A Renewed Call for Parent Involvement
Richard D. McCallum, Ph.D. Graduate School of Education University of California, Berkeley
A variety of forces have been at work in the latest round of requests by policy makers and educators for increased parent involvement. The greatest single factor in this effort has been the abysmal record of literacy achievement among young people, especially minority groups. For minority and low-income children, by grade 11, the average proficiency of these students falls at about the 7th grade level. Dropout rates for students at risk have skyrocketed, with approximately 40% of Hispanic students in California not completing High School. Literacy skills, it has been argued, are one of the contributing factors to this.
Coincidentally, research on emergent literacy has shown that the broader social contexts in which children operate has a tremendous impact on the development of literacy skills in children (Heath 1983; Snow, Barnes, Chandler, Goodman & Hemphill 1991; Kellam 1994). This research has shown that the interaction that occurs within families plays a critical role in the overall development of literacy skills. The family, it has been argued, operates as an "ecological support system" for the development and maintenance of literacy acquisition (Bronfrenbrener 1979).
The increased number of students failing to achieve literacy skills coupled with the research on literacy acquisition has fueled the movement to develop intervention strategies whose goal is to reach students early and to reach beyond the school doors to do so. Early intervention, it is believed, presents the best opportunity to get students started on the right track. This rationale has fueled the expansion of Head Start and the rapid rise of the Reading Recovery Program. But, to increase literacy rates among all students' schools cannot act alone, they must reach out to families and work together with families to achieve this goal.
As stated, research in emergent literacy has shown that the social context of the home plays a critical role in the development of reading and writing ability. The family acts as a buffer between the child and the broader "community forces" that exert pressure on families and individuals. Such forces are involved in the development of an individual's cultural model (i.e. their understanding of the world which guides their decision making), cultural and language reference, the degree of trust or acquiescence toward societal institutions, and the educational strategies that result from all of the above. Although the community and broader societal forces exert pressure on individuals, it is in the context of the family that individuals develop their orientation to education and educational practices.
The family certainly plays a critical role in literacy acquisition, but what are the specifics mechanisms of this transmission? Such activity entails a problem, a goal or solution to the problem, and the tools necessary for the solution to the problem.
From the first days of a child's life adults act to mediate interactions with the environment. In so doing, they begin the gradual process of enculturation to existing practices. As a result of this mediation "... it is through others that we develop into ourselves and this is true not only with regard to the individual, but with regard to the history of every function".
An example of the importance of familial direction and instruction in literacy development can be found in the research related to storybook reading. The benefits of being read to as a child have become accepted both within the educational research community and by the public at large. Teale (1984) identified four key benefits from storybook reading. In his view such experiences help children develop: 1) assumptions about the functions and use of written language; 2) concepts of print, books, and reading, and the form and structure of written language itself; 3) a positive attitude toward reading, and; 4) reading strategies (p. 115). In addition, research has shown that such reading enhances conceptual development (Ninio 1980; Ninio & Bruner 1978), and listening to stories "can constitute the beginnings of using literacy to explore existential or moral issues", i.e. the literary heritage of a culture (Teale 1984, p. 116).
The upshot is that the family plays a critical role in the development and maintenance of literacy skills in children. That is, knowledgeable parents or peers mediate between the child and the larger culture, and in so doing direct the child toward the basic functions and skills necessary for literacy acquisition. But as we know, there are many factors which mitigate against the ideal "family as educator model."
It is impossible to pick up a newspaper or periodical today without reading about the pressures which today's families face. In fact the definition of a "family" is changing. The stereotypical Ozzie and Harriet family of the fifties has been replaced with a variety of family units which include single parent families, blended families, same sex marriages, and individuals who are "co-habitating." The rise in the divorce rate (approximately 50% of all marriages in California), and the rise in out of wedlock births (30% of all births for Caucasians and 70% for Afro-Americans) suggest that this trend toward redefinition will continue (U.S. National Center for Health Statistics 1991).
The inevitable movements in the economy and the disruption that occurs because of it must also be acknowledged. The struggle to survive in today's economy creates a great stress on families-stress that may make literacy instruction and facilitation a very low priority within families.
