Family Involvement in a Hawaiian Language Immersion Program Lois A. Yamauchi, Jo-Anne Lau-Smith, and Rebecca J. I. Luning Abstract This study investigated the ways in which family members of students in a Hawaiian language immersion program were involved in their children’s edu- cation and identified the effects of and barriers to involvement. A sociocultural theoretical approach and Epstein’s framework of different types of involvement were applied. Participants included 35 families whose children were enrolled in Papahana Kaiapuni, a K-12 public school program in Hawai’i. The program uses the Hawaiian language as the medium of instruction. Semi-structured in- terviews were conducted with participants about their program experiences. Kaiapuni family involvement practices were consistent with Epstein’s typology. Consistent with previous research on family involvement in other contexts, Type 2 (school-home communications) and Type 3 (voluntary involvement) were prevalent. However, different from previous reports, participants were more involved in school decision making (Type 5). Families felt that their in- volvement promoted (a) the development of children’s values, (b) family and community bonding, (c) children’s English language learning, and (d) family members’ learning about Hawaiian language and culture. The most frequently mentioned barrier to involvement was a lack of proficiency in the Hawaiian language. Key Words: family involvement, parents, immersion programs, indigenous education, native language instruction, Hawaiian language, culture, Hawai’i The School Community Journal, 2008, Vol. 18, No. 1 39 THE SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL Int roduction United States national policy includes the promotion of family-school partnerships to improve student achievement (Goals 2000). Studies of fam- ily involvement practices have consistently identified the important role that families play in their children’s learning. In their review of the literature, Hen- derson and Mapp (2002) identified three predictors of students’ achievement across SES groups: (a) a home environment that encourages learning, (b) family’s high expectations for their children’s achievement and careers, and (c) family involvement in children’s education at school and in the commu- nity. In general, the literature suggests that there is less involvement among poor, single-parent, less educated, and minority families (Comer, 1988; Ep- stein, 2001; Hoover-Dempsey, Bassler, & Brissie, 1987; Lareau, 1989; Leitch & Tangri, 1988). Unfortunately, teachers may believe minority and other non-mainstream families are uninvolved or uninterested in their children’s ed- ucation (Chavkin, 1993; Clark, 1983; O’Connor, 2001; Valdés, 1996). These beliefs persist despite evidence that regardless of ethnic, racial, or minority status, most families want their children to succeed in school and wish to be highly involved (Epstein, 1990; Met Life, 1987). The purposes of this study were (a) to investigate the ways in which family members of students in Papahana Kaiapuni, a Hawaiian language immer- sion program, were involved in their children’s education, and (b) to identify the effects of and barriers to their involvement. The Papahana Kaiapuni pro- gram includes a diverse group of families with the majority of them being Hawaiian (note: in this paper we use Hawaiian and Native Hawaiian inter- changeably to refer to people of Hawaiian and part-Hawaiian ancestry). These indigenous people of Hawai’i represent approximately 20% of the state’s population (Office of Hawaiian Affairs, 2006; U.S. Census Bureau, 2006). Al- though most researchers have studied parental involvement, we broadened our focus to include involvement by other family members, as Native Hawaiian households often include extended family members, including grandparents (Kana’iaupuni, Malone, & Ishibashi, 2005). Approximately 25% of all Native Hawaiian households with children include live-in grandparents, one third of whom share child caretaking responsibilities. The Hawaiian Language Immersion Program This study focused on Papahana Kaiapuni, a K-12 public school program that uses the Hawaiian language as the medium of instruction (Yamauchi & Wilhelm, 2001). Formal English instruction in the Kaiapuni program begins in Grade 5. Although most Kaiapuni students enter the program in kindergarten 40 INVOLVEMENT & HAWAIIAN IMMERSION primarily as English or Hawai’i Creole English speakers, most respond to their teachers in Hawaiian by the end of the year (Slaughter, 1997). The program is open to all students, although the majority of students and their families are part-Hawaiian. In the 2004-2005 school year, there were 19 Kaiapuni sites on all major islands in the state of Hawai’i, enrolling approximately 1,500 students (Hawai’i State Department of Education, 2005). At the start of the current study (1999-2000), there were 17 Kaiapuni sites throughout the Hawaiian islands. All but two of these schools also housed the more typical program con- ducted in the English language. The Kaiapuni program began in 1987, after