Abstract
If I were an administrator in the schools, I would take advantage of these classrooms . . . this community that’s already there, that already has a facilitator.
Introduction
An unprecedented number of immigrant families are moving to rural communities across the United States (Lichter, 2012; Pew Charitable Trusts, 2014). School systems in these new destination communities often have little background working with students and families who bring different language needs, cultural experiences, expectations, and practices associated with educating children (Wainer, 2004; Zehler et al., 2008). As well, rural school systems tend to have fewer financial resources and staff available to provide the wide range of services found in large metropolitan school systems.
A growing body of research is examining the role of community organizations in family-school relations (e.g., Brezicha & Hopkins, 2016; Carlock, 2016; Miller, 2011; Warren, Hong, Rubin, & Uy, 2009). Religious institutions, human service nonprofits, and adult education programs can provide key supports to immigrant families sending children to school and thus can be important partners for rural school systems. Adult English as a second language (ESL) programs are uniquely positioned to play a role in family-school relations for immigrant parents. In ESL classes, adult learners 1 meet on a regular basis to study English, civics, and culture. Adult learners often develop relationships with instructors and classmates—and those interactions in turn can provide important support, information, and connections to educational resources for children in K-12 schools.
This article draws on qualitative case study data to explore how a general adult ESL program connected adult learners who were parents and schools in one rural public school system that has seen a rapid increase in English learner (EL) students over the past decade. The research questions guiding this article are as follows: What did adult ESL instructors do to support family-school relations in a rural school district? And, what factors enabled the adult ESL instructors to provide this support? This inquiry uses boundary spanning as a lens for understanding instructors’ work and supporting conditions.
Engaging families is critical for education leaders seeking to improve outcomes for students (e.g., Auerbach, 2012; Leithwood, Patten, & Jantzi, 2010). Research examining relations between immigrant families and school systems in new destination communities—particularly in rural areas—remains in the developmental stage (Hamann & Harklau, 2015; Zehler et al., 2008). At the same time, the educational leadership profession has intensified its emphasis on leadership that engages families and communities in “meaningful, reciprocal, and mutually beneficial ways” (National Policy Board for Educational Administration, 2015, p. 16), and fosters equity and “culturally responsive” (p. 11) practices. Immigration played a central role in the 2016 presidential election—more so than in past cycles—and therefore this study and the implications for rural school leaders have become all the more timely. This article offers insights for education leaders in new destination communities about possibilities for partnering with adult ESL programs as a strategy to strengthen family-school communication, understanding, and relationships.
Immigrant Families and Rural School Districts
In recent decades, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of immigrant families moving beyond historical gateway locations such as Texas and California to rural communities across the United States (Lichter, 2012; Pew Charitable Trusts, 2014). These changing migration patterns are frequently attributed to globalization, immigration policies, labor recruitment by industries, and family connections (Odem & Lacy, 2009). Rural school systems face challenges associated with isolation, geographic dispersion, and limited financial and staffing resources (Bauch, 2001; Jensen, 2006; Lichter, 2012; Wainer, 2004; Zehler et al., 2008). Furthermore, many school systems in new destination communities often have had less time to prepare for demographic changes. As such, these districts are likely to have limited existing infrastructure, fewer dedicated resources, and less professional capacity to meet the needs of immigrant families and their children (e.g., Brezicha & Hopkins, 2016; Wainer, 2004; Zehler et al., 2008). School system responses to increased enrollment of EL students have tended to take an ad hoc approach—using existing resources—until that strategy is no longer viable. School outreach to immigrant families is often underdeveloped and uneven across a school district (Lowenhaupt, 2014; Wainer, 2004; Zehler et al., 2008).
While parent and family engagement are widely recognized as important to children’s academic success, there is a well-documented history of missed opportunities, disconnects, and misunderstandings that inhibit the ability of families and schools to authentically partner to support the success of children (e.g., Auerbach, 2007; Schutz, 2006, Warren et al., 2009). Trust is a critical ingredient in family-school relations (Bryk & Schneider, 2002). Educators and families may hold different expectations of the role of each in a child’s education (Henderson, Mapp, Johnson, & Davies, 2007; Lareau, 1989; Lawson, 2003). For example, educators may be more likely to prioritize those family efforts that support their work in the classroom. Parents and family members bring expectations of their own, tied to how they construct roles for the school and themselves in a child’s education, their self-efficacy to carry out this role, perceived invitations from the school and child, and their knowledge, experiences, and relationships (Auerbach, 2007; Coleman, 1988; Hoover-Dempsey et al., 2005; Lareau, 1989; Moll, Amanti, Neff, & Gonzalez, 1992). As such, how individual parents and family members think about and carry out their own role in a child’s education can vary significantly.
Decades of research point to the high priority immigrant families place on education as well as obstacles they encounter (e.g., Carreón, Drake, & Barton, 2005; Poza, Brooks, & Valdés, 2014; Sibley & Dearing, 2014; Valdés, 1996; Vera et al., 2012). Lowenhaupt’s (2014) review of literature on immigrant family-school engagement identified three areas of critique: (1) a deficit orientation of educators regarding family engagement, (2) a disconnect between traditional definitions of family engagement and what immigrant parents define as engagement, and (3) a lack of “true voice in decisions” (p. 526) that inhibits authentic partnerships among parents and families. Data from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study 1998-1999 indicated that immigrant Latino and Asian parents held significantly higher educational expectations for their children than their American-born counterparts (Sibley & Dearing, 2014). However, they were significantly more likely than native-born White parents to feel unwelcome at their child’s school and less likely to participate in school-based activities (Turney & Kao, 2009). Of relevance to the current study, Poza and his colleagues (2014) found that parents sought information about schools and education from multiple organizations and social networks in addition to—or in place of—schools to understand and navigate their children’s educational experiences.
Boundary Spanning
Recent research has drawn attention to boundary spanning as serving an important function in school system interactions with the community and in connecting immigrants to other community resources (Brezicha & Hopkins, 2016; Goldring & Sims, 2005; Miller, 2008; Yohani, 2013). Akkerman and Bakker (2011) described a boundary as a “sociocultural difference leading to discontinuity in action or interaction” (p. 133). The boundary “belongs to both one world and another” (p. 141). Miller (2008) organized boundary-spanning behaviors into three functional areas: brokering information, building bridges, and navigating organizations. This provides a useful framework for understanding boundary spanning.