The movement to develop and implement parent involvement programs in today's schools is motivated by all of the factors discussed above. Educators have become painfully aware of the critical role that the family plays in literacy development and of the pressures and constraints that families operate under within today's economy, especially for those below the poverty line.
Many educators, such as Comer & Hayes (1991) have suggested that it is the responsibility of the schools to step in and assume the traditional roles of parents in terms of educational preparation and support. And this is happening. Cryer (1989) reports how McKinley Community School in San Jose, California has moved to become what he terms a "therapeutic community" where the traditional boundaries between parent and school have been changed. In this new configuration, the school has sought to develop extensive knowledge of the client culture, facilitate parent-school communication via tape recorders, and provide assistance to Cambodian families with transportation and the navigation of the maze of social services. They have taken these steps in an attempt to increase student attendance and to increase achievement. Edwards & Young (1992) have termed such schools as "multiple service brokers."
The goal of such programs as those in San Jose has been to find a common ground between parents and schools, and in so doing to focus intervention strategies on ways to reduce what Powell (1991) calls the "social distance" between classrooms and families. It is in this accommodation between home and school, it is argued, that effective interventions can be found. Teachers and parents must work together:
1. Teachers must commit to sharing with parents. Such power sharing requires sacrifices from both parties. That is, for the system to work the teacher cannot monopolize student time. Teachers must be willing to relinquish control of student schedules so that they can attend and complete parent led activities. And, teachers must be willing to listen to and address the concerns raised by parents in the classroom.
2. Parents are teachers who are capable of teaching curriculum and social/personal skills. Implicit in this principle is the belief that the teacher is not the only individual in the classroom who is capable of teaching cognitive or social skills. It follows from this that parent involvement means much more than having parents follow teacher's directions. It means that parents can contribute substantively to the curriculum of the classroom. In other words, it means that two heads are significantly better than one.
3. Parents must be provided with training and guidance. Two types of training for parents should be available: formal and informal. Each parent's informal training comes when they are thrown into the mix with their child. New parents are initially paired with experienced parents, who will help answer some of the big questions. Volunteers can receive immediate feedback from other parents and the teachers about their day's classroom activity during informal lunchtime and after-school discussions. Each participating parent gains a foothold at his or her own pace. Some hang back, while others dive right in, they are no different from the students. Learners are learners.
Given an opportunity to be involved, many parents will make the choice and the sacrifices required to make it happen. If we create opportunities, and support, for direct parent involvement, parents will accept the challenges and risks associated with assuming a different role in classrooms. Parents will go beyond the bake-sale level of involvement if given the opportunity and the assistance necessary to make it happen.
References
Ammon, M. S. & Collier, J. (1994). Leamos Juntos: Let's Read Together. Berkeley, CA: University of California Cooperative Extension Family Development Program.
Bronfrenbrener, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge, MASS.: Harvard University Press.
California State PTA (1991). Parents empowering parents: The California State PTA Parent Education Manual. Los Angeles, CA: California State PTA.
Comer, J. P. & Hayes, N. M. (1991). Parent involvement in schools: An ecological approach. Elementary School Journal, 91, 3, 271-77.
Chrispeels, J., Boruta, M. & Daugherty, M. (1992). Communicating with parents. San Diego, CA: San Diego Office of Education.
Cryer, R. E. (1989). The language barrier and family stress: Taking the extra step. Family Resource Coalition Report, 8, 8.
Edwards, P. A. (1990). Parents as Partners in Reading Program: A family literacy training program. Chicago, Il: Children's Press.
Edwards, P. A. & Young, L. S. (1992). Beyond parents: Family, community, and school improvement. Phi-Delta-Kappan, 74, 1, 72-80.
Epstein, J. L. (1986). Parents ' reactions to teacher practices of parent involvement. Elementary School Journal, 86, 277-294.
Epstein, J. L. (1988). How do we improve programs for parent involvement? Educational Horizons, Winter, 58-9.
