A r c h i v e d  I n f o r m a t i o n

II. Status of Teacher Preparation in Family Involvement

The Role of State Certification

The analysis of the state teacher certification requirements revealed that many states did not mention working with parents or families. Those requirements that did refer to it, rarely defined family involvement in clear, precise terms; phrases such as "parent involvement," "home-school relations," or "working with parents" often appeared with no further explanation. Virtually all state certification that contained family involvement requirements and training occurred at the elementary level (K-6). Of the 22 states that did allude to family involvement in certification requirements, 8 states mentioned family involvement for both early childhood and K-12 certification, 5 states mentioned it for early childhood certification only, and 9 states mentioned family involvement for K-12 certification only (early childhood, n=13; K-12, n=17).

These findings lead to the conclusion that family involvement was not a high priority in state certification. In general, state certification did not encourage teacher preparation in family involvement, and thus lagged behind reform movements and school practice.

Comprehensive teacher certification requirements in California were one exception to this finding. Early childhood teacher certification requirements in California (Commission on Teacher Credentialing, 1991) provide a clear and comprehensive definition of family involvement that can guide teacher education programs. In particular, these requirements specify that early education work must include parent involvement, defined as:

• an orientation which includes the family as an integral part of teaching the young child
• an environment which encourages cooperation and collaboration among the children, educators, family, and community
• an understanding of changing family patterns and their societal implications
• knowledge of the home, community, and organization of the school, and a commitment to cooperation and communication among them.

These requirements also outline necessary competencies and experiences in working with families. Each candidate:

• demonstrates a knowledge of cultural differences in children, families, and communities, and prepare appropriate activities; each candidate can develop school-family relations, including communication with parents, parent involvement, and parent education
• completes student teaching which includes experiences in working with parents and families at all levels
• demonstrates a knowledge of parent involvement in school programs -- i.e., School Improvement Program (SIP), PTA, and parent volunteers.

The Role of Teacher Education Programs

Despite the potential benefit that teacher education programs hold for increasing the level of family involvement in schools, the research showed that they did not offer substantial preservice preparation in family involvement. The research included a survey of 60 teacher education programs in the 22 states that mentioned family involvement in their certification requirements. The respondents included faculty and directors of family involvement training programs.

Family involvement training was often traditional in definition, teaching methods, and delivery. Table 1 lists types and methods of preservice family involvement training. It also notes where in the curriculum such training was offered. The vast majority of courses addressing family involvement dealt with parent-teacher conferences and parents as teachers. Family involvement was most frequently addressed in discussion and in required readings. Also, family involvement training was most often offered as part of a required course and in student teaching. Fewer than half of the programs provided a full course on family involvement.

	Where in Curriculum Family Involvement is Taught	%
	Part of a required course	83
	Student teaching	63
	Full required course	37
	Field placement	36
	Optional course	30
	Seminar	25

Teacher education programs, like state certification, lack a comprehensive definition of family involvement. The programs still emphasize the traditional parent-teacher conference over contemporary family involvement activities. Although parent-teacher conferences are important, schools and teachers must recognize that families often need additional assistance and encouragement to help their children in school. This assistance ranges from providing parents with ways to help their children with particular homework assignments, to offering basic parenting education classes and more extensive family support services. Evidence suggests that such assistance may be essential for many minority and low-income parents, in particular, for whom school involvement is often an intimidating and difficult proposition (Nicolau & Ramos, 1990). In order for this type of family involvement to take place, however, teachers and schools must recognize the intrinsic worth of families as contributors to children's learning, and be willing to go beyond the traditional roles of parents and schools.

Early Childhood Versus K-12: Certification and Training

A more detailed comparison of family involvement training in early childhood and K-12 programs showed important differences between the two. Early childhood programs had more full required courses addressing family involvement, offered more hours of family involvement training, used "guest speakers" for teaching family involvement more frequently, and had more courses addressing an "understanding of parents" than did K-12 programs.

The quality of family involvement training also appeared to be higher at the early childhood level than at the K-12 levels. Family involvement was integrated into the curriculum of early childhood programs, where it appeared in a variety of courses and field experiences. In addition, innovative methods for teaching family involvement existed in early childhood programs. For example, one early childhood teacher education program had a community service program in which student volunteers provided tutoring, respite care, and child care, and learned how to work directly with families.

