Week 6 Discussion 1 Family School Problem Solving

CHAPTER 11 Engaging in Collaborative Problem Solving with Families

Ellen S. Amatea and Blaire Cholewa

Learning Objectives

After reading this chapter, you will be able to:

■ Describe the four styles of conflict management.

■ Discuss the common barriers to engaging in collaborative family–school meetings to resolve student problems and difficulties.

■ Explain the principles that underlie collaborative family–school problem solving.

■ Describe the steps involved in conducting collaborative family–school problem-solving meetings.

■ Describe specific techniques for blocking the blaming that often characterizes family–school problem-solving efforts.

■ Discuss the use of the skills of structuring, listening, brainstorming, and consensus building in the facilitation of family–school problem-solving meetings.

■ Discuss the applicability of family–school problem-solving meetings with culturally diverse families.

Fifth-grade teacher: My approach is to “Let sleeping dogs lie.” I don’t meet with a parent unless I absolutely have to. Instead, I try and do everything I can to resolve a child’s difficulty myself, and pray either that those things work or that the problem will take care of itself.

Sixth-grade teacher: When I call parents in to meet with me about a problem their child has, I have a specific idea in mind of what I need for them to do to help me resolve it. My job in the meeting is to convince them to do what I think is needed.

Preschool teacher: I often find that when I meet with parents about a problem their child is having, I have a difficult time having them understand my point of view. Rather than their doing what I think is needed, I end up agreeing to do what they want to avoid hard feelings.

First-grade teacher: I believe it is important to have both students and their parents work with me to figure out how we might resolve a difficulty the student is experiencing. I firmly believe that three heads are better than one. I know that together we can often come up with ways of solving a problem that I would never be able to think of by myself.

Teachers often must relay unpleasant information to parents. Letting parents know about troublesome or inappropriate behavior, or that students are failing or must be retained, is never easy. These and other difficult communication tasks can engender feelings of apprehension and discomfort in both parents and teachers. As the preceding comments depict, educators vary in their style of discussing these matters with parents.

Some educators, such as the 5th-grade teacher depicted in the first comment, try to avoid conflict by not talking with parents about a child’s difficulty unless they absolutely must. These individuals tend to withdraw when faced with the possibility of conflict, perceiving their own goals and those of the child and family to be of much less importance than the fear of experiencing conflict. Feeling hopeless and helpless to address a child’s problem or to address and resolve conflicting views about the problem, these educators often maintain a facade that all is well until problems have reached such a critical stage that they cannot be ignored any longer.

Other educators, such as the 6th-grade teacher depicted in the second comment, use a competitive style of conflict management in which they perceive their perspective and goals as the most important and place little value on preserving the parent–educator relationship. These individuals try to overpower others by forcing them to accept the solution that they favor. Having a “win–lose” mindset, they believe in a “taking a hard line” and getting others to do things their way even at the expense of the relationship. In contrast, educators who believe that preserving the harmony of the family–school relationship is more important than their own personal goals often accommodate to parents’ perspectives to avoid conflict. This “soft,” cooperative, nonassertive style, depicted by the preschool teacher’s comments, is labeled the accommodating style of conflict management because the respondent favors “giving in to,” or accommodating, others’ demands rather than risking conflict in the relationship.

A collaborative style of conflict management is depicted in the 1st-grade teacher’s comment. Viewing a student’s problems and conflicting perspectives as an opportunity to seek better outcomes and build more effective relationship with families, this individual invites parents and students in to share their ideas openly, to discuss alternative perspectives collectively, and to manage differences constructively. Obviously, the extent to which educators and family members can engage in such problem solving is dependent upon the degree of trust present in the relationship. In Reflective Exercise 11.1, we ask you to consider which style of conflict management you use most frequently.

REFLECTIVE EXERCISE 11.1

Conflict Management Style

What style of managing conflict did you see modeled in your family when you were growing up?

How comfortable are you with people who display a very different style of conflict management?

Which style do you tend to gravitate toward, and what tends to be the result?

Although no one style of conflict management is effective in every situation, we believe that a collaborative style of conflict management offers the greatest possibility for both resolving students’ problems effectively and building trusting relationships with students’ families. However, we know from our own lives that the collaborative style of conflict management is not commonly illustrated in many of our day-to-day interactions. Instead, if the problem is not avoided completely, we often see the hard and competitive style of conflict resolution or the soft and accommodating style modeled in our school, work, or family lives.

As a result, despite the best of intentions for working with students and families, many teachers may feel unprepared and uneasy when it comes to working with families in resolving children’s problems. Because knowledge of this way to manage conflicts is not commonly available, in this chapter, we describe the steps and skills involved in conducting collaborative family–school problem-solving meetings. In addition, we investigate the applicability of engaging in such problem solving with culturally diverse families. First, however, let’s discuss some of the barriers to using this style of problem solving and conflict management.

11.1 Barriers to Collaborative Problem Solving

Four significant barriers exist to effectively implementing collaborative problem solving in today’s schools: (a) the emotionally charged nature of such meetings, (b) the tendency to blame, (c) the monocultural and monolingual orientation of the school, and (d) the traditional style of conducting such meetings. Let’s look at each of these more fully.

Emotionally Charged Nature of Family–School Meetings

The typical parent–teacher meeting convened to discuss a child’s problem inevitably is emotionally charged. Why is this so? To parents, their child is the most important person in their lives, the one who arouses the deepest passions and greatest vulnerabilities, the one who inspires their fiercest advocacy and protection. And teachers, deemed society’s adults (Lightfoot, 2003), are the persons with whom parents must seek an alliance and support in their efforts to rear their child. Parents know that for their child to prosper at school, they must be willing to put their child into the care of a perfect stranger. Parents also know that they are opening themselves up to have their efforts to rear their child scrutinized and evaluated by that teacher. In addition, parents’ fears and expectations about their interactions with teachers are colored by their own childhood experiences with teachers and with learning. “Can I trust this teacher with my child? Will she or he care for my child as I do?” Therefore, parents often feel very exposed emotionally at such meetings. For similar reasons, teachers also often dread their problem-focused encounters with parents. As Lightfoot (2003) explains:

The parent–teacher conference is also the arena in which teachers feel the most uncertain, exposed, and defensive, and the place where they feel their competence and professionalism most directly challenged. Beneath the polite surface of parent–teacher conferences, burns a cauldron of fiery feelings made particularly difficult because everyone carefully masks them and they seem inappropriate for the occasion. (p. 21)

Given this emotional context, it is not surprising that misunderstandings between parents and teachers are commonplace. Teachers and parents often have access to different sources of information, have different goals and values (Hornby & Lafaele, 2011; Ryan, Casas, Kelly-Vance, Ryalls, & Nero, 2010; Suzzio, 2007), and can come from different backgrounds (Hill & Torres, 2010; Sanders, 2008). Each person sees the world from his or her own perspective and assumes that their perspective is the correct version of reality. When differences occur, strong feelings can contribute to a loss of objectivity and a threatening of egos. The relationship between the parties is often put in jeopardy, and solving the problem can become a series of emotional reactions and counter-reactions in which one party blames the other party for the problem (Kim, 2009). In the end, the child’s problem is never solved.

Tendency to Blame

Many parents and educators do not have a history of trusting each other. Often, the only type of communication between schools and families that occurs is when students are having problems. Typically, the decision to invite parents in to deal with a student’s emotional or academic problem may be fraught with tension and blaming on both sides. Often a student’s problems have progressed to the point in which a crisis occurs, and thus it cannot be overlooked. Teachers and parents may have conflicting ideas about the nature of the crisis situation and how best to resolve it. When neither party meets the other’s expectations, the result is blame. For example, teachers may expect parents to do what they suggest, grow frustrated by parents’ inaction, and judge the parents to be incompetent. Rather than blame the child or blame themselves, they blame the child’s family for the student’s continuing difficulties (Kim, 2009; Olivos, 2009). Parents may believe that the teacher does not understand or care about their child and may push for teachers to demonstrate greater understanding. If the teacher does not comply with the parents’ requests, the parents may judge the teacher to be uncaring and ineffective and blame the teacher for the child’s problem.

We have a history of thinking that we must decide who is to blame as the cause of a problem to be a necessary step in problem solving; therefore, inordinate amounts of time are spent deciding who is at fault for a child’s problem. Is it a lazy child, an incompetent teacher, or an unresponsive parent? Although such blaming is common in family–school interactions, this activity is counter-productive to building a sense of shared responsibility for solving a student’s problem. Because of this, we devote time in this chapter to a discussion of how to circumvent (or block) the blaming common to such meetings.

Monocultural and Monolingual Nature of Schools

As you learned in Chapter 6, many schools are monocultural in their outlook—that is, they embrace the norms and values of the dominant culture. As a result, educators’ expectations regarding the role that parents should play in the educational process and in problem solving are often based on a middle-class cultural script that is highly individualistic. Yet many students’ families may value more collectivist cultural patterns, resulting in valuing behaviors and goals for their child that may differ from those promoted by middle-class teachers, and they may parent their children differently. A common conclusion is that one form of parenting is superior to others in producing high-achieving children. However, such a judgment fails to consider the many positive benefits of collectivist cultural practices. For example, a study of Mexican American and European American mothers’ values for their young children (Rodriguez & Olswang, 2003) revealed that Mexican American mothers valued conformity, politeness, and obedience more than self-direction, whereas European American mothers valued self-direction over conformity.

Furthermore, educators may not only use a language unfamiliar to students’ families, but may also engage in a style of communication and problem solving that is unfamiliar to students’ families (Crosnoe, 2009; Dupraw & Axner, 1997). As discussed in Chapter 8, families from more collectivist cultures may favor using high-context communication patterns in which nonverbal communication (e.g., pauses, silence, facial expressions, movements) plays a larger role in meaning making than it does in individualistic cultures. Low-context communication, however, is more explicit and depends on more specific and unambiguous verbal communication. In addition, the respective roles and positions of the communicators may influence the meaning making more strongly. Finally, there is a preference for indirect talk in more collectivistic cultures. Rather than frank and direct disclosure of emotions or personal information, direct acknowledgment of conflict, or use of probing questions, persons from these cultures may be comfortable with indirect acknowledgment of information about their personal lives and perspectives.

Traditional Style of Parent–Teacher Meetings

The monocultural orientation of schools and the use of blaming are not the only major barriers to collaborative problem solving—the traditional approach educators have used in conducting meetings with parents in the past impedes the use of a collaborative problem-solving approach. The tradition in many schools is to use a competitive style of problem solving and conflict management in parent–school meetings. Well illustrated by the second comment in the opening of the chapter, educators assume that their job is to decide the nature of the problem and how it is to be solved before the parent–school meeting, and then to convince the parent of the correctness of this problem definition and proposed solution. Case Study 11.1 provides an example of such a meeting and highlights some of the problems inherent in this traditional approach. As you read this meeting scenario, think about whether the principal and teacher understand the child’s and parent’s viewpoints, and whether the parent and child understand the teacher’s viewpoint.

CASE STUDY 11.1

JACK AND THE FISHBOWL

Jack is a 4th-grade student at Spring Hill Elementary School. It is 2 weeks before Christmas break, and his teacher, Ms. Radcliff, has had enough. Jack has been difficult to handle throughout the entire semester. Although he scored high on standardized tests, Jack is failing both reading and math. He does not complete his in-class assignments or homework. He is not only failing important subjects, he is disrupting the entire classroom as well. He is constantly out of his seat, fights frequently with other students, and tells jokes while the teacher is lecturing.

Ms. Radcliff has tried everything she knows to help improve Jack’s behavior and academic performance. Among other strategies, she has tried giving him positive reinforcement, getting him a tutor that could help him after school, sending him to the principal’s office, giving him time-out, ignoring him, changing his seating arrangement, and giving him after-school detention. Because the principal suggested that teachers in the school involve parents when there was a problem at the school, Ms. Radcliff called Jack’s mother repeatedly to inform her of Jack’s academic and behavioral problems.

However, Ms. Radcliff believes that her efforts to contact Jack’s mother are a waste of time. In the beginning, Jack’s mother seemed to be cooperative, but as of late, when Ms. Radcliff calls, Jack’s mother, Ms. Nichols, seems angry and defensive. Jack’s mother even had the audacity to suggest that maybe Ms. Radcliff was the problem. Ms. Radcliff is at the end of her rope and does not know what else she can do.

Yesterday in the classroom, Jack took the classroom fishbowl and threw it onto the floor. Ms. Radcliff met with the principal about this incident, and they decided to emphasize the seriousness of Jack’s problems and the need for Jack’s mother to control Jack by requiring a parent conference before Jack could return to school.

The principal’s secretary called Ms. Nichols, Jack’s mother, and informed her that Jack was in trouble again and needed to be picked up from school, and that she must come to the school for a parent conference before Jack can return to school. The meeting was scheduled for the following day at 11:30 A.M.

Jack’s mother is angry and frustrated. She has tried to help Jack, but she does not know what else to do. She is beginning to think that Jack’s problems are because of Ms. Radcliff. Jack’s parents divorced last summer. He misses his father very much, and some of the boys in the class are teasing him about not having a father. Jack has never had problems in school before, and he does not seem to be a problem at home. In addition, she now has to take two unpaid days off from work. As a single parent, she cannot afford to miss work. When Ms. Nichols asks Jack about the incident, he says it was an accident.

Jack is angry and scared that his mother has been called to school. He thinks that Ms. Radcliff does not like him and is trying to get him in trouble with his mother. He did knock over the fishbowl, but it was an accident. Jack has been very frustrated in his classroom. He used to be a very good student, but lately the work seems very difficult and he can’t seem to concentrate; to make things worse, Ms. Radcliff moved him to the back of the class, where he has difficulty hearing her directions and seeing the board.

Ms. Nichols and Jack arrive at the school. Jack is sent to eat lunch with his classmates, and Ms. Nichols waits in the office for the teacher to arrive. After a few minutes, the teacher and the school resource officer arrive and go into the principal’s office. After what seems like hours, Ms. Nichols is called in to the office. The principal is sitting behind his desk with the police officer standing beside him and the teacher sitting in one of two chairs facing the desk. Ms. Nichols is directed to sit in the other chair.

The principal begins by introducing himself and the resource officer. He then goes on to describe each of the behavioral incidents that Jack has been involved in throughout the year, culminating with the fishbowl incident. He concludes his statements by saying that he is very concerned about Jack’s behavior, and that he is considering whether Jack should be assessed for a possible emotional problem, which might entail testing and placement in a special education classroom.

The teacher then echoes what the principal already said, and shares the challenges of having Jack in the classroom as well as her concerns about Jack’s lack of academic progress. She suggests that the mother seek counseling for Jack from a mental health professional. Ms. Radcliff’s frustration with Jack is clearly evident in the tone of her voice.

Ms. Nichols sits quietly and passively, apparently taking in the conversation but inside she is scared, angry, and overwhelmed. She is scared that Jack will be placed in an emotionally handicapped (EH) classroom. She is angry with Ms. Radcliff, who evidently does not like her son and seems to have it out for him, and she feels overwhelmed that she does not know what else she can do to help Jack. Although Ms. Nichols is feeling powerless, she assures the school staff that she will take care of things and that Jack will be punished. The principal thanks Ms. Nichols for coming in, all parties shake hands, and the meeting is adjourned.

Questions to Consider

■ Which style of conflict management did the school staff use?

■ What were the effects of this style of problem solving and conflict management on the outcomes agreed on and the participants’ relationship?

■ Beyond feeling powerless, scared, angry, and overwhelmed, what else do you think Ms. Nichols is thinking and feeling?

Unfortunately, the meeting described in Case Study 11.1 is not atypical in today’s schools. Problem solving is a difficult endeavor and often involves people getting upset, taking things personally, and misunderstanding each other (Fisher, Ury, & Patton, 2011). Typical methods of resolving conflicts and solving problems often leave people feeling exhausted, dissatisfied, and alienated. People usually understand two ways of problem solving: hard and soft. In the soft accommodating way, one party gives in and is left feeling exploited and bitter, as in the case of Ms. Nichols. In the hard competitive way, resolving the problem becomes a contest of wills. This competition between parties is most often damaging to the relationships between the parties and exhausts available resources (Fisher, Ury, & Patton, 2011).

Schools have traditionally dealt with the challenges of problem solving with families by having the contact between schools and families be short and highly ritualized. Educators assume that they should operate as the experts, somewhat like a doctor might in a medical context. The school is seen as the authority, and the locus of the problem is with the child and his or her family (Delpit, 2006; Kim, 2009; Olivos, 2009). The child and possibly his or her parents are viewed as deficient and in need of treatment (Harry & Klinger, 2007; Kim, 2009). Moreover, the school meets only with parents of children who are having problems. Calling in the parent for a meeting is used as a threat or punishment to get the child to behave more appropriately. However, children are typically left out of this type of meeting, or if they are included, they are passive observers of the process rather than active participants. Such meetings are often short, and the main purpose is to report to the parents (usually the mother) the nature of their child’s problem and what the school has decided to do about it, which might entail the school reporting what they have decided to do to fix the child’s problem or what they expect the parent to do. Minimal, if any, decision making or problem solving occurs collabora-tively during the meeting itself, and the common assumption is that a follow-up is not needed. Because this traditional style meeting has not been very successful, many educators began developing more collaborative ways of increasing problem solving between families and schools.

11.2 Collaborative Family–School Problem Solving

In this section, we describe the SOLVES approach to family–school problem solving. It differs substantially from the traditional way that educators structure their meetings with parents. The SOLVES problem-solving approach is based on four philosophical principles common to other joint problem-solving approaches (Christenson & Hirsch, 1998):

1. Educators view their relations with students’ families as a means for preparing the child for success in school rather than just a mechanism for gathering information from parents that would help educators to better prepare the child. As a result, the focus is on both home and school sharing the goal of facilitating the child’s learning and development as well as sharing joint responsibility and ownership for problem solving and problem change.

2. Parents and educators recognize that the child is the central purpose for their collaboration. Because of this, a clear boundary is established between the home and school in which parents and educators respect each other’s domain and competence, yet view their roles as reciprocal and flexible depending on situational demands.

3. If discontinuities and differing views occur between home and school, they are not feared, but are seen as important to investigate and understand. As a result, conflicts and differences are communicated openly and directly rather than left to fester. Methods are developed for routinely sharing information and resolving issues.

4. The focus of professional helping shifts from diagnosis and treatment of the child’s (or family’s) deficits and problem to the development of a cooperative partnership in which each party views the other as having specific strengths and competencies. “The educator sees strengths of the child and family and facilitates problem solving to establish shared ownership for solution identification.” (Christenson & Hirsh, 1998, p. 325)

The purposes of the SOLVES family–school problem-solving approach are to achieve a productive outcome for the child and to build a strong working relationship between home and school (Amatea, Daniels, Bringman, & Vandiver, 2004). SOLVES, a modification of the family–school meeting format designed by Weiss and Edwards (1992) of the Family–School Collaboration Project at the Ackerman Institute, was developed with input from educators and parents and has been implemented in both suburban and urban elementary and middle school settings.

In the family–school meeting, the child, parent, teacher, and possibly other stakeholders discuss their concerns together, think of possible solutions to resolve the concerns, and develop a concrete plan to solve the problem. The facilitator of the meeting uses specific techniques to block blame so that participants do not lose their objectivity, and relationships are nurtured instead of damaged (Weiss & Edwards, 1992). During the 30 to 45 minutes allocated for the meeting, the goal is not only to work on solving the problem, but also to build positive working relationships between participants. Once positive relationships are solidified, the team can continue to work on solving the problem by developing and implementing new solutions as needed. The collaborative meeting follows a structured sequence of six steps that ensures that all participants in the meeting have a chance to talk about their concerns, offer solutions, and come up with a plan to help the student be more successful in school. A comparison of the traditional family–school meeting practices and this collaborative family–school problem-solving format is depicted in Table 11.1.

