Linking Home and School: Teacher Candidates’ Beliefs and Experiences Alisa Hindin Abstract The role of family in children’s education is unquestionable. While a num- ber of factors influence the type and level of educational support that parents provide for children, researchers have found that the greatest influence on par- ent involvement is the classroom teacher. Despite the important role teachers play in parent involvement, little is known about the ways teachers develop their beliefs and understandings of parent involvement practices. The current study focuses on candidates’ observations, experiences, and perceptions of par- ent involvement activities during their field placements and student teaching. Findings indicate that teacher candidates observed a number of parent in- volvement activities during field experiences and student teaching. Candidates viewed parents as having an essential role in children’s education. However, candidates did not observe ideal interactions with families when placed in ur- ban settings, and there were inconsistencies between candidates’ perceptions of parents’ and teachers’ roles. Key words: home, schools, linking, teachers, candidates, preservice, pre-service, beliefs, experiences, family, families, parents, involvement, practices, urban, suburban, roles, perceptions, special, education, regular, classrooms Purpose Parents play a critical role in their children’s education. This is especial- ly true in the areas of language and literacy development in which parents The School Community Journal, 2010, Vol. 20, No. 2 73 THE SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL can substantially influence development prior to and during children’s years of formal schooling (Chall, Jacobs, & Baldwin, 1990; Durkin, 1966; Hart & Risely, 1995; Hewison & Tizard, 1980; Henderson & Mapp, 2002; Lese- man & de Jong, 1998; Purcell-Gates, 1996). Although parents can positively influence children’s learning, not all families provide the same level or type of support at home. (Note: The term parent is used to represent a range of caregivers.) Researchers have shown inconsistencies in the levels and types of parent involvement depending on economic, cultural, and linguistic factors. Children who live in poverty and are culturally and linguistically diverse have been found to receive fewer of the language experiences necessary to build a strong vocabulary (Hart & Risely, 1995), fewer of the school-style literacy ac- tivities in their homes that support reading performance (Heath, 1983; Nord, Lennon, Westat, & Chandler, 1999; Ortiz, 1986; Purcell-Gates, 1996), and on national learning assessments, these children underperform their peers who are raised at higher income levels (Perie, Grigg, & Donahue, 2005). Given the inconsistencies in parent involvement and the importance of parent involvement for children’s education, researchers and educators have sought ways to promote parent involvement for all families. Researchers have demonstrated that parent involvement for school-aged children is most influ- enced by classroom teachers (Anderson & Minke, 2007; Dauber & Epstein, 1993), yet home–school partnerships are often complicated by differing expec- tations between teachers and families about their roles in children’s education. This is especially true for students who are more likely to struggle with academ- ic achievement and who might not be experiencing the home-based learning opportunities that best prepare them for academic achievement, such as sto- rybook reading and homework support (Delgado-Gaitan & Trueba, 1990; Heath, 1983; Parra & Henderson, 1982; Valdés, 1996). Moreover, these dif- ferences in home learning opportunities can be exacerbated by teachers who have a better understanding of literacy practices in middle-class homes and who may select texts that are not “relevant” for diverse groups of children (Mc- Carthey, 1997). In order to find ways to foster parent involvement, some researchers have examined the effectiveness of providing professional development and support for practicing teachers and families to increase communication and sharing between the home and school (Comer & Haynes, 1991; Dauber & Espstein, 1993; Epstein, 1994; Hoover-Dempsey, Walker, Jones, & Reed, 2002; Krol- Sinclair, Hindin, Emig, & McClure, 2003; Paratore, Hindin, Krol-Sinclair, & Dúran, 1999). Although there is more research on practicing teachers, a limited number of researchers have begun looking at the role of teacher prepa- ration in parent involvement (Graue, 2005; Katz & Bauch, 1999; Morris & 74 LINKING HOME AND SCHOOL Taylor, 1998; Power & Perry, 2000; Uludag, 2008). Nonetheless, research is still needed to address the ways teachers develop their beliefs and knowledge about parent involvement. To address this gap, this study explores teacher candidates’ experiences with and beliefs about home–school partnerships and the roles parents and teach- ers play in children’s educational development. In this study, home–school partnerships are viewed as the ways teachers and families work together to sup- port children’s learning. The term parent involvement is broadly conceived to include experiences that take place at school and in children’s homes and com- munities. Examples of home-based experiences include helping children with homework and school-based projects, supporting children’s learning through encouragement and interest, reading with children, and discussing children’s learning. Parent involvement also includes parental visits to the school to ad- vocate for children, to learn about children’s educational experiences, as well as to share their culture and expertise. Theoretical Framework Parent involvement in children’s education is clearly defined by Epstein (1994) who developed a typology for the range of parent involvement activities which include basic obligations of families (Type 1), basic obligations of schools to effectively communicate with families (Type 2), involvement at the school build- ing (Type 3), family involvement for learning activities at home (Type 4), decision making, participation, leadership, and school advocacy (Type 5), and collabora- tions and exchanges with the community (Type 6). Epstein (2005) describes how this theory can be extended to view partnership in terms of overlapping