Gaj, N. (1989). MOTHERREAD, Inc. In First teachers: A family literacy handbook for parents, policy-makers literacy providers. Washington, DC: The Barbara Bush Foundation for Family Literacy.
Goldsmith, E. (1989). Parent readers program. In First teachers: A family literacy handbook for parents, policy-makers literacy providers. Washington, DC: The Barbara Bush Foundation for Family Literacy.
Halliday, M. K. (1973). Explorations in the functions of language. London: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M. K. (1975). Learning how to mean: Explorations in the development of language. London: Edward Arnold
Hayward Unified School District (1973). The Charquin Program. Unpublished manuscript.
Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words: Langguage, life, and work in communities and classrooms. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Holdoway, D. (1979). The foundations of literacy. Auckland, NZ: Ashton Scholastic Inc.
Kellam, S. G. (1994). The social adaptation of children in classrooms: A measure of family childrearing effectiveness. In R. D. Parke & S. G. Kellam (Eds.) Exploring family realtionships with other social contexts. Lawrence Erlbaum & Associates, Hillsdale:NJ. 147-68.
Lareua, A. (1989). Home advantage: Social class and parental involvement in elementary education. The Falmer Press, London, UK.
NAEP (1988). Who reads best? Factors related to reading achievement in grades 3, 7, and 11. Princeton, NJ: Educational testing Service.
National Commission on Excellence in Teaching (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
Ninio, A. (1980). Picture book reading in mother-infant dyads belonging to two subgroups in Israel. Child Development, 51, 587-90.
Ninio, A. & Bruner, J. S. (1978). The achievement and antecedents of labeling. Journal of Child Language, 5, 5-15.
Ogbu, J. U. (1987). The individual in collective adaptation: A framework for focusing on academic underperformance and dropping out among involuntary minorities. In L. Weis, E. Farrar, & H. G. Petrie (Eds.) Dropouts from school: Issues, dilemas, and solutions. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. 181-203.
Ogbu, J. U. (1992). Adaptation to minority status and impact on school success. Theory Into Practice, XXXI, 4, Autumn, 287-95.
Powell, D. R. (1991). How schools support families: Critical policy tensions. Elementary School Journal, 91,3, 307-19.
Purcell-Gates, V. & Dahl, K. L. (1991). Low-SES children's success and failure at early literacy learning in skills-based classrooms. Journal of Reading Behavior, XXIII, 1, 1-34.
Reynolds, A. J. (1992). Comparing measures of parental involvment and their effects on academic achievement. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 7, 441-62.
Rogoff, B. (1978). Spot observations: An introduction and examination. Quarterly Newsletter of the Institute for Comparitive Human Development, 2, 11-25.
Scott-Jones, D. (1984). Family influences on cognitive development and school achievement. In E. W. Gordon, (Ed.) Review of Research in Education. American Educational Research Association, Washington, DC. 259-306.
Simic, M. (1991). Parent involvement in Elementary Language Arts: A program model. ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading & Communication Skills, Bloomington, IN: ERIC Digest. ED326901.
Snow, C. E., Barnes, W. S., Chandler, J., Goodman, I. F. & Hemphill, L. (1991). Unfulfilled expectations: Home and school influences on literacy. Cambridge, MASS: Harvard University Press.
Teale, W. H. (1984). Reading to young children: Its significance for literacy development. In H. Goelman, A. Oberg, and F. Smith (Eds.) Awakening to literacy. Heinemann Inc. Exeter, NH. 110-121.
U.S. National Center for Health Statistics (1991). Vital statistics of the United States, annual report. Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MASS.: MIT Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. M. Cole, V. J. Steiner, and S. Scribner, and E. Souberman (Eds.). Cambridge, MASS: Harvard University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1981a). The development of higher forms of attention in childhood. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.) The concept of activity in Soviet psychology. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1981b). The genesis of higher mental functions. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.) The concept of activity in Soviet psychology. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1981c). The instrumental method in psychology. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.) The concept of activity in Soviet psychology. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
Wertsch, J. V. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Cambridge, MASS.: Harvard University Press
Back