Knock,knock,may I come in? An integrative perspective on professional development concerns for home visits conducted by teachers

Abstract

This article address home visits and the professional development needs of teachers who perform visits. The author writes from a practitioner’s point of view, focusing on training needs for providers. The author argues that training and preparation for conducting home visits is needed to equip professionals with the skills needed to execute this growing requirement among teachers.

Keywords

Home visits professional development training

Home visiting programs are widely used as a strategic form of prevention for children and families. It is estimated that between 400,000 and 500,000 families at any given time may be receiving home visitation services (Gromby, 2005). Families described as having low income, limited social support, abuse, and/or other risk factors are often the targeted population for such services. However, more and more school districts and early childhood programs are providing home visits that are conducted by the actual classroom teacher (Steson et al., 2012). The visits can help provide the teacher with a clearer understanding of the student and their life experiences (Moll et al., 2005). This crosses over into the classroom and allows the teacher to further support the child in learning (Schlessman, 2013). Overall, research has concluded that home visiting programs in early childhood education have proven to be effective (Flessa, 2008; Learning First Alliance, 2010; National PTA, n.d.; Wherry, 2009). However, successful service delivery by the actual teacher is the most significant factor in helping children and families make positive gains and reducing at-risk factors for the students.

Recently, home visiting programs have gained popularity as millions of federal dollars have been appropriated to support work in this area (Schmit and Center for Law and Social Policy, 2011). The rise in advocacy for home visiting models can be attributed to the latest research on early brain development and the influence that positive early childhood experiences have on the future of young children (Shonkoff and Phillips, 2000). Home visits are not a new concept; in fact, they have a long history dating back to the mid 1800s (Bhavangri and Krolikowski, 2000). The purpose of home visiting programs of the past is similar to modern goals: to meet the needs of children and their families (Schaffer et al., 2000; Thurman, 1997). While home visiting programs offer strength and support for both the children and their families, the fact remains that in order for positive outcomes and gains to be made, teachers must be adequately trained, prepared, and supported in this task (Bailey, 2001; Myer et al., 2011).

Since professional development is insurmountable to home visitors it must be analyzed critically to ensure its effectiveness. Currently, each individual state, school, agency, and/or specific home visiting model offers professional development. The problem with this scheme is that each individual entity can decide on the required education for home visitors as well as design and implement a professional development plan, as it deems appropriate. This, in turn, makes identifying training objectives, fidelity of services, educational requirements, and the administration of professional development initiatives for home visitors an arduous task.

Dealing with federal requirements and the provision of services to children in the home further exacerbates the challenge to meet the professional development needs of home visitors. Home visitors are often asked to evaluate themselves and then take on new “recommended practices” that are research-based (Fey and Johnson, 1998, Flessa, 2008; Learning First Alliance, 2010; National PTA, n.d.). What complicates the request is the paucity of research on the actual integration of the required changes into practice by the provider (Campbell and Halbert, 2002; Greenfield, 2012).

Another issue surrounding the professional development of home visitors is the personal attitudes and beliefs of practitioners. Johnson-Staub et al. (2012) indicated that home visitors would most likely incorporate effective strategies and practices that align with their personal belief system, and decline those that do not. Sheldon and Rush (2001) suggested that practitioners’ values oftentimes do not reflect those that are considered to be recommended by best practice, causing a discrepancy between actual practice and what is required of providers by local and or federal authorities.

Further impacting professional development initiatives are the lack of provider input regarding structure, content, and requirements on training needs. The professional development opportunities that are currently available for home visitors usually do not reflect the service provider’s opinion. However, they are the ones who must complete and execute program models with fidelity. It is not a surprise then that many providers fail to connect with the knowledge and competency skills that should result in consistent and improved outcomes in their professional practice.

Extant literature continues to underscore the necessity of an integrated, responsive, and instructional training framework for home visits, more so in a 21st century that spans a wide-ranging set of environments and client characteristics. Today, the need for teachers who conduct home visits that want to learn and improve their delivery of services to diverse families across a variety of settings is urgent (Araujo, 2009; Gonzalez et al., 2005). Research (Campbell and Halbert, 2002; Parent Teacher Home Visit Project, 2012; Racicot and Shelley-Sireci, 1998) has suggested that training is a major concern in preparing qualified teachers to provide services in a variety of social and economic settings. Results from these studies indicate that there is a need for more focused professional development opportunities for teachers and completing home visits. The literature also indicates that changes should be made to address the way that professional development opportunities are implemented for the intended audience[s].

