Week 4 Discussion 1 Culturally responsive Skills
jlsmnukey
Buildingculturallyresponsivefamily-SchoolrelationshipsEllenS.AmateaChapters6-7week4.docxCHAPTER 6 Equal Access, Unequal Resources: Appreciating Cultural, Social, and Economic Diversity in Families
Cirecie A. West-Olatunji
Learning Objectives
After reading this chapter, you will be able to:
■ Explain the various meanings of the term culture.
■ Describe the diverse economic, cultural, and social contexts that influence an individual or a family’s worldview.
■ Explain the differences in individualistic and collectivistic worldviews of families.
■ Discuss the impact of worldviews on student learning and educators’ interactions with students’ families.
What is culture? What is social class? How do culture and social class affect children’s and families’ experiences of schools and educators? How can educators recognize and appreciate the social, cultural, and economic diversity of their students’ families? In this chapter, we describe the varying worldviews that characterize families from diverse cultural, social, and economic groups, and examine the impact of these worldviews on student learning and educators’ interactions with students’ families.
If you recall, in Chapter 1, we asked you to visualize what your classroom of students will look like and how you envision interacting with them and the key adults in their lives. Many times when we ask our students to do this, we notice that they usually envision working with children who look very much like themselves and come from families very much like their own—European American (White), middle-class families who have had at least a high school, if not college, education. Moreover, their ideas about how they expect to structure their interactions with their students and their students’ families reflect the middle-class, monocultural orientation of most schools in which a single, homogeneous dominant culture is depicted in teaching and learning practices, with little attention being given to varying multicultural perspectives (Derman-Sparks, Ramsey, Edwards, & Brunson-Day, 2006; Tutwiler, 2005).
However, as you are learning, there is a strong probability that you will be teaching children who come from far different economic and cultural backgrounds. In addition, there is a high probability that school staff with whom you work will be “educentric” in their perspective about family–school relations, viewing family or community involvement in children’s education from a perspective that reflects only the school staff’s values, goals, and priorities rather than the perspectives of the families served by the school (Lawson, 1999). Yet, as you are learning, this perspective can limit the ability of educators to work productively with children’s families.
A variety of different approaches have been taken to understanding the influence of culture and class on children’s learning and family–school interactions. One approach emphasizes learning about the specific histories and traditions of different ethno-linguistic groups and how to change instruction to reflect them. For example, in an effort to make curriculum more inclusive, teachers have developed specific lessons on African American history or American Indian history as part of their social studies instruction. Other educators have thoroughly revised curriculum and textbooks to be more representative of the histories and traditions of groups that make up U.S. society (Ladson-Billings, 2005).
Another approach emphasizes raising educators’ awareness of school and community institutional practices that unwittingly promote racism (West-Olatunji, Shure, Pringle, Adams, Lewis, & Cholewa, 2010) and working to transform these institutional practices. This approach requires educators first to examine the power relations between the school (representing the dominant community) and groups that have traditionally wielded less power. Second, specific cultural values and perspectives of diverse families are examined to determine how they differ from those of the dominant European American, White, middle-class culture. Third, learning activities and family involvement methods are designed to be more in keeping with these values (Trumbull, Rothstein-Fisch, Greenfield, & Quiroz, 2001). It is this approach that we highlight in this chapter.
We believe that educators must understand how families in diverse economic circumstances and cultural contexts view their roles interacting with the school and how families’ participation in their children’s learning may take different forms from those expected within European American, middle-class standards and mores. In this chapter, we first explore the diverse economic, cultural, and social contexts that influence family life and shape families’ worldview and their children’s learning. We then introduce the concept of cultural reciprocity as a means of considering how these diverse contexts influence family–school relationships, and describe several educational innovations that can support the learning of children from diverse cultural and economic contexts.
First, however, take a moment to consider what might be your specific expectations and assumptions about the goals of schooling and the roles that you think educators and families should play in their children’s learning and schooling. To gain a greater understanding of our own “taken-for-granted” cultural assumptions about school roles and goals, we have found that stepping outside of our familiar world is often useful. Hence, we ask you to imagine in Case Study 6.1 that you are a parent attending a parent–teacher conference at a school situated in a culture that differs from your own. What conclusions might you draw from this exercise about the ways that cultural beliefs shape our ideas about the goals of schooling and the roles that teachers and parents should play in student learning? Second, how do you see the decision-making power being distributed in this parent–teacher interaction? Does the parent, for example, have the power to change how the teacher interacts with her daughter?
CASE STUDY 6.1
DIFFERENCES OF CULTURAL BELIEFS THAT AFFECT PARENT–TEACHER INTERACTION
Imagine that you are a parent of a 4th-grade girl from Central View, a community that, like some Western cultures, values independence, and that you have moved with your family to the Far East into a culture that values interdependence and reliance on immediate and extended family, as do some Eastern cultures. Your child seems to be having difficulty adjusting to her new school. She often comes home crying and reporting that her teacher has scolded her in class. Although she was a high-achieving student her first few years of school, she has been getting low grades at her new school. You decide to meet with your child’s teacher and prepare for this parent–teacher conference by drawing up a list of questions designed to find out why your child is not doing well in subjects she previously excelled in. You have been actively involved in her education in previous years and expect to continue to help your child at home.
You do not speak the teacher’s language. The school has arranged for a young university student to interpret for you, but you are unsure of his ability to convey your message accurately as his English seems limited. At the meeting, you find the teacher, who is female, is polite but distant. When you bring out the last writing assignment that your daughter completed and ask why it received such a low grade, the teacher looks puzzled. After some back-and-forth dialogue between the teacher and the interpreter, the interpreter relays the information. The teacher is perplexed that you are questioning her grading at all. Again, some dialogue is exchanged between the teacher and interpreter. The teacher seems embarrassed as she painfully explains through the interpreter that your daughter wrote the composition about herself. The teacher explains that her intent is to not have her students “self-cherish” in their schoolwork. The aim of all education is to transcend self-worship and become part of the whole. To do this, students must not dwell on themselves. She looks embarrassed to have to explain this to you. As the conversation continues, you mention that you have provided everything, including a computer and book resources in your daughter’s bedroom that she has had since she was 4 years old, to help her advance her education. Again, the teacher looks embarrassed. The interpreter lets you know that the teacher has politely suggested that maybe part of your daughter’s problems in school could be to the result of her early and unnatural separation from her parents or the family bed, and that she is subtly trying to curb your daughter of emotion. The teacher also tells you that your daughter’s unhealthy need to express her feelings makes the other children uncomfortable. As you leave the conference, the teacher closes by saying that she hopes for your daughter to be surrounded by blessed family members during her whole life.
Questions to Consider
In this scenario, the teacher did not try to understand your family, your culture, or your background. Instead, she appeared to see your daughter’s cultural differences as deficiencies.
What impact do you think this might have on your daughter?
What are the conflicting perceptions of the teacher and the parent about—
Their expectations and goals for students?
The role of the teacher?
The role of the parent?
How “good” people behave?
How the daughter can be successful?
6.1 Understanding Differences in Class and Culture
Just as in Case Study 6.1, when an educator and parent with differing worldviews and life perspectives meet, their first encounter will more likely be confusing or negative. However, if their perspectives and worldviews are similar, their reactions to each other are more likely to be positive. Our life perspectives and worldviews emerge out of our cultural identities and differing life experiences. Examples of cultural identity categories include ethnic identification, race, socioeconomic status, gender (i.e., male or female), gender identity (masculine or feminine), sexual orientation, regionality, religious affiliation, family structure, and disability status. Think about the identity categories by which you define yourself. By means of Reflective Exercise 6.1, depict yourself in relation to each category. How does each of your identity categories shape your attitudes and perspectives? For example, does your ethnicity or religious background hold specific expectations for gender identification? Are men and women expected to act in specific roles? How do your hobbies, dress, interests, and friendships align with such gender expectations? These are some of the different ways that our distinctive identities can influence our interaction with families. Because schools and educators frequently represent the dominant European American (White) culture, understanding how certain categories of identities (e.g., culture, race, class) affect the nature of interactions between school professionals and families is important. The following terms are used frequently in discussions of diverse identities: culture, race, ethnicity, nationality, class. Often used interchangeably, these terms actually connote different meanings. Hence, prior to looking at specific differences in class and cultural identity, let us clarify these terms.
REFLECTIVE EXERCISE 6.1 My Identity Web
Culture
According to Murry et al. (2004),
Culture encompasses macro-level processes and deals specifically with the values and norms that govern and organize a group of people defining characteristics and behaviors that are deemed appropriate or inappropriate for an organized group. Culture also specifies the context of human behavior, and its transmission occurs in an environment that includes a specific place, time and stimuli in which skills, knowledge and attitudes are learned. (p. 83)
Culture might also be defined as influencing how a person perceives and interprets what is happening and determines how the person behaves, initiates, and reacts to various situations (Gollnick & Chinn, 2002). According to Turnbull, Turnbull, Shank, and Smith (2004), culture “influences our rituals, determines our language, shapes our emotions; and is the basis for what we determine is right or wrong about ourselves, others, and society” (p. 93). Gollnick and Chinn (2002) present a listing of characteristics that merge to form one’s cultural identity and that include one’s gender, ethnicity, race, social class, geography, age, exceptionality, religion, and language.
Race
Race refers to a system of biological taxonomy developed to classify plants and animals. When applied to humans, it represents an assumption of shared genetic heritage based on external physical characteristics, such as facial features, skin color, and hair texture. Rather than using biology alone to study humans, some social scientists advocate the use of the more inclusive concept of ethnicity that encompasses not only physical characteristics but also culture. Although the terms ethnicity and race are often used interchangeably, the concepts they represent have different conceptual meanings and operational definitions. More important, definitions of ethnicity include socially constructed elements, such as the language, beliefs, norms, behaviors, and institutions that members of a group share. Moreover, although some social scientists use the term ethnicity interchangeably with culture, because the concepts share a similar emphasis on delineating how people think, behave, make decisions, and define events and experiences, these are also distinctive concepts. Nationality, although commonly used to inquire about an individual’s ethnicity or cultural background, is more narrowly defined as one’s citizenship.
Social Class
Social class connotes the socioeconomic standing of an individual or, in the case of children, their families. Curiously, in studying the effects of poverty, social class is rarely defined consistently. Conceived, at times, as a group’s norms and values or, at other times, as its attitudes toward work and family or as patterns of behavior, social class has been studied with neither the depth nor precision of analyses of specific ethnic groups. Yet, however defined, it remains a subtext of distinctions between the “deserving” and “undeserving” poor (Lamont & Small, 2006).
In conceptualizing social class, researchers have embraced two very different perspectives that are closely tied to families’ participation in society (Tutwiler, 2005). The first perspective focuses on cultural explanations for a family’s impoverished condition (and social class position). Cultural explanations emphasize that each social class has distinctive sets of attitudes, values, and behaviors that comprise a culture shared by others at their economic level. This culture of poverty theory characterizes impoverished individuals in terms of deficits by assuming that they have certain attitudes, values, and behaviors that keep them at the bottom of the economic or social hierarchy, and that they pass on these traits to their children (Payne, 1998; Tutwiler, 2005).
Yet many contemporary researchers offer a different theoretical perspective that focuses on structural explanations for social class differences. This perspective, often referred to as a theory of cultural capital, emphasizes that the difference in resources available to families influences their daily living situations. In other words, the differences in economic and social resources, rather than a family’s attitudes and values, shape the nature of a family’s relationships with other groups and institutions and result in certain levels of class privilege (i.e., opportunities and advantages) for their children (Lareau & Weininger, 2003). According to this framework, children of impoverished and working-class families are handicapped by a schooling system that systematically uses criteria for evaluation that are biased in favor of middle-class culture.
Moderating Influences
Despite common challenges faced by children from culturally and ethnically diverse backgrounds, two important moderators have been found to have a significant impact on their resilience and coping, especially within the realm of education. Research has shown that an individual’s level of acculturation can influence their self-esteem, social competencies, and academic performance. In addition, assessing children’s ethno-cultural worldviews without considering their families’ socioeconomic status (SES) can yield conflicting outcomes.
For many culturally diverse schoolchildren, navigating within a culturally foreign environment can cause anxiety and fear and can have an impact on their ability to interact with their peers and perform academically. Confronted with new expectations and assumptions by their teachers and other school personnel, children often develop coping mechanisms to decrease their discomfort level. One way in which they may respond is to assimilate into the social mainstream by conforming to the Eurocentric values and beliefs of the school community.
Assimilation can be defined as placing an emphasis on working within the dominant culture to achieve one’s personal and professional goals (Richardson, Bethea, Hayling, & Williamson-Taylor, 2010). Cultural assimilation takes into account the impact of the sociopolitical context for the absorption and integration of the new culture (Ivey, 2000). For culturally diverse individuals in the United States, cultural assimilation refers to the expectation that culturally diverse children must embrace the norms (i.e., values, beliefs, language, family patterns, and behavioral style) of the dominant culture. Contemporary scholars assert that this absorption into mainstream values and beliefs comes at a significant personal price in that it causes stressful experiences in relation to one’s ethnic identity (Helms & Cook, 1999). This narrow cultural lens is known as ethnocentric monoculturalism, in which not only are the values, assumptions, beliefs, and practices of only one segment of the society valued (e.g., monoculturalism), but they are also structured in such a manner as to enhance the position of only that narrow segment of the population (Sue & Sue, 2008).
Acculturation differs from assimilation in that it allows for the retention of one’s own beliefs and practices while assuming the cultural norms of a new and different culture. Acculturation is a significant challenge to immigrants coming to the United States (Roysircar-Sodowsky & Maestas, 2000). Moreover, current research on acculturation suggests that individuals who arrive at younger ages, such as 12 years and younger, who attend elementary school in the United States, tend to be more assimilated than those who immigrated at older developmental periods, such as adolescence or adulthood (Phan, Rivera, & Roberts-Wilbur, 2005). Although acculturation is commonly discussed regarding immigrant families, this process can occur for migrant individuals as well, especially within highly diverse societies, such as the United States (Roysircar, 2004). For instance, individuals who move from the South to the Northeast often express feelings of culture shock as they seek to adjust to regional norms for behaviors and expectations.
In addition to the issues of assimilation or acculturation, SES has an impact on culturally diverse children and their families. Low-income parents experience a host of environmental concerns that influence their children’s behavior and performance academically. In addition to financial difficulties that affect their food supply, educational resources, and parental stress, these families often experience inadequate housing, and thus relocate frequently. Moreover, families who experience stress often have problems in their familial relationships, causing secondary problems, such as marital conflicts, domestic violence, and substance abuse (Crethar, Snow, & Carlson, 2004). It is within this context that many children from impoverished communities arrive at school.
Children from families and communities that are culturally, linguistically, and socially divergent from their schools often experience low academic achievement, significant emotional anguish, and psychological distress (Cholewa & West-Olatunji, 2008). Common responses to this lack of congruence between home and school in young children are significant changes in behavioral patterns, bed-wetting, fretfulness, and developmentally regressive behaviors. Children who may be talkative and precocious at home may be shy and unresponsive in the classroom. Similarly, children who are even-tempered and compliant in the home environment may exhibit a lack of control in the school setting in response to a culturally unresponsive classroom. Without considering the effect of cultural continuity on children’s behaviors, teachers may misinterpret their behavior.