intense lobbying from Hawai- ian language speakers and activists (Wilson, 1998). Following the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy in 1893, the Hawaiian language was banned from all governmental activities, including public education. This ban marked the beginning of a decline in the number of Hawaiian speakers. In the 1970s, there was renewed interest in Hawaiian history and culture. By the 1980s, the language was viewed as being at risk for language extinction, with some esti- mates suggesting that there were fewer than 30 speakers under the age of 18 (Heckathorn, 1987). The grassroots movement to promote the language has been associated with a broader renaissance of Hawaiian culture and coincides with a revival of interest in indigenous cultures and ethnic studies (Benham & Heck, 1997). The Kaiapuni program is a more culturally compatible form of education for Hawaiians because of its emphasis on Hawaiian language and culture. Pro- gram evaluations suggest that Kaiapuni students were as proficient in English as their non-immersion peers and also attained a high level of proficiency in Hawaiian (Slaughter, 1997). Kaiapuni supporters suggest that beyond language revitalization outcomes, the program may also be more effective in teaching Hawaiian children than is typical of the English language public school pro- gram (Benham & Heck, 1998; Yamauchi, Ceppi, & Lau-Smith, 1999, 2000). Compared to other peers, Hawaiian students tend to score lower on standard- ized measures of achievement, have higher drop out and grade retention rates, and are over-represented in special education and under-represented in post- secondary education (Kana’iaupuni & Ishibashi, 2003; Office of Hawaiian Affairs, 1994, 2006; Takenaka, 1995; University of Hawai’i Institutional Re- search Office, 2002). Most of the Kaiapuni sites operated as a “school within a school” on a cam- pus that also housed the more traditional English language program (Yamauchi & Wilhelm, 2001). At the time of this study, there were two K-12 Kaiapuni schools that were exclusively for Hawaiian medium instruction. There were also fewer students in middle and high school programs, more demands for 41 THE SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL specific curriculum, and a shortage of certified secondary teachers who spoke Hawaiian. As a result, students in some of the secondary school sites took Eng- lish language classes for subjects such as mathematics and science and enrolled in Hawaiian immersion for the rest of the day. The Kaiapuni program has been known for its family involvement. A group that included parents who were involved in a private Hawaiian immersion preschool initiated the K-12 program (Wilson, 1998). These family members wanted their children to continue their education in the Hawaiian language. When conducting research on the program’s initiation, we interviewed a school board member who had supported the program becoming part of the public schools (Yamauchi et al., 1999). The board member said that within the public school system, he thought the Kaiapuni program had the most intensive family involvement in the public schools, second only to athletics. We conducted this study to determine whether families were involved in ways that were different from other settings and to examine the effects of and barriers to involvement. A Multidimensional Approach to Family Involvement Researchers typically measure family involvement as a unidimensional con- struct, although there is evidence for its multidimensionality (Ho & Willms, 1996; Manz, Fantuzzo, & Power, 2004). Involvement is often defined in narrow ways that are based on family members being visible in educational settings, for example, as volunteers at school. An alternative view, such as that provided by Epstein’s framework, also includes family members’ involvement at home and in the community (Epstein, 1987; Epstein & Dauber, 1991). Epstein identi- fies six types of family involvement practices: (a) parenting practices to meet basic needs or to create an educational home environment, (b) home-school communication, (c) participation as volunteer or audience, (d) home learning activities, (e) participation in school-related decision making, and (f) knowl- edge and use of community resources. We used this multidimensional framework because it helped clarify whether certain types of families are really not as involved, or are involved in ways that are not as visible to school personnel. For example, Fantuzzo, Tighe, and Childs (2000) studied families of low-income preschool children. They found that although the educational level of the primary caregiver was related to school- based involvement and home-school communication, there was no effect for home-based practices. Analyzing data from the National Educational Longi- tudinal Study, Peng and Wright (1994) found that, compared to other groups, Asian American parents spent less time directly assisting students with school assignments. However, these parents had the greatest expectations for higher education. We were interested in whether Kaiapuni families were involved in ways that were different from other groups described in the literature. 