Abstract
Ms. Garza, a first year early childhood special educator, works with children ages 3 to 5 years who have documented disabilities. She has just completed her first formal IEP meeting with the family of one of her students, Natalie, who is a 4 year-old born at 28 weeks gestation. Natalie was diagnosed with Retinopathy of Prematurity (ROP) shortly after birth and currently wears glasses. She was also diagnosed with Cerebral Palsy in infancy; she received Early Intervention (EI) services through Part C prior to her transition to preschool services. Ms. Garza knows that Natalie’s parents were nervous about her transition to school-based services. As a new teacher, Ms. Garza was equally nervous about the first IEP meeting. Ms. Garza sat on the same side of the table as both parents, and she positioned herself so that both parents could easily see papers presented. At the end of the meeting, Natalie’s father turned to Ms. Garza and said, “Thank you.” In response, Ms. Garza expressed her own gratitude: “No need to thank me—I am so happy work with your daughter each day.” Natalie’s father then said to Ms. Garza emphatically: “No, I don’t think you understand. Thank
Historically, fathers of children with disabilities have been excluded from conversations, planning sessions, and activities related to their children (Lamb & Laumann-Billings, 1997; Quinn, 1999; Raikes & Belotti, 2007). In Natalie’s case, Ms. Garza meaningfully included Natalie’s father in the Individualized Education Program (IEP) meeting, but this process is not necessarily intuitive for all teachers. This article seeks to remedy some of the uncertainty in meaningfully including fathers and father figures in early intervention (EI) and early childhood special education (ECSE) programs by offering practical guidance for practitioners. Using the Division for Early Childhood (DEC) Recommended “Family” Practices as a guiding framework (Division for Early Childhood of the Council for Exceptional Children, 2014), practitioners will develop a deeper understanding of common barriers to involvement and will learn to implement programmatic changes that may encourage father involvement. It is first important to establish how father involvement in school-based activities can make a positive difference in the lives of young children.
Why Does Father Involvement Matter?
Father involvement is an integral part of each child’s development and has been linked with positive child outcomes, including greater empathy, stronger self-regulatory behaviors, better coping ability, and higher cognitive ability (Cabrera, Shannon, & Tamis-LeMonda, 2007; Pleck, 2010; Pruett, 2000). de Falco, Esposito, Venuti, and Borstein (2008) found that preschoolers with Down syndrome demonstrated more complex play schemes immediately following collaborative play sessions with their fathers. Children with engaged fathers are more likely to be socially competent and thus better able to establish healthy peer relationships (U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Family Assistance, 2013).
Young children who have highly involved fathers show heightened curiosity and increased problem-solving capacity (Pruett, 2000). When fathers are actively involved in their children’s education, children perform better in school and are less likely to develop behavioral difficulties; this is true even when fathers do not share a home with their children (National Responsible Fatherhood Clearinghouse). The impact of father involvement is not limited to the child only; it is circular in nature, as suggested by Turbiville, Turnbull, and Turnbull (1995), who posited that strong father–child relationships benefit children, as well as fathers themselves.
Benefits of Father Involvement in Preschool Programs
Most father involvement research on the preschool population has focused on Head Start (Fagan, Newash, & Scholesser, 2000; Lerman, 1993; McBride & Rane, 1997). Frequent and meaningful father involvement in Head Start has been correlated with children’s increased math readiness scores, a decrease in behavioral issues (Fagan & Iglesias, 1999), and an increase in overall academic achievement (McBride, Schoppe-Sullivan, & Ho, 2005). Despite the recent surge of interest in fathers, researchers have paid less attention to one group of fathers: fathers of children with special needs (MacDonald & Hastings, 2010).
Why Focus on Fathers of Children with Special Needs?
Families who have children with special needs experience a great deal of stress and decision making as they attempt to navigate uncharted territory (Hanson & Lynch, 2004; Oelofsen & Richardson, 2006; Orsmond & Bolt, 2010). Although some researchers have focused on the well-being of both fathers and mothers (Wang et al., 2006), research on family coping and adjustment is often viewed through the lens of the mother (Beckman, 1991; Cabrera & Peters, 2000; Hornby, 1992). Seldom are fathers the respondents in parental involvement surveys (Hastings & Beck, 2004; Singer, Ethridge, & Aldana, 2007). More concerning, in some of the recent parenting literature, the term mother is often generalized to parent, and thus, father perspectives may be excluded altogether (Linder & Chitwood, 1984: McBride, Dyer, Liu, Brown, & Hong, 2009).