Sociocultural and Familial Stressors
Children from impoverished communities and those in culturally diverse families have a multilayered set of obstacles to overcome to succeed in the school environment (Olatunji,
2000). Primarily, there are prevailing sociopolitical conditions that predispose teacher dispositions and expectations about the students. These conditions also influence the quality of the physical environment and accessibility to educational resources. Moreover, conflicts occur between the students’ socially constructed knowledge and that of the school (Gordon, 1997).
Class and Stress
If you recall from our previous discussion of the ecological systems theory, Bronfen-brenner posited that macrosystemic factors influence family life and family–school interactions. Nowhere is this more readily observed than in impoverished families. The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001 was created to make a difference for dis-advantaged children by narrowing the achievement gap of advantage and disadvantaged children in public education (Ikpa, 2004). However, the effectiveness of NCLB did not take into consideration issues of accessibility and equity. How low-income communities are positioned in society often determines an individual’s ability to navigate within society. Studies show that the quality, accessibility, and quantity of resources in low-income communities are different from those in middle- and upper-income communities (Alexander, Entwistle, & Kabbani, 2001). For instance, to attend a parent–teacher conference, a parent from an impoverished community might not have a car available and must rely on public transportation. Often, bus schedules and routes are not as frequent nor as accommodating in low-income communities. Some parents may have to take two to three buses to participate in a parent–teacher conference. This differential positioning is also evident in interpersonal interactions between educators and parents and in the often low expectations that teachers have for students from low-income communities (Hale, 2001). Although frequently unintentional, teachers can communicate conceptualizations of students’ worth and abilities based on children’s lack of resources or familiarity with middle-class mores. Children whose parents cannot afford school supplies, uniforms, or money to participate in class outings may feel too ashamed to disclose their family’s situation. Subsequently, they may provide a more suitable reason for not turning in assignments, attending school without a uniform, or being absent during a critical class project. When teaching students from low-income families, teachers must expand their conceptualizations of student behavior beyond middle-class scenarios and creatively assist these students in fully engaging in their learning and development.
Cultural Stressors
A major problem in public education resides in the cultural mismatch between students’ families and communities and the school culture. It has been suggested that this cultural mismatch serves as a significant stressor for culturally diverse students in the classroom. When confronted on a daily basis with curricula, instructional dynamics, and classroom environments that marginalize their own cultural beliefs and assumptions, children are likely to shut down and become disengaged from their educational experiences. Another common response that children might have to such cultural hegemony (the systemic imposition of one set of cultural values over others) is to act out behaviorally by resisting cultural dominance. Such students are often viewed as non-compliant, aggressive, or even behaviorally disordered.
The assumption that knowledge and education are non-neutral terrains (King, 1995; 2005) is a focal point for discussion among educators. At the forefront of the efforts to challenge cultural hegemony in the curriculum are contemporary educators such as James Banks and Carl Grant (Banks, 2006; Grant & Lei, 2001). Two steps can be taken to transform the curriculum in order to minimize hegemony in education: First, move from marginalizing knowledge to expanding knowledge. Marginalizing knowledge is defined as including in the curriculum only what is considered important about a multicultural society and its history from a Eurocentric perspective, whereas expanding knowledge includes the diverse social interests and identities of other cultures in the teaching method. It is also important for teachers to move from expanding knowledge to deciphering knowledge to overcome the cultural hegemony existent in the school curriculum. To decipher knowledge means that teachers not only see and acknowledge the different social realities and perspectives of their students, but also become activists for a just education (King, 1995; 2005). As such, teachers must think critically about the disproportionate rates of culturally diverse, low-income, and male students experiencing corporal punishment and being referred to special education (West-Olatunji, Baker, & Brooks, 2006). In the classroom, teachers can use methods of inquiry to problem-solve about students’ performance and thus maintain high expectations for student achievement. Consider Case Study 6.2.
Case Study 6.2 illustrates how, when teachers are unable to conceptualize children’s behaviors by using a wide range of possibilities, they can inadvertently rely on Eurocentric behavioral norms to explain student behavior. On the one hand, Joey might represent a student who simply lacks compliance to raise his hand and be acknowledged before blurting out his answers. Alternatively, Joey might be a very bright student who really does know the answer to most of the questions and must be encouraged while simultaneously learning the behavioral expectations in the classroom. Questions that Ms. Boothe might consider include the following:
What are Joey’s expectations for learning behaviors that stem from his cultural and family background and are they the same as those in my classroom?
Might Joey be demonstrating signs of giftedness?
How can I continue to reinforce Joey’s engagement in the lesson while allowing other students opportunities to learn at their respective paces?
CASE STUDY 6.2
JOEY
Joey is a 5-year-old African American kindergarten student attending a public elementary school. In his kindergarten classroom, he is quick to raise his hand to indicate that he knows the answers to almost all of the questions the teacher asks. Not only does he raise his hand, he also shouts out that he knows the answer and wiggles in his seat. During the morning exercise to discuss the weather, Joey’s teacher, Ms. Boothe, asks the children, “What day is this?” Joey shouts out, “Ooh, ooh, I know the answer!” The teacher responds by reminding Joey that he should raise his hand quietly. Seeing that none of the other students have raised their hands to indicate that they know the answer, Ms. Boothe allows Joey to respond. He is correct. Ms. Boothe asks another question, “What word on the board best describes today’s weather?” Joey again, raises his hand and shouts out, “I know the answer!” Ms. Boothe frowns at Joey and looks around to see if any other students have raised their hands. Some have and she calls on Timmy. He answers incorrectly. Once again, Joey shouts out, “Ooh, ooh, I know!” Ms. Boothe solicits a response from Cindi, who answers correctly. When Ms. Boothe asks the third question and Joey is prepared to respond, she places Joey on the margins of the student group and tells him that his behavior is unacceptable. When Ms. Boothe asks questions of the students, Joey is no longer engaged. His head is lowered; he appears to be daydreaming and no longer shows interest in the lesson.
Familial Stressors
Macrosystemic factors heavily influence low-income families’ parental practices and expectations, family stressors, unique characteristics, and dynamics. Factors such as family stress, parent–child interactions, family conflict, and marital functioning have all been found to have an impact on children’s adjustment and development of externalizing behaviors (Papp, Goeke-Morey, & Cummings, 2004). Current research suggests that marital functioning and parental distress are significant predictors of children’s behavioral problems (Papp, Goeke-Morey, & Cummings, 2004). Family risk factors (e.g., family stress, family conflict, low SES) and poor parenting practices are highly predictive of both externalizing behaviors and poor emotional adaptation (Prevatt, 2003). Low-income single caregivers, who often encounter a great deal of family stress, may limit their involvement within schools if they are experiencing difficulties in family functioning (Unger, Jones, Park, & Tressell, 2001). Thus, family stressors can influence parental involvement as well as children’s adjustment to school and their overall academic and behavioral functioning.
6.2 Exploring the Cultural Worldviews of Families
One of the major causes of the discontinuity between culturally and economically diverse families and the culture of school communities is a lack of shared values and expectations. This discontinuity influences how educators view the aims and objectives of the learning experience. This may not be readily evident to socially privileged, dominant culture teachers who often have limited interactions and experiences with culturally and economically diverse individuals. Moreover, because teachers often share the cultural assumptions of the school culture, they may unwittingly uphold the hidden curriculum of the dominant culture. In defining the goals of multicultural education, Banks (2006) states that the traditional curriculum presents a narrow and Eurocentric perspective on content, delivery, and assessment. Without strong multicultural teaching competencies, teachers are likely to devalue children’s home culture. This is problematic in that the home culture informs children’s patterns of language, behavior, and cognition (Neal, McCray, Webb-Johnson, & Bridgest, 2003).
Researchers have distinguished between different cultural groups on the basis of individualistic versus collectivistic worldviews that then shape their behavior, thinking, and beliefs (e.g., role expectations concerning how parents and children or educators and families should interact). Dominant culture families define their family unit as nuclear, emphasize individualism in human interactions and development, and have specific role definitions for family members (Tutwiler, 2005). This stands in contrast to nondomi-nant cultures, such as African American, Asian/Pacific Islander, Latino/Hispanic, and Native American/Indian cultures, which are often collectivistic in their value orientation. For example, rather than defining the family unit by immediate family members (i.e., mother, father, and children), families who hold these culturally diverse worldviews emphasize extended family units that include not only related family members but also unrelated members, known as fictive kin. This notion of fictive kinship is especially evident within the African American community, in which intergenerational family units provide collective economic, social, and emotional resources that have historically aided them in coping with systemic oppression (West-Olatunji & Conwill, 2010).
As with other culturally diverse groups, Asian American families tend to focus on collectivism rather than independence and autonomy. Family offspring may choose, in adulthood, to live in close proximity to their parents, frequently interact with other family members, and share economic and social resources. Moreover, Asian American families tend to emphasize interpersonal harmony and reciprocity in their interactions (Atkinson, 2004). Note that, although Asian Americans are viewed as the model minority because of their emphasis on educational attainment, this view is an overgeneraliza-tion for the group as a whole. Not all ethnic groups within the Asian American culture share high levels of academic achievement and occupational success. Many students of Southeast Asian and Pacific Island ethnic backgrounds have high poverty rates and low educational attainment that often relegate them to low-wage jobs in the workforce.
Although there is considerable variation within the Latino 1 culture, shared values among Latino families center around an extended family network that emphasizes the primacy of family and around interpersonal dynamics that promote pleasant social situations and personal respect (Baca Zinn & Wells, 2000). Particularly relevant for Mexican American families is the emphasis on the family, or familismo. This value is significant when contrasting the Latino family characteristics with those of mainstream or dominant group families. Characterized by a strong sense of loyalty and unified solidarity, familismo emphasizes prioritizing family needs over those of the individual. In interpersonal dynamics, Latino family members place value on harmonious interactions. This simpatica often results in sacrificing their individual needs to avoid appearing rude (Santiago-Rivera, Arredondo, & Gallardo-Cooper, 2002). Finally, Latino families promote personal respect, or respeto, to offer deference to individuals based on age, socioeconomic status, or gender. Other family values include an emphasis on personal interactions (per-sonalismo), affectionate expression (cariño), and the development of familiarity (confianza).
1 The term Latino is used here rather than Hispanic, a widely used term by government agencies, as a more historically, geographically, and culturally inclusive identifier. However, individuals of varying experiences such as age, immigration status, and socioeconomic background may choose a variety of self-referent terms that relate to ethnic identity or country of origin.
Similar to other culturally diverse families, the Native American/Indian family unit is an extended family system (Atkinson, 2004). Moreover, the family system can include extended family, clan, and nation leaders who may determine childrearing responsibilities and provide guidance and counsel to children (Sue & Sue, 2008). This interlocking family system can pose challenges to mainstream outsiders who are culturally encapsulated in dominant group family structures and dynamics that define the standard in U.S. society. Native American families emphasize humility, harmony, relation, and patience. In traditional families, Native American individuals are inculcated with a sense of modesty and humility to foster harmony within the group rather than emphasize the worthiness of one person over another. “No one is worthy of staring into the eyes of an elder or looking into the spirit of that honored person” (Atkinson, 2004, p. 174). In fostering harmonious interactions, Native Americans with traditional values often practice patience and humility through silence. The verbal expressiveness and assertiveness rewarded in the dominant culture are often viewed as disrespectful and inconsistent with Native American family values.
The collectivistic values of culturally diverse families often differ drastically from the individualistic values of the dominant culture that are reflected in the school environment and shared by the majority of teachers. When we consider that home is where children learn knowledge and skills (Nieto, 1999; Nieto & Bode, 2008), this value discontinuity between home and school can be a significant barrier both to facilitating children’s learning and to developing effective teacher–parent partnerships. Moreover, without an awareness of the role that culture plays in student learning, teachers are apt to misinterpret student behaviors, deportment, and achievement, and these misinterpretations can lead to diminished teacher expectations.
Researchers are discovering that teacher expectations are very powerful aspects of the teaching–learning environment, particularly with respect to gender, class, and ethnicity. For instance, research on elementary school teachers’ gender beliefs and how those beliefs affect what occurs in their classrooms revealed that observations of teachers’ instructional methods reflected a differential treatment of boys and girls and imposed gender expectations, despite the teachers’ reporting gender-blind self-perceptions (Garrahy, 2001).
Teacher beliefs and expectations for students also have a large impact on the level of achievement students attain. Research demonstrates that teachers who focus on higher-level thinking contribute more positively to students’ reading growth. In addition, teaching methods that positively correlate with students’ literacy growth are characterized by (a) high student engagement rather than passive responding, (b) coaching or modeling rather than telling, and (c) active involvement (Taylor, Pearson, Peterson, & Rodriguez, 2003). Unfortunately, high-performing and gifted teachers are least likely to be found in schools populated by low-income and culturally diverse learners (National Collaborative on Diversity in the Teaching Force, 2004).
Without instruction that considers alternate worldviews, school failure for low-income and culturally diverse students can be a likely outcome. Yet teachers can acquire the skills to enhance the academic engagement and academic performance of low-income and culturally diverse students (Brown & Jones, 2004; Schinke, Cole, & Poulin, 2000; Skinner, Pappas, & Davis, 2005). Failure to engage in school has been attributed to a lack of emotional attachment or feelings of relatedness to the school (Sirin & Rogers-Sirin, 2004). By means of Reflective Exercise 6.2, think about what you know about the varying expectations for involvement of the culturally diverse families of students at a school with which you are familiar.
REFLECTIVE EXERCISE 6.2 Assessing the Values and Expectations of Families
Think about the families of various cultural and economic backgrounds at a school with which you are familiar. By whom do parents/caregivers expect the following responsibilities to be implemented?
• Communicating expectations to children about their educational success and future life goals
• Initiating contact and maintaining communication between adults at home and school
• Teaching academic skills to children
• Teaching children positive work habits and attitudes
• Making decisions about children’s educational program
• Developing children’s social and emotional skills
Do parents/caregivers from various sociocultural backgrounds differ in terms of their perceptions of their roles and responsibilities for their children’s schooling? Do some groups expect to have more influence than others in interacting with school staff?
6.3 Practicing Culturally Responsive Teaching
As you are learning, many children are socialized to communicate and learn based on cultural and communication patterns that are not practiced in their schools. In fact, the values honored in their homes and families may be disparaged at school in ways that negatively affect their motivation and performance (Nieto, 1999; Nieto & Bode, 2008). However, a significant body of research has now analyzed the impact on diverse students of classroom practices that reduce this discontinuity between home and school (Cho-lewa & West-Olatunji, 2008). Defined as culturally responsive teaching by several different educators (Gay, 2000; Weinstein, Curran, & Tomlinson-Clark, 2003), this approach to teaching develops methods that validate students and allow them to co-construct knowledge in school settings.
Culturally responsive educators have now developed five explicit standards for pedagogy that are applicable across grade levels, student populations, and content areas. Emerging from practices that have proved successful with mainstream and diverse students, these standards provide specific guidance to teachers about how to teach (Dalton & Tharpe, 2002). They specify “how to introduce a content topic, how to encourage students’ questions and comments, how to involve students in content activities, and how to assess student progress continually” (Dalton, 1998, p. 8). The five standards are as follows: (a) joint productive activity; facilitating learning through joint product activity among teacher and students; (b) developing language and literacy competence through instruction across the curriculum; (c) making meaning by connecting teaching and curriculum content with experiences and skills of students’ home and community; (d) teaching complex thinking by challenging students toward greater cognitive complexity; and (e) teaching through conversation by engaging students through dialogue and instructional conversation.
