A Cultural Humility Framework for Engaging with Asian Immigrant Families in Multi-Tiered Systems of Support (MTSS)

Abstract

Asian immigrant families face unique sociocultural challenges that impact their engagement in multi-tiered systems of support (MTSS). Despite the increasing presence of Asian immigrants in the United States and other Western countries, educators often lack culturally responsive approaches to effectively engage with these families. Existing strategies to promote family engagement within MTSS (e.g., awareness, involvement, and support) do not adequately address the sociocultural complexities that shape Asian immigrant families’ interactions with schools. Moreover, these strategies risk reinforcing power imbalances by assuming that educators enlighten Asian immigrant families who are less knowledgeable about the system. In response, this conceptual article proposes a cultural humility framework to better engage with Asian immigrant families, by answering what educators should consider about Asian immigrant families (contents) and how educators should approach Asian immigrant families (methods). There are five content-related factors, including home-based educational involvement, high value on academic achievement, social support network, socioeconomic status, and language barriers. The three method-related factors include open awareness, empowered involvement, and respectful support. By integrating these content- and method-related factors, we provide a framework for fostering meaningful partnerships with Asian immigrant families, which can contribute to more inclusive and effective MTSS implementation.

Keywords

Cultural humility Asian immigrant families family engagement multi-tiered systems of support (MTSS)

This conceptual article provides a cultural humility framework to enhance Asian immigrant families’ engagement in multi-tiered systems of support (MTSS). MTSS has functioned as a comprehensive framework designed to meet students’ complex social, emotional, behavioral, and academic needs in many contemporary school settings (Lane et al., 2015). Research shows that the effectiveness of MTSS depends significantly on meaningful family engagement and involvement (Garbacz et al., 2017; Gerzel-Short & Conderman, 2019). However, despite Asians being the fastest-growing racial group in both the United States and other Western countries (Budiman, 2020; International Organization for Migration, 2019), educators, including educational and school psychologists, remain largely unprepared to engage with Asian immigrant families in MTSS. These families often face sociocultural barriers, including different expectations about parental roles in education, limited social support, and language obstacles (Ji & Koblinsky, 2009; Kao & Rutherford, 2007; Lim, 2012; Yamamoto et al., 2022; Zhou & Zhong, 2018). Notably, research on family engagement has largely overlooked Asian immigrant families compared to other immigrant groups (Antony-Newman, 2019), underscoring a critical need to address this gap.

Lewis (2009) suggested awareness, involvement, and support as three strategies for educators to ensure family engagement in MTSS. However, these strategies exhibit several challenges. First, although family engagement is highly dependent upon families’ sociocultural contexts (Minch et al., 2015), it is unclear how these strategies should be applied when interacting with families with Asian immigrant backgrounds. Second, the suggested approaches may perpetuate power imbalances, positioning educators as experts who enlighten and provide support for Asian immigrant families perceived to be less accustomed to the new school system (Tett & MacLeod, 2020). To overcome these challenges, we provide a new conceptual framework to promote Asian immigrant families’ engagement in MTSS through the lens of cultural humility.

In this article, we provide answer the questions of both what educators should consider about Asian immigrant families (the contents) and how educators need to approach Asian immigrant families (the methods). Regarding the contents of the cultural humility framework, we suggest five sociocultural factors that contribute to Asian immigrant families’ engagement in school systems, including home-based educational involvement, high value on academic achievement, social support network, socioeconomic status, and language barriers. In terms of the methods, we revisit Lewis’ (2009) family engagement strategies within MTSS by integrating the cultural humility framework (Foronda et al., 2016). We propose open awareness, empowered involvement, and respectful support as three methods of this cultural humility framework. By integrating five content-related factors and three method-related factors, this cultural humility framework informs how educators can better partner with Asian immigrant families in MTSS, in a nonhierarchical, culturally responsive, and equitable manner (see Figure 1).

Figure 1.

A cultural humility framework for engaging with Asian immigrant families in MTSS.

Family engagement within the MTSS framework

MTSS is a comprehensive framework designed to address a wide range of challenges students face, including academic, internalizing, and externalizing problems (Kim & Lim, 2022). Grounded in the preventive approach, MTSS emphasizes providing students interventions before their problems become chronic (Gage et al., 2018). MTSS typically provides interventions across three different levels of intensity (i.e., Tiers 1, 2, and 3), and the intensity of the instruction is determined by the students’ responsiveness to intervention (Lane et al., 2015). Tier 1 instruction indicates a universal support that is applied to all students as a foundation of Tier 2 and Tier 3 interventions. Tier 2 consists of selective interventions focusing on individuals whose needs are not adequately met by Tier 1 approaches. Approximately 10–20% of all students are typically referred to the Tier 2 interventions. Lastly, Tier 3 indicates interventions individualized to the needs of each student. Tier 3 interventions are generally provided for the 5–7% of students who do not respond to Tier 1 and Tier 2 interventions (Farmer et al., 2016). By providing both universal and incrementally intensive strategies for those who do not respond to general instructions, MTSS can support every student across a range of severities of difficulties (Chen et al., 2020).

However, school-based interventions are not sufficient to support adaptive development of students (Minch et al., 2015). By adopting an ecological approach, MTSS is designed to address students’ challenges through collaboration among the multiple environments in which students are situated, such as the classroom, school, family, and community (Garbacz et al., 2017). Of these multiple environments, home and school are the two proximal environments that are most influential to students’ development (Bronfenbrenner, 1977). Communication between families and educators may prevent problems caused by inconsistent directions and expectations across those two environmental settings (Crosnoe, 2015). Thus, family engagement in MTSS is necessary for planning and implementing the most appropriate educational practices for each student (Gerzel-Short & Conderman, 2019; Turnbull et al., 2015).

Lewis (2009) suggested three strategies of family engagement in MTSS, including awareness, involvement, and support. The strategy of awareness indicates that educators need to work on building families’ awareness of MTSS efforts that support all students in the school. Equally important, educators also need to enhance their own awareness of families’ expectations and educational involvement practices. The strategy of involvement emphasizes that educators should build opportunities to involve families in the MTSS intervention planning and implementation processes. Lastly, the strategy of support highlights that educators should assist families in addressing their children's challenges at home.

Although these three strategies of family engagement can be implemented across all tiers of MTSS, each tier has a different emphasis. In Tier 1, the primary focus should be on building awareness of educators’ expectations, teaching strategies, and support (Lewis et al., 2017). This enhanced awareness can be a fundamental resource for families to engage in the process of MTSS intervention planning and implementation. In Tier 2, some students are identified for more intensive instructional support based on their outcome data. In this phase, the primary emphasis should be moved to involving caregivers in the MTSS decision-making processes by letting them attend parent–teacher meetings and informing them about their children's progress. According to Vaughn et al. (2005), students who are referred to the Tier 3 intervention are highly likely to show social, emotional, behavioral, and academic challenges at home as well as at school. Thus, the primary focus of Tier 3 family engagement should be on providing appropriate support for families with managing their children's challenges at home (Lewis, 2009).