Information brokering involves both filtering and facilitating the flow of information into and out of an organization (Aldrich & Herker, 1977; Tushman & Scanlan, 1981). This brokering requires summarizing and interpreting information, and then communicating that information to the appropriate individuals in a form that is relevant to the recipient. For immigrant families, information brokers are a critical resource for learning about and navigating schools and other community institutions (Shiffman, 2013; Yohani, 2013). In new immigrant destination communities, summarizing and interpreting information for long-time residents also holds the potential to facilitate a recalibration of community and school perceptions of immigrants (Brezicha & Hopkins, 2016; Oakes, Welner, Yonezawa, & Allen, 2005; Prins & Toso, 2012; Yohani, 2013).
A second facet of boundary spanning involves building bridges among individuals and organizations (Miller, 2008). The ability to build bridges is tied to the size and diversity of the boundary spanner’s social networks and the quality of those relationships (Granovetter, 1983; Miller, 2008). Goldring and Sims (2005) define boundary-spanning leaders as those who are adept at connecting “like-minded people” (p. 233) across organizations and are respected as legitimate by the organizations involved. The nature of those relationships among like-minded people, particularly the presence of trust, facilitates the initiation and sustainability of bridges among groups previously unknown to one another (Williams, 2002).
The third dimension of boundary spanning involves flexibly navigating organizations (Miller, 2008). Negotiating organizations requires a deep understanding of the organizational context, an ability to move easily within and across organizations, and to be recognized as legitimate by individuals in organizations. Individuals who are not formally affiliated with a school system may have more flexibility to navigate and engage with the school system because they can operate outside the rules and expectations of the organization (Brezicha & Hopkins, 2016; Martinez-Cosio & Iannacone, 2007; Yohani, 2013).
The literature on boundary spanning focuses on individuals and their contexts. Miller (2008) described boundary-spanning individuals as possessing strong information gathering and disseminating abilities, “exceptional interpersonal” (p. 357) skills, an extensive social network, and deep understanding of the social and organizational environments in which they operate. They command trust and respect and are able to bring together diverse groups to focus on a “common cause” (p. 358). Organizational contexts play an important role—framing when, how, and why individuals engage in boundary spanning. Small (2009) argued that people are “organizationally embedded actors, as actors whose social and organizational ties—and the resources both available and mobilized through them—respond to institutional constraints, imperatives, and opportunities” (p. 5). Small (2006) characterized effective brokering organizations as likely to involve frequent and sustained interaction, a climate and culture of cooperation, and internal and external incentives to foster networking opportunities that access and mobilize resources and information.
The rural nature of a community may also have implications for closure—the overlapping relationships of individuals through a variety of affiliations that foster norms, trustworthiness, and deep obligations and expectations of members (Coleman, 1988). Bauch (2001) argued that “rural families often have deep roots in a community, dense relational networks, and strong intergenerational closure that serve to strengthen community norms, values, and attitudes” (p. 211). She contended that these relationships are potentially rich sources for partnership. A recent study of rural cross-sector collaboration also found a multilayered network of professional and personal relationships that were less reliant on institutional contexts; trust was a function of extended time in the community (Miller, Scanlan, & Phillippo, 2017).
Adult ESL Programs and Boundary Spanning
Adult ESL programs are focused on assisting adult learners to develop the language and cultural skills to carry out roles as workers, family members, and citizens (e.g., Center for Applied Linguistics, 2010). There is also a strong social justice strand in the adult education field that emphasizes these learning contexts as spaces for empowering disenfranchised individuals and groups (e.g., Carlock, 2016; Freire, 1993; Johnson-Bailey, Baumgartner, & Bowles, 2010). Opportunities to interact in English are an important component of second language learning (Center for Applied Linguistics, 2010). As such, the adult ESL field emphasizes fostering relationships and a sense of community within classes (Larrotta, 2010).
Adult ESL instructors hold the potential to engage in boundary-spanning work (Shiffman, 2013; Brezicha & Hopkins, 2016; Prins & Toso, 2012). They form relationships with their adult learners through regular interactions. They have been found to provide emotional support for their adult learners and engender trust (e.g., Bolívar & Chrispeels, 2011; Prins, Toso, & Schafft, 2009). Adult educators can advise, provide a bridge to other resources, and create practice opportunities for navigating social institutions (Shiffman, 2013; Balatti, Black, & Falk, 2007; Bolívar & Chrispeels, 2011; St. Clair, 2008; Toso & Gungor, 2012). Adult ESL instructors can also create a classroom environment conducive to forging relationships among adult learners. Networks of fellow leaners can provide support and advice (e.g., Drago-Severson, Cuban, & Daloz, 2009; St. Clair, 2008).
Several dimensions of adult education programs shape the context for instructors’ boundary-spanning work supporting family-school relations. On one hand, many adult education instructors have a background in K-12 education (Tamassia, Lennon, Yamamot, & Kirsh, 2007), and thus bring K-12 knowledge and experiences that can inform their work with adult learners (Shiffman, 2013). On the other hand, adult education programs typically operate with limited resources and rely heavily on part-time employees and volunteers (Center for Applied Linguistics, 2010; Tamassia et al., 2007). As such, part-time and volunteer instructors may have limited time beyond the scheduled class period to interact with adult ESL colleagues or engage in extra boundary-spanning work. Adults’ learning priorities also play a role. Adult learners in general ESL classes often have a range of learning goals—employment, further education, self-efficacy, and/or supporting a child’s education (O’Donnell, 2006). Thus, instructors must strike a balance in their classrooms in order to address the goals of all adult learners in the room.
Methods and Data Sources
The findings presented are part of an 18-month investigation that explored the nature of parent engagement among adult learners, how formal adult education experiences support parent roles in children’s education, and what mediates this support. A multiple embedded case study (Yin, 2014) was conducted through a large Regional Adult Education Program (RAE) 3 offering GED (general educational development) and ESL classes in Virginia. Prior to this investigation, I conducted a smaller pilot study to refine the research questions, study design, and interview protocols used in this study (Shiffman, 2013). (The revised interview guide is in the Supplemental Material, available in the online version of the article.) Findings from the smaller study revealed three classroom-based sources of connection—course content, experiential dimensions of learning, and relationships formed during class.
Classes were identified via a request emailed to all instructors teaching general ESL in the program. RAE offered adult ESL at two locations in the rural county—a town church and a public school facility. Both RAE sites and the school district for this county constitute the case that is the focus of this article. Data collection included observations of adult ESL classes, semistructured interviews, survey responses from parents enrolled in the adult ESL classes, and documents.
