this study was not
able to take into consideration the history of family–school relations of the
participating parents and teachers and how that may have impacted current
relations. Future research may benefit from matching parent and teacher par-
ticipants from the same schools in order to explore the history of those schools’
relations with families and their impact on current relationships.
Regardless of these limitations, the current study sheds new light on educa-
tional involvement in a diverse community. We found both commonalities and
cultural variation among the parents’ ideas about children’s education and par-
ent involvement. The teachers also had unique ideas about parent involvement.
Furthermore, the distinctness of parents’ and teachers’ ideas about involvement
depended on the type of involvement: ideas about parenting were quite dif-
ferent among the four groups, whereas ideas about volunteering were mostly
similar. Schools can utilize such findings to promote the cultural competen-
cy of staff in interaction with parents of underrepresented groups, potentially
leading to more effective parent–teacher relationships in diverse communities.

References
Archer-Banks, D. M., & Behar-Horenstein, L. S. (2008). African American parental involve-
ment in their children’s middle school experiences. Journal of Negro Education, 77, 143–
156.
Barnard, W. M. (2004). Parent involvement in elementary school and educational attainment.
Children And Youth Services Review, 26, 39–62.
Baum, A. C., & McMurray-Schwarz, P. (2004). Preservice teachers’ beliefs about family in-
volvement: Implications for teacher education. Early Childhood Education Journal, 32,
57–61.
Bergman, D. J. (2013). Comparing the effects of suburban and urban field placements on
teacher candidates’ experiences and perceptions of family engagement in middle and high

196
 CULTURAL MODELS OF INVOLVEMENT

schools. School Community Journal, 23(2), 87–112. https://www.adi.org/journal/2013fw/

BergmanFall2013.pdf
Calzada, E. J., Huang, K., Hernandez, M., Soriano, E., Acra, C. F., Dawson-McClure, S.,
Kamboukos, D., & Brotman, L. (2015). Family and teacher characteristics as predictors
of parent involvement in education during early childhood among Afro-Caribbean and
Latino immigrant families. Urban Education, 50, 870–896.
Cheng, S. J., & Koblinsky, S. A. (2009). Parent involvement in children’s education: An ex-
ploratory study of urban, Chinese immigrant families. Urban Education, 44, 687–709.
Child Trends. (2013). Parental involvement in schools: Indicators of child and youth well-being.
Collignon, F. F., Men, M., & Tan, S. (2001). Finding ways in: Community-based perspectives
on Southeast Asian family involvement with schools in a New England state. Journal of
Education for Students Placed at Risk, 6, 27–44.
Curry, K. A., & Holter, A. (2019). The influence of parent social networks on parent percep-
tions and motivation for involvement. Urban Education, 54(4), 535–563.
Dedoose. (2018). Web application for managing, analyzing, and presenting qualitative and mixed
method research data (Version 8.0.35). SocioCultural Research Consultants, LLC.
Edwards, C. P., Cline, K., Gandini, L., Giacomelli, A., Giovannini, D., & Galardini, A.
(2014). Books, stories, and the imagination at “The Nursery Rhyme”: A qualitative case
study of a preschool learning environment in Pistoia, Italy. Journal of Research in Childhood
Education, 28(1), 18–42.
El Nokali, N. E., Bachman, H. J., & Votruba‐Drzal, E. (2010). Parent involvement and chil-
dren’s academic and social development in elementary school. Child Development, 81(3),
988–1005.
Epstein, J. L. (1995). School/family/community partnerships: Caring for the children we
share. Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 701–12.
Epstein, J. L., & Salinas, K. C. (2004). Partnering with families and communities. Educational
Leadership, 61(8), 12–19.
Epstein, J. L., & Sheldon, S. B. (2022). School, family, and community partnerships: Preparing
educators and improving schools (3rd ed.). Routledge.
Fennimore, B. S. (2017). Permission not required: The power of parents to disrupt educational
hypocrisy. Review of Research in Education, 41(1), 159–181.
Feuerstein, A. (2000). School characteristics and parent involvement: Influences on participa-
tion in children’s schools. The Journal of Educational Research, 94(1), 29–40.
Harkness, S., Blom, M. J. M., Oliva, A., Moscardino, U., Zylicz, P. O., Rios Bermudez, M.,
Feng, X., Axia, G., & Super, C. M. (2007). Teachers’ ethnotheories of the “ideal student”
in five western cultures. Comparative Education, 43(1), 113–135.
Harkness, S., & Super, C. M. (Eds.). (1996). Parents’ cultural belief systems: Their origins, expres-
sions, and consequences. Guilford.
Hill, N. E. (2022). Parental involvement in education: Toward a more inclusive understanding
of parents’ role construction. Educational Psychologist, 57(4), 309–314.
Howard, T. C., & Reynolds, R. (2008). Examining parent involvement in reversing the un-
derachievement of African American students in middle-class schools. Educational Foun-
dations, 22, 79–98.
Ihmeideh, F., AlFlasi, M., Al-Maadadi, F., Coughlin, C., & Al-Thani, T. (2020). Perspectives
of family–school relationships in Qatar based on Epstein’s model of six types of parent
involvement. Early Years, 40(2), 188–204.
Ishimaru, A. M. (2019). From family engagement to equitable collaboration. Educational Pol-
icy, 33(2), 350–385.

197
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

Ishimaru, A. M. (2022). Reimagining American education: Possible futures: Youth, families,

and communities as educational leaders. Phi Delta Kappan, 103(6), 52–55.
Jackson, K., & Remillard, J. T. (2005). Rethinking parent involvement: African American
mothers construct their roles in the mathematics education of their children. School Com-
munity Journal, 15(1), 51–73. https://www.adi.org/journal/ss05/Jackson & Remillard.pdf
Jeynes, W. H. (2016). A meta-analysis: The relationship between parental involvement and
African American school outcomes. Journal of Black Studies, 47, 195–216.
Lareau, A. (2000). Home advantage: Social class and parental intervention in elementary educa-
tion. Rowman & Littlefield.
Lasater, K., Crowe, T. C., & Pijanowski, J. (2023). Developing family–school partnerships
in the midst of demographic change: An examination of educators’ attitudes, values, and
beliefs and the discourses they shape. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 22(2), 347–368.
Mac Iver, M. A., Epstein, J. L., Sheldon, S. B., & Fonseca, E. (2015). Engaging families to
support students’ transition to high school: Evidence from the field. The High School Jour-
nal, 99(1), 27–45.
McWayne, C. M., Melzi, G., & Mistry, J. (2022). A home-to-school approach for promoting
culturally inclusive family–school partnership research and practice. Educational Psycholo-
gist, 57(4), 238–251.
Miller, P. J., Wang, S.-H., Sandel, T., & Cho, G. E. (2002). Self-esteem as folk theory: A
comparison of European American and Taiwanese mothers’ beliefs. Parenting: Science and
Practice, 2(3), 209–239.
Niehaus, K., & Adelson, J. L. (2014). School support, parental involvement, and academic
and social–emotional outcomes for English language learners. American Educational Re-
search Journal, 51, 810–844.
Pinder, P. J. (2012). Afro-Caribbean and African American students, family factors, and the
influence on science performance in the United States: The untold story. Education, 132,
725–738.
Poza, L., Brooks, M. D., & Valdés, G. (2014). “Entre Familia”: Immigrant parents’ strate-
gies for involvement in children’s schooling. School Community Journal, 24(1), 119–148.
https://www.adi.org/journal/2014ss/PozaBrooksValdesSpring2014.pdf
Quinn, N., & Holland, D. (1987). Culture and cognition. In D. Holland & N. Quinn (Eds.),
Cultural models in language and thought (pp. 3–40). Cambridge University Press.
Ramirez, A. (1999). Survey on teachers’ attitudes regarding parents and parental involvement.
School Community Journal, 9(2), 21–39. https://www.adi.org/journal/fw99/Ramirez-
Fall1999.pdf
Roopnarine, J. L., Krishnakumar, A., Metindogan, A., & Evans, M. (2006). Links between
parenting styles, parent–child academic interaction, parent–school interaction, and early
academic skills and social behaviors in young children of English-speaking Caribbean im-
migrants. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 21, 238–252
R Core Team. (2021). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R foundation for
statistical computing (Version 4.0.5). https://www.R-project.org/
SAS Institute. (2019). SAS/STAT 14.3. http://documentation.sas.com/doc/en/pgmsasc-
dc/9.4_3.3/statug/titlepage.htm
Smith, J., Stern, K., & Shatrova, Z. (2008). Factors inhibiting Hispanic parents’ school in-
volvement. Rural Educator, 29, 8–13.
Stormont, M., Herman, K. C., Reinke, W. M., David, K. B., & Goel, N. (2013). Latent
profile analysis of teacher perceptions of parent contact and comfort. School Psychology
Quarterly, 28, 195–209.

198
 CULTURAL MODELS OF INVOLVEMENT

Sy, S. R. (2006). Rethinking parent involvement during the transition to first grade: A focus
on Asian American families. School Community Journal, 16(1), 107–126. https://www.adi.
org/journal/ss06/SySpring2006.pdf
Taliaferro, J. D., DeCuir-Gunby, J., & Allen-Eckard, K. (2009). “I can see parents being reluc-
tant”: Perceptions of parental involvement using child and family teams in schools. Child
& Family Social Work, 14, 278–288.
Wilder, S. (2014). Effects of parental involvement on academic achievement: A meta-synthe-
sis. Educational Review, 66(3), 377–397.

Authors’ Notes: The authors are grateful to the parents, teachers, and administrators
who facilitated and contributed to this work. This work was supported in part by a
grant from the University of Connecticut Students Undergraduate Research Fund
awarded to the first author; and by the Center for the Study of Culture, Health, and
Human Development.

Daniell Carvalheiro is a doctoral student in the Department of Human Devel-

opment and Family Sciences at the University of Connecticut. His research interests
include temperament, parent–child relationships, and culture and diversity, as well
as data analysis and measurement. Correspondence concerning this article may be
addressed to Daniell Carvalheiro, Department of Human Development and Fam-
ily Sciences, University of Connecticut, 348 Mansfield Road, U-1058, Storrs, CT
06269-1058, or email [email protected]
Sara Harkness is professor of human development and pediatrics at the University
of Connecticut and director of the Center for the Study of Culture, Health, and Hu-
man Development. Her research focuses on cultural influences on child development
and families, especially parents’ cultural belief systems and practices of care.
Charles M. Super is professor of human development and pediatrics at the Uni-
versity of Connecticut and co-director of the Center for the Study of Culture, Health,
and Human Development. His research focuses on the cultural regulation of devel-
opment in infancy and childhood and on interventions to promote the health and
well-being of young children.
Caroline Mavridis is an assistant research professor in the Department of Hu-
man Development and Family Sciences, and an associate director of the Center for
the Study of Culture, Health, and Human Development, at the University of Con-
necticut. Her research focuses on the role of cultural context in parenting and human
development; mothers’ ethnotheories and experiences related to motherhood and
self-care; and the evaluation of effects of various training initiatives on family service
providers, agencies, and families.

Appendix A. Interview Protocol for Parents

• Have you ever volunteered at your child’s school? How so?

• Are you involved in any parent organizations at school?
• Do you help your child with their homework?

199
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

• Where does your child do their homework? Is there a special time for your child
to do their homework?
• How do you find out about your child’s progress in school?
• How often do you communicate with your child’s teachers? What about? Who is
initiating that contact?
• Is there a comfortable fit between people that share the same background as you
and what teachers expect?
• How can parents help their children be successful in school? What are the most
important aspects of the parent’s role?
• How do you think parents and teachers can work together to ensure children’s
success in school?
• Do you feel that these views are shared among other members of your commu-
nity?
• Are there any areas of parent–school communication where you think improve-
ment is needed?

Appendix B. Interview Protocol for Teachers:

• Do you have parents volunteering at your school? What are they doing?
• What parent organizations are there at your school? Are they effective?
• Do you think parents should help their child with homework? Why?
• Do you think teachers should help parents organize or make suggestions for set-
ting up a learning environment for children at home?
• How are you reporting your students’ progress to their parents?
• How often do you communicate with your students’ parents? Who is initiating
the contact?
• How can parents help their children be successful in school? What are the most
important aspects of the parent’s role?
• Besides academic teaching, do you think there are any other things that teachers
can do to help children be successful in school?
• How do you think parents and teachers can work together to ensure children’s
success in school?
• Do you feel that these views are consistent with the views of other teachers?
• Do you feel that your expectations for your students’ parents agree with what they
feel their role is?
• Are there any areas of parent–school communication where you think improve-
ment is needed?

200
 CULTURAL MODELS OF INVOLVEMENT

Appendix C. Additional Tables

Table C1. Percentages of Parenting Codes Response Rates by Group

African Ca- Fisher’s
His- Teach-
Codes Ameri- rib- Exact
panic er
can bean Test
Academic and Grade-Focused 0.85 0.67 0.60 0.85 0.19
Being Aware of Child’s Needs 0.30 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00*
Check Children’s Academic Progress 0.40 0.44 0.55 0.10 0.02*
Children’s Behavior is Important 0.20 0.67 0.35 0.45 0.10
Concerned About Social/Emotional
0.00 0.22 0.05 0.20 0.08+
Development
Education is Parents’ Responsibility 0.15 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.59
Emotionally Support Children 0.40 0.33 0.20 0.05 0.04*
Get Resources for Children 0.00 0.22 0.00 0.15 0.03*
Involvement in Children’s Education 0.50 0.44 0.55 0.70 0.52
Parents Should Motivate Children 0.80 0.67 0.60 0.30 0.01*
Rules and Discipline 0.45 0.89 0.25 0.30 0.01*
Take Basic Essential Care of Children 0.10 0.11 0.00 0.35 0.01*
Talk with Children About School 0.20 0.11 0.20 0.30 0.81
Note. Proportions of .50 or greater within each group column were bolded. Fisher’s Exact
Test p-values of less than .05 are denoted with a *, and p-values of .05 and greater and less
than .10 are denoted with a +.

Table C2. Percentages of Learning at Home Codes Response Rates by Group

African Ca- Fisher’s
His- Teach-
Codes Ameri- ribbe- Exact
panic er
can an Test
Designate a Special Place for Children
0.05 0.22 0.25 0.30 0.20
to Do Homework
Give Children a Break Before Starting
0.20 0.44 0.15 0.40 0.19
Homework
Have Children Do Homework in a Dis-
0.55 0.67 0.40 0.70 0.26
traction Free Place
Homework is Important 0.30 0.22 0.35 0.15 0.53
Homework is Reinforcement 0.10 0.22 0.00 0.40 0.00*
Let Children Attempt Homework on
0.50 0.22 0.50 0.10 0.01*
Their Own First
Make Children do Homework Right
0.40 0.00 0.45 0.10 0.01*
After School

201
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

Table C2, continued

Make Homework Interesting for Chil-
0.10 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.05+
dren
Parents and Children Should do Home-
0.20 0.11 0.10 0.00 0.24
work Together
Parents Explore Children’s Ideas While
0.05 0.33 0.25 0.05 0.06+
Doing Homework
Parents Help Children with Homework 0.30 0.56 0.35 0.70 0.05+
Parents Learned Differently as Children 0.25 0.11 0.00 0.15 0.11
Parents Only Clarify Homework for
0.20 0.00 0.20 0.10 0.56
Children at First
Review Children’s Homework 0.25 0.56 0.15 0.30 0.18
Note. Proportions of .50 or greater within each group column were bolded. Fisher’s Exact
Test p-values of less than .05 are denoted with a *, and p-values of .05 and greater and less
than .10 are denoted with a +.

Table C3. Percentages of Communicating Codes Response Rates by Group

African Fisher’s
Carib- His- Teach-
Codes Ameri- Exact
bean panic er
can Test
Both Parents and Teachers Should Ini-
0.50 0.00 0.55 0.40 0.03*
tiate Communication
Close Relationship 0.15 0.00 0.15 0.25 0.51
Communicate About Good and Bad
0.05 0.00 0.05 0.25 0.13
Things
Communication Should be Initiated
0.00 0.22 0.00 0.25 0.01*
When Problem Occurs
Communication Is Important 0.95 0.78 0.75 0.85 0.30
Cooperation Is Important 0.60 0.33 0.45 0.55 0.54
Frequent Communication 0.60 0.33 0.40 0.10 0.01*
Parents Can Be Confrontational 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.18
Parents Should Initiate Communica-
0.25 0.44 0.30 0.15 0.41
tion
Talk About Academics 0.65 0.33 0.50 0.65 0.33
Talk About Behavior 0.50 0.56 0.50 0.65 0.76
Teachers Should Initiate Communica-
0.05 0.11 0.00 0.20 0.13
tion
Note. Proportions of .50 or greater within each group column were bolded. Fisher’s Exact
Test p-values of less than .05 are denoted with a *, and p-values of .05 and greater and less
than .10 are denoted with a +.

202
 CULTURAL MODELS OF INVOLVEMENT

Table C4. Percentages of Volunteering Codes Response Rates by Group

African Fisher’s
Carib- His- Teach-
Codes Ameri- Exact
bean panic er
can Test
Volunteer to Get Info About Children
0.60 0.44 0.35 0.35 0.34
and Education
Volunteer to Help School w/ Activities 0.65 0.56 0.40 0.40 0.35
Volunteer to Monitor Children in
0.25 0.33 0.25 0.00 0.03*
School
Volunteer to Motivate Children to
0.45 0.44 0.40 0.45 1.00
Succeed
Important to Volunteer in Children’s
1.00 0.78 0.95 0.90 0.17
School
Note. Proportions of .50 or greater within each group column were bolded. Fisher’s Exact
Test p-values of less than .05 are denoted with a *, and p-values of .05 and greater and less
than .10 are denoted with a +.

203
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

204
Museum Education and Yemeni American
Children’s Immigrant Identity From a
Vygotskian Perspective: A Mother’s Diary
Navaz Peshotan Bhavnagri and Hanan Taha Muhsin

Abstract

This is a report from the field, where an immigrant mother journaled about
her Yemeni American daughters (ages 7 and 13, born and raised in the U.S.)
visiting museums for the first time. Her diary documented how mother–child
and sibling interactions in museum education contributed to building cogni-
tive and affective skills required for academic success in formal schooling. Her
diary entries included: (1) anecdotal observations, (2) interviews of her daugh-
ters and her immigrant father, and (3) reflective and photographic journaling.
Her daughters’ journaling and photo documentations further supported their
mother’s entries. Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory is the conceptual framework
for this project. The mother promoted her daughters’ immigrant identity via
visits to museums and activities related to the museum and the family’s immi-
grant identity offered before, during, and after the museum visits. The project
culminated with her daughters creating their unique family museum and dra-
matizing as docents. We recommend (1) museum-related interactive literacy
activities, and (2) creating and dramatizing a family museum.We buttress these
recommendations with research, Vygotsky’s theory, and our evidence-based
practice. We conclude that the daughters demonstrated the cognitive and
affective skills required for academic success in formal schooling while simul-
taneously developing their immigrant identity. We suggest replicating this
project to promote immigrant identity among other cultural groups. We lastly
present an educational case study of the grandfather’s immigrant experiences
in the appendix.

School Community Journal, 2023, Vol. 33, No. 2 205

Available at http://www.schoolcommunitynetwork.org/SCJ.aspx
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

Key Words: museums, Vygotsky, Yemeni American children, immigrant iden-

tity, cognitive, affective outcomes, informal, multicultural education, dramati-
zation, literacy activities, family museum, reflective journaling, case study

Need: Significance of Yemeni Immigrants

The Arab American Institute (2022) reports that Arab immigrants began
coming to the U.S. in large numbers in the 1880s, estimating that 3.7 million
Americans now trace their roots to an Arab country. Harjanto and Batalova
(2022) report that between 2000 and 2019, the immigrant population from
the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region doubled from 596,000 to
1.2 million. In 2019, out of the total 1,203,000 MENA immigrants, 822,000
(68.3 %) were from the Middle East, and the remaining 381,000 (31.7%) were
from North Africa (Harjanto & Batalova, 2022). These numbers make Arab
immigrants a significant group worth examining for educators. Amongst this
increased diaspora, Yemeni immigrants comprise 59,000, and they are 4.9%
of Middle Eastern immigrants (Harjanto & Batalova, 2022). However, among
U.S. educators, little is known about Yemeni immigrant families and their chil-
dren. Thus, there is a need to know more about their immigrant identity.
Yemeni immigrants rapidly increased after the 1965 Immigration Act. Prior
to this act, U.S. immigration policy followed the National Origins Formula es-
tablished in 1920, which primarily promoted immigration from Western and
Northern Europe; the 1965 Immigration Act removed discrimination against
Southern and Eastern Europeans, Asians, and other non-western ethnic groups
(Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, 2023). Newly arrived Yemeni
immigrants typically worked at farms in California, automobile factories in
Detroit, or opened small family businesses in New York (Walker, 2023). They
have multiple identities (e.g., Yemeni identity, Arabic identity, family identity,
immigrant identity, Islamic identity). This project addresses the intersections
of these identities in children born in America to Yemeni immigrants.

Mother’s Journal: An Overview—Mother, Daughters, and

Museums

The mother, who is the second author, is proficient in Arabic and English.
She has received a Bilingual Bicultural Master’s in Education. Her education
exposed her to Vygotsky’s theory, which provided her a framework for design-
ing this museum project (i.e., planning activities for before, during, and after
museum visits) to maximize positive benefits for her children. Additionally, this
theory enhanced her understanding of how her social interactions contributed

206
 MUSEUMS & IMMIGRANT IDENTITY

to her daughters’ cognitive and affective developments. (Not all parents are so
fortunate to have this knowledge of how to plan theoretically grounded, ed-
ucational, meaningful, and fun parent–child interactive activities for before,
during, and after museum visits. Our hope is that such parents and the teach-
ers, family liaisons, or other school or museum staff working with them may
find this article helpful.)
This mother also had, at the time of the project, four years of work expe-
rience as an English Language Learner (ELL) paraprofessional, four years as
an ELL teacher, and one year as ELL coordinator in schools which predomi-
nantly serve Muslim immigrant and refugee children from Yemen, Bangladesh,
Afghanistan, Turkey, and Bosnia. She kept a journal based on the advice of
her academic mentor, who is the first author. The mother’s journal focuses
on her two daughters, Haneen, then a 13-year-old eighth grader and Leena,
then a seven-year-old third grader. (Note: both parents and these daughters
have given permission to use their actual names.) Both are above average aca-
demically, as assessed on standardized tests. They understand, speak, read, and
write English at home, but they speak in a Yemeni dialect of Arabic with their
grandparents. Haneen had been exposed to the standardized Arabic language
through weekend Arabic learning school. Thus, she could read standard Ara-
bic, but with limited comprehension. Leena only knew the Arabic letters and
could read two and three letter words. They were born in the U.S.; their par-
ents immigrated from Yemen in 1999. One of the daughters did visit Yemen
when she was very young but does not remember her visit, while the other
daughter has never visited.
The mother’s rationale for undertaking this museum project was to address
the following gaps in her daughters’ background knowledge. First, they had
never been to any museums. Thus, visiting a museum and participating in mu-
seum-related activities seemed like a highly worthwhile and novel experience
for them. Second, they had no knowledge of their family’s ancestral experiences
in America nor in Yemen. Thus, this museum education exposed them to their
ancestral family’s immigrant experiences in America, and their traditional, his-
torical, and cultural daily life experiences in Yemen.
To address the above gaps, the mother documented that she and her daugh-
ters visited the Arab American National Museum (AANM) four times, which
focuses on Arab American immigrants (Arab American National Institute,
2022; Arab American National Museum & Kayyali, 2019). A composite and
integrated picture of all four AANM visits are reported, to avoid mentioning
redundancies across visits.
The mother kept a journal which focused on social interactions during mu-
seum visits and related activities contributing to Yemeni American families’

207
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

immigrant identity. The following question emerged, based on mother’s

journal entries: How can a museum, along with related activities, promote
cognitive and affective outcomes that are required for academic success in for-
mal schooling, while simultaneously developing immigrant children’s family
identity? This question is addressed in this article.

Our Conceptual Framework: Vygotsky’s Sociocultural Theory

The mother used Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory as her conceptual frame-

work because it considers social interactions and human activities with cultural
and historical objects essential for promoting higher mental processes, such
as language and cultural understanding (Vygotsky, 1978, 1986). Given that
museum visits are social, cultural, and historical experiences, multiple scholars
acknowledge Vygotsky’s theory as a highly appropriate framework in muse-
um education (e.g., Ash, 2003; Bhavnagri & Kamash, 2019; Coffee, 2007;
Mayer, 2005; Pierroux, 2003). Thus, the mother interpreted her journal en-
tries on the mother–child and sibling interactions during museum education
using Vygotskian concepts: (1) interpersonal dialogue contributing to intrap-
ersonal thought resulting in shared cognition, (2) scaffolding, (3) physical and
cultural tools, (4) the zone of proximal development (ZPD), and (5) dynamic
assessments. Given that each of these concepts are not mutually exclusive but
overlapping and highly interrelated, we next briefly explain their interconnec-
tivity and provide suitable examples from our project, as appropriate.
According to Vygotsky (1978, 1986), learning happens during social conver-
sations (which he calls interpersonal dialogues) between an expert and a novice
(e.g., mother and her daughters; older and a younger sibling; Wink & Putney,
2002) resulting in what Vygotsky calls intrapersonal thought (e.g., growth in
cognitive skills/expansion of mental capacity in mother and daughters). Ev-
ery child needs assistance with new concepts, which are first understood only
within interpersonal dialogues, also called public speech or external speech (Vy-
gotsky, 1978, 1986) and called intersubjectivity between the expert and novice
(Rogoff, 1990; Wood, 1980). It finally becomes internalized, an intraperson-
al dialogue, also called private speech or internal speech. The neo-Vygotskian
scholars call this process of dialogue impacting thought socially shared cogni-
tion, distributed cognition, co-construction, joint attention, and collaborative
learning (Bodrova & Leong, 2007; Finn & Vandermaas-Peeler, 2013; Povis &
Crowley, 2015; Rogoff, 1990).
Scaffolding takes place during this interpersonal dialogue. Scaffolding is the
process of an expert (e.g., an adult) assisting a novice (e.g., child; Jones et al.,
1998; Rogoff, 1990), but then the expert gradually reduces assistance as the

208
 MUSEUMS & IMMIGRANT IDENTITY

novice gains competency (Berk & Winsler, 1995). Furthermore, Vygotsky pur-
ports that not only interpersonal dialogue, but also physical and cultural tools
promote scaffolding.
Physical tools contribute to a mental tool, namely language (Newman &
Holzman, 1993), thus scaffolding and expanding human beings’ mental ca-
pacity (Bodrova & Leong, 2007). Physical tools in this project included: (1)
written materials, namely, white boards, notebooks, and labels related to arti-
facts; (2) children’s story books on immigrants; and (3) technology, namely, a
tablet, smartphone, and laptop used for informational research, photo docu-
mentations, and developing a video. Cultural tools in this project included: (1)
museum artifacts documenting immigrant’s cultural experiences through oral
history, photographs, and legal papers; (2) objects in one’s family represent-
ing their immigration and used to create a family museum; and (3) daughter’s
video to represent their family’s immigrant roots. According to some schol-
ars, museum artifacts are cultural tools because they communicate social and
linguistic practices of a particular time in history (e.g., Coffee, 2007). Other
scholars extend this further and state that these cultural museum artifacts are
best understood by associating personal meaning, co-constructed through so-
cial discourse (e.g., Pierroux, 2003). For example, the daughters discussed the
family museum artifacts and related them to their personal life experiences.
Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development (ZPD) is a distance between ac-
tual developmental level as determined by level of independent performance
(i.e., lower ZPD), and level of potential development as determined by assisted
performance from a more knowledgeable adult or peer (i.e., upper ZPD; Ro-
goff & Wertsch, 1984; Vygotsky, 1978). For example, the daughters on their
own had no real understanding of immigrants’ stressors and resiliencies. Thus,
that was their lower ZPD. Hence, when the mother read and discussed a story
of an immigrant family, they expressed the immigrant child-protagonist’s per-
spective, which was an indication of them having a better understanding than
before. Thus, their empathetic responses to an immigrant child demonstrated
that that they had a potential to develop this understanding with their mother’s
assistance, thus reaching their upper ZPD.
Vygotsky’s dynamic assessment occurs when the child’s abilities are evaluat-
ed both at the lower and upper ZPD levels and when teaching and assessment
are integrated and not considered as two mutually exclusive tasks (McAfee et
al., 2016). In informal learning settings, such as in daily parent–child inter-
actions (Rogoff, 1990) and in museum education (Rogoff et al., 2016) where
teaching and learning is integrated, this dynamic assessment can be nonverbal,
such as silent observations, facial and hand gestures, body movements, and
physical demonstration of an activity. The Vygotskian dynamic assessment is

209
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

examined further below; it includes the other four concepts mentioned above:
(1) interpersonal dialog contributing to intrapersonal thought, (2) scaffolding,
(3) physical and cultural tools, and (4) ZPD.