However, these strategies exhibit several challenges that must be addressed to ensure meaningful and equitable family engagement. First, how families engage and communicate with educators is deeply influenced by the sociocultural contexts in which families are situated (Minch et al., 2015). Families’ experiences, values, communication styles, and expectations of education are shaped by their unique cultural and societal norms (Shearman & Dumlao, 2008), making a one-size-fits-all family engagement approach insufficient. Although the general family engagement strategies suggested by Lewis (2009) provide a foundational framework, they fall short of addressing how these strategies should be adapted or tailored to meet the needs of families from diverse sociocultural backgrounds, such as Asian immigrant families. This oversight risks alienating families who have different educational expectations and values from those of mainstream culture. Therefore, to implement MTSS in an inclusive and equitable manner, it is crucial to intentionally consider and respond to the sociocultural contexts in which families are embedded.

Second, the strategies currently suggested for family engagement by Lewis (2009) may inadvertently reinforce existing power imbalances between educators and families (Auerbach, 2010). These strategies often position educators as the primary source of knowledge and expertise, portraying them as entities that enlighten and support immigrant families who are perceived as less accustomed to the US school system (Tett & MacLeod, 2020). This framing can undermine the strengths and agency that families bring to the table and perpetuate a deficit-based narrative that places families in a subordinate role (Baquedano-López et al., 2013). Such practices may discourage authentic collaboration with families who may already feel excluded due to linguistic, cultural, or systemic barriers (Green, 2017). To overcome these challenges, we propose a new conceptual framework that reframes the strategies to foster family engagement in MTSS through the lens of cultural humility.

Cultural humility

Cultural humility gained prominence in the late 1990s by recognizing the limitations inherent in the concept of cultural competence. The idea of becoming “competent” in another culture implies a mastery that is often unattainable and potentially disrespectful (Lekas et al., 2020). Cultural humility, on the other hand, emphasizes the importance of recognizing one's own limitations and biases and approaching interactions with individuals from different backgrounds with openness and respect. Tervalon and Murray-García (1998) defined cultural humility as an ongoing commitment to critical self-reflection aimed at addressing power imbalances in relationships, such as those between physicians and patients. It prioritizes the development of equitable, collaborative, and respectful partnerships with individuals from different communities. This conceptualization underscores that cultural humility is not about attaining a fixed level of knowledge about specific cultures but rather about embracing a continuous process of learning and self-reflection (Fisher-Bone et al., 2015).

Foronda et al. (2016) conducted a concept analysis of previous literature on cultural humility to identify its key attributes, including openness, self-awareness, egolessness, supportive interaction, and self-reflection and critique. First, openness indicates an attitude in which one is willing to explore new ideas and perspectives. It is the willingness to engage with culturally diverse individuals with an open mind, without preconceived notions or biases. Openness is the initial step of cultural humility, which allows for genuine connection with individuals from different backgrounds. Second, self-awareness refers to being aware of one's own strengths, limitations, values, beliefs, and behaviors. It involves understanding how one's own cultural background shapes one's perceptions and interactions and is fundamental for recognizing potential biases that hinder cross-cultural communication. Third, egolessness encompasses humbleness and throwing away the ego. In other words, egolessness means viewing all individuals as equals, regardless of their background. It involves addressing power differentials in relationships and deconstructing any perceived hierarchy. Fourth, supportive interaction indicates positive human exchanges that occur when actively engaging with others, sharing experiences, and taking responsibility for the quality of interactions. Supportive interactions can foster mutual understanding, respect, and trust with individuals from different backgrounds. Lastly, self-reflection and critique refer to a continuous critical reflection on one's thoughts, feelings, and actions. This final attribute is essential for ongoing growth in cultural humility by evaluating one's own biases, assumptions, and behaviors, and identifying areas for improvement.

Application of cultural humility: engaging with Asian immigrant families

By internalizing and continuously developing the attributes of cultural humility, educators can be more competent in partnering with families from diverse backgrounds, which is a fundamental part of MTSS implementation. First, educators move away from being judgmental, refraining from assessing families through the lens of preconceived notions (Yeager & Bauer-Wu, 2013). Instead, they seek to understand and appreciate families’ traditions, values, and perspectives. Second, educators no longer position themselves as the sole authority on education, shifting away from a top-down approach that enlightens families from marginalized backgrounds (Tett & MacLeod, 2020). Instead, they actively work to deconstruct power imbalances and foster nonhierarchical, collaborative relationships with families. Third, educators recognize families as essential stakeholders in their children's education (Albrecht, 2021). Rather than merely expecting families to follow their lead, they create opportunities for meaningful family involvement in decision-making processes related to their children's learning. In this way, cultural humility can advance MTSS implementation by not only strengthening partnerships between educators and families but also enhancing children's educational experiences that ultimately contribute to more equitable learning outcomes (Pham et al., 2022).

In this article, we propose a cultural humility framework within MTSS that is designed to enhance engagement with Asian immigrant families. Asian immigrants are defined as individuals or families who have migrated to the United States or other Western societies from countries across East Asia, South Asia, Southeast Asia, and Western Asia. There are several reasons for our article's focus on Asian immigrant families. First, Asian immigrants represent the fastest-growing racial group both in the United States and other Western societies (Budiman, 2020; International Organization for Migration, 2019). As of 2023, they accounted for 31% of 47.8 million foreign-born residents in the United States (Urbina-Bernal & Batalova, 2025). This demographic growth creates an increasing demand and opportunity for educators worldwide to effectively engage with Asian immigrant families. Second, research has consistently documented that many Asian education systems differ substantially from those in Western contexts (e.g., Jeynes, 2008; Taki, 2018). For example, teacher-centered instruction and high-stakes examination systems prevalent in Asian education systems shape how families understand their roles in education, which can create challenges when navigating MTSS in the United States and other Westernized countries. Finally, despite the distinct challenges faced by Asian immigrant families, research on family engagement has disproportionately focused on other immigrant groups such as those from African or Latin American countries (Antony-Newman, 2019). That is, current literature does not sufficiently capture and address the unique needs of Asian immigrant families. For these reasons, we center Asian immigrant families in this article as the target population for the cultural humility framework.

At the same time, we acknowledge that Asian immigrants are not a homogeneous group. Asian immigration itself has a long and complex history in the United States. In the mid-19th century, immigrants from China, Japan, Korea, and the Philippines came primarily for agricultural and construction work (Urbina-Bernal & Batalova, 2025). Following the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, arrivals from Asia have been more diverse, reflecting a broader range of countries and motivations, including educational opportunities, professional employment, and in some cases, displacement due to political or social unrest. In 2023, the distribution of Asian immigrants in the United States was as follows: East Asia (28.8%), South Central Asia (32.5%), Southeast Asia (29.8%), and Western Asia (8.4%). However, much of the existing scholarship on family engagement with Asian immigrants has focused disproportionately on East Asian subgroups, particularly Chinese immigrants. As such, some of the empirical evidence referenced in this article may not be generalizable to all Asian immigrant families. For this reason, the purpose of this article is not to claim cultural uniformity among Asian immigrant families, but to propose a cultural humility framework of engaging with Asian immigrant families in MTSS. Because the framework is grounded in cultural humility, it emphasizes avoiding any overgeneralization about Asian immigrants, even within a certain Asian country, and instead encourages educators to critically reflect on the sociocultural factors that may be important when interacting with Asian immigrant families. Importantly, this framework extends beyond the US context and suggests that educators worldwide should seek to understand the immigration experiences of the Asian communities in their own regions. In the following sections, we present the contents (what to consider) and methods (how to approach) of the cultural humility framework to better engage with Asian immigrant families within MTSS.