42 INVOLVEMENT & HAWAIIAN IMMERSION Sociocultural Theory We were also interested in whether participation in the program affected participants’ views on being Hawaiian and the Hawaiian culture. Although Epstein’s framework was helpful in identifying different ways that Kaiapu- ni families were involved in education, we also applied sociocultural theory (Vygotsky, 1978) to assist in explaining how those activities influenced de- velopment. Sociocultural theory suggests that social interactions within a particular community are the basis for the development of individuals’ ways of thinking. For example, we were interested in whether family involvement was related to the development of family members’ ideas about education or about Hawaiian culture and language. Writing from such a perspective, Rogoff (1995) described how participation in activities can “transform” individuals’ understandings about themselves and the world around them. Thus, involve- ment in certain educational activities may shape family members’ views about their roles in education and other related issues. Method Participants Thirty-five families participated in the study, including 17 with children in elementary school, 13 in middle school, and 5 in high school. The mothers of each family participated, as well as 8 of the fathers. In one case, a mother and two grandparents were involved. The participants’ ages ranged from 29- to 60-years old, with a mean of 41.7 years. Of the participants, 83% (n = 38) reported that they were of Hawaiian or part-Hawaiian ancestry. The ethnicity of the remaining participants included European American (n = 4), Japanese American (n = 1), combinations of Asian and European American (n = 2) and a combination of American Indian and European American (n = 1). We recruited at least two families from each of the 17 school sites in exis- tence in 1999. A “snowball” method of recruitment was used such that initial participants were recruited through the Hawai’i State Department of Education and other program contacts. These early participants nominated subsequent potential interviewees. Procedure Between the years 1999 and 2000, we conducted semi-structured inter- views with the participants about their program experiences. When there was more than one participant from the same family, they were interviewed togeth- er. The interviews were part of a larger investigation of family perspectives on 43 THE SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL the program. (See the Appendix for the interview questions.) Each interview was 60-120 minutes long and was audiotaped and transcribed. Data Analysis For the larger study, members of the research team read through all tran- scripts and discussed themes that emerged from the responses. One of the themes was “family involvement.” Once consensus was met regarding the themes and sub-themes, the researchers coded each transcript. Initially, the re- searchers coded two of the same transcripts independently, and met to establish consensus on coding criteria. Once consensus was met, the same process was repeated for two more transcripts to attain consensus across two coders. After this process, the remaining transcripts were divided among the authors, and these transcripts were coded independently. In a second round of coding, the authors examined excerpts coded earlier under “family involvement” and further coded these data according to Ep- stein’s six types of involvement practices and for “barriers to involvement” and “effects of involvement.” The group established criteria for the coding and cod- ed one set of excerpts as a group. After meeting to discuss discrepancies and to further refine the coding criteria, the remaining excerpts were divided and coded independently. Results In this section we present our results from the perspective of Epstein’s six types of family involvement practices. We also present the effects of and barri- ers to family participation in the Kaiapuni program (note: all given names are pseudonyms). Type 1: Parenting Families discussed the ways in which they structured their home environ- ments to be more conducive to learning. Fourteen participants said that they provided books in both English and Hawaiian languages to encourage reading. Three parents said that they provided English-Hawaiian dictionaries, and two mentioned providing a computer to assist children with school assignments. We did not explicitly ask about basic parenting activities, and thus, partici- pants’ responses generally did not reflect this aspect of Type 1 involvement. However, one mother talked about how she focused more on her son’s indi- vidual needs, rather than spending time at parent meetings and other school activities: 44 INVOLVEMENT & HAWAIIAN IMMERSION He’s just one of those that needs more one-on-one…so as a parent…I focus more on him, staying away from the [parent association]…I was really bad in the meetings…I did maybe two or three meetings…I did several fundraiser meetings for [the] golf tournament. Couldn’t attend all of them like I usually did, just [because] I needed to stay home with him. (Makamae) Type 2: School-Home Communication The majority of the families reported having frequent contact with their chil- dren’s teachers. Thirteen family members said that teachers made themselves available, day or night. As one parent noted, “I call the teacher at home.