Involving parents as key stakeholders in school communities and moving toward including them in curriculum and program planning creates a true teaching–learning environment. Such a model for school communities incorporates an acknowledgment of families’ funds of knowledge and an appreciation of diverse forms of knowledge construction. In Chapter 9, we showcase contextualized teaching methods that are informed by parents and other key stakeholders in the child’s ecological system.
Culturally responsive teachers actively connect what and how they teach to the cultural and linguistic backgrounds that exist in the homes and communities of their students. Thus, students are able to use what they already know to construct new academic knowledge. To do this, teachers assume that all children and families have “funds of knowledge” (Moll & Gonzãlez, 2004, p. 440). These funds of knowledge are the historically developed and accumulated skills, abilities, practices, and knowledge that are essential to household functioning and well-being. (Ironically, information about the funds of knowledge of European American middle-class families is so commonly known and taken for granted that its influence in shaping the instructional activities and social organization of the classroom is almost invisible.) Teachers actively seek to understand the specific funds of knowledge possessed by children from particular cultural and linguistic minority homes. They do this by learning from students and their families about the families’ social and labor histories, how they develop social networks both within and outside of the home, and, for some, how the exchange of resources between families occurs.
Given the cultural diversity within classrooms, it is prohibitive for teachers to acquire extensive knowledge about each of the students in their classroom. However, through collaborative learning and reflective teaching, teachers can enhance their instructional efficacy with culturally diverse children. Collaborative learning commonly involves the arrangement of a small cluster of teachers who perform a team project. Collaboration is used in educational settings in many parts of the world (Tsaparlis & Gorezi, 2005). Collaborative learning is practiced in preschool classrooms (Vermette, Harper, & DiMillo, 2004) as well as in elementary, secondary, and higher education and has been shown to help groups improve their problem-solving abilities (Fawcett & Garton, 2005). Moreover, collaboration has been shown to (a) help groups enhance their problem-solving abilities, (b) facilitate conflict resolution (Stevahn, Johnson, Johnson, Oberle, & Wahl, 2000), (c) aid teacher–student comprehension and rapport building (Davis & Blanchard, 2004; Weber, 2005), and (d) augment student motivation (Shindler, 2004).
Opportunities for reflective teaching can be gained through forms of teacher inquiry, such as action research or lesson study. Action research in education involves teachers who engage in inquiry and use data to make informed decisions and plan intelligent interventions so as to improve the quality of their performance. Lesson study is a professional development process that teachers engage in to examine their practice systematically with the goal of becoming more effective. This examination centers on teachers who work collaboratively to plan, teach, observe, and critique a number of study lessons (West-Olatunji, Behar-Horenstein, Rant, & Cohen-Phillips, 2008).
To provide focus and direction to this work, the teachers select an overarching goal and related research question that they want to explore. This research question then serves to guide their work on all study lessons. As a team, the teachers create a research question and formulate a detailed lesson plan for a specific subject that they have selected for investigation at the onset of the project. Next, the group observes the lesson as it is taught, then re-evaluates the plan and makes revisions. Teachers repeat this cycle as often as is needed during the period of inquiry. Based on the results of their study, teachers generate a report on lessons learned then distribute it to the school community.
The focal point of this lesson study inquiry can be dispositions (e.g., intervening with a culturally diverse child who is socially isolated) or skills (e.g., a bilingual student may be lacking basic skills or knowledge). The lesson study can target all students at the school or just one grade level or content area. The number of teachers on a lesson study team is not a set number, and the focus of the group’s interaction can be regional or statewide in scope, a particular school, or a classroom (Fernandez, 2002). The illustration depicted in Case Study 6.3 describes how one kindergarten teacher used a lesson study to change her teaching practice to respond to the needs of her students.
CASE STUDY 6.3
ILLUSTRATION OF BETTY
Betty is a White, middle-class kindergarten teacher who is teaching at a culturally diverse university lab school. In her class this year, she has 22 students. Approximately one third of her students are African American (the majority of whom are children of working-class parents) or Latino American (mostly children of local migrant workers), and a few of her students are Vietnamese American children. Although Betty has participated in several professional development workshops on multicultural teacher education, she is interested in advancing her ability to incorporate nonmainstream values in her instruction. When the opportunity came around to participate in a semester-long (15-week) research study with a professor from the local community, Betty volunteered to engage in teacher inquiry with a group of other teachers with similar interests from her school. After reading the literature on effective teaching practices for culturally diverse children, Betty decided to focus her investigation on integrating a sense of caring and personalismo into her interactions with students that emphasized the collectivistic values of helpfulness and social ability rather than emphasize the values of independence and cognitive ability that are reflective of the current monocultural environment of schools (Tutwiler, 2005). Each week, Betty developed a collectivistic lesson plan, implemented her lesson with an observer present, and then discussed the outcomes of her intervention in a weekly seminar with the other teacher/researchers at her school. At the end of the semester, Betty developed a presentation for her school in which she shared the results of her study. In reflection, she stated:
When I initially embarked on this assignment, my students’ cultural identity was simply not part of the equation. I simply thought about teaching children basic academic skills. The Lesson Study templates have helped me to infuse more culturally appropriate materials into the curriculum.… Many of these findings need to be shared with the public schools system because their curriculums offer little to no culturally appropriate approaches.
Questions to Consider
In this scenario, what impact do you think this teacher’s efforts might have on the students, their families, or other staff at her school?
6.4 Family–School Collaboration as Cultural Reciprocity
As you learned in Chapter 2, much of the communication that occurs between teachers and parents focuses on parent–teacher conferences, home visits, telephone contact, written communication, and other informal exchanges (Barbour, Barbour, & Scully, 2005). These traditional forms of engaging with parents have frequently been prescriptive in nature and have operated from the assumption that the school knows what is best for children (and parents, in some cases). Traditionally, parent–teacher conferences have involved teachers as the primary expert and active agent in making contact, preparing materials, providing input, and facilitating a productive exchange. This hierarchical relationship between teachers and parents has traditionally been evident in home visits, telephone calls, and written communiqués to parents, in which the relationship is usually unidirectional (i.e., one way, from school to home). Moreover, as discussed previously, the traditional forms of working with parents have not incorporated an understanding and appreciation for cultural differences that reflect diverse expectations and concerns. As a result, many of the efforts by school staff to reach out to culturally diverse, economically disadvantaged, and other socially marginalized families have not been very successful.
Current research on parent involvement suggests that, in general, parents’ participation in their children’s schooling experiences has positive outcomes for students’ educational achievement (Hoover-Dempsey, Battiato, Walker, Reed, DeJong, & Jones, 2001). Scholars differ, however, on what should be the nature of that involvement, especially when considering culturally diverse families. Central to this discussion is an understanding of the diverse parenting practices among various cultural groups and how those practices affect parents’ (a) sense of self-efficacy, (b) role expectations in their interactions with teachers, (c) expectations for their children’s behavior and dispositions, and (d) interpretation of invitations from teachers to be involved.
Teachers often have a set of expectations regarding parent involvement shaped by the norms of the dominant culture. Parent self-efficacy, for example, is often understood to imply parents’ demonstration of a belief in their own ability to influence their children’s learning outcomes positively (Hoover-Dempsey et al., 2001). However, immigrant parents and other parents from culturally diverse families may have differing expectations regarding parent and teacher interactions. In the Latino culture, for example, Latinos who exert their own power in interpersonal interactions may be viewed as disrespectful, especially when engaged with representatives of authority, such as teachers (Trumbull, Rothstein-Fisch, Greenfield, & Quiroz, 2001). Unfortunately, traditional responses of teachers who lack an understanding of cultural diversity are to interpret such parental responses as signs of disinterest or incompetence. These attitudes toward families from low-income and culturally diverse communities can significantly impede efforts for successful collaboration between home and school. Although teachers may perceive these parents as not wanting to be involved, research suggests that parents from these diverse backgrounds seek more involvement with schools (West-Olatunji, Sanders, Mehta, & Behar-Horenstein, 2010).
Parents can also have conflicting role expectations that create challenges during parent–teacher interactions. Parental roles are culturally embedded and, as such, are linked to parents’ hopes and dreams of what they wish their children to become. Some culturally diverse families who value collectivism desire that their children become well mannered and respectful. In fact, some cultural group members believe that these behaviors are correlated with academic success and educational attainment. In contrast, Vietnamese American parents often do not view moral development as part of their role in contributing to their children’s education (Collignon, Men, & Tan, 2001). Moreover, Vietnamese American parents often do not participate in school programs and are often reluctant to share their concerns and voice opinions with teachers and other school personnel. These behaviors can be confusing and sometimes frustrating for teachers who are culturally encapsulated and maintain a narrow view of what parents’ roles should be in partnering with schools.
Another challenge to parent involvement in schools is parents’ expectations for their children’s behavior. Parents serve as their children’s first teacher and provide the context for their learning. Thus, children’s learning is linked naturally to their cultural and family norms for behavioral and interpersonal styles. Whereas the school culture, as a reflection of the dominant culture, values and rewards autonomy and creativity, many culturally diverse families emphasize interdependence and conformity to external standards. Teachers are not always aware of the multiple explanations for parents’ hesitancy to engage in communication or to participate in school events. Often, teachers fall prey to misinterpretation of parents’ lack of involvement and lack the necessary cross-cultural interaction skills to create bridges between the home and school cultures.
Finally, parents’ interpretation of invitations from teachers is an important factor when considering the challenges to parent involvement. Low-income parents often cite feeling intimidated when entering into school structures, and are often disinclined to respond positively to invitations from teachers to engage in communication regarding their children’s educational experiences (Lott, 2001). In addition, parents may not trust school staff because of historical or systemic contexts unique to a particular cultural group’s sociocultural context. Moreover, schools may have a social climate that is impersonal or bureaucratic.
These challenges have led educators to construct very different kinds of family–school relations that move away from teacher-dominated approaches toward approaches that emphasize collaboration and cultural reciprocity. Many educators have noted that a first step in moving toward more cultural reciprocal practices is to recognize and understand your own cultural group membership. Understanding your own culture and how it differs from the cultures of families with whom you work greatly facilitates your ability to develop collaborative relations with them. Without such an understanding of your own culture, recognizing and understanding the unique needs that result from other cultural and linguistic backgrounds is very difficult. Reflective Exercise 6.3 provides a list of questions that can help you examine your own cultural background.
REFLECTIVE EXERCISE 6.3 Examining My Thoughts about Culture and My Cultural Group
What is my definition of culture?
Of what cultural group am I a member?
What is the status of my cultural group among other groups?
What are the characteristics of my cultural group?
How do I meet the general characteristics of my cultural group?
What are stereotypes about my cultural group?
How do I meet the stereotypes of or about my cultural group?
How fair are these stereotypes?
Which stereotypes of my cultural group do I agree with, and which ones do I disagree with?
Which stereotypes of my cultural group would I change if I could?
If I were not a member of my cultural group, to which cultural group(s) would I want to belong and why? To which cultural group would I not like to belong and why?
Of all cultural groups I encounter on a regular basis, which ones have fair stereotypes and which ones do not have fair stereotypes?
What are the cultural groups represented in my class/school?
As a second step, Tutwiler (2005) recommends that school staffs assess the ethnic–cultural and socioeconomic group membership of their own staff and of the families at their school, examine the staff’s current beliefs and communication practices in interacting with diverse family groups, and identify particular school practices and routines that might be redesigned so as to be more culturally responsive. This step is depicted in Reflective Exercise 6.4.
REFLECTIVE EXERCISE 6.4 Developing a Profile of Family–School Relations for a School That I Might Visit or Work in
What family structures are represented in the school population?
What ethnic, cultural, language, and socioeco-nomic groups are represented in the school population?
What ethnic, cultural, language, and socioeco-nomic groups are represented in the school staff?
How do staff members at the school view students’ families and their contributions to the process of schooling?
How does the school communicate with families?
How does the school address varying cultural and language patterns among the families?
6.5 New Roles for Teachers When Partnering With Parents
In general, we have found that parents take on more responsibility and become more active within the school community when teachers acquire culturally responsive skills for assessing parent engagement and facilitating parent participation within a cultural context. A variety of innovative strategies and roles has recently been developed to create more culturally responsive family–school interaction. Individual teachers can initiate these strategies as part of their normal instructional activities. In addition, groups of teachers can create school-wide opportunities and entire faculty can develop community partnerships. Teacher-driven strategies can include any or all of the following:
■ Joint parent–teacher problem solving in parent–teacher conferences
■ Family/home visits
■ Restructured Back-to-School nights
■ Family surveys
■ Instructional activities involving family knowledge
■ Creation of family space within the school
■ Utilization of families in classroom projects
Teachers often express anxiety about meetings with parents, particularly those from culturally or ethnically diverse backgrounds. This anxiety may be the result, in part, of a lack of understanding about culturally informed behaviors. Similarly, culturally diverse parents, particularly those from low-income families, may feel marginalized by educators who exhibit negative attitudes (Brandon, 2007). Teachers can proactively foster more harmonious relationships with parents by structuring parent–teacher conferences to engage both parents and teachers in joint problem solving. (See Chapter 11 for an illustration of such an approach). Moreover, when students are included as contributors, teachers can create a less stressful interpersonal dynamic that promotes trust between parents and teachers, and fosters more meaningful and positive collaboration (Amatea, Daniels, Bringman, & Vandiver, 2004).
Teachers can also conduct family/home visits in which they encourage families to voice their concerns and ask questions regarding the schooling process. Given the historical challenges that are often present when attempting to partner with culturally diverse parents, initial steps toward building more trusting relationships can begin with interactions away from the school campus. By visiting with parents in the home or community, teachers can begin to work more collaboratively and harmoniously with culturally diverse parents.
Another new role for teachers when partnering with parents is to restructure Back-to-School nights. This activity could include inviting the entire family to attend, using an activity in which the family works together to set academic goals for the student, and encouraging the family input regarding what they want to see in the classroom that year. Teachers can also incorporate the use of surveys that ask parents to provide information about their child, life at home, and goals for the year. By doing so, teachers can acknowledge parent knowledge and send the message that parent opinions and concerns are valued at school. Surveys also provide educators information about the students’ home lives and culture that can be used in the development and implementation of culturally responsive classroom assignments and activities. Finally, information from teacher surveys can be used to “break the ice” and stimulate discussion between parents and teachers. By teaching students to articulate the knowledge they have at home in relation to what the school wants them to learn, teachers can better equip students to develop a sense of self-awareness and tools to better understand and meet expectations at school (Diaz-Greenburg, 2001; Nieto & Bode, 2008). This can be done by encouraging students to identify differences between their family’s world and the world of the classroom.
As a group, teachers can also designate family space within the school. Most often, families have no place to go once they enter a public school building. The environment can be uninviting, and parents are left to figure out where to situate themselves within the building. By establishing dedicated space on the school campus, teachers can advocate for parents as partners in their child’s development. Finally, teachers can use families in the planning and implementation of classroom projects and school wide initiatives. In an earlier section, we discussed the funds of knowledge that exist within families and communities that children bring into the classroom and ways in which teachers can become culturally responsive in their classroom instruction. Embedded in this perspective is a belief that parents are a resource and that they have something to offer that contributes to positive educational outcomes for their children, regardless of their income level, social standing, or cultural background. Teachers can thus build on the “values, structures, languages, and cultures of students’ homes” (Nieto, 1999, p. 171).