“Contents” of the cultural humility framework: sociocultural factors associated with Asian immigrant families’ engagement in MTSS

The contents of the cultural humility framework outline key considerations for engaging with Asian immigrant families by identifying the sociocultural factors that may shape their participation in MTSS. Understanding Asian immigrant families’ unique sociocultural contexts is essential for fostering meaningful interactions and engagement with them. However, this understanding differs from cultural “knowledge” or “competence,” which might perpetuate static assumptions or generalized preconceptions about Asian immigrant families (Fisher-Bone et al., 2015). Rather, understanding sociocultural factors involves recognizing specific areas that must be considered when engaging with these families. In this section, we propose five sociocultural factors that are commonly emphasized across previous literature that might be associated with Asian immigrant families’ engagement in MTSS: (a) home-based educational involvement, (b) high value on academic achievement, (c) social support network, (d) socioeconomic status, and (e) language barriers.

Home-based educational involvement

Researchers have shown that Asian immigrant families tend to use home-based educational involvement strategies, which typically involve families providing direct or indirect support for their children's education in their home contexts (Chao, 2000; Ho & Wilms, 1996; Huntsinger et al., 2000; Jung et al., 2012; Yamamoto et al., 2016, 2022). Families’ direct support in children's education consists of their managerial role of working directly with children and helping them with homework, whereas families’ indirect support refers to their structural involvement, such as exerting control over the child's home environment (Chao, 2000). As a part of the direct support, Asian immigrant families tend to teach their children letters, numbers, and simple arithmetic skills by providing explicit instructions to prepare them to be well-adjusted to formal schooling (Jung et al., 2012; Yamamoto et al., 2016). As an example of home-based indirect support, Asian immigrant families are inclined to structure their children's academic time and assign academic work more than their European American counterparts (Chao, 2000; Ho & Wilms, 1996; Huntsinger et al., 2000).

In contrast with Asian immigrant families’ active home-based involvement practices, they are less likely to engage in school-based involvement practices when compared to European American counterparts (Huntsinger & Jose, 2009; Pearce & Lin, 2007). School-based involvement practices include volunteering at school, joining the parent council, attending parent–teacher meetings, taking the initiative to communicate with teachers, and participating in school decision-making. All these practices were less common among Asian immigrant families than those from other ethnic groups, regardless of their levels of socioeconomic status (Comer, 2005; Ji & Koblinsky, 2009; Jiang et al., 2012; Zhou & Zhong, 2018).

There are multiple ways to explain why Asian immigrant families prefer home-based involvement to school-based involvement. Some researchers proposed that this might be because Asian immigrant families share a common belief that attending or participating in school events is not highly relevant to their children's educational outcome, unless the school events directly target addressing children's challenges in learning (Ji & Koblinsky, 2009; Pearce & Lin, 2007). However, other researchers suggest that Asian immigrant families’ preference toward home-based educational involvement is because they view schools as separate spaces demarcated from home by a clear boundary (Walsh, 2002). That is, they internalize the Asian cultural value that distinguishes families’ roles at home from the teachers’ roles at school (Chan, 2004). For example, Lim (2012) reported that Korean immigrant mothers rarely challenged teachers’ pedagogy but showed a great amount of respect toward teachers, influenced by the Asian cultural norm that families should respect teachers’ professional role.

It is important to note that the educational involvement of non-immigrant families in the United States has been mostly school-centric (Mapp, 2003). Educators in US schools expect that families have an inherent drive to be involved in school events, parent-teacher meetings, and school decision-making processes (Lewis et al., 2017). Thus, school personnel may conclude that Asian immigrant families who are not fully engaged in school events and decision-making processes remain distant because they do not value their children's education (Hill & Craft, 2003). In other words, lack of engagement in school governance, volunteerism in classrooms, and participation in school meetings and events among Asian immigrant families might be viewed as a lack of awareness about MTSS, a reluctance to be involved in MTSS decision-making processes, or a refusal to accept the support provided at school. If school personnel have this deficit view, they may be more likely to exclude Asian immigrant families from the MTSS decision-making processes in the long run.

However, Asian immigrant families’ inclination toward home-based educational involvement practices is highly beneficial to family processes as well as children's education. Previous studies have indicated that parents’ home-based involvement in literacy- and numeracy-related activities with their children were strong predictor of basic academic skills (Castro et al., 2015; Manolitsis et al., 2013). Home-based involvement can also facilitate positive discussions among family members, which may lead to a more stable family relationship and well-being (Suizzo & Stapleton, 2007). Thus, home-based involvement can be an additional educational inputs that supplement what educators provide for students at school. If the school personnel are made aware of Asian immigrant families’ educational inputs at home, they might be able to make use of these benefits of home-based involvement practices to leverage student outcomes.

High value on academic achievement

Researchers have found that Asian immigrant families tend to value their children's academic achievement more than families from other cultural backgrounds (Li, 2001; Yamamoto et al., 2021). Asian families’ high value on academic achievement can be found in parent-child interactions from early childhood. For example, according to Parmar et al. (2008), Asian immigrant parents emphasized the importance of teaching academic skills to their preschool-aged children, in contrast to Euro-American parents who considered play as an important vehicle for early development. Parmar et al. also found that Asian immigrant parents tended to spend more time on pre-academic activities, have fewer toys, and choose toys that had some academic values.

High value on academic achievement might be influenced by Confucian teaching that emphasizes learning as a process of self-cultivation (Yamamoto et al., 2022). The Confucian perspective of learning influences the perception of individuals who grow up in some Asian cultural backgrounds and supports the belief that virtues such as diligence, persistence, and humility need to be developed before one explores knowledge (Li et al., 2014). Thus, Asian families tend to guide their children to put consistent effort toward self-improvement, especially in academic domains (Yamamoto et al., 2021). This tendency can be stronger among immigrant families who recently come from Asian countries. Because Asian immigrant families often do not have sufficient financial and human network resources to sustain their living, they may believe that academic achievement is the only way to achieve social mobility in the United States (Li, 2001).

As Asian immigrant families regard academic achievement as important, their primary interests are often centered on improving children's learning virtues and academic progress (Yamamoto et al., 2022). This view can support family engagement in MTSS because families who place a high value on academic success are more likely to communicate with educators about their children's progress. They may also seek professional guidance from educators on how to assist their children's learning at home.

However, it is important to note that not all Asian immigrant families hold the same values on their children's academic achievement. For example, Kim et al. (2018) found that the majority of Korean immigrant parents perceived parental education involvement as supporting children's development in non-academic areas (e.g., moral values, kindness, caring, and other religious beliefs). This finding was consistent with other studies indicating that some Asian immigrant families believe warm relationships with their children are more important than parents’ direct academic support (Kim & Rohner, 2002; Moon et al., 2009). Overgeneralizing the assumption that all Asian immigrant families are highly interested in their children's academic development can perpetuate the model minority myth among non-Asian school members. The model minority myth includes the belief that all Asian Americans are doing well academically and do not need additional support from school (Kao, 1995; Lee et al., 2009). If the school personnel accept this myth, they may be less likely to support the academic development of children from Asian immigrant families, which can be a barrier to Asian immigrant families engaging in MTSS and other school-based student support systems.

