annotated bibliography

G U E S T E D I T O R I A L

Are we Adequately Preparing Teachers to Partner with Families?

Tamara Sewell

Published online: 1 February 2012 ! Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Abstract Family-centered practice is accepted as best and effective practice by early childhood professional

organizations including the National Association for the

Education of Young Children, The Council for Exceptional Children’s Division of Early Childhood, and The National

Board of Professional Teaching Standards. The main

objective of family-centered practice is the development of a reciprocal family partnership in order to provide effective

early childhood services to young children and families.

The literature reveals that there are issues in early child- hood teacher preparation in terms of the level of emphasis

on family-centered practice, the implementation of a

standalone course versus infusion of family-centered con- tent throughout coursework, and the linkage of coursework

to practical experience. Teacher perceptions of families

have a great deal of influence on the nature of relationships between teachers and families. This literature review illu-

minates the necessity for teacher preparation programs and

school administration to regularly review programming to make certain that students and practicing teachers are

adequately prepared to efficiently serve young children in the context of their families.

Keywords Early Childhood ! Teacher Preparation ! Personnel Preparation ! Family

Introduction

Young children are the center of their family and as such

their families are a wellspring of knowledge when it comes to their child’s development and learning. Early childhood

teachers have regular opportunities to interact with families

and gather knowledge to influence their teaching practices. However, challenges arise when a teacher has not been

prepared to partner effectively with families and to best

serve children within the context of the family. According to the Council for Exceptional Children’s

Division for Early Childhood (DEC), ‘‘practitioners in

early education and intervention must be prepared to work with families whose cultural, ethnic, linguistic, and social

backgrounds differ from their own’’ (Stayton et al. 2003,

p. 11). ‘‘Class lectures, simulations, and supervised home visits with families, as well as interviews and informal

conversations’’ (Hyson 2003, p. 140) are integral to the

pre-service teachers’ learning process. The DEC’s preparation program standards for early

childhood professionals were developed in conjunction with the National Association for the Education of Young

Children (NAEYC) and the National Board for Profes-

sional Teaching Standards (NBPTS). The DEC’s program standards emphasize that the professional become involved

as equal partners with families early on and that a reci-

procal relationship should be maintained throughout the partnership. Additionally, because families vary in terms of

priorities, resources, concerns, cultural background, views

of education, and how they support their children’s development and learning, training should involve families

that are diverse in nature (Stayton et al. 2003). Providing

comprehensive training to professionals has the potential to increase the implementation and effectiveness of family-

centered practices.

T. Sewell (&) Bank Street College, 610 West 112th Street, New York, NY 10025, USA e-mail: [email protected]

123

Early Childhood Educ J (2012) 40:259–263

DOI 10.1007/s10643-011-0503-8

Research concerning teacher preparation in the field of

early childhood is limited, particularly in the area of fam- ily-centered practices. Several surveys have focused on this

increasingly important topic, but results are, at best,

inconsistent. However, there two distinct issues that are repeated throughout the literature: teacher perceptions of

families and the focus on family partnership in teacher

preparation programs.

What are Teachers’ Perceptions of Family-Centered Practice?

Teachers and administrators struggle to partner with fam-

ilies due to the lack of preparation. In 2006, MetLife sur-

veyed 1,001 public school teachers and found that ‘‘teachers consider engaging and working with parents as

their greatest challenge and the area they were least pre-

pared to manage during their first year’’ (Harvard Family Research Project 2006, p. 1). More specifically 31% of the

teachers reported that the greatest challenge was in

encouraging involvement and communicating with the family (Markow et al. 2006). The dearth of training

opportunities has resulted in teachers feeling ill-prepared to

work with families, which creates a multitude of challenges for the teacher, child, and family.

In-service training opportunities and topics impact

practitioner perceptions and practices. Bruder et al. (2009) completed electronic surveys and phone interviews with 51

Part C coordinators and 49 coordinators of 619 programs

regarding the implementation of professional development that is both systematic and sustainable. Thirty-nine of the

Part C states and 35 of the 619 respondents reported

offering in-service training systems that were systematic and sustainable. The training content for both Part C and

619 was based on administrative or consultant recom-

mendations. Only 11 of the 51 Part C coordinators reported training content regarding partnering with families and

none of the 619 respondents reported inclusion of family

content. Rothenberg and McDermot of the Sage College School

of Education expanded on the MetLife survey by creating

focus groups to gain a qualitative understanding of the nature of family-centeredness and its implementation.

Teachers who were involved in the groups reported that

they actually avoided working with families and found such work to be unappealing. Parents involved in the focus

groups reported that they only felt comfortable working

with those teachers that treated children and families with respect and high regard (Harvard Family Research Project

2006). Based on these views, it is easy to see that an

unproductive cycle of teachers and families avoiding interaction is easily formed and maintained.

