Barriers,Resources,Frustrations,and Empathy: Teachers’ Expectations for Family Involvement for Latino/a ELL Students in Urban STEM Classrooms

Context and Participants

Honor Charter, ³ where the study took place, is a public charter school in a medium-sized city in the Northeast United States. The city was once a center for industry and manufacturing but is now considered one of the poorest cities in the region with one of the highest crime rates in the United States. Honor was chosen because of its student population and its reputation in the city as a safe school with a strong leadership team and effective teaching faculty. The school serves Grades 5 through 8 and is affiliated with an elementary school and a high school, which are located in adjacent school buildings. Although many of Honor’s students come from the surrounding neighborhood in the northeast corner of the city, the school attracts students from all areas of the city and admits students through a lottery system.

During the 2010-2011 academic year, when data collection began, Honor had approximately 425 students over Grades 5 through 8, 23% who identified as “Black or non-Hispanic” and 77% who identified as “Hispanic.” Among the school population, only about 5% were officially identified as “Limited English Proficient.” Ninety percent of the school population was eligible for free or reduced lunch. When the study began, 147 students from Grades 6 and 7 (N = 147) provided informed consent to participate the larger, mixed-methods study. A total of seven educators at the school site (N = 7) also participated in this strand of the study, including five science teachers, one who also taught special education, one seventh-grade math teacher, and an administrator who was the science department supervisor (see Table 1 for details about each educator participant). All but one of the teachers entered the profession through either Teach for America or the state’s alternate route program. The teacher who had completed a traditional teacher education program was certified in special education and was teaching science out-of-field. All of the participants were compensated for their work on the project through grant funding. The scope of their participation included interviews, teacher meetings, lunch meetings with students and researchers, and classroom observations by the researchers.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Teacher Participants.

Name (pseudonym)	Grade and subject	Self-reported gender and race	Number of interviews
Yamila	Sixth-grade science and special education support	Female; Latina	4
Matt	Sixth-grade science	Male; White	4
Damian	Seventh-grade science	Male; African American	2
Jay	Seventh-grade math	Male; White	1
Amy	Seventh-grade science	Female; White	4
Vivian	Eighth-grade science	Female; Latina	2
Janet	Science supervisor/administrator	Female; White	2

Data Sources

In light of the research questions that drove the analysis for this article, we used three primary sources from the larger data set: (a) the transcriptions from teacher and administrator interviews, (b) field notes from classroom observations and other school activities, and (c) artifacts reviewed at the school research site.

Data Analysis Process

In connection with the theoretical framework and the research question, the analysis focused on looking for patterns of coherence and for contradictions to those patterns (Sewell, 1999; Tobin, 2006). The data collection and analysis phases were iterative and recursive (Hammersley & Atkinson, 1983) and guided by the initial, larger project research questions. These included broad questions about the beliefs and practices of ELL students, teachers, administrators, and family members related to science learning and achievement. We also formatively assessed the extent to which the data collection and analysis phases met Guba and Lincoln’s (1989) authenticity criteria, which include fairness, ontological authenticity, educative authenticity, catalytic authenticity, and tactical authenticity.

A few months into the project, field notes, especially those taken during the monthly meetings with the participant teachers, began to reveal repeated comments by the staff related to their concerns about family involvement. These field notes encouraged the researchers to look more closely at teachers’ perspectives on the families of their ELL students and led to the question that frames this article: “How do middle school STEM teachers conceptualize family involvement for their middle school ELL students?” After all interview data were transcribed, initial coding was performed using HyperResearch™ software. As a first cycle of coding (Saldaña, 2009), we engaged in structural coding (Namey, Guest, Thairu, & Johnson, 2008) because most of the data came from interview transcripts. This type of coding enabled us to identify longer sections of text with topics broadly related to the research question (Saldaña, 2009). The codes “perception of parents” (n = 28), “communication with parents” (n = 10), and “parental engagement” (n = 22) emerged frequently among interview and field notes data. Then, a second round of coding of the textual artifacts revealed more specific categories, including (a) good parents, (b) frustrations, (c) acknowledged barriers, and (d) resources available. A fifth category, labeled “practices and desires,” incorporated a range of teacher practices that were offered as examples of what teachers currently do to support family involvement in science or wanted to do. Each of the smaller codes and the text sources were entered into a spreadsheet to manipulate the codes and explore connections among them. The findings described below include (a) perceptions of barriers and institutional resources, (b) constructions of “good” and “bad” families, (c) complicated resources, and (d) contradictions from one teacher’s case.