I conducted more than 50 hours of observations at the two locations during the 2014-2015 school year. Observations focused on instructional practices, relationships among adult learners and instructors, and connections between adult ESL learning and family roles in children’s education. The observations centered on the 2-hour class sessions but often extended well beyond the class time, particularly at the church. As a participant observer, I aided with registration, participated in class celebrations, and periodically assisted with small group activities and whole class lessons. I wrote field notes following the observations.
I conducted formal, semistructured interviews with 18 individuals, including seven adult ESL instructors and staff, seven parents enrolled in the adult ESL classes, and four school district staff. The interview protocols were guided by the study research questions, literature, and insights gleaned from protocols piloted in the earlier study. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim.
The adult ESL educators included three program leaders and staff at the main office and four of the five instructors who taught at one of the two locations (Table 1). The program leader and staff interviews provided a big picture perspective of the program. The adult ESL instructor interviews explored their professional backgrounds, experiences with adult learners, immigrant families’ interactions with the schools, and connections between participation in the adult ESL classes and supporting a child’s education.
Adult ESL Instructors.
Note. ESL = English as a second language.
Throughout the 2014-2015 year while observing classes, I invited adult learners who were parents of school-age children to participate in interviews. The instructors facilitated by allowing me to observe and assist in class activities, encouraging parents to do an interview, and helping me explain the interview process. During interviews, I gave participants time to prepare responses in English. I rephrased questions when I sensed parents needed clarification and repeated their responses to check my understanding. The interviews explored parent experiences with the local schools, beliefs about parent engagement, and connections between participation in adult ESL classes and supporting a child’s education. The classes served 57 adult learners. 2 Some were parents of school-age children, and some were not. (The returned surveys of 41 adult learners provides an estimate of the number of parents with school-age children enrolled: 16.) I interviewed all parents who expressed a willingness to be interviewed. As indicated in Table 2, the seven parent interviewees represented a variety of backgrounds, education levels, and children’s school levels. The participants also represented a range in English language skills and classes with two enrolled in the beginner class and three in the upper-level class (low intermediate/advanced) at Thomas Church; and two in the advanced class at Oak School. Five interviews were conducted in English and two in Spanish with an interpreter.
Parent Interview Participants.
Note. ES = elementary school; GED = general educational development; HS = high school; M = married; MS = middle school; PK = PreK; S = single.
I conducted interviews with four educators in the rural district—two central office staff responsible for services to families of EL students, a high school Spanish teacher, and an elementary ESL teacher. All were female, White, and had worked in the district for at least a decade. The interviews explored family-school engagement in general, priorities of the school district, and connections between adult education participation and family engagement.
Additional data included documents and parents’ responses to demographic and open-ended questions on a paper survey administered during the adult ESL classes. Demographic questions were modeled on questions from a state adult learner intake form. The other questions asked were as follows: “Why are you taking this class?” and “Do ESL classes help parents help children with school? Please explain your answer.” I piloted these questions in prior interviews. A translation service converted the survey into Spanish. Three experts familiar with the topic and written Spanish appropriate for the intended audience reviewed the survey. Sixteen surveys from parent were returned—eight from each location (Table 3).
Parent Survey Respondent Demographics.
Note. GED = general educational development.
Data analysis was an inductive, iterative process designed to identify patterns in two cycles of coding (Miles, Huberman, & Saldaña, 2014; Yin, 2014). In the first cycle, I assigned broad codes drawn from the research questions and literature to verbatim interview transcripts, observation notes, and open-ended survey responses. Relationship dimensions of classes and instructor practices were prevalent in the data as indicated by frequency and range of data sources associated with these codes. Coded data centered on instructor–adult learner relationships, social dimensions of the class, instructors’ connecting activities, school district outreach, social networks, and the flow of information. As a reliability check, I coded data twice during the first cycle and reconciled inconsistencies. During the second cycle, I inductively developed subcodes for each broad code, drawing on the research literature and findings from the pilot. Through this process, adult ESL boundary-spanning practices emerged as the primary means through which instructors supported family engagement. I used Miller’s (2008) framework to guide development of the final themes presented in this article.
This qualitative case study employed multiple strategies to strengthen validity of the findings (Miles et al., 2014; Yin, 2014). I triangulated data collected from multiple sources (parents, instructors, and K-12 educators) and used multiple methods (observations, interviews, surveys, and documents). I spent extended time in the field and conducted ongoing member checks to clarify understanding and test my interpretations.
Limitations
Prior research and data from the larger study pointed to a wide range in the extent to which instructors recognize and encourage adult learners to use ESL classroom experiences to support their roles in a child’s education. However, heightened attention to potential connections prompted by my research may have, at times, influenced the frequency and depth of efforts by instructors and K-12 educators to connect adult ESL learning and family-school engagement. To attend to this concern, I relied on the prolonged engagement, member checks, and data triangulation described in the previous section. There are several possible reasons why some parents agreed to be interviewed while others did not, including targeted encouragement from the adult ESL instructor, confidence in English communication skills, time to devote to an interview, interest in parent-school relations, and comfort with the research experience. Prolonged engagement in the field assisted in reducing barriers associated with these reasons.
Language use and comprehension were ongoing considerations. Interviews with some parents likely missed nuances that might have surfaced had the interview been conducted in the parent’s native language. The five parents interviewed entirely in English were enrolled in low intermediate to advanced ESL classes. When I identified miscommunications in their transcripts, I clarified my understanding in follow-up observations and interactions with the interviewee, and through information gleaned indirectly from unrelated conversations. I interviewed a mother and a father in the beginning-level ESL class with interpretation from an instructor in one case, and an adult learner in the other. For verification, the Spanish audio recordings were independently translated by a professional service. Finally, a fluent Spanish speaker of Mexican heritage translated the Spanish open-ended responses on the parent survey.
Thomas County and School System
Thomas County is nestled against a mountain range and has been inhabited predominantly by farmers of European descent since colonial times. The large majority of the county’s 500 square miles is farmland and forest. There is a tradition of reserve, pride, and self-sufficiency. One K-12 educator explained, “We’re very proud people, so you just take care of yourself. . . . You’re not looking for the handout; you’re not looking for anybody to give you anything.” Today, the population is 90% White, non-Hispanic (U.S. Census Bureau, 2014). However, the region is seeing increasing ethnic, cultural, and linguistic diversity as immigrants move into the area. Explanations for this growth in interviews, documents, and prior research point to the recruitment efforts of area factories, particularly in the poultry industry; faith organizations with a strong social justice tradition; and word of mouth as family and friends join early arriving immigrants. In 2013, approximately 7.5% of the county’s population 5 years and older spoke a language other than English at home according to U.S. Census estimates—up from less than 5% in 2000. The majority of these individuals spoke Spanish (5.5%). Most immigrants are originally from Mexico and Central America; however, families from Asia, South America, and Africa have also moved to the area.