spheres of influence that can be helpful in teacher preparation by illustrating the ways children’s learning is influenced by teachers, families, and communities. While a number of factors influence the educational support that parents provide for children, such as their own school experiences, teachers’ efforts to involve parents is one critical factor. For example, Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler (1997) emphasize the importance of teacher moves to involve par- ents in their model of parent involvement. They explain, “The considerable evidence on teacher practices intended to support parent involvement, and parents’ sensitivity to teachers’ attitudes about their involvement, underscores the importance of school generated invitations and opportunities for positive parental decisions about involvement” (p. 31). Similarly, Dauber and Epstein (1993) report about the impact of teachers on parent involvement and con- clude, “The strongest and most consistent predictors of parent involvement at school and at home are the specific school programs and teacher practices that 75 THE SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL encourage or guide parental involvement” (p. 61). The importance of teach- ers is also supported by the research of Anderson and Minke (2007) who state, “The emergence of specific invitations from teachers as the single most influen- tial variable on parents’ involvement choices is significant because schools are able to influence teacher practices more so than any other variable” (p. 321). Despite the important role teachers play in parent involvement, little is known about the ways teachers develop their expectations and understandings of parent involvement practices. One factor that influences teacher expecta- tions is their own experiences with parent involvement when they attended school (Graue, 2005; Graue & Brown, 2003). Graue (2005) found that teach- er candidates’ memories of their parents’ interactions with school shaped their views about the roles teachers play in home–school partnerships. Once they begin their teacher preparation programs, candidates can be influenced by coursework addressing parent involvement (Morris & Taylor, 1998; Uludag, 2008). Yet, researchers have found this topic accounts for little of the content in teacher preparation programs (Lazar, Broderick, Mastrilli, & Slostad, 1999). Moreover, coursework is only one aspect of teacher preparation programs, and studies have shown that candidates are often more influenced by what they see in their field placements (Wilson, Floden, & Ferrini-Mundy, 2002). For example, in a study of 223 teacher candidates, Uludag (2008) found that candi- dates became more confident about parental involvement during their teacher preparation program and candidates reported their perceptions about parent involvement were most influenced by their experiences in the field. Despite the importance of these field placements and student teaching, there are few studies that document the experiences candidates have in the field that relate to parent involvement. Researchers of home–school partnerships point to the need for more studies of teacher candidates’ experiences and learning during their preparation programs (Epstein & Sanders, 2006). This study sets out to address this gap by exploring teacher candidates’ experiences with home–school partnerships and their beliefs about parents’ roles in their children’s education and teachers’ roles in parent involvement. More specifically, the study addresses the following research questions: 1. What types of parent involvement practices do teacher candidates observe in field placements and student teaching, and do the practices differ by placement type (urban/suburban, regular education classroom, inclusive classroom, self-contained classroom)? 2. What are teacher candidates’ perceptions about the ways cooperating teachers interact with parents, and do their perceptions differ by place- ment type? 3. What types of parent involvement practices do teacher candidates partici- pate in during their field placements and student teaching? 76 LINKING HOME AND SCHOOL 4. What are teacher candidates’ beliefs about parents’ roles and teachers’ roles in children’s education, and how do these beliefs compare before and after student teaching? Methods Participants Study participants were undergraduate teacher candidates enrolled in a four-year teacher preparation program in the tri-state region around New York City in the United States. Candidates in our teacher preparation program are primarily White (88%) with 8.5% African American candidates and less than 1% Hispanic and other ethnicities. Participants in this study were in their senior year. Our teacher preparation program begins in freshman year with introductory education coursework. Beginning in sophomore year, candidates take their first methods classes and begin their four field placements which are 72 hours each semester. All candidates are placed in at least one urban, one suburban, one public, and one private/parochial setting. These placements must include at least one special education classroom and one inclusive classroom. In senior year, candidates complete their 15-week student teaching placement in conjunction with a senior seminar course. Placements are assigned by the director of the Office of Field Placement, who gathers data about the schools through the state department of education as well as site visits to each of the schools. These placement types are recorded for each candidate to ensure that they receive these diverse ranges of placement types. An examination of our 18 most frequently used school sites revealed that 4 of the schools have greater than 70% of students who receive free and reduced priced lunch. Data Sources A survey was administered to teacher candidates prior to their student teaching in senior year and upon completion of their student teaching experi- ence. Candidates had completed four 72-hour field placements in conjunction with methods classes in literacy, science, mathematics, and social studies. All candidates had at least one urban field placement and one special education placement. During these placements, candidates observed their cooperating teachers’ practices and taught two lessons that coincided with their