Kramer (2002) suggested that when included in studies, “men have tended to serve as a contrast group” (p. 3) to their female counterparts. Unfortunately, in studies where fathers’ involvement levels are merely compared with those of mothers, fathers typically appear less involved than mothers (Mitchell & Hauser-Cram, 2010; Potter & Carpenter, 2010). Thus, practitioners should avoid simple comparisons of mothers and fathers and instead closely examine contextual factors that influence fathers’ involvement (Cabrera, Fitzgerald, Bradley, & Roggman, 2007). Contextual factors may include but are not limited to fathers’ own childrearing experience, fathers’ opinions regarding the role that fathers should play, and fathers’ confidence about interacting with their children.
Current Fatherhood Involvement Programs
One of the biggest contextual factors may be the school culture, yet there are currently very few school-based father involvement programs at the early childhood level. Some early childhood centers have indeed made concerted—though informal—efforts to host events dedicated to fathers. For example, many schools have adopted the “Donuts for Dads” breakfast event. “Donuts for Dads” was born out of the long-standing “Muffins for Moms.” Informal efforts to involve fathers are certainly better than none, but practitioners should consider more consistently weaving fathers and father figures into the framework of daily classroom activities.
Formal Efforts and Standards Across Early Childhood Programs
Since the passage of Project Head Start in 1965, one of Head Start’s original provisions has been parent training and involvement (Shonkoff & Meisels, 2000). In recent years, Head Start has included carefully crafted father involvement programs. Fatherhood programs are not as well established in PreK, EI, ECSE, or private preschool programs. Table 1 presents an overview of family involvement standards and practices that currently guide practitioners in implementing family-friendly practices.
Family Involvement at the Preschool Level
Summary of Preschool Initiatives and Future Steps
As Table 1 shows, it is clear that Head Start, National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC), DEC, and public PreK programs value the importance of family involvement. Head Start’s specific focus on father involvement is commendable, as the benefits of such involvement are well-documented by research; these benefits underscore the need for stronger EI/ECSE father involvement initiatives. Using the DEC Recommended “Family” Practices as a lens, practical guidance for early educators will be presented in the next section.
Practical Guidance
To expand upon DEC’s Recommended Practices and better define the practice of father involvement, three key strategies are proposed. These include presuming the involvement of fathers and father figures (1. Family-Centered Practices), considering barriers that minimize or altogether prevent father involvement (2. Family Capacity-Building), and ascertaining fathers’ communication preferences (3. Family and Professional Collaboration).
Presume Involvement of Fathers and Father Figures
Practitioners should assume that fathers want to support their children both in school and at home. Regardless of a father’s residential status, meaning whether he lives at home with his child or in another dwelling (nonresidential status), early educators should make include fathers. Young children served by EI and ECSE programs come from a variety of unique family situations, which will be elaborated upon in the next few sections and are important to consider in presuming involvement.
Single fathers as head of household
Although mothers were primary points of contact for schools over a decade ago (Fathers Matter, 2000), and despite the fact that U.S. households headed by single mothers still comprise roughly 23% of households with children below the age of 18 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2016), households headed by single fathers are increasing. In 2011, 8% of U.S. households were headed by single fathers (Livingston, 2013); shortly thereafter, in 2013, U.S. Census data cited approximately 2 million single fathers, with 9% raising three or more children below the age of 18 (National Responsible Fatherhood Clearinghouse, 2016).
The ever-changing parental demographics
Practitioners should also consider other nontraditional family arrangements and living scenarios. In 2013, approximately 111,000 same-sex couples were raising an estimated 170,000 biological, step, or adopted children (Gates, 2013). Among female couples, nearly 24% were raising a biological, adopted, or step child compared with 10% of male couples (Gates, 2013).