Social support network

Social connections among families can create social environments that are conducive to their children's educational success (Kao & Rutherford, 2007). Communication among families enables the exchange of valuable information about children's education as well as the communal supervision of their development (Coleman, 1988; Portes, 1998). Researchers have shown that social bonding among families is associated with the family's engagement in their children's education. For example, Sheldon (2002) found that the number of social connections among parents of elementary school children was positively correlated with the levels of home- and school-based involvement, even after controlling for race/ethnicity and parenting beliefs. This result was consistent with Eng et al.'s (2014) findings that social supports are a strong predictor of parent-school responsiveness among the Cambodian population.

However, it may not be easy for families from immigrant sociocultural backgrounds to access social capital and connections (Lee & Bowen, 2006). Specifically, Kao and Rutherford (2007) found that first-generation, Asian immigrant parents reported lower levels of social ties to other parents in schools than non-immigrant White parents. The low levels of social support among Asian immigrant parents were partially due to their unfamiliarity with American mainstream culture (Kao & Rutherford, 2007). Therefore, Asian immigrant families who are not accustomed to American culture can experience a lack of social support, which in turn operates as a barrier to family engagement in MTSS.

The relationship between social support networks and family engagement practices can be further corroborated by the fact that Asian immigrant families’ increased social support facilitates engagement in their children's education. For instance, Sun (1998) found that East Asian immigrant parents’ increased investment in social networks was associated with greater contributions to and involvement in their children's academic achievement. Based on the same study, the researchers reported that immigrant parents often relied on social support from individuals with the same ethnicity. Similar results were found consistently in studies with Asian immigrant parents (e.g., Lew, 2006; Lim, 2012). These studies showed that common challenges for involvement in the American education system motivated Asian immigrant families to pursue collaborations with other families from the same background. The social support resulted in communal actions by those who participated in the collaborations (Lim, 2012) and allowed these parents to gain greater access to important school information (Lew, 2006). Given such evidence, the increased social support among Asian immigrant families can be a facilitator for the higher level of engagement in MTSS.

Socioeconomic status

Asian American immigrant families have undergone remarkable socioeconomic (SES) transformations in recent decades, evolving from marginalized communities to one of the most economically successful demographic groups in the United States (Chae, 2008). However, this upward mobility has not been universal, and the group's growing economic diversity—from affluent professionals to working-class and refugee families—challenges homogenized perceptions of Asian Americans as a model minority (Wu, 2014). Precisely because of this shift in public perception, which often overlooks persistent inequities, it is critical to attend to the needs of low-income Asian immigrant families, who continue to face systemic barriers to engagement in their children's education.

Research consistently shows that families from low-SES backgrounds—including many Asian immigrants—are less likely to participate in school activities than their middle- and high-SES peers due to inflexible work schedules, multiple jobs, or exhaustion (Benson & Martin, 2003). Low-income Asian immigrant families often have the lowest rates of attendance at school events and parent-teacher meetings (Ji & Koblinsky, 2009; Jiang et al., 2012; Zhong & Zhou, 2011), as financial stress (Qin & Han, 2014) and time constraints limit their involvement despite their interest (Zhong & Zhou, 2011). Some may even perceive school engagement as an unproductive demand, doubting its impact on their children's success (Zhou & Zhong, 2018).

In contrast, middle- and higher-SES Asian immigrant families typically have more resources to navigate school systems. Hovart et al. (2003) highlight how SES shapes social capital: middle-class families leverage stronger school networks to advocate for their children, while low-SES families often lack access to such support. This disparity underscores the need for targeted outreach to ensure equitable participation in initiatives like MTSS, particularly as the visibility of Asian American success risks rendering low-income families invisible. By addressing structural obstacles—such as language barriers, work-hour conflicts, and cultural mismatches in school outreach—educators can better support all Asian immigrant families across the socioeconomic spectrum.

Language barriers

Lastly, language barriers can also contribute to Asian immigrant families’ engagement in MTSS. The actual and perceived language barriers hinder immigrant families from communicating with the school and make them less involved in school volunteering and assisting with their children's schoolwork (Mapp, 2003; Wang, 2008). This finding was consistent with Constantino et al. (1995), demonstrating that the language barrier of Chinese immigrant parents prevented them from communicating with their children's school teachers. Zhou and Zhong (2018) also found that parents who were comfortable communicating in English contacted teachers more frequently and made more requests when they saw problems in their children's schooling experiences. In other words, parents with language barriers could not easily ask school teachers about the problems their children face, and the interventions for addressing children's challenges are more likely to be delayed.

Moreover, Asian immigrant families’ language barriers can prevent them from socializing with other families in their children's school (Lim, 2012). Thus, it is possible to speculate that the lack of social support from other families and/or school personnel can mediate the impact of the language barrier on families’ poor engagement in MTSS. To encapsulate, prior studies indicate that the language barrier encountered by Asian immigrant families obstructs them from engaging in school activities, requesting interventions when their children face some challenges at school, and making connections with educators as well as other families (Lim, 2012; Mapp, 2003; Wang, 2008; Zhou & Zhong, 2018).

“Methods” of the cultural humility framework: Revisiting family engagement strategies in MTSS

In the methods of the cultural humility framework, we reexamine family engagement strategies within the MTSS framework as suggested by Lewis (2009). Specifically, we reconceptualize awareness as open awareness, involvement as empowered involvement, and support as respectful support. Aligning with the attributes of cultural humility (Foronda et al., 2016), these revised strategies will answer how educators should approach and communicate with Asian immigrant families to ensure more inclusive, equitable, and culturally responsive practices. In other words, the revised strategies will provide a lens through which we consider and interpret the sociocultural factors introduced in the contents of the cultural humility framework.

Open awareness

Open awareness can be defined as an ongoing process of understanding families without preconceptions. The strategy of awareness in Lewis (2009) emphasizes the importance of mutual understanding between educators and families, serving as a foundation for effective intervention planning and implementation within MTSS. However, without cultural humility, this awareness can be problematic. If educators approach Asian immigrant families with a sense of certainty about their cultural knowledge, they risk reinforcing cultural biases and preconceived notions, which can perpetuate harmful stereotypes. For example, an educator who recognizes the general tendency of Asian families to highly value academic achievement may mistakenly assume that Asian students do not struggle academically due to strong familial support. This assumption is particularly problematic as it reinforces the model minority myth, the false belief that all Asian individuals are successful and well-adjusted to the existing system (Wu, 2014). This false belief can lead to the systemic exclusion of Asian students from necessary academic support within MTSS.

Therefore, while research provides some insights into sociocultural trends shared among Asian immigrant families, educators must remain open and avoid rigid assumptions. Through an egoless attitude, they should humbly engage with families, continuously learning about their unique experiences rather than relying on generalized cultural knowledge. This open awareness is fundamental to fostering authentic engagement with Asian immigrant families and is particularly critical for Tier 1 support, which applies to all students, including those without identified academic, social-emotional, or behavioral risks.

Empowered involvement

Empowered involvement refers to positioning families as core members of the MTSS process, ensuring they play an active role in intervention planning and implementation. Lewis (2009) emphasized the importance of family involvement in MTSS; however, without cultural humility, this strategy remains limited. In many cases, educators continue to drive the intervention process, while families passively confirm decisions rather than actively shaping them (Weingarten et al., 2020). This power imbalance might be even more prominent when educators work with immigrant families who are not familiar with the decision-making process. Through the lens of cultural humility, educators must shift this dynamic by empowering Asian immigrant families to provide their perspectives on MTSS decision-making. As caregivers in the family possess invaluable knowledge about their children's growth, learning, and needs, their insights should be central to the intervention process, not secondary to school-driven decisions. By fostering empowered involvement, educators can create space for families to take an active role in shaping interventions, particularly in Tier 2 and Tier 3 supports, where the MTSS team tries to plan and implement more targeted and tailored support for students with higher challenges.