content- based university courses. There is no stand-alone course in parent involvement, but the topic is addressed in several classes including their literacy courses where they discuss the importance of parent involvement for supporting chil- dren’s language and literacy development. In an introduction to teaching class, they wrote a family letter which is intended to be sent home to parents during 77 THE SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL the first week of school. In the letter they introduced themselves and described their teaching philosophies. In addition, they set up a way to get to know the students such as using a parent questionnaire. Also in their introduction to teaching class, they engaged in classroom discussions about why some par- ents may not come to school and then brainstormed ways to promote parent involvement. In their introduction to special education course, candidates in- terviewed families of children with special needs about issues such as school and community supports. In the assessment class, candidates learned how to talk with parents about results of their children’s assessments. During student teaching, candidates spend one of their seminar sessions on the topic of fami- lies and are required to write a letter of introduction to families. Forty-nine seniors completed the initial survey. Recognizing the limitations of this retrospective account of candidates’ field experiences, this survey pro- vides a window into candidates’ memories of their field placements in relation to home–school partnerships, and we suspect that it is these memories that candidates will bring with them into their teaching. This survey asked candi- dates to think about their four field placements in sophomore and junior year, to select the appropriate descriptors for the placement, and select the methods used by cooperating teachers for involving families. (See Appendix for the sur- vey.) Candidates were provided a list of options including a space to add an item if it was not on the list. They were also asked in an open-ended question to describe any interactions they had with families during their placements. In addition, candidates rated their cooperating teachers’ interactions with fami- lies using a Likert-type scale ranging from -2.0 (Very negative interactions with families) to 2 (Very positive interactions with families). The survey also includ- ed open-ended prompts asking candidates the following questions: (1) What do you believe to be parents’ roles in their children’s education? (2) How would you define a teacher’s role in parent involvement? Forty-seven seniors completed the second survey which was administered after candidates had completed their student teaching. Differences in response rates between the first and second survey were due to the voluntary nature of the survey, and although all senior candidates in the cohort elected to par- ticipate in the initial survey, not all candidates elected to complete the second survey. The second survey focused on candidates’ student teaching experience, and like the first survey, asked candidates to describe methods used by their cooperating teachers for involving families. In addition, candidates rated their cooperating teachers’ interactions with families and answered the open-ended questions relating to teachers’ roles in parent involvement and parents’ roles in their children’s education. They were also asked to describe any interactions they had with families during their placements. 78 LINKING HOME AND SCHOOL Data Analysis Candidates’ reports of the parent involvement practices they observed in their field placements were analyzed based on the frequency of practices used by teachers. The analysis included calculations of the frequency of practices depending on the type of field placement (urban/suburban, regular education classroom/special education classroom) using two-way MANOVAs. Data from the initial survey were also analyzed using a one-way ANOVA to see if there were any differences in candidates’ ratings of teachers’ interactions with fami- lies depending on the type of field placement. Responses to the open-ended questions were read and reread until cod- ing categories emerged (Coffey & Atkinson, 1996; Strauss & Corbin, 1990). Codes were developed for responses to each of the open-ended questions about parents’ and teachers’ roles, and then codes were compared across questions to analyze relationships between their responses. Candidates’ descriptions of par- ents’ roles were categorized based on the type of support candidates thought parents should provide. The codes included knowing what takes place at school which parents could learn from their children or the teacher. The second code was helping with academics which included any type of support with school- based learning. The third code was having a relationship with the teacher which links to the idea of home–school partnerships. The fourth code was providing encouragement and motivation for children’s education. The final code was non- specific and this code was used when candidates described parents as having an important role but without any particular examples of the ways parents might be involved. Similarly, candidates’ descriptions of teachers’ roles in parent involvement were coded based on the actions teachers could take to involve parents. The first code for teachers’ roles was providing information to parents about their children’s progress both academically and behaviorally. The second code, en- couraging participation from parents, was used to describe teachers encouraging parents to help their children with their school-based learning. The final code that emerged from the data was related to home–school partnerships when candidates described the teacher’s role as fostering collaboration between them- selves and parents. Coded responses were aggregated to find the percentage of candidates who gave different types of responses, and responses were compared between the initial survey and the final survey. 