Developing innovative ways to partner with parents can sometimes involve collaborations with communities. Given the communal nature of many culturally diverse families, working with community structures may assist in building rapport and creating sustainable linkages that positively impact children, families, and schools. Community stakeholders’ involvement in education has been an integral part of the history of American education, beginning with the social concerns of Jane Addams 2 (1998) and the settlement house movement. More recently, during the Freedom School Movement (Perlstein, 1990), community action spurred a grassroots movement in the Mississippi Delta that focused on the underserved needs of low-income African American children by teaching them reading and mathematics. The spirit of community action and schooling continues today in a variety of forms, in which educators take an active role in addressing the achievement gap between socially marginalized students and their more affluent counterparts.
As stated previously, parents from culturally diverse and low-income communities often lack a sense of ownership in the schooling experiences of their children. Community stakeholders “may also feel that schools do not recognize their voices, traditions, and knowledge within the community” (Tutwiler, 2005, p. 200). Visibility in the community is beneficial in establishing trust in teacher–parent relationships. Teachers can send a powerful message of interest and demonstrate cultural reciprocity by actively becoming visible in the community. Visibility can be in the form of attending a community event, festival, or patronizing municipal services or businesses.
2 At the turn of the 20th century, Jane Addams moved away from elitism in education and sought to bring together poor and working-class families and communities into the educative process during her settlement house activism.
How might you identify the unique attributes and resources that exist within the families and community of the school in which you might work? We look more closely at community funds of knowledge in Chapter 7. However, in Reflective Exercise 6.5, we ask you to perform a self-assessment of your past partnerships with culturally diverse families and communities in order to think creatively about new roles and practices.
REFLECTIVE EXERCISE 6.5 Assessing Partnerships with Culturally Diverse Families and Communities
• How have you, the student, and the student’s family benefited when you collaborated with a student’s family?
• On a scale of 1–10, how would you honestly assess your efforts in building partnerships with the families of the culturally diverse students in your
classroom. What are your reasons for giving yourself that rating? • What assumptions do you make about caregivers/ families who consistently do not respond to your efforts?
Other ways in which teachers are collaborating with communities are by establishing more formal, institutionalized connections through the acquisition of federal grants to develop out-of-school time (OST) programs, such as after-school, weekend, and summer school programs (Pittman, Irby, Yohalem, & Wilson-Ahlstrom, 2004). These programs provide parents with an opportunity to partner in designing developmental programs that meet the social, emotional, and cultural needs of their children. Moreover, such programs allow teachers to increase their knowledge and familiarity with the cultural norms of the community connected to the school.
Another strategy for home–school collaboration is the development of full-service schools in which medical and social services are offered on site within schools in an integrated service delivery model. For families in impoverished communities, this approach serves the holistic needs of students and their families and is preventive in nature (Harris & Hoover, 2003). Moreover, a full-service approach takes into account the interaction between social services and student learning (McMahon, Ward, Pruett, Davidson, & Griffith, 2000). Children who are experiencing failing or poor health are less apt to stay engaged in the classroom, exhibit sound judgment, or demonstrate keen cognitive abilities. We describe the philosophy behind these programs in greater detail in Chapters 7 and 13.
Some illustrative models of innovative teacher–parent partnerships include the Comer School Development Program, the Child Development Project, the COPLA (Comite de Padres Latinos) program, and the Families and Schools Together (FAST) program. These innovative strategies have several features in common. They each view parents from cultural perspectives and understand the role of communication in diminishing barriers between home and schools. In addition, teachers seek to reduce their biases as they consider multiple realities for culturally diverse families.
Comer School Development Program
Founded by James Comer and associates at the Yale Child Study Center in 1968, the Comer School Development Program is an excellent example of home–school–community partnerships. Originally, this program established several major goals: (a) to alter the social and psychological climate of the school, (b) to enhance students’ fundamental skills, (c) to elevate students’ motivation for learning, (d) to generate a sense of collective responsibility and decision making among parents and staff, and (e) to join child development and clinical services to the educational plan of the schools (Comer, Haynes, Joyner & Ben-Avie, 1996). The current student development program consists of three guiding principles, three teams, and three operations. The three principles are consensus, collaboration, and no-fault. The three teams consist of the school planning and management team, the student and staff support team, and the parenting team. The three operations involve a comprehensive school plan, program assessment and modification, and staff development. To date, this program model has been replicated in more than 650 schools across the United States. Environmental changes in one low-resourced, urban school have led to “high expectations and where everyone working together... has become an attitude, a way of learning and an education for life” (Ramirez-Smith, 1995, p. 19).
Child Development Project
The Child Development Project is a literature-based moral development program that uses family homework activities to connect home culture with school culture by drawing on family experiences (Developmental Studies Center, 1995). The program teaches children about personal responsibility, community, and caring that mixes both individualistic and collectivistic values. Using this model, teachers engage students in activities in which they might interview an elder in their extended family to learn about their childhood experiences. In addition, this model encourages teachers to customize activities to adapt to the various culturally diverse students present in their classrooms. In this manner, teachers acknowledge that families vary within and across cultural dimensions (Trumbull, Rothstein-Fisch, Greenfield, & Quiroz, 2001).
Comite de Padres Latinos
Developed by Concha Delgado-Gaitan (1992), the Comite de Padres Latinos (COPLA) stresses maintaining Spanish language and Mexican cultural values by opening a cooperative dialogue with parents. The program assists parents in instilling cultural values, such as respect and cooperation, while ensuring that children are able to participate successfully in dominant culture classrooms. The COPLA model of empowerment also merges the collectivism from the home culture with the individualistic orientation expected within the classroom. Students learn how to expand their range of language patterns to include those used in the school. This model has been successful in educating parents about how their involvement can have a positive impact on educational practices. This sense of advocacy and empowerment experienced by culturally diverse parents can help demystify educational practices and expectations in the U.S. school system. However, when teachers and other school personnel are not prepared to include parents as true partners in the decision making and program planning processes, parents can feel betrayed and mistrustful of school representatives.
Families and Schools Together
The Families and Schools Together (FAST) program (Kratochwill, McDonald, Levin, Young Bear-Tibbetts, & Demarary, 2004) is a multifamily group intervention designed to augment parental involvement in schools and to foster children’s overall well-being. Focusing on children 5 to 14 years of age, FAST uses community meal times to nurture group building and positive attitudes among children and their families toward the school community. Working in collaborative and culturally inclusive teams, parents and educators co-facilitate group activities, such as home visits and FAST sessions that include group work, adult education, parent-led play therapy, and community development. FAST has been shown to assist parents with building social networks that serve as protective factors for their children.
6.6 Future Considerations and Challenges
Teachers, particularly early career practitioners, often respond subjectively to the challenges of educating culturally diverse students or when encountering classroom management issues. They often express feelings of frustration or shame because of self-perceptions of inadequacy for not having the skills to correct the situation. In addition, as previously stated, teachers bring their socialized biases about children and their families into the classroom, albeit unintentionally.
Current efforts to incorporate teacher inquiry into classroom practices have been useful in assisting teachers to minimize teacher bias. Reflective teaching encourages teachers to view their classrooms as laboratories in which they investigate the phenomena that occur in that environment. Thus, when teachers experience challenges, they begin to pose questions about why that particular phenomenon is occurring and what interventions they might develop to address the phenomenon observed. Hence, teacher inquiry enhances teacher knowledge and practice through evidence-based methods. When teachers investigate classroom problems by reading empirical and conceptual literature on the problem as well as possible solutions, they then acquire information for problem solving in the classroom (Dana, Silva, & Snow-Gerono, 2002).
One of the most commonly used approaches to reflective teaching is action research. Classroom action research most often involves the application of qualitative and interpretive forms of inquiry and data collection by teachers so that they can make judgments about how to improve their own instructional practices (Kemmis & Taggart, 2000). Action research is a participatory process of inquiry that focuses on relationship-building, collaborative investigation, outcome activities, and empowerment. Action research that is multiculturally sound incorporates reciprocity throughout the research process. As such, it is well suited for creating more harmonious relationships between families and schools in that it is intentional about the process of investigation (as well as the outcomes), fosters collaboration, necessitates action steps following data analysis and dissemination, and facilitates empowerment among participants in the study. One of the criticisms of classroom action research is that it does not incorporate knowledge of the impact of the larger social system on the development and achievement of students in the classroom.
Another approach to reflective teaching is lesson study, an approach to teacher inquiry that we discussed earlier in this chapter that uses collaborative dialogue to engage teachers in a collective examination of their classroom practices (West-Olatunji, Behar-Horenstein, & Rant, 2008). In lesson study, teachers develop a research question as a team, and craft a detailed lesson plan for a specific subject that they have selected to investigate at the beginning of the project. Next, the team has a representative to observe the lesson when it is being taught, then the team re-evaluates the plan and makes changes. The teachers repeat this cycle as often as needed all the way through the period of inquiry. Based on the results of their study, teachers create a report on the lessons learned and then share it with the school community. The focus of the investigation can be skills (e.g., a student may be lacking basic math skills or knowledge of the scientific method) or dispositions (e.g., intervening with a child who is socially isolated) for students in an entire school, or it can focus on a specific content area or grade level (Fernandez, 2002).
However, these instructional innovations are often challenged by insufficient funding. Other challenges to such efforts include attitudes among education researchers regarding teacher inquiry as a form of legitimate research (Kemmis & Taggart, 2000). Moreover, the daily demands within the school community often prohibit time to reflect on instruction, and not all school communities exhibit an interest in instructional innovation.
Despite these obstacles, perspectives on parent and family involvement in schools suggest that schools can benefit by moving to a family-centered, family-guided, family-focused, or parent-empowerment model. Regardless of the term used to describe a more family-centric approach to family involvement, all of these terms incorporate an understanding that parents can be equal partners in family–school collaborations. When teachers and other school personnel collaborate with parents, they demonstrate respect and support the family’s decision-making role in educational processes, which is particularly helpful when working with culturally diverse families (Olsen & Fuller, 2003).
In considering innovative strategies for working with parents, an important consideration is the different types of families in which children are socialized. Moreover, the socioeconomic status of families presents further challenges within contemporary classrooms. Children from impoverished and working-class families have a multitude of obstacles to academic achievement. In addition, children with special needs, diverse religious orientations, and those from gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transsexual families have additional needs. Thus, teachers must consider the multiple contexts in which families operate as they plan their efforts to connect with families.
Summary
This chapter provides teachers with an introduction to key terms that contextualize the experiences of low-income and culturally diverse children and their families. Educators can enhance their teaching practices with a clearer understanding of the disconnections between school norms that reflect the shared expectations of the social mainstream and the values and assumptions that exist among culturally and economically diverse families. This understanding can lead to better academic outcomes for these students. Specifically, educators can seek information about the specific worldviews held by the families of their students. Using an understanding of individualistic and collectivistic worldviews, teachers can enrich classroom experiences and promote parents’ active involvement in the school community by learning about their students’ families’ funds of knowledge. Reflective teaching has potential value as a form of teacher inquiry for educators who work with economically and culturally diverse students. Four models of effective home–school collaborations and partnerships that have aided in the transformation of family–teacher–student interactions with culturally diverse families are the Comer School Development Program, the Child Development Project, the Comite de Padres Latinos (COPLA) program, and the Families and Students Together (FAST) program. Future research that investigates cultural, social, and economic diversity and parent–teacher partnerships might consider that teachers bring their own socialized attitudes and beliefs into the classroom. Therefore, training that assists educators in identifying and minimizing their biases toward culturally and socially diverse children and families may be beneficial. Moreover, as parents become more empowered and seek equal partnerships with school personnel, their active participation may be viewed as intrusive to teachers and administrators who are used to conventional parent attitudes and behaviors. Finally, individuals’ backgrounds are not as clearly defined as they have been outlined in this chapter. More realistically, individuals have multiple identities that intersect and surface as a result of their dynamic interactions with other human beings. Therefore, teachers may need to acquire flexibility and resilience as they become more comfortable with culturally and socially diverse families.
Resources
Early Childhood Institute on Culturally and Linguistically Appropriate Services University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 61 Children’s Research Center 51 Gerty Drive Champaign, IL 61821 Phone: 217-333-4123, 800-583-4135 www.clas.uiuc.edu/links.html
Culturally and Linguistically Appropriate Services (CLAS) identifies, evaluates, and disseminates effective and appropriate early intervention and preschool practices that are responsive to the needs of children and families from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. They provide extensive lists of materials and resources in various languages.
National Center for Children in Poverty www.nccp.org
National Center for Children in Poverty (NCCP) has the mission to conduct policy analysis and academic research to prevent child poverty and improve the quality of life of children and families who experience low income.
Poverty and Race Research Action Council (PRRAC) 1200 18th St. NW #200 Washington, DC 20036 Phone: 202-906-8023 www.prrac.org
Poverty and Race Research Action Council (PRRAC) generates, gathers, and disseminates information regarding the relationship between race and poverty and promotes the development and implementation of policies and practices that alleviate conditions caused by the interaction of race and poverty.
The Children’s Defense Fund 25 E Street NW Washington, DC 20001 Phone: 800-233-1200 www.childrensdefense.org
The Children’s Defense Fund Leave No Child Behind ® mission is to ensure every child a Healthy Start, a Head Start, a Fair Start, a Safe Start, and a Moral Start in life and successful passage to adulthood with the help of caring families and communities.
National Coalition for the Homeless 1012 14th Street, NW #600 Washington, DC 20005-3471 Phone: 202-737-6444 www.nationalhomeless.org
The National Coalition for the Homeless focuses on public education, policy advocacy, and technical assistance to end homelessness and increase economic and social justice for all citizens.
CHAPTER 7 Understanding the Impact Communities Have on Children’s Learning
Ellen S. Amatea
Learning Objectives
After reading this chapter, you will be able to:
■ Explain the varying meanings of the term community.
■ Describe the changing physical, economic, and social conditions that have an impact on rural and urban communities in the United States.
■ Explain the different need-based and asset-based approaches that school and community members are developing to address the needs of children and families.
■ Describe the varying role of the community in established family involvement programs.
■ Discuss strategies that individual educators can use to develop stronger links with their communities.
I went everywhere with my parents and was under the watchful eye of members of the congregation and community who were my extended family. They kept me when my parents went out of town, they reported on me and chided me when I strayed from the straight and narrow of community expectations, and they basked in and supported my achievement when I did well. Doing well, they made clear, meant high academic achievement, playing piano in Sunday school, participating in other church activities, being helpful, displaying good manners, and reading. (Edelman, 1992, p. 4)
Reminiscing about growing up in the 1940s and 1950s in the community of Bennetts-ville, South Carolina, Edelman describes a large network of persons beyond her family who involved themselves in her growth and development. In contrast, many of today’s children and families live in neighborhoods and communities characterized by low levels of social organization and community participation. What impact do such neighborhoods and communities have on the children and families who live within them? How are today’s educators and community members attempting to change these conditions? What can we learn from their experiences that can enhance our efforts to facilitate children’s learning and development?
In this chapter, we address these questions by first discussing the meaning of the term community. Next, we look at the changing social and economic conditions that U.S. communities are experiencing. We then examine the different community conditions that influence the development of children and youth. Next, we describe innovative approaches and programs created by school staffs and community members to address the needs of students, their families, and their communities. Finally, we consider how educators might apply these various approaches in their work with students and their families.