TABLE 11.1 Comparison of Traditional and Collaborative Family–School Meetings

	Traditional	Collaborative
Purpose of the Meeting	Parents are called in to punish or threaten the student.	Parents are viewed as an important resource in solving the problem.
Who Is Included	Child is not included or is included to receive punishment.	■ Parent(s), student, teacher, and others ■ Child is key player in decision making.
Roles in the Meeting and in Decision Making	Teachers and administrators decide what to do about the problem before the meeting. Parents hear one of two messages: “This is what we are going to do to fix the problem,” or, “You fix your child. He or she is the problem.”	Problem solving is a joint process of parent, student, and teacher; power is shared.
Environmental Features	■ Short meetings ■ No attempt at building relationships ■ Parent feels blamed for the child’s problem	■ Blame blocked ■ Participants sit in circle ■ Time is committed to the meeting ■ Meeting process is explained ■ No one is blamed for the problem
Result	The consequences of not changing the problematic behavior are spelled out for the child and parent. No plan for change or follow-up is created.	A concrete plan is developed to solve the problem, and follow-up is set to evaluate the progress of the plan

11.3 Implementing the SOLVES Family–School Meeting

Now that you have some understanding of the assumptions and philosophy of the family–school problem-solving meeting, let’s look more closely at the specific steps and procedures involved in conducting such a meeting. Before embarking on planning and carrying out such meetings, it is important to remember that the family–school problem-solving meeting works most effectively when teachers have already built positive relationships with parents using climate-building activities, such as student-led parent conferences and regular communication. Your first interaction with parents should not be the problem-solving meeting. As discussed earlier, when parents are called to the school to discuss problems their child is having in school, both the parent and the child often feel a variety of emotions, including anxiety, anger, frustration, and apprehension. It is much easier to discuss problems when the parent already sees you as caring for and supporting their child. Climate-building activities can help you create an atmosphere of trust, goodwill, and cooperation that makes addressing children’s problems much easier.

Six steps are involved in conducting family–school problem-solving meetings. The steps, listed in Figure 11.1, form the acronym SOLVES.

Step 1: Setting Up the Meeting and Inviting the Student and Family

The first step in conducting a problem-solving meeting is to decide why you want to meet, who is to be involved, and when and where the meeting will occur. You must first think about why you want to meet. What do you hope to accomplish in the meeting? As you think about what you would like to accomplish in the meeting, think about achieving small and specific goals. Students may have multiple or complex problems at school. Think about one issue that, if solved, might have the most influence on improving the student’s academic and social functioning. As you think about what you would like to see happen in the meeting, remember that your perspective of the problem is only one perspective. You may discover information in the process of the meeting that changes your ideas about what you would like to accomplish in the meeting.

Figure 11.1 Steps in the Family–School Problem-Solving Meeting

Deciding Whom to Invite

Several considerations are involved in deciding whom you would like to invite to the meeting. The most important consideration is to determine the people most concerned about the student’s welfare and who have an important stake in solving the problem. The first person to be included is the student. In traditional problem-solving meetings, the student is often excluded from the process. However, we have found that by actively involving the student in identifying the problem and coming up with the solutions, the solutions arrived at by the meeting participants are better tailored to the student’s individuality. In addition, the student is more motivated to carry out the solutions when he or she has been involved in and has ownership in the process. To appreciate the impact that involving the student can have on the meeting process and outcome, imagine that you are having a problem at work. In one instance, your supervisor comes to you and says that he or she has discussed your problem with others and has come up with some specific solutions for you. If you do not carry out these solutions, you will be fired, demoted, or otherwise punished. How do you imagine you might feel? What might be your response to the suggestions made by your supervisor? Now consider an alternative situation. You are having the same problem at work, but in this instance, your supervisor comes to you and asks your perspective on the problem and engages you in solving the problem. What are the differences in how you feel and respond when you are involved in solving the problem?

The next participants to be invited to the meeting are the students’ parents or care-givers. In most instances, all caregivers and parents should be invited to attend the meeting. Each caregiver may have a different perspective about the student’s problem and the solutions that might be used to solve the problem. In addition, by involving all caregivers in the process and gaining their support, the plan is more likely to be carried out. If one of the parents or caregivers cannot attend the meeting, you might want to consider including the caregiver who could not attend by calling them on the phone during the meeting, or by having the student share the plan with the absent caregiver after the meeting and having that caregiver also sign and return the plan developed at the meeting to the school. More than likely, you will have students who are being raised by grandparents or adults other than their parents or whose parents have divorced. In these cases, plan to first call the primary caregiver of the child to gain their permission to involve other family members. Explain to them the benefits of involving other caregivers of the child. The primary caregiver may want to take the responsibility for inviting other caregivers, or may prefer that you call and invite other caregivers. If the primary caregiver refuses to have other caregivers involved, respecting the caregiver’s wishes is important.

Other important stakeholders whom you may want to consider inviting to the meeting are neighbors, mentors, tutors, other teachers in the school with whom the child has a special relationship, school counselors, administrators, social workers, ministers, coaches, or others who caregivers suggest might be helpful in solving the problem. Knowing the child and the family beforehand will help you make the best decision about whom to invite to the meeting. The key is for you or the caregiver to invite people to the meeting who care for the student and have a stake in solving the problem, or who can help the students and care-givers feel more comfortable in the meeting. Be sensitive to the number of people invited to the meeting. You do not want the parent and child to feel intimidated by having too many people from the school involved in the meeting. You may believe that it is essential to have several school staff involved, but consult with the parent about whom you plan to invite to the meeting. Also, be sure to prepare the parent ahead of time regarding the number of people you wish to have participate, and invite the parent to bring a support person.

In scheduling a place to conduct the meeting, find a place that is comfortable and inviting. An optimal space is one in which the meeting participants can sit in a circle (without a table dividing them). By sitting in a circle, the sense of hierarchy is minimized as each person is on the same level. It also creates a more collaborative atmosphere as each person can see the other participants’ faces. So look for a space in which the appropriate number of chairs can be placed in a circle.

The last stage in planning the meeting is for you to think about how you will conduct the meeting. You should review the steps in the problem-solving meeting to make sure you are comfortable with them. If you think that parents might come into the meeting feeling anxious or angry, think about how you will respond ahead of time. Also, plan to bring the necessary materials to the meeting, such as copies of the family–school problem-solving meeting planning form (Figure 11.2) and a pen or pencil. If materials are available that can help the parent to understand their child’s problem in more concrete ways, such as your grade book and samples of the student’s work, plan to bring those as well.

Figure 11.2 Family–School Problem-Solving Meeting Form

Preparing the Student and Parents

Because the tradition in many schools has been to call parents to the school only for the purpose of explaining to them the punishment that the child is to receive or to enlist them in threatening their child with punishment, both students and parents often have negative expectations about family–school meetings. Understandably, many parents expect that decisions will be made without their input, and students expect that their parents have been invited to come to school as punishment for the students’ misdeeds. To change these expectations and increase the probability of having a successful meeting, the process of preparing the student and family prior to the meeting is important.

For the problem-solving meeting to be effective, the caregivers and student must view themselves as important resources for solving the problem. For the participants to view themselves in this way, some initial work is required. You must explain the purpose of the meeting, describe how the meeting will be conducted, and discuss the roles of the participants. You must also emphasize that the student and the parent are not being invited in because the school is blaming them for causing the problem. Instead, they are being asked to share responsibility for solving the problem.

In explaining the purpose of the meeting to the student or parent, describe the problem as you see it, but convey that you need more information to understand what is going on. Explain that the purpose of the meeting is to come up with a plan to improve the problem situation and enlist the support of the student, the family, and other stakeholders in solving the problem. For example, you might say to a student, “I’m worried that you are not finishing your reading comprehension questions in class. I think it might be because you are having difficulty finishing reading the passages in time, but you know more than I about what is going on. I would like to sit down with you, and your parents to work together to see if we can figure out a way for you to do better in reading.”

The next step in preparing the student or family is to explain what will happen during the meeting. You might want to show the student a copy of the Family–School Problem Solving Form (see Figure 11.2) that will be used during the meeting.

For example: “The first thing we will do in the meeting is that each of us will be invited to talk about what we are most concerned about and want to talk about in the meeting. After we hear from everyone, we will decide together about which concern to work on in the meeting. Next, we will ask everyone for ideas about how we might solve the concern or problem we decide to work on. And finally, we will put our heads together to come up with a plan to resolve the problem. Once we have a plan, we will give each person in the meeting a job to do to help solve the problem.”

The final step is to discuss the student’s or family’s role in solving the problem. For example: “Your job is to tell us what you think the problem is. We are relying a lot on what you say, because you are the expert on you and what is happening to you. We would also like to hear what you have already done to solve the problem and what else we might be able to do together to try to solve the problem.”

Even with this explanation, the student or the family may still worry that they will be blamed for the problem. To prevent them from feeling blamed, it may be necessary for you to tell them explicitly that they are not to be blamed for the problem. For example, you might say: “I want you to know that you are not being blamed for the problem. You did not do anything bad or wrong, and I know that you are struggling with the problem. Our job is to come up with a plan to beat the problem.”

Step 2: Opening the Meeting, Orienting to the Meeting Purpose, and Process and Introductions

You have prepared the student and the caregivers for the meeting ahead of time, and the day has come for the meeting. Make sure that the parents/caregivers are greeted as they enter the school and know where to go for the meeting. You might want to prepare the front office staff to provide a warm greeting and direct them to the meeting room. An even better solution would be for you to meet the family/caregivers when they arrive and walk with them to the meeting place. A warm reception can help anxious caregivers feel more comfortable.

As you enter the meeting room, invite the family members to have a seat. Participants should sit in a circle, with the child sitting between the teacher and the parent(s). Begin the meeting with a little bit of “small talk” to ease the initial tensions that might exist. After a short period of informal talk, the facilitator of the meeting (who is typically a teacher) first asks everyone to introduce himself or herself and then explains the purpose of the meeting, the roles of each person attending the meeting, and the process to be followed in the meeting. For example, to explain the purpose and process of the meeting, the facilitator might say, “Thank you for coming today. I invited you here to this meeting so that we can put our heads together and come up with a plan to provide the best school experience we can for Jessica. I will be asking each of you to express your concerns. Our hope is that by the end of the meeting, we will come up with a plan of action we can work on together to address a couple of concerns. Do you have any questions about the process?”

This information signals, according to Weiss and Edwards (1992), that the participants’ concerns are important and will be heard, the meeting is not a punishment, and the meeting has a clear purpose of action (not merely talk) for change. In addition, because the focus is on school issues rather than family life issues, an appropriate boundary is set between home and school.

In communicating this information, the facilitator should speak in a manner that is easy to understand without using technical jargon. If technical terms must be used, the facilitator should make sure to explain each term in a familiar language without talking down to the participants. The facilitator should also make sure that he or she speaks to the child instead of about the child. Speaking about the child in the child’s presence creates an atmosphere in which the child feels powerless and excluded from the meeting.

Step 3: Listening and Clarifying Participants’ Concerns and Blocking Blame

In step 3, each person who attends the meeting has a turn to voice one or two of their concerns. The facilitator not only probes for factors in the child’s life that may be maintaining the problem, but also asks about situations in which the problem does not occur or solutions they have attempted to solve the problem. During this phase of the meeting, it may also be necessary for the facilitator or other participants to block the implicit or explicit blame of self or others that may be expressed at this time (Weiss & Edwards, 1992). The beliefs of the participants about who is responsible for a problem are often expressed as implicit or explicit blame. This blame can derail joint problem solving from occurring. For example, a parent might say to a teacher, “I don’t have problems making John behave at home.” Implied in this statement is the message that somehow the teacher does not have the ability that the parent has to control the child’s behavior effectively. Teachers might find themselves responding by defending their situation more strongly, thus derailing their efforts at joint problem solving. In the next section, we introduce you to strategies for dealing effectively with such blaming statements.

A useful starting point is for the teacher to share his or her concerns because the teacher’s style of reporting can serve as a model for the other participants in the meeting. The teacher should focus on no more than one or two specific concerns that are most important. In explaining his or her concerns in language the child and family can understand, the teacher must be as direct and concrete as possible. The teacher should describe the actions that took place and the context in which they occurred, giving specific examples whenever possible. The teacher may also want to mention areas in which the child is doing well. Following is an example of one teacher’s report:

As you know, John does really well in science. He earns high grades and his science project on volcanoes was one of the best in the class. However, I am concerned about his math performance. I have noticed that John’s math grades have been falling and that John has not been turning in his homework. We give a quiz each Friday, and his last three grades have been a C, a D, and an F. Also, he has not turned in any homework in the last 2 weeks. I am surprised about John’s recent behavior. During the first 9 weeks, he turned in every homework assignment and most of his quiz grades were Bs or Cs.

After the teacher shares his or her concerns, each person at the meeting should be invited to share his or her concerns without being interrupted. As the participants in the meeting share their concerns, the teacher should record their responses on the Family–School Problem-Solving Meeting Form (see Figure 11.2).

An important aspect in clarifying each participant’s concerns is to make them more understandable to others in the meeting. One way to do this is by asking each participant to provide sufficient information about (a) when, (b) where, (c) with whom, and (d) under what conditions they view that a problem occurs. The teacher may also want to find out when the problem does not occur, which may help the student and others at the meeting recognize the student’s strengths and successes (Weiss & Edwards, 1992).

Step 4: Validating and Checking for Consensus about Shared Concerns

The goal in step 4 is to find the commonalities among the concerns that participants shared and to identify the one concern that participants want to work together to change. This can be accomplished by highlighting areas of agreement around which the parents, educators, and student can work together, and focusing the discussion on the concern that would be most helpful to develop a plan of action (e.g., after a concern has been agreed on, write the concern on the planning form).

When choosing a concern, the language used to describe the concern can be of critical importance. Change-inducing language can provide the group with hope that change in the concern is possible and create more opportunities for intervention. The following strategies use change-inducing language:

1. One form of change-inducing language is to talk about the problem in the past tense rather than in the future or present tense. This conveys that the present and the future might be different from the past (O’Hanlon, 1999). For example, say, “You were getting in fights every day,” instead of, “You get in fights every day.”

2. Because the use of all-or-nothing words, such as always, never, every time, no one, nothing, or everyone can inhibit change and block creative thinking, substitute all-or-nothing words with partial statements or questions (O’Hanlon, 1999). For example, instead of saying, “You never turn in your homework,” say, “You usually do not turn in your homework.”

3. Avoid talking about a student or parent as the problem. Labels given to students can become a self-fulfilling prophecy (O’Hanlon, 1999). For example, instead of saying, “You are a behavior problem,” try, “You demonstrate problem behavior at times.”

4. Try to separate the person from the problem by discussing the problem as if it is external to the person. Externalizing the problem creates an atmosphere in which the student feels less shame and less need to blame others (Winslade & Monk, 1999). For example, “Sometimes the ‘anger monster’ comes out and your friends don’t like it. How can we work on controlling the anger monster?”

5. Use language that creates hope for the future. Some key phrases to use to help create a sense of positive expectancy are as of yet, so far, up until now, when, and will (O’Hanlon, 1999). For example, “Up until now, you have been failing math,” or, “So far, you haven’t been able to make any friends in the classroom.” These phrases communicate that the possibility of a different future exists.

Step 5: Expanding Solution Ideas

Now that the group has come to a consensus about the concern that they would like to address, the next task is to come up with a list of possible solutions to solve the problem. Participants are asked to brainstorm together. Each person at the meeting is asked to come up with one or two ideas to solve the problem. Two rules must be considered to guide this process of brainstorming together to come up with a list of solutions: (a) Initially, no one is to judge any of the solutions that are suggested, and (b) the person who shares the solution should be given the opportunity to give his or her solution without being interrupted. These guidelines help produce more creative solutions to the problem. The facilitator may need to elicit solutions that involve each group member, because participants may present solutions regarding what others can do, and not include themselves. Once the group has come up with a list of possible solutions, the facilitator asks the group if they can think of other possible solutions by saying, “What else could we try to solve the problem?” Once a complete list of solutions is generated, the list can be used to assist the group in developing an action plan.

Step 6: Setting Up an Action Plan and Follow-Up

The final step in the family–school problem-solving meeting is for the participants to develop an action plan and arrange for follow-up. The action plan specifies who is to complete each task to solve the problem, what each task is, when each task will be completed, and how the tasks will be completed. In discussing how the plan will be completed, particular attention should be paid to the standard of quality expected in completing the assigned tasks. The follow-up is scheduled to evaluate the progress of participants in implementing the plan and make changes to the plan as necessary.

The completed action plan should always involve a task for the child to do and should be focused on a school-related issue as opposed to a family-related issue. All members present at the meeting should be included in the action plan in some way. Including all of the members in the action plan communicates that all parties have some responsibility in solving the problem. Although all members are included in the plan, tasks are assigned that are appropriate to the role and skill level of the participants.

After the action plan is developed, the plan should be recorded on the planning form, and all members should sign that they are in agreement of the plan. Once the plan is signed, copies are given to all participants at the meeting, and a follow-up contact is scheduled for 2 weeks following the first meeting. During the follow-up meeting, the team reviews the plan to determine whether tasks were completed, whether the plan is helping the student, and whether anything should be added to the plan.

11.4 Skills Needed in Conducting Family–School Problem-Solving Meetings

The steps of the family–school problem-solving meeting are fairly straightforward. However, one of the greatest challenges in conducting a problem-solving meeting is handling the emotions that are generated. Emotions often get entangled with the objective aspects of the problem (Fisher, Ury, & Patton, 2011). If there is no mechanism in place to handle strong emotions, problem solving can easily dissolve into a series of interactions in which parties blame each other for the problem. In Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement without Giving In, Fisher, Ury, and Patton (2011) describe four strategies that are used to handle the strong emotions associated with family–school problem solving: (a) separating the person from the issue or problem, (b) focusing on mutual interests, (c) generating options prior to making decisions, and (d) basing final decisions on objective criteria.

Approaching negotiation with a win–win (“We versus the problem”) mindset is critical rather than a win–lose (“Me versus you”) mindset. Unfortunately, the win–lose approach to problem solving permeates society. It is this contest-based approach, with the goal of having decisions made your way at all cost, however, that perpetuates conflict and can weaken the family–school relationship. To take a win–win perspective, the person (whether educator or family member) and the issue must be viewed separately; families and educators must be viewed as working together on the same side against the problem. They must attack the problem, not each other. The goals of such an orientation to problem solving are to understand the perception and position of the other party and to accept the right of individuals to think differently. Education and information, rather than coercion and force, are preferred. Finally, respect for and acceptance of the other’s perspective (not to be confused with agreement with the other’s perspective) characterizes this approach.

With respect to the second strategy—focusing on mutual interests—family members and educators share a common interest in the education and development of children and youth. For example, by focusing on how to promote the learning and success of the child (e.g., “What is best for the child? What can we do to help the child be successful?), educators or parents may find less need to defend their position through argument. Instead of being adversaries, the educators and the parents are united toward a common goal rooted in the student’s best interest.

The third strategy needed in effective negotiation and problem solving is generating a variety of options in collaboration instead of making a one-sided decision. Obstacles that can inhibit creative brainstorming of possible options from occurring include (a) premature judgment of a proposed solution (e.g., “That can’t possibly work!”), (b) a search for the perfect or best solution, (c) the belief that options are limited, and (d) the failure to see problems as a shared concern and shared responsibility for problem resolution (Fisher, Ury, & Patton, 2011).

Finally, it is important to remember that, in some circumstances, the interests of educators and families can conflict and may appear irreconcilable. The use of objective criteria to aid shared decision making—such as ethical and fair standards—may increase the probability of “breaking the logjam” and achieving understanding between parties. Such a strategy helps maintain the relationship because the decision is not influenced by who is most powerful or who holds out the longest in an argument.

Skills in Blocking Blame

The effectiveness of family–school problem solving is influenced by the degree to which blocking blame techniques are used (Weiss & Edwards, 1992). A sample of typical blaming statements made by parents or by teachers is included in Figure 11.3. Try to read these examples as if they were directed toward you first as a teacher and then as a parent. What would you do, and how would you feel? How would you respond if these statements were directed at you?

