Abstract
The first bus had arrived and children were being ushered through the doors of the Ezekial Preschool Center. Teacher Jackson weaved through the usual morning commotion as he made his way to his classroom. He paused to let a few kids pass by and took notice that they were excitedly carrying decorated posters and pictures. Seeing Teacher Maria, Jackson smiled and asked her what was going on, motioning to the Projects. Maria shared that many of the children were returning this month’s Family Projects and they were excited to share with one another what they had done with their families at home.
Jackson was intrigued, as he knew that the families of the children in Maria’s class were similar to the families he was trying to forge relationships with in his own classroom. Many of his efforts, however, had left him feeling frustrated as he spent time chasing down missing books he had sent home, trying to get permission for upcoming field trips, or prioritizing communication when there was a concern or something important to share with a family. Jackson also knew that many of the families were busy and needed to focus on other priorities. His thought immediately went to one family in particular whose son, Caden had a heart condition and cerebral palsy, and with whom he felt a particular need to learn from and develop a meaningful connection. How could he more meaningfully engage and connect with families, including Caden’s family? He knew he wanted to learn more about what Maria was doing.
Entering preschool is an important milestone for children and their families as it often begins the journey of more formal schooling. This time provides a key opportunity to form positive relationships between families and educators who can contribute to a child’s early learning and success (Jeynes, 2014; Reynolds & Shlafer, 2010; Weiss, Caspe, & Lopez, 2006). Research demonstrates that ongoing family involvement in school settings is a critical component of student achievement in school, and beyond (e.g., Caspe, Lopez, & Wolos, 2006/2007; El Nokali, Bachman, & Votruba-Drzal, 2010; Henderson & Mapp, 2002; Senechal & LeFevere, 2002; Sheldon & Epstein, 2005). In turn, bridging learning between the home and classroom is an essential component of high-quality early education programs for all children, including those with disabilities (Division for Early Childhood of the Council for Exceptional Children [DEC], 2010, 2014; National Association for the Education of Young Children [NAEYC], 2009).
“To develop meaningful family–school collaborations, it is vital to use practices that are both family centered and seek to build family capacity”
Partnerships between schools and families may be particularly important when supporting young children at-risk of or with an identified development delay or disability. These families can encounter a multiplicity of unique experiences compared with those of a child who is typically developing. For example, families with children who have special needs may need to interact with a range of professionals, parental employment, and child care scenarios may depend on the support required for their child, and finances may be diverted or depleted by ongoing needs and services required for their child and family (Hanson & Lynch, 2013). Furthermore, some families will be transitioning from early intervention (i.e., Part C of Individuals With Disabilities Education Act [IDEA]) to school-based services at age 3 years (i.e., Part B-Section 619 of IDEA). Philosophies and service delivery models may differ considerably in this transition, requiring families to become accustomed to new and different settings, service providers, procedures, and documentation requirements (Branson & Bingham, 2009; Podvey, Hinojosa, & Koenig, 2013). To develop meaningful family–school collaborations, it is vital to use practices that are both family centered and seek to build family capacity (DEC, 2014).
It is likely that many educators relate to Teacher Jackson’s morning reflections regarding the challenges and barriers that can exist with family partnerships. Many educators report feeling overwhelmed with the many aspects of their work (e.g., curriculum development, assessments, standards, paperwork), leaving little spare time in the day (Mihai, Butera, & Friesen, 2017). These feelings may contribute to a reliance on more traditional forms of connecting with families such as occasional volunteer opportunities, loaning books to encourage reading at home, a weekly newsletter informing families of activities at school, and skill checklists. Often common in these efforts is that they singularly reflect school-based learning goals without acknowledging the expertise or efforts already occurring within homes.
The purpose of this article is to describe an approach that early educators can use to develop meaningful partnerships with families. Specifically, we describe our efforts to support teachers in developing home–school connections through a series of Family Projects that strengthened family–child relationships and created opportunities for families to gain knowledge to support their children’s learning. We detail the context of the Family Projects, including the larger project in which this work was situated and the theoretical perspective that guided it. Furthermore, we describe the design and implementation of the Family Projects approach, including the process through which we gathered feedback from families to revise activities.