Respectful support

Respectful support indicates assistance provided to families in ways that honor their existing practices and perspectives. Lewis (2009) emphasized that educators should support families in addressing the challenges of children with high academic or behavioral risks at home. However, if applied without cultural humility, this approach can reinforce power imbalances, positioning educators as the authoritative source of solutions while viewing families, especially those from marginalized backgrounds, as lacking knowledge or resources. A culturally humility approach to support begins with understanding how families have already addressed their children's challenges. Rather than assuming deficiencies, educators should first seek to learn about existing family practices. Any new strategies should be introduced as alternative rather than superior approaches, allowing families to determine what aligns best with their sociocultural context. This ensures that support is nondisruptive rather than prescriptive. Respectful support is particularly critical in Tier 3 interventions, where students facing significant social, emotional, behavioral, or academic challenges require coordinated efforts between school and home. By prioritizing respect and humility, educators can foster trust and provide more effective, culturally appropriate support for Asian immigrant families.

The intersections of “contents” and “methods”

As previously outlined, the cultural humility framework for engaging Asian immigrant families in MTSS consists of five content-related factors and three method-related factors. In this section, we provide more specific guidelines of how educators should engage with Asian immigrant families by integrating both content- and method-related factors (see Table 1 for summary). This integration is essential for fostering culturally responsive and equitable family engagement within the MTSS framework. On one hand, content-related factors alone do not offer specific guidance on the actions educators should take when engaging with Asian immigrant families. Furthermore, if these content-related factors are internalized without cultural humility, they risk reinforcing biases or stereotypes against Asian immigrant families. On the other hand, method-related factors alone offer no direction on what to consider while interacting with these families. Only the intersection of these two elements can provide a comprehensive framework for how to effectively engage with Asian immigrant families within MTSS.

Table 1.

Intersections of the content- and method-related factors of the cultural humility framework.

Contents/Methods	Open awareness	Empowered involvement	Respectful support
Home-based educational involvement	Recognize various forms of educational involvement; reject deficit view of not participating in school activities	Validate and integrate home-based involvement into the broader MTSS decision-making process	Affirm families’ existing home-based efforts and suggest additional resources that can complement existing efforts
High value on academic achievement	Do not generalize that all Asian immigrant families prioritize academic achievement in the same way	Empower families to share their perspectives on how learning virtues can be nurtured	Provide family support that aligns with their goals and expectations for children
Social support network	Recognize that limited social support can be a barrier to family engagement, especially for recent immigrant families	Empower Asian immigrant families to collectively engage in the MTSS decision-making process	Provide spaces or resources to support Asian immigrant families’ social networks with mutual respect
Socioeconomic status	Recognize the economic diversity among Asian immigrant families	Create flexible and accessible opportunities for low-SES Asian immigrant families to contribute to the MTSS decision-making process	Engage in open, nonjudgmental dialogue to connect low-SES Asian immigrant families with community-based organizations or after-school programs
Language barriers	Recognize that English proficiency is not a prerequisite for meaningful family engagement	Ensure that families experiencing language barriers fully understand the discussions on MTSS decision-making process	Avoid giving the impression that support is provided because of the family's language barriers

It is important to note that some illustrations of the intersections between content- and method-related factors may appear to overlap. For example, practices associated with open awareness, empowered involvement, and respectful support can sometimes look similar in application. This overlap is natural, as these three method-related factors are often enacted simultaneously in practice. However, each emphasizes a distinct dimension of engagement. Open awareness involves approaching Asian immigrant families without preconceived notions or stereotypes. Empowered involvement emphasizes building equal partnerships with families in decision-making during MTSS implementation. Respectful support highlights providing direct support to families in ways that honor their existing strengths and resources, ensuring that school-based supports complement rather than replace what is already in place at home.

Home-based involvement and cultural humility

Regarding the intersection of home-based involvement and open awareness, educators must recognize that families’ educational involvement takes various forms and that home-based involvement is often the preferred approach for many Asian immigrants (Chao, 2000; Walsh, 2002; Yamamoto et al., 2022). At the same time, it is essential to reject the deficit perspective that low school-based involvement reflects immigrant families’ disinterest or inability. Although some Asian immigrant families may not frequently participate in school events, they are often just as invested in their children's education as those from other ethnic backgrounds.

Regarding the intersection with the empowered involvement practice, educators can actively validate and integrate Asian immigrant families’ home-based involvement into the broader educational decision-making process. Rather than viewing home-based involvement as a passive mode of educational engagement, educators can create opportunities for families to contribute insights about their children's learning needs, strengths, and challenges they observed at home. For instance, educators can establish structured feedback channels where families share their observations on homework routines, language development, or social-emotional growth, ensuring their expertise is incorporated into MTSS intervention planning. By positioning families as partners in educational decision-making, educators can empower families to advocate for their children's education in ways that align with their cultural values and lived experiences.

Similarly, in terms of respectful support, educators can affirm families’ existing efforts to support their children rather than imposing external expectations. Respectful support begins with recognizing how families are already addressing their children's educational challenges at home rather than presuming a deficiency that requires correction. To offer support in non-prescriptive, respectful ways, educators should first seek to understand the strategies and resources families are already using at home, affirm those efforts, and then ask how the school resources can complement, rather than replace, them. In this way, family support may involve offering optional resources, such as translated materials or culturally relevant workshops, without framing them as corrective measures of families’ current practices.

High value on academic achievement and cultural humility

The intersection of high value on academic achievement and open awareness suggests that school personnel should first recognize that Asian immigrants often place significant importance on their children's academic success (Li et al., 2014; Parmar et al., 2008). However, open awareness requires avoiding rigid assumptions. That is, educators must not overgeneralize this tendency or assume that all Asian immigrant families prioritize academic achievement in the same way. A common misconception is that Asian students are unlikely to experience academic difficulties, but this assumption can be harmful. In reality, some Asian immigrants place greater emphasis on their children's social and emotional development rather than solely on academic achievement (Kim et al., 2018). Therefore, educators must remain attentive to the academic challenges that Asian immigrant students may face and always be ready to provide academic support within the MTSS framework.

In terms of empowered involvement, educators should align MTSS interventions with the priorities of Asian immigrant families, ensuring that their values and perspectives shape their children's interventions. If families view academic achievement as the primary focus, educators should encourage and respect their input in designing academic interventions. Moreover, it is important to recognize that Asian immigrant families may not only value mere academic “grades” or “scores” but also the cultivation of learning virtues such as diligence, persistence, and humility (Wang, 2008; Yamamoto et al., 2022). Educators should focus not only on supporting students in meeting academic benchmarks but also on fostering these learning virtues by empowering families to share their perspectives on how these learning virtues can be nurtured within the MTSS framework.

Likewise, regarding respectful support, educators should respect the diverse ways Asian immigrant families support their children's academic growth without imposing deficit-based assumptions. Some may emphasize structured learning routines, while others may prioritize fostering intrinsic motivation and perseverance. Rather than prescribing a one-size-fits-all approach, educators should engage in meaningful dialogue with families to understand their specific goals and expectations related to their children's development. Then, educators can provide some resources that align with the families’ goals and expectations for children's development.