…Ev- erything is just call the teacher at home…that is our line to the whole school system” (Sarah). In addition to telephone calls, parents said that they commu- nicated with teachers through written student planners, progress reports, and through formal and informal meetings. Formal meetings included open house, conferences, orientations, and Parent Teacher Association (PTA) meetings. In- formal meetings occurred when family members dropped off or picked up their child from school and stopped to chat with the teacher about their child’s progress and other topics. Teachers also spoke informally with families outside of school or at school functions. One parent described her child’s teacher as more of a friend or family member: We’re very good friends with the teacher. It’s close-knit. [For] example, my daughter does something bad in school, I can tell her, “I’m going to talk to your teacher this evening.” And she knows that the teacher some- times comes over for dinner. It’s not like a public school system where the teacher is there and not part of the family unit. (Leilani) Although this was the only family member who mentioned that her family in- vited their teacher to dinner, other participants talked about the close, family- like relationships they had with teachers, and how this was different from their experience in the English language program. Type 3: Volunteer or Audience Similar to what is reported in the literature for families in other commu- nities, Kaiapuni families said that they participated as audience members for school functions. Twenty-five participants said they attended sporting events, concerts, and other school productions. Families said there were many ways that they volunteered in the program. They suggested that fundraising was the most common way that families were involved. Families raised money for student transportation, classroom activities, sports tournaments, field trips, 45 THE SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL and other events. Eleven families said that fundraising for transportation was a particular concern, as many students lived outside their school district, and transportation was not provided by the state. One participant explained, “Our whole thing is to support our school, so [we’re] fundraising all the time.…Our big thing now is $24,000 for one bus for one year” (Aolani). The largest fund- raising event was the Ho`omau concert, organized collectively by volunteers from all Hawaiian language immersion schools statewide. Thousands of people attended this annual musical concert in Honolulu that raised up to $14,000 for each school. Twenty-five families also said that they volunteered to help teachers both in and out of the classroom. Participants said they chaperoned for excursions, camping trips, and neighbor islands visits. Many schools had a lo’i [taro patch], and families volunteered to work there. Other parents said that they volunteered to assist with curriculum development. For example, a few families mentioned volunteering to work in “cut and paste sessions.” These sessions were organized to create Hawaiian translations of English texts. Volunteers cut out typed Ha- waiian translations of English books and pasted them over the original text. Those who participated did not necessarily need to speak Hawaiian. Type 4: Home Learning Activities Kaiapuni family members said that they were involved with learning at home in a number of ways. Fourteen participants said that they read to or en- couraged their children to read. Those who could speak in Hawaiian read to their children in both languages. However, most family members thought their role was to reinforce English language learning. This was particularly true be- fore Grade 5, when formal English language instruction began in the program. One mother explained how she articulated this to other families: Other parents, they would take their child out because the English skills weren’t strong enough. And they would say, “Well, because my daughter doesn’t read English.” I [say], “That’s your job. You put your child here because it’s an immersion program, and the teachers are there to teach your child Hawaiian language, culture, and all that. Your job as a parent is to teach them the English skills.” (‘Ōlena) Family members reinforced school learning at home by checking that homework was completed and providing assistance as needed. Older siblings sometimes provided homework assistance to younger children. Parents felt that sibling help was particularly important in later years because many adult family members did not speak Hawaiian. Other home learning activities included dis- cussions and activities that incorporated Hawaiian language and culture. One 46 INVOLVEMENT & HAWAIIAN IMMERSION mother said that she and her son talked about what he was learning in school and how it related to their family’s activities. For example, they talked about the Kumulipo, the Hawaiian creation chant: [My son] would ask me things like, in the Kumulipo, which is the crea- tion chant, where does God fit in that?