Perceptions of Barriers and Institutional Resources

Teachers described several barriers that they perceived prevented families from participating in school events or in communicating with school personnel about student progress. These barriers included (a) busy home schedules, (b) intimidation of or a lack of trust in the school, (c) differences between the home language and the dominant language of school, (d) a lack of formal education in the sciences, and (e) the economy. What teachers referred to as “language barriers” emerged several times in the data. Both Jay (who taught seventh-grade mathematics) and Amy (seventh-grade science) discussed the issues they faced with families who did not speak English, and how it impeded their communication with families about students’ progress. In response to a general question about the biggest challenge in teaching ELL students, Amy described the implications of families who do not speak English for her teaching:

I guess for me the thing I see that’s the most difficult is that it’s kind of when they leave me there’s no one when they go home who can explain it to them in English. Most of the time their parents can’t read their homework to help them with it, so if they didn’t get it while they’re with me, they’re kind of . . . done. (Individual interview, 1/11)

Amy’s response revealed not only a language barrier that she perceived but also a tacit expectation that individuals in the home may need to “explain” the content to students when needed. Jay also alluded to language as a barrier and connected it to families’ reliance on teachers: “I think [families] are limited on how much they can help because of language barriers. And so they rely very much on the teachers to make those connections with the kids” (Group interview 6/12). Jay’s response reiterated the idea that family members may be unable to help their children with academic work at home because of language differences. In addition, he also touched upon a pattern that was repeated among the participants: their perception that families may depend on teachers for their children’s learning because they lack academic knowledge, skills, background, or other academic resources.

Both Yamila and Matt communicated a slightly different perspective, claiming that family members may not know science content and might feel either intimidated or embarrassed when confronted with their children’s homework. Yamila explained,

I feel that with science a lot of times parents’ lack of knowledge stops them from asking questions or maybe they see science and they become intimidated, they see these books and they’re like, “Whoa, I never learned that.” I know one of my students mentioned that mom said, “Oh, I learned this in college,” and she’s English-speaking. (Interview, 1/11)

Yamila not only emphasized science’s conceptual difficulty but also expressed empathy for families who did not have the academic English proficiency to comprehend science texts and ask questions on their children’s behalf.

Matt and Damian extended this issue of intimidation to feelings of discomfort toward school in general: Matt:

I wonder if there’s any intimidation of the parents for the teachers, you know, because they might not be sure of the concepts . . .

Although both Matt’s and Damian’s comments touched on the idea of intimidation, they straddled two different aspects of school life: the academic and the behavioral. Matt alluded to the intimidating nature of academic knowledge and science concepts. In contrast, Damian’s comments conveyed a connection between the adults’ feelings about school and their behavior in high school, noting that they may have been disciplined regularly in school. He also made a direct connection to Roosevelt High, one of the largest comprehensive public schools in the city, which has historically been categorized as underperforming, with high drop-out rates and high rates of in-school violence. Ultimately, both Matt and Damian categorized the families’ school experiences and feelings toward STEM content as barriers. These barriers then had the potential to serve as virtual structures that would impede student agency and learning in STEM and in school more broadly.

Complicated Resources

The teachers also described resources, mostly provided by the school, which were meant to support communication to families about school issues. These included fliers that went home with students and were translated into Spanish, orientations and information sessions at the beginning of the school year, a homework hotline, online access to students’ grades and other performance data, and a few bilingual staff members. Some of the artifacts collected during the data collection period included handouts or fliers that were translated into Spanish (e.g., a notice sent home to families of ELL students explaining an opportunity for additional afterschool tutoring with bilingual tutors; Field notes, 1/12). The school also had a detailed website that included a drop-down menu on the home page for “Parents and Students.” This drop-down menu listed 10 items, including content such as a staff directory, lunch menus, links to library resources, technology resources, and Naviance, a portal accessible to students and families that serves as a “college and career readiness platform that helps connect academic achievement to post secondary goals” (www.naviance.com). One item on the website was “Forms, Notices and Student Handbooks,” which included a “Parent-School” contract, with lists of responsibilities for the school, for parents, and for students.

However, two specific issues complicated the usefulness of these resources. First, none of the website content or any of the materials or forms available on the website were translated into Spanish. The website did have an explicit Parent-School Compact, which outlined

how the parents, the entire school staff, and the students will share the responsibility for improved student academic achievement and the means by which the school and parents will build and develop a partnership that will help children achieve the State’s high standards.

This included a section of “School Responsibilities,” “Parent Responsibilities,” and “Student Responsibilities.” Some of the expected parent responsibilities included items such as “Make sure homework is completed,” “Volunteer at my child’s school,” and “Stay informed about my child’s education and communicate with the school by promptly reading all notices from the school either received by my child or by mail and respond, as appropriate.” The “School Responsibilities” section included items related to providing high-quality curriculum and instruction, communicating regularly and extensively with families, and providing access to families to the school environment and to specific decision-making processes. It also noted that the school would “[p]rovide information to parents of participating students in an understandable and uniform format, including alternative formats upon the request of parents with disabilities, and, to the extent practicable, in a language that parents can understand” (School Artifacts, 12/13). Although the document was an explicit resource created to support family involvement, it communicated very specific forms of expected participation, which may have been challenging for some families.