How are we Preparing Teachers to Work with Families?

The Center to Inform Personnel Preparation, Policy and

Practice in Early Intervention and Early Childhood Special Education (n.d.) conducted a survey of 5,659 institutions

offering degree programs for all services under IDEA. Of

the 1,131 respondents, 86.43% reported that they offer at least one course related to families, specifically with a

focus on families with children ages three to five. Another

survey, by The National Prekindergarten Center in 2004, reported a more conservative percentage of only 61% who

reported that they offered at least one course dedicated to

preparing professionals to work with families (Maxwell et al. 2006).

In order to establish the amount of family-centered

content taught in early childhood teacher preparation pro- grams, Rupiper and Marvin (2004) surveyed 82 institutions

across the United States. Results demonstrated that family-

centered content was infused across course curriculum. Twenty-eight institutions indicated that family-centered

content was taught in an independent undergraduate

course. Course credit hours ranged from 2 to 8 h with most respondents indicating three credit hours. Primary content

of the family-centered coursework included knowledge of

families, IFSP skills, respecting diversity, communication skills, and knowledge of teamwork.

Chang et al. (2005) reported on a national survey of early childhood teacher preparation programs completed in

1999 by the National Center for Early Development and

Learning. One of the purposes of the study was to quantify the amount and type of coursework and practicum expe-

riences related to families, collaboration, and home visiting

required by early childhood preparation programs (Chang et al. 2005). The sample included 438 associate and

bachelor level programs in 47 states that prepare individ-

uals to work with children ranging in age from birth to four years. Participants were asked to complete a survey that

included questions about required coursework and practical

experiences related to families. Just under 60% of both associates and bachelor’s degree programs offered at least

one families course. Data also showed that students often

had practical experiences with families, including home visits, without having had any in-class preparation prior to

or in conjunction with the experience.

The Centre for Community Child Health in Australia (2003) convened focus groups based on common issues

found in the literature on the subject of early childhood

teacher preparation. One of the major issues identified by the focus groups was that students were unprepared for work

with young and developing families. In particular, members

of the focus group believed that although family-centered philosophies, beliefs, and practices are incorporated into

260 Early Childhood Educ J (2012) 40:259–263

123

course content, opportunities for students to apply and

demonstrate comprehension are limited (Centre for Com- munity Child Health 2003).

In an effort to establish how family-centered practice

was taught to future teachers, Sewell (2007) conducted a critical study surveying 21 undergraduate early interven-

tion/early childhood special education teacher preparation

programs. Participants were asked to specify how family- centered practices were taught as well as how students

were afforded the opportunity to articulate and apply those practices. Approximately 38% of the respondents indicated

that family-centered practice was taught in an independent

course. Ninety percent of the respondents indicated that more than 50% of family-centered focus was infused across

course content. Eighty-one percent of respondents indi-

cated that family-centered methods courses were linked to field experiences, however, direct contact with families

during these experiences was often limited due to the

nature of the placements. Echoing The Centre for Com- munity Child Health in Australia’s (2003) and Chang et al.

(2005) results, participants indicated that students were

taught family-centered practices and had moderate oppor- tunities to articulate them but very little opportunity to

actually apply the practices with families.

To gain a comprehensive understanding of early child- hood teacher preparation program’s strengths and weak-

nesses, Bruder and Dunst (2005) surveyed programs to

determine where training emphasis was placed in regards to the following factors: family-centered practice, cross-

disciplinary models, service coordination, development of

IFSPs, and natural environments. Eight disciplines serving children under IDEA were examined, and a total of 449

programs completed a 30-item survey. Results indicated

family-centered intervention was the only practice that constituted primary emphasis across all eight disciplines;

however, none of the disciplines felt as though they were

adequately prepared to work with families. The researchers recommend embedding family-centered practices into

teacher preparation programs in order to prepare students

to work effectively with children and families (Bruder and Dunst 2005).

Are we Influencing Preservice Teachers’ Perceptions?

Teacher’s perceptions of families impact their interactions with families. Murray and Mandell (2004) evaluated two

pre-service programs designed to prepare graduates to

provide family-centered services using the Family-Cen- tered Pre-service Model (FCPM). The FCPM program was

based on the teacher preparation professional standards

developed by both NAEYC and DEC. The researchers interviewed 22 students to examine attitudes and beliefs, as

well as aptitude, about issues relating to diversity. Students

were also asked to report on family-centered practices that they had the opportunity to apply (Murray and Mandell

2004).

Prior to the program, approximately 70% of the partic- ipants had little experience with families and a limited

understanding of family-centered practices. The FCPM

program was effective in changing the students’ attitudes and beliefs about working with diverse families and

increasing the students understanding of families in gen- eral. In addition, didactic teaching in conjunction with

experiential practice resulted in increased participant con-

fidence to effectively utilize and apply practices (Murray and Mandell 2004).