79 THE SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL Results Types of Parent Involvement Observed and Differences by Setting When looking across the four field placements, teacher candidates most often (78%) reported that their cooperating teachers communicated with par- ents through parent–teacher conferences, which are often mandated by school districts. The second most frequent practice was sending notes home (76%) followed by calling parents (69%) and using a homework sign-off sheet (37%). Practices reported with less frequency were inviting parents to school to pres- ent (19%) or observe (19%) and using a reading log (25.5%). Table 1 displays frequencies of each practice reported by candidates for each of their four field placements. Analyses of the different types of field placements yielded two significant differences between special education settings and general education settings based on candidates’ designations of the type of field placements. A post hoc analysis revealed that candidates reported significantly more instances of call- ing parents (p = 0.39) of children in special education settings (m = 0.81) as compared to general education settings, as well as a significant difference (p = 0.02) in sending notes home to parents, with higher rates of this practice (m = 0.89) in special education settings as compared to general education settings (m = 0.69). Table 1. Candidates Reports of Involvement Practices in Field Placements Percentage of Practices Reported by Candidates All Sub- Urban General Special Number of Placements urban Education Education Reported 196 121 50 119 77 Parent Involvement Practice Calling parents 68.9% 72.7% 64.0% 62.2% 79.2% Sending notes home 76.5% 23.1% 74.0% 68.9% 88.3% Parent–teacher confer- 78.1% 79.3% 78.0% 79.0% 76.6% ences Inviting parents to school 18.9% 20.7% 18.0% 20.2% 16.9% to present Inviting parents to school 19.4% 21.5% 16.0% 15.1% 26.0% to observe Homework sign-off sheet 36.7% 35.5% 42.0% 38.7% 33.8% Reading log 25.5% 29.8% 24.0% 24.4% 27.9% 80 LINKING HOME AND SCHOOL Data from the second survey revealed that, like the field placements, can- didates most often reported that cooperating teachers connected with families during parent–teacher conferences (83%) and through notes that were sent home (87%). Many candidates observed their cooperating teacher calling home (70%). During student teaching, fewer than half described their teacher using a homework sign-off sheet (47%) or using a reading log (43%). Inviting parents to school to present (34%) or observe (29%) was reported with even less frequency. Table 2 displays frequencies of each practice reported by candi- dates in their student teaching experience. Table 2. Candidates’ Reports of Involvement Practices in Student Teaching Percentage of Practices Parent Involvement Practice Reported by Candidates Calling parents 70% Sending notes home 87% Parent–teacher conferences 83% Inviting parents to school to present 34% Inviting parents to school to observe 29% Homework sign-off sheet 47% Reading log 43% Candidates’ Perceptions of Teachers’ Interactions With Families Although no statistical differences were found in candidates’ reports of types of parent involvement practices when comparing urban and suburban field set- tings, significant differences were found when analyzing candidates’ response to the question about the cooperating teachers’ interactions with families. Can- didates were asked to rate their teacher’s interactions on a 5-point Likert scale (-2 very negative interactions with families to +2 very positive interactions with families). No description of what would constitute a positive or negative inter- action was provided. Findings of the two-way ANOVA revealed a significant difference (p = 0.059) between candidates’ ratings of teachers’ interactions de- pending on whether candidates were placed in an urban or suburban setting. Candidates rated teachers’ interactions with parents more negatively when they were placed in urban settings as compared to suburban settings (suburban m = 0.97; urban m = 0.64). Candidates’ Contacts With Families Candidates are not required to interact with families during their field placements, yet they are encouraged to do so. These interactions may help to shape candidates’ perceptions of home–school partnerships and provide them 81 THE SCHOOL COMMUNITY JOURNAL with concrete experiences with sharing information about children and learn- ing about children from parents. When asked about contacts with families during field placements, a majority (70%) of candidates reported some interac- tion with families. The types of interactions reported included back to school night, open house, holiday parties, and interactions during drop off and pick up. Candidates reported similar contacts with families during student teach- ing, and although most candidates described interactions with families, two candidates reported that they had no interactions with families during student teaching. Candidates’ Perceptions of Parents’ Roles in Children’s Education The qualitative analysis of candidates’ responses revealed that most candi- dates believed parents’ roles in education fall into four categories which include (1) parents should be informed about what is taking place at school and how their children are progressing; (2) parents should help with academics; (3) par- ents should work as a team with teachers to support their children; and (4) parents should encourage and motivate children in their educational pursuits. Table 3 displays the percentage of candidates who described the different par- ent roles. Of these types of involvement, the most frequently described prior to student teaching (43%) and after student teaching (42%) was helping with academic work, either by helping with homework, discussing school-based learning, or through activities that reinforce what children are learning in school. As one candidate explains, “Parents are teachers just as much as teach- ers are. If parents do not provide reinforcement of subject matter at home, I find that students do not master material as quickly. An example of this was when my students [kindergarten special education class] were learning letter– sound relationships.” Table 3. Candidates Descriptions of Parents’ Roles in Education % of Candidates % of Candidates De- Parents’ Roles Describing Role Pre scribing Role Post (N = 49) (N = 47) Knowing what takes place at school 20% 17% Help with academics 43% 42% Have a relationship with teacher 16% 8% Encourage and motivate children’s 14% 11% education Nonspecific 29% 25% 82