7.1 Defining Community
What constitutes a community? Who are its participating members? Definitions of community are diverse and complex. The term community can have widely varying meanings to its residents, to professionals, such as the educators who work and provide services within them, and to social scientists who study community life. In its broadest sense, community refers to a condition in which people share something with each other (Gold, Simon, & Brown, 2002a; 2002b). Within this general understanding, however, you can find numerous definitions of what a community may share, such as a geographic location, a common culture, a feeling of belonging, a network of social and emotional ties, or a structure of occupations. A basic distinction offered by many social scientists is to describe a community both spatially and socially. Therefore, a school’s community can be viewed as the specific geographic areas or neighborhoods that supply them with students. However, residents of these neighborhoods may not necessarily share a culture or even a feeling of belonging across what may be defined as the school’s community. Moreover, you may find that in certain neighborhoods, the institutions (such as the school or a social service agency) that operate within them are not actually rooted in the community because these institutions are not staffed by persons who are local residents of that community. Similarly, you often find businesses that operate in a community that are not managed by or do not employ residents of that community. Instead, these businesses are a part of larger corporations (e.g., Wal-Mart, banks) that are run by persons outside that community (Halpern, 1995). As a result, although teachers, social workers, or merchants may share space for a portion of their day with community residents, they often do not view themselves as belonging to the particular community in which they work.
It is important not only to learn about the widely varying physical and economic characteristics of the geographic spaces and places served by a school, but also to assess the social organization (i.e., the social networks) constructed by participants of the school’s community. Let’s first look at the widely varying physical and economic conditions that differentiate communities from one another.
7.2 Community as Shared Place
When first asked to describe their community, many people think of their community in terms of its geographic location and population size. The U.S. Bureau of the Census for 2010 (Mackun & Wilson, 2011) sorted areas into one of two general categories determined by their population density: (a) metropolitan areas and (b) micropolitan areas. Metropolitan areas have a core urban area population of 50,000 or more people, whereas micropolitan areas have a core urban area population of at least 10,000 but less than 50,000 residents. Many micropolitan and metropolitan areas have experienced dramatic social, political, and economic changes that have exerted a powerful influence on the life of these communities. For example, more than four-fifths (83.7%) of the U.S. population in 2010 lived in the nation’s metropolitan areas, and another one-tenth (10%) of the population resided in the nation’s micropolitan areas. According to Mackun and Wilson (2011),
Metro areas grew almost twice as fast as micro areas, 10.8 percent compared to 5.9 percent. Population growth of at least twice the national rate occurred in many metro and micro areas, such as some areas in parts of California, Nevada, Arizona, Texas, Florida and the Carolinas. (p. 4)
Figure 7.1 depicts how the U.S. population has grown increasingly urban since the early 1960s, with 83.7% of the U.S. population now living in metropolitan areas of varying population density (U.S. Census Bureau, 2011).
Communities in the United States might now be described as spanning a continuum from rural and small-town communities on one end to large urban communities on the other (Tutwiler, 2005). Let’s look at some of the economic and population changes that have affected the well-being of families and schools in rural and small-town communities as well as in large urban communities in the United States.
Figure 7.1 Percentage of Total U.S. Population Living in Metropolitan Areas by Size of Metropolitan Area Population: 1950–2010
Source: From Census 2010 Special Report: Demographic Trends in the 21st Century, by the U.S. Census Bureau (2011), Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Government Printing Office.
Rural and Small-Town Communities
Although most Americans now live in urban areas, a number of dramatic changes have been occurring in rural and small-town communities since the early 1970s. For instance, drastic changes have occurred in economic opportunities in farming communities that have led to the deterioration of many rural communities (Purdy, 1999). During the 1980s and 1990s, corporations began to dominate farming production by increasing agricultural production expenses with their greater use of expensive farm equipment and technology. This made it difficult for individual farmers to compete. As a result, many families abandoned farming as a livelihood, and communities solely reliant on agriculture for employment declined in population. Many young people had to leave their rural communities because of a lack of jobs, resulting in fewer people staying to start families. This population decline had a domino effect, because the fewer the students, the greater the reduction in school funding, and the bigger the challenge that school districts faced in offering needed educational programs to the students remaining in the community. In addition, as some corporations chose to employ inexpensive immigrant labor workers for their plants, communities were forced to absorb new residents of varied cultural backgrounds. As a result, schools in these areas often faced increased numbers of children and families whose primary language spoken in the home was not English (Purdy, 1999). In contrast, a number of small towns and rural areas in the United States have experienced significant growth as a result of the substantial out-migration of residents from cities to smaller suburbs (Tutwiler, 2005). This population change, which began in the 1950s and continues today, is known as suburbanization. Whereas some suburban living areas are characterized by segregation by race, class, education, and lifestyle, others may be populated by families that range along a socioeconomic continuum and are a mixture of ethnic groups. In addition, a new type of small-town living space, the exburb, has been emerging in the United States as a result of corporations locating their headquarters in suburbs (Achs, 1992). The exburb is composed of a ring of low-density, automobile-dependent sprawled cities on the edge of metropolitan areas. Located outside of suburbs, these types of low-density communities allow their residents to live greater distances from cities, changing their commute to work away from exurb to the suburb rather than from suburb to city. Exburbs often offer proximity to corporate jobs, tend to have low-density populations, low crime rates, and excellent schools. “In a sense, exburb residents have the best of both worlds. They are able to enjoy the slow pace of a more rural life yet be close to rewarding employment, cultural events, and excellent school and health care facilities” (Tutwiler, 2005, p. 77).
A disadvantage of both exburbs and suburbs noted by many social scientists (Putnam, 2000) is that when substantial numbers of residents work outside the community in which they live (thus separating their workplaces and residences), the sense of connection and level of social engagement among the residents are often lessened. The level of community engagement is reduced not only among those who commute out to work, but also among noncommuters, whose motivation to be more participatory is lowered by poor attendance at community events (Putnam, 2000).
Another recent trend transforming the nature of rural and small-town life is the movement of “baby-boomer” retirees. Demographers are noting that many baby-boomer retirees are not only retiring at a younger age, but also are often more well educated and well off financially than their predecessors. These retirees are often choosing to relocate in states in the Sun Belt, with its mild climates and smaller, more rural locales (Fetto, 1999). This in-migration of retirees to rural and small-town communities has often altered the social, economic, and political landscape of these areas. For example, retirees often expect a greater level of business, social, and community services than the original residents of a rural or small-town locale. In addition, the costs of living and job opportunities in a town may change drastically. New jobs created by retirement in-migration are often low-skill, low-wage service sector jobs, yet, at the same time, the costs for housing, services, and property taxes may escalate, putting the financial stability of the original residents in jeopardy (Tutwiler, 2005).
Urban Communities
The high rate of social and economic change experienced by many rural and small-town communities is also occurring in many urban areas in the United States. Because cities are usually centers of economic growth and technological advances, they have historically been attractive to people who seek to improve their economic status. For example, in the late 1800s and early 1900s, a huge influx of immigrants from Europe contributed to the growth of cities. In addition, the migration of African Americans from the South to northern cities in the 1940s and 1950s swelled the population of urban areas. Although the U.S. population has grown increasingly urban since the turn of the 20th century, with nearly one-third of Americans living in a metropolitan area with 5 million or more residents, more than half of the U.S. population now lives in suburban areas rather than central cities (U.S. Census Bureau, 2011).
As a result, many cities developed a variety of different neighborhoods where residents shared the same ethnic or racial backgrounds. These ethnic neighborhoods provided immigrants with a familiarity of the language and cultural customs, offered a sense of identity and security and economic support, and made adaptation to a new place and life more workable. At the same time, these social enclaves often grew out of segregation policies that restricted where in a city those ethnic minority immigrants were permitted to live. In addition to ethnic minority communities, immigrants from Europe often established segregated White ethnic communities (e.g., Irish, Italian, German, Polish) in large Northern cities in the late 1800s and early 1900s (Alba, Logan, & Crowder, 1997). People also formed social enclaves based on their religious beliefs. Therefore, there are communities in which the residents are primarily Jewish or Muslim, or some other religious group, each with their own religious institutions, customs, and materials (Livezey, 2001).
Although there has been a decline in the number of these communities as a result of cultural assimilation and out-migration, many of these communities continue to exist. As a result, a number of White ethnic communities (e.g., Little Italy in New York City) or ethnic minority communities (e.g., Chinatown in San Francisco, Little Cuba in Miami) continue to exist as hubs of cultural activities where the cultural heritage is visible through the use of the native language and culturally representative shops, restaurants, and other businesses.
In addition to ethnic, cultural, or religious variations, urban neighborhoods range economically from very wealthy exclusive areas to those exhibiting extreme poverty. Despite having many middle-class enclaves in inner cities that are going through processes of gentrification and urban revitalization, many inner-city communities are now sites of extreme poverty, joblessness, welfare dependency, serious crime, drug and alcohol addiction, and violence and homicide.
One factor contributing to the deterioration of many inner-city neighborhoods is the reduction in employment opportunities. Well-paid employment and, in fact, any employment at all has increasingly been relocated outside of cities, isolating inner-city residents from mainstream forms of employment and advancement (Wilson, 1997). At the same time, global economic shifts have led to the loss of well-paying jobs for low-skilled workers and falling pay rates for low-skilled positions (Lipman, 2002). Furthermore, when inner-city residents found ways to reach these increasingly marginal jobs outside the inner city, they often encountered severe forms of discrimination and harassment (Pager, 2003).
These economic changes have resulted in a change in the social class structure of many inner-city neighborhoods. Wilson (1997) points out that between the 1940s and 1960s, ethnic communities were places of vertical integration with respect to social class (i.e., middle class, working class, and poor African Americans all lived in the same neighborhoods). With greater economic opportunities, however, the more educated and skilled African Americans moved out of these communities, leaving behind the truly disadvantaged, and thus leading to the growth of areas of extreme poverty. Other ethnic communities are experiencing similar economic and social changes.
Documenting this economic shift, Gutman, McLoyd, and Tokoyama (2005) noted that since the early 1980s, poverty has become more spatially concentrated within urban areas, especially among African Americans.
Between 1980 and 1990, concentrated poverty among African Americans grew both in terms of the absolute number of African Americans and the percentage of the African American population living in neighborhoods of concentrated poverty. Poor individuals living in high-poverty communities, as compared with their counterparts residing in communities with lower rates of poverty, are disadvantaged by reduced accessibility to high-quality social services and informal social supports and increased exposure to joblessness, crime, homelessness, violence, drugs and negative role models. (p. 22)
These economic and social changes in a community have a direct impact on the community’s schools. School districts receive their funding to deliver education from local, state, and federal sources. Local school funding, which can constitute up to half of a school district’s funding, is based on property taxes. Because the federal government provides very limited funding, state government contributions provide most of the remaining funding for school districts. Communities with substantial numbers of businesses and expensive homes can generate a larger school tax base to support their schools. In contrast, school districts located in communities with deteriorating properties and limited job opportunities receive significantly less local funding to support their schools, hire teachers, and purchase materials and equipment. Obviously, there may be great disparities between the schools in the same district in terms of the character of the community, the human and financial resources provided by community members, and the child-serving institutions and services. As a result, schools located in poorly funded districts often have more teacher shortages, a significant number of teachers who are teaching in fields that do not match their preparation, lower levels of student achievement, and higher student dropout rates.
In the next section, we examine the impact of community social ties on families and schools. Before we do that, however, think about the current physical and economic conditions that characterize different neighborhoods in your community and the social and economic changes that may have led to these neighborhood conditions. As you drive or walk through a neighborhood, how can you tell whether the neighborhood or community is thriving or deteriorating? Some of the overt signs that you might notice are the types of housing available in the neighborhood, how many families live in that housing, and how the homes are cared for. In addition, neighborhoods and communities differ in terms of the range and convenience of shopping, banking, gas stations, and other services available in a community. Some communities have multiple choices for grocery shopping, banking, or entertainment (e.g., movie houses, restaurants), whereas other neighborhoods are characterized by pawn shops and small but high-priced grocery stores.
Neighborhoods also differ in terms of the health care (e.g., hospitals) and recreational (e.g., playgrounds) resources available and the relative safety of the neighborhood. In some neighborhoods, people move freely about their community at all hours of the day and night, whereas in other communities they feel unsafe to venture out after dark because of criminal activity in the neighborhood. Conditions such as community violence and other crimes can influence both families’ and children’s feelings of well-being. As you notice these community conditions, consider how these conditions have been influenced by economic and population changes. Think about how a neighborhood with which you are familiar has changed as a result of economic and population changes by completing Reflective Exercise 7.1.
REFLECTIVE EXERCISE 7.1 Assessing the Community and Tracking Changes
What is the quality of the neighborhood(s) served by your school (i.e., either the school in which you may have conducted field observations or the one you attended as a child)? Where do people live? What is the quality of the living conditions in terms of noise level, population density, and safety? Where do they work? Where do they shop? What is the range of shops and services? Where do they seek health services? What recreational opportunities are available? How safe are these neighborhoods for their residents? How have these neighborhoods changed over time? Have there been economic changes or changes in population that have had an impact on these families, neighborhoods, and schools? What are the overt signs that these neighborhoods or communities are thriving or deteriorating? You may want to talk with long-term members of the school staff who can tell you about such changes or consult news paper files about past events.
7.3 Communities as Social Networks
In addition to the physical quality of a neighborhood or community, and its economic opportunities and the makeup of its population, communities can also be defined as social networks that provide participants with emotional, social, and economic ties and support. In the following passage, McCaleb (1994) describes a community as a diverse group of people who share the daily realities of life as they support each other:
The community is the children, the families of the children, people who work in the area and interact in multiple ways with the families, people who create art and make music and keep the neighborhoods vibrating, and the people who live and care and touch the lives of those around them. (p. 42)
McCaleb’s (1994) definition of community shares with Putnam (2000) an orientation toward significant people and social ties within a community. Putnam describes a community as a series of formal and informal social networks characterized by norms of reciprocity and trust. There may be several types of natural or informal social networks within a community. Extended family, folk healers, religious institutions, merchants, and social clubs are all types of informal social networks that one may find within a particular community. Such networks make a community meaningful as they serve a bonding function for its members by reinforcing the exclusiveness of the group and creating a boundary identifying who is in and who is out of the group.
By contrast, other networks are outward looking and encompass people across diverse social groups. Hence, they serve a bridging function in helping members to reach out to others different from themselves. Examples of such bridging social networks include many youth service groups, ecumenical religious organizations, or the civil rights movement (Putnam, 2000). Obviously, community groups can serve both functions. For example, a Black church might not only bring people of the same religion and race together, but also bring together people from different social classes.
There continues to be a great deal of diversity in urban areas in terms of how neighborhoods maintain their economic stability and social connectedness. Gonzales (1993) explains that social ties allow individuals and groups to rely on their group cultural values and history to address contemporary issues. For example, Latino cultural characteristics, such as familism, and the value placed on owning property, influence the stability and vitality of many poor Latino communities. In Gonzales’s view, the existence of integrative ties are so important that areas with high concentrations of poverty and few integrative ties may be less stable and have fewer structural resources to support their community members (Tutwiler, 2005). By means of Reflective Exercise 7.2, describe the nature of the community you lived in as a child and the social ties you and your family developed.
REFLECTIVE EXERCISE 7. 2 My Community Social Ties
Describe the community you lived in as a child. Where did you live? How did your family connect with others in your community? In what types of community activities and organizations did you and your family members participate? What kinds of learning did you gain from members of your community? Whom do you remember as wise and helpful people in your community? What kind of learning and support did you receive from them? Which of these social ties served as bridging social networks or as bonding ones?