…You know these are all ques- tions, and this is deep…we’d talk, and I’d say…this is mommy’s mana’o [opinion]. This is how I see it. (Angela) Type 5: Family Participation in Decision Making and Leadership There were a number of levels at which families were involved in decision making in the Kaiapuni program. At each school, there were two parent groups, one specifically for the immersion program and one for the more typical PTA. Although two participants mentioned participating in the PTA group, others saw this organization as primarily involved in the English language program. Families most frequently mentioned their immersion program parent group as a way that they were involved in school decision making. The groups were fo- rums to deliberate on school issues and develop action plans. Some decisions were more mundane, for example, deciding when a school event might be held. Other decisions held greater consequences, for example, deliberating on whether their program should apply for charter school status. In some cases, the parent organization provided input into how funds would be spent: We had to make real heartbreaking kinds of decisions…decisions about money, where does it go? And who gets what, how much do the class- rooms get?…The hard decisions are always money. Where to get it and how to spend it.…It always boils down to parents. You’re the decision makers, and you’ve got to toe the line. (Sarah) The parent groups often convened committees that made decisions about specific aspects of the program. For example, many sites had a curriculum com- mittee to review and provide feedback on the curriculum. One father noted that the families at his school met “regularly and talked about what curriculum there should be, if there should be changes, what changes” (Chris). Participants said there were discussions in parent groups about when English should be for- mally taught in the program, an issue that continued to be controversial. Finally, families reported that they were often politically active in advocating for Hawaiian immersion programs statewide. Nineteen families talked about how they and others attended rallies at the state capital, provided testimony, and lobbied the state legislature and school board. This work was necessary because the program did not have guaranteed funding each year. One parent described the intensity and importance of this work: 47 THE SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL Every four years we have to go and make sure the legislature gives us money. It’s not a done deal. We have to keep at it. That means I gotta go call people on the phone – Congress or my representatives. Gotta go down the whole list. Gotta e-mail everybody. Sometimes we have to march. It sucks. I guess the program could be finished at somebody’s whim if they didn’t want to fund it. (Cecilia) Type 6: Knowledge and Use of Community Resources Almost all families said that they used community resources to support their children’s education program. These families identified resources that they accessed to enhance their children’s school learning. These included sports programs, college courses, programs for English language learning, and Hawai- ian cultural programs and activities. Three families shared that it was important for them to be aware of available community resources that could support their children’s learning in the Hawaiian language immersion program. One parent shared that she felt the Kaiapuni program needed a community liaison to as- sist parents in accessing community resources and to support the development of the program. Each public school has what they call a PCNC. It’s a community facili- tator…that person…links up the…families, the community, [and] the school. Kula Kaiapuni could benefit greatly from that type of a program. ‘Cause when you draw the community into the school…you make the community feel like they own the school. Then the community will par- ticipate in terms of decision making…. (Sarah) Positive Effects of Involvement Families said that their educational involvement affected both children and adults in their family. Specifically, their involvement promoted (a) the devel- opment of children’s values, (b) family and community bonding, (c) children’s English language learning, and (d) family members’ learning about Hawaiian language and culture. Values Development Six families mentioned that involvement in their children’s education influ- enced the development of important values. Kauanoe suggested that through her involvement she modeled values she wanted her children to learn, “I’m able to be their role model in illustrating discipline and commitment, and respect.” Another mother noted that the values she and her parents reinforced with her son at home were the same that he learned in school: 48