Social support network and cultural humility

Considering the intersection of social support networks among families and the open awareness practices, educators should first acknowledge the importance of social support networks in shaping how families engage and communicate with the school. For example, educators should remain open to the possibility that families who are less visible in school spaces are not disengaged, but may be actively involved through informal support among families outside of school. At the same time, educators should recognize that limited social support—particularly among recent immigrant families—can pose a significant barrier to school engagement (Lee & Bowen, 2006; Kao & Rutherford, 2007). Developing awareness of this possible barrier is a critical first step toward more inclusive family engagement practices.

The recognition of social support networks informs empowered involvement practices. By providing spaces for families to connect, such as through affinity groups, workshops, or informal gatherings, educators can encourage Asian immigrant families to collectively engage in the MTSS decision-making processes. When families feel supported by a community of peers, they may be more confident in expressing their concerns, sharing their perspectives, and advocating for their children's needs. Educators can further empower families by creating structured opportunities for them to collaboratively participate in policy discussions and offer collective feedback on school programs. Similarly, the social support network also informs how educators offer support to Asian immigrant families. Respectful support, in this case, involves acknowledging the importance of social support networks and offering resources to facilitate them. For example, educators can offer optional spaces or resources (e.g., child care during gatherings) that can enlarge or strengthen Asian immigrant families’ social networks. However, it is essential that educators approach this work with humility and avoid positioning their efforts as “compensating” for a perceived lack of social network.

Socioeconomic status and cultural humility

Many Asian American immigrant families have experienced significant socioeconomic mobility, but this upward trajectory has not been universal (Wu, 2014). Open awareness requires educators to recognize such economic diversity among Asian immigrant families. Low-SES Asian immigrants often struggle to attend school events due to inflexible work schedules, multiple jobs, and financial stress, despite their interest in their children's education (Jiang et al., 2012; Zhong & Zhou, 2011). Without acknowledging these possible challenges, educators risk reinforcing the model minority myth, overlooking families who need additional support to participate in initiatives like MTSS.

Similarly, regarding empowered involvement, educators should create flexible and accessible opportunities for low-SES Asian immigrant families to contribute to decision-making processes. For example, offering meetings at varied times or through virtual platforms can accommodate their schedules and allow them to participate in MTSS intervention planning. Creating accessible opportunities for engagement is a crucial step in empowering these families and reinforcing their role as core members of the MTSS decision-making process.

In terms of respectful support, low-SES families may face challenges in providing additional academic or behavioral support at home due to time and resource constraints. In that case, educators should engage in open, nonjudgmental dialogue with families to better understand their home contexts and resource constraints. By carefully identifying the areas of need, when appropriate, educators can connect families with community-based organizations or after-school programs that can complement academic or behavioral support at home.

Language barriers and cultural humility

Considering the intersection of language barriers and open awareness, educators should recognize that language proficiency does not equate to their capability for educational involvement. Many Asian immigrant families, despite facing language barriers, are deeply invested in their children's education and actively engage in learning about school expectations and academic progress through their own networks and resources (Lim, 2012; Zhou & Zhong, 2018). However, when educators assume that English proficiency is a prerequisite for meaningful engagement, they risk overlooking the diverse ways in which families navigate their children's education.

With regard to the empowered involvement practice, teachers should adopt strategies that enhance families’ accessibility to MTSS decision-making process by using simplified language, incorporating visual materials, or providing interpreters during parent–teacher meetings. These practices empower families experiencing language barriers and ensure they fully understand the discussions and feel that their perspectives are valued. By creating an inclusive environment where language is not a barrier to participation, educators reinforce families’ roles as key stakeholders in the MTSS decision-making process.

Lastly, in terms of respectful support, it is essential that educators approach language barriers with sensitivity and care. Educators should avoid giving the impression that support is provided because families are not native English speakers, as this can unintentionally reinforce feelings of inadequacy. Instead, educators should engage with families genuinely, fostering open communication and understanding their needs without making them feel ashamed or uncomfortable. Respectful and thoughtful communication helps create a welcoming atmosphere where families feel supported rather than judged.

Conclusions and implications for future practices

This article introduced a cultural humility framework for engaging Asian immigrant families in MTSS by integrating five content-related factors and three method-related factors. The content-related factors highlight key sociocultural considerations, including home-based educational involvement, high value on academic achievement, social support network, socioeconomic status, and language barriers. The method-related factors focus on how educators should engage with Asian immigrant families, emphasizing open awareness, empowered involvement, and respectful support. While these three strategies are relevant across all tiers of MTSS, we underscored the importance of open awareness in Tier 1 support, empowered involvement in Tier 2 support, and respectful support in Tier 3 support. Importantly, only by understanding the intersection of these elements can educators develop skills to engage with Asian immigrant families in culturally responsive and nonhierarchical ways.

The cultural humility framework has significant implications for school psychologists, who play a vital role in implementing MTSS (Eagle et al., 2015). Effectively engaging with families from diverse cultural backgrounds is essential for the successful implementation of MTSS. The framework presented in this article serves as a foundational guide for school psychologists to build strong partnerships with Asian immigrant families, one of the fastest-growing racial groups in Western countries. Building off on the cultural humility framework proposed in this article, there are several implications for school psychologists to establish MTSS that are culturally relevant and welcoming to Asian immigrant families.

First, school psychologists must engage in self-reflection, critically examining their own biases and assumptions about Asian immigrant families. Given their frequent interactions with students and families, particularly in Tiers 2 and 3, it is crucial that school psychologists understand and apply the content- and method-related factors outlined in this framework. It is also important to note the need for school psychology training programs to go beyond theoretical discussions of cultural humility and emphasize the development of practical, actionable skills for working with Asian immigrant families, as outlined in this framework.

Additionally, school psychologists can encourage other educators and staff members to develop skills to engage with Asian immigrant families with cultural humility (Freeman et al., 2015; Reinke et al., 2008). Through consultation and professional development opportunities, they can enhance other educators’ understanding of the cultural humility framework of engaging with Asian immigrant families and help advance their family engagement practices. However, the adoption of the cultural humility framework within an existing MTSS framework often entails adaptive challenges. These challenges arise when individuals within a system fail to recognize the need for change or resist taking responsibility for transformation (Heifetz & Laurie, 1997). In this case, adaptive challenges may emerge when school personnel who are key stakeholders in MTSS refuse to embrace cultural humility. With their expertise in systemic change, school psychologists are well-positioned to address these challenges (Web & Michalopoulou, 2021). By collaborating with school administrators, they can facilitate regular discussions where staff openly share challenges and collectively work toward fostering cultural humility in the school system (Eagle et al., 2015).