Vygotskian Dynamic Assessment: Museum and Yemeni

American’s Immigrant Identity

We present here the mother’s teaching and assessment as an integrated ac-

tivity taking place simultaneously and not as two mutually exclusive tasks;
thus, it is a Vygotskian dynamic assessment, as defined above. Furthermore,
the assessment was not a formal written test requiring prescribed true/false
or multiple-choice responses. Instead, it examined informal social interactions
during performance-based and context-specific activities; thus, this dynamic
assessment was authentic in nature. It evaluated her daughters’ cognitive and
affective outcomes during relevant participatory activities. The mother’s dy-
namic assessment was supervised and guided by her mentor, who is the first
author of this article.
During this dynamic assessment, this mother used multiple action research
strategies and methods. Action research also requires you to be dynamic and
change as you observe, reflect, and record (Mukherji & Albon, 2015). Thus,
action research strategies and methods are a good fit to integrate in Vygotsky’s
dynamic assessment. Her action research strategies and methods included (a)
observations and then taking detailed anecdotal notes, reflecting, and writing
inferences using Vygotsky’s theory; (b) audiotaping her daughters’ thoughts
(i.e., cognitive development) and feelings (i.e., affective development) by inter-
viewing them in a conversational manner; and (c) documenting her daughters’
learning outcomes (e.g., processes and products of learning) in her reflective
journal, supplemented with her photographic documentation (Mukherji &
Albon, 2015). Besides recording her perspective, she encouraged her daughters
to report from their perspective by documenting their thoughts and feelings in
their journals after returning from museum visits and supplementing it with
photographs of artifacts they liked at the museums using mobile technology.
(Parents and daughters have granted permission for their photographic doc-
umentation submitted for this article.) These daughters’ recordings were also
used as assessment tools for this project. The social–interactive activities that
were offered before, during, and after the museum visits to promote Yemeni
families’ immigrant identity are discussed next.

210
 MUSEUMS & IMMIGRANT IDENTITY

Before the Museum Visits

The mother scaffolded her daughters’ learning through her conversations
during the following activities, resulting in affective and cognitive outcomes
contributing to their immigrant identity. She anticipated that these would be
further reinforced when they later visited the museum.
Family’s Immigrant Story
The mother audiotaped her interview of her father (i.e., her daughters’ ma-
ternal grandfather) about his life experience because she wanted to preserve his
story (i.e., their family’s oral history on immigration) to develop her daugh-
ters’ immigrant identity by emotionally connecting them to the hardships their
grandfather faced as an immigrant to the U.S. and his coinciding resiliency and
by cognitively enhancing their background knowledge of their family’s immi-
grant history. Their grandfather’s life history matches the types of jobs and the
locations where nearly all Yemeni immigrants historically worked as we have
described in the introduction of this article and reflected in museum exhibits.
For example, he too, like the other Yemenis portrayed in the museum photo-
graphs, worked on the farms in California and in a small family business in
New York, while his brother worked on the California farms and in the auto-
mobile factories in Detroit. (For details about his life in Yemen and the U.S.,
see the Appendix, presented as a mini case study.)
Haneen and Leena found it cognitively incomprehensible and emotionally
disturbing as to what all their grandfather had to go through at a young age.
Leena asked with concern and empathy, “How come my grandfather started
working in the silver jewelry factory-shed when he was six years old? That is
younger than me!” The mother then explained that their grandfather had to
work as a child in Yemen to support the whole family because their great-grand-
father’s remittances from the U.S. were paltry and irregular. The transfer of
money then was not electronic and immediate as is today. A Yemeni immigrant
in the U.S. had to physically return home to Yemen to bring that money to the
family, and those trips could be months or a year apart.
Thus, the audiotaped case study of the grandfather was a physical tool
which provided the girls with the Vygotskian shared cognition of their family
history. Sharing family stories has many potential desirable affective outcomes.
First, it provided an opportunity for them to take their grandfather’s perspec-
tive, that he had no choice but to work at a very young age. They felt empathy
for their grandfather’s trials and tribulations and a deeper understanding of the
challenges the immigrant’s family that is left behind faces when the breadwin-
ner immigrates. Second, it provided an opportunity to heighten her daughters’
social–emotional realization of the resiliencies of new immigrants like their

211
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

grandfather, such as surviving the stress of not having the best working condi-
tions, and despite the immigrants at times not having a skill set for high paying
jobs, they typically still save enough to send remittances to their impoverished
family members living in abject poverty in their country of origin. Third, it
provided an opportunity to increase their emotional awareness that despite
earlier Yemeni immigrants also having limited financial sources, they selflessly
provided financial support, hospitality, and shelter to the new arrivals like their
grandfather. Thus, it provided an opportunity for the girls to be aware that an
individual community member can contribute to a larger good by being altru-
istic, helpful, and accepting social responsibility towards others in need.
Sharing family history as an activity also had many potential desirable cog-
nitive outcomes. First, it brought awareness of their family’s historical roots
within the larger sociocultural context of rural Yemeni society. For example,
the girls began to understand that their grandfather’s story represents daily
life of a child brought up in Yemeni’s rural, labor-intensive, and subsistence
agricultural economy, which included child labor, hunger, poverty, and limit-
ed literacy. Second, the mother’s accurate description with vivid details of her
father’s immigrant story helped her daughters to conceptualize their family’s
immigrant identity. Through the twists and turns in their grandfather’s life,
they began to understand for the very first time the trials and tribulations many
immigrants face, for example, economic hardships, psychological loneliness
resulting in homesickness, and inadequacies of not knowing the language and
culture of the host country.
The mother explicitly recorded in her journal that her daughters had gained
a deeper understanding of the challenges and resiliencies of being an immi-
grant (i.e., cognitive outcome) leading to empathy (i.e., affective outcome)
for new immigrants. Thus, listening and discussing their grandfather’s story
had moved them to their upper ZPD because they had shifted in their social
cognition, namely from an egocentric perspective based on their limited, com-
fortable, and relatively stress-free life experiences in the U.S. to a sociocentric
perspective of what other immigrants go through.
Additionally, both daughters were informally learning about the social
history of immigrants through this case study, thereby supplementing their
formal learning of the immigrants’ history as taught in social studies in schools.
Since this informal learning about immigrants at home and at the museum
was related to their own family, it resulted in a positive cognitive outcome
of a meaningful and personal understanding of social studies, as reported by
the girls during the museum visit. Furthermore, their cognitive learning fit
perfectly within our Vygotskian conceptual framework because his theory has
a cultural focus, thus named “sociocultural theory”; a social focus, thus also

212
 MUSEUMS & IMMIGRANT IDENTITY

called “social interaction theory”; and a historical focus, thus also named “so-
cio-historical theory.”
Thus, overall, these daughters received socially, culturally, and historically
focused affective and cognitive learning, which were expressed later during the
museum visits, after the museum visit activity, and in creating a family muse-
um, all mentioned below. (To fully understand the above stated affective and
cognitive outcomes for learners, see the grandfather’s life story as reported as a
mini case study in the Appendix. Additionally, his mini case study is a potential
Vygotskian physical tool to teach about challenges and resiliencies of immi-
grants in social studies, immigrant history, and multicultural education courses
in K–12 or higher education.)
Interactive Literacy Activity
The mother and daughters participated in interactive reading about Arab
immigrants in a book titled, Coming to America: A Muslim’s Family Story
(Wolf, 2003). It was a joint collaborative activity of a bidirectional nature,
emphasized by neo-Vygotskian scholars, mentioned earlier in our conceptu-
al framework. The book was a physical tool that scaffolded her daughters to
cognitively co-construct a deeper understanding of the acculturation processes
encountered by immigrant family members and their immigrant child and to
recognize that it is similar to what their grandfather experienced as a new im-
migrant. For example, they actively understood that economic hardship is a
pull factor for many male immigrants to come alone, leaving their close family
members behind. That was true of the father (daughters’ grandfather) in this
story. Leena constructed her own meaning when explaining that “he didn’t
want to leave his wife by herself with three children, but he had to come first
to America to make money so he can bring them.” Additionally, the daugh-
ters also reflected on their intrapersonal thoughts regarding the aspirations of
immigrant parents during the acculturation process. For example, Leena ea-
gerly identified that her grandfather’s goal was “to have his own work and
take his family to a bigger apartment.” Haneen also clearly demonstrated un-
derstanding of his goals by saying, “to have his own business, to go to a bigger
apartment, and be able to buy things that they are not able to afford before.”
Furthermore, the daughters co-constructed their knowledge that during accul-
turation, family support buffers the stress and strengthens the resiliencies of
the family members left behind. For example, Haneen, said, “His wife’s family
were living next to them, so they helped her when he is in America.”
The acculturation processes encountered by the immigrant child in the book
also helped the daughters take the perspective of what the protagonist, Rawan,
confronts in her new country. Hence, when the mother asked, “How do you

213
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

think Rawan feels about her life in America?”, Leena responded, “I think that
she likes it because she is with her family. She misses her friends and school
in Alexandria, but now she is in a new school, and she made new friends.”
The mother next asked her daughters to imagine that they are Rawan and
write a letter to their friend in Egypt about life in America as a newly arrived
immigrant child. She was thus scaffolding them emotionally to their upper
ZPD by taking the protagonist’s perspective. Leena’s letter expressed Rawan’s
positive integration and acculturation to the American way of life (see Figure
1), “School here is better, teachers do not hit you for not doing your home-
work.” Haneen wrote (see Figure 2), “In America houses/everything is super
expensive. Classes have only 25 to 30 children. Barely anyone knows each oth-
er.” These letters reflected perspective taking ability of the daughters regarding
the positive and negative aspects of Rawan’s life in her new host country, as
well as the daughters’ intrapersonal thoughts regarding the Rawan’s accultur-
ation process when developing her new American immigrant identity. Thus,
the collaborative reading followed by writing moved them to their upper ZPD,
expanding cognitively as well as affectively.

Figure 1. Leena’s letter. Figure 2. Haneen’s letter.

During the Museum Visit

At the AANM, the daughters examined artifacts related to Yemeni immi-
grants’ experiences documented through their oral history, photographs, and
legal papers. During this visit, they learned about their family’s immigrant
identity while also informally practicing cognitive and affective skills required
for academics.

214
 MUSEUMS & IMMIGRANT IDENTITY

Both daughters heard the oral history of what immigrants were saying
about their journey to America, thus practicing their focused listening skills.
Additionally, they were silently solo reading the descriptions next to the pho-
tos. When they came across the Yemeni immigration photo exhibit, they were
very excited, joyous, and engaged. Haneen immediately initiated explaining
the labels to help Leena to comprehend the exhibit showing that, upon arrival,
many Yemeni immigrants worked on the farms in California, in car facto-
ries in Michigan, and in small businesses in New York. This was exactly what
Haneen had heard on her grandfather’s audiotape about his own and his broth-
er’s immigrant experiences. Despite this, Haneen did not verbally connect the
information at the exhibit to her grandfather’s audiotape. Leena on the other
hand immediately connected, for she chuckled and said, “I told you; this is
talking about my grandfather. He went to the same places.”
When Haneen promoted comprehension of semiotic labels next to the ex-
hibits, she was the expert and Leena was a novice. On the other hand, Leena
was the expert and Haneen was the novice when she activated Haneen’s mem-
ory and expressed personal meaning by linking photos to their grandfather’s
experience. Thus, Haneen and Leena moved from solo silent reading to a dia-
logue, promoting Vygotskian collaborative co-construction of knowledge of a
bidirectional nature. Additionally, they practiced cognitive skills (e.g., focused
listening, reading, co-construction of knowledge, ability to explain, comprehen-
sion, memory, personal meaning making) that facilitate success in academics.
They also saw legal documents, such as citizenship tests, birth certificates,
passports, and identification cards. Haneen connected those documents to her
learning about immigration in her school. When examining a game with cit-
izenship test questions, she particularly referred to a specific question on the
test and said, “I learned these [citizenship questions] in my history class, but I
don’t remember this one [question]. If I was not a U.S citizen, I [would have]
had to remember ALL of these history questions!” She thus expressed empathy
for new immigrants who must learn a plethora of information (e.g., the consti-
tution, its amendments, the Bill of Rights) to become a citizen.
After the Museum Visit
The mother suggested that her daughters jointly co-construct a common
Venn diagram, classifying the similarities and differences between their grand-
fathers’ immigrant journey and other Arab American immigrants’ journeys as
reported at the museum. Haneen used Vygotskian physical tools (i.e., audio-
tapes at the museum, her grandfather’s audiotape, and the photos she had taken
of the museum artifacts with informational labels) to jog her memory and as-
sist her to classify information on their Venn diagram. While writing in the

215
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

Venn diagram, Haneen said, “Immigrants in the museum also came to Ameri-
ca for the same reason [as grandpa]” and “I remember that the first immigrant
we listened to said that he had to work right away, and my grandpa said that
he had to do the same.” Thus, after the museum visit, Haneen finally linked
her grandfather’s experiences to the audio exhibit at the museum although she
had not spontaneously done so at the museum. Using purple magic marker,
she wrote some similarities, such as they all are “Arab” who speak “Arabic” and
“worked hard.” She also inserted the differences, that the Arab immigrants who
spoke on audiotapes at the museum came from “another country like Saudi
Arabia, Iran, Iraq, and Egypt” (see Figure 3). This Venn diagram is evidence
that, unlike before, she could now notice some similarities and differences be-
tween her grandfather and other non-Yemeni Arab immigrants across Middle
East. The Venn diagram thus documented that the museum visit, along with
her mother’s expertise, had scaffolding Haneen to expand her concept of Mid-
dle Easterners, thereby moving her to her upper ZPD.
Leena expressed her enthusiasm in this co-construction of knowledge by
grabbing a black marker and hurriedly putting in her inserts, lest they ran out
of space for her new ideas. She excitedly stated aloud, “I have another one
[i.e., idea]. They [grandfather and his brother] travelled from one place to an-
other. For better job.” The mother scaffolded Leena by asking, “Where does
your statement belong in the Venn diagram?” Leena replied with confidence,
“In the middle of the Venn diagram because other immigrants did that, too.”
Thus, constructing this Venn diagram was an authentic dynamic assessment
that documented that both daughters could classify and conceptualize (i.e.,
two academic skills) their family immigrant identity within the context Arab
American immigrant identity.

Figure 3. Venn Diagram by Haneen (purple) and Leena (black)

216
 MUSEUMS & IMMIGRANT IDENTITY

Family Museum Dramatization: Culminating Activity

The daughters created a family museum as a culminating experience where

they then dramatized as docents who displayed cultural artifacts and conduct-
ed tours of their family museum. The mother and her daughter’s definition
of this family was not limited to a nuclear family (i.e., parents and their chil-
dren). Instead, they held the traditional definition of a family amongst Yemeni
people, which includes children’s grandparents, aunts and uncles, and cousins.
What westerners may call extended family, they culturally view as their very
immediate family. Hence, the artifacts displayed in their family museum also
belonged to grandparents, aunts and uncles, and cousins.
Before Dramatization: Preparation and Planning
The daughters saw a western-style white wedding dress worn by an Arab
American bride at the museum, and that reminded them of their aunt’s
(mother’s sister) Yemeni and American weddings. Their aunt, who too is an
immigrant to the U.S., had two weddings: a western wedding where she wore
a similar white dress, and a traditional Yemeni wedding where she wore tra-
ditional Yemeni wedding clothes. The daughters had actively participated in
both of these weddings. For the Yemeni-style wedding, they had decorated
their hands using henna, wore traditional Yemeni clothes, and served Yemeni
tea and food. Haneen was the bridesmaid and Leena was the flower girl at the
western wedding. Their participation in American and Yemeni cultural wed-
ding practices is evidence of their acculturation and furthering their American
Yemeni immigrant identity. As a result, they immediately made connections
between the museum artifact and their aunt’s wedding without any scaffolding
from their mom.
Given that they were so interested in the wedding celebration, upon their
return from the museum visit, the mother showed them a YouTube video on
her tablet titled, “Traditional Yemeni Wedding.” It is a clip demonstrating tra-
ditional wedding attire with jewelry, ceremonies, and dancing, taken from a
larger video titled, “Yemen: Capital of Culture” (TED Tiaz, 2014). This video
was highly similar to their aunt’s Yemeni wedding. The mother and daugh-
ters then made comparisons between Middle Eastern and Muslim wedding
celebrations to the Western and Christian weddings. During this discussion,
both girls demonstrated awareness of their immigrant Yemeni cultural roots.
Haneen demonstrated pride, saying, “I am glad that we still have our tradition-
al wedding as part of the celebration. So, our [Yemeni immigrant] culture is
still there.” The mother also had informal conversational interviews with them
to assess their cognitive and affective outcomes. For example, she asked them,

217
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

“Why is it important to you both that a traditional Yemeni wedding dress is

still kept as part of the Yemeni wedding celebration?” Haneen responded, “Be-
cause that is part of our culture, and we should be proud of our culture.” Leena
expressed, “If we don’t do the traditional wedding, then it is not a Yemeni wed-
ding anymore.”
Both girls again wanted to wear the traditional wedding clothes they wore
at their aunt’s wedding and pretend that they were brides. Hence, the mother
next dressed her daughters in traditional women’s attire, jewelry, silver head-
band, and chiffon with traditional textile designs, like their aunt wore at her
wedding and like the ones worn by the bride in the video. The mother recorded
in her journal that they were very excited to dress up in the traditional Yeme-
ni wedding attire. Later, the girls independently (i.e., without any scaffolding
from their mother) came up with the idea of wearing their same wedding out-
fits and other Yemeni adornments when dramatizing as docents who displayed
artifacts in their family museum. This is evidence of how a museum artifact
was a physical tool which scaffolded them to generate independent new ideas
on dramatization.
Haneen prepared for this dramatization by creating a video on her tablet of
her grandfather’s immigrant experiences. She expressed to her mother that her
cousins, who will be visitors at their family museum, must know her grand-
father’s inspiring immigration story. Haneen narrated her grandfather’s story
on the video to match his childhood photographs with his family, his village,
places he went to in America, and his most recent photographs. She narrated,
“His children grew up in Sanaa, and among them was my mother. They went
to private schools, and everything was provided for them. They grew up think-
ing that the luxury life they lived in was the same for their father. Little did
they know that it was their father’s determination, hard work, and perseverance
that led to their happier upbringing.” She ended the video by saying, “You are
a true inspiration to all of us. Thank you, grandpa.” Thus Haneen, on her own
initiative, expressed her intrapersonal thoughts very creatively regarding her
family’s immigration history and cultural roots through this documentation.
Her creative work product was almost a replica of the oral history audios and
photos she had seen at the museum. Thus, those museum Vygotskian cultural
tools scaffolded to her higher ZPD, evidenced by creating this video.
Haneen and Leena artistically displayed their family’s artifacts which had
personal meaning for them, depicting their immigrant roots. Furthermore,
when arranging their displays, they kept in mind the messages those fami-
ly museum artifacts would convey and the visitors (i.e., their adult relatives
as well as their cousins) who were the intended recipients of those messages.
Thus, they were accurately playing the role of curators who too must take on

218
 MUSEUMS & IMMIGRANT IDENTITY

the perspective of the museum visitors when arranging their displays. Leena
helped by cutting and making labels for each of the exhibits, which were then
placed next to the artifacts. The girls designed these labels to resemble the mu-
seum labels they had seen.
During Dramatization: Conducting Tours
Both girls seriously played their roles as museum docents, giving tours to
their cousins (see Figure 4). They sustained their dramatization by taking turns
and referring to the labels describing various Yemeni cultural artifacts. Most of
these artifacts were brought by their grandmother when she first immigrated
(e.g., blue dress with white floral print and platters; see Figures 4 and 8). Other
artifacts were gifted to the grandmother and had special family memories asso-
ciated with them (e.g., grandmother’s eyeliner which she had for over 30 years,
gifted to her by her mom, namely the children’s great-grandmother, and callig-
raphy plaques gifted to her by her daughter, the children’s aunt; see Figures 6
and 10). The few remaining artifacts were brought to the U.S. by other family
members when they later visited Yemen (e.g., Leena’s doll wearing their aunt’s
wedding veil; see Figure 9), or cultural artifacts sent as gifts from Yemen (e.g.,
Yemeni daggers gifted to their male cousins; see Figure 7).
The girls’ scripts mentioned how each artifact was constructed, used in their
family, and the cultural meaning behind it. This script was based on the cultur-
al knowledge they had gained from their mother, other family members, and
searches on the internet. When they began their participation, their mother
scaffolded them to their upper ZPD by participating in their dramatization
with explanations related to their family’s culture, answering their questions
as well as their cousin’s questions, and asking provocative questions. Howev-
er, when the girls were dramatizing as docents and giving museum tours to
their cousins (see Figure 4), they were able to make connections of the arti-
facts to their family members’ life experiences, without any further assistance
from their mother. For example, they independently stated that: (1) this oud
is played by our grandfather, especially during family gatherings (see Figure 5);
(2) these festive Yemeni clothes were worn by our family members during our
aunt’s wedding; (3) our uncle wore a dagger at our aunt’s wedding just like our
cousins’ daggers displayed here (see Figure 7); and (4) this silver jewelry was
worn with pride by all the women at weddings. Thus, dramatization as docents
and describing their family’s immigrant roots is evidence of the girls expressing
their immigrant identity. (Note: Parents of all children pictured have provided
permission to publish the photographs appearing in this article.)

219
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

Figure 4. Leena as Docent

Figure 5. Family Museum Artifacts

Note. Leena wearing traditional clothing,

giving a tour of the textiles section display-
ing clothing and prayer rugs, pointing to a Note. The display included the grandfather's
hand-embroidered traditional Yemeni dress, oud (musical instrument) and a large, round,
worn for any occasion, belonging to a cousin. hand-woven, plant fiber mat on which pastry
Her boy-cousin Waleed and girl-cousin Jan- dough is kneaded, cut, and molded. Other
nah pretend to be museum visitors. items are detailed below.
Figure 6. Kohl Eyeliner Container

Figure 7. Daggers and Belts

Note. The grandmother’s eyeliner, a gift from

her mom, the children’s great-grandmother.

Figure 8. Hand-woven Platters

Note. Curved daggers with plastic sheaths and
belts traditionally worn by men as a symbol of
power and status, particularly at wedding danc-
es. These belonged to their young male cousins.

Note. Made of dyed plant fibers, brought by

the grandmother when she first immigrated,
these are used as decorations and for serving
foods on special occasions.

220
 MUSEUMS & IMMIGRANT IDENTITY

Figure 9. Doll and Frankincense Figure 10. Calligraphy Plaques

Note. Leena’s doll is wearing a traditional Ye- Note. Two carved wooden Islamic calligraphic
meni wedding dress and a veil which their decorative artifacts, one saying Allah and the
aunt wore at her wedding. On the right are other Mohammed, used for protection and
two Frankincense containers, household sta- gifted to the children’s grandmother on Moth-
ples. The bigger and more elegant ones are er’s Day by her daughter (i.e., the children’s
used for special occasions. aunt, sister of the author).

After Dramatization: Follow Up and Summative Assessment

Both girls asked if they could leave the family museum display for a longer
time than originally planned, so that other family members who were unable
to visit on the day of the invitation could still have a chance to see their mu-
seum exhibits. Furthermore, the daughters would also then have repeated and
additional exciting opportunities to dramatize as museum docents. Thus, the
display was extended in the home for two more weeks when additional fam-
ily members attended. Her daughters finally reluctantly removed the exhibits
given that out-of-town guests were arriving and needed that space. This entire
dramatization provides evidence of the girls’ (1) creativity, (2) pride in their
grandfather’s immigrant experience, (3) intense joy as evidence that they were
not satiated even after extending the display for two weeks, (4) awareness of
how household artifacts (like the museum artifacts) communicate their fami-
ly’s immigrant heritage and identity, and (5) understanding that it is typical for
immigrants to bring objects that have special meaning to them.
After the daughters shared their video of their grandfather with their fam-
ily and conducted the family museum tours, the mother interviewed Haneen
and Leena and asked two summative assessment questions. The first one was,
“What did you like about being a guide in the family museum you created?”
Leena excitedly replied, “It was easy to place the cards with the written artifact
because we wrote the descriptions and interviewed our family. I can’t wait to be
the guide. It was like I am the teacher, teaching my cousins about our culture

221
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

and everything you taught me.” Haneen replied with a sense of accomplish-
ment, “It was like a real museum, and I was the expert of all the artifacts. I liked
when my cousins were asking me questions and I was able to answer them.”
This summative assessment is clear evidence of the daughters’ appreciation of
their family’s cultural roots contributing to their immigrant identity.
The mother next asked the second summative assessment question, “What
did you like about the video you all created about your grandfather?” Leena
replied, “I really liked seeing the pictures of my grandfather, and it was easi-
er to understand because of the pictures.” Thus, Leena who is the younger in
age compared to Haneen, self-reflected that her comprehension was enhanced
(i.e., scaffolded) via pictorial documentation on mobile technology, a physical
tool, which moved her to her upper ZPD. When Haneen was asked the same
question, she expressed with joy that what she liked best about the video she
had created was, “seeing the tears of happiness in my grandfather’s face and
knowing that now all my cousins know his inspiring story.”

Recommendations: Literacy and Dramatization Activities

We recommend offering interactive literacy and dramatization activities,

which are developmentally appropriate practices for museum education. These
recommendations are buttressed with: (1) scholarly and research evidence of
best practices, (2) Vygotsky’s theory, and (3) our practices, namely this project
grounded in scholarly and research evidence.
Museum-Related Interactive Literacy Activities
We recommend the following developmentally appropriate practices for
museum education: (1) to prepare for interactive literacy activities by selecting
suitable literature and family stories, (2) then conduct those interactive literacy
activities through collaborative reading, and (3) then have follow-up writing
activities. We describe how we too implemented these recommendations in
this project.
Children’s Literature and Family’s Stories
We recommend that children’s literature which scaffolds the readers to
easily understand the new immigrant’s true humanity be selected and then
connected to the artifacts displayed in the museum. For example, books on (1)
the complexities and adversities immigrants face (Banks, 1997), such as im-
migrant children’s stress, resiliencies, and coping strategies (Baghban, 2007);
(2) where each immigrant has to make personal and at times very difficult
choices to selectively acculturate on some dimensions and yet maintain his/

222
 MUSEUMS & IMMIGRANT IDENTITY

her own culture on other dimensions (Bhavnagri & Willette, 2011), and (3)
how they feel living in a strange new country and how that immigrant’s per-
spective changes over time (Freeman et al., 1997). Additionally, books should
be depicting visual media and artifacts (e.g., riveting photographs, engravings,
lithographs, drawings, paintings, other cultural objects) from an immigrant’s
viewpoint (Freeman et al., 1997). Mabry and Bhavnagri (2012) reported
that the books they selected did depict visual media from a new immigrant’s
viewpoint and clearly messaged various aspects of immigrant’s humanity as
stated above. Mabry and Bhavnagri’s book selection with follow-up activities
was grounded in Vygotsky’s developmental approach and resulted in social–
emotional developmental outcomes, namely empathy and perspective taking
towards immigrants, and the children moved to a higher ZPD on Selman’s
stages of interpersonal understanding (Selman, 1980).
Besides using published fictional stories, we additionally recommend that
immigrant families share their true but unpublished stories of themselves and/
or their ancestors immigrating to the U.S. This can be documented by au-
diotaping the narration and/or presenting a multimedia format, such as a
PowerPoint with authentic quotes from immigrant family members, video
clips, drawings, and photographs. Given that the museum artifacts are station-
ary objects, the content knowledge about these artifacts is more relatable and
better understood and appreciated when embedded in personalized family his-
tory. This recommendation is based on the empirical findings of Palmquist and
Crowley (2007) who examined the degree to which the parents exposed their
children to books at home about the museum artifacts and particularly the
content knowledge related to those artifacts. Their study reported that parents
of the children who were “experts” on the content knowledge about museum
dinosaur exhibits had provided their children with significantly more dino-
saur-themed books along with multimedia, such as videos, websites, games,
and toys at home, when compared to the parents of the children who were
“novices” on the content knowledge regarding the museum dinosaur exhibit.
Collaborative Reading
We recommend that parents collaboratively read aloud with their children
and have meaningful verbal interactions (Mason et al., 1986), thus co-con-
structing a connection between the experiences described in the children’s
books and the museum artifacts. This co-construction results in Vygotskian
socially shared cognition (Berk & Winsler, 1995; Bodrova & Leong, 2007),
also called joint attention (Rogoff, 1990). We additionally recommend that the
same books be then taken during the museum visit to discuss their content as
linked to the museum artifacts, based on Tenenbaum et al.’s (2010) research