As noted earlier, larger social, political, and economic factors can exert a powerful influence on a community’s social ties from the outside. For example, a significant portion of the difficulties faced by inner-city schools and families is caused by changes in the job opportunity structure created by the larger socioeconomic environment. Moreover, many social analysts (Keith, 1996; Putnam, 2000) believe that there has been a general weakening of community social bonds throughout the United States as a result of the following large-scale social and economic factors:
1. The scale of institutions that touch our lives makes it harder to make personal connections. The corner grocery store has been replaced by the large supermarket. Neighborhood stores have been supplanted by the regional Wal-Mart. Even our schools are often much larger than those attended by previous generations of students. In the past, each of these domains provided an opportunity for us to be known by others and form bonds with them.
2. Technologies, such as air conditioning, television, and the Internet, have made it unnecessary for people to leave the comfort of their home and mingle with others. Rather than interact with neighbors, friends, or children, we entertain ourselves individually by watching television or surfing the Internet.
3. With increased economic demands, many women have entered the workforce for professional and workplace opportunities rather than volunteering in the community or informally supervising children.
4. Fear of crime or violence has deterred people from gathering informally in public spaces, such as parks or playgrounds. In some neighborhoods, older people are afraid to venture out of their homes. And vigilant parents keep their children—even teenagers—at home to keep them safe.
5. A typical scenario of today is not knowing our neighbors. Advances in transportation and communication, together with the demands of corporate workplaces, have allowed or required people to be more mobile. As a result, Americans move frequently and far from their extended families. With each move, individuals may make less effort to build neighborhood and family ties.
As a result of these factors, many Americans have reported feeling increasingly more adrift (Bloom, 2001). Yet most social scientists did not study the connection between neighborhoods and child outcomes until the late 1980s. Only then did researchers begin to examine the effects of urban poverty on children and families.
7.4 Neighborhood Effects on Children and Families
During the 1980s, researchers began to challenge the conclusions of earlier researchers that child development outcomes were solely determined by what went on within the confines of the family. Whereas an earlier generation of researchers looked only at the relationship between poverty and family structure (Jarrett, 1992, 1994; Moyni-han, 1965), this new generation of researchers changed how they studied the effects of urban poverty by spotlighting the relationships among poverty, neighborhood and community context, and child–youth developmental outcomes (Benson & Borman, 2010; Gephart, 1997).
By means of macro-level demographic studies, these researchers began to connect the changes in the social, economic, and institutional composition of inner-city communities to indices of social disorganization (Jarrett, 2000). Noting the major economic and social changes in inner-city communities, such as the loss of middle-class residents, the concentration of the most impoverished families, and the decline of community-based organizations, these researchers began to study the impact of these changes on indices of social disorganization, such as high rates of joblessness, female-headed households, and on child outcomes such as crime and delinquency, school dropout, and teen pregnancy.
The first stage of this “neighborhood effects” research was conducted from a variety of different perspectives. One group of researchers used a neighborhood resource perspective that focused on the lack of assets that inner-city neighborhoods had to promote the development of children. Research based on this perspective documented that impoverished communities possess only a limited supply of good quality child-serving institutions and facilities (Chase-Landale, Gordon, Brooks-Gunn, & Kle-banov, 1997). Another group of researchers used a collective socialization perspective and posited that the conditions of poor urban neighborhoods resulted in the absence of a core of socially and economically endowed middle-class adults. These nonfamily adults served as role models and agents of social control for children by promoting mainstream values and maintaining conventional behavior and models of parenting for adults (Deluca & Rosenblatt, 2010). In the absence of such nonfamily adults, adults who engaged in criminal behavior would become the most important role models for children (Brooks-Gunn, Duncan, & Aber, 1997; Brooks-Gunn, Duncan, Klebanov, & Sealand, 1993).
A third group of researchers used an epidemic perspective for examining neighborhood effects. These researchers believed that children who grow up in impoverished neighborhoods have a high probability of associating with delinquent peers who, by a process of social contagion, would introduce the children to antisocial behaviors through imitation and peer pressure and limit the children’s opportunity to acquire the social and interpersonal skills necessary to function in mainstream settings (Gephart,1997).
In each of these perspectives, researchers assumed that there is a direct relationship between the extent of neighborhood deterioration and the development of negative child outcomes. However, a second stage of neighborhood effects research began to reveal a more complex picture of the relationship of adverse neighborhood conditions and child outcomes. Researchers discovered that how parents perceive the neighborhood and world outside the home profoundly affected how they raised their children (Caughy & Franzini, 2005; Deluca & Rosenblatt, 2010). More specifically, how parents perceive the neighborhood and world outside the home altered their parenting practices, their regulation of their children’s activities, and their connection with others, which, in turn, was associated with their children’s increasing social competence (O’Neil, Parke, & McDowell, 2001). For example, parents who perceive their neighborhood to be cohesive and closely knit, and who view their neighbors as willing to help in times of trouble, have far different parenting and monitoring practices than do parents who view their neighbors as dangerous or disinterested. In addition, neighborhoods with a greater sense of community encourage more intensive child monitoring by many adults in the community, which, in turn, is associated with better youth outcomes (Ran-Kim, Chan, Settersten, & Teitler, 1999). In contrast, when the streets are dangerous and disorderly, parents not only monitor their children more closely, but they also tend to establish fewer connections with others, resulting in less overall supervision of their children. This was illustrated in a study conducted by Caughy and Franzini (2005), who examined parents’ disciplinary tactics by race/ethnicity and by residential neighborhood characteristics and found that, across ethnic groups, parents’ more frequent endorsement of harsh discipline strategies was related to respondents’ rating of their neighborhoods as low in cohesion and collective efficacy.
Moreover, researchers report that parents who live in dangerous and disorderly neighborhoods often do not have the luxury of a rich array of institutional, social, and economic opportunities for their children, and therefore must be especially competent in parenting. In addition, the level of economic hardship and neighborhood stress that parents experienced was related to parents’ psychological distress, which, in turn, affected the quality of their parent–child relations (Gutman, McLoyd, & Tokoyama, 2005). Illustrating how parental competence is implemented in high-risk, low-resource neighborhoods, Jarrett and Jefferson (2003) conducted in-depth interviews with low-income African American mothers with young children who lived in such a neighborhood. They reported that the mothers used a variety of buffering strategies, such as close monitoring, cautionary warnings, danger management, chaperonage, and confinement to protect their children from danger. The mothers also used a variety of enhancing strategies (such as resource-brokering and in-home learning strategies) to promote their children’s positive social, cultural, and academic development. Obviously, these particular parenting strategies are not unique to low-income families. However, the community context in which parenting occurs is fundamentally different. In another study, Gorman-Smith, Henry, and Tolan (2004) investigated the relationship between exposure to community violence and violence perpetuation among a sample of 263 African American and Latino male youths. These researchers reported that the youths exposed to community violence who were living in families that functioned well in terms of parenting were less likely to perpetuate violence than were similarly exposed youths who were living in less well-functioning families.
In addition to buffering the negative effects of a dangerous and disorderly neighborhood, many parents seek to overcome negative neighborhood conditions that threaten their children’s development by linking children with “mainstream opportunities and institutions” (Jarrett, 1999, p. 46). This entails a parent seeking out local and extra-local resources to expand their children’s skills and linking their children to community resources, such as neighborhood programs. For example, a study of Boston neighborhoods showed that when parents had strong neighborhood ties that extended beyond the family, children’s social behaviors and school performance were better. One explanation for this finding is that children who were exposed to more heterogeneous social networks had more opportunities to spend time with other adults in socially and cognitively stimulating activities (Marshall, Noonan, McCartney, Marx, & Keefe, 2001). In contrast, high delinquency rates, educational failure, infant mortality, child abuse, adolescent substance abuse, and gang violence have been found to be related to the absence of neighborhood institutions that promote healthy youth development, including primary supports like Little League, and the number of nonfamily adults who are available and willing to work with youths (Jarrett, 2000).
In addition, employment settings can provide opportunities for low-income parents to access resources that enhance their children’s learning and development. In a study of low-income mothers’ involvement in their elementary school children’s education, Weiss et al. (2003) report how the mothers used their workplaces to call teachers by phone and to gain access to resources, such as computers, educational advice from colleagues or employers, and tutoring or homework help for their children.
7.5 Approaches for Linking Schools and Families with Communities
Despite the evidence that indicates that neighborhood circumstances influence how families manage their children, the typical meaning of school–community involvement has emphasized how communities might support schools. For example, many schools have created school–community partnerships with businesses to gain additional material and personnel resources to help the school carry out its mission. Only recently have educators actively sought to learn how to connect with neighborhoods and communities to support families. As Kreider and Weiss (2010) observe,
Although much has been written about school practices to involve families in their children’s learning, we know less about how such involvement is promoted by the community and, in particular, parents’ social networks and organizations other than the school. (p. 62)
However, many schools are now beginning to reach out to their communities to increase the available resources for supporting families. These efforts have used two very different approaches. One approach, which we term a need/deficit-based approach, is depicted in efforts initiated by members outside of the community to identify family deficits and gain access to needed resources for them. A second approach, which we term an asset-based approach, is characterized by efforts to engage members of the community in identifying their current assets and mobilizing to develop additional resources to support students, their families, and the community itself. Let’s look more closely at these two approaches to forming stronger school, family, and community supports.
7.6 Deficit/Need-Based Approaches
Many educators have looked at how the school might draw community resources into schools to address child and family needs. In these types of initiatives, the professionals in the school typically decide what the school or community needs (although there may be some token participation by community members in the governance of such activities). Typically, both individual families and neighborhoods served by the schools are viewed in terms of their problems and deficits, with steps being taken to access resources to resolve these deficits. The conventional expectation of many educators is that the community should provide resources for students and schools. Figure 7.2 illustrates this need-based perspective of community resources. These educators tend to present a vision of community either as a resource for schools or as a potential barrier to learning when community values and mores do not fit with those promoted at school. The program models developed by Epstein and by Comer epitomize this perspective.
Epstein’s National Network of Partnership Schools
Joyce Epstein (2010), with her colleagues at Johns Hopkins University, has worked since the mid-1980s conducting studies and establishing programs to enhance educational opportunities for children by developing partnerships with their families and communities. In 1995, Epstein established the National Network of Partnership Schools at Johns Hopkins to demonstrate the role of research, policy, and practice for school improvement.
Figure 7.2 Need-Based Model of School–Community Service Delivery
To date, more than 1,700 schools in 150 school districts across the United States have been involved in this network.
Epstein’s program is centered on the idea of the shared responsibilities of home, school, and community for children’s learning and development. She conceptualized schools, families, and communities as “overlapping spheres of influence” that affect student achievement and development, and she describes this in her writings (Epstein, 2010, p. 163). Epstein argues that for students to be healthy, these three influences must work together in partnership.
Epstein places the school in the center of her model and promotes the idea of the school as a broker for starting and facilitating partnerships with the community and families. She firmly believes that the concept of a “full-service” school is emerging in American society, and notes that we now find more schools that provide services to students and parents before school, during school, and after the regular school day. The assumptions that Epstein believes should undergird the National Network programs are
1. Caring for the children we share. Epstein believes that if this condition is present, then schools, parents, and communities recognize their shared interests and responsibilities for children.
2. Help children succeed in school and in life. Epstein emphasizes that the “overlapping spheres of influence” (p. 163) of the three social contexts should be harnessed for their united power.
3. Students are central to a successful partnership and must be part of decision making. Epstein emphasizes that students should be considered to be important stakeholders, because they are the ones who have the most to gain or lose by their school experience.
4. Effective partnerships are built on a base of group support.
5. Healthy partnerships tolerate changes, challenges, and disagreements because they are built on a base of trust and respect.
6. Partnerships differ in size, focus, and arrangement yet have many common ingredients.
7. Establishing an action team is key. All collaborations require some type of steering group if the efforts of the group are to be sustained.
8. Collaboration should be focused on curriculum areas so as to enhance children’s educational opportunities.
Epstein delineates six levels of family involvement in their children’s schooling that can provide an organizational focus for partnership activities. Each level of involvement (Figure 7.3) has different practices that schools can select to help them achieve a particular goal. Thus, any partnership effort can use the six types of involvement as a general framework yet concentrate on developing practices that produce results for one specific type of involvement. For example, we mentioned in Chapter 3 how some educators have designed interactive homework lessons as a way to engage families in learning activities at home with their child. This is a focus on home learning.
Figure 7.3 Epstein’s Six Levels of Family Involvement in Children’s Learning and Development
Source: Information from School, Family and Community Partnerships: Your Handbook for Action (3rd ed.), by J. L. Epstein et al., 2009, Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Epstein strongly advises the establishment of an action team to guide the efforts of a school staff and to serve as a direction-setting team. The functions of the action team are to assess current practices, arrange for developing and implementing new practices, and coordinate various types of involvement. In addition, the team should develop a long-term (e.g., 3-year) and 1-year action plan to guide their efforts. Obviously, the group membership of such a team is important, and should include not only the principal and teachers from different grade levels, but also parents, students, and at least one community delegate.
Although Epstein’s focus on parent–school involvement is broad-based and inclusive, her perspective on the school–community relationship is much narrower. In her discussion of community, Epstein stresses the resources that the community can provide to schools and the ways that communities can either reinforce “school and family goals for student success” or redirect “students away from schools” (Epstein, 2010, p. 76). In Epstein’s view, “communities are helpful to schools when they support the school’s mission and harmful to schools when they resist or criticize the mission in some way” (Schutz, 2006, p. 704). Hence, much of Epstein’s focus appears to be on what the community must do for the school.
Comer’s School Development Program
In contrast, Comer’s work (Comer, 1980; 1998; 2004) and his work with Haynes (Comer & Haynes, 1991) is more inclusive of the community. The initial implementation of Comer’s School Development Project (SDP) began in 1968 as a collaboration between two New Haven Elementary schools located in low-income areas and the Yale Child Study Center for the purpose of increasing parental involvement in children’s education. When the program began, the Comer team discovered that although these schools served an African-American student population in which parent participation had been very low, most of the parents in the school expressed interest in the school activities in which their children participated. In addition, some parents were interested in volunteering for particular activities in the school, and a few parents were interested in curriculum and how teachers instructed their children. Based on this information, Comer and his team developed a highly successful program model for involving parents that is now been used in a wide variety of schools.
Unlike most schools at the time, Comer and his team were interested in modifying the overall social and psychological climate of the school to facilitate greater student learning, improve students’ basic skills, and raise student motivation and academic and occupational aspirations. To do this, Comer believed that it was necessary to create a sense of shared responsibility and decision making among parents and staff, and to connect child development and clinical services to the educational program of the school. To address these goals, three teams were originally created at each school: a School Planning and Management Team (SPMT), a Mental Health Team, and a Pupil Personnel Team. Over time, these program components were reconfigured as follows:
1. The School Planning and Management Team (SPMT). Composed of stakeholders in the school, the School Planning and Management Team developed and implemented academic and social programs, designed staff development, evaluated and modified programs. Three important guidelines undergird the operation of this team: (a) solving programs with a no-fault approach, (b) using principles of child development for decision making, and (c) ensuring that collaborative management does not paralyze the school principal.
2. The Mental Health Team (later, the Student and Staff Support Team). The Mental Health Team originally consisted of a child psychiatrist, two social workers, an educator with early childhood training, an educator involved in teacher training, and a psychologist–program evaluator. Its main purpose was to assist schools staff in understanding and applying principles of social and behavioral science to school and student problems and challenges. This team evolved into a team made up of student services personnel who cooperate with the principal, community social services personnel, and special teachers in providing services directly to students who need support and in providing preventive psycho-education throughout the school.