Figure 11.3 Examples of Parents’ and Teachers’ Blaming Statements

Source: Adapted from Christenson, S., & Hirsch, J. (1998). Facilitating partnerships and conflict resolution between families and schools. In K. C. Staiber & T. R. Kratchowill (Eds.), Handbook of group intervention for children and families (p. 312). Boston: Allyn & Bacon

Some of the most helpful skills for conducting problem-solving meetings are skills for blocking blame. At various times during the family–school problem-solving meeting, the facilitator may need to block blame of both self and others. If blame is present, the group’s proposed solutions are doomed to failure. In Figure 11.4, there are descriptions and examples of specific strategies developed by Weiss and Edwards (1992) of the Family–School Collaboration Project for blocking blame among parents, teachers, and students and include direct blocking, reframing, probing, refocusing, illustrating, validating, and agreeing. These strategies help maintain the focus on mutual responsibility for problem resolution.

Figure 11.4 Techniques for Blocking Blame

Source: Training handout from Howard M. Weiss, Center for Family–School Collaboration, Ackerman Institute for the Family, New York.

For example, to use the probing technique, the facilitator listens to the blaming statement and then asks for additional information to help understand the context that is leading to the blaming or anger. For example, a parent might say, “You treat my child unfairly.” A probing response by the teacher might be, “I did not intend to treat your child unfairly. What do you see that I am doing that makes you think that I am treating her unfairly? Can you give me some specific examples?”

A validating technique can be used to recognize the legitimacy of another person’s efforts or perceptions. In response to a parent’s saying, “I am angry because I don’t think that Doug is getting the attention in class that he deserves,” the teacher might validate the parent by saying, “I can understand that you would feel angry if you thought Doug was being shortchanged in some way.”

A somewhat paradoxical technique for blocking blame is to agree with someone’s assessment of the situation when he or she expects you to get defensive. For example, if a parent says, “It makes me crazy when you tell me how I should be raising my own child,” the teacher might respond by saying, “It would make me crazy too, if I thought that someone were telling me how to raise my child.”

A refocusing technique is used to redirect the dialogue from an irrelevant or nonproductive area to an area relevant to helping the student. If a parent says, “You don’t have children. You can’t possibly understand children until you have one yourself,” the teacher could respond by asking, “What would you like me to know about your child that would help him do better in school?”

Giving specific and concrete examples to help explain a situation depicts use of the technique of illustrating. A parent might say something like, “He never misbehaves at home. I can’t imagine that he would behave the way you say.” An illustrating technique used by the teacher might sound like this: “Let me give you a few examples of what I have seen. Johnny has gotten in trouble three times for throwing food in the cafeteria. He also has been stopped two times for running in the hallway.” Having the appropriate materials available can also help illustrate your perspective to parents. For example, if the issue is student attendance, you should be prepared with your attendance record. If the concern is work in a specific subject, be prepared to show the parent your grade book and student work samples.

A direct blocking technique involves saying directly that the purpose of the interaction is not to blame anyone for the problem, but to help the student. To block the parent who says, “Danielle is never a problem at Girl Scouts or at church. There must be a problem with the way you are running your classroom,” the teacher could say, “We are not here to blame anyone for the problem, but to find a way to make things better.”

The final blame blocking technique is reframing, or providing a more positive and productive alternative perspective about a set of facts. For example, a parent might say, “My child is always trying to do everything the boys down the street do.” In response, the teacher might say, “Sounds as if he is trying hard to belong and be accepted by his friends.” A quote from Fisher, Ury, and Patton (2011) aptly summarizes the process of blocking blame:

If pushing back does not work, how can you prevent the cycle of action and reaction? Do not push back. When they assert their positions, do not reject them. When they say attack, you don’t say counterattack. Break the vicious cycle by refusing to react. Instead of pushing back, sidestep their attack and deflect it against the problem. Rather than rely on force, channel that energy into exploring mutual interests and inventing options for mutual gain. (p. 108)

To improve your ability to conduct productive family–school problem-solving meetings, other important skills to master include (a) structuring, (b) listening, (c) brain-storming, (d) consensus building, and (e) action planning. Structuring skills are used to set up and follow the framework of the meeting and include being able to follow the process given in the six steps. Providing a clear structure for solving problems helps all participants feel less anxious and helps problem solving work more efficiently.

TABLE 11.2 Consensus Building: What It Is, and What It Is Not

What It Is	What It Is Not
General agreement by most of the group, team, or committee	Reached by voting
Encourages everyone to participate	Majority rules
Seeks to erase the imaginary line	Horse trading
Seeks a win–win solution or mutual gain solution	A win–lose solution
The best collective judgment of the group	Averaging
A fusion of information, logic, and emotion	Individual opinions
Hard work

The listening and communication skills we discuss in Chapter 8 are essential to successful problem solving and include paraphrasing, summarizing, using open questions, and empathic listening. Another way to think about the process of listening effectively is to practice the following: (a) Pay close attention to what is being said, (b) ask for clarification if needed, and (c) repeat what is being said to check for understanding (Fisher, Ury, & Patton, 2011).

In brainstorming, group members give their ideas to solve a problem. No criticism of initial ideas is allowed. Once a list of ideas is developed, promising ideas are starred, and if possible, improvements to these promising ideas are suggested. The process of suggesting ideas without judgment leads to more creative decisions, and the process of improving on the most favored solutions helps dovetail the interests of different parties (Fisher, Ury, & Patton, 2011).

Consensus building is the construction of shared understanding from people with divergent perspectives. Consensus has been achieved (a) when all members of the group feel respected and heard in full; (b) when they have been honest in sharing their concerns and feelings; (c) when all perspectives have been considered without prejudice; (d) when relevant information has been shared equally; and (e) when members of the group give full support of the decisions made and are willing to implement the decision as if it were their own. Table 11.2 provides a fuller explanation of the distinctive characteristics of consensus building.

11.5 Using Family–School Problem Solving with Culturally Diverse Families

Given the widely varying communication and conflict resolution preferences of culturally diverse families, it is most important that you gain some understanding of the cultural background and communication preferences of the family with whom you plan to work. For example, having children who have become proficient in English translate for their parents in a family–school meeting may seem practical on the surface. However, “placing children in a position of equal status with adults creates dysfunction within the family hierarchy for Latino parents (and other cultural groups)” (Finders & Lewis, 1994, p. 52).

Quiroz, Greenfield, and Altchech (1999) recommend the following strategies in interacting cross-culturally with parents: (a) Foster a comfortable and respectful conversational tone, (b) use indirect questions, (c) recognize collectivistic values, (d) communicate a message of caring, and (e) cultivate empathy. To foster a comfortable and respectful conversational tone, keeping the tone informal is often helpful. Be sure to start off with a little small talk, whether in a phone contact or a meeting. This does not mean undue familiarity, however; you should still address the family members with proper respect. Because some families are not comfortable with direct questions or requests to share their perspective or concerns, even the request to talk about their concerns or goals for their child must be done sensitively. A more indirect way to approach this might be to say, “Sometimes parents say it is hard to get their child to sit down and do homework at night because of so many other people living in the home.” Parents might be relieved to hear that other people face a similar problem and therefore may feel less embarrassed to think about it.

It is important for you to recognize that parents may value behaviors that you do not. For example, because modesty is valued by many immigrant families, teachers may want to talk with such families about the goal of student achievement in the context of the classroom group and emphasize how such achievement is valued socially (Trum-bull, Rothstein-Fisch, Greenfield, & Quiroz, 2001). When Gandara (1995) interviewed high-achieving Latinos, he found that being identified as “gifted” or “high achieving” in comparison to their classmates was made bearable only if there was an acknowledgment of the contribution their achievement brought back to the group.

To communicate a message of caring, the language the facilitator/educator uses is crucial. Often the pronoun I or you conveys a sense of separation between teachers and parents. In talking about the child, using the pronoun we makes it clear to the parents that the teacher has something in common with them and that together they share responsibility for ensuring the child’s successful school performance. Finally, most important, teachers must learn about the culture of the family and come to understand the expectations parents have for their child and for their role in the school.

11.6 Getting Started with Family–School Problem Solving

Now that you have learned the steps and skills necessary to conduct family problem-solving meetings, you are ready to try it out—but where do you begin? The most important ingredient for the successful implementation of family–school problem-solving meetings in your school is your own enthusiasm and commitment to seeing your ideas come to fruition. The philosophy of the family problem-solving meeting may be quite different from the prevailing culture of the school. The process of changing a culture in a school can be a slow process; do not become discouraged if it takes time for others to share your excitement (Kruse & Louis, 2009). As others in the school hear you talk about your experiences in working with students and families, they may become more open to trying out these new ideas.

As you begin to try out the family–school problem-solving meeting, gaining administrative support can help create the collaborative culture that makes implementation easier and can help nurture the relationships between school staff and families (Fowler, 2004; Kruse & Louis, 2009). Share your ideas with your colleagues, and try to find others in your school who are open to trying out new ways of working with students and their families. After you conduct a problem-solving meeting, having others in the school with whom you can discuss your efforts will help you become more proficient in conducting the meetings (Barth, 1990).

As with learning any new skill, do not expect perfection the first time you try to conduct a meeting. The skills required to conduct a problem-solving meeting take practice and refinement. As you practice the skills and reflect on your experience, you become more confident and adept at using the family–school problem-solving meeting to collaborate with families to solve problems. Finally, gathering evaluation data can be extremely helpful in your quest to continue to improve your skills in conducting family–school problem-solving meetings. When you collect feedback information from students and parents and other caregivers, you can use it to fine-tune the process to work most effectively with other staff and the families you serve. Included in Figure 11.5 is a sample parent evaluation. Similar evaluations for students and teachers should also be used.

Figure 11.5 Family–School Problem-Solving Meeting Feedback Form: Parent Version

Discussion

Problem solving in schools is, at its best, a challenging endeavor. At its worst, problem solving can escalate into an emotional battle in which parents, teachers, students, and administrators blame each other for a child’s problem. When parties blame each other, the results are most likely to be alienation, frustration, and ineffectiveness. The family–school problem-solving meeting offers a structured process in which caregivers, teachers, and students can collaborate as equals to help solve problems so that the student can enjoy more success at school. As teachers begin to think in a collaborative manner and learn the skills of structuring, blocking blame, brainstorming, consensus building, and action planning, they can use the skills to help not only individual students and their families, but they can also use these same skills in their interactions with other staff members. Over time, the school culture can change from one in which parents and teachers view themselves as adversaries to one in which they grow comfortable working together to help each student be successful.

Summary

In this chapter, we discussed the fact that teachers must often communicate unpleasant information to families. In fact, the most common communication between school and family is when students are having problems. In communicating unpleasant news to families, teachers can favor one of four conflict management styles: avoidant, overcon-trolling, accommodating, and collaborative.

There are four major barriers to effective problem solving with families: (a) the emotionally charged nature of the meeting, (b) the use of blaming, (c) the monocultural orientation of the school, and (d) the traditional way that teachers have conducted such meetings. These conditions often result in such meetings leaving students, families, and teachers feeling blamed, incompetent, and frustrated.

The family–school problem-solving meeting uses a collaborative style of problem solving, whereby both the student and the family are viewed as resources for solving the problem. Power is shared, and blame is blocked. The meeting is structured with the result being an agreed on concrete plan for action.

There are six steps in the family–school problem-solving meeting, the SOLVES method: (a) Setting up the meeting and preparing the student and family, (b) Orienting the participants to each other and to the purpose and process of the meeting, (c) Listening to participants’ concerns/blocking blame, (d) Validating concerns and creating a common focus and goal, (e) Expanding solution ideas, and (f) Setting up an action plan and arranging for follow-up.

Skills needed to conduct family–school problem-solving meetings effectively include structuring, blocking blame, brainstorming, consensus building, and action planning.

To implement the family–school problem-solving meeting, it is important to be enthusiastic, to gain administrative support, to share with your colleagues what you are doing, to practice so that you gain skill in conducting meetings, and to evaluate your work.

Activities and Questions

1. Sit in on a parent–teacher conference arranged by your cooperating teacher. How was the meeting structured? Did the student participate? How were the teacher’s expectations for the meeting process and outcome made clear to the parent? What was the outcome of the meeting?

2. Describe the ethnic–cultural, socioeconomic, and language background characteristics of the community in which your observation site is located. How does the school respond to the varying communication needs of this community? How are parent–teacher conferences structured?

3. Interview three parents of school-age children, and ask them about their experiences with parent–teacher conferences. How do they prepare for them mentally and emotionally? Have them describe the worst and best conferences they have had with teachers.

Resources

Conflict Resolution Network P.O. Box 1016 Chatswood, NSWA Phone: 2057+61(0)2-9419-8500 www.crnhq.org

The Conflict Resolution Network (CRN) was developed to promote the theory and practice of conflict resolution. The Web site contains accessible and reproducible information about conflict resolution skills, strategies, and attitudes.

Center for Nonviolent Communication 2428 Foothill Boulevard, Suite E La Crescenta, CA 91214 Phone: 800-255-7696, www.cnvc.org

The Center for Nonviolent Communication (CNVC) is an international nonprofit training and peacemaking organization. They provide training and curriculum materials to help individuals and organizations resolve their conflicts peacefully.

CHAPTER 12 Family-Centered Parent Involvement and Shared Decision Making in Special Education Classrooms

Crystal N. Ladwig

Learning Objectives

After reading this chapter, you will be able to:

■ Explain how parents’ and educators’ expectations of how parents should be involved in the education of children with special needs have changed since the turn of the 20th century.

■ Summarize the child development theories and major federal legislation that have influenced the delivery of special education services and the involvement of caregiv-ers in making decisions and plans for their children.

■ Describe the requirements for the development of individual educational plans for children with special needs.

■ Discuss the cultural barriers that limit the involvement of caregivers in the education of their children with special needs.

■ Discuss the philosophical shift to a family-centered approach in working with children with special needs and their families.

■ Describe specific family-centered strategies that educators can use in their classroom to support the families of children with special needs.

The family exerts a tremendous impact on the child with special needs. Research has shown consistently that students who have special needs benefit in multiple respects when their families are actively involved in their education ( Berry, 1995 ). Specifically, parental participation in their children’s education has a positive effect on academic progress. Students whose parents are involved in school have higher achievement, better behavior, and more motivation than do other students whose parents are not actively involved ( Keith, 1999 ). This involvement can include everything from providing for children’s basic needs to becoming active in the school or educational community on a regular basis (Muscott, Szczesiul, Berk, Staub, Hoover, & Perry-Chisholm, 2008). In a report to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), the U.S. Department of Education, (2001) indicated that the most accurate predictor of the achievement and development of a student with special needs is the family’s ability to become actively involved in their child’s education by creating a home environment that encourages learning and by expressing high expectations. The impact of the family on students’ success is as strong today as it was then. Moreover, the study revealed that the most improved educational outcomes for children with special needs were found where school support services were based on the premise that parents are the most important factors influencing their children’s development.

Most scholars in special education accept without argument that parent involvement is a requirement for schools that seek to use best practices. The type of involvement implemented, however, seems to vary considerably. Parent and professional perceptions of the desired types and amounts of parent involvement not only vary among schools but have also evolved since the passage of Public Law 94–142, the first federal law mandating that educational services be provided for students with disabilities. With these variations and the evolution of the concept of family involvement, the roles of parents and family members have changed considerably.

All too often, it seems that the burden is put on families to become involved in their children’s schools rather than schools creating opportunities for families to become involved. Whereas parents of children without a disability may be involved in their child’s schooling by volunteering at school, attending parent–teacher conferences, and attending special events such as an open house, parents who have a child with a disability must engage in specific planning and decision-making meetings with school staff. Lindsay and Dockrell, (2004) state:

Parent involvement in special education includes the (a) assessment process, where parents’ knowledge of their child is an important source of information; (b) decision making, where parents have a right to receive full information, call their own experts, and express a preference for [service] provision; and (c) educational intervention, to which parents may contribute. (p. 225)

The purpose of this chapter is to outline briefly the evolution of family involvement in special education, and to provide strategies to help teachers and schools include families in more family-centered and responsive ways.

12.1 A Look Back

The birth of a child is undoubtedly one of the most important and joyful events in the lives of parents. When a child is born with a disability, that joy is often accompanied by sorrow, grief, anxiety, and blame. Historically, much of the blame was placed on parents as the cause of their child’s disability (Muscott, 2002; Turnbull & Turnbull, 1997). For example, in the latter part of the 19th century and into the early 20th century, blame was often imposed on parents, implying that the child had a disability because of the parents’ poor moral judgment (Ferguson, 2002). This concept was even more predominant for poor and female-headed families. For example, while reviewing a collection of papers documenting the history of mental retardation, Howe (1976 [1848]) quotes:

The moral to be drawn from the prevalent existence of idiocy in society is that a very large class of persons ignore the conditions upon which alone health and reason are given to men, and consequently they sin in various ways; they disregard the conditions which should be observed in intermarriage; they overlook the hereditary transmission of certain morbid tendencies; they pervert the natural appetites of the body into lusts of diverse kinds—the natural emotions of the mind into fearful passions—and thus bring down the awful consequences of their own ignorance and sin upon the heads of their unoffending children. (p. 34)

Throughout the 19th century, special residential schools or institutions were created “as ways to get children who were disabled or ‘vulnerable’ away from their parents” (Ferguson, 2002, p. 125). Professionals of the day argued that institutionalizing children with disabilities was the only way to separate deviant families from their children and allow the “experts” to assume parental roles (Ferguson, 1994; Katz, 1983; Rothman, 1971).

As a result of the deinstitutionalization movement, attitudes gradually shifted such that, by the 1970s, parents were expected to assume primary care–giving responsibility for children who had previously been residing in state institutions and to integrate their children with special needs into the community to the greatest extent possible (Winton, 1986). They were expected to be advocates who, with the help of teachers and therapists, worked to get their children accepted in schools and in society. The child-based interventions of this era assumed that enhancing the child’s environment would help the child or, at least, prevent further delay (Barrera, 1991).

With the passage of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act in 1976 (now called the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act [IDEA]) mandating parent participation rights, parents were expected to acquire new skills and competencies to help their child both educationally and developmentally. Throughout the 1980s, the importance of family involvement and empowerment began to emerge, requiring additional skills and responsibilities for parents. However, these early parent involvement activities primarily included parents in activities professionals deemed important (McWilliam, Tocci, & Harbin, 1998). This theme continued to evolve during the 1990s with parents expected to assume increasingly more responsibility for all aspects of their children’s education. Such shifts in responsibility have resulted in dramatic changes in the expectations of roles that parents of students with special needs play in their children’s schooling. In fact, Turnbull et al. (2010) assert that “never before has so much been expected of parents with disabilities in terms of their roles as educational decision makers in partnership with professionals” (p. 43).

12.2 Evolving Roles of Parents of Children with Disabilities

All parents, whether they have a child with a disability or not, naturally assume a wide variety of roles. Among the most common are “providers,” “caretakers,” “teachers,” “sharers of information,” and “doctors/nurses.” Most, if not all, parents agree that assuming all these roles can be a difficult—yet rewarding—experience. Parents of children with special needs also assume these traditional parental roles, but they have the additional burden of redefining these roles to meet the special needs of their child with disabilities. Providing for the basic needs of a child with severe disabilities may require qualitatively and quantitatively different activities than providing for a child without disabilities. There are also other roles for parents of children with special needs, with the most prominent being the role of advocate. All parents advocate for their children, but for parents of children with special needs, this advocacy takes on an entirely different meaning. Rights that most parents have taken for granted (e.g., child’s enrollment in public schools) have not always been afforded to these children. The advocacy of parents of children with special needs has not simply been made up of of protective factors; rather, it has evolved into a fight for basic civil rights for children with disabilities, who may not have the skills to fight for themselves, so the burden falls on their parents. Most parents are familiar with this when their children are very young. For parents of children with special needs, this may never change. Especially for children with severe disabilities, parents may continue to carry out their traditional care-giving roles well into their child’s adulthood.