223
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

findings. They reported that when books were used at the museum, parents and
children spent more time at an exhibit and parents also asked more questions
related to the exhibit when compared to a control group which had no books.
Reflective Writing
We recommend that the intrapersonal thoughts regarding the content of
the book be further expressed, using appropriate follow-up writing activities.
Theilheimer (2001) reported that immigrant and non-immigrant students
successfully scaffolded each other’s perspective by discussing the children’s lit-
erature but, more importantly, because they followed it up by writing reflective
journal responses to those books. Mabry and Bhavnagri (2012) reported that
the content of the book was followed up by children writing reflective journal
entries, letters to the protagonists, and recording immigrant’s emotions on a
class group chart. Additionally, Freidus’s (2010) study used children’s literature
to build background knowledge before museum visits and then used follow-up
quick reflective writing to debrief students after their return.
Our Project Grounded in the Above Scholarly and Research Evidence
As illustrated in our descriptions, the mother in this project also practiced
the recommendations stated above, grounded in scholarly and research evi-
dence. First, she linked research evidence on children’s literature and family
stories to our project. For example, the mother selected Coming to America: A
Muslim’s Family Story (Wolf, 2003) for it portrayed a Muslim immigrant fami-
ly’s humanity, stress, and resiliency as referenced by Banks (1997) and Baghban
(2007)—for example, in the family facing economic hardship and child’s stress
of separating from her father and her friends—and their selective acculturation
process as stated by Bhavnagri and Willette (2011), seen in their maintaining
their Arabic identity and integrating into an American lifestyle. Additionally,
the mother followed Freeman et al.’s (1997) recommendation in selecting this
book because it was written from an immigrant’s perspective and was visual-
ly appealing (e.g., authentic; colorful photographs; distinctive Islamic cultural
details of family lifestyles). Besides the children’s story book, the mother shared
the children’s grandfather’s true immigrant story. The children, as a result, re-
lated the content of their grandfather’s story to museum audiotapes on the
immigrant experiences.
Second, the mother linked scholarly and research evidence on collabora-
tive reading to our project. For example, based on Mason et al.’s (1986) study,
this mother and her daughters had meaningful verbal interactions during their
joint collaborative reading session, and they co-constructed connections be-
tween the immigrant experiences described in the children’s book and the
museum artifacts. Third, the mother linked scholarly and research evidence on

224
 MUSEUMS & IMMIGRANT IDENTITY

reflective writing to our project. For example, based on Theilheimer (2001),

Mabry and Bhavnagri (2012), and Freidus (2010), her daughters participated
in the writing activities (e.g., their reflective journals after each read-aloud ses-
sion and after each museum visit; a letter to the immigrant protagonist’s friend
in her country of origin, and the Venn diagram comparing similarities and dif-
ferences between all Arab immigrants and Yemeni immigrants).
We thus recommend that educators (e.g., K–12 teachers, faculty in higher
education, parents, volunteers, docents, community members) who use mu-
seums for informal education: (1) select children’s literature and/or authentic
family’s immigrant stories, which are Vygotskian semiotics, related to their
immigrant identity; (2) co-construct knowledge related to museum artifacts
when reading aloud collaboratively, which is also a Vygotskian approach; and
(3), follow it up with writing wherein the learners make personal connections
between themselves and the protagonist’s thoughts and feelings. All of these
strategies are developmentally appropriate practices.
Museum Related Dramatization Activity
We next recommend dramatization related to museum education at histor-
ical and classrooms sites resulting in positive cognitive and affective outcomes.
According to Vygotsky, dramatic play “leads” (i.e., enhances) development
(Berk & Winsler, 1995; Rogoff, 1990), and the dramatization strategies we
recommend below have elements of dramatic play (e.g., role playing) and thus
are developmentally appropriate practices. We then state how we too imple-
mented these recommendations in this project resulting in positive cognitive
and affective outcomes.
Historical Sites
We recommend empirically grounded dramatizing strategies as described
below wherein participants role played real persons from the past at histori-
cal sites which are now museums and at a museum theater. Ruso and Topdal
(2014) reported that through charade and mime within a game-like situation,
museum staff undergoing drama training and their family members enacted
the lives of characters living in Darves Pasa Konagi, a historical mansion from
the Ottoman empire in Cyprus. The other drama training candidates and their
family members then had to guess and discuss what exact activity (e.g., playing
ancient games, miming the character’s favorite dish, weaving by making noises
of weaving tools and rhythmic body movements) and personality (e.g., posing
like a statue displaying the characters’ personality) was being dramatized. The
participants reflected and opined that dramatization was “more effective, per-
manent” and an “instructive” experience for them; they said, “We improved

225
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

our self-knowledge and could easily express ourselves.” (Ruso & Topdal, 2014,
p. 631). Thus, it had positive cognitive outcomes. Additionally, they reflected
that playing games while dramatizing was fun for them because it aroused their
childhood memories. Furthermore, they could empathize with those who lived
in the past; thus, it had positive affective outcomes, as well.
Davies (2001) too reported that dramatizing the roles of real persons at
Beningbrough Hall, a Georgian mansion in the U.K., embedded within in a
game-like communal setting was an effective strategy. Participants not only had
to gain the greatest personal advantage within the rules of the game to “win,”
but, more importantly, they had to also demonstrate that their winning had to
result in “losing” participants to still gain some possible great personal advan-
tages as well. Thus, they were cognitively challenged to figure out a win–win
strategy in dramatization, resulting in spirited debates, a deeper understanding
of decision-making processes, and an improvement in knowledge. Affectively,
in trying to design this win–win dramatization, it also heightened the partici-
pants’ awareness that a personal advantage of winning could at times also result
in negative outcomes for others, especially for marginalized groups with limit-
ed powers (e.g., social injustices, power-related conflicts, disenfranchisement,
resistance, loss of communal ancestral property). Thus, they learned to take
other’s perspectives.
Nelson (1988) reported about a first-person interpretation in dramatization
performed at a museum theater, located at a late 1880s settlement schoolhouse
in the U.S. Each child reenacted a personal interpretation of a full day’s hap-
penings in the life of a real school child that was mentioned in one teacher’s
multiple diaries, archived at the local museum. This teacher was a student who
had attended this settlement school and later taught at the very same school.
This reenactment resulted in children achieving cognitive outcomes, namely,
learning how to do historical research, use archival materials, and relate it to
their personal experiences. Jackson and Leahy (2005) also had one-character
story dramatization. They reported that during the museum visit, children were
exposed to a museum theater where they met, listened, viewed, and interacted
with one character, who dramatized her story from the past. She additionally
interspersed her dramatization with children directly interacting with her char-
acter and participating in discovery-interactive activities with museum artifacts
related to her character. Cognitively, they could then easily recall historical
concepts because now they had a personal connection to it through dramati-
zation. Affectively, children enjoyed it tremendously and felt a deep empathy
because they were authentically transported to the situation in that time period
which they dramatized.

226
 MUSEUMS & IMMIGRANT IDENTITY

Classrooms Sites
We next shift our recommendation from historical sites to classrooms where
children’s role playing and creating personal museums also results in cognitive
and affective developmental outcomes. Singer and Singer’s (2004) reported
role playing and creating a “Museum of Immigration” for preK all the way
up to fourth grade provided a cultural context for learning through (1) family
artifacts, (2) family history, and (3) family stories. It transformed their social
studies curriculum, strengthened family literacy curriculum, introduced mul-
ticultural education, and promoted culturally appropriate practice. As a result
of the improvement in academic curricula, the cognitive outcomes included
children attentively listening and better understanding the cultural similarities
and differences. The affective outcomes included students’ enjoyment in shar-
ing their family’s artifacts, pride in their family’s stories, and values associated
with family artifacts to be passed on to the future generation within their fami-
ly. Hope (2018) reported that 4- and 5-year-olds, when creating their museum
with everyday classroom objects, acted as though they were curators. For ex-
ample, like curators: (a) cognitively, they learned to display objects in highly
imaginative ways and perceived the properties of objects as sending personal
messages and telling stories about their classroom culture; and (b) affective-
ly, they learned to keep the perspective of viewers in mind. Singer and Singer
(2004) and Hope (2018) reported on evidence-based practices, which were
also developmentally appropriate.
Gupta (2008) recommended a Vygotskian approach to dramatization as a
developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood classrooms, resulting
in cognitive and affective developmental outcomes. She proposed that Vy-
gotskian dramatization can be an adult-directed, guided participation (e.g.,
during initial planning) and child-initiated dramatization (e.g., when children
are fully engaged in leading and suggesting to other children during high social
interactions) at the same time. Her study found it resulted in cognitive out-
comes, namely increasing children’s creativity, and affective outcomes, namely
intrinsic motivation, self-confidence, and self-esteem. Scharer (2017) recom-
mended a Vygotskian perspective of dramatic play-learning environment,
such as dramatization of a museum in an early childhood classroom. She pro-
posed that when children are role playing in a museum setting, the adults
need to scaffold children to collect materials for display; next children can
discuss and decide (i.e., co-construct) how those materials (i.e., physical tools
scaffolding dramatization) be displayed. Children can describe the exhibits on
cards and read those cards when explaining the artifact to the visitors (i.e.,
cards as Vygotskian physical and semiotic scaffolding tools). Additionally, chil-
dren must dress up for this dramatization (i.e., a physical scaffolding tool for

227
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

dramatization). Thus, Scharer (2017), like Gupta (2008), also suggested that
dramatization can be an adult-directed and child-initiated activity. Since she
did not report that she had implemented her own suggestions, the cognitive
and affective outcomes of her proposed developmentally appropriate practices
are not reported here. Gupta’s and Scharer’s recommended classroom practices
are undergirded in Vygotsky’s theory.
Our Project Grounded in above Scholarly and Research Evidence
We now shift our discussion to the dramatization of a family museum in
this project, created by the daughters and undergirded by scholarly sources
and research evidence. The mother in this project used the following Vygotski-
an teaching strategies recommended by Gupta (2008) and Scharer (2017).
She scaffolded her daughters by providing (1) initial support for planning of
the dramatization, (2) cultural objects for display, (3) her personal knowledge
regarding those family artifacts that were eventually written up as labels and
read by her daughters when explaining to the visitors, and (4) Yemeni wedding
clothes for her daughters to dress up in when they role played as docents.
Her daughters played the role of docents, similar to what was portrayed by
Singer and Singer (2004) and Scharer (2017), and conducted tours for their
cousins and other relatives. Like in the study by Hope (2018), they also acted as
curators, displaying the artifacts, keeping the viewer’s perspective in mind, and
perceiving that their artifacts were telling stories about their family’s immigrant
identity. This included the grandfather’s oud; family members’ clothing worn
at their aunt’s wedding; and the video, in which the girls were creating a family
museum artifact as Haneen narrated their grandfather’s challenges and resil-
iencies as a Yemeni immigrant, similar to the artifact at the AANM museum.
Our family museum dramatization resulted in the following cognitive out-
comes, similar to previous scholars. First, the daughters expressed meaningful,
cultural, and personal connections, experiences, and messages related to the
family’s cultural artifacts, similar to the findings reported by Jackson and Leahy
(2005), Nelson (1988), Singer and Singer (2004), and Hope (2018). Second,
the daughters expressed creativity by creating a family museum and by develop-
ing an original video as a museum artifact, an outcome similar to the findings
reported by Gupta (2008). Third, the daughters were fully engaged and were
actively discussing and deciding, exactly as Gupta (2008) and Scharer (2017)
recommended, leading them intellectually to decide about their family arti-
facts display, descriptions to be written on cards, and how to use those cards as
prompts when explaining their visitors, just like Scharer (2017) had suggested.
The family museum dramatization resulted in the following affective
outcomes similar to prior research. First, the daughters expressed joy in dra-
matization and empathy for their grandfather when he was moved to tears,

228
 MUSEUMS & IMMIGRANT IDENTITY

reflecting the findings of Ruso and Topdal (2014) and Jackson and Leahy
(2005). Second, they expressed pride in their immigrant family and cultural
heritage, like Singer and Singer’s (2004) findings. Third, they expressed height-
ened intrinsic motivation, self-confidence, and self-esteem to be like a teacher
and expert about their culture, similar to the findings of Davies (2001) and
Gupta (2008).
We thus recommend that educators (e.g., K–12 teachers, faculty in higher ed-
ucation, parents, volunteers, docents, community members) who use museums
for informal education encourage learners to dramatize historical, cultural, and
social situations presented at the museums in various locations (e.g., historical
sites, classroom sites, family’s residence, community centers). This recommenda-
tion is supported by Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory, also called socio-historical
theory. We further recommend creating a family museum and dramatizing as
docents, when possible, for it promotes specific cognitive and affective develop-
mental outcomes; thus, it is a developmentally appropriate practice.

Conclusion, Replication, and Modification: Cognitive and

Affective Outcomes

To conclude: The children demonstrated the following cognitive skills (i.e.,

academic learning) related to formal schooling, while simultaneously develop-
ing the families’ immigrant identity: (1) attentive listening skills (e.g., focused
listening to audiotapes at the museum); (2) deeper comprehension of abstract
historical concepts (e.g., immigration process learned in school but better un-
derstood by examining tangible museum artifacts); (3) activating memory by
bringing personal meaning to objects and experiences (e.g., relating museum
artifacts to their grandfather’s experiences and their history class in school; re-
lating family museum festive artifacts to family wedding in which the daughters
participated); (4) organization skills (e.g., noting similarities and differences
between grandfathers’ immigrant experiences and other Arab American immi-
grants’ experiences, using a Venn diagram); (5) co-construction of meaningful
knowledge and creative self-expression (e.g., collaboratively discussing and cre-
ating a family museum and a Venn diagram); and (6) reading and writing skills
(e.g., collaborative reading, writing letters).
They also demonstrated the following affective skills (social–emotion-
al learning) related to formal schooling, while simultaneously developing the
families’ immigrant identity: (1) empathy and perspective taking (e.g., grand-
father participating in child labor to survive; new immigrants memorizing
immigrant tests to become citizens); (2) appreciation of immigrant’s resil-
iencies when economically stressed (e.g., reported in grandfather’s case study,

229
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

children’s book, and museum exhibits); (3) being helpful and altruistic (e.g.,
earlier immigrants providing social network, economic support, and hospital-
ity to new arrivals; extended family members supporting wife and children of
immigrants left behind); and (5) pride in their ancestral immigrant experienc-
es (e.g., grandfather’s accomplishments; daughters’ positive immigrant identity
and self-confidence displayed as docents in family museum).
To replicate more broadly: Given that we are primarily a country of im-
migrants from all around the world, the selection of a museum can always
be changed to address other immigrant families’ identities. Regardless of the
country of origin or the host country, the challenges and resiliency of being an
immigrant is a shared experience amongst all immigrants and an integral part
of an immigrants’ family identity. Our immigrant-related activities also depict
immigrants’ challenges and resiliencies. Thus, if these activities are adapted,
and then replicated, then they would be relatable to other immigrants.
To modify: If there is no nearby museum representing the family’s immi-
grant experiences, we then need to modify by encouraging parents and children
to participate in virtual tours of immigrant museums on the internet. Those
museums could be in the U.S. or in some other countries (e.g., Australia,
Germany, United Kingdom). Then the parent–child dyad can have an inter-
personal dialogue by following the prompts presented during the virtual tours
or can participate in their idiosyncratic yet meaningful personal dialogue about
the artifacts as it relates to their family’s immigrant experiences. They could
also be engaged in participatory interactive activities, if presented during these
virtual tours. Additionally, they could discuss children’s informational and sto-
rybooks as well as videos on the internet on immigrants and then participate
in activities related to those books and videos, but also related to their fami-
ly’s immigrant experiences. Here are some possibilities: (1) discussing family
photographs from the country of origin and their life on arrival as it relates to
books, videos, and virtual museum artifacts; (2) interviewing family members
immigrant experiences, writing stories about it, supplemented with drawings,
then converting those stories into scripts, and finally dramatizing family plays
regarding their immigrant experiences; (3) making replicas of three-dimension-
al artifacts seen at the virtual museum, but also similar to what their ancestors
brought as immigrants; (4) creating an ancestral recipe book and cooking those
recipes as a family; and (5) creating a family museum similar to the one dis-
cussed in this article. If the children of other immigrant groups participated in
a replication or modification of this museum education project, then they too
could attain the cognitive and affective outcomes stated in the conclusion. This
article has thus answered the question stated in the mother’s journal.

230
 MUSEUMS & IMMIGRANT IDENTITY

References
Arab American Institute. (2023, March 12). National Arab American demographics. https://
www.aaiusa.org/demographics
Arab American National Museum. (2023, March 12). Arab American National Museum.
https://arabamericanmuseum.org/
Arab American National Museum & Kayyali, R. (2019). Arab Americans: History, culture, and
contributions. Arab American National Museum.
Ash, D. (2003). Dialogic inquiry in life science conversations of family groups in a museum.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(2), 138–162.
Baghban, M. (2007). Immigration in childhood: Using picture books to cope. The Social Stud-
ies, 98(2), 71–76.
Banks, D. (1997). The debate over immigration has a human face: A literacy approach. Social
Education, 61(4), 197–202.
Berk, L. E., & Winsler, A. (1995). Scaffolding children’s learning: Vygotsky and early childhood
education. The National Association for the Education of Young Children.
Bhavnagri, N. P., & Kamash, S. K. (2019). Museum education on Arab American immigrant’s
culture promoting cognitive and affective outcomes: A Vygotskian perspective. School
Community Journal, 29(1), 87–116. https://www.adi.org/journal/2019ss/BhavnagriKa-
mashSS2019.pdf
Bhavnagri, N. P., & Willette, L. (2011). Children’s literature and understanding immigrant
children. In R. V. Nata (Series Ed.), Progress in education: Vol. 21. (pp. 1–24). Nova Science.
Bodrova, E., & Leong, D. J. (2007). Tools of the mind: The Vygotskian approach to early child-
hood education (2nd ed.). Pearson Education.
Coffee, K. (2007). Audience research and the museum experience as social practice. Museum
Management and Curatorship, 22(4), 377–389.
Davies, I. (2001). Beyond the classrooms: Developing student teachers’ work with museums
and historic sites. Teaching History,105, 42–47.
Freidus, H. (2010). Finding passion in teaching and learning: Embedding literacy skills in
content-rich curriculum. The New Educator, 6(3–4), 181–195.
Freeman, E. B., Lehman, B. A., Scharer, P. L., McKinley, C., Peters, D., Semer, S., & White,
W. Q. (1997). Children’s books: Perspectives. The Reading Teacher, 50(4), 340–348.
Finn, L. F., & Vandermaas-Peeler, M. (2013). Young children’s engagement and learning op-
portunities in a cooking activity with parents and older siblings. Early Childhood Research
and Practice, 15(1). https://ecrp.illinois.edu/v15n1/finn.html
Gupta, A. (2008). Vygotskian perspectives on using dramatic play to enhance children’s devel-
opment and balance creativity with structure in the early childhood classroom. Early Child
Development and Care, 179(8), 1041–1054.
Harjanto, L., & Batalova, J. (2022, January 13). Middle Eastern and North African immigrants
in the United States. Migration Policy Institute. https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/
middle-eastern-and-north-african-immigrants-united-states
Hope, A. (2018). Young children as curators. The International Journal of Art and Design Edu-
cation. 37(1), 29–40.
Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, H.R. 2580, Pub. L. 89-236, 79 Stat. 911 (1965).
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/89/hr2580/text
Jackson, A., & Leahy, H. R. (2005). “Seeing it for real...?” Authenticity, theatre, and learning
in museums. Research in Drama Education: The Journal of Applied Theatre and Performance,
10(3), 303–325.

231
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

Jones, M. G., Rua, M. J., & Carter, G. (1998). Science teachers’ conceptual growth within
Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(9),
967–985.
Mabry, M., & Bhavnagri, N. (2012). Perspective taking of immigrant children: Utilizing chil-
dren’s literature and related activities. Multicultural Education, 19(3), 48–54.
Mason, J. M., McCormick, C., & Bhavnagri, N. (1986). How are you going to help me learn?
Lesson negotiations between a teacher and preschool children. In D. Yaden & S. Tem-
pleton (Eds.), Metalinguistic awareness and beginning literacy (pp. 159–197). Heinemann
Portsmouth.
Mayer, M. M. (2005). Bridging the theory–practice divide in contemporary art museum edu-
cation. Art Education, 58(2), 13–17.
McAfee, O., Leong, D. J., & Bodrova, E. (2016). Assessing and guiding young children’s devel-
opment and learning. Pearson.
Mukherji, P., & Albon, D. (2015). Research methods in early childhood education. Sage.
Nelson, P. A. (1988). Drama, doorway to the past. Language Arts, 65(1), 20–25.
Newman, F., & Holzman, L. (1993). Lev Vygotsky: Revolutionary scientist. Routledge.
Pierroux, P. (2003). Communicating art in museums: Language concepts in arts education.
The Journal of Museum Education, 28(1), 3–7.
Palmquist, S., & Crowley, K. (2007). From teachers to testers: How parents talk to novice and
expert children in a natural history museum. Science Education, 91(5), 783–804.
Povis, K. T., & Crowley, K. (2015). Family learning in object-based museums: The role of joint
attention, Visitor Studies, 18(2), 168–182.
Rogoff, B., & Wertsch, J. V. (Eds.). (1984). Children’s learning in the “zone of proximal devel-
opment.” Jossey-Bass.
Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. Oxford
University Press.
Rogoff, B., Callanan, M., Gutierrez, K. D., & Erickson, F. (2016). The organization of infor-
mal learning. Review of Research in Education, 40(1), 356–401.
Ruso, L., & Topdal, E. B. (2014). The use of museums for educational purposes using drama
method. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 141, 628–632.
Selman, R. L. (1980). The growth of interpersonal understanding: Developmental and clinical
analysis. Academic Press.
Scharer, J. H. (2017). Supporting young children’s learning in a dramatic play environment.
Journal of Childhood Studies, 42(3), 62–69.
Singer, J. Y., & Singer, A. J. (2004). Creating a museum of family artifacts. Social Studies and
the Young Learner, 17(1), 5–10.
TED Taiz. (2018, December 2). Traditional Yemeni wedding [Video]. YouTube. https://www.
youtube.com/watch?v=uR8Pbm8btoU
Tenenbaum, H. R., Prior, J., Dowling, C. L., & Frost, R. E. (2010). Supporting parent–
child conversations in a history museum. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(2),
241–254.
Theilheimer, R. (2001). Bi-directional learning through relationship building: Teacher prepa-
ration for working with families new to the United States. Childhood Education, 77(5),
284–288.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Har-
vard University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language (Rev. ed.). MIT Press.
Walker, D. (2023, March 19). Yemeni Americans: History, modern era, the first Yemenis in Amer-
ica. https://www.everyculture.com/multi/Sr-Z/Yemeni-Americans.html

232
 MUSEUMS & IMMIGRANT IDENTITY

Wink, J., & Putney, L. (2002). A vision of Vygotsky. Allyn & Bacon.
Wolf, P. (2003). Coming to America: A Muslim family’s story. Lee & Low Books.
Wood, D. J. (1980). Teaching the young child: Some relationships between social interac-
tion, language, and thought. In D. R. Olson (Ed.), The social foundations of language and
thought: Essays in honor of Jerome S. Bruner (pp. 280–296). Norton.

Navaz Peshotan Bhavnagri was an associate professor of early childhood education

at Wayne State University in Detroit, Michigan. She has now retired. Her teaching,
empirical and historical research, publications, guest editorship, and grants include
diversity in families, family–community–school partnerships, immigrant’s museum
education, social services for immigrants, immigrant parenting, immigrant moth-
er–child dyads, children’s literature on immigrants, cross-cultural childrearing, and
multicultural education. Correspondence concerning this article may be addressed to
Dr. Navaz Peshotan Bhavnagri at [email protected]
Hanan Taha Muhsin immigrated from Yemen in 1999. She has a Masters in Bi-
lingual/Bicultural Education, with concentration in English as a Second Language
from the Teacher Education Division, Wayne State University, Detroit. Mrs. Muhsin
has been an English Language Development teacher in the Hamtramck public school
district in Michigan.

Appendix. Mini-Case Study: Daughters’ Yemeni Immigrant Grandfather

This is the summary of a Yemeni mother’s interview with her father whose name
is Taha (i.e., children’s maternal grandfather; he has given permission to use his real
name and the real name of his father, Ali). She has documented Taha’s immigrant
experience to help her daughters, Haneen and Leena, learn about their family’s im-
migrant history for them to develop a Yemeni American immigrant identity. This
case study, when read along with the article, could be instructive in higher education
courses (e.g., social studies, immigrant history, multicultural education) because it is
aligned to the research findings and issues on migrant workers and immigrants’ accul-
turation processes.
Grandfather Taha’s Life in Yemen
Haneen and Leena’s maternal grandfather, Taha, lived in poverty in a small village
in Yemen with his mother (i.e., children’s great-grandmother), a big brother, and a
sister, but without his father named Ali (i.e., children’s great-grandfather) from the
age of 6 until the age of 12, because his dad had immigrated to the United States in
1955 to provide for his family. His father, Ali, was unable to send money as often as
he would have liked because electronic money transfers were not easily accessible and
almost unknown for public to use. Hence, his dad had to wait to send remittance to
his family via someone from the U.S. returning to Yemen, which did not happen very
often, causing financial hardships to the family back at home.
Therefore, Taha (i.e., the children’s grandfather) had to work in a handmade silver
jewelry workshed called a “factory” at the age of 6. He made beads for women’s jewel-
ry and also worked on his family’s meager farm growing wheat and corn, which they

233
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

mostly sold, and only occasionally ate as their source of food. Since food was scarce,
he typically ate only bread with tea or coffee for breakfast and dinner and had no
lunch. Water shortage was another obstacle; so, he had to walk 2 miles to get to the
water, enough for drinking and washing hands and face, but not enough to bathe or
wash clothes. So, he went to the river to bathe and wash clothes. His dad, Ali, finally
returned when Taha was 12, and things started to get better because Ali brought with
him money.
Since Taha’s village did not have a school, he did not get any formal schooling.
However, he did learn how to read and write in Arabic along with religious teachings
at Madrasa (i.e., a religious school). He had no school supplies such as books, note-
books, or pens at home. Taha had to make his own writing board from wood, his own
ink, using extract from Saber which is a plant, and he used a small stick as a pen.
When his father returned to Yemen after staying in the U.S. for six years, his dad
took him to Taiz, a city where—for the first time—Taha saw cars and tall buildings.
Ali, his daddy, only stayed with them for a year; then he went back to America to con-
tinue working on the farms of California. Nonetheless, he worked in California for
only five months and had to come back to Yemen because he was homesick, depressed,
and unable to work. Ali told his family that he always heard their voices calling him.
No one was able to help him with his mental illness because they didn’t have access to
doctors in their village nor enough money to take him to a doctor outside the village.
Ali was the primary wage earner, but he could not work, and that led the family back
to economic hardships. Hence, the girls’ grandfather, Taha, now had to additionally
go and work on other people’s farms in Yemen to feed his parents and siblings and
at the same time try to save money to get medical help for his dad. Despite working
multiple jobs, the pay was not enough, so then Taha and his big brother applied for
an immigrant visa to the U.S.
Grandfather Taha’s Life in the USA
Taha’s big brother immigrated first to America in 1970 at age 17 and worked on
a farm in California to support their family. A year later, on June 7, 1971, Taha, at
the age of 14, immigrated to the United States to also support their family with only
the clothes he was wearing and a hirz (very small, sealed wallet with Quran verses and
“duaa” which means blessings to protect him and keep him safe) that his mom gave
him. He traveled from Yemen to New York with a group of people and stayed with
them in New York until he located his brother. Taha’s older brother came to New
York to pick him up and take him to California. The family he stayed with in New
York helped him with his forthcoming travel expenses. Taha’s brother took him to the
farm camp, but the farm owners refused to let him work because he was underage and
weak. He then found work on another farm. Both the brothers worked for the same
farm company that their dad had worked for when he had immigrated to the U.S.
years ago. When he and his brother Taha reached a farm, they were placed in a camp
site with about 30 other workers. Every morning they were all bussed to the farm site
and returned to the camp at the end of the day. Thus, for two years, from the ages of
15 to 17, Taha had to move from farm to farm, picking asparagus, green peppers, ap-

234
 MUSEUMS & IMMIGRANT IDENTITY

ples, grapes, and peaches during harvest, and from city to city within California. Even
though he belonged to the farm workers’ union, the working conditions were terrible.
He had to work in the rain, cold, and heat, and the landowners fed the farm migrant
workers only soup and bread.
When Taha’s brother moved to Michigan and got a job in the Chrysler facto-
ry, he joined his brother there. He worked in a restaurant as a waiter for two years.
In 1975, he went back to Yemen, got married at the age of 18, then stayed there for
a few months with his wife (i.e., children’s maternal grandmother). He returned to
Michigan and worked in the restaurant for another two years. Then in 1977, at the
age of 20, he started working for Chrysler on the assembly line. He worked there for
two years. When his brother moved to New York and bought a deli, he joined his big
brother to work in that deli. Both brothers worked 12 hours every day. They saved
money to buy a car in Yemen for transporting goods like oil and flour from the city to
their village and then sell it, for that was one another way to earn money. One brother
for a year would then stay in Yemen to drive the car and sell the goods, while the other
brother stayed in New York for a year. Then they would switch; thus, taking turns to
return to Yemen every alternate year. They continued to save money and were finally
able to buy land in Sana’a, the capital of Yemen. They eventually built a huge house in
Sana’a, and then the whole family moved there from their village.
Their grandfather, Taha, continued to work in New York and sent remittances to
his wife, their children, and the rest of the extended family. He decided eventually
to bring his family to the United States because he wanted his children to have the
opportunity that he never had, namely a better education and a good life. Thus, the
mother who interviewed her dad arrived as an American citizen at the age of 11, and
she studied in English in New York. Currently, the girls’ grandfather Taha lives with
his wife in a home of their own within the same city as his granddaughters, who visit
him frequently. He is now happily retired, well-adjusted to his immigrant status, and
yet clear about his ethnic roots and identity.