The teacher’s effectiveness in conducting home visits is of prime interest to local, state, and federal organizations that want to facilitate positive outcomes for children, families, and society. Analyzing professional development from the provider’s perspective is a major factor in ensuring that home visits continue to result in affirmative results for children and their families who are in need of such valuable service[s]. In conclusion, professional development programs for these service providers must be done in context, and be multidimensional and multimodal in nature to reduce the gap between research and practice for the benefit of children and their significant others.

Footnotes

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Author biography

Tywanda Jiles is an Associate Professor of Early Childhood Education. Her research interests center around parental and family involvement, professional development for early childhood teachers, and early intervention. Her research examines quality parental engagement strategies. She is currently exploring pre-k teachers’ self-efficacy in teaching math. She is one of the Principal Investigators in a multi-year research project supporting this topic.

References

Araujo

(2009) Best practices in working with linguistically diverse families. Intervention in School and Clinic 45(2): 116–123.

Bailey

(2001) Evaluating parent involvement and family support in early intervention and preschool programs. Journal of Early Intervention 24(1): 1–14.

Bhavnagir

Krolikowski

(2000) Home-community visits during an era of reform (1870–1920). Early Childhood Research & Practice 2(1): 1–28.

Campbell

Halbert

(2002) Between research and practice: Provider perspectives on early intervention. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education 22(4): 213–226.

Fey

Johnson

(1998) Research to practice (and back again) in speech and language intervention. Topics in Language Disorders 18(2): 23–24.

Flessa

(2008) Parental involvement: What counts, who counts it, and does it help? Education Canada 48(2): 18–21.

González

Moll

Amanti

(2005) Funds of Knowledge: Theorizing Practices in Households, Communities, and Classrooms. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Greenfield

(2012) Nursery home visits: Rhetoric and realities. Journal of Early Childhood Research 10(1): 100–112.

Gromby

(2005) Home visitation in 2005: Outcomes for children and parents. Invest in Kids Working Paper No. 7, Committee for Economic Development, Invest in Kids Working Group.

10.

Johnson-Staub

Schmit

and Center for Law and Social P (2012) Home away from home: A toolkit for planning home visiting partnerships with family, friend, and neighbor caregivers. Center for Law and Social Policy, Inc. (CLASP).

11.

Learning First Alliance (2010) Every child learning: Safe and supportive schools. Available at: http://www.learningfirst.org (accessed 11 May 2010).

12.

Moll

Amanti

Neff

. (2005) Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. In Gonzalez

Moll

Amanti

(eds) Funds of Knowledge: Theorizing Practices in Household Communities and Classrooms. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp.71–87.

13.

Myer

Mann

Becker

(2011) A five-year follow-up teacher’s perceptions of the benefits of home visits for early elementary children. Early Childhood Education Journal 39(3): 191–196.

14.

National PTA (n.d.) National standards for parent/family involvement. Available at: http://www.pta.org/programs/content.cfm?ItemNumber=3126 (accessed 20 June 2013).

15.

Parent Teacher Home Visit Project (2012) Available at: http://teachervisits.org/ (accessed 20 June 2013).

16.

Raciocot

Shelley-Sireci

(1998) Are natural environments unnatural: A survey of early intervention specialists. A research paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Northeastern Education Research Association, October.

17.

Schaefer

Cohen

(2000) Making Investments in Young Children: What the Research on Early Careand Education Tells Us (Issue Brief). Washington, DC: National Association of Child Advocates.

18.

Schlessman

(2013) “When are you coming to visit?” Home visits and seeing our students. Rethinking Schools 27(2): 19–23.

19.

Schmit

and Center for Law and Social P (2011) Maternal, infant and early childhood home visiting program in the affordable care act: Supplemental instruction request-February 2011. Center for Law And Social Policy, Inc. (CLASP).

20.

Sheldon

Rush

(2001) The ten myths about providing early intervention services in natural environments. Infants & Young Children 14(1): 1–13.

21.

Shonkoff

Phillips

(2000) From Neurons to Neighborhoods: The Science of Early Childhood Development. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

22.

Steson

Stetson

Sinclair

. (2012) Home visits teacher reflections about relationships, student behavior, and achievement. Issues in Teacher Education 21(1): 21–37.

23.

Thurman

(1997) Systems, ecologies, and the context of early intervention. In: Thurman

Cornwell

Gottwald

(eds) Context of Early Intervention: Systems and Settings. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes, pp.3–17.

24.

Wherry

(2009) Your best parent involvement year ever. Principal 89(1): 68.