Context of Family Projects
The Family Projects were developed within Children’s School Success Plus (CSS+), an Institute of Education Sciences (IES) grant-funded project that aimed to design and evaluate an evidence-based, integrated preschool curriculum framework that was accessible to all young children, including those with disabilities (Horn, Palmer, Lieber, & Butera, 2010). Throughout the 3 years of CSS+, 12 teachers working in early education programs across three different states participated in revising the curriculum process and then implementing it within their inclusive preschool classrooms.
“This alternative approach features families and their community “in terms of the resources, the wherewithal they do possess, and a way to harness these resources for classroom teaching””
Promoting strong partnerships with the families within the CSS+ classrooms was essential and required important consideration given that we were working within inclusive programs, including two Head Start programs that served children and families challenged by conditions related to poverty. It is well documented that a disproportionate number of the children living in poverty enter kindergarten with less knowledge pertaining to literacy and math vocabulary than their more affluent peers (Duncan et al., 2007). Furthermore, children whose families lack resources can be at greater risk of continued academic and social challenges, as well as special education services (Redden, Ramey, Ramey, Forness, & Brezausek, 2003; Ryan, Fautb, & Brookes-Gunn, 2014). At times, efforts to understand and address these challenges have focused on assessing deficits in a family’s home practices, as well as training parents to replicate school-like activities in the home (Auerbach, 1995; Denessen, 2007; McNaughton, 2006).
In planning the Family Projects, we wanted to access the existing knowledge and practices that were valued and used by families. This alternative approach features families and their community “in terms of the resources, the wherewithal they do possess, and a way to harness these resources for classroom teaching” (Gonzalez & Moll, 2002, p. 625). Moll and colleagues refer to this as “funds of knowledge,” and suggest educators seek this information from the families instead of only assessing what families’ lack (Gonzalez, Moll, & Amanti, 2005; Moll, Amanti, Neff, & Gonzalez, 1992). This approach further lends itself to meaningfully understand families’ diversity including their culture, language, family composition, and day-to-day practices. In turn, classroom instruction and interventions can incorporate expertise from families and communities, and subsequently support new learning and development building from family strengths.
Jackson had almost forgotten about Maria’s Family Projects until he saw them displayed in the hallway at the end of the day. With renewed interest, he knocked on Maria’s classroom door. Maria invited him in, promising to share if he helped her rinse out containers of insta-snow that were part of this month’s Family Project. As they cleaned, Maria began by talking about how she had really wanted to connect with families in her first few years as an early educator but like Jackson, had been frustrated. Maria shared that before joining the Ezekial Early Education Center last fall, Maria had attended a professional development session focused on partnering with families through Family Projects. She liked the Family Projects approach because it reflected her desire to learn from the families and make them feel part of a learning community. Jackson left Maria’s classroom excited to learn more and begin to develop Family Projects for his classroom.
Our Approach to Family Projects
In the design of the Family Projects, we adopted a “funds of knowledge” perspective to create meaningful activities for families that were connected to the classroom curriculum (Gonzalez & Moll, 2002). Furthermore, our approach to partnering with families involved in the CSS+ project was guided by the DEC (2014) recommended practices, which provide effective, empirically based ways to support the learning and development of young children who have or are at-risk of developmental delays or disabilities. These practices emphasize the necessity of family–professional collaborations that build on family strengths and capacities, and provide opportunities that support and strengthen family knowledge and skills (See DEC Recommended Practices F4 and F5).
“In the design of the Family Projects, we adopted a “funds of knowledge” perspective to create meaningful activities for families that were connected to the classroom curriculum”
Within this section, we detail the development and implementation process used for the Family Projects. This process includes (a) learning about the families, (b) considering curriculum and learning goals, (c) designing the projects with the families’ funds of knowledge in mind, and (d) implementing and revising. Table 1 summarizes this development process for the Family Projects and provides examples of strategies to help educators implement this approach in their classrooms.
An Approach to Family Projects
Learning About the Families
Our development process for the Family Projects began with getting to know the families. As part of this, we wanted to better understand families’ existing beliefs and practices pertaining to early literacy and language. Although the Family Projects would encompass many areas of learning and development (see Table 2 for a description of each Family Project), the focus on literacy was made in acknowledgment of the importance of this development at an early age (Dickinson, Darrow, Ngo, & D’Souza, 2009; Dickinson, McCabe, & Essex, 2006; McGee & Richgels, 2003) and in consultation with the preschool teachers. Families within one of the Head Start programs were invited to complete a survey that explored how early literacy knowledge was perceived and used within the homes (Friesen, 2011; Friesen & Butera, 2015). The findings of this investigation suggest that families wanted their child to learn as much as they could but they were often unsure always how to support early literacy development. Although many families engaged in literacy practices within their homes, they usually centered on oral language development (e.g., storytelling). Moreover, challenges and demands on family resources associated with more pressing family obligations often related to insufficient resource often limited the time allotted to these interactions.