235
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

236
Parents’ and Teachers’ Perceptions of Parental
Involvement and Practices in the Education of
Students with Learning Disabilities in Greece
Dimitra Eleftheriadou and Anastasia Vlachou

Abstract

Parental involvement, as well as parent and teacher relations, have been con-
sidered as a significant factor that affects children’s schooling. Still, in order to
foster inclusion, parent–teacher relations need further investigation. This study
explores parent and teacher perceptions of parental involvement in the edu-
cation of students with Learning Disabilities (LD) based on Epstein’s (1995)
parental involvement typology. Epstein’s questionnaires for parents and teach-
ers were administered to 151 mothers, 77 fathers, 232 general, and 126 special
education teachers in Greece in order to investigate their perceptions of pa-
rental involvement types and practices concerning the education of children
with LD. The differences among parent- and teacher-related sociodemographic
characteristics were also examined. The findings reveal that the parents asso-
ciate their involvement in the education of their children with LD more with
Type 1-Parenting, whereas the teachers with Type 5-Decision making. Parents
use more Type 4-Learning at home practices, whereas teachers employ Type
2-Communicating practices. Notwithstanding, there are a series of statistical-
ly important findings concerning parent and teacher perceptions of parental
involvement and practices in the education of children with LD by sociodemo-
graphic characteristics. Results are discussed in relation to their implications in
promoting more inclusive and sustainable home–school partnerships.

Key Words: parental involvement, parent practices, teacher practices, Epstein’s

typology, learning disabilities, inclusion, Greece, Greek education

School Community Journal, 2023, Vol. 33, No. 2 237

Available at http://www.schoolcommunitynetwork.org/SCJ.aspx
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

Introduction

Over three decades now, parental involvement, as well as parent and teach-
er relations, have dominated educational studies. Until now, researchers have
placed emphasis on how home–school collaboration may be sustainable and
effective for students (Epstein, 2010), including students with disabilities
(Graham, 2020). The existing corpus of literature examines parent or teacher
perspectives on parental involvement, as well as parent or teacher practices in
different types of schools or areas (Erdener, 2013; Garcia, 2014; Giannikas &
Nikitaki, 2022; Magouirk, 2015). Some researchers focus on parent–teacher
relations or practices for inclusive purposes (Botha & Kourkoutas, 2015) in
a dualistic way (Laluvein, 2010). It is notable that published studies on ed-
ucation during the COVID-19 crisis are limited, although the COVID-19
pandemic has shocked education systems around the world, being also a cata-
lyst for parent–teacher relations in schools. Therefore, the question arises about
a school’s ability to respond effectively to emergencies (Haisraeli & Fogiel-Bi-
jaoui, 2021), as well as to all students’ educational needs (Graham, 2020).
A voluminous body of literature about parental involvement indicates that
home–school relations are complex and fraught with difficulties due to var-
ious reasons, such as poor school-to-home communication (Symeou et al.,
2012), negative school climate (Moran et al., 2012), lack of teacher education
in home–school partnerships (Eleftheriadou & Vlachou, 2020), low parental
socioeconomic status or education level (Bonal & González, 2020; Magouirk,
2015), and parent and teacher attitudes and beliefs about children’s education
(Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler, 1995). This study suggests that Epstein’s theo-
retical model of parental involvement which emphasizes the role of the school,
the family, and the community in comprehensive partnership programs, and
proclaims six types of involvement practices in school and at home, may be
employed as a tool by schools to overcome difficulties between families and
schools, as indicated in the literature (see, Garcia, 2014; Erdener, 2013; Ma-
gouirk, 2015).
Additionally, the ethos for power-sharing between parents, schools, and
agencies, especially in inclusive education, may cause additional complexities
since much power still resides in the hands of education authorities and pro-
fessionals. For instance, in the Greek context, insufficient emphasis is placed
on the rights of parents of children with Learning Disabilities (LD) in school
(Educational Law 4823/2021), which may prevent parents from being actively
involved in their children’s learning, since there is a lack of culture and in-
frastructure that may provide parents and teachers the conditions needed for
reliable partnerships (Zoniou-Sideri & Vlachou, 2006) in an inclusive way.

238
 PARENTS AND TEACHERS IN GREECE

Although the Greek law encourages the formal and legal dimension of parental
involvement in schools—for example, a Parents’ Association has been estab-
lished in every school unit—home–school relations in a pedagogical sense are
put aside (Giannikas & Nikitaki, 2022).
It has also been reported that true partnerships are disputable, because
many schools lack effective mechanisms and resources to promote meaning-
ful collaborations between parents of children with or without LD and their
teachers in a collective social practice. This may be due to different, even con-
tradictory agendas, expectations, and priorities, or even differences in parent
and teacher perceptions of their involvement in school (Carrión-Martinéz et
al., 2021; Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler, 1995). However, in order to foster in-
clusion in school for children with LD, sustainable home–school partnerships
should be encouraged by policymakers, administrators, and school staff. This
means that parental involvement should be adequately defined and understood
by all stakeholders so as to include family resources that shape children’s learn-
ing in educational contexts (Ainscow, 2020).
Parental Involvement in All Children’s Education
Researchers have emphasized that children need the support of their parents
if they are to maximize their potential from schooling (Savva & Symeou, 2019;
Ulferts, 2020), especially at the preschool and primary school level (Gülhan,
2023). Parental involvement is an important predictor of children’s academic
success (Giannikas & Nikitaki, 2022) and their holistic development. It im-
proves children’s social, emotional, and character development; reduces school
dropouts, especially in the secondary education level; as well as improving chil-
dren’s academic motivation, self-efficacy, and attitude towards school (Gülhan,
2023). Furthermore, parental involvement may increase parent–child inter-
actions at home and in school, which may affect the responsiveness of the
parents to the social, emotional, and intellectual needs of their children (Mata
et al., 2018). More importantly, parental involvement may contribute to the
amelioration and democratization of school (Desforges, 2003), more posi-
tive relations between schools and families based upon respect and mutuality,
better understanding of a teacher’s or parent’s role in school, and it may be em-
ployed as a tool by teachers to better understand family culture and abilities
(Epstein, 2010). All these reasons strongly emphasize the importance of paren-
tal involvement for children, parents, and teachers.
Although parental involvement is a highly researched topic in educational
studies, yet, parent involvement may not be defined precisely in the existing
literature, because the generic definitions and descriptions of its meanings and
functions are often vague, referring to parents’ multifaceted behaviors at home

239
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

and in school (Giannikas & Nikitaki, 2022). Still, it is essential to practitioners

and researchers to answer questions that concern its meanings and functions in
order to promote all children’s learning.
Some researchers avoid a general definition of parental involvement, where-
as they focus on specific involvement types (Boonk et al., 2018). For instance,
Epstein has not defined parental involvement from a singular perspective, but
has classified home- and school-related strategies of involvement into a six-
type model of parental involvement. Epstein’s model “describes parent–teacher
relationships as based on communication and cooperation and parental in-
volvement as malleable depending on the practices of teachers, administrators,
other persons, and students” (Roy & Giraldo-García, 2018, p. 32). Based on
Epstein’s theoretical model of parental involvement, this study identifies pa-
rental involvement as those behaviors demonstrated by parents at home and
in school settings in order to support the development of their children, both
educationally and socially/emotionally (Roy & Giraldo-García, 2018).
Epstein introduces “school, family, and community partnerships” as a bet-
ter term than “parental involvement” to recognize the importance of sharing
responsibility between parents, teachers, and the community in students’
learning (Epstein & Sheldon, 2006). According to Epstein’s model, parental
involvement or better, “school, family, and community partnerships,” is a mul-
tidimensional term, depicted in a six-type framework of involvement (Sanders
& Epstein, 2005), each associated with different practices, comprising:
• Type 1-Parenting: assist all families to establish supportive home environ-
ments for children as students.
• Type 2-Communicating: create two-way communication channels between
all families and schools about school programs and children’s progress in a
comprehensible manner.
• Type 3-Volunteering: recruit parent help and support for school functions
and activities (e.g., organizing activities or celebrations).
• Type 4-Learning at home: involve families in children’s academic learning at
home and home-related activities (e.g., help with homework).
• Type 5-Decision making: include parents as participants in school decisions,
governance, and advocacy activities.
• Type 6-Collaborating with the community: identify and integrate communi-
ty resources and services to support schools, families, and students’ learn-
ing with a sense of shared responsibility.
Parent responses to varied home–school activities are significantly de-
termined by variables associated with the parent, the child, or the teacher.
Researchers have put emphasis on parent perceptions of their roles and their
efficacy in the education of children when involved in their children’s learn-
ing (Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler, 1995, 1997). Specific domains of parents’

240
 PARENTS AND TEACHERS IN GREECE

self-perceived skills and knowledge, family socioeconomic conditions, as well

as specific invitations, demands, and opportunities to be engaged presented
either by the child or school may affect parental involvement and practices
(Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler, 1995). In fact, higher self-efficacy levels on part
of the parent are associated with increased classroom participation, more home
activities, and fewer negative interactions with school (Hoover-Dempsey et
al., 2002). Moreover, teacher positive beliefs of parent efficacy in children’s
learning may also define home–school practices, since teachers act to secure
parental involvement according to their perception of parent efficacy (Hoover-
Dempsey et al., 2002).
Further, among home–school practices preferred, it seems that homework
or regular communication with school tend to be related more with parental
involvement (Zaoura & Aubrey, 2010). Poulou and Matsagouras (2007) found
that “parent–teacher conferences at school” about parenting and children’s be-
havior were the prominent area of home–school practices in Greece, as well
as “parents’ invitation into the classroom.” On the contrary, activities such
as “home–school journal,” “family–teacher meetings outside school time,” or
“home visits” were less preferred by Greek parents.
Compared to the bulk of literature on parental involvement that focus-
es on parents’ involvement, fewer studies have examined the involvement
of parents of children with LD, presenting both the parent and teacher per-
spective, especially in Greece. Therefore, this study makes some important
contributions to the investigation, analysis, and clarification of the meaning
of “parental involvement” through parent and teacher perceptions of parental
involvement and practices to support the education of children with LD. Nu-
merous studies, large or small-scaled, examine issues of parental involvement in
predetermined educational activities, parent or teacher roles or practices, par-
ent aspirations, as well as the impact of parental involvement upon students’
achievements, attitude, or behaviors. In Greece, the existing evidence coming
from mixed-method studies, rating simultaneously parent and teacher percep-
tions of parental involvement or practices for inclusive purposes is still limited.
The significance of this study is linked with the assumption that if parent and
teacher perceptions regarding parental involvement and home–school practices
when children with LD are involved can be ascertained, then the findings of
this study may be used to ameliorate or introduce new practices in school so
that the academic achievement of these children could potentially be increased.
This research, being part of a large-scale, mixed methods study on parental
involvement based on Epstein’s typology, was conducted to investigate parent
and teacher perceptions of parental involvement in the education of elemen-
tary school children with identified LD. Perceived practices employed by both

241
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

parents and teachers to support these children’s learning were also explored.
Additionally, we examined if certain parent-related sociodemographic charac-
teristics (parent–child relation, education level, marital status, children’s age),
as well as teacher-related sociodemographic characteristics (general and special
education teacher, gender, education level, teaching experience) may differ-
entiate parent and teacher perceptions of parental involvement and practices
to enhance these children’s learning. Specifically, based on Epstein’s typology
(1995), we explored:
1. How do parents of children with LD and their teachers perceive parental
involvement (Types) in the education of these children?
2. What practices do parents and teachers report that they employ to support
the education of these children?
3. Are there any differences among parent and teacher perceptions of parental
involvement, as well as parent and teacher practices, and the above-men-
tioned parent- and teacher-related sociodemographic characteristics?

Method
Research Design and Procedures
The present study took place between the years of 2018 and 2019, prior to
the occurrence of the COVID-19 pandemic crisis. A written permission was
acquired from Epstein to use Epstein et al.’s questionnaires, as well as from
the Greek Ministry of Education. Directors, consultants, and heads of public
elementary schools were informed by mail, phone, or personally by the re-
searchers to obtain permission to solicit parent and teacher participation; 960
letters (500 for parents, 560 for teachers) were sent to 250 elementary schools
in different areas of Greece, explaining to them the purpose of the study, solic-
iting voluntary participation, and affirming confidentiality and anonymity for
all participants. The respondents choosing to participate were asked to com-
plete a questionnaire that contained all data needed for this study at a time
and place convenient to them. All questionnaires were returned in stamped ad-
dressed envelopes (parents, n = 242, 48.4%) (teachers, n = 362, 64.82%), the
major part of which was collected by post. The researchers tried to communi-
cate with the parents who did not respond, but without success.
Participants
The sample consisted of 586 participants (151 mothers, 77 fathers, 232
general, and 126 special education teachers) drawn from 120 schools located in
urban and suburban areas in regions of Central Greece (Attica included), Pelo-
ponnese, and Thessaly. Specific inclusion criteria were set, such as: (1) being

242
 PARENTS AND TEACHERS IN GREECE

state mainstream schools; (2) having pull-out programs/resource room units

for students with LD; (3) the students’ LD were identified according to the
national identification procedure (Law 3699/2008, in which the KEDASY, an
organization attached to the Ministry of Education, has assessed the students’
LD and has provided useful guidelines to parents and schools in order to devel-
op an IEP for the student; no other impairment was reported for the children
described by their parents and teachers, as well as by the official diagnosis ac-
companying them); and (4) parents or teachers of children with LD should be
willing to participate in this study. Anonymity was kept throughout the pro-
cess of this research.
The respondent parents were mainly mothers (n = 151, 66.2%), between
41–50 years of age (n = 124, 54.6%), and married (n = 206, 91.2%). All
parents reported having at least one child with LD. Table 1 presents the socio-
demographic characteristics of the participant parents.

Table 1. Demographic Characteristics of the Parent Participants

Demographic
Mothers Fathers Total
Characteristics
n = 151 % n = 77 % N = 228 %
Age
20-30 years 4 2.7 1 1.3 5 2.2
31-40 years 67 44.7 21 27.3 88 38.8
41-50 years 74 49.3 50 64.9 124 54.6
51 years of age or more 5 3.3 5 6.5 10 4.4
Education
Elementary school 10 6.7 3 3.9 13 5.7
Junior High school 12 8.0 13 16.9 25 11.0
Lyceum 81 54.0 28 36.3 109 48.0
University 35 23.3 23 29.9 58 25.6
Master’s degree 3 2.0 3 3.9 6 2.7
PhD - - 1 1.3 1 0.4
Other 9 6.0 6 7.8 15 6.6
Marital status
Married 139 93.3 67 87.0 206 91.2
Divorced 9 6.0 10 13.0 19 8.4
Single parent 1 0.7 0 0.0 1 0.4

243
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

As for the teacher respondents, the general education teachers (n = 232,

64.8%) participating in this study outnumbered the special education teachers
(n = 121, 36.2%). The majority of the teachers were female (n = 245, 76.1%),
less than half of them were between 46–55 years of age (n = 152, 45.6%), and
some of them had either 21–30 years (n = 119, 36.0%) or 11–20 years (n =
107, 32.3%) in service. Some teachers reported that there were at least two
children with LD or other disability in their class. Table 2 provides further de-
tails of the participant teachers’ sociodemographic characteristics.

Table 2. Demographic Characteristics of the Participant Teachers

Teachers
Special Educa-
General Teacher Total
tion Teacher
Characteristics n = 232 % n = 126 % N = 358 %
Gender
Male 50 24.9 27 22.3 77 23.9
Female 151 75.1 94 77.7 245 76.1
Age
25–35 years 53 25.7 23 18.1 76 22.8
36–45 years 59 28.6 40 31.5 99 29.7
46–55 years 90 43.7 62 48.8 152 45.6
56 years and more 4 1.9 2 1.6 6 1.8
Education
School of Education 61 29.8 27 21.8 88 26.7
University degree 115 56.1 72 58.1 187 56.8
Master’s degree 22 10.7 24 19.4 46 14.0
PhD 6 2.9 1 .8 7 2.1
Other 1 0.5 0 .0 1 .3
Years of experience as a
teacher
1–10 years 64 31.1 34 27.2 98 29.6
11–20 years 69 33.5 38 30.4 107 32.3
21–30 years 67 32.5 52 41.6 119 36.0
31 years and more 6 2.9 1 .8 7 2.1

244
 PARENTS AND TEACHERS IN GREECE

Instrument
The School and Family Partnerships: Surveys and Summaries (Sheldon & Ep-
stein, 2007) was administered to parents in order to assess their perceptions of
parental involvement, as well as their practices, when they are involved in the
education of their children with LD. Some demographics were also required at
the end of the questionnaire which consisted of five sections, 10 questions, and
90 items. However, in this study, we present data coming from the analyses of
parent responses to the following sections:
• The school’s contact with you examines parent perceptions of parental in-
volvement in line with Epstein’s typology, coded on a 4-point Likert scale
(1 = well, 4 = never).
• Your involvement contains specific research questions about parental in-
volvement behaviors at home or at-school practices. Parents were asked to
report the frequency [every day or most days (1) up to never (4)] they were
involved in their children’s education with Type 2-Comunicating, Type
3-Volunteering, and Type 4-Learning at home involvement practices.
Table 3 presents more detailed information of the parent questionnaire.

Table 3. Sections–Scales of the Parent Questionnaire

Sections–Scales Parts–Parental Involvement Types
Scale 1. The school’s • Invitations to school (Type 3, Type 5)
contact with you (15 • Communicate information about child’s progress in
items) school (Type 2)
• Encourage parent–child interactions on homework (Type
4)
• Strengthened connections with community (Type 6)
Scale 2. Your • Parental involvement at school (Type 2, Type 3)
involvement (15 • Parental involvement at home (Type 4)
items) • Parental involvement in reading (Type 4)
• Parental involvement in math (Type 4)
• Parental involvement in science (Type 4)
• Monitoring schoolwork (general involvement at home,
Type 4)

Also, the School and Family Partnerships: Questionnaires for Teachers and
Parents in the Elementary and Middle Grades (Epstein & Salinas, 1993) was
administered to teachers. The questionnaire provides information on teach-
er attitudes about parental involvement, teacher practices to involve families,
teacher perceptions of the parental role, some demographics, and open-ended
comments. However, in this article, the data presented come from teacher re-
sponses, as follows:

245
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

• Question 1 contains two scales that measure teacher perceptions of pa-

rental involvement (Type 2-Communicating, Type 3-Volunteering, Type
4-Learning at home, and Type 5-Decision making), coded on a 4-point
Likert scale (1 = I totally disagree, 4 = I totally agree).
• Question 2 contains one scale that measures Type 2-Communicating prac-
tices. Teachers should estimate the average (0%, 5%, 10%, 25%, 50%,
75%, 90%, 100%) of Type 2-Communicating practices to reach parents
(Most/Fewer).
• Question 3 contains two scales that measure the use of parents as volun-
teers either in classrooms or in school (Type 3-Volunteering), offering a
fixed group of answer choices to the teacher respondents who are asked to
“check all that apply.”
• Question 4 contains four scales that measure what practices of involve-
ment (Type 2-Communicating, Type 3-Vollunteering, Type 4-Learning at
home, and Type 5-Decision making) do teachers think that are important
for their grade level, coded on a 4-scale Likert (1 = not important, 4 =
very important).
Table 4 presents more details of the teacher questionnaire.

Each questionnaire was translated into Greek and pilot tested with 10 par-
ents and 10 teachers, respectively. After minor phrasal adjustments, they were
both back translated to ascertain that they captured the meaning of the original
questionnaire in its Greek version.
Data Analysis
In both questionnaires, variables were tested for internal reliability (Cron-
bach’s α; see Table 5 and 6). All statistical analyses run with IBM SPSS v.22.
Descriptive analyses, the nonparametric test Friedman’s Rank ( ), the Sha-
piro-Wilk test of normality for independent samples, the Mann-Whitney U
non-parametric test, Kruskal-Wallis non-parametric test, as well as the χ2 test
(for Types with one item) were employed in order to analyze the data coming
from the participants’ responses.

246
 PARENTS AND TEACHERS IN GREECE

Table 4. Questions and Scales of the Teacher Questionnaire

Question Scale Parental Involvement Activities (Types)
Type 2-Communicating
Scale 1. Teacher Attitudes
Type 3-Volunteering
Question 1 About Parental Involve-
Type 4-Learning at home
ment (6 Items)
Type 5-Decision making
Scale 2. Teacher General
Attitudes About Parental
Involvement (5 Items)
Scale 3. Teacher’s Practices
Question 2 of Contacting Families (8 Type 2-Communicating
Items)
Scale 5. How Volunteers
Question 3 Are Involved In Classrooms Type 3-Volunteering
(8 Items)
Scale 6. How Volunteers
Are Involved in School (9 Type 3-Volunteering
Items)
Scale 7. Importance To
Question 4 Teacher of Type 2-Commu- Type 2-Communicating
nicating Activities (6 Items)
Scale 8. Importance to
Teacher of Type 3-Volun- Type 3-Volunteering
teering Activities (1 Item)
Scale 9. Importance to
Teacher of Type 4-Learn-
Type 4-Learning at home
ing at Home Activities (7
Items)
Scale 10. Importance to
Teacher of Type 5-Decision Type 5-Decision making
Making Activities (1 Item)

Table 5. Validity Results of Parent Questionnaire (Cronbach’s α)

Sections Sheldon & Epstein (2007) Present study
Section 1.
Part A. The school’s contact with you .81 .90
Section 2. Your involvement .79 .92

247
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

Table 6. Validity Results of Teacher Questionnaire (Cronbach’s α)

Teacher Questionnaire Cronbach’s α
Epstein & Sa- Present
Questions Scales
linas (1993) study
Teacher attitudes about parental involve-
Question 1 .72 .52
ment (Types 2, 3, 4, and 5)
Teacher general attitudes about parental
.52
involvement
Question 2 Teacher’s practices of contacting families .69 .54

Question 3 How volunteers are involved in classrooms .65 .67

How volunteers are involved in school

Question 4 Importance to teacher of Type 2 activities .75 .60

Importance to teacher of Type 3 activities - -

Importance to teacher of Type 4 activities .77 .79

Importance to teacher of Type 5 activities - -

Results
The perceptions of parents of children with LD and their teach-
ers’ perceptions of parental involvement (Types) in the education
of these children
Parents
Descriptive analyses employed calculated the means (M), standard devi-
ation (SD), and the range (min–max) of each Type to determine which one
is most/least likely to be endorsed by parent participants. Additionally, the
non-parametric test Friedman’s Rank ( ) was used to compare between the
related means of the involvement Types so as to indicate how they differ.
According to the Friedman’s Rank test ( ), the analyses show that the differ-
ence of Type 1-Parenting (highest mean) with Type 2-Communicating, Type
3-Volunteering, Type 4-Learning at home, Type 5-Decision making, and Type
6-Collaborating with the community is statistically significant [ (5) = 292.79,
p = .000 < .001 for each Type]. Also, the difference of Type 2 compared to
Types 3, 5, and 6 is statistically significant [ (3) = 128.29, p = .000 < .001 for
each type] as well as with Type 4, compared to Types 3, 5, and 6, where (3)

248
 PARENTS AND TEACHERS IN GREECE

= 38.71, p = .000 < .001. As Figure 1 demonstrates, Type 1-Parenting prevails

among other Types, whereas Type 3-Volunteering is the least preferred Type
(see Table 7), as follows:
• Type 1-Parenting. M = 3.28 (high)
• Type 2-Communicating. M = 2.83
• Type 4-Learning at home. M = 2.66 (higher than the scale’s average)
• Type 6-Collaborating with the community. M = 2.31 (value close to the
scale’s average)
• Type 5-Decision making. M = 2.24 (lower than the scale’s average)
• Type 3-Volunteering. M = 2.14.

Figure 1. Mean Values of All Types of Parental Involvement

Table 7. Values of Involvement Types According to Parent Participants (N = 257)

Types M SD Range
Type 1-Parenting 3.28 .82 1.00 - 4.00
Type 2-Communicating 2.83 .83 1.00 - 4.00
Type 3-Volunteering 2.14 .82 1.00 - 4.00
Type 4-Learning at home 2.66 1.13 1.00 - 4.00
Type 5-Decision making 2.24 .76 1.00 - 4.00
Type 6-Collaborating with the community 2.31 1.00 1.00 - 4.00

Teachers
All items of the teacher questionnaire (Type 5-Decision making) were test-
ed for internal consistency (Cronbach’s α). Descriptive statistics were calculated
on each Type, as well as the means (M), standard deviation (SD), and the range

249
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

(min–max) to determine which Type is most likely/least likely to be endorsed

by teacher participants. Additionally, the non-parametric test Friedman’s Rank
( ) was used to compare between the related means of the involvement Types,
so as to indicate how they differ. The analyses reveal that Type 5-Decision
making prevails among other Types examined, whereas Type 3-Volunteering
follows. According to the Friedman’s Rank test ( ), the difference (highest
value) of Type 5-Decision making with Type 2-Communicating, Type 3-Vol-
unteering, and Type 4-Learning at home is statistically significant [ (3) =
337.89, p = .000 < .001] (see Figure 2 and Table 8), as follows:
• Type 5-Decision making. M = 2.92 (higher than scale’s average)
• Type 3-Volunteering. M = 2.32
• Type 2-Communicating. M = 2.15
• Type 4-Learning at home. M = 2.14 (the lowest value)

Figure 2. Mean Values of Involvement Types According to Teacher Participants

Table 8. Values of Involvement Types According to Teacher Participants (N =

334)
Types M SD Range
Type 2-Communicating 2.15 .72 1.00 - 4.00
Type 3-Volunteering 2.32 .64 1.00 - 4.00
Type 4-Learning at Home 2.14 .58 1.00 - 4.00
Type 5-Decision making 2.92 .37 1.67 - 4.00

As it concerns the variable “Teacher general attitudes about parental involve-

ment” (M = 2.96, Cronbach’s α = .522), items such as “parental involvement is
important for a good school,” and “it’s important for student success in school”
were higher scored (M = 3.11), whereas items, such as “parent involvement

250
 PARENTS AND TEACHERS IN GREECE

can help teachers to be more effective with more students” (M = 2.79), and
“teachers need in-service education to implement effective parent involvement
practices” (M = 2.78) were ranked with the lowest values.
Practices that parents and teachers employ to support the educa-
tion of children with LD
Parents
As it concerns parental practices, all items were tested with Cronbach’s α for
internal consistency. Descriptive statistics were employed to calculate the means
(M), standard deviation (SD), and the range (min–max), as well as the Types
that are most and least likely to be endorsed by parent participants. Additional-
ly, the non-parametric test Friedman’s Rank ( ) was used to compare between
the related means of the involvement Types so as to indicate how they differ.
The analyses revealed that Type 4-Learning at Home is the most used
practice, compared to Type 3-Volunteering, which is the least preferred one.
According to Friedman’s Rank test ( ), the difference of Type 3 (lowest mean)
with Type 2 and Type 4 is statistically significant [ (2) = 122.52, p = .000 <
.001 for each Type]. Figure 3 and Table 9 demonstrate the most/least reported
Types of parental practices, as follows:
• Type 2-Communicating. M = 3.07 (higher than the scale’s average)
• Type 3-Volunteering. M = 2.18 (lower than the scale’s average)
• Type 4-Learning at home. M = 3.25 (higher than the scale’s average)

Figure 3. Mean Values of the Involvement Practices According to Parent Par-

ticipants

251
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

Table 9. Values of Types of Parental Practices (N = 257)

Types M SD Range
Type 2-Communicating 3.07 .66 1.50 - 4.00
Type 3-Volunteering 2.18 1.04 1.00 - 4.00
Type 5-Decision making 3.25 .56 1.46 - 3.82

Teachers
All items of the teacher questionnaire [Type 2-Communicating (questions
2 & 4), Type 3-Volunteering, Type 4-Learning at home (question 4)], were
tested with Cronbach’s α for internal consistency. Descriptive statistics were
calculated on each of the assessing Type of involvement, as well as the means,
standard deviation, and the range (min–max) to determine which Types are
most/least likely to be endorsed by the teacher participants. The analyses re-
vealed that Type 2-Communicating (question 4) prevails among other Types
examined. Specifically, the Friedman’s Rank test ( ) revealed that the differ-
ence (highest value) of Type 2 (question 4) with Types 3-Volunteering, Type
4-Learning at home, and Type 5-Decision making (question 4) is statistical-
ly significant [ (3) = 528.49, p = .000 < .001 for all three Types]. The same
is valid for the difference between Type 4 (question 4) and Types 3 and 5
(question 4) [ (2) = 256.08, p = .000 < .001] and Type 5 (question 4) with
Type 3 (question 4) [ (1) = 201.32, p = .000 < .001]. Data coming from the
above-mentioned analyses are presented in Figure 4 and Table 10, as follows:
• Type 2-Communicating. M = 3.48 (higher than scale’s average)
• Type 4-Learning at home. M = 3.07 (higher than scale’s average)
• Type 5-Decision making. M = 2.56 (almost on scale’s average)
• Type 3-Volunteering. M = 1.94 (lower than scale’s average)

Figure 4. Mean Values of Parental Practices According to Teacher Participants

252
 PARENTS AND TEACHERS IN GREECE

Table 10. Values of Teacher Practices (N = 332)

Types M SD Range
Type 2-Communicating (Question 4) 3.48 .39 2.00 - 4.00
Type 3-Volunteering (Question 4) 1.94 .98 1.00 - 4.00

Type 4-Learning at Home (Question 4) 3.07 .56 1.71 - 4.00

Type 5-Decision making (Question 4) 2.56 .87 1.00 - 4.00

Differences among parent and teacher perceptions of parental in-

volvement according to specific sociodemographic characteristics
Parents
The Shapiro-Wilk test of normality for independent samples, employed to cal-
culate the differences among parent perceptions and parent sociodemographics
(Type 2-Communicating, Type 3-Volunteering, Type 5-Decision making, and
Type 6-Collaborating with the community), showed no normal distribution.
Therefore, Mann-Whitney U non-parametric test was used for parent–child
relation and parent marital status, whereas Kruskal-Wallis non-parametric test
was used for parent and child age groups and parent education level. For Type
1-Parenting and Type 4-Learning at home (one item each), the χ2 test was used.
It was revealed that in Type 2-Communicating, there were statistically sig-
nificant differences, when related with the parent–child relation. Specifically,
the fathers (Mdn = 3.17) get higher rates compared to the mothers (Mdn =
2.83, the U criterion value = 4723.00, p = .035 < .05, and the effect size =
-0.14; see Table 11).