Include fathers while keeping mothers in mind
The intent of this article is not to discount the importance of the mother–child bond, nor to minimize families headed by two mothers. Rather, it seeks to highlight the potential positive influences that fathers or father figures may have on their children in addition to and in conjunction with those of the mother/s or maternal figure/s. Although the separate influence of father involvement is often hard to tease apart and has not been widely studied in EI, some researchers have indeed found that fathers make a unique and separate contribution to children’s development (de Falco, Esposito, Venuti, & Borstein, 2010).
Consider other significant paternal figures
Children may have other significant role models in their lives, such as grandfathers, uncles, step-fathers, and foster fathers. The tendency to focus solely on biological fathers discounts significant, male father figures, who are often critical to the child’s development (McBride & Rane, 1997). It is important to presume that these significant males want to be involved in school activities as much as possible, yet barriers may be present. Such barriers include, but are not limited to maternal gatekeeping, work obligations (including military deployment), cultural and linguistic barriers, and a general feeling of discomfort around EI/ECSE staff. These barriers are explained in greater detail in the following section.
Consider Barriers to Father Involvement
Maternal gatekeeping
Raikes and Belotti (2007) noted that mothers play a strong family role as gatekeepers and may determine, in most cases unknowingly, how involved a father becomes in his child’s early childhood program. Particularly for parents are separated or divorced, mothers are more likely to regulate social activities that occur outside of the home (Goldman, 2005). Sadly, mainstream literature tends to portray fathers of children with disabilities as disinterested, stressed out, and likely to leave the home. Consider the scenario below:
Ms. Garza also works with the family of Luis, who is a 3-year-old with Down syndrome. She knows that Luis’s parents are divorced, but both parents are listed on school records as having joint custody. Luis’s father indicated earlier in the year that he would prefer to receive texts about all meetings pertaining to Luis. Ms. Garza sent a text to Luis’s father 2 weeks prior to an informal fall conference to let him know about the meeting, but Ms. Garza never heard back. Luis’s mother came to the meeting and told Ms. Garza: “Yep, that sounds about right. We haven’t seen him in two months. Since Luis came to this program, his Dad realizes that Luis is behind, and I don’t think he can handle it. He hasn’t sent child support in a while.” Ms. Garza held the informal conference with Luis’s mother; about a month later, just prior to the holidays, Ms. Garza received a text message from Luis’s father: “How’s my son? I’m sorry I couldn’t make the conference. I was out of the country working to bring back money for Luis. I don’t have an international text plan. I just saw your message. I hope his mother told you.”
This scenario illustrates communication breakdowns among family members and early childhood personnel. It is important to be aware of custody issues and to adhere to court orders pertaining to the child, yet it is equally important to communicate information to both parents if both parties are listed as legal parents/guardians. In the case of Luis, the teacher did indeed communicate with the father using the preferred mode of communication, and Luis’s father had his son’s best interests at heart; he was not what some may consider a deadbeat father. It is critical to refrain from making negative assumptions.
Work obligations
The story of Luis also illustrates one of the most common reasons that fathers might not be able to participate in school activities: work. Although some fathers still hold one traditional nine-to-five job, many do not. The United States continues to see an increase in multiple job holders each year (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2017), which means that fathers may work a traditional daytime job but may also have another job at night. Other fathers may work at night and sleep during the day, which also precludes classroom visits during standard school hours. Thus, practitioners can consider varying the times of activities to which fathers are invited. Early interventionists may consider conducting home visits at varied times to include fathers and father figures in these visits.
In addition, some fathers may be deployed or working overseas for months at a time (the same, of course, could be said for some mothers). In 2008, roughly 44% (43.7%) active duty military personnel and approximately 43% (42.8%) Reserve members had children, with an average of two children per family below the age of 14 (U.S. Department of Defense, 2010). Single military fathers also comprise a surprisingly growing demographic. In 2008, 4.2% Active Duty and 6.7% Reserve members were single fathers with children below the age of 18 (U.S. Department of Defense, 2010).