With due process provisions built into special education legislation (IDEA), parents also share the responsibility for ensuring that their child’s legal rights are met. With the passage of IDEA, parents of children with special needs acquired the role of educational planner, responsible for participating in the development of Individualized Educational Plans (IEPs) for children ages 3 through 21 and Individualized Family Service Plans (IFSPs) for children from birth to age 3. In this role, parents must make educational decisions (e.g., whether to consent to a special education label and placement) that can affect their children’s entire future. It is not surprising, therefore, that the changing and evolving parental roles in special education can lead to confusion and frustration for parents and professionals alike.

Wong (2008) defines parent involvement as “the extent to which parents are interested in, knowledgeable about, and willing to take an active role in the day-to-day activities of the children” (p. 497). Early attitudes about parent involvement implied that school staff could decide whether they wanted to involve parents in their child’s educational planning. As illustrated in the following statement: “Parents should participate in the activities that professionals deem important” (McWilliam, Tocci, & Harbin, 1998, p. 206), this attitude toward family involvement is in direct opposition to the current attitudes about family-centered practices (discussed in greater detail later in the chapter) that assert that parents should be given the opportunity to assume the level of involvement they desire by being given a choice of and an explanation about the educational roles they can assume (Boone & Crais, 1999).

Barrera (1991) observes that as interventions change, so, too, do parents’ roles. Parents often have assumed the role of trainee, observing professionals and trying to copy the intervention activities at home. Other terms often used to describe parents in this role include therapeutic agents (Dunst, Leet, & Trivette, 1988), intervenors (White, Taylor, & Moss, 1992), or instructors (Marfo, 1996). Within these roles, parents are often pressured to work harder with their children to enhance better developmental outcomes (Marfo, 1996). In practice, family decision making often involves simply accepting or rejecting plans (Beverly & Thomas, 1999). Therefore, although parents have become decision makers in practice, the quality of that role is not yet ideal.

Clearly, even from this cursory look at changing expectations for parent roles in special education, there is a gap between parental roles and involvement in theory and in practice. This limited parent involvement is further illustrated by a review undertaken by White, Taylor, and Moss (1992), in which they examined 172 studies of parent involvement in early intervention and classified most roles and supports for families within 10 categories. The results of their review showed that, although parents have almost always been involved as intervenors, these efforts have not typically yielded positive child outcomes. Interestingly, no studies in this review examined other ways parents might be involved or explored alternative child outcomes (changes in IQ were the most commonly reported outcome). The authors of this review proposed possible reasons for these poor outcomes: (a) All but one study included the parent as intervenor, thus ignoring other roles parents could assume that might lead to more positive child and family outcomes; (b) the effects of services on parents and families were not ascertained, and little data were reported within these studies that indicated how well parents implemented the planned interventions at home; and finally, (c) much of the data included in these studies was based on anecdotal reports and poorly designed research. Bennett, Deluca, and Bruns (1997) found that teachers viewed parents as out-of-school resources for addressing the child’s needs and disability. Teachers in this study typically did not want parents to be more active in school by serving as volunteers within their classrooms. In their analysis of parent participation in special education, Duchnowski, Dunlap, Berg, and Adiegbola (1995) identified a variety of roles parents might assume, including advocate, teacher, organizational member, decision maker, source of problem, and passive recipient of services. Their review of the literature revealed that educational professionals perceived parents most frequently as the source of problem or passive recipient of services and least frequently as partners and policymakers. This finding reveals that if school professionals are to view parents as partners and policymakers, there is a need for professionals to recognize and respect the unique contributions of individuals within unique family systems. These authors suggest that roles could be enhanced through outreach, training for partnerships, participatory research and evaluation, focusing on neighborhoods, and training professionals. Muscott et al. (2008) summarize it well:

Schools on the path to meaningful inclusion of families recognize parents (and grandparents or guardians) as being engaged in their children’s educational experiences when they provide for their child’s basic physical and psychological needs, promote the child’s learning at home, volunteer in the classroom, advocate on behalf of the child with teachers and administrators, participate in decision-making committees, become active in community organizations that promote the work of schools and the welfare of all children, or some combination thereof. (p. 9)

12.3 Influence of Current Theory and Legislation

Current theories of family involvement in special education have been identified with a variety of labels, including family friendly, family centered, family oriented, and family focused. For our purposes here, the term family centered is used to describe these similar labels. The influences of the modern family-centered philosophy can be grouped within two general categories: child development theories and legislation.

Child Development Theories

The importance of child development theories on parent involvement in special education is based on three assumptions: (a) Parents are responsible for meeting their children’s basic (i.e., biological) needs; (b) parents are responsible for encouraging their children’s development; and (c) parents can have an impact on their children’s development. Two theories of child development—in particular, ecological/systems and transactional—have been significant contributors to family-centered theory and practice.

Ecological Systems Theory

Undoubtedly, the best known of the ecological theorists is Urie Bronfenbrenner, who hypothesized that developing individuals are active participants located within a variety of systems. These systems, ever changing, constitute the different settings that have the potential to have an impact on the developing child (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). Bron-fenbrenner originally hypothesized four systems. The first and most directly influential to the developing child, the microsystem (e.g., home or childcare), consists of activities, roles, and interpersonal relations within specific settings in which the child directly participates. The mesosystem includes the relationships between microsystems (e.g., relationship between home and school). Settings in which the child is not an active participant but which may indirectly affect the developing child (e.g., parents’ workplaces) are incorporated in the exosystem. Finally, the macrosystem encompasses the microsystem, mesosystem, and exosystem through shared beliefs, ideologies, and cultural identities. Bronfenbrenner’s later work (1997) includes an additional system, the chronosystem, which refers to the changes within systems over time. This theory, which we also discussed in Chapter 4, has become the framework for current assessment and intervention with young children (Bjorck-Akesson & Granlund, 1995) and resulted in a shift from focusing on enhancing a child’s environment to improving the interaction between the child and his or her environment.

As Dunst, Trivette, Hamby, and Pollock (1990) point out, “An ecological systems perspective of human development considers the ways in which people and their social and nonsocial environments are interrelated and how these interdependencies contribute to the growth and adaptation of a developing person” (p. 204). Consistent with this notion are practices that address family concerns and priorities as an avenue to improving student outcomes. Often, this is accomplished by attempting to influence the environment or the interactions among individuals within systems. Influences to the environment may be in the form of individualized interventions with families or as initiatives, such as legislation, at a higher system level. Individualized interventions must consider the unique nature of families as well as how they define their roles within the family and the community.

Role definitions and expectations hold a prominent position within ecological theory. Bronfenbrenner (1979) defines roles as “the expectations for behavior associated with particular positions in society. Roles have a magic-like power to alter how a person is treated, how she acts, what she does, and thereby even what she thinks and feels” (p. 6). Role expectations are influenced by both the content of the activities and the relationships between two interacting parties. This concept illustrates the importance of professional attitudes toward parents and the relationships that form between them. Role expectations affect the perceptions, activities, and relationships that individuals assume within these roles. Outcomes are, therefore, enhanced when parents and professionals agree on the qualities of a particular role. Without such agreement, neither professionals nor parents may be satisfied.

Transactional Theory

The shared component of Bronfenbrenner’s ecological theory and the transactional theory, championed by Arnold Sameroff, is that neither nature nor nurture reign supreme. Sameroff’s transactional model “was developed in reaction to the prevailing main-effect model for predicting long-term developmental outcomes” (Marfo & Cook, 1991, p. 6). The model emphasizes the changing and bidirectional nature of interactions between the developing child and individuals in the child’s environment (Sameroff, 1987). This social transaction mediates development. In contrast to other child development theories, transactional theorists assume that children have the potential to influence their own environment. Rather than assume that either the child’s nature or the parents’ nurturing alone influence development, these two aspects of development are assumed to interact and change over time, influencing each other in a continuous and dynamic process (Sameroff, 1987). Therefore, the child’s development and interactions cannot be understood without an understanding of the child’s environment (Magnusson & Allen, 1983), including the physical–geographic, social, and cultural factors, as well as the actual and perceived situations within the environment.

Like ecological theory, transactional theory emphasizes the uniqueness of the family’s larger sociocultural context. Larger systems (e.g., Bronfenbrenner’s macrosystem) influence a family’s functioning via cultural and societal rules in the same manner in which a family influences the developing child (Fiese & Sameroff, 1989). Therefore, the study of child development within this larger family and sociocultural context and the family’s adaptation to that context is critical. For example, a family’s “code” develops as a result of how the family perceives its social world, the stories that differentiate its members from others outside of the family, and rituals that define how the family works within its social world (Fiese & Sameroff, 1989). When the family code and the child outcomes do not match, intervention becomes necessary.

With these factors in mind, from a transactional perspective, intervention strategies for children with disabilities focus on one of three tasks: remediation, redefinition, or reeducation (Fiese & Sameroff, 1989). Remediation occurs when the goal is to change the child (i.e., teaching the child to fit the code). Redefinition of the family code may be necessary if the child’s behavior cannot be altered to fit the code (e.g., typical development). It may be necessary to alter the family code to fit the child’s behavior (e.g., acceptance of alternative rates of development). Finally, reeducation implies that the parents must learn a new set of skills to help their children develop such as when a child requires medical procedures (e.g., administration of insulin shots for a child with diabetes) on a regular basis. Parent roles within interventions depend largely on the family code, the intervention strategy required, and legislative requirements. In Case Study 12.1, we describe Nicky and her family and ask you to examine how Nicky both influences and is influenced by her family, her family’s relations with educational and medical personnel, the relations between the school and medical personnel, and the larger cultural climate.

CASE STUDY 12.1

EXAMINING THE SYSTEMS WITH AN IMPACT ON NICKY

Like most newborns, Nicky was born free of disabilities. That happy state, however, lasted for only about 6 months. By then, she had been rendered nearly deaf, almost completely blind, and completely dependent on technology to receive food and liquids. The cause of her disability was maltreatment by her father. His actions resulted in many consequences, but perhaps the most unusual result is that Nicky’s maternal grandmother Vera is now her legal mother. Nicky’s biological mother is Charolette, Vera’s daughter. After Nicky was injured at home and then treated at Children’s Mercy Hospital in Kansas City, she was released into the custody of a temporary foster parent for safety’s sake. With the support of Charolette (Nicky’s mother) and the local child protective agency, Vera petitioned the local courts to adopt Nicky, believing that adoption would forever sever the father’s rights and thus protect Nicky.

Although Charolette comes to Vera’s home every morning to bathe, dress, and groom Nicky and remains heavily involved with her, both Vera and Charolette needed help to care for Nicky and raise her brother Tavron. Charolette called her grandparents (Vera’s parents) and asked: “I need help. Mother needs help. What can you do?” Without so much as a second thought, Charolette’s grandparents Aaron and Marie sold their home outside Greenville, Mississippi, and moved to Lawrence, Kansas, permanently. Physicians, nurses, dietitians, and occupational and physical therapists attend to Nicky’s health needs. Teachers have included her in their classes since she was about 1 year old, when Nicky entered the preschool program operated by faculty and staff and the University of Kansas at Lawrence. She spent 1 year there and then transferred to Raintree Montessori School across town.

Raintree Montessori School had long been committed to include children with disabilities in its programs that teach predominantly children without disabilities. Although no student with severe disabilities had been at Raintree and part of its inclusion program in a long time, Pam Shanks, Raintree’s lead teacher, was open to teaching Nicky: “If I can teach her to respond, that in itself is worthwhile. Also, if I can teach the other students in the class to respond to Nicky with compassion, that makes my job all the more worthwhile.” Surrounded by family, professionals, and peers without disabilities, Nicky now lives in a “village” where everyone depends on everyone else. If anything goes wrong with Nicky’s health, her medication regimen, or the gastrointestinal tubes on which she depends for liquid nutrition, almost everything will go wrong at home and school. Health-care distress will disrupt all other facets of her life.

Questions to Consider

■ Who is involved in Nicky’s life?

■ How have members of the family interacted and organized to support each other in caring for Nicky?

■ How have outside professionals interacted with Nicky’s family?

■ What legislative and cultural practices in the larger system influence the actions of these professionals?

■ How would you organize these influences into Bronfenbrenner’s system levels?

Source: Turnbull, A., Turnbull, R., Erwin, E., & Soodak, L. (2006). Families, professionals and exceptionality (pp. 19, 20).Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Legislation

Special education services have, to a great extent, been the result of legislation and litigation, which is no less true when we examine the roles of families within special education. Special education roles have been mandated and legitimized (Bronfenbrenner, 1979) through legislation and governed by departments of education and other agencies. One act in particular (Public Law 94–142: The Education for All Handicapped Children Act) and its subsequent amendments and reauthorizations has, without a doubt, had the greatest single impact on the educational services provided to students with disabilities and their families throughout the country.

Public Law 94–142: The Education for All Handicapped Children Act

Public Law 94–142 is a groundbreaking piece of legislation that guaranteed the rights of all school-age children with disabilities to a free and appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment. Parent involvement was a part of the legislative requirements from the start, but parental roles were initially quite limited. The earliest version of what we now refer to as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) simply required that parents be invited to attend IEP meetings and that an evaluation or placement of their child must be subject to parental consent before any such evaluation or placement could occur (Harry, Allen, & McLaughlin, 1995). At times, parents also participated with homework, making decisions about school, informal conversations with teachers, and observations.

During the early days of legislated special education, parents assumed two primary roles: decision makers and learners (Winton, 1986). Parents made decisions about whether to consent to assessment or placement. They were not active decision makers in policy and rarely were they decision makers in planning or practice. As learners, parents were expected to learn new skills and abilities that would allow them to better teach their children (Winton, 1986). The accomplishment of the expectations of the latter role often resulted in the parent assuming the roles of teacher or therapist. Parents did not initially have a great deal of control over their children’s education. They were seen primarily as passive and in need of professional assistance. However, the importance of this legislation cannot be overlooked. It was this piece of legislation that first guaranteed educational rights to children with special needs and their families, and it opened the door for parents to become more involved in their children’s special education and schooling, as is evidenced in subsequent reauthoriza-tions of IDEA.

The Evolution of IDEA

With each reauthorization of IDEA, Congress has attempted to improve the educational services provided to both students and families in a manner that encourages greater family involvement. The first significant change occurred when IDEA was reauthorized in 1986. This law specifically addressed the educational and intervention needs of infants and toddlers with disabilities. A primary purpose was “to enhance the capacity of families to meet the special needs of their infants and toddlers with disabilities” (EHA Amendments of 1986, PL 99–457, 100 Stat. 1145). Inherent in the family-centered nature of this reauthorization were several assumptions: (a) a lack of support for parents, (b) a lack of family services, and (c) projected benefits of family-centered interventions (Dunst, 1985; Mahoney, O’Sullivan, & Dennebaum, 1990). Two components of this law have had a significant impact on parent roles within special education. The rationale for these requirements has its roots in the child development theories discussed previously, as well as practices and empirical findings of better outcomes when parents are involved (Shonkoff & Meisels, 1990). First, the Individualized Family Service Plan (IFSP) was mandated as a way to help families of young children with special needs as a whole as opposed to focusing on children only. It provided parents with a venue in which their needs and priorities could be heard and addressed. The second requirement, the provision of a service coordinator, was intended to help coordinate the services and therapies a child and family receive. It was anticipated that these requirements would help empower parents (Thompson, Lobb, Elling, Herman, Jurkiewicz, & Hulleza, 1997).

The most recent reauthorization of IDEA occurred in 2004. Early intervention programs (serving children from birth to age 3) continue to require the IFSP and the Service Coordinator. The roles of service providers were expanded to include consulting with parents, training parents, and assessing the needs of the family as integrated goals and outcomes are created as part of the IFSP (Bruder, 2010). In addition, in IDEA 2004, Congress recognized a need “to enhance the capacity of families to meet the special needs of their infants and toddlers with disabilities” (Pub. Law No. 108-446, 2004, Sec 631 (a)). As a result, early intervention programs are now required to demonstrate their effectiveness via the reporting of child and family outcomes. Also, services may be directed specifically toward parents, and include counseling, training, home-based services, and “identifying, mobilizing, and coordinating community resources and services to enable the child and family to receive the maximum benefit from early intervention services” (34 C.F.R. Sec. 303.12 (d)(12)).

Within these requirements are embedded expectations for new parental roles. Parents are now responsible for directing assessment and participating in planning and implementation of the requirements of the legislation. Ideally, family concerns and needs are to lead the assessment in a direction that will be most beneficial to the family and, thereby, the child. Following assessment, the parents’ priorities are to direct the intervention and services the child and family receive. As a result, parents acquire more active roles within the eligibility and placement processes, as well as in the development and implementation of the IFSP (Beverly & Thomas, 1999). This expansion of parental roles and responsibilities, in addition to the priority placed on the family’s needs and desires, is evidence of a shift from a primarily child-focused service delivery system to a more family-centered approach (Bailey, Palsha, & Sime-onsson, 1991).

12.4 Decision Making and Planning

Individualized Education Plan (IEP)

An Individualized Education Plan (IEP) is a federally mandated document designed to guide the instruction of each student with a disability ages 3 through 21 by setting individual educational goals. In addition, IEPs must include a description of how the student’s progress toward meeting these goals would be measured. The IEP team is a group of individuals who meet to discuss the student’s overall development and academic achievement and write the IEP. At minimum, the team must include the following persons:

■ The parents of a child with a disability

■ At least one regular education teacher (if the child is, or may be, participating in the regular education environment)

■ At least one special education teacher/provider

■ A representative of the local education agency (LEA) who is qualified to provide, or supervise the provision of, specially designed instruction to meet the unique needs of children with disabilities; knowledgeable about the general education curriculum; and knowledgeable about the availability of resources of the LEA

■ An individual who can interpret the instructional implications of evaluation results, who may also be a member of the team described previously

■ At the discretion of the parent or the agency, other individuals who have knowledge or special expertise regarding the child, including related services personnel as appropriate

■ Whenever appropriate, the child with a disability

Parent involvement in the process of developing the IEP is outlined specifically in IDEA. Parents and professionals alike are bestowed with certain rights and responsibilities. In accordance with IDEA, parents are involved in many aspects of their child’s education beyond those of parents with typically developing children. Schools must provide ample opportunity for parents of students with disabilities to participate in meetings to determine special education eligibility and placement, make assessment decisions, and write the IEP at least once annually. Schools are further required to provide parents with copies of all official documents. There are procedural safeguards within IDEA to ensure that both the student’s and the family’s rights are protected. Parents have a right to review any records related to their child’s education, including all aspects of special education services. Parents also receive a copy of their procedural safeguards at least once annually. When disagreements occur, both schools and parents have the right to take the matter to due process.

Parent involvement within the IEP process may vary widely depending on the preferences of the IEP team members. At a minimum, IDEA stipulates that parents (a) may request initial evaluation or reevaluation; (b) must provide informed consent for initial evaluation, reevaluation, and services prior to such actions occurring; (c) participate in IEP meetings (providing input and helping make decisions); and (d) receive copies of all official documents. Parents should also participate in the assessment process by providing documents (e.g., medical records) or other information relevant to the evaluation (e.g., the student’s early developmental history). Parents are not typically involved in the pre-referral interventions that take place prior to the formal special education procedures (Tam & Heng, 2005; Byrd, 2011).

Werts, Mamlin, and Pogoloff (2002) characterize the IEP process as containing two major elements: the IEP meeting and the IEP document. The IEP meeting includes traditional parent–teacher conference information, in addition to specific details that will subsequently be included in the IEP document. The IEP meeting is the venue during which parents should be given ample opportunity to express their own opinions of their child’s strengths, weaknesses, and needs as well as their child’s dreams, goals, and interests. During the IEP meeting, it is vital that professionals provide parents with all of the information necessary to make educated decisions regarding their children’s special education services. In developing the IEP document, the team must recognize and build on the strengths of the child, the concerns of the parents, results of evaluations, and academic, developmental, and functional needs of the child. As can be seen in Figure 12.1, the IEP document includes a wide variety of information, including educational goals, assessment modifications, placement determination (including where the child will be placed and the frequency and duration of services), and evaluation results.