Table 11. The Involvement Types According to Mothers and Fathers (Mann-
Whitney U)
Type Mothers Fathers U p
(n = 150) (n = 77)
Mdn (IQR) Mdn (IQR)
Type 2-Communicating 2.83 (1.40) 3.17 (.92) 4723.000 .035
Type 3-Volunteering 2.50 (1.00) 2.00 (1.00) 5110.000 .325
Type 5-Decision making 2.00 (1.33) 2.00 (1.00) 5023.000 .276
Type 6-Collaborating with
2.00 (1.75) 2.50 (1.50) 5283.000 .452
the community
Notes. The values refer to the Median (Mdn), interquartile range (IQR), Mann-Whitney U
test, and the corresponding p-value. The statistically significant differences are noted with bold.

253
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

Also, in Type 2-Communicating and Type 5-Decision making, the stu-

dents’ age group differentiated parent perceptions of involvement (Type 2, Η
(3) = 11.41, p = .010 < .05; Type 5, Η(3) = 8.89, p = .031 < .05). The post hoc
test reveals that the parents of older students present statistically significant
lower rates (Type 2-Communicating, Mdn = 2.33; Type 5-Decision making,
Mdn = 2.00) than the parents of younger children (Type 2-Communicating,
Mdn = 3.17, p = .005 < .01; Type 5-Decision making, Mdn = 2.42, p = .022
< .05; see Table 12).

Table 12. The Involvement Types, Related to the Students’ Age (Kruskal-Wallis H)
Up to 8 9–10 11–12 13 years
Type H (3) p
years years years and up
(n = 37) (n = 62) (n = 76) (n = 37)
Mdn Mdn Mdn Mdn
(IQR) (IQR) (IQR) (IQR)
Type 2-Communicat- 3.17 3.00 2.83 2.33
11.406 .010
ing (1.00) (1.34) (1.16) (1.5)
2.50 2.00 2.00 2.00
Type 3-Volunteering 4.450 .217
(1.00) (1.00) (1.00) (1.50)
Type 5-Decision 2.42 2.33 2.00 2.00
8.887 .031
making (1.00) (1.00) (1.00) (0.83)
Type 6-Collaborating 2.50 2.50 2.00 1.50
6.893 .075
with the community (1.50) (1.25) (1.50) (1.50)
Notes. The values refer to the Median (Mdn), interquartile range (IQR), Kruskal-Wallis H test,
and the corresponding p-value.

The data revealed that the mothers and the parents of younger children par-
ticipate more in their children’s education with Type 2-Communicating and
Type 5-Decision making involvement activities, compared to the fathers and
the parents of older children. For items related with Type 1-Parenting and Type
4-Learning at home (categorical variables), the χ2 test took place, when these
Types were compared with sociodemographic variables. No statistically signif-
icant differences are observed.
Teachers
The Shapiro-Wilk test employed to calculate the differences among teach-
er perceptions (Types) and teacher demographics in Type 5-Decision making
showed no normal distribution. Therefore, the Mann-Whitney test was run
for gender and the type of teacher, as well as the Kruskal-Wallis test for
age groups, education level, and teaching experience. As it concerns Type

254
 PARENTS AND TEACHERS IN GREECE

2-Communicating, Type 3-Volunteering, and Type 4-Learning at home (one

item), the χ2 test was conducted.
Table 13 presents the statistically significant differences found in Type
5-Decision making according to gender. Specifically, the female teachers (Mdn
= 3.00) had lower rates than their male colleagues (Mdn = 3.00, U criterion
value = 9294.50, p = .045 < .05, and effect size = -0.11).

Table 13. Male/Female Teachers’ Perceptions in Type 5-Decision Making (Mann-

Whitney U)
Male Female U p
(n = 84) (n = 257)
Mdn (IQR) Mdn (IQR)
Type 5-Decision making 3.00 (0.5) 3.00 (0.33) 9294.500 .045
Notes. The values refer to the Median (Mdn), interquartile range (IQR), Mann-Whitney U test,
and the corresponding p-value. The statistically significant differences are shown with bold.

Also, as it concerns the variable “Teacher general attitudes about parental

involvement,” teacher education level differentiates teacher perceptions [Η(2)
= 8.40, p = .015 < .05]. The post hoc test conducted revealed that teacher grad-
uates of the Teacher Academy had lower rates (Mdn = 3.00) than holders of a
Master’s degree (Mdn = 3.00, p = .013 < .05; see Table 14).

Table 14. “Teacher General Attitudes About Parental Involvement” Variable

Related to Teacher Education Level (Kruskal-Wallis H)
Teacher University Master’s
Variable H (2) p
Academy Diploma or PhD
(n = 90) (n = 204) (n = 55)
Mdn Mdn Mdn
(IQR) (IQR) (IQR)
Teacher general attitudes 3.00 3.00
3.00 (.40) 8.402 .015
about parental involvement (.25) (.60)
Notes. The values refer to the Median (Mdn), interquartile range (IQR), Kruskal-Wallis H test,
and the corresponding p-value. The statistically significant differences are noted with bold.

The data revealed that teacher gender affected teacher perceptions of pa-
rental involvement in Type 5-Decision making among our participants, since
female teachers associated less parental involvement with Type 5-Decision
making compared to their male colleagues. Also, teacher education level affect-
ed teacher general perception of parental involvement, since teacher graduates
of the Teacher Academy perceived parental involvement as less important com-
pared to their colleagues that hold a Master’s degree.

255
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

Differences among parent and teacher practices according to spe-

cific sociodemographic characteristics
Parents
The Shapiro-Wilk test employed to calculate the differences between par-
ent practices (Types) and parent demographics (Types 2-Communicating and
Type 4-Learning at home) showed no normal distribution. Therefore, the
Mann-Whitney test was used for parent–child relation and marital status, as
well as the Kruskal-Wallis test for parent and child age groups, as well as par-
ent education level. For Type 3-Volunteering (one item), the χ2 test was used.
The analyses revealed statistically significant differences in Type 2-Commu-
nicating and Type 4-Learning at home (see Table 15). Specifically, in Type 2,
the student’s age group differentiated parent practices [Η(3) = 12.36, p = .006 <
.01]. The post hoc test reveals that the parents of older students present statisti-
cally significant lower rates (Mdn = 2.27) than the parents of younger children
(Mdn = 3.33, p = .005 < .01), that is, the parents of older students employ less
Type 2-Communicating and Type 4-Learning at home involvement practices.

Table 15. Parent Practices Related to Student Age Group (N = 212; Kruskal-
Wallis H)
Up to 8 9–10 11–12 13 years
Type H (3) p
years years years and up
(n = 37) (n = 62) (n = 76) (n = 37)
Mdn Mdn Mdn Mdn
(IQR) (IQR) (IQR) (IQR)
Type 2- 3.33 3.33 3.00 2.67
12.362 .006
Communicating (1.00) (1.00) (1.09) (1.00)
Type 4-Learning at 3.54 3.57 3.54 3.08
17.095 .001
Home (0.51) (0.47) (0.65) (0.92)
Notes. The values refer to the Median (Mdn), interquartile range (IQR), Kruskal-Wallis H test,
and the corresponding p-value. The statistically significant differences are noted with bold.

In Type 4-Learning at home, when parent perceptions of involvement prac-

tices were related with parent–child relation, parent education, as well as the
student’s age group, statistically significant differences are revealed. Specifically,
the fathers (Mdn = 3.25) had lower rates than the mothers (Mdn = 2.54, the
U criterion value = 4495.00, p = .004 < .01, and the effect size = -0.19). Ad-
ditionally, parent education level differentiates parent practices [Η(2) = 10.01,
p = .007 < .01]. The post hoc test reveals that graduates from compulsory ed-
ucation present statistically significant lower rates (Mdn = 3.12) compared to

256
 PARENTS AND TEACHERS IN GREECE

graduates from secondary school (Mdn = 3.48, p = .006 < .01), and university
(Mdn = 3.54, p = .021 < .05). Also, student age differentiates parent practices
of involvement [Η(3) = 17.10, p = .001 < .01]. The post hoc test reveals that
the parents of older students present statistically significant lower rates (Mdn =
3.08) than parents of other student age groups.
The data suggest that parent gender, education level, and student’s age are
strongly associated with parent Type 4-Learning at home involvement practic-
es, since the fathers, the less educated parents, as well as the parents with older
children all employ less Type 4-Learning at home practices as compared to the
children’s mothers, higher educated parents, and parents of younger children.
Teachers
As it concerns teacher practices to involve parents in the education of stu-
dents with LD, the Shapiro-Wilk test employed to calculate the differences
between teacher perceptions of parental involvement (Types) related to teacher
demographics showed no normal distribution. Therefore, the Mann-Whitney
test was run for teacher gender and type (general/special education), as well
as the Kruskal-Wallis test for teacher age group, education level, and teaching
experience. In Type 3-Volunteering and Type 5-Decision making (question 4;
one item), the χ2 test was conducted.
It was revealed that the teacher education level differentiated teacher percep-
tions of parental involvement practices in Type 2-Communicating (question
2) [Η(2) = 8.66, p = .013 < .05]. The post hoc test conducted revealed that
teacher graduates from tertiary (university undergraduate) education had low-
er rates (Mdn = 41.88) than their colleagues with a Master’s or a PhD degree
(Mdn = 49.38, p = .013 < .05). In Type 2 (question 4), male teachers (Mdn =
3.50) had lower rates than their female colleagues (Mdn = 2.50, the U criteri-
on value = 8692.50, p = .010 < .05, and the effect size = -0.14; see Table 16).
This means that the male and the less educated teachers, compared to their fe-
male and higher educated colleagues, employed less Type 2-Communicating
involvement practices.
Similarly, in Type 4-Learning at home (question 4), statistically significant
differences were noticed when related with teacher age and education level.
Specifically, the teacher age group differentiated teachers’ perceptions about
parental involvement practices (question 4) [Η(3) = 9.39, p = .025 < .05]. The
post hoc test conducted revealed that teachers of 36–45 years of age had low-
er rates (Mdn = 3.00) than teachers 46–55 years of age (Mdn = 3.14, p = .043
< .05; see Table 17). Additionally, the teacher education level differentiated
teacher perceptions about parental involvement practices of Type 4-Learning
at home (question 4) [Η (2) = 10.35, p = .006 < .01]. The post hoc test con-
ducted revealed that teacher graduates of undergraduate higher education had

257
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

lower rates (Mdn = 3.00) than the holders of a Master’s or PhD degree (Mdn
= 3.29, p = .009< .01). This means that the younger and less educated teachers
employed less Type 4-Learning at home involvement practices, compared to
their elder and higher educated colleagues.

Table 16. Teacher Practices Related to Teacher Education Level (N = 349;

Kruskal-Wallis H)
Teacher University Master’s
Variable H (2) p
Academy Diploma or PhD
(n = 90) (n = 204) (n = 55)
Mdn Mdn Mdn
(IQR) (IQR) (IQR)
Type 2-Communicating 45 41.88 49.38
8.656 .013
(Question 2) (20.63) (21.25) (16.96)
Type 2-Communicating 3.55 3.50 3.50
4.165 .125
(Question 4) (.33) (0.50) (.50)
Type 3-Volunteering
.06 (.12) .12 (0.18) .06 (.24) 2.904 .234
(Question 3)
Type 4-Learning at Home 3.14 3.00 3.29
10.353 .006
(Question 4) (0.79) (0.86) (.71)
Notes. The values refer to the Median (Mdn), interquartile range (IQR), Kruskal-Wallis H test,
and the corresponding p-value. The statistically significant differences are noted with bold.

Table 17. Teacher Practices Related to Teacher Age Groups (N = 352; Krus-
kal-Wallis H)
25–35 36–45 46–55 56 years
Type H (3) p
years years years and up
(n = 78) (n = 110) (n = 158) (n = 6)
Mdn Mdn Mdn Mdn
(IQR) (IQR) (IQR) (IQR)
Type 2-Communi- 41.88 41.88 45.63 46.88
4.949 .176
cating (Question 2) (23.13) (18.13) (21.71) (13.13)
Type 2-Communi- 3.50 3.50 3.50 3.83
4.366 .225
cating (Question 4) (0.50) (0.63) (0.33) (0.50)
Type 3-Volunteering 0.12 0.09 0.06 0.09
2.370 .499
(Question 3) (0.18) (0.18) (0.18) (0.18)
Type 4-Learning at 3.00 3.00 3.14 3.57
9.386 .025
Home (Question 4) (0.86) (0.71) (0.86) (1.71)
Notes. The values refer to the Median (Mdn), interquartile range (IQR), Kruskal-Wallis H test,
and the corresponding p-value. The statistically significant differences are noted with bold.

258
 PARENTS AND TEACHERS IN GREECE

Discussion
Perceptions of parents of children with LD and their teachers of
parental involvement (Types) in the education of these children
In this study, parental involvement in the education of children with LD
was studied within Epstein’s six-type theoretical model of parental involve-
ment, defined as those home- and school-based behaviors demonstrated by
their parents so as to promote their children’s social, emotional, and academic
development, which is in line with the existing literature on parental involve-
ment (Roy & Giraldo-García, 2018; Teuber at al., 2023). Acknowledging the
importance of parent participation in the education of children with LD, both
parents and teachers of children with LD were invited to reveal their percep-
tions about parental involvement because, besides parents, teachers are the
closest “important ones” for children and have impact on children’s academ-
ic achievement, behavior, and the development of their social and emotional
skills. Also, teachers and school play an important role in encouraging parental
involvement in children’s schooling (Yulianti et al., 2022).
The findings of this study align with the existing literature that both par-
ents and teachers facilitate consciously and intentionally the development of
academic, social, and emotional competences of children. As it concerns the
participant parents, they most closely associate their involvement in the ed-
ucation of their children with LD with Type 1-Parenting. This finding was
expected and partially aligns with other studies (Epstein, 2010; Garcia, 2014;
Magouirk, 2015). Parenting, being a feature of parental involvement (Epstein,
1995), is highly related with parents’ beliefs about their parent role (Hoover-
Dempsey & Sandler, 1995) and about how to support the education of their
children with LD (Eleftheriadou & Vlachou, 2020). In fact, parenting and
learning at home are considered as home-based parental involvement (Teu-
ber et al., 2023), both associated with the parent role, illustrating all activities
in which parents should be engaged so as to ensure educational/emotional
support to the child, as well as home–school partnerships (Eleftheriadou &
Vlachou, 2020). As part of their role, parents establish a range of “important”
activities, for example, Type 4-Learning at home practices (Epstein, 2010; Ma-
gouirk, 2015), which are also a feature of home-based parental involvement
and, in this study, were highly employed by parents so as to enhance their chil-
dren’s schooling.
It is noteworthy, though, that in this study, teachers considered that Type
5-Decision making was most closely related with parental involvement, which
has no precedent in other studies we found. In fact, studies on the involvement
of parents with children with disabilities in the education of their children

259
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

often indicate the exclusion of parents from decision making as a rather com-
mon practice for schools, for example, in IEP meetings, school policies, and so
on (Love et al., 2017). However, should parents build a relationship with the
teachers, then they may have some input in decision making, determining how
to support their children’s work or their child’s class (Love et al., 2017).
Also, the data revealed that teachers view parental involvement as an im-
portant factor for children’s education, which aligns with other studies that
reported how essential parental involvement is during children’s transition from
pre-primary to primary school (Besi & Sakellariou, 2023) and from primary
to secondary school (Teuber et al., 2023). Specifically, items such as “parental
involvement is important for a good school” and “it’s important for student
success in school” were highly scored. This means that the teachers are open to
teacher–parent collaboration, although they rated the item “parental involve-
ment can help teachers to be more effective with more students” with low values.
Still, in Greece, there are many steps to be taken in order for effective parent,
teacher, and student relations to be established (Besi & Sakellariou, 2023).
Parent and teacher perceptions of parental involvement practices
in the education of student with LD
In the pandemic situation, learning at home and communicating were the
main practices employed by both parents and teachers in the education of all
children (Carrión-Martinez et al., 2021; Knopik et al., 2021). In this study,
the teachers indicated Type 2-Communicating practices as highly employed
to involve parents of children with LD, which agrees with the literature (Sav-
va & Symeou, 2019). On the contrary, Type 4-Learning at home practice was
mostly used by the respondent parents, especially of the parents of younger
children with LD. This evidence aligns with other studies about learning at
home in the early years of children’s schooling (Magouirk, 2015). It may be
related with a parent’s perceptions of his/her role in the education of his/her
child (Eleftheriadou & Vlachou, 2020). Also, it seems that the student’s age is
a determinant factor for parent’s involvement and practices in their children’s
education, which is also supported by other research on parental involvement
(Besi & Sakellariou, 2023; Magouirk, 2015; Teuber et al., 2023).
Differences among parent and teacher perceptions of parental
involvement, as well as parent and teacher practices, and parent-
and teacher-related sociodemographic characteristics
Regarding the differences among parent and teacher perceptions of paren-
tal involvement and practices related with parent or teacher sociodemographic
characteristics, gender as well as education level seem to be related with parental

260
 PARENTS AND TEACHERS IN GREECE

involvement and practices for both parents and teachers. In fact, the mothers
and the female teachers associate more parental involvement with communica-
tion and learning at home than the fathers and male teachers, which is affirmed
by the existing literature (Erdener, 2013; Garcia, 2014). Further, in parental
involvement literature, the term “parent” disguises the gender of the person
that, in main, undertakes the responsibility for children’s schooling, that is, the
mothers (Laluvein, 2007). It is most likely that the mothers get more involved
in their children’s education than the fathers, due to the stereotypes associated
with the parental role in children’s schooling (Eleftheriadou & Vlachou, 2020).

Suggestions

This study intended to examine parent and teacher perceptions of paren-

tal involvement, as well as parent and teacher practices, when involved in the
education of children with LD. It was based on Epstein’s model of parental
involvement, employing measures of parental involvement from Epstein’s
questionnaires for parents and teachers in general and special education. Since
in recent decades there has been a major concern around school–family rela-
tions in line with children’s development and education, as well as parental
involvement in children’s schooling being considered as one of the most prom-
inent issues for educational research and politics worldwide due to its positive
outcomes for students, schools, and families (Savva & Symeou, 2019), the
findings of this study should benefit schools, teachers, parents, and adminis-
trators. However, future research would greatly benefit from quantitative data
compared with experimental data within a multi-method framework. Also, re-
searchers should take into account parental involvement as a broad construct
and should measure all its different dimensions separately and in-depth, taking
into account inclusion of children with disabilities.
To promote parental involvement in school means that teachers accept
parent membership as equal in educational communities of practice. Strength-
ening active and effective parental involvement in educational systems is pivotal
if aiming at achieving students’ full potential (Savva & Symeou, 2019; Ulferts,
2020) throughout their learning pathways. All persons, including students
with disabilities as well as their parents, have the claim to the right in edu-
cation on the basis of equal opportunities (Graham, 2020). However, during
the pandemic, parents of children with disabilities, compared to other student
groups, were at a disadvantage in terms of education and support due to lim-
ited access of educational resources (Knopik et al., 2021), as well as to the lack
of knowledge of appropriate pedagogies on behalf of the school or the parent
(Carrión-Martinez et al., 2021) required for schooling at home. Therefore, as

261
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

the findings of this study suggest, it is imperative that policymakers as well as

universities should plan effective teacher in-service education so as to prepare
teachers for implementing successful parent involvement practices in all times,
placing great emphasis on Type 2-Communicting and Type 5-Decision mak-
ing parental involvement activities.
Also, policymakers should take into account that the LD population is
the largest at-risk student population in Greek schools (Padeliadu & Botsas,
2007); however, there is a lot to be done so as to enhance their learning. The
present study places forward the issue of increased parent training, for example,
in parent schools, besides teacher training, since in this study the parent–teach-
er perceptions about parental involvement and practices in the education of
students with LD demonstrated that it is pivotal to reconsider and introduce
new school practices in a period that demands of policymakers, universities,
practitioners, teachers, and parents to promote changes in pedagogy and in ed-
ucational communities, so as to promote successful home–school partnerships
for all students.

References
Ainscow, M. (2020). Promoting inclusion and equity in education: Lessons from international
experiences. The Nordic Journal of Studies on Educational Policy, 6(1), 7–16.
Besi, M., & Sakellariou, M. (2023). Teachers’ views on the participation of parents in the tran-
sition of their children from kindergarten to primary school. Behavioral Sciences, 9, 124,
1–12. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/bs9120124
Bonal, X., & González, S. (2020). The impact on the learning gap: Family and school divisions
in times of crisis. International Review of Education, 66, 635–655. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11159-020-09860-z
Boonk, L., Gijselaers, H. J., Ritsen, H., & Brand-Gruel, S. (2018). A review of the relationship
between parental involvement indicators and academic achievement. Educational Research
Review, 24, 10–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2018.02.001
Botha, J., & Kourkoutas, E. (2015). A community of practice as an inclusive model to support
children with social, emotional, and behavioural difficulties in school contexts. Internation-
al Journal of Inclusive Education, 20(7). https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2015.1111448
Carrión-Martinez, C., Pinel-Martinez, C., Pérez-Esteban, M. D., & Román-Sánchez, I. M.
(2021). Family and school relationship during COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic re-
view. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18. https://doi.
org/10.3390/ijerph182111710
Desforges, C. (with Abouchaar, A.). (2003). The impact of parental involvement, parental sup-
port, and family education on pupil achievements and adjustments: A literature review (Report
433). Department for Education and Skills.
Educational Law 4823/2021. “School upgrading, teacher empowerment and other directives.”
(In Greek)
Eleftheriadou, D., & Vlachou, A. (2020). Inclusion and communities of practice: The reifica-
tion of the role(s)/identities of teachers and parents of students with 407 learning disabili-
ties. International Journal about Parents in Education, 12(1), 72–84.

262
 PARENTS AND TEACHERS IN GREECE

Epstein, J. L. (1995). School–family–community partnerships: Caring for the children we

share. Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 701–712.
Epstein, J. L. (2010). Caring connections. Phi Delta Kappan, 92(3), 65–95. https://doi.
org/10.1177/003172171009200318
Epstein, J .L., & Salinas, K. C. (1993). School and family partnerships: Surveys and summaries.
The Johns Hopkins University Center on School, Family, and Community Partnerships.
Epstein, J. L., & Sheldon, S. B. (2006). Moving forward: Ideas for research on school, family, and
community partnerships. In C. F. Conrad & R. Serlin (Eds.), Sage handbook for research in
education: Engaging ideas and enriching inquiry (pp. 117–138). Sage.
Erdener, M. A. (2013). Turkish parents; perceptions of their involvement in schooling. All Disser-
tations, 1153, Clemson University.
Garcia, J. N. (2014). Teacher and parent beliefs and expectations of parental involvement and how
it relates to student academic achievement (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Texas State
University, San Marcos, Texas.
Giannikas, C. N., & Nikitaki, S. (2022). The language teachers’ perspective on parental in-
volvement: A focus on primary state schools in Greece. School Community Journal, 32(2),
229–248. https://www.adi.org/journal/2022fw/GiannikasNikitakiFW22.pdf
Graham, L. J. (2020). Inclusive education in the 21st century. In L.J. Graham (Ed.), Inclusive
education for the 21st century. Theory, policy, and practice (pp. 3–26). Routledge, Taylor, &
Francis Group.
Gülhan, F. (2023). Parental involvement in STEM education: A systemic literature review.
European Journal of STEM Education, 8(1), 05. https://doi.org/10.20897/ejsteme/13506
Haisraeli, A., & Fogiel-Bijaoui, S. (2021). Parental involvement in school pedagogy: A threat
or a promise? Educational Review, 75(4), 597–616. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2
021.1935489
Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., & Sandler, H. M. (1995). Parental involvement in children’s educa-
tion: Why does it make a difference? Teachers College Record, 97(2), 310–331.
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.
Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., Walker, J. M. T., Jones, K. P., & Reed, R. P. (2002). Teachers In-
volving Parents (TIP): Results of an in-service teacher education program for enhancing
parental involvement. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(7), 843–867.
Knopik, T., Blaszczak, A., Maksymiuk, R., & Oszwa, U. (2021). Parental involvement in remote
learning during the COVID-19 pandemic: Dominant approaches and their diverse implica-
tions. European Journal of Education, 56(4), 623–640. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12474
Laluvein, J. (2010). Parents, teachers, and the “community of practice.” The Qualitative Report,
15(1), 176–196.
Laluvein, J. (2007). Parents and teachers talking: A “community of practice”? Relationships be-
tween parents and teachers of children with special educational needs (Unpublished doctoral
dissertation). Institute of Education, University of London.
Love, H. R., Zagona, A., Kurth, J. A., & Miller, A. L. (2017). Parent’s experiences in education
decision-making for children and youth with disabilities. Inclusion, 5, 158–172. https://
doi.org/10.1352/2326-6988-5.3.158
Magouirk, T. A. (2015). A correlational study of parental involvement at the elementary school, mid-
dle school, and high school level. Doctoral Dissertations and Projects, 1018. Liberty University.
Mata, L., Pedro, I., & Peixoto, F. J. (2018). Parental support, student motivational orienta-
tion and achievement: The impact of emotions. International Journal of Education, 10(2),
77–99.

263
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

Moran, E., Carlson, L. S., & Tableman, B. (2012). School climate and learning. In N. M. Seel
(Ed.), Encyclopedia of the sciences of learning (pp. 2962–2966). Springer.
Padeliadu, S., & Botsas, G. (2007). Learning difficulties: Basic concepts and characteristics (in
Greek). Graphima.
Poulou, M. & Matsagouras, E. (2007). School–family relations: Greek parents’ perceptions of
parental involvement. International Journal About Parents in Education, 1, 83–89.
Roy, M., & Giraldo-García, R. (2018). The role of parental involvement and social/emotion-
al skills in academic achievement: Global perspectives. School Community Journal, 28(2),
29–46. https://www.adi.org/journal/2018fw/RoyGiraldoGarciaFall2018.pdf
Sanders, M., & Epstein, J. L. (2005). School–family–community partnerships and education-
al change: International perspectives. In A. Hargreaves (Ed.), Extending educational change
(pp. 202–222). Springer.
Savva, M., & Symeou, L. (2019). Parental involvement in primary school education in Cy-
prus: What do the main stakeholders say? Aula Abierta, 48(1), 105–112. https://doi.
org/10.17811/rifie.48.1.2019.105-112
Sheldon, S. B., & Epstein, J. L. (2007). Family and community involvement in the elementary
and middle grades: Student and parent survey. Center on School, Family, and Community
Partnerships, Johns Hopkins University.
Symeou, L., Roussounidou, E., & Michaelides, M. (2012). “I feel much more confident now
to talk with parents”: An evaluation of in-service training on teacher–parent communica-
tion. School Community Journal, 22(1), 65–87. https://www.adi.org/journal/2012ss/Syme-
ouRoussounidouMichaelidesSpring2012.pdf
Teuber, Z., Sielemann, L., & Wild, E. (2023). Facing academic problems: Longitudinal rela-
tions between parental involvement and student academic achievement from a self-deter-
mination perspective. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 229–244. https://doi.
org/10.1111/bjep.12551
Ulferts, H. (2020). Why parenting matters in the 21st century: An evidence-based framework for
understanding parenting and its impact on child development (OECD Education Working
Papers, No 222). OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/129a1a59-en.
Yulianti, K., Denessen, E., Droop, M., & Veerman, G.-J. (2022). School efforts to promote
parental involvement: The contributions of school leaders and teachers. Educational Stud-
ies, 48(1), 98–113. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2020.1740978
Zaoura, A., & Aubrey, C. (2010). Home–school relationships: Valuable or problematic? The
International Journal of Learning, 17(4), 391–408.
Zoniou-Sideri, A., & Vlachou, A. (2006). Greek teachers’ belief systems about disability and
inclusive education. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 10(4/5), 379–394.

Dimitra Eleftheriadou is an education consultant in special needs and inclusive

education, 3rd Prefecture, Athens, Greece. Her main research interests unfold around
issues related to inclusive pedagogy, educational communities of practice, the differ-
entiated classroom, responding to the educational needs of all students, as well as
school–family partnerships/studies. Correspondence concerning this article may be
addressed to Dr. Dimitra Eleftheriadou at [email protected]
Anastasia Vlachou is a professor of special–inclusive education at the Department
of Educational Studies, School of Philosophy, National and Kapodistrian University.
She has more than 30 years of research and teaching experience in countries includ-
ing Greece, Canada, and England. Her main research interests unfold around issues
related to inclusive pedagogy, school–family relations, equity, and disability studies.