According to school district reports, the number of EL children in the school district nearly tripled over the last decade. Approximately 6% of the district’s students were considered to have limited English proficiency during the study period. Approximately 75% of these students were born in the United States, indicating that many families had been in the United States for several years.
As the number of EL students enrolling in schools was increasing, district leaders across this region were actively investigating how to support EL students and their families, and secure needed resources. The region had a shortage of ESL teachers and educators who spoke Spanish. School staffs often needed more skills and knowledge to effectively partner with families who brought different cultural backgrounds, spoke a language other than English at home, and—in some cases—had limited formal education in their native country.
The Regional Adult Education Program
For years, the RAE program had provided adult ESL and GED classes across a large multicounty region, including Thomas County. At the time the study was conducted, a community college operated the program with state and federal Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act grant funds. The school districts in the region provided cash or in-kind support, including classroom space to hold adult education classes. The RAE regional advisory board included school district representatives, typically from the alternative education programs in the district. Beyond these roles, each district’s involvement varied depending on the priorities of individuals serving in leadership and other key positions.
RAE instructors were paid part-time employees. The overwhelming majority of the instructors were female, and many had professional backgrounds in K-12 education. During the 2014-2015 academic year, RAE offered general adult ESL classes at two locations in Thomas County (the town church and the public school) and enrolled 57 adults. The adult learners held diverse goals for learning English, comprised a combination of parents with school-age children and those without children, and brought a wide range of educational backgrounds from no formal schooling to postsecondary degrees. RAE is one of several organizations providing assistance to immigrants in the county. Local chapters of national organizations, churches, and libraries also provide ESL, family literacy, and citizenship classes.
Thomas Church
RAE offered morning classes in the community rooms of this town church that had provided the space for several years. Adult learners from Latin America, Africa, Europe, and Asia sat on folding metal chairs and crowded around banquet tables for the biweekly 2-hour classes. While most were Spanish speakers, more than 17 languages were represented, including several indigenous languages. Some were mothers who stayed home with their children; others worked in home health care, manufacturing, and food processing. There were two classes: beginner and upper level. The two instructors were native English speakers with backgrounds as working in the public schools. A former kindergarten teacher led the beginner group. This class had fewer adult learners and was designed for those at early stages of learning English, including some with limited literacy skills in their native language. The upper-level class, where I spent most of my time, included a wide range of English skill levels from low intermediate to ESL completion/transition. Emily, the program’s ESL coordinator, led this class and had taught in the program for years. Previously, she coordinated services for migrant and immigrant families with the school district. When asked on the survey why the adult learners who were parents were taking the class, seven of the eight included a reason related to supporting their child’s education. Reasons centered on communicating with their child’s teacher and assisting with homework.
Oak School
Two evenings a week, RAE offered ESL classes in one of the district’s schools. Oak School is surrounded by farms on a stretch of land a few miles outside of another county town. Christina taught the beginner class; Jane taught the intermediate; and Angela taught the advanced. Most adult learners were from Mexico and Central America and spoke Spanish. They held jobs in manufacturing, food processing, and at area tourist attractions. Some were stay-at-home parents. When asked on the survey why the adult learners who were parents took the class, five of the eight included a reason related to supporting their child’s education. Parents gave similar responses to Thomas Church respondents. They took the class to help them communicate with their child’s teacher and assist with homework.
Adult ESL Support for Family-School Relations
During and outside class, adult ESL instructors at the two sites worked to strengthen relations between the school district staff and their adult learners, and to empower adult learners to advocate for their children. This support was embodied in boundary spanning that falls into two of Miller’s (2008) categories: brokering information and building bridges. These actions were interconnected and deeply embedded in the instructional orientation and practices of adult ESL. Miller’s third category—flexibly navigating organizations—was less directly evident, yet informed instructors’ ability to broker and bridge.
Brokering Information
Information brokering requires summarizing and interpreting information (Aldrich & Herker, 1977; Miller, 2008; Tushman & Scanlan, 1981). Information must be communicated to the appropriate individuals in a relevant form. In this study, instructors engaged in three primary brokering activities—collecting, disseminating, and interpreting information.
Collecting and disseminating information
Emily, the ESL coordinator, was actively engaged in gathering information to disseminate to her adult learners and give to the other instructors to share with their classes. She saw the classes as powerful mechanisms for spreading information to the immigrant community. She and her colleagues monitored school district deadlines to collect and disseminate kindergarten registration forms. She also collected and disseminated newsletters, free magazines, and information about a range of learning opportunities—preschool programs provided by the school system, family literacy classes taught by Emily, and children’s reading groups at the local libraries. During class, she reminded adult learners to share information with family and friends. She also encouraged them to share information with one another.
Dissemination was not a passive practice of leaving flyers on a table for interested adult learners to pick up. Rather, Emily put the information in a usable format, whether that meant repairing a flyer or supplying missing information. Dissemination offered teachable moments. During one class, she passed out a flyer about a new library program for young children and families. She asked adult learners to read the flyer for information by using the question words they had studied. Adult learners reported the information contained in the flyer and identified missing information. When a mother observed that the flyer did not include a contact phone or email to learn more, Emily provided that information.
Interpreting information, messages, and expectations
Parents who responded to the survey question agreed that ESL classes help parents help children with school. 4 Explanations centered on understanding teachers, school practices, written communications, and homework. One Thomas Church mother wrote, “Because ESL classes help parents to understand the process at school and the other community program.” 5 A Thomas Church father wrote, “It helps with helping the kids at school. For example, the school conferences and the school applications.” 6 An Oak School mother wrote, “It helps understand the children more and the teachers and overall the messages that are given over time.” 7
For adult learners, the instructors explained many school rules, procedures, homework, and cultural norms for contacting the school, registering a child for school, and participating in parent-teacher conferences. Christina demonstrated how to use the interactive white boards at Oak School for her adult learners. One series of lessons Emily developed examined school district goals. Using the district’s community newsletter, adult learners worked in small groups to define policy-oriented vocabulary—“framework,” “articulate,” “strategically,” and “align”—and then unpacked the meaning and formulated opinions. This exercise generated discussion about school district priorities and public school governance.