3. The Parent Program (later, the Parent Team). The Parent Program initially started with a small group of parents who received a stipend for assisting teachers in the schools and also served on committees that helped plan social and educational programs. Over time, the Parent Program evolved into a three-tier system: (a) a small group of parents who served on the school planning and management team and helped enlist other parents in participating in the school, (b) parents who were involved in helping in classrooms and sponsoring and supporting school programs, and (c) parents involved in activities in which their children were engaged such as student performances.
These aspects of the original implementation of the Comer program have evolved over time, yet these aspects serve as the basis for replication by more than 650 schools throughout the United States.
To implement a model that offers respect to all and sustains learning, Comer (1998; 2004) emphasized that there are three guiding principles, three teams, and three operations. The three principles are (a) consensus (i.e., planning requires that all parties come to agreement on the plans), (b) collaboration (i.e., all work in tandem with each other), and (c) a no-fault orientation (i.e., no one party is at fault for any lack of success, but all share in the responsibility to improve). The three teams are (a) the School Planning and Management Team, which plans and coordinates all school activities; (b) the Student and Staff Support Team (SSST), which addresses student and staff problems and manages individual situations, and (c) the Parent Team (PT) which involves parents at all levels. The three operations are (a) development of a comprehensive school plan to meet academic and social goals, (b) periodic assessment and modification when necessary, and (c) staff development as needed to achieve goals.
As one can see, Comer (1998; 2004) believed that to reform the instruction in schools, families and communities must be involved. However, until quite recently, these authors did not discuss community engagement much as an issue separate from parent involvement. Instead, Comer and Haynes (1991) believed that “Parents are a natural link to the communities in which schools are located … [because they] bring a community perspective to planning and management activities” (p. 273). As described earlier, one of Comer’s key mechanisms for developing initial connections between home and school was to hire parents to work with teachers in classrooms and to participate in leadership positions on the school’s collaborative teams. More recently, Comer has begun to address the need for a stronger connection between SDP schools and the larger community. One approach is for the school to integrate itself with a more comprehensive vision of the school as a center for integrated services to the community, including before and after school programs. In his more recent books Waiting for a Miracle: Why Schools Can’t Solve Our Problems—And How We Can (1998) and Leave No Child Behind (2004), Comer discusses the importance of arranging for community-focused programs and efforts that might create the conditions for student success in schools. He argues for
a different kind of school that could help put a supportive community together again... and envisions a school that, instead of being isolated... could be fully incorporated into the larger community.... Economic and community development, human services, recreation, and artistic expression programs could be tied to the school setting when possible. (Comer, 1998, p. 212)
Linking Schools with Community Services
In contrast to Comer’s recent community development focus, since the mid-1990s, many schools have been attempting to link to available health and social services in the community to address the complex needs of some children and families. These educators are recognizing that some children live in families and communities that are in such disarray—having insufficient food, health care, or housing—that the children do not have the necessary familial and social supports from home to learn, and that educators alone cannot provide these services. As Schorr (1997) so eloquently described in her book Common Purpose: Strengthening Families and Neighborhoods to Rebuild America, “When children come to school tired, hungry, sick, disruptive, unmotivated, undisciplined, disturbed, neglected, or abused, they arrive with problems that interfere with their own or others’ learning” (p. 283). To respond to these issues, a number of schools are linking to available health and social services in the community. One such program introduced in New Jersey in the late 1980s is the School-Based Youth Services Program. As suggested in the need-based model of service delivery depicted in Figure 7.2, the school is at the center of a series of partnerships—with local businesses, local educational institutions, service agencies, and (less so) the local community—to provide families with core services, such as counseling, recreation, and employment assistance at one location.
One of the most successful integrated services programs is that of Hanshaw Middle School in Modesto, California. Showcasing it in their book on full-service schools, Dry-foos and Maguire (2002, pp. 108–109) describe the program:
This school formed a series of partnerships with local businesses, California State University, service agencies and (less so) the local community. These agreements allowed the school to offer school-based services to students and their families and to connect them with additional resources, including the worlds of higher education and work opportunities beyond the school. For instance, at Hanshaw Middle School, the school is organized into seven “communities,” each of which is adopted by a different branch of the university. Students identify with their branch, they wear T-shirts with its name, visit the campus, and are put in touch with university students. Parents are both the recipients of services (i.e., adult classes, health clinics) and the providers, through volunteer activities. The whole is designed as an integrated approach to improving students’ educational environment.
Other programs might involve a different combination of linked services delivered by schools, agencies, and community groups at different locations. (We discuss in more detail in Chapter 13 how an educator might access these services for students’ families.) Unquestionably, educators need effective and high-quality backup services that can be trusted and mobilized rapidly. In addition, there is ample evidence that services that are available theo retically to inner-city residents are often inaccessible in practice, and using local schools as the first point of contact may help improve access. Moreover, providing more coordinated services is certainly more effective than engaging in fragmented efforts. However, one criticism of this approach is that it continues to preserve the hierarchical nature of most professionals in relation to their poor or working-class clients. As Keith (1996) notes, more often than not, the professional community decides the nature of the problem and its possible solutions of the community, “which the relatively unknowledgeable or powerless client is then expected to implement for her or his own good” (p. 244). Schools often have high expectations for how parents will involve themselves in their children’s learning and have limited understanding of how the conditions of impoverished families make such involvement difficult. As a result, educators interested in reaching out to low-income families often become frustrated at parents’ response to them, begin to view parents exclusively in terms of their deficits (e.g., they do not come to school or help with homework), and expect that the family should change to accommodate the expectations of the school. To counter this school-centric approach, many community-based organizations are using a more asset-based approach to develop needed services for families in which the school is only one of the participants. Let’s look more closely at these initiatives in the next section.
7.7 Asset-Based Approaches
In contrast to the previous school-centered initiatives that focus exclusively on meeting the purposes and goals of the school, a number of promising initiatives have been developed that focus on how the school might work with community members from a more asset-based perspective. Keith (1996) notes that a key premise of these initiatives is the emphasis on assessing assets as well as needs. It rests on the strong belief that even within the poorest neighborhoods there are strengths and capacities to be tapped, not just weaknesses and deficits, and that education is only one feature in a comprehensive effort to restore the economic and social viability of a neighborhood or community. Hence, the focus of these initiatives shifts from an emphasis on matching services and individual needs to a focus on community members joining in mutually enhancing social action to pursue common interests of a neighborhood. In point of fact, Matthews (1996) strongly asserts that “Inner-city school reforms need to start in and with the community if they are to have any real hope of long-term success” (p. 11).
To decide what actions must be taken that reflect the interests and priorities of the community rather than only those of agencies (or schools) requires that networks among different community groups and institutions be created. As a result, these community–school initiatives are asset-based and inner-directed as they rest on the capacity of community members to decide on common goals and identify existing resources. Figure 7.4 depicts this asset-based approach and shows neighborhood residents and their networks, institutions, and organizations at the center, tasks rather than agencies depicted in the second intermediary tier, and agencies in the outermost tier.
This figure shows the shift in focus away from the service integration model that seeks to match individual needs and agency services to the pursuit of common interests and needs of neighborhood members and outside experts. Let’s now look more closely at three examples of such asset-based initiatives: (a) community programs to support students and families that operate parallel to rather than in collaboration with schools and preschools, (b) the Reggio Emilia program, and (c) community schools.
Figure 7.4 Asset-Based Model of School–Community Linkages
Parallel Community Initiatives
In contrast to schools attempting to bring community resources into the school, a number of initiatives have been organized to work parallel to rather than in direct collaboration with schools. For example, a growing number of communities offer preschool or after-school programs for children in nonschool settings that not only serve working parents by providing safe places for children to engage in activities, but also engage families in programming. Some parents ensure quality services by participating in surveys and focus groups, although a core group of parents takes on leadership and governance roles. Parents may also participate in children’s activities, help raise funds, and find paid positions for coordinators and tutors in these programs (Blank, 2001; Caspe, Traub, & Little, 2002). Through these programs, parents monitor their children’s activities and use these programs to expose children to new learning environments.
One community-based social service organization’s goal, for instance, was to seek opportunities to help low-income single parents become stronger advocates for improved relationships with the schools (Bloom, 2001). This community-based grassroots organization developed an advocacy plan with mothers and school administrators to address the strained relationships between parents and school staff at meetings to discuss a child’s academic difficulties (Bloom, 2001). The mothers often felt intimidated by these meetings, where they were alone in confronting as many as 7 to 10 staff members who wielded their professional status in demeaning ways. To address the mothers’ concerns, the community volunteers developed an advocacy plan with the mothers, consisting of having the mothers participate in a role-play that involved the mother and several school staff to resolve a fictitious 4th-grade boy’s poor performance, and then conducting a debriefing session about the role-play. Through the role-play, the mothers could air their concerns in a safe environment and feel empowered. The school staff also gained a different perspective about the parents’ behavior in the meetings, that of an impoverished parent wanting her child to succeed. In addition, the mothers have insisted on having a community volunteer attend the meetings with them to serve as an ally.
In other instances, community members may serve as cultural brokers for immigrant families and mainstream institutions and provide resources beyond what families and schools can offer, such as counseling and assistance for college preparation. The Bridging Multiple Worlds Model/Project (Cooper, Chavira, Mikolyski, Mena, & Dominguez, 2004) is one such university–community partnership designed to increase access to college among low-income, ethnic minority, and immigrant youth. The project model has been used extensively to help Latino youth in California feel confident and safe in their neighborhoods, learn alternatives to violence, and gain bicultural skills needed to succeed in school. Program staff members provide cultural continuity by reinforcing Latino families’ beliefs that success in life is measured in both moral and academic terms. Staff also offer youths a view of life opportunities through resources of mainstream institutions, including schools, colleges, and banks (Cooper, Chavira, Mikolyski, Mena, & Dominguez, 2004).
In one community, a church-based nursery school program was developed to serve the needs of inner-city children and their families (Kretzman & McKnight, 1993), while in another community, a church-based program was developed to serve the needs of Latino children and their families (Nevarez-La Torre, 1997). Because many school-based programs and schools geared to Latino and other communities of color have been criticized for their deficit perspective on community and for their lack of meaningful partnerships with community members, this church-based community program attempted to promote increased school participation without accepting a full partnership approach (Delgado-Gaitan, 1990; Neito, 1996). One of the program staff described the conditions that led to the development of this program:
There is no good communication among the schools nor between the schools and the community. One reason for the lack of communication is a lack of cultural understanding.... The majority of the teachers are Anglo and they do not know what it is to come from a different country to live here, not knowing the language nor the culture. They cannot understand what our children go through, what our families need to confront on a daily basis in order to send the children to school. (p. 67)
Working virtually unnoticed by and parallel to the school system in the city, this program attempted to improve the education of elementary schoolchildren through after-school interventions. In addition, they learned about and used the community’s funds of knowledge, which represent what community members knew, what they valued, and what facilitated their daily existence in the larger society. As a result, they sought to influence ways in which the schools could be more responsive to and become part of the Latino community.
In other communities, members who are concerned about the quality of their children’s schools recruit parents and other community members to become leaders in addressing parents’ concerns about children’s safety, after-school activities, school size and school climate (Gold, Simon, & Brown, 2002a; Shirley, 1997). Shirley describes how one local community group, Allied Communities of Tarrant (ACT), was invited by the principal of a middle school to work on parent involvement. ACT is an institution rooted in the community but external to the school, and is specifically designed to give community members power. The group first met with teachers to discuss their frustrations with parents. Once the teachers were on board, ACT leaders flooded the neighborhood, visiting parents door-to-door, surveying their sentiments about the school, and seeking out potential leaders. In a “slow but cumulative fashion the labor-intensive, face-to-face, relational approach of ACT leaders and teachers began to change the attitude of many parents toward their children’s school” (Shirley, 1997, p. 107). At the same time, the teachers began to learn about the culture of their students and the community. Slowly, through a range of activities, parent and community involvement increased. ACT also became a mechanism through which parents could express their concerns about the school. Later, these parents became the core of efforts to organize for a range of changes in their community. Ultimately, the project developed into the Alliance Schools Project, and many local groups working together forced the state to provide funding for similar projects elsewhere.
Reggio Emilia
The Reggio Emilia program was developed in northern Italy in 1946 by a group of parents and community members. The philosophy of this program is that young children should be active participants in their own learning, and schooling should reflect community values, beliefs, and a wealth of materials (Edwards, Gandini, & Forman, 1998). As a result of the strong parent–school–community ties present in this program, many American educators are now attempting to replicate the practices of the Reggio Emilia approach.
The purpose of Reggio Emilia is to develop a school where children are at the center of the curriculum, where they develop a sense of belonging by participating in the school community. Parents, teachers, and community members are recognized as important partners in planning and implementing any curriculum, and the curriculum should reflect the community’s values and distinct qualities. Young children are viewed as informants to adults on their current interests, learning styles, and knowledge. Therefore, the children are active participants and decision makers regarding what to study and how to study it.
Reggio Emilia programs are based on local decision making—a process by which all participants have a say in what is to be studied. Learning, they maintain, “is not to be dictated from ‘above’ but ‘negotiated’ with those who will benefit” (Edwards, Gandini, & Forman, 1998, p. 101). Thus, the content and sequence of a project is determined by the particular group, which takes responsibility for maintaining connections among all the parties. Parents and community members are a very important part of the decision-making network. They serve on the community advisory councils, attend various school meetings for planning, and work in classroom on specific tasks and projects. Teachers do not assign tasks to these other adults, but because parents are a part of the planning, they become part of the implementation.
Community Schools
In contrast to these independent community efforts, many school staffs are recognizing that they cannot reform neighborhoods or develop community services for students’ families on their own. Hence, they have joined up and become partners with outside community efforts to reform services and build communities (Schutz, 2006, p. 692). As a result, community school initiatives have a distinctive community orientation.
The philosophy of these schools emphasizes transforming the school into a hub for neighborhood activities of many kinds and making the school and its facilities available to the community on evenings and weekends. To do this, the school partners with an outside organization or agency so that they can offer a range of services for children, families, and community members that encompass outreach and prevention, advocacy, mental health counseling, social services referrals, translation and interpretation services, as well as educational, recreational, and avocational activities (Schutz, 2006). The school building becomes a central site for a community, and typically the school facilities stay open after school hours and on weekends. Although the central aim is to improve education, this is achieved by improving the community around the children and using all resources fully.
Unlike a welfare office or mental health center, schools are a non-stigmatizing setting (especially if parents feel free to come there for reasons other than that their child is in trouble). As a result, many experts, such as Kretzmann and McKnight (1993), argue about the crucial need to find ways for schools to contribute to broad community development efforts. By sharing facilities with health departments, welfare agencies, and adult education offices, as well as childcare and after-school programs, the needs of the whole community are addressed.
A community school becomes successful only when it brings in a large number of parents to work in and advocate for the total school program. Some parents work as classroom, cafeteria, or recreational aides; others volunteer to mentor children, or to share their childrearing or family management expertise with other parents. Many link the volunteer work with their own educational enhancement through the day and evening classes in adult education opportunities located at the school. The intense involvement of a number of parents stimulates school pride and spirit to bring about total neighborhood improvement. For example, some community schools have developed parent centers run by parents to assist families more effectively. Johnson (1993) discovered that the creation of parent centers resulted in organizational changes within schools. In a survey of 28 schools in 14 cities nationwide that had active parent centers, Johnson (1994) reports that all of the centers provided information, materials, and books that parents could borrow; workshops or seminars to address family needs; referrals to social service providers; and translation services for parents. In addition, Johnson (1994) notes that the centers served a major mediating function in the family–school–community relationship. This function changed the role of parents from “outsiders” to “insiders” within the school community. He notes that community schools with parent centers run by parents undergo structural changes as they strive to accommodate to the daily presence of families in the life of the school.