Additional research exploring pre-service teachers’

perceptions and experiences of preparedness training was conducted by Blasi (2002). Twenty-six students enrolled in

a course titled ‘‘Principles of Interprofessional Collabora-

tion,’’ completed pre- and post-test questionnaires. At the time of the pre-test, 38% of the students felt prepared to

work with children and families. Upon completion of the

course, 58% of the students felt prepared. This increase is due to the fact that students ‘‘realized the importance of

valuing and respecting parents as their children’s first and

most important teachers, and…saw their role in working with families as more of a ‘shared power’ within a ‘family-

first’ perspective’’ (Blasi 2002, p. 115). The limited posi-

tive results of the course further illuminate the need to expand and increase the emphasis on family-centered

learning opportunities beyond a single course.

Giallourakis et al. (2005) developed a measure to explore the specific beliefs, skills, and practices of graduate

students in the field of early childhood education. The

survey results indicated that a moderate level of family involvement is included in programs, but has little impact

on how students perceive their education. As would be

expected, frequency of contact was correlated with beliefs and practices on family-centered approaches. The two

themes that evolved from the survey responses were

increased empathy and awareness as well as the application of new skills in relation to family-centered practice. One

student shared that the experience greatly impacted his/her

perspective and work in helping him/her realize ‘‘that even the least participatory parent still holds immense knowl-

edge regarding their child and family, and the needs and

resources of the family’’ (Giallourakis et al. 2005, p. 4). Students’ expressive writing also gives insight into their

perceptions of family-centered practice. Pang and Wert

(2010) conducted a study of 87 undergraduate students enrolled in an introduction to early intervention course that

introduced students to family-centered philosophy and

practices. The students completed pre and post essays about their beliefs vis-à-vis the involvement of families in

Early Childhood Educ J (2012) 40:259–263 261

123

early intervention service delivery and how they would

involve families in their practice as early interventionists. The researchers found that at both the pre and post points

of the study, students recognized the importance of family

involvement; however, in their post essays students placed more emphasis on actual practices, involvement of the

family as a whole unit, the roles that families and profes-

sionals play, the importance of involving pre-service teachers with families early, and the challenges related to

implementing family-centered practices (Pang and Wert 2010). Pre-service students involved in the study recog-

nized family support as a critical component of early

intervention services and noted that family partnerships facilitated carryover of functional skills into multiple set-

tings. This carryover reduced the pressure on the teacher to

provide the primary support, increased both family and teacher understanding of the child’s development and

progress, and improved functionality of team goals.

Bingham and Abernathy (2007) used concept mapping to illuminate 49 pre-service students’ changing attitudes and

perceptions throughout a 16 week course on the topic of

partnering with families. The students completed a pre- and post-course concept map depicting their perceptions about

serving individuals with disabilities and their families. Dif-

ferences between pre- and post-course perceptions included the expansion of the idea of communication from ‘‘getting

the job done’’ to ‘‘advocating for children and families’’ and

‘‘a more reciprocal interaction with families’’ with students ‘‘relinquishing the role of power broker and embracing the

role of advocate’’ (Bingham and Abernathy 2007, p. 52).

Students saw the teacher’s role as more collaborative not only with families, but also the community at large. How-

ever, not all results were as encouraging. In the pre-course

maps, 73% of the students positioned the teacher as the expert. The post-course maps showed only a 8% change in

this perception of roles. ‘‘Regardless of the numerous

activities in which they participated and the family stories they heard, they did not move away from seeing the focus of

the class on the special education system and its require-

ments’’ (Bingham and Abernathy 2007, p. 55). Bingham and Abernathy hypothesize that perhaps the strong focus on the

administrative aspect of working with children with special

needs (the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act requirements, documentation, education plans, etc.) over-

whelm the students and therefore overshadow the impor-

tance of reciprocal family partnerships. Results from the focus groups based on the MetLife

survey spurred Rothenberg and McDermot to begin

implementing new strategies in coursework. Practicum students were required to hold routine conferences with

parents from a strengths-based perspective. These confer-

ences were meant to focus on positive news about children, while also allowing parents to voice the views, goals, and

dreams that they have for their children. Requiring family

visits provided the students with insight into the child’s world within the context of the family. Seasoned super-

vising teachers felt that the students’ work with the families

would create problems, but the families were quite recep- tive to the extra involvement and the students reported

enjoying the contact with families and found that working

with families resulted in positive outcomes for the children (Harvard Family Research Project 2006).

Conclusion

Partnering with families is best and effective practice and

can only enhance children’s development and learning.