Expanding Preservice Family Involvement Training

When asked why they intended to increase family involvement training, respondents suggested that students, teachers, parents, and the broader community would benefit from increased family involvement in schools. This finding shows that a positive attitude toward family involvement existed, and that preservice education was regarded as important in increasing family involvement: only one program considered preservice education to be ineffective for teaching about family involvement. Furthermore, respondents seemed particularly sensitive to individual and local needs, citing pressure from individuals, schools, and personnel as motivating forces for increasing family involvement training. When asked why they planned not to increase family involvement training, on the other hand, other programs often cited the absence of pressure from external groups, such as professional organizations. Some also faulted state departments of education for requiring too much of the curriculum, while restricting the maximum number of course units allowed.

Within teacher education programs, questions must be answered about where family involvement training should be delivered. At present, family involvement is addressed most often as part of a course or in student teaching. Which locations or combinations of locations are most effective for delivering preservice training? Research suggests that family involvement in schools is most effective when it occurs over an extended period and is pursued through several different activities (Henderson, 1987).

Similarly, the Harvard Family Research Project study suggested that family involvement training should be taught on a gradual basis, through a number of methods, and throughout the curricula. For example, several respondents from the survey planned to integrate family involvement into their curricula over a five-year period following the survey rather than create a new course. In addition, more teacher education programs planned to use nontraditional methods, such as the case method, video, and role play, in the five-year period. This plan fits with recommendations from research (Burton, 1992) that family-related training be implemented through coursework in conjunction with active participation in field settings.

Reasons for Not Increasing (n=19*)	%
No external pressure	47
Limited number of courses	42
Satisfaction with current level	26
Lack of funding	16
Faculty unfamiliarity	5
Lack of collaboration between areas	5
Newness of the movement	5
Preservice training ineffective	5

Reasons for Increasing (n=36*)	%
Intrinsic value     For students, teachers,parents     For society     In general	47 47 22
Extrinsic forces     Pressure from individuals     External pressure (e.g., mandates)	42 28
Restructuring     Curriculum     Philosophy, mission     Specific program	25 22 19
Research	6
Multiculturalism	6
Early childhood spillover	6

*Of 60 programs surveyed, 36 planned to increase family involvement training, 19 had no plans to increase, and 5 did not respond.

Challenges Faced by Teacher Education Programs

Lack of A National Technical Assistance Network

Research revealed that no system existed to support research and model development for family involvement training at the preservice level, to act as a clearinghouse of information, or to provide technical assistance. Teacher educators pointed to a lack of successful models to follow and learn from; an absence of research on the most promising strategies for preparing teachers in this domain; and a shortage of teacher education faculty, cooperating teachers, and school administrators with the required expertise for and commitment to preparing teachers in family involvement.

This absence of models often required teacher education programs to "reinvent the wheel" when designing their curriculum. Several programs felt that it was difficult to know where to start or how to teach about family involvement in a meaningful way. Likewise, some programs might have been able to avoid difficulties that arose with supervision, debriefing, and evaluation had they known the experiences of other programs. Universities also had difficulty locating schools, administrators, and cooperating teachers who could model effective home/school/community partnerships.

Restrictive University and/or Government Policies

State and federal mandates, as well as universities themselves, place many restrictions and requirements on teacher education programs. For example, research revealed that states limited the number of education credits that could be earned, imposed academic majors on education students, and mandated various other requirements. Teacher education programs were often required to include many topics within a limited number of courses, posing a considerable challenge to program restructuring and the integration of family involvement into the curriculum.

Limited Scale and Resources

Teacher education programs often lack the human and financial resources to implement comprehensive training in family involvement. The research showed that faculty members' numerous responsibilities often limited the amount of time they could devote to a focus on family involvement. This lack of time was particularly noted when only one or two faculty members were responsible for teaching, supervising, and coordinating their programs. These factors suggest that a strong number of faculty is needed to sustain a family involvement training program. Collaborations, such as those among faculty for curriculum development or those among university, school, and human service personnel to arrange field experiences, can be labor intensive and time consuming. Programs also faced limited funding, especially when implementing field-based instruction that required participation from school teachers. "All we can do is say 'thank you'," one faculty member said of the inability to offer stipends to teacher instructors. External funding from federal or private grants supplemented a few programs, but such funding is often scarce and competitive. Extra money was needed to provide stipends for cooperating school teachers, who can be difficult to recruit and retain if no compensation is available.

Resistant Attitudes

The negative attitudes frequently held by faculty members, cooperating teachers, school administrators, and preservice teachers were also cited as barriers to preparing teachers in family involvement. Some respondents reported that, at times, schools had "blaming" attitudes toward families or a "We're the experts" approach to family involvement. Some faculty members resisted addressing family involvement because they placed a higher priority on teaching core academic subjects.
-###-

[I. The Case for Teacher Preparation in Family Involvement]

[III. New Skills for New Schools]