Figure 12.1 Required Components of the IEP

Source: Turnbull, A., Turnbull, R., Erwin, E., & Soodak, L. (2006). Families, professionals and exceptionality (p. 255). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

One of the major goals associated with the most recent reauthorization of IDEA (2004) was to align IDEA with the No Child Left Behind Act of 2002. Schools are required to send home progress reports to document each student’s progress toward meeting their individual IEP goals at least as often as they report on the progress of typically developing peers. In addition, provisions were made to offer, with parental consent and only in some states, a pilot program for multiyear IEPs not to exceed 3 years. However, there are significant concerns that extending the duration of the IEP may lead to fewer opportunities for students’ educational teams to meet with parents.

Staples and Dilberto (2010) comment on the difficulties that parents encounter when they attend IEP meetings. “Many parents might feel uneasy, intimidated, and frustrated with multiple school personnel sharing more needs than strengths about their child during the meeting” (p. 58). They recommend that school personnel involve parents throughout the year to send the message to parents that their input and involvement is truly valued, a strategy supported by research on the family-centered practices discussed later in this chapter.

Student Involvement in the IEP Process

IDEA requires that students be invited to participate in their own IEP meetings beginning at age 14. IDEA further includes students themselves by stating that decisions about their future be based on the students’ interests and preferences. Finally, IDEA requires that the IEPs for students age 16 and older include a transition plan to prepare the student for the transition from school to adult life. Given these mandates, several researchers have studied the extent to which students with disabilities actually do participate in IEP meetings and how their interests and preferences guide the planning process for their transition from school to adult life. Self-determination has become the predominant term used to describe student involvement in special education planning. Brotherson, Cook, Cuonconan-Lahr, and Wehmeyer (1995) define self-determination as “the opportunity and ability to make choices and decisions regarding one’s quality of life” (p. 3). Research shows that parents and caregivers agree that students with disabilities should be informed participants in their IEP meetings (Grigal, Neubert, Moon, & Graham, 2003). There is a significant body of research documenting the benefits of self-determination for students with a wide range of disabilities (Brotherson, Cook, Erwin, & Weigle, 2008; Durlak, Rose, & Bursuck, 1994; Hoffman & Field, 1995; Kaiser & Abell, 1997; Serna & Lau-Smith, 1995; Turnbull & Turnbull, 2006; Wehmeyer, 1996). Students who are more involved in decision making about their education are more likely to achieve their goals, improve their academic skills, develop self-advocacy skills, graduate, and gain employment than those who do not (Mason, Field, & Sawilowsky, 2004).

How can parents and educators include students in these meetings? It has proved to be very difficult. The attendance mandate within IDEA has not proved sufficient to meet the intent behind the mandate. Martin et al. (2006) observed 109 middle and high school IEP meetings that included students, and report that less than half the students shared their interests during the meetings and even fewer discussed the goals they had for themselves. A low level of student engagement at these meetings was observed. Martin et al. recommended that students be taught how to effectively participate in these meetings and that the meeting structure be modified to encourage greater student participation. In addition, they concluded that the traditionally teacher-led meetings might not be the most effective format for engaging students. Having students themselves chair or co-chair the meetings may be a more effective strategy for encouraging greater student participation.

Brotherson, Cook, Cuonconan-Lahr, and Wehmeyer (2008) also suggest that the development of self-determination skills begins at home. As a result of their study of the influence of families on young children’s self-determination abilities, they have made the following recommendations:

■ Professionals across disciplines need to be more aware of the home as a critical environment for nurturing self-determination.

■ Many families want options and ideas to use in their homes, but the decision to address self-determination rests with the family.

■ In collaboration with professionals, families can be supported to make and carry out decisions and changes in their home environments.

■ Financial issues may inhibit some parents from making adaptations and modifications to the home, although many inexpensive modifications can be explored.

■ Families and professionals can collaborate to identify ways to use assistive technology to increase self-determination in the home.

■ To the extent possible, families may want to encourage their children’s early advocacy skills through participation in identifying opportunities for self-determination in home, school, and community environments (p. 40).

Suggestions for effectively including students with disabilities as both members of the IEP team and as active participants in the creation of the IEP document are depicted in Figure 12.2.

Figure 12.2 Strategies for Including Students with Disabilities in Planning Meetings

12.5 Culture and Disability

The concept of disability is largely shaped by the culture in which the disability exists. Historically, culturally and linguistically diverse students have been placed in special education programs at disproportionately high rates when compared to majority students, whereas the reverse has been true for programs for gifted students. Societies in general tend to be rather ethnocentric, with disabilities being generally defined as deviation from the norm. The norm, however, may differ widely from one culture to another. In addition, the source of disabilities may be attributed to a wide range of causes. Most of the research on disabilities, especially in special education, has focused on specific interventions, theories, and practices designed to remediate or accommodate students. A relatively large body of literature is emerging documenting the experiences of minority groups within the special education system. Most notably, significant discrepancies have been documented in the placement and discipline decisions of African American students versus Caucasian students. The “civil rights” movement of the larger population of individuals with disabilities is known as Disability Studies. This area of study and advocacy views disability as a unique cultural identity, without consideration of racial, ethnic, or socioeconomic factors (Harry, 2002). The result of this movement and the ethnocentricity that exists in much of the discourse has resulted in a realization that the interaction of culture and disability has not been as widely studied as many other topics within special education.

Harry (2002) conducted an extensive review of the nature of disability within a cultural context. She found that cultural views of disability varied widely and also depended on the severity of the disability. Parents’ views of child development strongly predicted the expectations they have for their children with mild disabilities. They further found that parents’ beliefs about the etiology of their children’s severe disabilities differed widely. Harry concludes, “a strong implication of these findings is that the acculturation process has a powerful effect on both parenting styles and on parental beliefs about child development” (p. 133).

Lamorey (2002) reviewed several studies that examined the perceptions and beliefs of several specific cultural groups (including parents from Korea, China, Mexico, Australia, and Africa) with regard to having a child with a disability (e.g., Cho, Singer, & Brenner, 2000; Gray, 1995; Mardiros, 1989; Olubanji, 1981; Ryan & Smith, 1989). Many of these parents attributed their child’s disability to a deity (either as punishment or as part of God’s plan), magic, their own mistakes or shortcomings, and biomedical causes, among others.

The impact of these findings cannot be overlooked. Parents do not always view disability in the same manner as do teachers and schools. When a parent’s beliefs about the nature and severity of a disability are in conflict with the schools’ beliefs, disagreements between parents and schools arise. This is especially true with regard to mild disabilities in which parents from some cultural groups (e.g., Puerto Rican American, African American) may perceive a larger range of “normal” development than the clinical view held by many professionals (Harry, 2002; Lamorey, 2002). The result is that parents may be perceived by professionals as “denying their child’s problems” and hence as part of the problem rather than part of the solution (Hopfenberg et al., 1993). Teachers must be careful not to repeat history by blaming parents for their child’s disabilities; rather, they should consider the family’s view of the child’s development and respect the family with its unique characteristics.

In another review, Harry (2008) sought to identify the nature of quality collaborative relationships between special educational professionals and culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) families of children with disabilities. She notes that culturally responsive professionals “have come to understand that caregivers’ reactions to disabilities represent resilience and adaptation rather than pathology, and that providing adequate external supports can make a tremendous difference in outcomes for family members with disabilities” (p. 273). However, Harry also pointed out that misunderstandings, assumptions of family deficit, and professional biases can limit this understanding.

It is virtually impossible for teachers to learn the cultural beliefs, attitudes, and values of every culture they may come in contact with during their career. However, without this information, it may seem difficult—if not impossible—to truly be culturally sensitive. Teachers must attempt to understand families’ cultural views about disability and bridge the gap that may exist between those cultural views and the practices and policies of the school system. To this end, the Division for Early Childhood (DEC) of the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) created a position paper to explicitly address implications for culturally and linguistically responsive practices. They advocated for the following characteristics of culturally responsive organizations:

■ Respect for the values and practices of all members

■ Encouragement of multiple viewpoints to enrich the whole organization

■ Seeking ways to extend competence of the leadership as well as practitioners, with regard to differences in family cultures, values, and languages

■ Development, implementation, and review of policies and procedures in recruitment and leadership development at all levels of service to ensure meaningful local, state, national, and international representation and participation of people from different cultural, ethnic, and language backgrounds

■ Encouragement and support of the development and dissemination of products that address family cultures, values, and languages

■ Meetings and conference presentations that incorporate the impact of family cultures, values, and languages in all early childhood activities and services

■ Incorporating evidence-based practices with children and families from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. These practices are critical to assessment and intervention, including practices with young children who are dual language learners and those who speak various dialects of English (Summary from DEC, 2010).

12.6 Parent Roles Within a Family–Centered Approach

The impact of child development theories, legislation, and past practices on current views of working with families is extensive. From ecological theory, there is an understanding of the importance of families as unique systems in which children grow and develop and recognition of the influence parents and extra-familial factors have on children. From the transactional perspective, the interactions between the developing child and his or her environments have been acknowledged as bidirectional and dynamic, emphasizing the changing nature of relationships over time. From early legislation in special education (i.e., PL 94–142), the birth of special education policy evolved into the system we have today. In addition, this legislation mandated much of the parent involvement that we see today in policy and practice. Later legislation, particularly Part H of PL 99–457, a reau-thorization of IDEA, expanded this legislative view of parent involvement by focusing on parental needs and priorities for assessment and planning, intervening with the family instead of focusing only on the child, and providing more opportunities for parental involvement. From existing practices, it is reasonable to conclude that child-focused planning and interventions are clearly not adequate, and exclusive professional control is inappropriate. Finally, from research on the interaction between culture and disability, evidence shows that culture has a significant impact on the way parents perceive their child with a disability and their roles in their child’s education. The interrelatedness of these factors cannot be overlooked. The combination of and interaction among these factors formed the basis of what is currently referred to in the special education literature as family centeredness.

Family Centeredness

For most of the history of special education, services and decisions were dictated primarily by individual school systems with the sole focus being the child. The 1986 reautho-rization of IDEA (PL 99–457) changed this. As previously noted, this update included provisions for providing special education services to infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families. This concept has gradually moved upward from infants and toddlers, to preschool programs, elementary schools, and so on.

A family-centered philosophy for working with children with disabilities and their families cannot easily be defined or described. Certain qualities and characteristics seem typical of all views of family centeredness. However, no clear-cut definition has been identified, although several have been proposed within the literature. Bruder (2010) notes that family-centered approaches are characterized by respect and dignity toward families and result in active involvement of families to help mobilize resources and supports. Murphy, Lee, Turnbull and Turbiville (1995) identify family-centered practices as those that (a) include families in decision making, planning, assessment, and service delivery at family, agency, and systems levels; (b) develop services for the whole family, not just the child; (c) are guided by families’ priorities for goals and services; and (d) offer and respect families’ choices regarding the level of their participation (p. 25). Finally, Bailey, McWilliam, and Winton (1992b) refer to family-centered care as a concept based on family support, empowerment, coordinated services, normalization, and cultural sensitivity.

Family-centered practitioners seek to involve parents as partners and see parents as the central figures in the lives of the students with whom they work (Mahoney, O’Sullivan, & Dennebaum, 1990). As such, family-centered teachers are concerned not only with the needs of the child, but also with the needs of the family with whom they live. This is based on the belief and supporting evidence that children experience greater success when the families’ needs are met (Mandell & Murray, 2009; Muscott, 2002).

Mandell and Murray (2009), Summers, Hoffman, Marquis, Turnbull, Poston, and Nelson (2005), Rupiper and Marvin (2004) and Dunst (2002) have all characterized family-centered services as responsive to families’ choices with an emphasis on family–professional collaboration and the provision of services to children and families. Of course, school districts are greatly limited in the services they may offer directly to families outside of the typical educational arena. However, teachers and schools are typically more aware of outside resources that may be available to help a family in need. Often, just putting the parent in contact with the proper resource can open many doors. The nature of family-centered services also changes throughout a student’s educational career as adolescents begin to assert their independence and become involved in their own educational planning. Most notably, when professionals implement family-centered practices, parents tend to be more satisfied with the services the family receives (McNaughton, 1994; Romer & Unbreit, 1998; Rupiper & Marvin, 2004).

The definitions discussed thus far all have in common a philosophical shift from practices and interventions that were child-focused to those that are now more family centered. Simeonsson and Bailey (1991) suggest four factors that contribute to this shift: (a) lack of evidence in support of child-focused interventions; (b) recognition that infants and young children are best understood within a family context; (c) belief that families are appropriate recipients of service and intervention; and (d) influence of parent–child interactions. Mahoney and Filer (1996) propose a similar list of contributing factors, with the addition of changing parental roles and expanding knowledge of the complex issues encountered when raising a child with special needs.

The concept of family-centeredness encompasses both a philosophy (i.e., beliefs and attitudes) and behaviors (i.e., practices). Using these definitions and rationales for change, certain qualities and characteristics inherent in family-centered practice begin to emerge. The primary emphasis is on collaborating with and supporting families (Mahoney & Bella, 1998; Mandell & Murray, 2009). Considering parent knowledge, competencies, capabilities, and resources (Harry, 2008; Muscott et al., 2008; Park, Alber-Morgan, & Fleming, 2011; Powell, Batsche, Ferro, Fox, & Dunlap, 1997) while focusing on parents’ needs and family priorities encourages collaboration and support. As a result of the unique nature of family systems, individualization becomes necessary when working with families similar to the individualization that occurs when working with children. The presumption is that family control is enhanced when using a family-centered philosophy. Parents should choose their desired level of involvement; have their priorities, goals, and needs considered and respected by professionals (Bailey et al., 1992a; Muscott et al., 2008); and become the decision makers for their children’s educational programming.

Family-Centered Roles

Parent roles within a family-centered philosophy are defined largely by the unique perspective parents bring to the process, including information about the family members’ ecology, strengths, goals, histories, culture, and values (Powell et al., 1997). As depicted in Table 12.1, a family-centered orientation views parents as experts on their children and their families. This realization is important if parents are to become active decision makers. Inherent in this role is a clear understanding of options available to children with special needs and their families. It is often the professionals’ responsibility as family supporter to help make parents aware of the available options from which to choose.

As experts on their children and families, parents become active in information gathering, eligibility and placement decisions, and development and implementation of plans (Beverly & Thomas, 1999). As true partners within special education circles, parents should be recognized as being capable of influencing development, designing and monitoring services, and formulating policies (Murphy, Lee, Turnbull, &Turbiville, 1995). These roles should be present in all areas of special education from assessment and eligibility to planning and implementing services and follow-up activities. The presumption is that the acquisition of these roles results in improved child and family outcomes.

TABLE 12.1 Parent Roles and Responsibilities

Family Centered	Traditional
Experts—Sharing information, needs, and priorities about child and family with other team members	Resources—Providing information to professionals to assist them in their assessment, planning, intervention, and decision-making responsibilities
Decision makers—Deciding what is best (in all areas of assessment, planning, and intervention) for child and family	Decision makers—Making choices from options presented by professionals
Partners—Participating in all assessment, planning, and intervention activities with equal status as professionals	Trainees—Learning from professional model
	Source of problem—Cause of child and family problems
Active organizational members/advocates—Participating in all levels of policy and practice determination	Therapeutic agents, intervenors, or instructors—Teaching and conducting therapy

Turnbull et al. (2010) note the challenge that this type of educational role can pose for parents. How does a working, single mother “locate top-tier research, relevant evidence-based knowledge, and current policy to support her role as a decision maker with and monitor professionals serving her child” (p. 44)? The authors found that many parents rely on Internet searches and do not have access to peer-reviewed, evidence-based studies. As a result, these authors from the Beach Center on Disability at the University of Kansas created a series of Knowledge to Action (KTA) guides. Each KTA includes a summary of the issue at hand, relevant research, a summary of evidence-based practices, and relevant policy issues.

12.7 Family-Centered Educational Practices

Dunst and Trivette (1996) identify two interacting components that are necessary to implement family-centered practices: (a) the relational component, which includes clinical skills and professional beliefs about and attitudes toward parents; and (b) the participatory component, which includes practices that are primarily concerned with family needs and involves parents in all decision making through extensive family–professional collaboration. In addition to family-centered beliefs, such as those described previously, Dinnebeil, Hale, and Rule (1996) note that integrity, commitment, and communication skills are also necessary for successful collaboration with families. Thus, family-centered practices must balance relationship building with service delivery in building successful parent–professional partnerships (Mandell & Murray, 2009).

The key theme that runs throughout all family–centered practices is decision making. Ultimately, special education legislation mandates that parents be involved in decision making. The family-centered beliefs and subsequent practices provide parents with the information and resources necessary to make the best decisions for their children and families. Bailey (2001) asserts that practices should enable families to become competent advocates for their children.

Professionals who use family-centered practices help families in making decisions about their children by providing complete and unbiased information; supporting these families emotionally; and developing service systems that are responsive to individual family needs and respectful of cultural, racial, and ethnic diversity. (Kaczmarek, Goldstein, Florey, Carter, & Cannon, 2004, p. 213)

Many of the strategies for family involvement within the special education system are similar to—if not the same as—the strategies that would be beneficial when fostering family-centered practices with all students and families. The discussion that follows includes specific family-centered practices within the context of special education.

1. Organize your classroom to help families become advocates. Parents often expect to play a traditional role in family–school interactions in which parents come to school, hear what the teacher has to say, and then deal with it as best they can at home. Family-centered classrooms are organized from the beginning to encourage a more open dialogue and greater collaboration. To implement this practice, the teacher must explain to parents and caregivers how a specific classroom is run, what is expected of parents, and the varied opportunities they have to become involved throughout the school year. Seeking out parental input at nontraditional times is one of the best ways this is done. It demonstrates to parents that their opinions are valuable and helpful to the teacher. This continual parent involvement requires teachers to provide opportunities for parents to be involved daily, weekly, monthly/bimonthly, or quarterly (Staples & Dilberto, 2010) as they are able.

2. Build flexibility within service delivery. To ensure the greatest potential for effective collaboration and to meet individual families’ needs, teachers must think outside of the box when planning and scheduling classroom and collaborative activities. This may involve the teacher making himself or herself available to families at nontradi-tional times and in nontraditional ways. For example, Nelson, Summers, and Turnbull (2004) identify a continuum of relationships between families and professionals. Those teachers with more fluid boundaries made themselves available at times other than traditional work hours and were willing to meet outside of the school or regular school hours. Single, working parents, for example, may not be able to come to the school grounds for an IEP meeting or other parent–teacher conference during the typical school day. Scheduling the meetings in the evenings or meeting with parents in their homes or other locations may allow parents to be more involved. Unfortunately, many school districts do not build in these types of collaborative activities into their planning for teachers. As a result, teachers and other school personnel who use these strategies often must do so on their own time and at their own expense. This can also become problematic during scheduling of IEP meetings if some professionals are available after school hours and others are not.

3. Establish effective communication. Martin and Hagan-Burke (2002) suggest seven steps to facilitate effective communication between schools and parents, including: (a) assigning a facilitator; (b) acknowledging accomplishments; (c) meeting routinely; (d) establishing predictability; (e) keeping it simple; (f) making informed decisions; and (g) assessing acceptability and treatment integrity. Often, the informal conversations between teachers and parents are where the seeds of this type of communication are planted. In addition, it takes time for effective communication to develop, such as when establishing predictability.

4. Individualize to the needs of the entire family. Each family enters school with its own unique experiences, values, beliefs, needs, and desires. Some parents may feel very comfortable in assuming the role of advocate for their child and being a true partner in the decision-making and planning processes that occur throughout the school career of a child with a disability. Other parents may place all of their trust in the teacher and believe that he or she is best qualified to make educational decisions for their child. Teachers and other school personnel must recognize that such variances exist and honor them. At the same time, family-centered teachers should continually provide parents with opportunities to become more involved as their comfort level rises and as they become accustomed to the nontraditional organizational strategies. Also, it is important for teachers and therapists to recognize that a child’s challenges often occur not just at school, but also within the family context. As a result, goals and certain behavioral approaches should be designed based in part on that context (Park, Alber-Morgan, & Fleming, 2011).