The five instructors introduced adult learners to common practices for fostering active learning and collaboration. For adult learners who viewed the formal schooling experience as sitting in rows of desks and taking notes, these activities required explanation. Angela observed, When we’re teaching their child how to read and we’re using manipulatives or we’re using hands-on activities or we’re using collaborative learning, [my adult learners say] that’s not . . . learning. . . . School is you sit at a desk, you write . . . That’s what they also want to do.
Adult learners regularly approached instructors with challenges they faced. Christina explained, “They’ll bring their papers and they’ll [say] we don’t understand what we’re supposed to be doing.” As current and former public school educators, the instructors were familiar with these types of paperwork, and could preliminarily identify needs that might require additional attention and support from the schools. Christina observed that parents’ questions about their child’s school needs were frequent topics of discussion. Her adult learners’ questions included, “How do we talk to this teacher?” “What can we do?” “What can we ask?”
Emily described many situations in which she also explained cultural norms, perspectives, and priorities of immigrant families to district educators and other community leaders. She had been providing this interpretation for years, dating back to her time coordinating services for families. For example, she explained to elementary school teachers the importance of identifying and contacting the village chief when planning to visit a group of families originally from rural Guatemala. “Everybody will take their cue from the chief. . . . It’s just only if they’re from the villages. Not if they’re from the city.” Often instructors’ explanations arose during language interpretation. For example, during a class meeting with the superintendent, Christina explained to him that adult learners’ questions about homework were rooted in Latin American cultural beliefs about the important role of homework in learning.
Building Bridges
Building bridges between adult learners and educators was also a multifaceted set of practices. The adult ESL instructors were observed coaching adult learners in how to engage with the school system in traditional parent engagement activities—for example, how to prepare for a class holiday party or parent-teacher conference. They also coached adult learners in how to advocate for their child. The adult ESL instructors also created opportunities to bring educators and adult learners together and then facilitated these conversations.
Coaching for communication
Coaching is defined here as instructors’ work to prepare adult learners for interactions with K-12 educators and staff. Some coaching was relatively straightforward—recommendations about how to participate in holiday celebrations at the school, for example. Instructors also used role-play to prepare for parent-teacher conferences. Other coaching was more complex—for example, strategizing with adult learners about how to communicate concerns to school staff and educators.
Advocating for one’s child at school was a challenge for the many reluctant to make waves and involved a cultural shift for those who viewed educators as authority figures. An instructor explained that “so many in the immigrant community have that mindset of just . . . well, if there’s a problem, someone will tell me and otherwise . . . don’t make waves.” The instructors observed that adult learners often did not understand the rights they possessed in American public schools. According to Angela, adult learners in her advanced ESL class were “starting to be very assertive about their kids” but those in the lower-level language classes still “don’t feel like they have any kind of power.” A father in Angela’s class explained that his “principal reason” for studying English was, “’cause I see that the schools don’t help my kids so I want to help . . . I want to help more, I want to have more the good pronunciation for the English.” Christina encouraged her adult learners to proactively engage with their child’s school to ask questions and discuss doubts. She told them, “documented or not, you are entitled to find out and push.”
Often, instructors were presented with questions and concerns that extended far beyond the scope of an ESL class. The concerns could involve legal, health, or safety issues. Identifying the office or organization an adult learner needed to contact was considered to be more appropriate than actually arranging meetings. Emily believed it was important to help adult learners build their own problem-solving skills so they could navigate their lives in this community. For example, she coached the father in Angela’s class to apply skills he used as a former investigator in Latin America to gather information and then determine how to get his concerns heard regarding his child’s reading difficulties.
Connecting families and educators
The instructors took steps to bring adult learners and school district staff together. This occurred through inviting guest speakers to class and on an individual basis. During such group meetings, instructors’ use of interpretation and coaching to facilitate understanding between their adult learners and school representatives were readily apparent.
The superintendent visited both locations to listen to parent concerns and share initiatives specific to families of EL students during the study period. The adult ESL instructors provided key assistance in preparation and facilitation of those meetings. Oak School instructors asked the superintendent’s office to provide questions prior to his meeting with the adult learners. Angela created an information grid to scaffold adult learner answers to the district’s questions, allowing space for them to write thoughts, feelings, and small group notes. At the first meeting, the instructors—Emily, Christina, Angela, and Jane—began by modeling introductions. Adult learners then worked in mixed language ability groups to complete the information grid as the superintendent and his staff walked around. Next, instructors facilitated a full group discussion. Through this activity, instructors were able to prepare adult learners to participate in the discussion in a meaningful way by breaking the event into steps and providing time for adult learners to gather their ideas and express them in English.
Across both locations, adult learners raised concerns about availability of interpreters, access to computers, amount of homework, information about their child’s progress, and individual communication. According to Christina, “They were asking very personal, individual questions related to their own . . . student and I think for the most part [the superintendent] was directly answering the questions.” In each case, instructors provided both literal interpretation for those Spanish speakers needing assistance, and explanation of cultural expectations. Angela observed, “[The meeting] was a little terrifying but [the adult learners] were glad to feel like they could speak kind of one-on-one with someone who . . . was kind of untouchable.” The mother from West Africa said his visits helped educators “understand what we going through.” She said, “Some parents, they will not go to school . . . because they don’t know how . . . the importance of it.” She explained some were cautious based on prior experiences. “Maybe they went one time and the school and some secretary was not welcoming to them or taking time to them.”
In the late spring, the superintendent made a second visit to Thomas Church. During this session, he provided updates on concerns raised in the fall and announced a new summer program. Emily guided him through this presentation—and in so doing—gave him strategies for communicating with EL parents and adult family members. She directed him to write key words on the board as he described the initiative. Emily also asked questions to elicit more information, building on previous lessons about using question words (who, what, where, why, how) to gather information.
The second prominent bridging practice involved helping individual adult learners who were parents identify and contact school staff and related support services in the region. To do this, some instructors made themselves available outside class. All instructors conferred with their colleagues, and some also tapped into their professional and personal networks to assist individual adult learners. Throughout the year, Emily was available for extended periods before and after class. Adult learners regularly approached her. The mother from West Africa explained, “When you have the teacher like Miss [Emily], she helps when you have a question. . . . She will refer you. . . . She help[s] me now with [a problem] I was having with my children at school.” The instructors frequently conferred with one another about individual adult learner needs. For example, one instructor helped her colleagues understand what kindergarten readiness should include. Emily, in particular, was in contact with leaders, staff, and teachers throughout the school district.