Second, teachers had limited access to translators or interpreters to communicate with families who did not speak English. When they were available, teachers and administrators used the bilingual administrative staff to translate during conferences with families or to help them with phone calls to the students’ homes. However, Amy described a problem she perceived with using a bilingual staff member to call a family:

. . . [N]ormally when I was calling I could get the message across in English, but it wasn’t really a discussion, or I was giving the message in Spanish, but I was having an administrator call, and that’s so awkward because not many parents want to discuss anything through an administrator, so I think looking at how to form those relationships when we can’t just communicate [is important]. (Amy, individual interview, 6/11)

Amy recognized the importance of building relationships with families through strong, clear communication. However, as she described, one of the explicit structures provided to support teacher and student agency actually complicated this communication between teachers and families.

Vivian, a first-year, eighth-grade science teacher who spoke Spanish, described a difficult situation she experienced when she attempted to call families about her students’ progress. She said,

I can speak Spanish . . . but still a couple of times when I have called right away I’ll say, “Hi this is Ms. Dorlan,” and right away they’ll say “oh, I can’t talk” or say a few things in English and then have someone call me back who can speak English, like a daughter or a husband or something like that. And so I guess that is a problem because there is that sort of wall between you and that one parent. (Individual interview, 10/11)

As Vivian’s story indicated, being a Spanish speaker was helpful, but not the only ingredient for successful communication between home and school.

Constructions of Good (Admirable) and Bad (Frustrating) Parents

The teachers’ comments also revealed constructions of “good” and “bad” families insofar as what families did to support their children in school. Good parents were defined as those who came to conferences and those who pushed their children to do well through monitoring and support, serving as “cheerleaders.” However, according to Janet, these parents “were a minute group” (Interview, 1/12). These conceptions were countered by some of the frustrations described by the teachers, which included (a) low family attendance at mandatory events, such as report card night, an event in which families were required to come to school to pick up their children; (b) a lack of support for homework; (c) low academic expectations; and (d) language differences. The teachers made connections between their frustrations with parents and some of their expectations, such as “making sure [students] are organized.” Other comments fell into vague expectations around parenting, such as when Damian explained some of the specific things he felt families should be doing at home:

You have to do the hard things, show me your [home]work . . . Yeah, parents have to step up and be parents . . . show that you’re willing to put down everything you do at night to say, ‘show me what you know.’ And [if] you do it, you’ve told the child I care about you. (Group interview, 6/12)

Damian’s comment asserted that the act of helping children with schoolwork and giving up other things to do so could be considered outward demonstration of caring. Janet noted that it was the responsibility of the school and teachers to “become parents” to the many students who “fall through the cracks” (Individual interview, 1/12). Several statements indicated that families were not doing what they should to support their children’s academic development. In essence, their comments demonstrated a narrow definition of supportive family involvement in STEM and in school more broadly.

Contradictions

One teacher’s comments indicated several contradictions to the other teachers’ perceptions and expectations. Yamila, the sixth-grade science teacher, self-identified as Latina and an ELL when she was in elementary school. At Honor, she was a special education teacher who was teaching sixth-grade science in a pull-out context. Yamila spoke Spanish fluently, so she would regularly call and speak with the families of her children and even gave many of the families her personal cell phone number. Yamila saw one of her primary responsibilities as communicating extensively with families and even jokingly referred to herself as the “teacher stalker.” She would often relay specific details to the researchers about her students’ family members, such as what they did for work (Field notes, 6/12) or the number of other children in the family, which demonstrated the extent to which she had gotten to know her students’ families. She was very clear about the fact that her goal was to build relationships with her students and their families as a means to increase their academic engagement (Field notes, 1/12). As a result, she was also aware of some of the things that her students’ families did to support their children’s academic work outside of school:

Last year there was a student whose Mom’s English was so limited she would sit and translate every direction and every word, and she literally, and I’m sure she still does this year, stays up to 11:00 at night and does homework with her girls. She was a lawyer in Santo Domingo and moved here for a better life, and lives [in this city] and has a low paying job, but she does things like that to help her kids. (Interview, 1/11)

One of Yamila’s comments resonated with the other teachers’ perceptions about families’ lack of academic knowledge as a factor in their school involvement. However, she was quick to point out language as a factor as well. She said, “I could only imagine how the Spanish speaking parents feel. I don’t know if there’s that initial, ‘oh maybe I’ll look dumb’ or not educated if I ask her what they’re doing or if I don’t understand.” (Interview, 1/12) Of the teacher participants, Yamila was most active in communicating with families and with getting to know her students’ families. In addition to being able to communicate with families in Spanish, she claimed that building such relationships and making her classroom “very nurturing” and “home feeling” (Interview, 1/12) were central aspects of her work as a teacher.