264
Contributions To School-Related Risk and
Protective Factors, Five Years After a Municipal
Youth and Family Master Plan
David B. Tataw

Abstract

This study assesses the impact of five years of community level activities in
the Pomona Youth and Family Master Plan (PYFMP) on four school-related
risk and protective factors including academic failure, low school commitment,
school opportunities for prosocial involvement, and school rewards for proso-
cial involvement. The intervention and assessment were guided by an integrated
conceptual framework which combined social cognitive theory and the risk
and protective factors approach. The study conducted same and independent
group comparisons of school-related risk and protective factors in 2005–06 (N
= 3,967), and 2009–10 (N = 2,693). Two-proportion z-tests were performed
at an alpha of 0.05 in four methods of comparative analysis including the fol-
lowing: same students, inter-grade change, same grade, and overall 2005–06
to 2009–10 comparisons. Trends for both school opportunities for prosocial
involvement and academic failure were positive on all methods of analysis. Re-
sults for school rewards for prosocial involvement and low school commitment
showed both negative and positive trends. There is a likelihood the interven-
tions contributed to observed variations between baseline and follow-up because
parents, teachers, and students were participants in community intervention
activities; there were no other major community initiatives; and there is a con-
vergence of data patterns across methods of comparative analysis and assessed
factors. Specific recommendations are provided for community intervention
program implementers in Pomona and other poorly resourced communities.

School Community Journal, 2023, Vol. 33, No. 2 265

Available at http://www.schoolcommunitynetwork.org/SCJ.aspx
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

Key Words: Collective impact, youth and family master plan, school youth
and protective factors, participatory governance, risk and protective approach,
social cognitive theory, academic failure, school and community partnerships

Introduction

The Pomona Youth and Family Master Plan (PYFMP) was implemented
in a collective impact and participatory governance effort including youths,
families, the school district, the city, businesses, community organizations,
universities, health care entities, and more from 2005–06 to 2009–10 in Po-
mona, California, USA. Community impact initiatives (Collective Impact
Forum, 2022; Kania et al., 2022) and participatory governance activities (Bua
& Bussu, 2021; Mahmood & Muntane, 2020; Warren, 2014) can shape the
context of individualized youth risks, as well as contribute to school-related
youth protective factors (Jarrett et al., 2005; Kahne & Bailey, 1999; Rubens et
al., 2020; Solberg et al., 2011; Top et al., 2017; White & Gager, 2007). How-
ever, the impact of mezzo (social networks or community level) and macro
(society at large) intervention activities on individual school-related youth risk
and protective factors when there are no accompanying micro level interven-
tions targeting family, teachers, or students in the school environment is not
always consistent. The scholarship on school-related activities (Jarrett et al.,
2005; Kahne & Bailey, 1999; White & Gager, 2007) in support of low-in-
come urban youth at risk of negative academic outcomes (Grant et al., 2014)
assumes the integration of individualized family, school, and community activ-
ities for optimal impact on youth risk and protective factors (Cook et al., 2020;
National Institutes of Health, 2000; O’Connor & Daniello, 2019; Walker et
al., 1996). The range of findings would suggest that ideal interventions to pre-
vent youth risk factors should combine multiple factors at the macro, mezzo,
and micro levels (Fairchild et al., 2019; Marsiglia et al., 2019; Singh & Azman,
2020; Wu et al., 2020).
This article contributes to the literature on school-related risk and protec-
tive factors by investigating the impact of community-level, multidimensional
intervention activities implemented through the PYFMP on perceived
school-related risk and protective factors when there are no accompanying
micro level activities which are either family or school based. School risk fac-
tors assessed include academic failure and low commitment to school, while
protective factors include school opportunities for prosocial involvement and
school rewards for prosocial involvement. In addition, the results should guide
future new designs or modifications of existing school-related risk and protec-
tive plans in Pomona and other poorly resourced environments.

266
 POMONA YOUTH & FAMILY MASTER PLAN

The study assessed trends in school-related risk and protective factors

through self-report by Grade 8, 10, and 12 students in the Pomona Unified
School District in California during the 2005–06 and 2009–10 academic years.
The impact of PYFMP on school-related risk and protective factors was assessed
within an integrated conceptual framework which combines social cognitive
theory (Bandura, 1986, 2004) and the risk and protective factors approach (Ar-
thur et al., 1996; Arthur & Blitz, 2000; Hawkins, 1999; Hawkins et al., 1992).
The purpose was to identify variations in school-related risk and protective fac-
tors between baseline and follow-up years within a Pomona Unified School
District student sample that can be attributed to the PYFMP interventions.
The PYFMP was a response to the following three community-prioritized
youth risk factors in the city of Pomona: (1) youth antisocial behavior, (2)
academic failure/success, and (3) community disorganization (City of Pomo-
na, 2006; Tataw & Rosa-Lugo, 2011). This study examined contributions to
the academic failure/success domain of prioritized risk factors represented by
school-related risk and protective factors.
The PYFMP data collection was completed in 2011, but analysis of the plan
impact data was completed between 2016 and 2020 due to lack of resources
to support evaluation. Though many PYFMP activities continue in the Po-
mona community as of this writing, this is the only evaluation of the PYFMP
activities ever conducted. The use of PYFMP baseline and follow-up data for
this analysis provides a unique opportunity for lessons to be learned that are
as useful today as they were more than a decade ago. First, the data was col-
lected in an empirical context which included all the elements necessary to
assess risk and protective outcomes in the school environment when mezzo lev-
el intervention activities were implemented with no accompanying micro level
intervention elements. The PYFMP relied exclusively on community-wide ac-
tivities with high school teachers, administrators, and students as participants
alongside other community members. The Pomona Unified School District has
the only high school in the city of Pomona, and all youths and teachers who
participated in the PYFMP activities were from the Pomona Unified School
District. Second, the demographic and epidemiological profile of Pomona has
not changed significantly since 2005. From 2005 to 2022, there were minimal
fluctuations in the high levels of poverty, high prevalence and intensity of child-
hood disease burden, low academic performance, intractable gang violence,
high teen pregnancy and teen substance abuse, low levels of health prevention
resources, and barriers to care access (Los Angeles County Department of Pub-
lic Health, 2010, 2018; Pomona Unified School District, 2005, 2009; U.S.
Census Bureau, 2020, 2022). Third, many underlying socioeconomic factors
remain unresolved in Pomona (U.S. Census Bureau, 2020, 2022), suggesting

267
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

a need to understand the impact of five years of PYFMP activities and to use
the evidence in reframing or continuing current community organizing around
school, youth, family, and community, both in Pomona and elsewhere.
Impact of Mezzo Level Intervention Strategies Youth Risk and
Protective Factors
Community strategies have been key in efforts to reduce risky youth behav-
iors (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2020), yet the nature
of their impact on individual risk and protective factors is neither consistent or
predictable. Some research suggests that perception of risk at the community
level did not always appear to have a significant relationship with risk or posi-
tive behavior and that prevention efforts at the community level per se may not
help unless the youth, their friends, and their families internalize the negative
perceptions of risky behavior (Wu et al., 2020). On the other hand, some mac-
ro and mezzo level interventions have been impactful, particularly when they
include multiple social levels and integration of youths in research and social
action (Giannotta, 2014; Valdez et al., 2020) as have community-wide inter-
vention activities (Kim et al., 2015).
Many mezzo level interventions are community-wide initiatives which
adopt both school-related and non-school-related activities (Jarrett et al., 2005;
Kahne & Bailey, 1999; White & Gager, 2007) in support of low-income urban
youth at risk of negative academic outcomes (Grant et al., 2014). The National
Institutes of Health (2000) recommends integrating three stages of prevention,
including: (1) primary prevention strategies that aim to enhance protective fac-
tors on a schoolwide or community-wide basis; (2) secondary prevention with
individualized one-on-one interventions; and (3) third-stage prevention which
involves connecting youth and caregivers to appropriate community-based so-
cial service agencies. Schools are ideal settings to access in order to develop
at-risk youth, particularly with the support of families and communities (Cook
et al., 2020; O’Connor & Daniello, 2019; Walker et al., 1996).
The PYFMP was made up of multidimensional community strategies
which focused on primary prevention and third-stage prevention strategies in
the community. There were no individual-level interventions in the PYFMP as
all interventions were community-wide, and students, teachers, parents, and
school administrators participated in community-wide activities along with
other community members.
Collective Impact, Participatory Governance, and Social Change
Mezzo level interventions in the PYFMP were driven by collective impact,
participatory governance, and social change initiatives. Collective impact is

268
 POMONA YOUTH & FAMILY MASTER PLAN

defined as “a network of community members, organizations, and institutions

who advance equity by learning together, aligning, and integrating their actions
to achieve population and system level change” (Community Impact Forum,
2022, para. 2; see also Kania et al., 2022). Most successful efforts usually have
five conditions: common agenda, backbone support organization, mutually
reinforcing activities, continuous communication, and shared measurement
systems (Collective Impact Forum, 2022; Greater Cincinnati Foundation,
2014; Hanleybrown et al., 2012; Kania & Kramer, 2011; Kania et al., 2022).
Participatory governance is a collective impact strategy which both shapes
the social context of risk factors and drives social change. Participatory gov-
ernance is not only integral to community development, but it democratizes
planning and promotes social justice by allowing all citizens, especially disad-
vantaged groups, to influence and legitimize policymaking (Bekemans, 2018;
Elstub & Escobar, 2019). Participatory governance implies the involvement of
organized and nonorganized mobilizing to improve the quality of democratic
governance (Geissel, 2009) with the state and society jointly responsible for
political decisions and services (Mahmood & Muntane, 2020).
The PYFMP was a participatory governance effort including youths,
families, the school district, the city, businesses, community organizations,
universities, health care entities, and more. The PYFMP was also a commu-
nity organizing initiative geared towards having collective impact through the
building of community social capital to reduce youth risk factors and enhance
youth protective factors.

Pomona Youth and Family Master Plan

Plan Development and Implementation
The PYFMP was developed through a partnership between the city govern-
ment and the Pomona Unified School District, working in collaboration with
other community stakeholders including faith-based organizations, businesses,
institutions of higher learning, community-based organizations, the chamber of
commerce, parents, and the youth of the city. About 20% of the planning part-
ners were youths or parents who were not experts. In the implementation phase,
about 40% to 50% of Community Advisory Board membership was made up
of parents and youths. A plan was developed to address three community prior-
itized risk factors including community disorganization, academic failure, and
favorable attitudes towards antisocial behavior. Academic failure indicators are
risk and protective factors around the youth academic environment. The plan
development and implementation have been reported in great detail elsewhere
(City of Pomona, 2006; Tataw & Rosa-Lugo, 2011; Tataw & Kim, 2022).

269
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

Community Intervention Components

Pomona Unified School District parents, students, teachers, and administra-
tors served on the PYFMP Community Advisory Board and attended PYFMP
community activities from 2005–06 to 2009–10. Detailed intervention com-
ponents have been reported in detail elsewhere (City of Pomona, 2006; Tataw
& Rosa-Lugo, 2011; Tataw & Kim, 2022; Tataw et al., 2023). Brief summaries
of key interventions are provided below, except for youth development activi-
ties which have been described in detail.
Establishment and Fostering of Collaboration and Partnerships
Activities in this strategy included quarterly partnership summits such as the
sharing of information on partnership strategies, local and regional partnership
opportunities, and success stories in the city and the region. Pomona Unified
School District teachers, parents, and administrators were part of the 360 par-
ticipants in six partnership summits from January 2007 to December 2009.
Development, Enhancement, and Coordination of Existing Programs and
Services That Address the Youth Risk and Protective Factors
The focus was on creating a culture of well-being for youth in and outside
school settings and ensuring that services rose to the level of tested effective
practices. Program activities were supported by a youth empowerment task
force, populated by youths from the Pomona Unified School District, who
vetted service plans and provided consumer perspectives. Attendees included
65 teachers and parents from the Pomona Unified School District, members of
the Parent Teachers Association (PTA), and 30 nonacademic service providers.
Community Mobilization
This strategy ensured that the stakeholders including teachers, parents, and
school administrators were actively engaged in the PYFMP decision making
and implementation. It also ensured the community in general was aware of
and involved in plan implementation.
Resource Brokerage
The PYFMP facilitated the availability of and access to youth and family
resources impacting three prioritized areas: community disorganization, aca-
demic failure, and favorable attitudes towards anti-social behavior.
Youth Development
This strategy provided community opportunities for youths to overcome
youth risk factors associated with academic failure/success and antisocial be-
haviors including the following initiatives:
1. Monthly youth and adolescent leadership workshops covering conflict res-
olution, overcoming peer pressure, harms of substance abuse, civic respon-

270
 POMONA YOUTH & FAMILY MASTER PLAN

sibility, and leading peer mentorship programs in high schools. Around

1,200 Pomona Unified School District high school students attended lead-
ership workshops from 2007 to 2009.
2. Gang prevention outreach case management using the Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) Model. This reached 120
Pomona Unified School District high school students from 2007 to 2009.
3. Strengthening Families is a program which served teens and their families.
It provided training sessions using family systems and cognitive behavioral
approaches to increase resilience and reduce risk factors to improve family
relationships, parenting skills, and students’ social and life skills. This pro-
gram served 130 families a year in 2008 and 2009.
4. Across Ages program which involved elders mentoring youth, youth per-
forming community service, youth participating in a life skills and prob-
lem-solving curriculum, and monthly activities for family members. This
program reached 80 families a year in 2008 and 2009.
5. A Mock Trial Academy exposed youths to all aspects of the Juvenile Justice
System; 105 Pomona Unified School District high school students partic-
ipated in the mock trials from 2008 to 2009. Around 300 more youths
attended as members of the audience. The mock trial was intended to im-
prove critical thinking, reading, and public speaking skills among partici-
pating youths.
6. Annual and monthly academic achievement programs. These included the
following: (a). Annual summer academic advancement workshops covering
arts, reading, writing, and math for high school students in the Pomona
Unified School district in collaboration with local universities and libraries.
Events included annual science expo, summer arts academy, summer math
program, and literacy week. (b). All-year monthly programs included BIG
READ which provided a fun environment for students to enhance reading
skills, accelerated reader home, home connect, parent connect, and telepar-
ent calling to support students and teachers. There was also Project Grad,
a mentoring program which matched at-risk high school students with
mentors. A total of 700 Pomona Unified School District high school stu-
dents participated in annual or monthly academic achievement programs
per year in 2007, 2008, and 2009.
7. Annual youth achievement awards recognized youths for academic
achievement, community service, and leadership. This included a scholar-
ship awarded for students progressing to college and recognition of success
stories from the Pomona community residents including people who are
in college or have completed college, started a business, or have advanced
in other careers. Youth mentors in various community programs were also
recognized.

271
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

Conceptual Framework
The assessment of the impact of the interventions above on risk and pro-
tective factors in the youth academic environment were framed within two
intersecting conceptual frameworks. The framework included social cognitive
theory and the risk and protective factors approach, which together clarify the
assumptions and factors that drive PYFMP intervention elements and shape
planning, implementation, and evaluation. This conceptual framework also
ties together collective impact initiatives and participatory governance, as well
as their relationships to school-related risk and protective factors.
Social Cognitive Theory
Social cognitive theory is rooted in personal factors, behavior, and envi-
ronmental influences working together leading to goals and behavioral change
(Bandura, 1986, 2004). Social cognitive theory constructs include: recipro-
cal determinism, behavioral capability, expectations, self-efficacy, observational
learning, and reinforcements. The constructs of relevance to this study are re-
ciprocal determinism, behavioral capability, self-efficacy, and reinforcements.
Reciprocal determinism describes interactions between behavior, personal
factors, and environment, and each influences the others. The individual and
environmental factors inherent in reciprocal determinism are enhanced by the
multidimensional community-wide intervention activities of PYFMP.
Behavioral capability states that, to perform a behavior, a person must know
what to do and how to do it. Reinforcements are responses to behavior that
affect whether one will repeat it. Positive reinforcements (rewards) increase
a person’s likelihood of repeating the behavior. Negative reinforcements may
make repeated behavior more likely by motivating the person to eliminate a
negative stimulus (Bandura, 1986, 2004; National Cancer Institute, 2005).
Behavioral capability, self-efficacy, and reinforcements are enhanced by school
protective factors and can be undermined by risk factors. This multifaceted
perspective of social cognitive theory inherent in reciprocal determinism is rel-
evant to both the personal and cultural dimensions that are part of the lifestyle
and environmental factors in both the city of Pomona and the Pomona School
District, which were considered in PYFMP intervention components.
Risk and Protective Factors Approach
This epidemiologically based, risk reduction approach to prevention plan-
ning (Arthur et al., 1996; Arthur & Blitz, 2000) collects and prioritizes data on
risk and protective factors at the community level so that preventive interven-
tions can focus on the most prevalent risk factors (Hawkins, 1999; Hawkins
et al., 1992). This two-pronged prevention framework of reducing risk and

272
 POMONA YOUTH & FAMILY MASTER PLAN

promoting positive social development is actualized via the Communities That

Care strategy for preventing adolescent problem behavior (Hawkins et al.,
1992). The framework is well-aligned to social cognitive theory because it uses
multilevel analysis, social development, and considers environmental factors in
youth development.
The two conceptual frameworks are tied together within an ecological per-
spective which provides the setting for identifying the relationships of the
specific theories and their factors, their points of application, and the best prac-
tices for intervention implementation at multiple levels (Dahlberg & Krug,
2002; Elder et al., 2007; Geidne et al., 2019; Golden & Earp, 2012). Social
cognitive theory considers the environment in which social outcomes occur
and aligns well with the risk and protective factors approach which antici-
pates mediation from micro, mezzo, and macro factors on individualized risk
outcomes when a community adopts evidence-based intervention strategies.
The constructs from both models also align with the following context-related
concepts that drive the planning, implementation, and evaluation of PYFMP:
collective impact initiatives (Collective Impact Forum, 2022; Kania et al.,
2022); and participatory governance and social change (Bua & Bussu, 2021;
Mahmood & Muntane, 2020; Warren, 2014).
Hypotheses
There were two overarching hypotheses related to youth school-related risk
and protective factors five years after the development and implementation of
the PYFMP:
• H1: Participating youths will report increases in school protective factors
including school opportunities for prosocial involvement and school re-
wards for prosocial involvement.
• H2: Participating youths will report reductions in school risk factors in-
cluding academic failure and low commitment to school.
Expected Outcomes
This study focuses on youth perceptions of school-related risk and protective
factors that were expected five years after the development and implementation
of the PYFMP:
• Perceived increase in school opportunities for prosocial involvement re-
ported by Grade 8, 10, and 12 students between 2005 and 2009 in the
Pomona Unified School District;
• Perceived increase in school rewards for prosocial involvement reported
by Grade 8, 10, and 12 students between 2005 and 2009 in the Pomona
Unified School District;

273
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

• Perceived improvements in academic failure reported by Grade 8, 10, and

12 students between 2005 and 2009 in the Pomona Unified School Dis-
trict; and
• Perceived improvement in low school commitment reported by Grade
8, 10, and 12 students between 2005 and 2009 in the Pomona Unified
School District.

Methods
Research Design
A pre–post prospective quasi-experimental outcomes evaluation design was
built into the Youth and Family Master Plan’s school-related assessment strategy
(Holden & Zimmerman, 2009; Kapp & Anderson, 2010). There was a same
group and independent groups comparison using both 2005 and 2009 Pomona
Unified School District data. Longitudinal and cross-sectional trends in per-
ceived school-related risk and protective factors among youths living in the city
of Pomona and attending the Pomona Unified School District were assessed.
Four methods of comparative analysis were adopted in this study, including
the following: same students (Grade 8-2005 and Grade 12-2009), inter-grade
change (Grade 8 to 10 and Grade 10 to 12), same grade (Grades 8, 10, and 12),
and overall 2005 to 2009 comparisons. Same students analysis (Grade 8-2005
and Grade 12-2009) will provide a reasonable assurance that at both baseline
and follow up some of the analysis will be focused on the same students. The
comparison of both inter-grade change (Grade 8 to 10 and Grade 10 to 12),
and same grade (Grades 8, 10, and 12) observed in 2005 and 2009, allows for
an assessment of the impact of contextual factors (i.e., PYFMP interventions).
Changes in the community or school context might account for differences in
both inter-grade changes and differences between same grades observed in the
2005–06 and 2009–10 academic years. Overall 2005 and 2009 comparison
allows for an analysis of all student perceptions in 2005 (Grades 8, 10, and
12) versus all student perceptions in 2009 (Grades 8, 10, and 12). Differences
could be attributed to mezzo environmental activities (PYFMP) that occurred
between 2005 to 2009.
Population and Sample
Pomona Unified School District Population
The study intervention sample was drawn from the population of youths in
the Pomona Unified School District. In 2005, the Pomona Unified School Dis-
trict reported a student population of 31,817, with 49% or 15,630 in Grades
6–12. The student ethnic composition was as follows: 80.1% Hispanic, 6.9%

274
 POMONA YOUTH & FAMILY MASTER PLAN

African American, 6.4% White, 6.4% Asian/Pacific Islander/Filipino, and

6.3% other ethnic groups combined. About 75% of Pomona Unified School
District students qualified for the compensatory education program which is a
remedial program for students who do not meet the minimum skills level for
their school grade; 52% qualified for free or reduced lunch; 45% were English
language learners; and the high school dropout rate was 29%, making it the
fourth highest in California (Pomona Unified School District, 2005).
Demographic Characteristics of the City of Pomona
The PYFMP was developed and implemented in the city of Pomona, Cali-
fornia. In the period leading to 2005–06 when PYFMP was developed, Pomona
was afflicted by high levels of poverty, high prevalence and intensity of child-
hood disease burden, low academic performance, intractable gang violence,
high teen pregnancy and teen substance abuse, low levels of health prevention
resources, and barriers to care access (Pomona Unified School District, 2006;
Los Angeles County Department of Public Health, 2005). Pomona had 900
juveniles on criminal probation as of January 2005, and the city ranked num-
ber one in gang homicides in the San Gabriel Valley Region of Los Angeles
County as of 2003 (Los Angeles County Department of Public Health, 2005).
Of the children in the city of Pomona, 10% did not have health insurance in
2005; 46% of Pomona youth in 2005 were teen mothers; and prevalent diseas-
es included heart disease, cancer, diabetes, and childhood obesity (Los Angeles
County Public Health, 2005). The magnitude of youth antisocial behavior,
including youth violence, involvement with the criminal justice system, and
substance use (Los Angeles County Department of Public Health, 2005), con-
tributed to the development and the adoption of the PYFMP (City of Pomona,
2006; Tataw & Rosa-Lugo, 2011).
Table 1 shows the demographics of the city of Pomona for the years 2005
to 2022, revealing a city with stable trends in population distribution, edu-
cation, poverty, and health. Pomona ethnic distribution and socioeconomic
characteristics revealed a majority–minority population with high poverty and
unemployment rates. From 2005 to 2022, poverty and unemployment rates
in Pomona were higher than the U.S. population overall (U.S. Census Bureau,
2022). The city had a population of 161,257 in 2005 in a land area of about
23 square miles, compared to a population of 151,554 in 2022 (U.S. Census
Bureau, 2020, 2022). In 2005, there were 56,972 children 19 years and under,
or 34.5% of the population, compared to 24.7% in 2022. From 2005 to 2022
the city continued to be afflicted by high levels of poverty, high prevalence and
intensity of childhood disease burden, low academic performance, intractable
gang violence, high teen pregnancy and teen substance abuse, low levels of

275
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

health prevention resources, and barriers to healthcare access (U.S. Census Bu-
reau, 2020, 2022; Pomona Unified School District, 2005, Los Angeles County
Department of Public Health, 2005, 2010, 2018).

Table 1. Pomona 2005 to 2022 Population Characteristics

Year 2005 2009 2022
Population (N) 161,257 152,359 151,554
Sample Size (n) 3,967 2,693 N/A
Ethnic Distribution
Total 161,257 152,359 151,554
Latino% 69 70.50 71.4
White% 11 12.5 10.34
Black% 10 7.3 5.9
Asian% 9 8.3 10.8
Some Other% 1 1.2 2.4
Gender (n) 161,257 152,359 151,554
Male 50.6 47.8 49.1
Female 49.4 52.2 50.9
Median Household Income ($) 41,146 48,973 67,549
Below 100% Poverty Rate (%) 16.1 17.7 16.4
Unemployment Rate (%) 8.7 11.7 5.8
High School Graduates 9.6 25 24.4
Lack of Access to Healthcare 25 23 12.5

In addition, the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health 2018

city and community profiles for Pomona showed stable demographic charac-
teristics from 2010–16, with a population of around 1.5 million and 85% of
the children eligible for subsidized school meals. Characteristics compiled from
2010–16 data are as follows: 20% of Pomona residents were below poverty
level compared to 17% for the county; the life expectancy at birth was 79.8
years compared to 82.3 for the county; there was a 50% preschool enrolment
compared to 54% for the county; 27% of third graders did not meet Califor-
nia standards for language arts and literacy compared to 43% for the county.
In addition, in the six years referenced in the community profile data, Pomo-
na experienced lower levels of education, higher disease burden, higher levels
of teen substance use, lower levels of health insurance, lower levels of employ-
ment, higher crimes and homicides, higher food insecurity, and easy access to

276
 POMONA YOUTH & FAMILY MASTER PLAN

alcohol and other substances compared to the rest of Los Angeles County (Los
Angeles County Department of Public Health, 2018).
Study Sample
The sample size for the Pomona School District Pride Survey in 2005 was
3,967, while in 2009 it was 2,693. The 2005 Pomona Unified School Dis-
trict sample demographics were as follows: White (4.1%), African American
(5.9%), Hispanic/Latino (73.1%), Asian Pacific Islander (7%), Native Amer-
ican (0.6%), Mixed Origins (5.9%), and other (3.4%); male (48.2%), female
(51.8%). The 2009 Pomona sample demographics were as follows: White
(4.3%), African American (5.3%), Hispanic/Latino (71.3%), Asian Pacific Is-
lander (7.9%), Native American (0.6%), Mixed Origins (5.0%), and other
(2.3%); male (46%), female (54%).
Data collection
Data on risk and protective factors for Pomona were collected through the
Pride survey risk and protective factor questionnaire (see https://www.pridesur-
veys.com/index.php/the-risk-and-protective-factor-student-survey/). The survey
was developed and administered in collaboration with industry consultants,
the PYFMP evaluation team, and a university-based researcher. Baseline data
were collected in November 2005, and a follow-up survey was conducted in
December 2009.
In November 2005, the Pride survey was mailed to 6,000 Pomona Unified
School District students in Grades 8, 10, and 12; 3,967 surveys were complet-
ed and returned. Additionally, 123 returned surveys were not completed. In
December 2009, a follow-up Pride survey was given to 6,000 Pomona Unified
School District students in Grades 8, 10, and 12; 2,693 surveys were complet-
ed and returned. Additionally, 111 returned surveys were not completed. The
total of 6,000 surveys mailed to students was about the total number of stu-
dents in Grades 8, 10, and 12 in both 2005 and 2009.
The Pride Risk and Protective Factor Survey was given under the auspices
of a passive permission approach whereby parent permission was not needed at
the Grade 8, 10, or 12 levels. In addition, the students were given verbal and
written consent instructions with the understanding that participation in the
survey was voluntary. A general notice also went to the parents from the school
district office regarding the survey before it was mailed to students. The confi-
dentiality of the students responding to questionnaires was protected because
the students were not allowed to write their names or any unique identifier on
the questionnaires. Students were instructed not to include identifying marks.
Any questionnaires with identifying marks were shredded and not included in
the data. All instructors who explained the survey to or answered questions on

277
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

the survey from students or parents were trained in human subjects protection
protocols. This study was approved by the Institutional Review Boards of the
Jackson State University in Jackson, Mississippi in 2014 as an exempt study
and Charles R. Drew University in Los Angeles, California in 2007 as an ex-
pedited study.
Measurements
School-related risk and protective factors including school opportunities
for prosocial involvement, school rewards for prosocial involvement, academic
failure, and low school commitment among a Pomona Unified School Dis-
trict student sample were measured using the Pride Risk and Protective Factor
Survey instrument which is adapted from the Communities That Care youth
survey (International Survey Associates, n.d., 2006, 2009; Pomona Unified
School District 2006a, 2010). The Pride Survey questions related to youth
risk and protective factors have been found to be valid (Metze, 2000; Reiland
Consultants, 2018), to be reliable (test–retest coefficients from .814–.851; Me-
tze, 2000), and to have a high interrater agreement (80%) regarding survey
question content between survey responders (Craig & Emshoff, 1987). A com-
parison of the Pride Survey estimates with the Monitoring the Future survey
found similar estimates between the surveys (Adams, 1994; Metze, 2000).
School opportunities for prosocial involvement were measured by six
questions. School rewards for prosocial involvement were measured by three
questions. Academic failure was measured by five questions. Low commitment
to school was measured by ten questions. All four of these groups of questions
can be seen in Table 2 and are described in the Results section.
Data Analyses
The Pride survey data was entered into the Statistical Package for the Social
Sciences (SPSS) and excel databases. Data analysis was performed by external
consultants, the PYFMP evaluation committee, and a university researcher. Ex-
ternal consultants and the PYFMP evaluation committee produced both raw
data and descriptive statistics. Comparative statistical reports were produced
as reported below by the researcher. The prevalence of school opportunities
for prosocial involvement, school rewards for prosocial involvement, academ-
ic failure, and low school commitment were recorded from the Pomona Pride
survey. The percentages were identified and described. Same group and inde-
pendent group comparative analysis were performed.
Z Score Calculation
Z-tests rather than t-tests were performed because proportions rather than
raw data were used. Though follow-up raw data was available, the baseline raw

278
 POMONA YOUTH & FAMILY MASTER PLAN

data was not available and could not be located by the external consultants who
collected the data and calculated prevalence percentages.
Two-proportion z-tests were performed at an alpha of 0.05 in four methods
of comparative analysis including the following: same students (Grade 8-2005
and Grade 12-2009), inter-grade change (Grade 8 to 10 and Grade 10 to 12),
same grade (Grades 8, 10, and 12), and overall 2005 to 2009 comparisons. The
test statistic z is:
𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝1̂ − 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝̂2
𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧 =
1 1
�𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝̂𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 �1 − 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝̂𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 � � + �
𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛1 𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛2

where 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝̂1 is the proportion of successes for the second column of data and 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝̂2 is
𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝̂ + 𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝̂
the proportion of successes for the first column of data; 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝̂𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 = 1 1 2 2
𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛1 + 𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛2
is the overall proportion of successes for both columns of data combined. The
excel formula to calculate the p-value is: = norm.s.dist(-abs(Z),true)*2.
Z Score Interpretation
For all z-tests, the p-value is the two-tailed probability of the test statistic z
using the Standard Normal distribution. Where the p-values are less than 0.05,
the data provide statistically significant evidence that the proportions of suc-
cesses are different between the two underlying populations. For tests having a
statistically significant p-value (< 0.05), a positive z-score would indicate that
p1 is higher than p2, while a negative z-score indicates that p1 is less than p2.
( 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝̂2 is subtracted from 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝̂1 in the equation for the z-score shown above.)