Factors That Facilitated Instructor Boundary Spanning for Families and Schools
Several factors enabled the adult ESL instructor boundary-spanning support for family-school relations. At its core, the ESL classes offered a forum in which adult learners could come together and share challenges with a trusted instructor who was experienced in communicating with ELs to build understanding. In the school district, there was a growing sense of urgency to meet the needs of an expanding EL student population and leadership actively reaching out to engage with immigrant families. In addition, the multilayered relationships in this rural county coupled with the actions and skills of Emily, the ESL coordinator, connected immigrant families and the school system.
Fostering a Classroom Culture Conducive to Discussing Family-School Relations
In describing opportunities for partnering with local schools, Emily explained, “If I were an administrator in the schools, I would take advantage of these classrooms . . . this community that’s already there, that already has a facilitator.” She observed that a precondition for productive meetings between adult learners and representatives from the school district and other local agencies was an environment where adult learners “know they can trust us.” Once that was established, “you begin to facilitate that dialogue.”
The adult ESL classes were friendly—often lively—spaces in which adult learners came together twice a week for 9 months to engage in interactive activities. Despite different languages, education levels, goals, and residency status, class members shared experiences as nonnative English speakers trying to navigate life in the community. Many adult learners took the ESL classes for multiple years. As such, these were places where adult learners who might be reluctant to raise concerns elsewhere could approach the instructor or classmates with dilemmas they encountered.
Instructors took steps to foster community in class and encourage communication. Games, for example, were believed to contribute to building classroom community. According to Emily, classmates will “really cheer each other on. And by doing that little by little, we don’t have the Guatemalans and the Puerto Ricans and the Brazilians, and the Chinese. We start to become a low intermediate group.” Over the school year, instructors and adult learners celebrated milestones from passing citizenship tests to births. Seasonal events—such as holiday potlucks and end-of-year parties—brought instructors, adult learners, and volunteers together. Instructors described adult learners supporting one another in difficult times such as accidents and deaths.
In the fall, instructors helped adult learners identify learning goals and then worked with them to meet these goals over the year. Likewise, instructors worked with the entire class to develop lessons that reflected shared learning goals. Class goals varied from year to year and class to class. Many adult learners in Emily’s class had goals related to communicating with the local schools. Angela reported that her Oak School class was interested in learning how to write essays, resumes, and job applications. She designed her lessons accordingly.
Classes were spaces to ask questions about English language and cultural expectations adult learners encountered at work, at children’s schools, and in the community, and then collectively problem-solve. These questions could range from addressing practical dilemmas such as transportation to the more complex and personal. A program leader observed that shared problem solving was common in ESL classes. Using adult learners’ transportation challenges as an illustration, she explained that the “community really does help each other figure [it] out.” Instructors served as both resources and facilitators during these conversations. Christina explained that the mothers in her class frequently asked her about their children’s schools and communication, “Sometimes it was half the class they were asking me.” Adult learners offered advice to one another during class. For example, the mother of a son with special needs explained that she shared information about resources with Thomas Church classmates. A father noted that he had turned to this same mother for a second opinion when his daughter’s teacher raised questions about her reading skills. Another parent described asking classmates for advice about managing sibling arguments. The Oak School mother with a GED said classmates sought her advice about taking the high school equivalency exam.
Given the nature of frequent and sustained contact, interactive class activities, a focus on language learning goals and problem solving, and instructors’ availability as a resource, the instructors often knew a lot about adult learners and their families. According to a program leader, this was characteristic of instructors across the regional adult education program, “I think all of our teachers could—at the drop of a hat—give the elevator speech about each student.” She explained that instructors were able to reach adult learners because “they have a really good sense of how to approach each student.” The Thomas Church and Oak School instructors’ knowledge of their adult learners and families often extended well beyond the immediate class. Emily observed, “They’ll tell me [things] that they have not said to anybody else.” Some instructors had taught multiple family members in different RAE classes or through other family literacy and citizenship classes offered in the county. At least four parents interviewed were also current or former participants in the family literacy program operated by Emily for another organization. Some relationships between instructors and adult learners dated back years.
School District Readiness: Pressing Needs, Leadership, and Systemic Change
Characteristics of the school district context also contributed to observed boundary-spanning efforts of the adult ESL program. While the number of EL students nearly tripled over the past decade, there was a shortage of ESL teachers and Spanish speakers to support students and families. This was a challenge in the region and frequent topic of conversation among area district leaders. Administrators were also seeking advice from other districts with more experience serving EL students and their families.
In numerous interviews and observations, adult learners, adult ESL instructors, and K-12 educators spoke of individual school district teachers, staff, and leaders who supported families of EL students. Often, these individuals had made such efforts for several years. There was a district administrator and school board member working to facilitate the integration of EL students and their families in the district. At a high school, the principal and guidance department held college preparation workshops for immigrant families to explain the process, and helped students apply for—and earn—college scholarships and other supports. Thomas Church adult learners described a school secretary who made them feel welcome. The high school Spanish teacher said she regularly facilitated conversations between the school and families.
Systemically, however, focused attention on the needs of immigrant families was more recent. In the past, some described district and county leadership as unresponsive to the needs of a growing immigrant population. Many new leaders, including the superintendent, were county residents, but brought different priorities with their new roles. Emily explained, “There were always people in the community who cared. And what’s really cool is most of them are now in administration.” Parents, instructors, and educators credited the superintendent with attracting new attention and energy to meeting the needs of EL students and their families. A district staff member observed, “Under our previous administration, this was not really a big focus for us. When we tried to bring things to the forefront, there were just other things that got attention.” Angela commented on the critical role of senior leadership for addressing the needs of EL students and families. “It needs to come down from the very top. [The superintendent] needs to have someone in his office that is in charge of that, not just another teacher who works full-time and is doing this on the side.” While pockets of resistance were noted by several interviewees, Emily observed there was now “a much more proactive approach” and a sense that “these kids are our kids and we should care about all of our kids.” This sense was echoed in interviews with multiple school district and adult learners.
During the study period, school district leaders and staff reported actively engaging in their own boundary-spanning work with a variety of community partners. They met with large employers of immigrants in the area and increased interactions with the adult ESL program. A district staff member said they visited a poultry processing plant to explain “what we could do to help the people that work there learn to speak English and to expand their educational repertoire.” This meeting prompted the plant managers to recommend some of their employees who were parents and fluent in English to help the school system with translation and interpretation. District staff members were also engaging in boundary-spanning work by educating the community about the immigrant population in the region. The same district staff member described a presentation that school representatives made to the Rotary Club in which they provided a more nuanced understanding. “People had the misconception that all of our ELL families came from Mexico. . . . That was just sort of an eye-opener for them.” During the study period, the superintendent reported that three Latino parents had spoken at meetings of the school board and county government leaders accompanied by a district staff member.