Finally, this cultural humility framework is not limited to MTSS implementation in the United States. Although MTSS has been primarily developed and used in US schools, the principles of this framework are applicable in other countries with culturally diverse student populations. As previously noted, Asian immigrants represent the fastest-growing immigrant population not only in the United States but worldwide (International Organization for Migration, 2019). As a result, educators in various countries will increasingly need to engage with Asian immigrant families with cultural humility. This framework serves as a valuable starting point for fostering meaningful family engagement in MTSS across global educational settings. Furthermore, although this article specifically focuses on Asian immigrant families, the cultural humility framework has the potential to be expanded to other culturally diverse populations. Some of the content-related factors (e.g., language barriers, social support network, and socioeconomic status) and the method-related factors (i.e., open awareness, empowered involvement, and respectful support) can be applied to other minoritized or immigrant families. Starting with this framework for Asian immigrant families, we ultimately hope to see the development of cultural humility frameworks that address the needs of families from other racial/ethnic groups.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Jin Hyung Lim

Author Biographies

Jin Hyung Lim, M.A., is a PhD candidate in School Psychology at the University of California, Berkeley School of Education. His research focuses on advancing current practices in multi-tiered systems of support (MTSS) and social-emotional learning (SEL) by integrating the concepts of cultural humility, equity, and social justice to better serve students, teachers, and families from marginalized communities. He also actively conducts research on school-based mental health services for Asian Americans, who have been traditionally marginalized from such services.

Chunyan Yang, Ph.D., is an associate professor of School Psychology in the College of Education, University of Maryland, College Park. Her research interests focus on understanding how school members (e.g., students, teachers, and parents) interact with their living contexts (e.g., school, family, community, and culture) to find their resilience in the face of a variety of risk factors in school settings, such as bullying, teacher-targeted violence, and mental health challenges.

References

Albrecht

(2021). The journey from traditional parent involvement to an alliance for empowerment: A paradigm shift. Theory into Practice, 60(1), 7–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2020.1827897

Antony-Newman

(2019). Parental involvement of immigrant parents: A meta-analysis. Educational Review, 71(3), 362–381. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2017.1423278

Auerbach

(2010). Beyond coffee with the principal: Toward leadership for authentic school-family partnerships. Journal of School Leadership, 20(6), 728–757. https://doi.org/10.1177/105268461002000603

Baquedano-López

Alexander

R. A.

Hernandez

S. J.

(2013). Equity issues in parental and community involvement in schools: What teacher educators need to know. Review of Research in Education, 37(1), 149–182. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X12459718

Benson

Martin

(2003). Organizing successful parent involvement in urban schools. Child Study Journal, 33(3), 187–193.

Bronfenbrenner

(1977). Toward an experimental ecology of human development. American Psychologist, 32, 513–531. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.32.7.513

Budiman

(2020, August 20). Key findings about U.S. immigrants. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/08/20/key-findings-about-u-s-immigrants/

Castro

Expósito-Casas

López-Martín

Lizasoain

Navarro-Asencio

Gaviria

J. L.

(2015). Parental involvement on student academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 14(Supplement C), 33–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2015.01.002

Chae

(2008). Politcizing Asian American literature: Towards a critical multiculturalism. Routledge.

10.

Chan

(2004). Families with Asian roots. In Lynch

E. W.

Hanson

M. J.

(Eds), Developing cross-cultural competence: A guide for working with children and their families (pp. 219–298). Brookes Publishing.

11.

Chao

R. K.

(2000). The parenting of immigrant Chinese and European American mothers: Relations between parenting styles, socialization goals, and parental practices. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 21(2), 233–248. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0193-3973(99)00037-4

12.

Chen

Farmer

T. W.

Hamm

J. V.

Brooks

D. S.

Lee

Norwalk

Lambert

Dawes

Sterrett

Rizzo

(2020). Emotional and behavioral risk configurations, students with disabilities, and perceptions of the middle school ecology. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 28(3), 180–192. https://doi.org/10.1177/1063426619866829

13.

Coleman

J. S.

(1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94(1), S95–S120. https://doi.org/10.1086/228943

14.

Comer

(2005). The rewards of parent participation. Educational Leadership, 62(6), 38–42.

15.

Constantino

Cui

Faltis

(1995). Chinese parental involvement: Reaching new levels. Equity and Excellence in Education, 28(2), 46–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/1066568950280207

16.

Crosnoe

(2015). Continuities and consistencies across home and school systems. In Sheridan

S. M

Kim

E. M

(Eds), Processes and pathways of family-school partnerships across development (pp. 61–80). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16931-6_4

17.

Eagle

J. W.

Dowd-Eagle

S. E.

Snyder

Holtzman

E. G.

(2015). Implementing a multi-tiered system of support (MTSS): Collaboration between school psychologists and administrators to promote systems-level change. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 25(2–3), 160–177. https://doi.org/10.1080/10474412.2014.929960

18.

Eng

Szmodis

Mulsow

(2014). Cambodian Parental involvement: The role of parental beliefs, social networks, and trust. The Elementary School Journal, 114(4), 573–594. https://doi.org/10.1086/675639

19.

Farmer

T. W.

Sutherland

K. S.

Talbott

Brooks

Norwalk

Huneke

(2016). Special education as intervention specialists: Dynamic systems and the complexity of intensifying intervention for students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 24(3), 173–186. https://doi.org/10.1177/1063426616650166

20.

Fisher-Bone

Cain

J. M.

Martin

S. L.

(2015). From mastery to accountability: Cultural humility as an alternative to cultural competence. Social Work Education, 34(2), 165–181. https://doi.org/10.1080/02615479.2014.977244

21.

Foronda

Baptiste

Reinholdt

M. M.

Ousman

(2016). Cultural humility: A concept analysis. Journal of Transcultural Nursing, 27(3), 210–217. https://doi.org/10.1177/1043659615592677

22.

Freeman

Miller

Newcomer

(2015). Integration of academic and behavioral MTSS at the district level using implementation science. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 13(1), 59–72. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1080597

23.

Gage

N. A.

Whitford

D. K.

Katsiyannis

(2018). A review of schoolwide positive behavior interventions and supports as a framework for reducing disciplinary exclusions. The Journal of Special Education, 52(3), 142–151. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466918767847

24.

Garbacz

S. A.

Witte

A. L.

Houck

S. N.

(2017). Family engagement foundations: Supporting children and families. In Weist

M. D.

Garbacz

S. A.

Lane

K. L.

Kincaid

(Eds.), Aligning and integrating family engagement in positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS): Concepts and strategies for families and schools in key contexts (pp. 9–30). University of Oregon Press.

25.

Gerzel-Short

Conderman

(2019). Family engagement and tiered approaches for middle and secondary students. The Clearing House, 92(4-5), 135–142. https://doi.org/10.1080/00098655.2019.1625855

26.

Green

T. L.

(2017). From positivism to critical theory: School-community relations toward community equity literacy. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 30(4), 370–387. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2016.1253892

27.

Heifetz

R. A.

Laurie

D. L.

(1997). The work of leadership. Harvard Business Review, 75, 124–134.

28.

Hill

N. E.

Craft

S. A.

(2003). Parent-school involvement and school performance: Mediated pathways among socioeconomically comparable African American and euro-American families. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(1), 74–83. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.1.74

29.

E. S. C.

Willms

J. D.

(1996). The effects of parental involvement on eighth-grade achievement. Sociology of Education, 69(2), 126–141. https://doi.org/10.2307/2112802

30.

Hovart

E. M.

Weininger

E. B.

Lareau

(2003). From social ties to social capital: Class differences in the relations between schools and parent networks. American Educational Research Journal, 40(2), 319–351. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312040002319

31.

Huntsinger

C. S.

Jose

P. E.

(2009). Parental involvement in children’s schooling: Different meanings in different cultures. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 24(4), 398–410. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2009.07.006

32.