Services to children should be outlined clearly in each student’s IEP. IDEA requires that the decisions that are made and documented within the IEP be individualized—that is, that the services offered to students must be based solely on their needs. One premise that underlies family-centered practices is that family needs must also be considered. If, for example, professionals on the IEP team determine that the child is best served in a full-time special education classroom, but the family strongly believes in inclusion, every effort should be made to include that child with typically developing peers as much as possible. The opposite holds true as well. Not all parents believe that inclusive classrooms will best meet the needs of their children.

Hurley and Horn (2010) highlight the impact of IDEA and changing societal values on inclusion, noting the emerging sense of belonging for all children that is present in our schools and society. The Division for Early Childhood and the National Association for the Education of Young Children (DEC/NAEYC; 2009) offer a joint position statement on inclusion, noting that the importance of opportunities for communication and collaboration between families and professionals in the success or failure of inclusive early childhood programs.

5. Understand that families of children with disabilities often go back and forth through various stages of coping and grief. Before a child is born, parents dream of the child that is to come. They often think about the things they want to do with their child, the things they will teach their child, and what their child will be when he or she grows up. When parents suddenly learn that the child they have imagined is different from the child that is born, parents often go through a grieving process. The dream they had of their child’s future life is gone, and parents must learn to cope with a new reality.

Throughout the child’s lifespan, events will occur that will thrust the parent back into this grieving process. Typically, this happens when the child does not meet milestones typical of children his or her age (e.g., walking, talking, reading, writing, driving, dating, getting a job) or when younger siblings or other younger children close to the family begin to surpass the child with a disability developmen-tally. During these times, it may be especially difficult for families to collaborate and be involved at school. Attending an IEP meeting where they hear how their child is struggling may only exacerbate these feelings of grief. It is vital that teachers and other school personnel understand that these times occur for families and respond empathi-cally when these situations arise.

6. Respect the uniqueness of families and treat them with dignity. Acknowledge the cultures, values, and traditions of families (Harry, 2002; 2008; McWilliam & Bailey, 1993). Parents come to the table with more knowledge of and experience with their child than anyone else. Teachers learn more about individual children (e.g., likes, dislikes, interests, strengths, weaknesses) from parents than perhaps any other source. Demonstrating respect and treating parents with dignity goes a long way toward establishing the effective communication skills discussed previously. Inherent in this is the assumption that teachers must not make judgments about families for the way they live their lives or for having nontraditional families (e.g., grandparents raising children because the parents are in prison). Also, schools should provide interpreters for parents who do not speak fluent English.

7. Establish parent–professional collaboration and partnerships. Communication in and of itself does not guarantee collaboration and partnerships with families. As noted earlier, teachers and schools must provide multiple and varied opportunities for parent involvement (Muscott, 2002; Staples & Dilberto, 2010). If parents are invited to come to school only for IEP meetings and traditional parent–teacher conferences, they may never learn to think of themselves as active agents and decision makers in their child’s schooling. As such, collaboration will be limited and partnerships may be nonexistent. Parents must be given opportunities to become involved in planning for their child’s education and working with professionals to implement the plans (Bailey, 2001). This could be accomplished by asking parents what activities they do with their children at home to help them, or it could involve planning with parents and having them come to school to share in the instruction (e.g., a parent who is a veterinarian may lead a lesson on pet care).

8. Share information with parents and students. It is unreasonable to assume that families will be able to make the difficult decisions about the education of their child with special needs without all of the relevant information. For example, if a family is not fully aware of the range of placement options (e.g., full-time special education schools through full-time inclusive classrooms), then that family does not have all the information needed to determine which placement is best for their child. Families should be provided with all relevant information necessary to make decisions for their child (Dunst, 2002; Turnbull et al., 2010). In addition, this information should be conveyed to families in a supportive manner that respects the families’ unique qualities, including their cultural and religious values (Bruder, 2000).

9. Emphasize family choice and decision making. Families should be involved in all aspects of decision making (Pretti-Frontczak, Giallourakis, Janas, & Hayes, 2002; Smith, 2005). As stated previously, in essence, this is what family-centeredness is all about. Family-centered programs emphasize family choice and decision making, including program practice and intervention options (Dunst, 2002). During certain times parental choice and decision making are mandated (e.g., consenting to placement in special education programs). Family-centered parental choice and decision making extend beyond the federal mandates to include family involvement in less formal areas of the student’s education.

10. Use responsive practices. Family-centered practices are responsive to families’ identified needs, desires, and decisions. Involving families in discussions only to ignore the families’ input will ultimately result in a total lack of collaboration and partnership. Families must see, not just hear, that teachers are responsive to their opinions and ideas. The old adage holds true: Actions speak louder than words.

12.8 Challenges and Barriers

Encountering difficulties when translating theories into practical applications is not uncommon. Such is the case with family-centered approaches and practices. Bailey et al. (1992b) conducted a study of professionals in four states who were asked to rate their current practices in terms of how family-centered they believed they were and should be. A clear discrepancy was observed. Professionals consistently rated ideal practices as much more family-centered than they actually were. They attributed most of the barriers that impeded greater family-centeredness to parents and the larger special education system. The authors caution, however, that professional biases about family desires and abilities should be tempered because parents choose their own level of involvement. Bjorck-Akesson and Granlund (1995) replicated this study with professionals and parents in Sweden. Not only was the same professional discrepancy observed, but there was also a discrepancy between parents’ and professionals’ ratings of ideal roles. Professionals rated ideal roles reflecting greater client empowerment more highly than did parents in the areas of decision making and participation in child assessment and identification of family goals and services. Furthermore, they reported that parents often assumed roles with the responsibility simply to approve assessment plans, provide information about the child, and suggest goals. The support that was typically provided was based on professionals’ perceptions of family needs instead of parents’ communication of their needs. Barriers to implementation included legislation, litigation fears, administrative policies and regulations, and a lack of resources (i.e., time, money, and staff). One must consider the reasons for these discrepancies, particularly that parents reported a desire for less family-centered practices than professionals did. Perhaps parents truly feel this way, or perhaps parents, through years of services that were not family centered, have been conditioned to fear control, depend on professionals, and doubt their ability to function competently within more family-centered roles. If the latter is the case, teachers and other school personnel must take a closer look at their own practices and the implications for families. Teachers must also consider whether cultural or familial factors account for these differences.

Several additional barriers have been identified by other researchers (Dunst, 2002; Kaczmarek et al., 2004; Rupiper & Marvin, 2004; Werts, Mamlin, & Pogoloff, 2002). Mahoney, O’Sullivan, and Flors (1989) and Mahoney, O’Sullivan, and Dennebaum (1990) conclude that many barriers limit the implementation of family-centered practices, including (a) the difficulty involved in changing the focus of a child and classroom-based system to a family-focused one; (b) inadequate time for teachers to implement family-centered practices; (c) insufficient preparation of teachers to implement family-centered practices; and (d) an absence of family-centered materials. Mahoney and Filer (1996) concluded that there is an unclear concept of “needs.” Needs are assumed to be those things parents must have to support their child and his or her development. In practice, the determination of family needs is usually done by asking parents what services they want to receive. This places parents in the position of choosing from a menu of options instead of communicating their individualized needs and having those needs met.

More recently, researchers have also taken a closer look at how parents acquire the information they need in order to participate in educational planning meetings, particularly IEPs. Most parents turn to the Internet and simply search the terms they know (Turnbull et al., 2010; Worcester, Nesman, Rafaele Mendez, & Keller, 2008). At the time this chapter was written, a Google search of “IEP” yielded more than 20 million hits. It’s no wonder that parents have a difficult time sifting through all of the information available. Providing resources for parents to help them navigate this barrage of information is vital. There is a list of possible resources and web pages at the end of this chapter.

The majority of the barriers center on the teacher’s knowledge, skills, and practical implementation of services. Teachers who may have been trained in family-centered practices may find them difficult to implement, given the many directions in which teachers are pulled on a daily basis (Rupiper & Marvin, 2004). Furthermore, Mandell and Murray (2009) found a significant difference between administrators with and without a comprehensive understanding of family-centered practices. Administrators with a comprehensive understanding of family-centered practices were more likely to support and facilitate those practices within their schools than are administrators without a clear understanding. In addition, it may be difficult to convince parents to step outside of their traditional roles to take on these new roles and responsibilities. Some parents may simply believe that their place is not to take such ownership of their child’s education; rather, it is the teacher’s responsibility to ensure that families are made fully aware of the desired level of participation when it is outside of the traditional level with which most parents are familiar.

Despite these difficulties, the consensus within special education is that higher-quality parent involvement is beneficial to students. Our ultimate commitment as educators must be to the welfare of our students. The responsibility falls on individual teachers to implement the best family-centered practices. Teachers must take on the role of educating parents about how they can be more involved as partners in their child’s educational planning. This includes carefully studying not just how to involve families, but also determining what supports and services enhance family outcomes (Turnbull et al., 2007). Finally, teachers must commit to learning more about other cultures, parenting styles, and be open to new ideas. McWilliam, Lang, Vandiviere, Angell, Collins, and Underdown (1995) note:

One implication for practice is that addressing family-level concerns might be a developmental process: the more professionals attend to families’ priorities the more likely they are to develop close relationships with families. With such a relationship, a family is more likely to see [interventionists] as a potential resource for addressing family-level needs. (p. 57)

12.9 Empowerment in Practice

Empowerment is a concept discussed frequently in the family-centered special education literature. Dunst and Trivette (1988) define empowerment as “family identification and recognition of needs, the ability to deploy competencies to obtain resources to meet needs, and self-attributions about the role family members played in accessing resources and meeting needs” (p. 94). In their discussion of enabling case-management strategies, they note that the client empowerment approach promotes parents as competent decision makers who are actively involved in their child’s education. This strengths-based approach places control in the parents’ hands, allowing them to identify their own needs and resources while becoming self-sufficient.

Although at first glance this may appear family centered, an argument can be made to the contrary. Shonkoff and Meisels (1990) argue as much when they state that “the concept of empowerment itself can be paternalistic if it is viewed as the giving of power to parents by professionals, rather than the assumption of power by parents themselves” (p. 26). This implication is present when language such as “professionals empower parents” is used (e.g., Thompson et al., 1997, p. 101). Such a statement implies that professionals have the power and control and that they choose to give it to parents, as shown in a longitudinal study of the participation of African American parents of 24 preschool children in special education programs (Harry, Allen, & McLaughlin, 1995). Initially, parents were very involved in their children’s education and schooling. By the end of the study, all roles except parental monitoring of work had decreased significantly. The most commonly reported parental role was receiving information and signing documents. Parents no longer saw the need to attend IEP meetings because they knew the information and paperwork would be sent home for them to sign. Parents reported that the family-friendly atmosphere had diminished between preschool and 1st grade, a finding consistent with others (Mahoney, O’Sullivan, & Dennebaum, 1990; McWilliam et al., 1995). Such disillusionment was related to less parent participation. Although a few parents did remain involved, “it seems reasonable to assume that, given some encouragement to see their roles as influential, and given adequate avenues for communication, other parents may have been inclined to become more vocal on issues that concerned them” (Harry, Allen, & McLauglin, 1995, p. 374). This conclusion was further reinforced by Turnbull and Turnbull (2001) and Werts, Mamlin, & Pogoloff (2002), who asserted the possibility that the IEP process is disempowering, but that individual teachers can have a significant impact on the quality of the collaboration that occurs between parents of students with disabilities and their families.

The concept of power and its implications within this context cannot be over-stressed.

The greater the degree of power socially sanctioned for a given role, the greater the tendency for the role occupant to exercise and exploit the power and for those in a subordinate position to respond by increased submission, dependency, and lack of initiative. (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, p. 92)

Teachers and parents alike must respect the power that the other possesses. Only through such respect and sharing of roles can the students’ and families’ needs be met.

Summary

Family involvement in special education has been proven to have significant, positive outcomes for students and families alike. Parents should be involved in all aspects of decision making, planning, and program implementation. Unfortunately, this has not always been the case. Historically, parents were blamed for their children’s disabilities and were perceived as harmful to their own children. For this reason, parents of children with disabilities were often encouraged to institutionalize their children from a very early age. Often, children with special needs were not allowed to enter public schools, and parents were left with very few options.

These beliefs gradually changed, and in 1976, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act became law. With this single piece of legislation, children with disabilities were now entitled to a free and appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment. Their education was to be individualized to their needs and guided by Individualized Education Plans created by a team of parents and professionals. Each reau-thorization of this legislation, now called the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), refined special education services and attempted to include families more. The most recent reauthorization also includes provisions to align IDEA with the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.

Current best practice for family involvement in special education is based on IDEA requirements; child development theories, including Urie Bronfenbrenner’s ecological/systems theory; and the transactional theory championed by Arnold Sameroff. The resulting family-centered approach is founded on the belief that parents and families are the single most influential component in a child’s life. Supporting the families and respecting their cultural and personal beliefs are vital to supporting the child’s education. Including parents and the students with disabilities in school activities that fall outside of the traditional roles helps families and students retain control of their own lives. The professional’s responsibility is to serve, support, and respect the family, and includes putting aside cultural biases and ethnocentrism and recognizing that cultural values and beliefs about disability and education may vary widely.

In a family-centered approach, families are seen as experts, decision makers, partners, advocates, and active members of educational teams. The teacher’s responsibility is to make parents aware of the new roles available to them while respecting a parent’s desire to limit their own roles until they become more comfortable, and can be accomplished by using 10 basic family-centered practices:

■ Organize your classroom to help families become advocates

■ Build flexibility within service delivery

■ Establish effective communication

■ Individualize to the needs of the entire family

■ Understand that families of children with disabilities often go back and forth through various stages of coping and grief

■ Respect the uniqueness of families and treat them with dignity

■ Establish parent–professional collaboration and partnerships

■ Share information with parents and students

■ Emphasize family choice and decision making

■ Use responsive practices

Activities and Questions

1. In your own words, define family-centered practices and the impact this concept can have on children, families, and professionals.

2. Identify at least three strategies for involving the parents of children with disabilities who may be culturally or linguistically diverse.

3. Identify at least three strategies for encouraging families of students with disabilities to be more involved and how you can implement those strategies in your classroom.

4. Interview a special education teacher concerning the strategies she/he uses to encourage the families of his/her students to be involved with their children’s education. What barriers to parent involvement has he/she experienced? How has she/he adapted?

Resources

Family Village www.familyvillage.wisc.edu

Family Village is a comprehensive Web site that provides extensive information for families of children with disabilities related to recreation and leisure, education, health, and daily living. They provide both print and electronic resources.

Families and Advocates Partnership for Education www.FAPE.org

The Families and Advocates Partnership for Education (FAPE) Project is a strong partnership that aims to improve the educational outcomes for children with disabilities. It links families, advocates, and self-advocates to communicate the new focus of IDEA. The project represents the needs of 6 million children with disabilities.

The Council for Exceptional Children www.cec.sped.org

The Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) is the largest international professional organization dedicated to improving the educational success of individuals with disabilities and/or gifts and talents. CEC advocates for appropriate governmental policies, sets professional standards, provides professional development, advocates for individuals with exceptionalities, and helps professionals obtain conditions and resources necessary for effective professional practice.

Wrights Law http://wrightslaw.com/info/rti.index.htm

Parents, educators, advocates, and attorneys come to Wrights Law for accurate, reliable information about special education law, education law, and advocacy for children with disabilities.

NASP Families www.nasponline.org/families/index.aspx

The National Association for School Psychologists (NASP) site offers this page that provides specific information for families about school issues for children with and without special needs.

Beach Center on Disability www.beachcenter.org/families/family_research_toolkit.aspx

Beach Center on Disability provides specific information and resources for parents and professionals working with children with disabilities.

CHAPTER 14 Seeing the Big Picture Creating a School Climate That Strengthens Family–School Connections

Frances M. Vandiver and Linda S. Behar-Horenstein

Learning Objectives

After reading this chapter, you will be able to:

■ Describe the specific ways that the school as a whole might create a more inviting and responsive family–school climate.

■ Explain the key steps for school staff members to change how they work with families.

■ Discuss how the school administrator can influence a more inviting family–school climate.

■ Describe key methods that faculty can use to make their school more welcoming to students’ families.

■ Discuss the challenges faced by beginning teachers in changing how their school works with families.

■ Describe the levels of change by which a school might make its family–school climate more inviting.

Researchers who explore what motivates parents to be involved in their children’s education consistently report that invitations made by the school as a whole as well as by individual teachers are powerful motivators of parents’ involvement ( Hoover-Dempsey et al., 2005 ). What exactly do schools do that motivates families to become more involved in their children’s education? More important, how do school staffs change their ways of interacting to signify a collective message of how they wish to work with families, especially culturally diverse families? In this final chapter, we briefly summarize what school staffs are doing to enhance their ways of working with students’ families. We then look at examples of how school staffs are organizing their efforts to change their ways of working with students’ families. Finally, we consider how these school-wide practices influence the roles of the school administrator and the beginning teacher.

14.1 Creating a More Inviting Family–School Climate

Since the early 1990s, researchers have suggested that student commitment to learning is enhanced when collaboration between families and school becomes the normative practice (Swap, 1993). Although a variety of conceptualizations of parental involvement have been researched, findings from these studies have consistently shown a positive relationship between parental involvement and student academic achievement. For example, students’ academic and social competence improve when schools, families, and communities work together to promote student success (Aguilera, 2010; Clark, 1993; Dornbush & Ritter, 1998; Epstein & Hollifield, 1996; Garbarino, 1997; Ginsberg, 2007). Several researchers have also reported a positive relationship between parent involvement, student learning, and achievement (Jeynes, 2005; Nye, Turner, & Schwartz, 2006). In addition, improvement in language and literacy skills (Senechal & LaFevre, 2002), acceptable school attendance (Epstein & Sheldon, 2002), and reduction in grade retention have been reported to be positively related to greater parent involvement (Miedel & Reynolds, 1999). However, Sheldon (2005) cautions that fostering family–school partnerships should not be directed solely at improving student achievement. He recommends directing efforts at understanding how schools can develop a supportive climate as well as how schools can support families and partner together to enhance students’ holistic development. As a result, a number of steps have been taken by school staffs as a whole to make their school environment more responsive and inviting to parents.

Rethinking Concepts of Family

Although family–school collaboration can be achieved, it involves school personnel rethinking their notions of family and of family–school involvement (Bronfenbrenner, 1991; Quezada & Osajima, 2005). For example, the notion of family traditionally referred to biological parents. Yet family–school researchers suggest that the identification of parent should be broadened to include any caregiver over age 18 who has the primary responsibility of promoting the child’s physical, emotional, social, and educational development (Musti-Rao & Cartiedge, 2004). As a result, many schools are creating bulletin boards and displays that depict the wide variety of families to which their students belong—including families parented by two mothers or two fathers, families for whom English is not their first language, and families with children who have physical or mental disabilities. Educators view this practice as one way to send the message that all types of families are valued by the school staff.

Examining Current Family–School Practices

Many educators are beginning to examine their current family–school practices and the underlying beliefs implicit in them. Harry (1992), for example, conducted an ethnographic study of 12 Puerto Rican families and their children who received English as a second language instruction (ESL) and services for mild disabilities. She reports that the parents typically played a very passive role in educational decision making, with communication between school staff and parents typically being one-way from the school staff to the parents. To invite parents to play a more meaningful and active role in such interactions, Harry recommended that educators and administrators draw on parents’ expertise and use parents’ understanding of their child’s experiences and cultural aspects to help educators better understand the child’s development, behavior, and ways of learning. During these conversations, school personnel could convey authentically how they valued and needed the parents’ involvement by providing avenues for sharing the ways in which the school and home environments differ and are similar, and what impact this might have on the child’s learning.