Many of these programs operate under the assumption that to serve student needs, the family’s needs and issues must be addressed, and that input from the families is essential to the school’s decision making about needed services and activities. One successful example of such a community development effort is the community schools in New York City known as the Beacon Schools. Innovators of the Beacon Schools wanted to not only collect multiple services in one place and make them more accessible, but also to make these school-based services part of a community-building venture. Recognizing that substance abuse was deeply tied to the conditions of the community, in 1990, the city commission of New York City identified as a top priority the need for safe havens for children, youths, and families in troubled city neighborhoods. The city targeted nine neighborhoods in which resources would be strengthened and coordinated for the purpose of reducing drug use and providing a vehicle for community organizing. Schorr’s (1997) description of one such school depicts the range of services to families and children that are provided to meet many vital nonacademic needs:
The centerpiece of the Beacon Schools’ effort is that schools are transformed into community centers, available to children and adults 365 days a year. We can see this at one such school-based community center, the Countee Cullen Community Center at PS 194 in Central Harlem. The center is open seven days a week from 9 a.m. until 11 p.m. or midnight. Youth workers at the center help with homework and conduct after-school sports and recreation programs for about two hundred children from 3 p.m. to 6 p.m. The youngsters are taught conflict resolution and that they have a responsibility to the community. Services for high-risk families are integrated into other Beacon activities. A lot of informal counseling and consultation goes on between staff and both children and their parents. At 7 p.m. one Friday night about forty teenagers showed up to participate in youth leadership activities while parents and children met together in the gym for a joint African dance class. Programs for adults included Alcoholics and Narcotics Anonymous, aerobics, and educational workshops. These activities have brought more and more community adults into the school and allowed the center to take on the values of the larger community and fewer of the values of the adolescents of that community. The staff works hard to alter the traditional, one-sided relationship between neighborhood parents and school personnel. Now parents come to the office and ask for help in meeting with the school staff. Activities for adolescents in the late evenings and on weekends are an important alternative to the streets. Classes include drama, dance, video, community service, job readiness, and computer skills. Boy Scouts meets on Thursday afternoon, and Friday is Teen Movie Night. Canada, the innovator of this program states: “The center looks less like a place where outsiders are coming in to do something for you and more like a place where you are coming together to do something for yourself.” (pp. 50–52)
These efforts to root schools and school systems more substantively in the local community have been embraced by both rural and inner-city communities that face dramatic social and economic changes. For example, recognizing the power of community revitalization initiatives that can be housed in the school. The New Mexico Rural Revitalization Initiative (Heimerl, 2007) is a school-led movement “dedicated to revitalizing rural districts through unifying schools with their communities” (p. 26). In describing this initiative, Heimerl (2007) notes, “The out-migration of the population from rural to urban areas is resulting in the degeneration, and, in some cases, the death of rural schools and communities” (p. 26).
To address this problem, the New Mexico Rural Education Department, in cooperation with the Rural Education Forum of Australia and the Center for Relational Learning, launched 13 pilot projects in rural New Mexican communities that were designed to stimulate the economy through developing self-sustaining and profitable projects based on the inherent uniqueness, strengths, and collective ingenuity of these communities. According to Heimerl (2007),
Since schools serve as the nucleus of rural communities, they are the logical place to initiate rural revitalization. In addition to being the focal point of civic pride, schools are the largest employer in most rural communities, with the most advanced communications infrastructure and brick-and-mortar facilities. Thus, schools are resource factories providing the staff, parent networks, students and facilitators needed to launch a successful community renewal campaign. One of the most valuable assets identified by the NMRRI was the incredible, previously untapped reservoir of youth creativity and energy found in the schools of rural communities. Capitalizing on the students “know-no-limit” mentality and instilling a sense of pride in the community, these groups have created economic development programs in which students have important roles and have resulted in permanent additions to the local school curriculum. (pp. 26–27)
Although a variety of different strategies are used by community schools to serve student needs, all rest on the assumption that families’ needs and issues must be addressed along with student needs, and that input from the families is essential to the school and community’s decision making about needed services and activities.
7.8 Community Strategies Used by Educators
As you can see, there is a wide variety of ways in which the community can be a resource for educators hoping to support families’ efforts to raise their children. However, only recently have educators begun to look at how they might change their connections with community members to support parents and families. We believe that the community and community-based institutions can be an additional resource that contributes to students’ school success. Hence, we close the chapter by discussing three general strategies that educators might use initially to link with their school’s community: (a) learning about the community and its assets, (b) strengthening parent-to-parent support, and (c) mobilizing communities to develop additional assets for families.
Learning about Community Assets and Values
First, educators, particularly those who do not live in the community in which they teach but who want to work with families and community organizations, should consider how they might learn about the assets, values, and social norms that characterize interaction among community members. One way to learn about the particular social norms and networks that exist in a community and how they are structured is to interact with members of the community outside of the school day. For example, you might want to use local services and shop in local stores so you can get to know the local merchants. Or you might want to attend important out-of-school events in which your students perform, such as community celebrations (e.g., Kwanzaa), sporting events, religious activities (e.g., bar/bat mitzvahs, baptisms, confirmations), or award ceremonies in social organizations (e.g., Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts).
Second, learning about the unique combination of assets available in a particular community is important. Each community boasts a unique combination of individual,associational, and institutional organizations with distinctive assets that might be applied to enhance student success (Kretzmann & McKnight, 1993). Four general sources of community assets are described by Kretzmann and McKnight. The first source of community assets is the skills, resources, and talents of individual community residents, including traditionally marginalized groups, such as youth, the elderly, artists, welfare recipients, and the disabled. The second source is citizens’ associations that are less formal and much less dependent on paid staff than formal institutions and are the vehicles through which citizens solve problems or share common interests and activities of a religious, cultural, athletic, or recreational nature. These might include block clubs; religious organizations; churches, mosques or synagogues; community organizations; and cultural groups. The third source is the more formal institutions located in a community: public institutions, such as schools, community colleges, libraries, parks, police and fire stations; and nonprofit institutions, such as hospitals and social service agencies. The fourth source consists of private sector institutions such as businesses, banks, and corporations. These four different sources of assets provide an array of distinctive community resources and funds of knowledge. For example, what are the unique traditions and cultures represented in a particular community? What unique skills have individuals learned and developed? To discover these assets effectively requires school staff to commit time to building relationships with community members. As a first step to doing this, you might want to examine your school’s existing institutional practices and the relationships that staff members have already developed that tap into the various sources of community resources by means of Reflective Exercise 7.3.
REFLECTIVE EXERCISE 7.3 Assessing My School’s Current Relationships with the Community
How does your school staff interact with the neighborhoods/communities served by the school to promote family and student development?
What school activities are supported by the community, and how are they supported (e.g., sporting events, fundraisers)?
What community organizations/activities are supported by the school, and how are they supported (e.g., Girl Scouts, Boy Scouts)?
What community services are available to the students and families (e.g., after-school programs, church-based parent groups, girls and boys clubs)?
With which community-based institutions does the school now work (e.g., religious organizations, other schools, junior college/college, businesses/industries) to serve the needs of children and families? What specific services does each of these entities provide to children and families?
What community associations (e.g., Urban League, Latino social organizations) does the school now work with that operate in the community, and what services do they provide to children and families? What cultural events occur in the community (e.g., Cinco de Mayo, Kwanzaa celebrations)?
Learning about the norms, values, and assets of a community, as well as the impact of certain economic and social conditions, helps educators more readily identify existing assets and resources that will be useful to students, their families, and the schools.
Strengthening Parent-to-Parent Supports
All families can benefit from increased social support as well as greater knowledge of informal and formal services. By finding out what families self-identify as their needs, educators can help families become more involved in their children’s learning. Schools can also use or build on existing parent or family resources through the development of family resource centers. Kreider and Weiss (2010) describe how some schools have promoted the development of social ties across families by creating opportunities for them to connect with each other and the community. Organizing a social event, providing needed services, or establishing a space for families to meet together are some of the ways that schools have provided structures for community building and social action. For example, one parent resource center known as the Rainmakers was operated by parents within an elementary school who took on the role of helping their neighbors successfully fight rent increases that occurred in their low-income community (Turnbull & Turnbull, 2005).
Mobilizing Community Assets
How do you mobilize the current assets provided by particular organizations or institutions in the community? For example, how do you encourage a local church to develop and operate an after-school program or a parent support program? The Coalition for Community Schools in cooperation with the National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP) and the National Association of Elementary School Principals (NAESP) have developed a guide entitled Community and Family Engagement: Principals Share What Works for educators to use for developing stronger ties with the community. The guide outlines a number of key steps for working effectively with the community (Berg, Melaville, & Blank, 2006). Lopez (2003) and Kretzmann and McKnight (1993) also state that it is crucial to find ways for schools to contribute to broad community development efforts. They describe the basic features of this community asset development process:
Focusing on the assets of lower income communities does not imply that these communities do not need additional resources from the outside. Rather, it simply suggests that outside resources will be used more effectively if the local community itself is fully mobilized and invested and if it can define the agendas for which additional resources must be obtained. Second, the discussion of community assets is intended to affirm and to build upon the work already going on in neighborhoods. (p. 8)
Obviously, the first step starts with identifying what is present in a community—the capacities of its residents, associations, and institutions—rather than on what is absent or what is problematic or what the community needs. This information gathering should lead to the development of the capacities of local residents and organizations in the community. Hence, a basic purpose in gathering such information about a specific community resident (or an organization or institution) is to help him or her (or an organization or institution) contribute to advancing the community’s goals as well as to advancing his or her own goals. Will the information help her offer her gifts, contribute her talents, or increase her child’s school success? To create investment and access hope and a sense of control, parents and others from the community must have a voice with the school staff in developing an agenda and priorities to improve their own and their children’s lives. Using the guide appearing in Reflective Exercise 7.4, describe the knowledge, skills, and human resources available in the community in which you grew up.
REFLECTIVE EXERCISE 7.4 Looking at Community Assets and Funds of Knowledge
Use this guide to think about the skills, knowledge, and resources that were embedded in the community in which you lived as a young child.
People Assets
What were the special gifts, talents, interests, and skills of individual people in the local community?
Artists_____________________________
Elderly Citizens_____________________________
Youth_____________________________
Labeled People (e.g., those who were mentally retarded or disabled)______________ _____________________________
Citizens’ Associations Assets
What particular resources, skills, and activities were possessed by civic associations?
Senior Volunteer and Service Organizations______
___________________________________
Churches/Mosques/Synagogues___________
_____________________________
Cultural Groups_____________________________
Block Clubs_____________________________
Assets and Funds of Knowledge
Civic Groups (e.g., Kiwanis, Rotary, Alturas)______
_____________________________
Formal Community Institutions
What particular assets and resources existed in the following resources in your community?
Schools_____________________________
Community Colleges_____________________________
Libraries_____________________________
Parks_____________________________
Police and Fire Departments_____________________________
Local and State Government Agencies and Departments_____________________________
Health Care Organizations (e.g., hospitals, health departments)_____________________________
Social Service Agencies_____________________________
Private Sector Institutions
Local Businesses_____________________________
National Corporations and Franchises____________ _____________________________
Banks_____________________________
The second step involves building consensus and connections across the various participants by identifying common goals or needs that both community members and school staff prioritize as important. A third step is to inventory the assets and resources of the school and of other community institutions and organizations. A fourth step entails having community members review this asset inventory and then identify what and how they might choose to build on their community’s assets. For example, Kretzmann and McKnight (1993) describe how many churches and synagogues have already begun to use their resources within their communities in creative and innovative ways. These religious institutions are recognizing that to remain viable in their communities, they must contribute to the improvement of their communities. Each of these institutions possesses certain common sets of resources that can be mobilized effectively: (a) their personnel and congregation members who have special skills and interests (e.g., homebuilding, youth development, senior services); (b) their space and facilities; (c) their equipment (e.g., fax machine, computer, telephone, musical equipment, educational supplies, kitchen equipment); (d) their expertise in promoting greater social and economic justice; and (e) their economic power (e.g., they have the capacity to hire community residents, purchase from community stores, may have special endowment funds). A variety of different partnerships has emerged between religious organizations and schools in which these types of resources are used. For example, the Chicago Urban League connects churches with schools through an “Adopt-a-School” program, in which churches provide tutoring for neighborhood schoolchildren. As a result, the church gains an opportunity to become better connected to the neighborhood. In another community, a church formed a relationship with a local school in which students were allowed to use the church’s youth center after school and on the weekends (Kretzmann & McKnight, 1993). Although such collective efforts take time and energy to develop in a community, they multiply the resources available to educators for supporting their students and families.
Summary
Communities vary in terms of their location, population size, economic resources, and social ties. Many communities in the United States are being transformed over time as a result of social, economic, and cultural influences. Both rural and urban communities are facing dramatic social and economic changes that have an impact on the occupational and educational opportunities for children in those communities. In this chapter, we identified the nature of these changes and examined how neighborhood and community conditions have an impact on children’s development. We then looked at two different approaches that schools and communities have developed to counter these negative influences: (a) need/deficit-based approaches and (b) asset-based approaches.
Organized around identifying family needs and accessing needed services, need/ deficit-based approaches might take the form of (a) schools drawing in community resources or (b) linking schools with community services. We described the need-based philosophies of community involvement of the different programs developed by Epstein and by Comer and by full-service schools. Asset-based approaches emphasize assessing the existing strengths and capacities of communities as well as their needs and then mobilizing community members to identify mutual interests and goals. Illustrative of this type of approach are (a) independent community programs for students and families that parallel the school’s efforts, (b) the Reggio Emilia program, and (c) community schools. Finally, we considered how the individual educator might participate in learning about the assets of a community, strengthening parent-to-parent supports, or mobilizing community resources to support children and families’ development.
Activities and Questions
1. Identify incidences of disagreement among parents, the community, and the school or school system either in your home community or the community in which you are observing educational practices. What are the issues in conflict? How are children’s interests represented? Are the interests of certain parent and community groups attended to more than are others? How are the disagreements resolved?
2. Write to the organizations that have developed the various program models discussed in this chapter to obtain detailed information about how the models work.
Resources
Coalition for Community Schools c/o Institute for Educational Leadership 1001 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 310 Washington, DC 20036 www.communityschools.org
The Coalition for Community Schools advocates for community schools as the vehicle for strengthening schools, families, and communities so that together they can improve student learning.
Center on School, Family and Community Partnerships, Johns Hopkins University 3505 North Charles St. Baltimore, MD 21218 Phone: 401-332-4575 www.csos.jhu.edu/p2000/center.htm
The Center on School, Family and Community Partnerships at Johns Hopkins University offers opportunities to join the National Network of Partnership Schools and provides examples of effective programs and strategies to interested educators.
Comer School Development Program 55 College Street New Haven, CT 06510 Phone: 203-737-1020 http://info.med.yale.edu/comer
The Comer School Development Program (SDP) offers resources and consultation to schools interested in implementing its practices and programs.