Results
Summary
The study results are presented in Tables 2–5. Table 2 presents descriptive
statistics representing percentages of different school-related risk and protective
factors in 2005–06 and 2009–10. Table 3 summarizes overall trends and high-
lights key findings in the study results including all four risk and protective
factors and all four methods of comparative analysis. Tables 4 and 5 present
detailed reports of statistically significant results from different methods of
comparative analysis involving same and independent group comparisons cov-
ering all four risk and protective factors.
Descriptive Statistics of School-Related Risk and Protective Factors
Table 2 presents the prevalence rates for school opportunities for prosocial
involvement, school rewards for prosocial involvement, academic failure, and
low school commitment among Grade 8, 10, and 12 students in Pomona for
the years 2005 and 2009. Table 2 also provides the descriptions of the different

279
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

measures of the four risk and protective factors being analyzed in this study and
referenced in the methods section above. The proportions reported in Table 2
were used to perform z tests whose results are reported in Tables 3, 4, and 5.

Table 2. Percentages of Youth School Domain Protective and Risk Factors 2005
vs 2009 Pomona
Pomona Unified School District (PUSD) Pride Survey
2005 2009
Sample Sizes:
1,368 1,489 1,110 3,967 1,300 773 620 2,693
Measures:
Protective/School Opportuni- over- Over-
8th 10th 12th 8th 10th 12th
ties for Prosocial Involvement all all
1. In my school, students have
lots of chances to help decide
45.3 43.1 43.2 44 40.1 44.6 48.5 43.3
things like class activities and
rules. Yes
2. Teachers ask me to work on
36.9 41.2 43.7 36.9 42.8 41.5 45.3 42.9
special classroom projects. Yes
3. There are lots of chances for
students in my school to get
involved in sports, clubs, and 86 83.2 86.1 84.9 85.3 91 90.3 88.1
other school activities outside of
class. Yes.
4. There are lots of chances for
students in my school to talk 77.8 74 7.4 6.2 75 74.6 78.1 75.6
with a teacher one-on-one. Yes.
5. There are lots of chances to
be part of class discussions or 70.6 72.3 70.6 71.4 67.1 76.2 75.5 71.7
activities. Yes
6. How many times in the past
year have you participated in
64.7 65.1 69.5 66.5 62 67.5 69.7 65.2
clubs, organizations, or activities
at school? 1 or more
Protective/School Rewards for over- Over-
8th 10th 12th 8th 10th 12th
Prosocial Involvement all all
1. My teacher(s) notices when
I am doing a good job and lets 73 63.4 62 66.3 69.9 67.7 64.4 68.5
me know about it.
2. The school lets my parents
know when I have done some- 44.4 25.9 21.2 30.2 42.9 36.1 25.3 36.9
thing well.
3. My teachers praise me when I
50.9 39.6 39.5 43.8 48.8 43.7 40.5 43.5
work hard in school.

280
 POMONA YOUTH & FAMILY MASTER PLAN

Table 2, continued
PUSD 2005 PUSD 2009
over- Over-
Risk/Academic Failure 8th 10th 12th 8th 10th 12th
all all
1. Putting them all together,
what were your grades like last 43.9 45 44.4 44.5 43.5 38.8 34.6 40.1
year? C and below
2. Are your school grades better
than the grades of most students 46.2 51.4 44.9 47.8 46.8 42.4 38.3 43.6
in your class? No
3. How many times in the past
year have you been suspended 28.1 27.6 16.9 15.6 32.9 14.4 8.2 17
from school? 1 or more times
4. Do you make good grades?
44.1 51.9 43.9 48 43.7 41.8 30.2 41.6
Never, seldom, sometimes
5. Do you get in trouble at
school? Yes, sometimes, often, 38.9 28.3 14.1 27.9 39.7 22.8 13.2 28.5
a lot
Risk/Low Commitment to over- Over-
8th 10th 12th 8th 10th 12th
School all all
1. During the last four weeks
how many whole days have you
36.8 44.9 48.1 43.3 37.1 37.5 48.3 39.8
missed school because of illness?
1 or more
2. During the last four weeks
how many whole days have you
9.1 23.4 22.3 21.2 9.3 10.6 26.2 14.7
missed because you skipped or
cut? 1 or more
3. During the last four weeks,
how many days have you missed 27.3 38 44.8 36.2 26.5 27.1 35.6 38.8
for other reasons? 1 or more
4. How interesting are most of
32.6 36 27 32.3 36.3 32.9 24.4 33.1
your courses to you? boring
5. Now thinking back over the
past year in school, how often
14 15 17.6 15.9 15.8 17.2 15.4 15.9
did you enjoy being in school?
Never, seldom
6. Now, thinking back over the
past year in your school, how
25.2 31.9 25.2 28.9 28.3 25.8 29.4 27.8
often did you hate being in
school? Often, always
7. Now, thinking back over the
past year in school, how often
5.1 7.2 6.3 6.3 5.6 5.9 7.4 6.1
did you try to do your best work
in school? Never, seldom

281
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

Table 2, continued
PUSD 2005 PUSD 2009
8. How often do you feel that
the schoolwork you are assigned 17 25.5 26.1 22.8 22.2 25.8 24 24.2
is meaningful and important?
9. How wrong do you think it
is for someone your age to stay
away from school all day when 15.9 26 30.2 23.9 19.8 22.1 30.6 22.9
their parents think they are at
school? Not wrong
10. How many times in the past
year have you done extra work 33.2 35.2 30.9 33.3 33.7 30.3 31.1 32.1
on your own for school? Never

Trends in Risk and Protective Factors From Baseline and Follow Up

This section presents statistically significant results from the four methods
of comparative analysis of baseline and follow up data on risk and protective
factors including the following: school opportunities for prosocial involve-
ment, school rewards for prosocial involvement, academic failure, and low
school commitment measures. A summary of all results are presented in Table
3. Tables 4 and 5 contain details of z test results of all four comparative analy-
sis methods.

Table 3. Tabular Representation of Overall Highlights of Key Trends in the

Study Results
Measures Methods of Analysis
Same Stu- Inter-Grade Overall, Grade by
dent Com- Rate of 2005 v. 2009 Grade Com-
parison Change Comparison parison
Protective factors/School op-
portunities for prosocial Increased Increased Increased Increased
involvement
Protective factors/School re-
Decreased Decreased Increased Increased
wards for prosocial involvement
Improve- Improve- Improve- Improve-
Risk factors/Academic Failure
ment ment ment ment
Risk factors/Low school Improve-
Lower Mixed Mixed
commitment ment

282
 POMONA YOUTH & FAMILY MASTER PLAN

Table 4. Comparison of Same Students and Inter-grade Rate Change 2005 vs

2009 (Same Group and Independent Group Comparisons)
Pomona Grades Pomona Grades
2009–2005 Pomona
8 to 10 10 to 12
8th 2005 v. 12th
2005 v. 2009 2005 v. 2009
2009
Z-score p-value Z-score p-value Z-score p-value
Protective Factors/School Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement
1. In my school, students have lots
of chances to help decide things like 1.33 0.000 -1.66 0.096 -7.41 1.22
class activities and rules. Yes
2. Teachers ask me to work on spe-
3.55 0.008 2.24 0.03 -8.23 1.8
cial classroom projects. Yes
3. There are lots of chances for stu-
dents in my school to get involved
2.67 0.881 2.86 0.00 -16.62 4.48
in sports, clubs, and other school
activities outside of class. Yes.
4. There are lots of chances for stu-
dents in my school to talk with a 0.15 0.024 -0.78 0.44 3.39 0.01
teacher one-on-one. Yes
5. There are lots of chances to be
part of class discussions or activities. 2.26 0.029 -0.75 0.44 -12.94 2.58
Yes
6. How many times in the past year
have you participated in clubs, or-
2.18 1.000 -0.62 0.53 -12.87 6.76
ganizations, or activities at school? 1
or more
Protective Factors/School Rewards for Prosocial Involvement
1. My teacher(s) notices when I am
doing a good job and lets me know -3.89 0.000 0.81 0.42 -11.11 1.10
about it.
2. The school lets my parents know
-8.11 0.000 4.02 5.77 -2.05 0.04
when I have done something well.
3. My teachers praise me when I
-4.30 1.000 1.31 0.18 -7.00 2.40
work hard in school.
Risks Factors/Academic Failure
1. Putting them all together, what
were your grades like last year? C -3.91 0.001 -1.91 0.057 -12.38 3.48
and below
2. Are your school grades better
than the grades of most students in -3.29 0.000 -2.60 0.0092 -13.07 4.91
your class? No

283
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

Table 4, continued
3. How many times in the past
year have you been suspended from -9.94 0.000 -1.43 0.15 -11.99 3.84
school? 1 or more

4. Do you make good grades? Never,

-5.87 0.000 -3.60 0.00 -14.66 1.17
seldom, or sometimes

5. Do you get in trouble at school?

-11.49 1.000 0.017 0.99 -7.54 4.73
Yes, sometimes, often, a lot
Risk Factors/Low School Commitment
1. During the last four weeks how
many whole days have you missed 4.84 0.000 -2.68 0.01 -10.96 5.74
school because of illness? 1 or more
2. During the last four weeks how
many whole days have you missed be- 10.05 0.000 -6.82 9.05 -8.54 1.28
cause you skipped or cut? 1 or more
3. During the last four weeks, how
many days have you missed for oth- 3.75 0.000 -4.64 3.46 -12.82 1.22
er reasons? 1 or more

4. How interesting are most of your

-3.69 0.411 0.48 0.63 -8.46 2.52
courses to you? boring

5. Now thinking back over the past

year in school, how often did you
0.82 0.049 1.73 0.08 -4.37 1.21
enjoy being in school? Never or
seldom
6. Now, thinking back over the past
year in your school, how often did
1.97 0.042 -1.02 0.307 -7.35 1.87
you hate being in school? Often and
always
7. Now, thinking back over the past
year in school, how often did you
2.03 0.000 -0.70 0.48 -3.05 0.00
try to do your best work in school?
Never, seldom
8. How often do you feel that the
schoolwork you are assigned is 3.67 0.000 1.75 0.07 -6.44 1.14
meaningful and important?
9. How wrong do you think it is for
someone your age to stay away from
7.52 0.355 -0.43 0.67 -7.32 2.54
school all day when their parents
think they are at school? Not wrong
10. How many times in the past
year have you done extra work on -0.93 1.000 -1.33 0.183 -8.47 2.28
your own for school? Never

284
 POMONA YOUTH & FAMILY MASTER PLAN

Table 5. Pomona Comparison by Year and Grade (Independent Group)

Pomona 8th Pomona Pomona 12th
Measures Pomona
Grade 10th Grade Grade

2005 v. 2009 2005 v. 2009 2005 v. 2009 2005 v. 2009

Z- p- Z- p- Z- p- Z- p-
score value score value score value score value
Protective Factors/School Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement
1. In my school, students
have lots of chances to help
-0.57 0.570 -2.71 0.01 0.68 0.49 2.12 0.034
decide things like class ac-
tivities and rules. Yes
2. Teachers ask me to work
on special classroom proj- 4.92 0.000 3.11 0.002 0.14 0.89 0.64 0.521
ects. Yes
3. There are lots of chances
for students in my school
to get involved in sports, 3.72 0.000 -0.52 0.61 5.05 0.000 2.54 0.011
clubs, and other school ac-
tivities outside of class. Yes
4. There are lots of chances
for students in my school
58.57 0.000 -1.70 0.09 0.31 0.757 30.05 0.000
to talk with a teacher one-
on-one. Yes
5. There are lots of chances
to be part of class discus- 0.27 0.790 -1.95 0.051 2.00 0.046 2.19 0.029
sions or activities. Yes
6. How many times in
the past year have you
participated in clubs, or- -1.10 0.272 -1.45 0.148 1.14 0.253 0.09 0.931
ganizations, or activities at
school? 1 or more
Protective Factors/School Rewards for Prosocial Involvement
1. My teacher(s) notices
when I am doing a good
1.88 0.061 -1.77 0.076 2.03 0.042 0.99 0.322
job and lets me know
about it.
2. The school lets my par-
ents know when I have 5.71 0.000 -0.78 0.435 5.05 0.000 1.95 0.051
done something well.
3. My teachers praise
me when I work hard in -0.24 0.809 -1.08 0.278 1.88 0.060 0.41 0.684
school.

285
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

Table 5, continued
Risk Factors/Academic Failure
1. Putting them all togeth-
er, what were your grades -3.56 0.000 -0.21 0.835 -2.83 0.005 -3.98 0.000
like last year? C and below
2. Are your school grades
better than the grades of
-3.37 0.001 0.31 0.756 -4.06 0.000 -2.66 0.01
most students in your
class? No
3. How many times in the
past year have you been
1.52 0.128 2.69 0.01 -7.07 0.000 -5.03 0.000
suspended from school? 1
or more
4. Do you make good
grades? Never, seldom, -5.15 0.000 -0.21 0.835 -4.56 0.000 -5.60 0.000
sometimes
5. Do you get in trouble
at school? Yes, sometimes, 0.53 0.593 0.42 0.672 -2.81 0.005 -0.52 0.602
often, a lot
Risk Factors/Low Commitment to School
1. During the last four
weeks how many whole
days have you missed -2.84 0.004 0.16 0.873 -3.38 0.001 0.08 0.936
school because of illness? 1
or more
2. During the last four
weeks how many whole
days have you missed be- -6.69 0.000 0.18 0.858 -7.36 0.000 1.83 0.067
cause you skipped or cut?
1 or more
3. During the last four
weeks, how many days
2.15 0.031 -0.47 0.641 -5.18 0.000 -3.72 0.000
have you missed for other
reasons? 1 or more
4. How interesting are
most of your courses to 0.68 0.494 2.01 0.044 -1.47 0.142 -1.18 0.238
you? boring
5. Now thinking back over
the past year in school,
how often did you enjoy 0.00 1.000 1.31 0.192 1.36 0.173 -1.17 0.241
being in school? Never,
seldom

286
 POMONA YOUTH & FAMILY MASTER PLAN

Table 5, continued
6. Now, thinking back
over the past year in your
school, how often did you -0.98 0.329 1.81 0.070 -3.01 0.003 1.89 0.058
hate being in school? Of-
ten, always
7. Now, thinking back over
the past year in school,
how often did you try -0.33 0.740 0.57 0.566 -1.17 0.243 0.88 0.380
to do your best work in
school? Never, seldom
8. How often do you feel
that the schoolwork you
1.33 0.185 3.39 0.001 0.16 0.877 -0.96 0.336
are assigned is meaningful
and important?
9. How wrong do you
think it is for someone
your age to stay away from
-0.94 0.345 2.63 0.008 -2.04 0.041 0.17 0.862
school all day when their
parents think they are at
school? Not wrong
10. How many times in
the past year have you
-1.02 0.306 0.27 0.784 -2.34 0.019 0.09 0.931
done extra work on your
own for school? Never

Highlights of Key Findings

Table 3 presents a summary of overall trends in the results of the four meth-
ods of comparative analysis on the four risk and protective factors in the study.
Statistically significant z-test results within a p-value of .05 or less reveal over-
all progress being made in all four school-related risk and protective factors
assessed despite limited negative trends in two risk and protective factors.
Overall, after five years of the PYFMP, the results show reductions in every
risk factor and enhancements in every protective factor. There was an increase
in school opportunities for prosocial involvement across all methods of com-
parative analysis. However, results on school rewards for prosocial involvement
were mixed, showing positive trends in the results of overall 2005 vs. 2009
comparisons as well as grade by grade comparisons but negative trends in same
group and inter-grade rate change comparisons. In addition, there were pos-
itive trends in academic failure which saw reductions in perceived academic
failure reported in the results of all four methods of comparisons. Further, re-
sults on low school commitment were mixed with improvements in inter-grade

287
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

rate change comparisons and some measures in overall 2005 vs. 2009 compar-
isons and grade by grade comparisons. Negative trends in school commitment
were also observed in same group comparisons and some measures in both
overall 2005 vs. 2009 comparisons and grade by grade comparisons.
School Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement
This section describes trends in school opportunities for prosocial involve-
ment from baseline to follow up data in the PYFMP as presented in Tables 4
and 5. Results presented in Table 4 show increased school opportunities in
same student comparisons (Grade 8-2005 and Grade 12-2009) and in the rate
of change from Grade 8 to 10 and Grade 10 to 12 in 2009 in comparison to
2005. In Table 5, results show increases in school opportunities for prosocial
involvement in same grade comparison for Grades 8, 10, and 12 for 2005 and
2009 and in comparisons of overall rates for 2005 with overall rates for 2009.
In Table 4, z-test results show a trend of a statistically significant reported
increase in school opportunities for prosocial involvement within a p-value of
.05 or less for same student comparisons and inter-grade rate of change com-
parisons for 2005 versus 2009. Among same students, there was an uptick
in reported school opportunities for prosocial involvement such as enhanced
chances to help decide class activities and rules, work on special projects, talk
with a teacher one-on-one, and be part of class discussion and activities. The
inter-grade rate of change comparisons revealed enhanced school opportuni-
ties for prosocial involvement in 2009 compared to 2005 for students moving
from Grade 8 to Grade 10, including working on special classroom projects
and getting involved in sports, clubs, and other activities outside of class. The
same is true for students moving from Grades 10 to 12 as seen in increased op-
portunities to talk to teachers one-on-one.
In Table 5, z-test results show statistically significant improvements in
school opportunities for prosocial involvement within a p-value of .05 or less
in 2009 compared to 2005 such as students reporting increasing opportunities
to work on special class projects; getting involved in sports, clubs, and other
school activities outside class; and talking to teachers one-on-one. For Grade
8 comparisons between 2005 and 2009, there was an increase in opportuni-
ties for prosocial involvement including working on special projects, helping
decide classroom activities and rules, and being part of class discussions and
activities. Grade 10 comparisons also showed statistically significant increases
in school opportunities for prosocial involvement including getting involved
in sports, clubs, and other activities outside class, and taking part in class dis-
cussions or activities. Grade 12 comparisons between 2005 and 2009 showed
increased opportunities for prosocial involvement including helping to decide

288
 POMONA YOUTH & FAMILY MASTER PLAN

class activities and rules; getting involved in sports, clubs, and other activities
outside of class; and being part of class discussions and activities.
School Rewards for Prosocial Involvement
This section presents trends in school rewards for prosocial involvement
which are documented in Tables 4 and 5. Results presented in Table 4 show
decreased school rewards for prosocial involvement in same student compari-
sons (Grade 8-2005 and Grade 12-2009) and in the rate of change from Grade
8 to 10 and Grade 10 to 12 in 2009 in comparison to 2005. In Table 5, results
show increases in school rewards for prosocial involvement in same grade com-
parison for Grades 8, 10, and 12 for 2005 and 2009, and overall rates for 2005
with overall rates for 2009.
In Table 4 results, z-test results show a trend of statistically significant de-
crease in school rewards for prosocial involvement within a p-value of .05 or
less in same students and inter-grade rate of change comparisons for 2005
versus 2009. Among same students, there was a decrease in reported school re-
wards for prosocial involvement such as in teachers not letting students know
when they are doing a good job and the school not letting parents know when
their children are doing something well. The inter-grade rate of change com-
parisons revealed reported decreased school rewards for prosocial involvement
in 2009 when compared to 2005 for students moving from Grade 10 to 12
such as in the school not letting parents know when their children do well.
Table 5 shows statistically significant results of youth self-report, with a sol-
id trend of increase in school rewards for prosocial involvement in both year
and grade comparisons. There was an increase in school rewards for prosocial
involvement in 2009 when compared to 2005, in the school informing par-
ents when their children do well. Statistically significant comparisons of Grade
10 students in 2005 versus 2009 show perceptions of increased school rewards
such as in teachers noticing when students are doing something good and the
school informing parents when their children have done something well. There
was also a perceived increase in school rewards for prosocial involvement in
Grade 12 comparisons such as the school informing parents when their chil-
dren do something well.
Academic Failure
This section reports on trends in academic failure from baseline to follow
up. Results presented in Table 4 show improvements (reductions) in academic
failure in same student comparisons (Grade 8-2005 and Grade 12-2009) and
in the rate of change from Grade 8 to 10 and Grade 10 to 12 in 2009 in com-
parison to 2005. In Table 5, results also show improvements (reductions) in

289
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

academic failure in same grade comparison for Grades 8, 10, and 12 for 2005
and 2009 as well as overall rates for 2005 with overall rates for 2009.
Table 4 results reveal a solid perception of improving trends in academic
failure among participants. Among same students, z-test results show statisti-
cally significant improved perceptions of academic failure including students
having higher grades compared to the prior year, having better grades com-
pared to other students, decreasing reported suspensions from school, and
overall good grades being achieved. In addition, z-test results within a p-value
of .05 or less in inter-grade rate change comparisons for Grade 8 to 10 students
in 2009 versus 2005, showed improvement in academic failure in the follow-
ing categories: achieving higher grades than last year, having better grades than
most students, and achieving overall good grades.
Results reported in Table 5 show statistically significant z-test results within
a p-value of .05 or less on youth self-report which revealed overall improve-
ment in academic failure in both year by year and grade by grade comparisons.
There were improvements in academic failure in 2009 versus 2005 such as in
students reporting higher grades than the prior year, better grades than most
students, and overall making good grades in school. There was also a worsen-
ing of trends including an increase in reported suspensions in the past year in
Grade 8 comparisons. Grade 10 comparisons results showed improvements in
academic failure as students reported higher grades than in the prior year, bet-
ter grades than most students, fewer suspensions in the past year, good grades
overall in school, and getting less in trouble while at school. Grade 12 com-
parisons results also revealed solid reduction in academic failure as students
reported higher grades than prior year, better grades than most students, fewer
suspensions in past year, and good grades overall.
Low School Commitment
This section describes trends in low school commitment from baseline to
follow up. Results presented in Table 4 show decreasing school commitment
in same student comparisons (Grade 8-2005 and Grade 12-2009). However,
there were improvements in school commitment reported in the rate of change
from Grade 8 to 10 and Grade 10 to 12 in 2009 in comparison to 2005. In
Table 5, the results are mixed with some progress in same grade comparison
for Grades 8, 10, and 12 for 2005 and 2009 and in overall rates for 2005 with
overall rates for 2009.
In Table 4, statistically significant z-test results within a p-value of .05 or less
on youth self-report among same students revealed evidence of lower commit-
ment to school such as in students missing more days due to illness, skipped,
or cutting, and for other reasons in the past four weeks. Also, students enjoyed

290
 POMONA YOUTH & FAMILY MASTER PLAN

school less, hated schoolwork more, tried less to do their best work, and did
not think schoolwork was meaningful. Inter-grade rate of change compari-
sons for Grades 8 to 10 showed higher school commitment rates reported as
students missed less days due to illness in the last four months. There was also
higher commitment to school in inter-grade change comparison for Grades 10
to 12 between 2005 versus 2009 as students tried to do their best work com-
pared to the past year.
Table 5 documents statistically significant evidence of mixed results related
to trends in low commitment to school in both year-by-year and grade-by-
grade comparisons. Statistically significant z-test results within a p-value of .05
or less showed improvements in low commitment to school in 2009 versus
2005 comparison such as youths missing less days due to illness and for skip-
ping or cutting in the past four months. Worsening low school commitment
trends were seen in youths missing more days in the past four weeks due to oth-
er reasons. Eighth grade comparisons revealed a worsening in the reported rates
of school commitment with youths reporting that their classes are boring and
that schoolwork is not meaningful. However, Grade 10 comparisons showed
improvement in reported school commitment with students missing less days
due to illness, due to skipping or cutting classes, and for other reasons in the
past four days. In addition, compared to 2005, students in Grade 10 in 2009
liked school more, thought it was wrong to be away from school without your
parents knowing, and did extra work at school.

Discussion

This study assesses changes in school-related risk and protective factors in-
cluding school opportunities for prosocial involvement, school rewards for
prosocial involvement, academic failure, and low school commitment after five
years of a Youth and Family Master Plan. The author performed same and
independent group comparisons of school-related risk and protective factors
in 2005 and 2009 among a Pomona School District student sample. Z-tests
were performed for the following: same students (Grade 8-2005 and Grade
12-2009), inter-grade change (Grade 8 to 10 and Grade 10 to 12), same grade
(Grades 8, 10, and 12), and overall 2005 to 2009 comparisons. The reported
improvements in school-related youth risk and protective factors could likely
be attributed to community multicomponent interventions of the Youth and
Family Master Plan (PYFMP). This is due to the convergence of patterns across
methods of comparative analysis and assessed risk and protective factors. Also,
parents, teachers, students, and school administrators participated in commu-
nity-level activities that could enhance school-related protective factors and

291
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

reduce risk factors. Further, there were no other major initiatives or community
events going on in Pomona between the 2005–06 to 2009–10 academic years.
After five years of implementation, and as predicted by study hypothesis and
expected outcomes, the students reported enhanced youth protective factors
including school opportunities for prosocial involvement across all methods
of comparative analysis and school rewards for prosocial involvement in 2009
when compared to 2005 and in grade-by-grade comparisons. There were also
reported reductions in risk factors including improvements in academic fail-
ure across all methods of comparative analysis and higher school commitment
in inter-grade rate of change comparisons and overall comparisons of 2005 to
2009. Perceived trends in youth risk and protective factors in the academic
environment are consistent with existing research and scholarship which pre-
dicts and shows that community interventions through community impact
initiatives (Collective Impact Forum, 2022; Kania et al., 2022) and participa-
tory governance (Bua & Bussu, 2021; Mahmood & Muntane, 2020; Warren,
2014) can result in improvements in individual outcomes such as school-re-
lated youth risk and protective factors (Jarrett et al., 2005; Kahne & Bailey,
1999; Rubens et al., 2020; Solberg et al., 2011; Top et al., 2017; White & Gag-
er, 2007). By suggesting an association between community-wide events and
school-related youth risk and protective factors without accompanying micro
level intervention activities, this study adds to contemporary scholarship which
does not consistently anticipate community-wide interventions impacting in-
dividual youth outcomes without micro level intervention activities. Current
scholarship assumes the integration of macro, mezzo, and micro activities in
order to successfully address individual youth risk and protective factors (Cook
et al., 2020; National Institutes of Health, 2000; O’Connor & Daniello, 2019;
Walker et al., 1996).
In addition, the findings show significant convergence of patterns across
all methods of comparative analysis for most measures of school-related youth
risk and protective factors. Across same and independent groups comparisons
in the study, statistically significant z-test results within a p-value of .05 or
less showed general improvements reported in school opportunities for proso-
cial involvement and academic failure. Likewise, z-tests results on both school
rewards for prosocial involvement and low commitment to school show simi-
lar trends of mixed results in which student perceptions reveal improvements
among some measures in same and independent group comparisons. The con-
sistency in these patterns suggest reliability in the measures, methods, and
results, as well as a likelihood that the interventions contributed to observed
variations between baseline and follow-up.