Learning about Families’ Perspectives and Circumstances

Understanding the families of the students that the school serves is an important first step to building stronger connections with students’ families. All families have stressors that pull them in multiple directions in our fast-paced society. School personnel must consider the resources often associated with low socioeconomic status (SES) families and recognize that family demands may have an impact on high- and low-income families differently. For example, the time and energy of low-income parents for involvement in their children’s schooling are often influenced by work schedules that require long or unpredictable hours (Collignon, Men, & Tan, 2001; Garcia Coll et al., 2002; Griffith, 1998; Machida, Taylor, & Kim, 2002; Weiss et al., 2003). In addition, school-related knowledge of low SES families is typically influenced by less schooling and less access to extra-familial or professional support (Horvat, Weininger, & Lareau, 2003). Moreover, their available time, energy, knowledge, and skills may be mitigated by disparities in physical and emotional health that are often associated with low income, such as chronic and debilitating stress and depression (Grolnick, Benjet, Kurowski, & Apostoleris, 1997; Grolnick, Kurowski, Dunlap, & Hevey, 2000; Kohl, Lengua, & McMahon, 2002; Weiss et al., 2003; Weissbourd, 2008).

Lower-income families may also find involvement in schools difficult because school personnel sometimes make unwarranted assumptions about their level of participation. Teachers sometimes assume that low SES families lack the ability, interest, skills, time, motivation, or knowledge to participate (Collignon, Men, & Tan, 2001; Eccles & Harold, 1993; González, Andrade, Civil, & Moll, 2001; Griffith, 1998; Hoover-Dempsey, Walker, Jones, & Reed, 2002; Horvat, Weininger, & Lareau, 2002; Moll, Amanti, Neff, & González, 1992; Pang & Watkins, 2000; Pena, 2000; Weiss et al., 2003). As Phelan, Davidson, and Yu (1998) point out, parents whose cultural backgrounds differ from the mainstream school district population are often placed at a disadvantage by creating sociocultural borders. Equalizing the balance of power between parents and educators allows them “to co-construct a bigger picture about the conditions of the child’s life vis-à-vis learning and development” (cited in Christenson & Sheridan, 2001, p. 48).

One dilemma identified at a K–12 school, where the first author (FMV) served as the school leader, was the need to provide additional support for students who were identified as struggling readers. In 2000, a pilot program was implemented with 30 middle school students who had volunteered to come for 4 weeks in the summer to an intensive reading program entitled Summer Adventures In Literacy (SAIL). One component of the program was a weekly Family Night in which the students taught their parents some of the reading strategies that they were learning in the program. As the principal described,

We knew that getting parents to come to school for several hours after work would not be possible without providing dinner for them and the children in the program. Our parent organization solicited our business partners to provide dinner for those in attendance and the SAIL teachers and school leaders attended each Family Night session. (Personal communication, 2012)

This program was received successfully by families and has grown to include more than 100 students each summer in grades K–9. The Family Night sessions continue to be engaging as students share with their parents and participants experience social time among faculty, students, administrators, and parents alike. This program speaks loudly to the parents about the commitment of the school to the academic growth of the students and the family collaboration that is essential to their children’s success. Since its inception, the SAIL program has been modified to focus on grades K–4 and has become an integral part of the educational program. The local businesses continue to support the Family Nights, and the parents appreciate this additional attention on their children’s academic success. In addition, the success of this program resulted in the initiation of a Math Acceleration Program (MAP), which focuses on the improvement of math skills for middle school students and uses many of the family–school climate building components from the SAIL program.

Welcoming and Inviting Parent Participation

Families must feel welcome and wanted to participate in the school. They must know how they can participate meaningfully and actively in their child’s education. Feeling welcome increases the likelihood of parental participation. When parents feel welcome, they are also more likely to support the work of educators and to share their own ideas, especially if they believe that educators will listen to them. For example, in one local school district, parents were not allowed to observe their children’s classes or help their children in the classrooms. The school staff decided to modify that situation to ensure that parents (whose taxes support public education) could have an opportunity to observe their children’s classrooms except on days when tests were administered.

In one local school with which the second author (LBH) is familiar, each child and parent who come through the school door each day is greeted with a warm smile and hug by the school principal. Parents were invited to contribute to the classroom by assisting with weekly reading groups; grading homework; making scenery for classroom plays; answering the phone in the office; administering annual tests to children who were absent on test days; or helping maintain the school grounds by painting, creating a playground area for younger children, and building ramps or stairs for other units. At this school, parents not only feel welcome, but they also volunteer their time in whatever way they want to and can contribute.

Creating Meaningful Co-Roles for Families

Developing specific policies that create an equal role for caregivers and educators and recognizing these co-roles in school policies and practices is another way that school staffs are creating more collaborative family–school roles. Traditionally, educators have regarded parents as volunteers, fundraisers, and homework helpers (Christenson & Sheridan, 2001; Tatum, 2007). Assigning parents to institutionally determined roles ignores the potential of parents and families to contribute in meaningful ways to their children’s education. Moreover, traditional practices ignore the assets that families have. Attitudes often characterize families as either fitting into the European American lifestyle or being judged deficient. Many schools continue to perpetuate the norms, practices, and values of families that fit into the dominant culture (Christenson & Sheridan, 2001; Tatum, 2007). Thus, families who differ from these norms are seen as deficient. Poor and disad-vantaged families are described as those who are failing their children.

Yet the centrality of families has been recognized as a crucial component to student achievement. National educational goals have shown the partnering of family and school as central to the prevention of school failure among students. Underscoring this imperative, Pianta and Walsh (1996) assert that to create a culture of success, all school personnel must recognize that at the core of school failure is “an inability or an unwillingness to communicate—a relationship problem” (p. 24). To ensure the healthy cognitive, social, and emotional development of children, family and school resources—fiscal, time, physical, and personnel—must be dedicated to these efforts (Wang, Haertl, & Walberg, 1997).

Because schools as a whole exert a powerful influence on parents’ and educators’ normative expectations for working together, developing school structures and practices that support collaborative parent–school relationships is important. For example, practices that forge collaborative parent–school relationships are letting parents know that they are welcome, keeping them informed about their children’s progress, and conveying to them that school personnel respect them, their concerns, and suggestions (Adams & Christenson, 1998; Christenson, 2004; Comer, 1985; Griffith, 1996, 1998; McNamara, Telzrow, & DeLamatre, 1999; Soodak & Erwin, 2000).

CASE STUDY 14.1

BUILDING FAMILY–SCHOOL RELATIONSHIPS THROUGH CONFERENCING

One of the most important relationship builders with families is how the teacher handles conferences. Parents of preschoolers are particularly anxious about how their child compares to the other children. Often, a year of preschool is all that a child has before entering kindergarten, and the parents have little frame of reference for how their child is doing or should be doing. This is particularly true of the parents’ first child; the parents have no background knowledge on which to draw.

This scenario involves Holly, a first-year teacher who teaches a class of 4-year-olds, and her conference with Mrs. Brown about her son, Tavarius. He is achieving the appropriate targets for physical attributes of a 4-year-old, but is not yet achieving the targets for social and emotional development. Although he loves circle time and is an attentive listener, he sometimes has to be redirected when he blurts out during the reading of the story. Often when he is redirected, he gets upset and crawls under a nearby table.

Questions to Consider

How would you convey this information to Mrs. Brown?

What do you want Mrs. Brown to do to support your efforts with Tavarius?

How would you make this request?

Holly:	“Tavarius does a wonderful job of responding during circle time. I can always count on him to actively pay attention to the story I am reading. Sometimes he gets so excited about an illustration or a favorite animal that he forgets to wait his turn and he blurts out during the story.”
Mrs. Brown:	“Is this common in a four-year-old boy, or is it specific to Tavarius?”
Holly:	“Getting excited about making connections between books and real life is one of the best things about being four years old! However, I have needed to remind Tavarius more often to wait until the end of the book to share with the group. Sometimes he gets upset when I remind him and he crawls under a table.”
Mrs. Brown:	“Oh—he does that at home too when I try to correct him. Is there something I should do at home?”
Holly:	“I have found that giving him about three to five minutes of alone time allows him to get his feelings together. I remind him that this is not a time-out, but instead a time to rethink what he wants to share. Usually he forgets about being upset and wants to be part of the circle again quickly. I then make sure to remember to ask Tavarius specifically a detail from the earlier part of the book. He is such a great listener that he always remembers the early details and takes pride in being able to retell part of the book.”
Mrs. Brown:	“That’s a good idea! I think I’ll try that at home as well and not give him negative attention when he reacts that way with me.”
Holly:	“That would be great, and would help reinforce what I’m trying to do as well. Why don’t you let me know in a week or two how it’s going at home, and I can share how Tavarius is doing at school?”
Mrs. Brown:	“I would be glad to do that, Holly. Thank you for letting me know how Tavarius is doing. I think we can work together to help him learn how to control his outbursts.”

Questions for Reflection

How did this conference facilitate the development of a good relationship between the teacher and the parent?

Why do you think that Mrs. Brown was receptive to the information that her child had to be redirected in class and that he responded with negative behavior when he was redirected?

Why did this become a “teachable moment” for the parent rather than a “blame the child for misbehavior” conference?

Examining the way families and educators currently connect and then altering existing structures to ensure that there is a shared responsibility for students, parents, and educators are another way to build trust and communication. For example, homework has been identified as one indicator of successful schools and successful students. Involving parents in their children’s homework encourages students to spend more time completing assignments with higher quality work and promotes positive communication between the parent and child (Epstein, 2001; Hoover-Dempsey et al., 2002). Involving parents reinforces the importance of schoolwork and can also stimulate conversations between parents and family members and students about student learning. These conversations may bring parents and children together as they exchange ideas (Acock & Demo, 1994) and show children how parents support schoolwork (Bali, Demo, & Weidman, 1998; Chenoweth, 2009; González, Andrade, Civil, & Moll, 2001; Levin, Levy-Schiff, Appelbaum-Peled, Katz, Komar, & Meiran, 1997; Merrtens & Woods, 1994). More recent studies point to the academic achievement gains for students whose parents have been trained to be a homework helper rather than merely being asked to help their children with homework. Training parents in how to help their children with homework is an area where schools can develop important co-roles for parents as well as improve rates of homework completion and academic achievement (Patall, Cooper, & Robinson, 2008; Van Voorhis, 2011).

Teachers can assign homework regularly that encourages students to work with family members to complete assignments (Bali, Demo, & Weidman, 1998; Epstein, Salinas, & Jackson, 1995; Van Voorhis, 2000). In one local school with which the second author (LBH) is familiar, students in grades 5 through 8 were assigned to work together in history groups to write and present plays that depict their interpretation of historical events, to create art projects that depict how people lived during particular time periods, and to write reports. Students called on their parents for assistance in organizing their findings or in sewing costumes and then invited their parents to their history presentations. The combination of group work, creating and producing, designing or finding customs, and acting allowed and encouraged students with varying cognitive styles to contribute in ways that showcased their individual and collective talents. In another project at the same school, families and children in grades 2 through 4 worked together to create math games that required their application of basic mathematical operations, and then the children’s families were invited to solve problems and earn prizes.

Providing Opportunities for Teacher Skill Development

Teacher self-efficacy and training in parental involvement strongly influence the degree to which parents are invited to observe in classrooms (Hoover-Dempsey, Bassler, & Brissie, 1992), yet few teachers receive preservice training in how to work collaboratively with families (Graue & Brown, 2003; Morris & Taylor, 1998). Providing in-service training for teachers in working collaboratively with families is one strategy that the principal can provide to ensure the frequency and effectiveness of parent–school communication. Parent efficacy is also important. Parents who feel efficacious are more likely to volunteer their involvement in classrooms than those who do not. When parents’ values and beliefs clash with those of educators for parents who are already stressed, even messages of invitation by educators are unlikely to be heard (Christenson & Sheridan, 2001). Parental role construction is also an important factor to consider when attempting to enhance parental involvement in their children’s schooling. Parental role construction refers “to parents’ beliefs about what they are supposed to do in relation to their children’s education and the patterns of parental behavior that follow those beliefs” (Hoover-Dempsey et al., 2005, p. 107; Walker, Wilkins, Dallaire, Sandler, & Hoover-Dempsey, 2005).

14.2 How Schools Change Themselves

An increasing body of research demonstrates the importance of family involvement as a crucial component that influences students’ academic achievement. Moreover, research reveals that most teachers, administrators, and parents believe that family involvement is important (Epstein, 2001; Shumow & Harris, 2000). However, it takes changing perspectives as well as practice for a school to become one where parents, teachers, staff, administration, and students are partners and co-facilitators in the learning process. The first step toward this goal is the commitment to the belief that working on developing a more positive relationship with students’ families is important enough that it requires a focus of time, energy, and resources. A second step is the development of the faculty’s awareness of the current state of family–school relationships and the circumstances of families who attend their school. A third step is a faculty’s willingness to identify areas for improvement and develop a plan to move forward. Obviously, the leadership of the principal is essential not only for developing a faculty’s awareness of the current state of family–school relationships, but also for identifying areas for improvement, developing a plan to move forward, and committing resources to this effort. There are many resources available for schools to use to formulate a professional development plan to actualize reform. Yendol-Hoppey and Dana (2010) acknowledge the current status of dwindling resources and describe strategies for developing job-embedded professional development, matching strategies with professional development needs, and describing creative ways for finding time and resources to implement the plan.

The Principal’s Role

Principals play a central role in establishing the school climate. They set the tone for parental involvement and program implementation, and also empower teachers and parents to reach for effective involvement (Soodak et al., 2002). Principals will undoubtedly face resistance to implementing change to family–school discourse because human beings, by nature, attempt to maintain equilibrium and maximize their autonomy vis-à-vis their environment (Schein, 2004). However, just like parents who must maintain their positions when giving consequences to a misbehaving child, principals must be unwavering in their quest for change. To help a faculty become more aware of the types of barriers that families and school staff may experience in attempting to work together, the principal must invite faculty to talk about the issues, needs, and constraints faced by educators in the school building (Christenson & Sheridan, 2001). Changing staff assumptions about working with families can begin with exploring current practices and modes of communication with families. The principal can suggest to faculty and staff that it is crucial that together they look school-wide and ask themselves whether current school practices systematically include or exclude families. To answer this question, the principal and teachers can work together, looking at the structure of current family–school activities (e.g., Back-to-School Night) and assessing the tone of family–school communications depicted in the school handbook and archived newsletters and letters to determine whether these activities and communications are inviting or distancing. Staff can also evaluate the everyday procedures within each office of the school to determine whether they are inviting and “user-friendly.”

Principal leadership lays the foundation for how families and others perceive schools and gives a collective message about the type of school and its reputation. Principals communicate to staff how they expect school personnel to work with students and families; thus, when principals convey the message that involving families as partners with school personnel is a valued priority, parents are more apt to engage with school personnel (Epstein, 2005). Effective principals let parents know when and where to contact them, thus creating an open-door policy (Christenson & Sheridan, 2001). For example, in a special educational facility for severely disturbed boys ages 12 to 16 where the second author was the middle school principal, she invited parents to come in and visit with her about their children’s progress regularly. She began each conversation by welcoming the parents and asking about how they were doing. The tenor of those meetings always focused on the child’s cognitive, social, and emotional development, and about the positive strides that the child had made. Then the principal sought input into how the school and family could work together to enhance the student’s emotional maturation. A non-blaming policy framed the conversation. She emphasized the philosophy that the purpose of their child’s school experiences was to ensure that the child learned enough to get a good job, a nice place to live, and have a nice life. The principal used these forums to learn more about the child’s community and family life. The nature of this school’s leadership and cultural norms influenced the type of family–school collaboration.

The implementation and effectiveness of family–school programs depend on several elements operating together simultaneously (Desimone, 2002; Newmann, King, & Youngs, 2000). The longevity of principal leadership is central to the efficacy of these programs. For example, Van Voorhis and Sheldon (2004) found that there was a negative relationship between principal turnover and program quality. However, they also found that disruption to leadership is decreased if there is a well-implemented program buttressed by broad support and adequate funding. Berends, Chun, Schuyler, Stockly, and Briggs (2002) report that support and principal leadership are probably the most influential factors in determining a school’s capacity to implement new programs (cited also in Berends, Kirby, Naftel, & McKelvey, 2001; Kirby, Berends, & Naftel, 2001). Principal leadership is vital, because principals establish school priorities, direct the allocation of funding, and establish and influence the attitudes and morale of school staff (Knapp, 1997; Newmann, King, & Youngs, 2000).

Principals can also influence their staff’s expectations for meaningful family participation. They establish the tone for interactions by modeling positive communication with all families and encouraging the staff to develop opportunities for sustained positive interactions between families and educators (Edmonds, 1979). For example, holding biweekly breakfasts with grade-level teachers can increase the interaction among students, parents, and educators in a relaxed environment. Principals can also serve as advocates to ensure that system-level policies are enacted to support strong family–school interactions (Christenson & Sheridan, 2001). School leaders can also convey to their staff the importance of providing opportunities to reach out to all families. Figure 14.1 offers an array of opportunities to enhance family–school communication developed by the principal and staff of one school where the second author (LBH) served as principal.

Figure 14.1 How Principal Leadership Can Facilitate Opportunities for Family and School Communication

When the principal required that the staff develop opportunities for families to interact with staff outside of the traditional school day, the number of families who became involved with faculty and staff doubled. As shown in Figure 14.1, back-to-school nights were scheduled to allow more active roles and sustained contact between educators and families. Seasonal school fairs and student performances resulted in educators and families working together and having an opportunity for mutual enjoyment and informal communication about their children. Parents appreciated having an opportunity to attend student-led and teacher-led parent conferences during evening sessions after their workday. Varied and flexible time schedules were also offered to parents to enhance their opportunities to resolve problems and to contact the staff by phone or in person. Flexible schedules were enhanced when the principal and school personnel used the available technology—such as online grade-book programs; teacher Web sites with e-mail addresses and unit plans; and a school Web site with policies, activities calendars, pictures of family activities, newsletters, parent organizations/volunteer activities, and printable forms—to foster other ways of communicating.

Increasing Faculty Awareness

One of the dilemmas that almost every faculty across the country faces is the disconnection between the backgrounds of the faculty and the students. The trend is one of a middle-class, White female teaching professional and an ever-increasing multicultural student body. The dynamics of this situation make it imperative that district and school leaders take deliberate steps to help the teachers, students, and parents better understand each other’s cultural differences and common goals. As the principal of a large middle school with more than 1900 students from 5 different elementary schools, and whose low-income students rode the buses more than 40 minutes to an upper middle class school, the first author (FMV) was aware of the need for the faculty to know more about these students. Working with the district guidance office, her guidance counselors, and the principals of the feeder schools, a “field trip” to all of the feeder schools was organized for a teacher workday. The day began with a district-level guidance supervisor administering a short pre-test about the demographics of the students who came to the school. Comments made by the staff during the pre-testing indicated how little was known about the students and where they came from. The faculty, administration, and both school and district counselors then boarded two school buses for the visit. At each school, the faculty was met by the principal and invited into the elementary school. Counselors from each of the schools, in conjunction with the middle school guidance director, organized a short presentation on the student demographic composition of each school and the current academic successes and challenges. On returning to the middle school, the faculty regrouped and took a post-test. This was the same test as the pre-test and the faculty “scored higher” than on the pre-test. The district level counselor then led a debriefing of the morning’s activity. This simple activity raised faculty awareness of the students’ home communities and provided a forum for expanding the school’s commitment to work harder to reach all students.

The principal’s role is to articulate the common goal of collaborating to meet the needs of each child as the foundation for all decisions at the school. This immediately underscores the need for developing a greater understanding of students’ cognitive styles—connecting abstract concepts to the concrete world of the child’s experiences—and for developing a dialogue with families. Although this is easy to pronounce, it takes deliberate and realistic efforts to make strides in this area. Teachers do not have time to devote to extensive study. Many school districts are restrictive regarding release time for teachers. The universal difficulty in finding quality substitutes also often makes it impossible to release teachers even when plans have been made to do so.