Nevertheless, many teachers find the idea of partnering with families a daunting and unmanageable task due to lack

of preparation and training. All too often preparation does

not emphasize the importance of partnering with families enough to enable pre-service teachers to practically apply

the knowledge.

Increased and focused student contact with families throughout their teacher training is clearly necessary.

Involvement of families in the development of coursework

and in-service trainings as well as the delivery of course content and fieldwork opportunities is a key to improv-

ing student comprehension of the importance of family

partnership. This concept ensures that course content is realistic and offers real-life examples. Families can act as

co-instructors or guest speakers and share their experiences

and lives through practical field experiences. The research demonstrates that even one course can

impact pre-service teachers’ perceptions regarding part-

nerships with families. But, one course is not sufficient to adequately prepare teachers to work reciprocally with

families. Theoretically, infusing family-centeredness

throughout early childhood course work is the best option. However, programs must consider that ‘‘content taught,

including both emphasis and pedagogical style, varies

according to each individual instructor’s knowledge and experience’’ (Sewell 2007, p. 61). Infusion of content

across coursework is ideal as long as the emphasis of

content is regulated and aligned with course objectives and practical experience so that regardless of instructor, stu-

dents receive consistent information. In addition, ongoing

in-service training is imperative in order to not only edu- cate practicing teachers, but to support them in their daily

practice with families.

It is vital for both early childhood teacher preparation programs and in-service trainers to ensure pre-service

students and practicing teachers are adequately prepared to

partner with families in order to best serve the needs of the child and family.

262 Early Childhood Educ J (2012) 40:259–263

123

References

Bingham, A., & Abernathy, T. V. (2007). Promoting family-centered teaching: Can one course make a difference? Issues in Teacher Education, 16 (1), 37–60.

Blasi, M. W. (2002). An asset model: Preparing pre-service teachers to work with children and families ‘‘of promise’’. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 17 (1), 106–121.

Bruder, M. B., & Dunst, C. J. (2005). Personnel preparation in recommended early intervention practices: Degree of emphasis across disciplines. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 25 (1), 25–33.

Bruder, M. B., Morgro-Wilson, C., Stayton, V. D., & Dietrich, S. L. (2009). The national status of in-service professional develop- ment systems for early intervention and early childhood special education practitioners. Infants and Young Children, 22(1), 13–20.

Centre for Community Child Health. (2003). Final report on research to inform the development of a capacity building program. Canberra, ACT: Australian Council for Children and Parenting, Commonwealth Department of Family and Community Services.

Chang, F., Early, D. M., & Winton, P. J. (2005). Early childhood teacher preparation in special education at 2- and 4-year institutions of higher education. Journal of Early Intervention, 27 (2), 110–124.

Giallourakis, A., Pretti-Frontczak, K., & Cook, B. (2005). Under- standing family involvement in the preparation of graduate students: Measuring family-centered beliefs, skills, systems, and practices. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Family Research Project.

Harvard Family Research Project. (2006). Is teacher preparation key to improving teacher practices with families? What are the alternatives? FINE Network. Retrieved from http://www.gse. harvard.edu/hfrp/projects/fine/memberinsights.html.

Hyson, M. (Ed.). (2003). Preparing early childhood professionals: NAEYC’s standards for programs. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.

Markow, D., Moessner, C., & Horowitz, H. (Eds.). (2006). The MetLife survey of the American teacher: Expectations and Experiences. New York: Metropolitan Life Insurance Company.

Maxwell, K. L., Lim, C.-I., & Early, D. M. (2006). Early childhood teacher preparation programs in the United States: National report. Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina, FPG Child Development Institute.

Murray, M. M., & Mandell, C. J. (2004). Evaluation of a family- centered early childhood special education pre-service model by program graduates. Topics in Early Childhood Special Educa- tion, 24 (4), 238–249.

Pang, Y., & Wert, B. (2010). Preservice teachers’ attitudes towards family-centered practices in early intervention: An implication for teacher education. Educational Research, 1(8), 253–262.

Rupiper, M., & Marvin, C. (2004). Preparing teachers for family- centered services: A survey of pre-service curriculum content. Teacher Education and Special Education, 27 (4), 384–395.

Sewell, T. (2007). Family-centered practice in early intervention and early childhood special education personnel preparation. (Doc- toral dissertation). Retrieved from Proquest. (Publication number AAT 3273938).

Stayton, V. D., Miller, P. S., & Dinnebeil, L. A. (Eds.). (2003). DEC Personnel preparation in early childhood special education: Implementing the DEC recommended practices. Longmont, CO: Sopris West.

The Center to Inform Personnel Preparation, Policy and Practice in Early Intervention and Early Childhood Special Education. (n.d.). Part C data report. Retrieved from http://www.uconnuc edd.org/publications/files/PPDataPartCweb.pdf.

Early Childhood Educ J (2012) 40:259–263 263

123