Summary of Family Projects
To further learn about the families and communities, we organized a teacher focus group at the beginning of the school year. The purpose was to gather their perspectives about the communities in which the children and families lived, and their current efforts to partner with families. During these discussions, the teachers described current family involvement at the centers (e.g., family meetings, class field trips, occasional family volunteers in the classrooms) and the challenges they encountered (e.g., some families never participated, activities were not returned).
A final step occurred during the regularly held family conferences at the beginning of the year. We asked teachers to share the idea of Family Projects and ask for family feedback regarding the feasibility of completing the Projects. These conversations provided insight into the importance of making the Projects easy to complete, including choice in the ways they could be completed, and ensuring the directions for the Family Projects were easy to understand.
Considering Curriculum and Learning Goals
With the knowledge gained about the families, we began to brainstorm possible content for the Family Projects. We knew that we wanted the Family Projects to provide opportunities for families to strengthen their knowledge, skills, and confidence as it related to reinforcing the learning that was taking place at school, while also recognizing and building on families’ existing strengths and capacities. The larger CSS+ curriculum framework (Horn, Palmer, Butera, & Lieber, 2016) used thematic units that reflected developmentally appropriate content and instructional strategies, and aligned with state preschool standards. The Family Projects began to take shape as we sought to integrate these themes with existing home routines and experiences. Table 2 summarizes the themes of the Family Projects.
Designing the Projects With the Families’ Funds of Knowledge in Mind
To be meaningful to both families and teachers, we knew it was important to design the Projects in a manner that was responsive to what we had learned from them, and built from their existing beliefs and practices. The following elements were included in each project:
Each Project was paired with a family information sheet that provided an overview and rationale for the Project, and ideas of how the family could use and complete the Project. Most commonly, these instructions included one Project option that was heavily guided by instructions, and other options that were open-ended and flexible. The latter was especially important as we wanted to create space for families to use their own expertise and practices within the Project, if desired.
All instructions sent home were written in a purposefully accessible manner with vocabulary not exceeding a fourth grade reading level. In our conversations, we learned that some parents had struggled to learn to read and write themselves or had limited time to devote to additional tasks. We did not want the materials to be intimidating or challenging to understand. Furthermore, the option of translating materials to a family’s home language was offered.
Materials to complete at least one of the Project options were sent home. When necessary, this included both unique materials (e.g., artificial snow) and more common school supplies (e.g., a paper ruler, glue).
Each Project was accompanied by a family feedback form, which asked families to share their experiences completing the Project with their child. These insights and suggestions helped guide the creation and revisions of subsequent Family Projects.
Implementing and Revising
In the first year of our work, eight Family Projects were designed. The teachers sent home a Project approximately once a month and families had an average of 3 weeks to complete it. When a Family Project was returned to the classroom, teachers were encouraged to provide time for the child to explain and show the Project to their classmates, often during morning circle time. The Projects were then displayed in a prominent place in the classroom or center.
After implementing the Family Projects for a full school year, feedback from families and teachers was reviewed and revisions ensued. Revisions included expanding the number of Projects from eight to 10 in total given their popularity. We also refined the information shared on the family information sheets to ensure it was informative and clear. For teachers, we created a single-page teacher information sheet for each Project that provided an overview/rationale of each Project, and suggested other ways to involve families based on this Project. For example, if a family member worked in a job that involved measurement (e.g., construction, scientist, chef), teachers were encouraged to invite them to the classroom after completing the “I Can Measure” Family Project. The teacher information sheets also encouraged teachers to ensure all children had a chance to participate in the Projects, even if their family could not or chose not to do so at home. This included possible ways an adult, whether it was the teacher or a classroom volunteer, could integrate a Project into the classroom routine such as center time.