Some district-wide steps were small but held symbolic importance, such as creating a Spanish version of the snow day robocall read by the superintendent. Other district efforts to build capacity pointed to more resource-intensive commitment. During the study year, the district created new family coordinator positions to expand outreach to the immigrant community. Instructors and adult learners who were parents commented on the greater availability of school or district-provided translators and interpreters as the year progressed.
Yet capacity challenges remained as many in the school system still struggled to recognize and respond to the needs of EL students and their families. One of the district teachers explained, “I feel like here we’re a bit more reactive and we don’t quite know as much about ESL education.” In multiple interviews with the K-12 participants, the word “intimidating” was used to describe the feelings of many educators regarding engaging with families of EL students, indicating a significant professional development need. Several adult learners, adult ESL instructors, and K-12 educators described challenges associated with getting a child’s special needs recognized as something more than a language issue. Even those one might expect to be most aware of EL family needs described gaps in their understanding. When she was an elementary school teacher, Angela had believed she was attuned to the needs of EL parents. However, through teaching adult ESL, she realized she had greatly underestimated the challenges faced by parents with low literacy skills.
I just didn’t get it until I started teaching my parents and then I’m like, “Oh . . . like even if I send [a paper] to you in Spanish, you still can’t read it because you don’t know how to read in English or in Spanish.” I don’t think we have a good grasp on that. I think we’re trying, but I don’t think we understand the lack of education.
She believed the focus should be on “educating [teachers] to look further beyond the surface.”
RAE needed strong, senior-level communication with its district partners to collaborate on initiatives, build awareness of RAE’s work, and troubleshoot problems such as securing full access to classroom space in school buildings. Thomas School District leadership changes appeared to improve communication between the two organizations and awareness of RAE as a resource for working with adults for whom English was not their first language. A district administrator observed, “We have had much better contact with [RAE]” under the new superintendent. A RAE program leader concurred citing the superintendent’s visits to the adult education classes, plans to send RAE adult ESL instructors to assistant with the district’s student registration, and an agreement to partner on another adult education grant. The adult ESL instructors felt their bridging work with adult learners was increasingly recognized by the school system. District staff members were “acknowledging us as educators.”
Multilayered Relationships and Boundary-Spanning Individuals
Despite its large geographical size, several individuals described the county as a place where “everybody knows everybody.” Relationships among school staff, adult educators, and other social service providers were often multilayered. Many had histories that intersected through a variety of affiliations in the county—schools, churches, social service organizations, and volunteer programs. As noted earlier, most of the instructors were former employees of the school district. Relationships among the instructors and volunteers were also multilayered. Jane and Emily had known each other. Christina, Emily, and a volunteer belonged to the same church. Another volunteer taught in the same citizenship program as Emily. These overlapping networks were tapped to facilitate the work of the ESL instructors and support immigrant families. The dissemination strategy for this research study’s parent survey offers an illustration. Emily used her church as a transfer point. She left the surveys at her church for a volunteer to pick up and deliver to Oak School.
Emily was a central figure in the connections identified in this study. Her name frequently came up in interviews with the instructors, adult learners, and K-12 staff as the individual most readily identified with the adult ESL program, and efforts to connect school staff with immigrant families. According to Angela, “Maybe a lot of counties have adult English programs, but none of them have [Emily] and a level of information and connections that she has.” Three of the instructors had joined the program on Emily’s recommendation.
Emily’s advocacy for immigrant families extended far beyond the biweekly 2-hour ESL classes and dated back almost 20 years beginning with her district work. She recalled, The population grew very quickly, and then it doubled and . . . all of a sudden it wasn’t just one or two kids we can get some special tutors for. . . . All of a sudden they were coming into all the classes. . . . People were kind of surprised [by] what happened.”
As a result of her district-based coordinating work, she had long histories with individuals who were now leaders in the central office and on the school board. She also was involved in other community organizations outside the school system. She described a network of “like-minded people” (Goldring & Sims, 2005, p. 233) throughout the district and county who she worked with to support immigrant families.
During this study, Emily also played a leadership role in another literacy program in the county, taught family literacy and citizenship classes, tutored individuals, organized social activities—such as scrapbooking parties to bring isolated individuals together to practice English, and took random phone calls and requests for assistance. She stayed long after class as adult learners, their families, and friends approached her with questions. When I asked what was important for schools to know about helping immigrant parents, a Thomas Church mother from Mexico replied, Emily “help[s] us a lot . . . we have the help we need.” Emily was in frequent contact with individuals working in many of the county’s institutions, including the schools and the sheriff’s office. One district staff member observed, “She has a lot of resources and so I reach out to her. [And] she . . . sends students my way, too.”
Emily was also nurturing the boundary-spanning skills of others. As noted above, several adult ESL instructors and volunteers attributed their involvement to Emily. She framed her efforts to foster boundary spanning among adult learners in terms of nurturing problem-solving skills. Recalling her early work with adult learners, she said, “Now a lot of those families are able to help other families.” The Thomas Church mother from Puerto Rico had professional training as a teacher. During the study, Emily encouraged her to facilitate communication between local schools and Spanish-speaking parents, and to take a lead instructional role in the family literacy program. “It’s fun to see how excited she is about advocating for other people’s children in the community.” Similarly, Angela was developing her own boundary-spanning capacities with encouragement from Emily. Angela thought that she would like to continue bridging immigrant families and schools because “I have had a lot of these parents” in classes.
Discussion
Immigrant families seek information and resources about schools from a variety of sources, including adult ESL classes (e.g., Poza et al., 2014; Shiffman, 2013; Valdés, 1996). When families feel uncomfortable or unheard in school settings, these nonschool sources take on even greater significance. In this study, the adult ESL instructors provided important information and resources external to the school system. As such, the classes offered opportunities for brokering information and creating bridges between immigrant families and a school system learning how to effectively support their growing EL population.