As a result, school staffs committed to making their schools more responsive to all families might first attempt to gain a greater awareness of family and student needs by using existing data that are readily available. As a next step, staff must reach beneath the surface of these data and develop achievable plans for improving their family–school relationships. To do this, consider the following strategies:

■ Examine available demographic data on your school or class to develop a living profile that depicts who your students are demographically; then develop a demographic profile of your faculty and staff and identify relevant gaps between your students and faculty.

■ Analyze the patterns of academic success of various student subgroups at your school, and identify those teachers who are having success with specific student groups; then use their expertise to help other staff develop strategies to reach these students.

■ Use faculty book study to learn more about teaching culturally diverse groups.

■ Interview parents and students about the difficulties of school and how they think the faculty could be more successful.

■ Emphasize how you, the classroom teacher (or the faculty), do not have all of the answers and that you not only welcome family involvement, but also need family involvement to be successful. This, of course, must be followed up with respect for all families and a welcoming culture for all.

■ Examine your beliefs, individually and as a faculty, regarding families that come from different cultures and economic situations than you. Decide what actions must be taken, individually and collectively, to become more effective in areas of need.

The only way to have continuous progress in the area of family–school relationships is to have a continuous examination of that relationship as an integral component of the school conversation. Moreover, this conversation must be formalized in the school’s improvement plan (which should function as a living document of continuous improvement). The conversation must then result in some action that involves parents as partners (Zmuda, Kuklis, & Kline, 2004).

The way to change the fundamental assumptions, practices, and relationships to improve student learning begins with a recognition that the types of changes needed are those that result in restructuring as opposed to reform or change initiatives. Restructuring requires a fundamental shift in attitudes and practices that can result in improved student learning. One example of restructuring involved a middle school where the first author (FMV) served as the principal. Concerned that the current textbooks available for adoption did not meet their students’ learning needs adequately, one 8th-grade teaching team decided to develop its American history course so as to more actively involve the diversity of its students. The team wanted the course to be focused around Essential Questions (EQ) that would pique student interest and require the students to read primary and secondary sources to solve the EQ. Acting as the school’s advocate, the principal proposed to the school district that the monies allotted from the district for textbooks be spent for technology support and classroom libraries for this course, and the district agreed. The teachers were provided release time to develop the curriculum, and all the parents of the 8th-grader students were sent a personal letter about the upcoming new course and invited to help with the curriculum development. The parental support and enthusiasm for an American history course that was not the European version of American history helped keep the teachers enthusiastic with a project that took most of one summer to develop. When the course was implemented in the fall, the teachers and parents were “on the same page,” and a course without a textbook was received enthusiastically.

Changing Assumptions about Teaching

The principles of pedagogy and their relationship to teaching and learning are generally absent from and infrequently modeled in the continuum of teacher development, beginning in preservice through in-service levels (Dalton & Moir, 1992, 1996; National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future [NCTAF], 1996). Statistics show that nearly one-quarter of newly hired teachers in 1991 were unable to deliver effective instruction with higher proportions of urban and rural isolated schools that served minority at-risk students (Darling-Hammond & Falk, 1997). Effective pedagogy suggests that teachers must learn about students’ home and community lives to understand how they as educators can draw on local funds of knowledge to enhance student learning. As Dalton (1998) observes:

Standards that acknowledge pedagogy’s central role, notably the National Science Education Standards, provide unambiguous guidance for teachers about how to comment, how to involve students in content activities, and how to assess student progress continually. (Cited in National Research Council, 1996, p. 18)

Changing assumptions about teaching means that teachers begin to view the assets that all families bring. For example, encouraging beginning teachers to observe family dynamics or ways of communicating is one approach to helping teachers learn about the different modes of communicating and learning in families of socioculturally diverse learners.

To learn more about socioculturally diverse families, teachers may be introduced to ethnographic methods. First, working together with veteran teachers, beginning teachers might survey parents of their students. By working with the survey information they gather—identifying trends, outliers, and developing plans together—beginning teachers might develop a working profile of the students’ families with whom they will be working throughout the year. Teacher enquiry could focus on learning about the family’s ways of communicating, teaching, routines, habits, values, their priorities, and how they assist children with reading or homework in general, and with understanding the world around them. This information can be instrumental to ensuring that families and educators share the same vision for enhancing student development, learning, and behavior.

For example, teachers might want to conduct a family visit, such as that outlined in Chapters 8 and 9 to see a description of the routines and practices that children and parents engage in around homework. Is the house busy and full of people or quiet during homework completion? Is the radio or television playing? Where does the child complete homework? Who helps the child and in what way? After teachers have made several observations in the child’s home and written their own reactions, they can analyze the findings and reflect on what they have learned. After sharing their observations with the family or grade-level team members, they can work collaboratively to develop strategies as needed to assist in the child’s learning, development, and behavior. These experiences can help teachers change unclear or stereotypic views about how culturally diverse families facilitate student learning. They can also demonstrate the teacher and school’s commitment to establish co-roles for families and educators. Baeder (2010) describes a high school’s family visitation program and the impact it had on faculty. “Through listening to parents, grandparents, and others, we learned of these individuals’ talents, experiences, and dreams—in ways that would later help us understand and motivate our students”(p. 56).

Principals can support this practice by providing staff development for training or by bringing in a consultant to conduct a series of in-service workshops.

In Case Study 14.2 about Ellman Middle School, note how the principal worked with her staff to change their parent–teacher conference practices.

CASE STUDY 14.2

RESTRUCTURING PARENT–TEACHER CONFERENCES

When a new principal arrived at Ellman Middle School (pseudonym), she noticed how teachers interacted with parents. Ellman had a large faculty who were invested in their practices, ways of communicating, and ways of thinking, as well as a top-heavy administrative structure that made school functions and structures complex. One common practice was that teachers contacted parents only when there was a problem with their child. Teachers then expected the parents to remedy the child’s behavior. Often, students were not included in these conversations. Teachers rarely reflected on how their own behavior may have influenced the child’s behavior, or their communication with the parents (Amatea & Vandiver, 2004). To restructure this practice, teachers at Ellman Middle School instituted parent–teacher conferences that involved students. A family–school problem-solving format was used. (This meeting format is described in detail in Chapter 11.) The teachers implemented a task-focused approach, involved all members as individuals who could contribute in a meaningful way to resolve the student’s problems, and blocked blame. During the 2000–2001 school year, the problem-solving format and strategies were introduced in a school-wide staff training session. The principal’s role in this process was to continue dialogue with faculty about the importance of including families and students in the teacher–parent conference format. One expectation of this initiative was that each teaching team would use some written format to guide parent–teacher conferences. Also, the principal inquired about each team’s progress in implementing this new format and made the teams’ success stories visible in faculty communication (Deal & Peterson, 1999).

The implementation of this meeting format helped children significantly. However, the more important outcome was the change in student, school staff, and family members’ relationships (Amatea & Vandiver, 2004). The development of the process took nearly 3½ years, and the change was a slow and enduring process. Planning for this change in practice took up to 1 year; however, in this circumstance, the planning and implementing resulted in tangible change that was successful. This parent–teacher format has become part of the way that this school communicates with its parents and is still a vital part of building positive family–school relationships.

Question to Consider

■ How did this principal guide the staff in changing their parent–teacher conferences?

■ What characteristics of positive family–school interactions have made this parent–teacher process an integral part of this school’s communication system?

14.3 Entering as a New Teacher

Entering a new school as a beginning teacher is a daunting experience. With the burgeoning size of our public schools, just finding your classroom can be a challenge. A first-year teacher’s workday life is consumed with learning the routines of the school, organizing the classroom, getting books ready to be assigned to students, learning students’ names, and creating daily lessons, among other responsibilities. As a newcomer, different ideas will capture your attention. Observing what people say and do and who talks and who does not is an important step in making the transition into a new setting. Listening at faculty meetings and identifying the issues that are most prominent in the discussion can also facilitate your enculturation into your new school. Depending on your own cultural background, it may be difficult to determine how to identify the learning needs of culturally diverse students. To acquire an understanding of your students’ cultural backgrounds, it is important to talk with the school principal and to ask about the racial/ethnic composition of the school. Another useful strategy is to talk with your grade-level team leader and other grade-level teachers about how they have worked successfully with culturally diverse students.

In Case Study 14.3, a beginning teacher seeks out the counsel of a more experienced teacher.

Questions to consider while reading:

■ What are your reactions to the suggestions made by the more experienced teacher?

■ Would you willingly discuss “not knowing what to do” with another teacher at your school? Why or why not?

CASE STUDY 14.3

SUSAN AND THE STUDENT PEER APPROACH

Susan, a beginning teacher, found herself struggling with her 2nd-grade students. “You can’t believe how long it took my class of twenty-two children to turn to page nineteen in our reading book today. Most of the children did not even know what the number nineteen looked like.”

“What happened?” asked another new teacher, Cindy, who teaches 5th- and 6th-grade students.

“I don’t understand it,” Susan stated. “I thought that by working with second-grade students, I could help assure that they would do well. But I am not so sure after today!”

“I have an idea that you might want to try,” Cindy replied. “What if you selected four or five of your students who are capable and make them team captains for the remaining students? You would use them as captains to assist their peers.”

“I’ll give it a try!” Susan said. Using this peer approach, Susan soon discovered that the team captains were able to help their classmates follow directions more quickly and adjust to the school routines more rapidly. Talking with Cindy a few days later, Susan described how successful the approach had been with her students.

“If this process continues to be successful,” Cindy said, “You may want to consider rotating the role of team captain with other students within their group.” Susan presented this idea to her class, and the students agreed that this was an idea worth trying. As the school year progressed, Susan saw more students taking on leadership roles within their group and a greater amount of collaboration and helpfulness among the students. She felt like her classroom was beginning to develop its own sense of community.

Questions to Consider

■ Why do you think using team captains was successful?

■ What approach would you have used? Why?

■ How did the use of team captains contribute to development of the classroom climate?

Sometimes a new teacher might be concerned about a student who appears to have potential but is not doing well either inside or outside of the classroom. In the scenario described in Case Study 14.4, a new teacher decides how to respond to a student who seems aggressive and unmotivated.

CASE STUDY 14.4

SHELLY AND THE FAMILY VISIT WITH ROMANO AND HIS MOTHER

Shelly, a beginning 4th-grade teacher, found herself overwhelmed within the first few weeks of school by a Hispanic boy, Romano, who intimidated the other boys in her classroom with threats of violence. “He threatened to hit me at recess,” reported Jawan. Shelly continued to monitor Romano’s behavior carefully and jotted down her observations over the next 4 days. A summary of her notes follows:

August 10—Romano worked quietly at his desk while reading a novel. At recess, he told all of the other boys what position they could play during soccer. During science, he put his head down on his desk, throughout the video on the scientific method.

August 11—Romano entered the classroom angry and seemingly upset. He had a difficult time staying in his seat during the morning announcements. During science class, he seemed to daydream. I had to remind him three times during the assignment that he needed to complete his worksheet. When he left the classroom, I heard him yell to Jawan, “I’m going to punch you!”

August 12—Again, Romano entered the classroom appearing agitated. When I asked him if anything was wrong, he said, “No, just some guy stuff. I can handle it.”

August 13—Romano read his book and remained quiet. At recess, he grabbed the soccer ball from David and yelled at the other boys, telling each of them that they were assigned to a particular position on the field. He fell asleep during science and left the classroom almost as quickly as the bell rang.

Romano’s inattentiveness in class and aggressive behavior with his peers concerned Shelly more each day, partly because she did not want to give up hope on Romano and partly because she was passionate about him feeling successful academically. She went next door to another 4th-grade teacher, Jane, and explained the situation. “Sometimes,” Jane said, “it helps to sit with the student during lunch and get to know him a little bit. In this way, you can begin to let Romano know that you genuinely care. After doing this a few times, you can write to his family and ask if you can come over to their home to visit with them. When you arrive at his house, greet Romano with a smile and then sit down together and learn the names of those family members.” Initially nervous about visiting the family, Shelly considered sending the home liaison to visit Romano’s home. After talking with the liaison, who reassured her that she would be glad to accompany her, Shelly decided to go visit the family by herself.

At the front door, Romano and his mother Mrs. Ramirez greeted Shelly. Shelly thanked Mrs. Ramirez for meeting with her. They sat down in the living room and talked. Shelly explained her concern about Romano and her desire to help him. She also listened to Mrs. Ramirez as she explained how the departure of Mr. Ramirez had affected her son. “My husband told my son to be the man of the family and watch over his mother, brothers, and sisters,” Mrs. Ramirez explained. She reported that Romano had recently become more controlling during his father’s absence and quite “bossy” with his friends. Shelly then described what she had observed of Romano’s behavior at school and during recess. During the family visit, Shelly observed how diligently he cared for three younger siblings. He carried them around their house, consoled them when they fell or cried, and played with them. Shelly offered to develop a plan of action with Romano and his mother that could help Romano and boost his engagement in his work. They built in a time when she would be phoning Romano’s mother to see whether their plan was working. Shelly approached Mrs. Ramirez in a non-blaming manner and with an earnest desire to help Romano. After the 45-minute visit, Shelly left with not only a better understanding of Romano, but also with a plan for helping him become more engaged at school.

Questions to Consider

■ What did Shelly do that helped her better understand Romano?

■ How did the family visit help her better understand Romano’s behavior at school?

■ How did the family interactions at Romano’s home differ from the peer interactions at school? Why?

14.4 Examining the Depth of School Change Required

As discussed throughout the chapter and illustrated by the previous case studies, schools have developed and used a wide variety of methods for making themselves more welcoming and inviting to families. These methods range in terms of the breadth and depth of change required of all staff members in the school. The following methods are arranged from those that require a relatively low depth of change to those that require a greater depth and breadth of change:

1. Some schools employ a parent/parent volunteer/family liaison person who can provide other parents with information on how the school works and may speak the language or come from the ethnic minority group represented by many families in the school. The liaison person’s role is to serve as a go-between, explaining the school to families and families to the school via translation services and home visits, for example. Although such a professional can make an individual family’s experience less nerve-racking, one consequence of using such a person is that the rest of the staff is not required to change their practices and can remain unchanged in their ways of thinking (Comer, 1985).

2. A school may emphasize having its office staff develop skills with a more positive consumer orientation in which all families, students, and other visitors are treated with friendliness and respect (Hoover-Dempsey et al., 2005).

3. School staff may take steps to depict a more representative picture of cultural groups and family structures in visual displays in the school (e.g., school bulletin boards, books, correspondence) and demonstrate a warmer and friendlier tone to families in such displays and correspondence.

4. School staff may develop friendlier, more effective and efficient methods for keeping families informed of student progress by using the latest technologies (e.g., e-mail, voice mail) to keep parents abreast of student expectations and progress. Staff might also use available technology to communicate more effectively with families, such as online grade book programs; teacher Web sites with e-mail addresses and unit plans; and a school Web site with policies, activities calendars, pictures of family activities, newsletters, volunteer activities, or activities sponsored by parent organizations. However, these methods typically involve one-way communication from the school to the family, rather than seek out two-way communication.

5. The school staff can establish opportunities for two-way communication with families that complement their work schedules. For example, teachers can hold conferences in the evenings or with more varied and flexible schedules. Individual parent and educator conferences can offer opportunities for interview and collaborative assessment of the child’s skills.

6. Staff can create opportunities for two-way communication by redesigning the traditional school-wide family–school routines (e.g., Back-to-School Night, school letters) to enhance getting input from students and parents about their goals, perspectives, and circumstances, and by increasing opportunities for meaningful interaction.

7. Staff can seek out families’ perspectives—learning about what parents and students see as their goals, perspectives on their child’s learning, and identifying needs that are consistent with families’ special circumstances and culture. In addition, staff can follow through on families’ suggestions by designing interventions that support children’s learning in ways that are consistent with parents’ circumstances.

8. Staff can seek out parent/family knowledge to build curriculum that connects students’ home knowledge with school learning.

Summary

Although the research paints a positive picture of the relationship between parent involvement and student success in school, the development of a positive school culture that is truly inviting to parents to become partners with the school and its faculty is hard to accomplish. The reason is not because teachers, counselors, and administrators do not want parental help—school folks need all the help they can get in the high-stakes and high-visibility arena in which public education currently finds itself. The truth is that the traditional way of “doing school” with its traditional structures and beliefs often prevents the meaningful involvement of parents in the academic lives of their children. In essence, it takes a real shift in the organizational culture of a school for it to become one where parents, teachers, staff, administration, and students are partners and co-facilitators in the learning process. Given these challenging circumstances, it is not impossible to improve the current conditions of the school–family relationship in any school. The first step toward restructuring is adopting a belief that working on developing a more positive relationship is important enough to focus time, energy, and resources to begin this process. The principal’s leadership is essential to developing the faculty’s awareness of the current state of family–school relationships, to identifying areas for improvement, and to helping the faculty not only develop a plan for improvement, but also provide whatever resources are needed for the implementation of the plan.

Working to overcome the challenges of involving themselves with low-income and socioculturally diverse families is difficult and challenging for most school staff (Sheldon, 2005). Research is still needed to explore how principals’ actions and decisions foster strong programs of family, school, and community partnerships. Also, additional research is needed to assess the quality of partnerships that draw from multiple resources, such as teachers’ and principals’ perceptions of implementation and parents’ and students’ perceptions of their experiences with school partnerships (Sheldon, 2005). As the book comes to an end, consider Reflective Exercise 14.1 and the first steps you might wish to take as a new educator to promote more collaborative family–school relations in your workplace.

REFLECTIVE EXERCISE 14.1 Promoting a Collaborative Family–School Climate

Imagine yourself as a first-year teacher in an elementary school where most of the other teachers have been employed for more than 10 years and worked from a fairly traditional paradigm of family–school relating. Drawing from what you have gained from the content knowledge of this text, develop a plan of action that you could implement in your own classroom to provide opportunities for effective family engagement.

Activities and Questions

1. What are some of the key steps you can take to deepen your understanding of the cultural diversity within our schools?

2. What are some of the strategies you can use to create a positive family climate within your classroom?

3. What are the major issues a school must tackle in developing a more collaborative family–school relationship?

4. What are some of the strategies identified in this text that can facilitate the process of becoming a more family-friendly school?

Epilogue

The research shows that more positive and collaborative family–school relationships improve student achievement, decrease student misbehavior, increase student motivation, and empower families to play a more vital role in their children’s education. This text has laid out the research base, and identified the cultural shifts that are happening in our families, communities, and schools. We have provided you, the reader, with a description of strategies you might use to increase positive family–school relationships, as well as given you real-school examples, case studies, and opportunities for reflective practice to help you make the shift from traditional to more collaborative practices for relating to students’ families. The tools and strategies that you need for your individual growth in understanding diverse families and communities are also described within this text. The components needed to develop a family-friendly classroom have been explored. The necessary roles of the teacher, the family, and the principal that are needed to move to a collaborative school and family relationship have been identified. It is now up to you, the educator, to move from theory to practice in creating a positive and collaborative family–school relationship with all of the families of students in your classroom, your school, your district.

Resources

Southwest Educational Development Laboratory (SEDL): National Center for Family and Community Connections with Schools www.sedl.org/connections 4700 Mueller Blvd. Austin, TX 78723 Phone: 800-476-6861

The National Center for Family and Community Connections with Schools’ goal is to link audiences with research based information and resources they can use to connect school, families, and communities to increase student success, especially in reading and math.

National Network of Partnership Schools—Dr. Joyce Epstein, Director www.csos.jhu.edu/p2000 Johns Hopkins University 2701 N. Charles Street, Suite 300 Baltimore, MD 21218 Phone: 410-516-8800

The National Network of Partnership Schools (NNPS) works with schools, districts, and states to develop and maintain comprehensive programs of school–family–community partnerships. The Center on School, Family, and Community Partnerships at Johns Hopkins University also works with the members of the NNPS.

Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory www.nwrel.org/partnerships 101 SW Main St. Suite 500 Portland, OR 97204-3213 Phone: 503-275-9500

The Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory (NWREL) Center for School, Family, and Community helps families, educators, and communities work together to enhance student learning at all stages of life. The center disseminates information regionally and nationally through publications, Web site, and conferences.