292
 POMONA YOUTH & FAMILY MASTER PLAN

The complex patterns revealed in the coexistence of youth school-related

protective and risk factors in this study are both a contribution to and a depar-
ture from current research which suggests that school-related protective factors
always covary with school-related risk factors (Jarrett et al., 2005; Kahne &
Bailey, 1999; Rubens et al., 2020; Solberg et al., 2011; Top et al., 2017; White
& Gager, 2007). Findings in this study show enhancements in school opportu-
nities for prosocial involvement and reductions in academic failure, coexisting
with persistently decreasing trends in same group comparisons and persistent-
ly increasing trends in independent group comparisons related to rewards for
prosocial involvement. The patterns above also coexist with mixed patterns
exhibited in measures of low school commitment in both same group and in-
dependent group comparisons. The findings suggest that communities do not
have to choose between enhancing school-related protective factors and reduc-
ing risk factors.
The data patterns in this study align with assumptions and explanations of-
fered in the two models that make up the integrated conceptual framework.
Consistent with the risk and protective factor approach, the findings in this
study suggest an association between school-related youth risk and protective
factors to mezzo environmental dimensions such as community factors im-
plemented in PYFMP (Hawkins, 1999; Hawkins et al., 1992; Oesterle et al.,
2018). Both the risk and protective factors approach and social cognitive the-
ory recognize interactions between the personal factors such as youth risk and
protective factors and environmental factors such as community intervention
activities. In addition, social cognitive theory anticipates the role of negative or
positive reinforcements from community contexts in the process of building
behavioral capability and self-efficacy (Bandura, 1986, 2004). Improvements
in school prosocial involvement and school rewards for prosocial involve-
ment represent positive reinforcements from either the school or community
context. Reductions in academic failure and improvements in academic per-
formance represent both behavioral capability and self-efficacy. The alignment
of findings with the conceptual framework further supports the emerging ev-
idence that community-wide interventions can impact individual youth risk
and protective factors without micro level intervention activities.
The staying power of negative contextual factors appear to limit reported
progress in school-related risk and protective factors as anticipated in both
the social cognitive theory and the risk and protective factors approach. The
persistent negative trends in school rewards for prosocial involvement (nega-
tive reinforcements) and low commitment to school (diminishing self-efficacy)
seen in some same group and independent comparisons, despite improvement
in protective factors and other risk factors, might be related to unchanging

293
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

and deeply enshrined contextual factors such as varying levels of relational and
community risk and protective factors (Egeland et al., 1993; Masten et al.,
1990, Solberg et al., 2011). Also, community risk and protective factors such
as exposure to violence (Solberg et al., 2011) and deficits in community social
capital related to youth development (Osborne et al., 2017; Scales et al., 2020)
could be hindering progress in individual protective factors such as individu-
al motivation and academic self-efficacy (Egeland et al., 1993; Masten et al.,
1990; Solberg et al., 2011). Before and during the PYFMP, Pomona was afflict-
ed by high levels of poverty, high prevalence and intensity of childhood disease
burden, low academic performance, intractable gang violence, high teen preg-
nancy and teen substance abuse, low levels of health prevention resources, and
barriers to care access (Pomona Unified School District, 2006; Los Angeles
County Department of Public Health, 2005, 2018).
Study Limitations
The findings in this study should be interpreted within the limits of the in-
tervention design and the implementation environment. Given the dynamic
intervention environment and the absence of control or comparison groups
in the study design, the author cannot significantly rule out other factors, in-
dependent of underlying environmental factors, which may have hindered
improvements in persistent school-related risk factors and/or may be respon-
sible for enhancements in protective factors and reductions in risk factors
(Nickel et al., 2018; Shortell et al., 2002). Also, there were very limited staff
level participation data which could have strengthened the evidence that ties
community-level activities to school-based outcomes.
Conclusion and Recommendations for Practice
After five years of implementation, PYFMP made great contributions to
school youth risk and protective factors in the Pomona community. The find-
ings in this study suggest that community level intervention activities can shift
school-related risk and protective factors even when there are no micro inter-
vention activities at the school, family, or student level. Based on the findings
and contributions of this study, the following recommendations are provided
for school intervention program implementers in Pomona and other under-
resourced communities. The primary recommendation is that Pomona and
other poorly resourced communities which are limited in their ability to pro-
vide micro level interventions targeting family or school environments should
continue to deliver community-wide, multidimensional interventions because
they appear to be impactful.

294
 POMONA YOUTH & FAMILY MASTER PLAN

Also, it would appear that the involvement of stakeholders in the design and
implementation of the PYFMP, particularly schoolteachers, students, families,
staff, and administrators might have helped in overcoming the barriers presented
by the absence of micro level interventions. However, assessment of this impact
was limited in this study because data on the participation of school adminis-
trators and staff was limited. Future work on school-related risk and protective
factors in the context of community-wide interventions should include the col-
lection of staff level participation data as part of the evaluation efforts.
As noted above, the absence of control or comparison groups made it diffi-
cult to rule out other factors affecting school-related risk and protective factors
in the PYFMP. Future design and implementation modification of the PYFMP
should integrate control or comparison communities in the design.
Further, persistent challenges in the social and economic environment in
Pomona seems to have handicapped progress in some risk and protective fac-
tors, particularly school rewards for social involvement and low commitment
to school. These persistent negative patterns in some reported protective and
risk factors call for long term social and economic investments that would bet-
ter prepare the community, family, and school environments for youth risk
factors. Investments in school rewards for prosocial involvement and the re-
duction of low school commitment should be prioritized.

References
Adams, R. D. (1994). The Pride Questionnaire for Grades 6–12: Second developmental study.
https://www.pridesurveys.com/supportfiles/tr99612.pdf [see Appendix].
Arthur, M., & Blitz, C. (2000). Bridging the gap between science and practice in drug abuse
prevention through needs assessment and strategic community planning. Journal of Com-
munity Psychology, 28(3), 241–255.
Arthur, M., Hawkins, J., Shavel, D., Brewer, D., & Hansen, C. (1996). Monitoring alcohol,
tobacco, and other drug use in the community: Prototype and guide. University of Washington,
Social Development Research Group.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Pren-
tice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (2004). Health promotion by social cognitive means. Health Education & Behav-
ior, 31(2), 143–164.
Bekemans, L. (2018). Citizens’ participation and participatory governance in the EU. Studia
Europejskie /Centrum Europejskie Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego, 27/2(4), 47–70.
Bua, A., & Bussu, S. (2021). Between governance-driven democratization and democra-
cy-driven governance: Explaining changes in participatory governance in the case of Bar-
celona. European Journal of Political Research, 60(3), 716. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-
6765.12421
City of Pomona. (2006). City of Pomona General Plan, 2006: The Pomona Youth and Family
Master Plan.

295
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

Collective Impact Forum. (2022). What is collective impact? https://collectiveimpactforum.org/

what-is-collective-impact/
Cook, A., Ogden, J., & Winstone, N. (2020). The effect of school exposure and personal
contact on attitudes towards bullying and autism in schools: A cohort study with a control
group. Autism, 24(8), 2178–2189. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361320937088
Craig, J. R., & Emshoff, J. (1987). The Pride Questionnaire for Grades 6–12: Developmental
study. https://www.pridesurveys.com/supportfiles/tr99612.pdf [see Appendix A].
Dahlberg, L. L., & Krug, E. G. (2002). Violence—A global public health problem. In E.
Krug, L. L. Dahlberg, J. A. Mercy, A. B. Zwi, & R. Lozano (Eds.), World report on violence
and health (pp. 1–22). World Health Organization.
Egeland, B. R., Carlson, E., & Sroufe, L. A. (1993). Resilience as process. Development and
Psychopathology, 5(4), 517–528.
Elder, J. P., Lytle, L., Sallis, J. F., Young, D. R., Steckler, A., Simons-Morton, D., Stone, E.,
Jobe, J. B., Lohman, T., Webber, L., Pate, R., Saksvig, B. I., & Ribisl, K. (2007). A de-
scription of the social–ecological framework used in the trial of activity for adolescent girls
(TAAG). Health Education Research, 22(2), 155–165.
Elstub, S., & Escobar, O. (Eds.). (2019). Handbook of democratic innovation and governance.
Edward Elgar.
Fairchild, F., Hawes, D. J., Frick, P. J., Copeland, W. E., Odgers, C. L., Franke, B., Freitag, C.
M., & De Brito, S. A. (2019). Conduct disorder. Natural Reviews: Disease Primers, 5(43),
1–25.
Geidne, S., Kokko, S., Lane, A., Ooms, L., Vuillemin, A., Seghers, J., Koski, P., Kudlacek, M.,
Johnson, S., & Van Hoye, A. (2019). Health promotion interventions in sports clubs: can
we talk about a setting-based approach? A systematic mapping review. Health Education &
Behavior, 46(4), 592–601.
Geissel, B. (2009). Participatory governance: Hope or danger for democracy? A case study of
local agenda 21. Local Government Studies, 35(4), 401–414.
Giannotta, F., Vigna-Taglianti, F., Galanti, M. R., Scatigna, M., & Faggiano, F. (2014). Short-
term mediating factors of a school-based intervention to prevent youth substance use in
Europe. Journal of Adolescent Health, 54(5), 565–573.
Golden, S. D., & Earp, J. A. L. (2012). Social ecological approaches to individuals and their
contexts: Twenty years of health education and behavior health promotion interventions.
Health Education & Behavior, 39(3), 364–372.
Grant, K. E., Farahmand, F., Harrison, A., Johnson, S., Duffy, S., Meyerson, D. A., Dubois,
D. L., Tolan, P. H., Gaylord-Harden, N. K., Barnett, A., Horwath, J., Doxie, J., & Tyler,
D. (2014). Development of cities mentor project: An intervention to improve academic
outcomes for low-income urban youth through instruction in effective coping supported
by mentoring relationships and protective settings. Risk and Protective Processes Affecting
Children and Adolescents Living in Urban Poverty, 42(3), 221–242.
Greater Cincinnati Foundation. (2014, June 27). Collective impact [Video]. YouTube. https://
www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRX2y46fHXE
Hanleybrown, F., Kania, J., & Kramer, M. (2012). Channeling change: Making collective
impact work. Stanford Social Innovation Review. https://doi.org/10.48558/2T4M-ZR69
Hawkins, J. (1999). Preventing crime and violence through communities that care. European
Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 7, 443–458.
Hawkins, J., Catalano, R. F., & Miller, J. Y. (1992). Risk and protective factors for alcohol
and other drug problems in adolescence and early adulthood: Implications for substance
abuse prevention. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 64–105. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-
2909.112.1.64

296
 POMONA YOUTH & FAMILY MASTER PLAN

Holden, D. J., & Zimmerman, M. A. (2009). A practical guide to program evaluation planning
theory and case examples. Sage.
International Survey Associates. (n.d.). CTC Youth Community Survey. https://www.pridesur-
veys.com/index.php/the-communities-that-care-youth-survey/
International Survey Associates. (2006). Pride Survey Reports: 2005–2006, National Summary.
https://www.pridesurveys.com/customercenter/ue05ns.pdf
International Survey Associates. (2009). Pride Survey Reports: 2008–2009, National Summary.
https://www.pridesurveys.com/supportfiles/2009natsum.pdf
Jarrett, R. L., Sullivan, P. J., & Watkins, N. D. (2005). Developing social capital through par-
ticipation in organized youth programs: Qualitative insights from three programs. Journal
of Community Psychology, 33(1), 41–55.
Kania, J., & Kramer, M. (2011). Collective impact. Stanford Social Innovation Review. https://
ssir.org/articles/entry/collective_impact#
Kania, J., Williams, J., Schmitz, P., Brady, S., Kramer, M., & Juster, J. S. (2022). Centering eq-
uity in collective impact. Stanford Social Innovation Review. https://ssir.org/articles/entry/
centering_equity_in_collective_impact#
Kapp, S. A., & Anderson, G. R. (2010). Agency-based program evaluation: Lessons from practice.
Sage.
Kahne, J., & Bailey, K. (1999). The role of social capital in youth development: The case of “I
have a dream” programs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21, 321–343.
Kim, B., Gloppen, K., Rhew, I., Oesterle, S., & Hawkins, J. (2015). Effects of the Communi-
ties That Care prevention system on youth reports of protective factors. Prevention Science,
16(5), 652–662.
Los Angeles County Department of Public Health. (2005). Data by SPA (SPA 3, 2005).
Los Angeles County Department of Public Health. (2010). Data by SPA (SPA 3, 2010).
Los Angeles County Department of Public Health. (2018). City and community health profiles.
Mahmood, Q., & Muntane, C. (2020). State–society nexus in Brazil and Venezuela and its
effect on participatory governance efforts in health and other sectors. International Journal
for Equity in Health, 19(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-020-01278-1
Marsiglia, F., Wu, S., Ayers, S., & Weide, A. (2019). Randomized effectiveness trial of a parent
and youth combined intervention on the substance use norms of Latino middle school
students. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 97, 75–83.
Masten, A., Best, K. M., & Garmezy, N. (1990). Resilience and development: Contributions
from the study of children who overcome adversity. Development & Psychopathology, 2(4),
425–444.
Metze, L. (2000). The Pride Questionnaire for Grades 6–12: Validity and reliability study. https://
www.pridesurveys.com/supportfiles/tr99612.pdf
National Institutes of Health. (2000). Merging universal and indicated prevention programs:
The fast-track model. Addictive Behaviors, 25(6), 913–927.
National Cancer Institute. (2005). Theory at a glance: A guide for health promotion practice (2nd
ed.). National Institutes of Health.
Nickel, S., Süß, W., Lorentz, C., & Trojan, A. (2018). Long-term evaluation of community
health promotion: Using capacity building as an intermediate outcome measure. Public
Health, 162, 9–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2018.05.008
O’Connor, M. T., & Daniello, F. (2019). From implication to naming: Reconceptualizing
school–community partnership literature using a framework nested in social justice. School
Community Journal, 29(1), 297–316. https://www.adi.org/journal/2019ss/OConnorDan-
ielloSS2019.pdf

297
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

Oesterle, S., Kuklinski, M. R., Hawkins, J. D., Skinner, M. L., Guttmannova, K., & Rhew,
I. C. (2018). Long-term effects of the Communities That Care Trial on substance use,
antisocial behavior, and violence through age 21 years. American Journal of Public Health,
108(5), 659–665.
Osborne, C., Baldwin, C., Thomsen, T., & Woolcock, G. (2017). The unheard voices of youth
in urban planning: Using social capital as a theoretical lens in Sunshine Coast, Australia.
Children’s Geographies, 15(3), 349–361.
Pomona Unified School District. (2006a). 2005 Pride Risk Factor Survey results.
Pomona Unified School District. (2006b). 2005 Facts at a glance.
Pomona Unified School District. (2010). 2009 Pride Risk Factor Survey results.
Reiland Consultants. (2018). Validity and reliability summary for the Pride Questionnaire for
Grades 6–12. https://www.pridesurveys.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Validity-and-re-
liability-Study-2018.pdf
Rubens, S. L., Feldman, D. B., Soliemannjad, R. R., Sung, N., Gudiño, O. G. (2020). Hope,
daytime sleepiness, and academic outcomes in low-income, Latinx youth. Child & Youth
Care Forum, 49(5), 743–757. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10566-020-09553-6
Scales, P. C., Boat, A., & Pekel, K. (2020). Defining and measuring social capital for young
people. Search Institute, 1–63.
Singh, P. S. J., & Azman, A. (2020). Dealing with juvenile delinquency: Integrated social work
approach. Asian Social Work Journal, 5(2), 32–43.
Shortell, S. M., Zukoski, A. P., Alexander, J. A., Bazzoli, G. J., Conrad, D. A., Hasnain-Wynia,
R., & Margolin, F. S. (2002). Evaluating partnerships for community health improvement:
Tracking the footprints. Journal of Health Politics, Policy, & Law, 27(1), 49–91.
Solberg, V. S. H., Carlstrom, A. H., Howard, K. A. S., & Jones, J. E. (2011). Classifying at-risk
high school youth: The influence of exposure to community violence and protective factors
on academic and health outcomes. Career Development Quarterly, 55(4), 313–327. https://
doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-0045.2007.tb00086.x
Tataw, D. B., & Kim, S. (2022) Antisocial behavior and attitudes towards antisocial behavior
after a five-year Municipal Youth and Family Master Plan in Pomona, California, USA. So-
cial Work in Public Health, 37(7), 655–678. https://doi.org/10.1080/19371918.2022.20
72037
Tataw, D. B., Kim, S., & Olberding, J. C. (2023). Community youth risk and protective
factors, five years after a Municipal Youth and Family Master Plan in Pomona, California,
USA. Child and Youth Services. https://doi.org/10.1080/0145935X.2023.2243439
Tataw, D. B., & Rosa-Lugo, B., Jr. (2011). Municipal health policy development, planning
and implementation: addressing youth risk factors through participatory governance. Jour-
nal of Health and Human Services Administration, 33(4), 491–533.
Top, N., Liew, J., & Luo, W. (2017). Family and school influences on youths’ behavioral and
academic outcomes: Cross-level interactions between parental monitoring and character
development curriculum. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 178(2), 108–118. https://doi.org/
10.1080/00221325.2017.1279118
U.S. Census Bureau. (2020). American Community Survey: 1-year estimates for 2005 and 2009.
https://www.census.gov/acs/www/data/data-tables-and-tools/
U.S. Census Bureau. (2022). Quick facts, Pomona City, California. https://www.census.gov/
quickfacts/fact/table/pomonacitycalifornia
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2020). Addressing risk of violent behavior in
youth. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. https://rems.ed.gov/
Docs/SAMHSA_AddressingYouthViolence.pdf

298
 POMONA YOUTH & FAMILY MASTER PLAN

Valdez, E. S., Skobic, I., Valdez, L., Garcia, D. O., Korchmaros, J., Stevens, S., Sabo, S., Wu,
S., Yan, S., Marsiglia, F. F., & Perron, B. (2020). Youth participatory action research for
youth substance use prevention: A systematic review. Substance Use and Misuse, 55(2),
314–238. https://doi.org/10.1080/10826084.2019.1668014
Walker, H. M., Horner, R. H., Sugai, G., Bullis, M., Sprague, J. R., Bricker, D., & Kaufman,
M. J. (1996). Integrated approaches to preventing antisocial behavior patterns among
school-age children and youth. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 4(4), 194–
209. https://doi.org/10.1177/106342669600400401
Warren, M. (2014). Governance-driven democratisation. In S. Griggs, A. J. Norval, & H.
Wagenaar (Eds.), Practices of freedom: Decentered governance, conflict, and democratic partic-
ipation (pp. 38–60). Cambridge University Press.
White, A. M., & Gager, C. T. (2007). Idle hands and empty pockets? Youth involvement in ex-
tracurricular activities, social capital, and economic status. Youth & Society, 39(1), 75–111.
Wu, S., Yan, S., Marsiglia, F. F., & Perron, B. (2020). Patterns and social determinants of
substance use among Arizona Youth: A latent class analysis approach. Children and Youth
Services Review, 110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.104769

Author’s Note: The author acknowledges statistical analysis support from Burkhardt
Consulting Center at Northern Kentucky University.

David B. Tataw is a professor of health sciences and health administration at

Northern Kentucky University. His higher education experience includes more than
two decades of teaching and administrative positions in a variety of academic in-
stitutions including medical schools, business schools, health science departments,
public affairs, and public health. His research interests include health policy, health
management, community health, and the scholarship of teaching and learning. Cor-
respondence concerning this article may be addressed to Dr. David Tataw, Northern
Kentucky University, FH 495 HIC, Highland Heights, Kentucky, 41099, or email
[email protected]

299
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

300
 Book Review

Book Review—The Heartbeat of the Youth

Development Field: Professional Journeys of
Growth, Connection, and Transformation
Timothy D. Flewelling

The Heartbeat of the Youth Development Field: Professional Journeys of Growth,

Connection, and Transformation (2023), edited by Georgia Hall, Jan Gallagher,
and Elizabeth Starr, provides a timely, informative, and theoretically grounded
exploration of youth development as a career, passion, and discipline. The in-
formation presented in this book applies to a broad audience. Researchers can
utilize the theoretical framework and conceptual lenses when designing future
studies. At the same time, policymakers and youth work professionals can ap-
ply the principles and perspectives when establishing and funding high-quality
programs for staff and participants. Teachers, administrators, and instructors
in K–12 and higher education can also benefit from this book when design-
ing “youth-driven” spaces and leading conversations about out-of-school time
(OST) activities and programs. The stated goal of this book is to: “bring for-
ward the voices of practitioners who work directly with children and youth to
build knowledge, inform practice, and influence policy in OST” (Hall et al.,
2023, p. xx).
The text is organized into five sections: Theory, Pathways, Engagement,
Transformation, and Equity. Each begins with a chapter on the respective top-
ics, and sections two through four include related short essays written by OST
professionals. Sections two through four are concluded with reflection ques-
tions. The book is structured to introduce the reader to a theory of youth
development and expand upon that framework through discussions about ca-
reer pathways and the transformative effect of OST.

School Community Journal, 2023, Vol. 33, No. 2 301

Available at http://www.schoolcommunitynetwork.org/SCJ.aspx
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

Section One: Theory

Betsy Nordell wrote the first section and established Relational–Cultural
Theory as the framework used in the structure of the text and as a guiding set of
principles for youth work. Nordell identifies healthy and supportive relation-
ships as the “heart” of the OST field. Relational–Cultural Theory promotes the
idea that “expression and deepening of healthy relationships” indicate human
growth and development, and disconnection from others is a primary cause of
human suffering (Nordell, 2023, p. 4). Racial, cultural, and social identities
can influence the relationships that people develop, and Relational–Cultur-
al Theory can help guide the creation of inclusive OST spaces. The chapter
concludes with the author detailing how Relational–Cultural Theory can be
applied through the lenses of the coming topics, including pathways into the
profession, engagement, and how to achieve transformational benefits in the
pursuit of equity. This section should interest researchers and students looking
for a theoretical framework to design studies or review existing literature.
Section Two: Pathways
Section Two and its chapter, “Creating and Supporting Pathways to Sus-
tained Careers in Youth Work,” by Nancy Peter, examines OST as a profession,
including entry points and how career pathways can be strengthened and
expanded. Support for current youth workers and detailed suggestions for
professional development are outlined. This is a valuable chapter for those in
higher education designing curricula or those at a management level respon-
sible for developing programs and training staff. Peter defines “youth work”
as “principles and practices that guide adult interactions with adolescents in
structured settings outside the classroom” (Peter, 2023, p. 18).
Common pathways to a youth development career are via volunteer work,
postsecondary education, and working within religious communities. All of
these are explored through case studies in the text. Credentials are discussed as
a way of professionalizing youth work, but there are disadvantages to this ap-
proach. While useful in establishing standards, credentials can also become a
barrier to entry for those following nontraditional pathways into the field, as
described earlier in the section.
Peter advocates for professional development designed around “child de-
velopment,” “positive youth development,” and “core competencies” (Peter,
2023, p. 25). Applications of the principles of adult learning theory, reflec-
tive practice, emotional intelligence, and concerns-based adoption models are
recommended as foundational practices to include when developing training.
Finally, there are suggestions for establishing workshops, coaching, and profes-
sional learning communities with guidance on implementation. This section

302
 BOOK REVIEW

is helpful for current and prospective OST professionals and leaders for its
discussion of issues, including living wages, career development, and ongoing
support. Researchers and policy analysts could also use this chapter to examine
primary entry points and what is needed to strengthen them. The essays are
written by professionals who entered OST through various pathways, which
is beneficial for readers who may be familiar with OST but not positions and
entry points into the field.
Section Three: Engagement
The third section, written by John Weiss and Thomas Akiva, centers on en-
gagement. This chapter reinforces the importance of the trusting relationships
emphasized in Relational–Cultural Theory. The authors use a case study of an
effective youth development program, The Neutral Zone, to define three goals
for developmental relationships to occur. Youth must feel safe, supported, and
engaged (Weiss & Akiva, 2023, p. 60), and these factors are best nurtured
in “youth-driven spaces.” An important element of this chapter is outlining
the “three pillars of youth-driven spaces,” which are “intrinsic motivation, de-
velopmental needs, and building youth–adult partnerships” (Weiss & Akiva,
2023, p. 63). The remainder of the chapter is directed toward the importance
of these elements in establishing healthy relationships. The authors provide
information and clear guidance to strengthen each pillar. The benefits of a
youth-driven approach are gains in social–emotional skills, professional satis-
faction of staff, increased attendance with greater engagement, and passing on
the lessons and morals to others (Weiss & Akiva, 2023, pp. 70–72).
Five essays in section three provide examples of successful engagement and
the benefits that followed. The perspectives include those of program leaders,
advocates for racial justice, youth ministries, mentors, and other passionate
youth workers. The framework of youth-driven spaces is useful for program
designers and researchers studying effective elements of OST environments.
This approach could be adapted to classrooms, churches and other faith-based
groups, youth groups, afterschool clubs, and sports. School districts and site
administrators can also apply these ideas when leading initiatives and allocat-
ing technology, curriculum, and facilities funding.
Section Four: Transformation
A single chapter by Ingrid A. Nelson comprises the fourth section and
concentrates on the transformative influence of OST. Nelson supports her
argument by pointing to benefits such as increased academic achievement,
stronger self-image, and positive school-related attitudes. This chapter iden-
tifies the mechanisms of OST that lead to transformational results such as

303
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

cultural and social capital, identity development, and supportive relationships

with adults.
Nelson introduces a classification system of three types of influence: “aux-
iliary,” which is when a participant has a positive experience but not lasting
change; “distinguishable,” wherein participants find something they are lack-
ing elsewhere; and “transformative” influence, which involves immediate and
long-lasting benefits from participation (Nelson, 2023, p. 111). These clas-
sifications can apply to researchers creating questionnaires and interview
protocols to evaluate strategies and practices. Administrators, school districts,
and grant-providing institutions could also use these when funding programs
that seek to lead to transformative influence.
Five essays accompany the fourth chapter, each providing a tangible vision
of what transformation in OST can look like. These include a librarian, youth
minister, mentor, and program leaders focused on building positive self-iden-
tity and promoting representation through art and literature. Themes of
dedication, creativity, and empathy resonate across the collection. Reading this
section would benefit people in any position to learn about the background
and influence OST opportunities can have on participants and staff.
Section Five: Equity
The final section, written by Jimena Quiroga Hopkins, is directed toward
equity, defined as “each group or person having equal access to economic, so-
cial, and educational opportunity” (Hopkins, 2023, p. 155). In that pursuit,
key elements of equity-minded OST programming are provided. The author
discusses the potential difficulties of developing programs for underserved com-
munities with diverse and changing needs. Hopkins recommends establishing
general standards emphasizing academic disparities, equity, inclusion, profes-
sional development, reducing barriers to access, and affirming backgrounds
and cross-cultural skills (Hopkins, 2023, p. 157). Social and emotional learn-
ing is highlighted as a critical element in developing equity, self-identity, and
social capital. The need for pathways beyond entry-level positions for leaders
of color to enter management in the OST workforce is an identified inequity
that hinders increasing diversity. Suggestions for improvement include human
resources policies, implementing professional development, and changing or-
ganizational structures. The author stresses the need for increased wages and
benefits so staff can have extended careers within youth work. This chapter is
applicable for leadership positions, both public and private, as well as for hu-
man resource directors making structural changes to improve equity.

304
 BOOK REVIEW

Final Thoughts
The authors and editors who contributed to this book have done an excel-
lent job explaining the OST field through the lenses of participants, staff, and
leaders. The book’s structure is well-designed and connects coherently to the
principles of Relational–Cultural Theory. The only significant critique of the
book is the absence of conversation about expanding access to OST for youth
who are neurodivergent or have learning, emotional, developmental, or phys-
ical impairments. Furthermore, including youth and staff with impairments
was not stated in the recommended core competencies. This was a surpris-
ing omission in conversations about engagement, transformation, and equity.
While the ideas and suggestions presented by the authors can be universally
applied, readers looking for information about the connections between dis-
ability, access, and OST must supplement these lessons with other sources.

References
Hall, G., Gallagher, J., & Starr, E. (Eds.). (2023). The heartbeat of the youth development field:
Professional journeys of growth, connection, and transformation. Information Age.
Hopkins, J. Q. (2023). Centering equity in the OST field. In G. Hall, J. Gallagher, & E. Starr
(Eds.), The heartbeat of the youth development field: Professional journeys of growth, connec-
tion, and transformation (pp. 155–164). Information Age.
Nelson, I. (2023). Transformative Influence in OST Programs. In G. Hall, J. Gallagher, &
E. Starr (Eds.), The heartbeat of the youth development field: Professional journeys of growth,
connection, and transformation (pp. 105–151). Information Age.
Nordell, B. (2023). Relational–Cultural Theory: At the Heart of the OST Field. In G. Hall, J.
Gallagher, & E. Starr (Eds.), The heartbeat of the youth development field: Professional jour-
neys of growth, connection, and transformation (pp. 3–13). Information Age.
Peter, N. (2023). Creating and Supporting Pathways to Sustained Careers in Youth Work. In
G. Hall, J. Gallagher, & E. Starr (Eds.), The heartbeat of the youth development field: Pro-
fessional journeys of growth, connection, and transformation (pp. 17–55). Information Age.
Weiss, J., & Akiva, T. (2023). Shifting the Paradigm: Simple and Radical Ways to Create Safe,
Supportive, and Engaging Settings with Youth. In G. Hall, J. Gallagher, & E. Starr (Eds.),
The heartbeat of the youth development field: Professional journeys of growth, connection, and
transformation (pp. 59–101). Information Age.

Timothy D. Flewelling is a doctoral student in the School of Educational Stud-

ies at Claremont Graduate University and has taught elementary and middle school
special education in a Title I district for the last ten years. His research interests in-
clude enhancing the relationship between families and schools in the special education
process, parent education, and understanding the influence of culture and models of
disability on parent identity construction. Correspondence concerning this book re-
view may be addressed by email to [email protected]

305
SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL

306