Many families bridge the distance of military deployment with technology such as Skype; schools can do the same to bring a father into a classroom to see his child acting out a finger play or singing a song during a winter concert. The same strategy could be employed during a home visit to allow the father to learn beginning sign language alongside his child or observe a physical therapy session.
Fathers who are culturally and linguistically diverse
Children with special needs from families who are culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) represent a rapidly growing population in the United States (Friesen, Hanson, & Martin, 2015), yet little is known about CLD fathers of children with disabilities. Latinos are also grossly underrepresented in the literature on father involvement (Cabrera, Shannon, West, & Brooks-Gunn, 2006), and little is understood about their involvement in their children’s schools. Lopez (2001) suggested that traditional parent involvement activities related to school, such as helping with homework and reading to children, may be frustrating for families who do not speak English. In addition, immigrant families with undocumented family members who fear deportation may be reluctant to become involved in school-based activities (McWayne, Campos, & Owsianik, 2008).
School teams must present all legal documents (such as drafts of assessment reports, Individualized Family Service Plan [IFSP], and IEP) in the family’s dominant language. Practitioners are also well-aware that translators must be present for meetings and discussions related to these documents, but practitioners can further to make fathers feel included. ECSE and EI staff can offer fathers opportunities to engage in school-based activities that may circumvent the language barrier, such as playing a game of Memory with children at small group or playing catch outside on the playground. Similar activities could be encouraged during home visits.
Composition of EI and ECSE staff
Paternal participation in preschool programs is still quite variable and is much less predetermined by societal expectations than that of maternal participation (Cabrera et al., 2007; McBride et al., 2005). Despite most fathers’ interest in the school experience of their young children, some fathers may not feel comfortable volunteering in the classroom. This apprehension may stem from the predominantly female staffing composition of the early childhood classroom (McBride & Rane, 1997) who may be ambivalent about fathers’ classroom involvement (Levine, 1993).
Practitioners in the ECSE classroom may wish to give fathers clear roles upon their arrival, including specific directions for implementing small group games, rules for those games, and names of children. During home-based visits, EI staff can greet fathers upon arrival, invite them to participate in the visit’s activities, and include them in interviews and discussions.
Communication Is Key
Determining communication preferences
At the beginning of each school year (or as new children are added to caseloads), practitioners should how fathers would like to communicate; doing so may enable educators to break through some barriers listed above. Some fathers still wish to speak by phone, yet others may prefer email or even text messaging. When parents do not live together, fathers and mothers may prefer different modes of communication.
Involvement interest survey
Once each father’s preferred communication mode is established, practitioners may wish to send fathers an interest survey to determine if and how they would like to be involved in school. If the parents do not reside together, educators should send an interest survey to each parent.
Surveys should ask parents about direct school activities (both inside and out of the classroom) as well as indirect activities. If fathers wish to volunteer directly with children in the classroom, the practitioner could consider hosting a mystery reader for the day and assign a specific book for the father to read. If a father is not comfortable in the classroom but still wishes to interact with children, teachers could offer other school-based activities such as assisting with an obstacle course during Physical Education (PE) or Adapted Physical Education (APE). Finally, simply asking fathers how and when they want to be involved may enhance fathers’ ownership in the school experience, thus potentially resulting in more involvement (Noggle, 2012).
As mentioned earlier, it is important to remember that many fathers want to help, but they may not feel comfortable fulfilling traditional classroom volunteer roles. Therefore, educators can present to fathers choices for indirect involvement activities such as helping prepare classroom materials at home. Table 2 presents examples of direct and indirect involvement options for fathers.
Involvement Interest Survey: Possible Items
Note. ECSE = early childhood special education.
A Few Final Words
As family structures continue change, early educators must rise to the challenge and work to include significant paternal figures in school activities as much as possible. Lamb and Laumann-Billings (1997) suggested that the “potential benefits of paternal involvement may even be greater when children have disabilities” (p. 189). Father involvement is good for children. Taking steps to invite fathers and father figures to participate in school activities strengthens the home–school connections and builds a greater circle of caregivers, which in turn creates a more nurturing environment for young children with special needs.
As family structures continue change, early educators must rise to the challenge and work to include significant paternal figures in school activities as much as possible.