Miller’s (2008) three functional areas of boundary-spanning behaviors (information brokering, building bridges, and flexibly navigating organizations) offer a productive method for parsing out behaviors that are often interconnected and recognized but not well understood. In this study, brokering information and building bridges were most directly evident and widespread among adult ESL instructors. Flexibly navigating organizations was less directly evident, yet informed instructors’ brokering and bridging. These behaviors varied in frequency, complexity, and intentionality across the instructors and classes. This study suggests that the nature of and variation in boundary spanning are contingent on characteristics of individual boundary spanners (Miller, 2008) and organizational contexts (Small, 2006). To understand and foster robust boundary spanning, one must consider the interplay of behaviors, individual characteristics, and contexts. The following three paragraphs highlight this interplay in general adult ESL classes. To further develop this framework, future research should examine these components and interactions in a variety of organizational contexts.
The first behavior, information brokering requires summarizing and interpreting information, and then communicating that information to the appropriate individuals in a form that is relevant to the recipient (Aldrich & Herker, 1977; Miller, 2008; Tushman & Scanlan, 1981). All instructors in this study described or carried out some level of brokering. Brokering is deeply embedded in adult ESL priorities for strengthening the language skills and cultural understanding adults need to successfully navigate daily life in their adopted homes. The profession positions adult learner experiences and goals as focal points for instruction (e.g., Center for Applied Linguistics, 2010). Thus, the classes are natural forums for adult learners to bring questions to instructors, and for instructors to explain and interpret. Among the instructors in this study, brokering information ranged from the more frequent ad hoc responses to questions posed during class to the less frequent but more intentional and elaborated responses and lessons. Based on adult learners’ goals, instructors determine the appropriate amount of class time to devote to any topic, including family engagement. Brokering for family engagement was enhanced by instructors’ relationships with adult learners and their professional experience working in area public school systems—characteristics that are often identified in the research literature (e.g., Bolívar & Chrispeels, 2011; Prins et al., 2009; Tamassia et al., 2007). These findings suggest that school and district leaders should try to enhance instructor brokering that is already occurring in adult ESL classrooms by staying in regular communication with and ensuring adult ESL programs have ongoing access to district information and resources. To improve supports for immigrant families, leaders and educators should gather information from adult ESL instructors about the kinds of family engagement efforts adult learners are undertaking, the questions they raise, and challenges encountered in efforts to support their child’s education.
The second behavior, bridging, involves creating pathways that connect individuals and organizations across boundaries (Miller, 2008). Bridging can range from simply identifying a contact person or resource at a particular school to actually making the initial connection, to providing coaching that maximizes meaningful interactions. The narrow focus on teaching responsibilities for part-time instructors may mean that extensive bridging outside of class is best coordinated by skilled ESL program administrators willing to invest significant energy and time. School and district leaders can elicit help from adult ESL instructors to identify parents who are boundary spanners within their social networks. Particularly in new destination communities, education leaders should consider adult ESL instructors and programs as professional development resources for improving educators’ communication skills, and as facilitators at school-sponsored family events. For both brokering and bridging, more research is needed to document and evaluate how district educators learn from and apply adult ESL instructors’ advice to strengthen communication and understanding.
The third behavior, flexibly navigating organizations (Miller, 2008), requires moving easily within and across organizations to accomplish goals. There was less direct evidence of this type of boundary spanning in the study with the exception of Emily, the ESL coordinator. However, instructors’ understanding of how to flexibly navigate the system informed the kinds of advice and coaching they provided to adult learners. This was not surprising given the program’s emphasis on building adult learners’ communication skills to independently problem-solve and the nature of instructors’ part-time work focused on classroom instruction. Like more intensive forms of brokering and bridging, this finding suggests that ESL administrators with extensive knowledge, skills, and commitments may be more likely to carry this out.
Miller (2008) described boundary spanners as possessing information gathering, dissemination, and interpersonal skills; an extensive social network; and deep understanding of the social and organizational environments in which they operate. They command trust and respect and are able to bring together diverse groups to focus on a “common cause” (p. 358). This study demonstrates that individuals, like Emily, who possess this complex set of attributes and an administrative role can be key resources for education leaders in new destination districts (Brezicha & Hopkins, 2016; Yohani, 2013). In addition to addressing an immediate need, leaders should think long-term about how to expand and deepen the boundary spanning capacities of many individuals within and external to the school system. Emily’s work with adult learners, instructor colleagues, and school system staff offer ideas for building capacity. Future research should examine the organizational conditions, community partnerships, professional development, and social networks that facilitate growth and expansion.
The district leaders’ boundary-spanning efforts are instructive for school systems grappling with similar infrastructure and professional capacity challenges (e.g., Lichter, 2012; Lowenhaupt, 2014; Wainer, 2004). Recognizing the need for a more resource-intensive response yet short on internal capacity, the superintendent and district staff met and collaborated with several community organizations working with immigrant families to share information and create bridges. District leaders engaged in brokering with long-time community residents by providing information about their new immigrant neighbors to foster understanding (e.g., Oakes et al., 2005; Prins & Toso, 2012). This study points to the potential boundary-spanning advantage of a rural community where “everybody knows everybody.” In communities where instructors and educators know one another through multiple affiliations, leaders have access to an extensive network to garner a wide range of information and resources to strengthen engagement with immigrant families. Planning for the short- and long-term, future research might examine how partnerships between school systems and adult ESL programs evolve as districts develop more formalized structures to reach immigrant families.
Conclusion
Despite increased migration to rural America, little research has explored immigrant family-school relationships and the role of community partners in these districts. Findings from this case study deepen understanding of adult ESL instructor roles in supporting family-school relationships and family engagement in education. An enhanced understanding can help district and school leaders identify and capitalize on these boundary-spanning efforts to support immigrant families with children enrolled in rural schools. This analysis illuminates dimensions of adult education instructor practices that leaders ought to consider when exploring collaboration with adult education programs. With careful planning and ongoing interaction, adult ESL programs can be vital partners in strengthening family-school relations in new destination communities.
Supplemental Material
Interview_Protocols_for_EAQ_Manuscript_170077_Revision_ – Supplemental material for Supporting Immigrant Families and Rural Schools: The Boundary-Spanning Possibilities of an Adult ESL Program
Supplemental material, Interview_Protocols_for_EAQ_Manuscript_170077_Revision_ for Supporting Immigrant Families and Rural Schools: The Boundary-Spanning Possibilities of an Adult ESL Program by Catherine Dunn Shiffman in Educational Administration Quarterly
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
The author thanks Steve Humphries, Dennis Kellison, Lisa Pluska, and Lisa Soricone for helpful comments on an earlier draft of the manuscript, as well as the study participants who generously shared their time and insights.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Notes
Author Biography
References
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