With the containers clean, Maria invited Jackson to sit down to show him more information about the Project the families had just completed entitled, “I Can Make Snow” (see the appendix). It was an unusually mild winter and Maria knew that the children had been patiently waiting for the first snowfall, and that families were preparing for colder weather. This Family Project built on this interest, encouraging families to talk and explore ideas about snow by either having fun with some artificial snow (provided) or engaging in melting and freezing activities of their own. She had also included information about a book they had been reading in class called “Stella, Queen of the Snow” (Gay, 2010) and how they had been working on listening to compound words involving the word snow (e.g., snowball, snowman). Maria happily reported that most families had participated, whether it was sharing tales of infamous snowfalls from the past, making popsicles, or playing together with the artificial snow.
Jackson examined the Projects and noticed some were different than others. Asking her about this, Maria pulled out several adapted Projects to show him. She explained that one family spoke and read Spanish at home, so Maria had sought out a bilingual friend to translate the materials. Maria also had a child named Carrie in her classroom who was diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder. Since Carrie would not touch the artificial snow, Maria spoke to Carrie’s dad before school one day to explain the Project. Together they brainstormed ideas for adapting the Project to engage Carrie and support her family to participate. Carrie brought in different books about snow that the family had gotten from the library and read together. Maria helped Carrie share her books at circle time. For this family, the option to do a modified activity that still aligned to the larger theme of the Project was a better fit.
Outcome of the Family Projects
Data collected over 2 years of using the Family projects suggested that this was a promising approach for teachers to partner with families (Friesen, Butera, Clay, Mihai, & Vaiouli, 2014). Specifically, families shared that providing materials, offering choices, and allotting sufficient time to complete the Projects allowed them to complete each activity when and how they were able. Many families reported that they enjoyed the Projects with their child as it promoted positive interactions in a way that worked within their families. For example, in the “I Can Measure” Family Project, many families choose to complete a measuring activity using the provided paper ruler and objects that existed within their homes. Others choose to construct a measuring tool including one child who lived with his grandfather who was a welder. Together, the child and grandfather welded rings together and then used the tool to measure “how many rings” different items were.
Families shared on the family feedback form that they benefited from the opportunity to learn about what their child was doing in the classroom, often offering ways that the projects could be extended or built upon based on their own “funds of knowledge.” For example, some parents shared ideas for different recipes to use in the “I Can Cook” Family Project based on what they ate at home. Other family members offered to come into the classroom to share a theme-related skill. In one case, a construction worker talked about their job in class after families completed the “I Can Construct” Family Project. Overall, teachers reported that the Projects were well integrated into their classroom activities and were a positive addition to the curriculum.
We acknowledge that these Family Projects were initiated with time and resources that many teachers may not have at their disposal. Furthermore, some of the Family Projects developed and used may work better in some settings than others. Educators will know the families they work with the best, and can develop Family Projects within the context, culture, and curricular content of their classroom. Initiating this type of family partnership strategy could be made more doable by eliciting volunteers to help compile and collect projects, beginning with just one or two projects at the beginning, and utilizing free materials found online or gathered through donations. It is also important to consider modifications/adaptations to projects to ensure access, participation, and learning for all the children and their families in a classroom, including those with diagnosed disabilities. This may mean working with other colleagues and individual families to ensure activities align with a child’s goals and/or a family’s culture, interests, and abilities, ensuring that Projects respect and value different values and priorities within a family or community, and welcoming a wide range of family members to participate (e.g., foster families, older siblings, family friends, extended family members or friends, babysitters).
The Family Projects are one means to building partnerships with families and building on the funds of knowledge that already exist within homes and communities. It is important to recognize that sending home activities for families to do with their children may not be an effective way to partner with some families, and that some may never participate in this way. Likely, it is critical to employ multiple ways and individualize methods of partnering with families as needed. Whether within the context of Family Projects or other strategies, it is essential to partner with families, to acknowledge the family’s strengths and existing funds of knowledge, and build their capacity to support their children’s early learning.
As Jackson drove home that evening, his mind whirled with ideas for how he might use his own Family Projects in his classroom. Next week, there is a family event at the center to celebrate the holiday season, and he decided to ask the families of children in his classroom for ideas and inputs at this time. Jackson also made note to reach out to Caden’s mom specifically as he wanted to ensure that he considered how to individualize the Projects so that Caden’s family could participate. As he pulled into his driveway, he noticed a few snowflakes beginning to fall from the sky and smiled as he thought about how excited Maria, and the children and families within her classroom would be.
Footnotes
Appendix
Authors’ Note
You may reach Amber Friesen by email at