Huntsinger

C. S.

Jose

P. E.

Larson

S. L.

Krieg

D. B.

Shaligram

(2000). Mathematics, vocabulary, and Reading development in Chinese American and European American children over the primary school years. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(4), 745–760. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.92.4.745

33.

International Organization for Migration. (2019). World migration report 2020. International Organization for Migration. https://publications.iom.int/system/files/pdf/wmr_2020.pdf

34.

Jeynes

(2008). What we should and should not learn from the Japanese and other east Asian education systems. Educational Policy, 22(6), 900–927. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904807310042

35.

C. S.

Koblinsky

S. A.

(2009). Parent involvement in children’s education: An exploratory study of urban, Chinese immigrant families. Urban Education, 44(6), 687–709. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085908322706

36.

Jiang

Zhou

Zhang

Beckford

Zhong

(2012). Chinese Immigrant parents’ communication with school teachers. Canadian and International Education, 41(1), 59–80. https://doi.org/10.5206/cie-eci.v41i1.9197

37.

Jung

Fuller

Galino

(2012). Family functioning and early learning practices in immigrant homes. Child Development, 83(5), 1510–1526. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01788.x

38.

Kao

(1995). Asian Americans as model minorities? A look at their academic performance. American Journal of Education, 103(2), 121–159. https://doi.org/10.1086/444094

39.

Kao

Rutherford

L. T.

(2007). Does social capital still matter? Immigrant minority disadvantage in school-specific social capital and its effects on academic achievement. Sociological Perspectives, 50(1), 27–52. https://doi.org/10.1525/sop.2007.50.1.27

40.

Kim

Lim

J. H.

(2022). Risk profiles of Korean adolescents in relations with contextual factors: Implications for multi-tiered systems of support. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 13, 796928. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2022.796928

41.

Kim

Rohner

R. P.

(2002). Parental warmth, control, and involvement in schooling: Predicting academic achievement among Korean American adolescents. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33(2), 127–140. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022102033002001

42.

Kim

Y. A.

Kim

H. C. L.

Kim

(2018). Meaning of parental involvement among Korean immigrant parents: A mixed-methods approach. The Journal of Educational Research, 111(2), 127–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2016.1220355

43.

Lane

K. I.

Carter

E. W.

Jenkins

Dwiggins

Gerner

(2015). Supporting comprehensive, integrated, three-tiered models of prevention in schools: Administrators perspectives. Journal of Positive Behavioral Intervention, 17(1), 209–222. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300715578916

44.

Lee

Bowen

N. K.

(2006). Parent involvement, cultural capital, and the achievement gap among elementary school children. American Educational Research Journal, 43(2), 193–218. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312043002193

45.

Lee

Juon

H.-S.

Martinez

Hsu

C. E.

Robinson

E. S.

Bawa

G. X.

(2009). Model minority at risk: Expressed needs of mental health by Asian American young adults. Journal of Community Health, 34, 144–152. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10900-008-9137-1

46.

Lekas

H.-M.

Pahl

Lewis

C. F.

(2020). Rethinking cultural competence: Shifting to cultural humility. Health Services Insights, 13, https://doi.org/10.1177/1178632920970580

47.

Lew

(2006). Asian Americans in class: Chartering the achievement gap among Korean American youth. Teachers College Press.

48.

Lewis

T. J.

(2009). Increasing family participation through schoolwide positive behavior supports. In Sailor

Dunlap

Sugai

Horner

(Eds.), Handbook of positive behavior support (pp. 353–374). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-09632-2_15

49.

Lewis

T. J.

Mitchell

B. S.

Horner

Sugai

(2017). Engaging families through school-wide positive behavior support: Building partnerships across multi-tiered systems of support. In Weist

M. D.

Garbacz

S. A.

Lane

K. L.

Kincaid

50.

(2001). Expectations of Chinese immigrant parents for their children’s education: The interplay of Chinese tradition and the Canadian context. Canadian Journal of Education, 26(4), 477–494. https://doi.org/10.2307/1602178

51.

Fung

Bakeman

Rae

Wei

(2014). How European American and Taiwanese mothers talk to their children about learning. Child Development, 85(3), 1206–1221. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12172

52.

Lim

(2012). Unpacking parent involvement: Korean American parents’ collective networking. School Community Journal, 22(1), 89–109. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ974687

53.

Manolitsis

Georgiou

G. K.

Tziraki

(2013). Examining the effects of home literacy and numeracy environment on early Reading and math acquisition. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 28(4), 692–703. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2013.05.004

54.

Mapp

K. L.

(2003). Having their say: Parents describe why and how they are engaged in their children’s learning. School Community Journal, 13(1), 35–64. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED464724

55.

Minch

Vatland

Winneker

Gaunt

Williams

(2015). School-level family and community engagement in MTSS innovation configuration. Florida Positive Behavior Support Project.

56.

Moon

S. S.

Kang

S.-Y.

(2009). Predictors of immigrant children’s school achievement: A comparative study. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 23(3), 278–289. https://doi.org/10.1080/02568540909594661

57.

Parmar

Harkness

Super

C. M.

(2008). Teacher or playmate? Asian immigrant and euro-American parents’ participation in their young children’s daily activities. Social Behavior and Personality, 36(2), 163–176. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2008.36.2.163

58.

Pearce

R. R.

Lin

(2007). Chinese American post-secondary achievement and attainment: A cultural and structural analysis. Educational Review, 59(1), 19–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131910600796827

59.

Pham

A. V.

Goforth

A. N.

Aguilar

L. N.

Burt

Bastian

Diaków

D. M.

(2022). Dismantling systemic inequities in school psychology: Cultural humility as a foundational approach to social justice. School Psychology Review, 51(6), 692–709. https://doi.org/10.1080/2372966X.2021.1941245

60.

Portes

(1998). Social capital: Its origins and applicants in modern sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.24.1.1

61.

Qin

D. B.

Han

E.-J.

(2014). Tiger parents or sheep parents? Struggles of parental involvement in working-class Chinese immigrant families. Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education, 116(8), 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811411600807

62.

Reinke

W. M.

Lewis-Palmer

Merrell

(2008). The classroom check-up: A classwide consultation model for increasing praise and decreasing disruptive behavior. School Psychology Review, 37(3), 315–332. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2008.12087879

63.

Shearman

S. M.

Dumlao

(2008). A cross-cultural comparison of family communication patterns and conflict between young adults and parents. Journal of Family Communication, 8(3), 186–211. https://doi.org/10.1080/15267430802182456

64.

Sheldon

S. B.

(2002). Parents’ social networks and beliefs as predictors of parent involvement. The Elementary School Journal, 102(4), 301–316. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1002100 https://doi.org/10.1086/499705

65.

Suizzo

M.-A.

Stapleton

L. M.

(2007). Home-based parental involvement in young children’s education: Examining the effects of maternal education across U.S. Ethnic groups. Educational Psychology, 27(4), 533–556. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410601159936

66.

Sun

(1998). The academic success of east-Asian-American students: An investment model. Social Science Research, 27(4), 432–456. https://doi.org/10.1006/ssre.1998.0629

67.

Taki

(2018). Upper secondary education in Asia: A quantitative comparison with western countries. In Aizawa

Kagawa

Rappleye

(Eds.), High school for all in east Asia (pp. 47–68). Routledge.

68.

Tett

MacLeod

(2020). Enacting home-school partnerships: The roles of headteachers, family-learning practitioners and parents. Cambridge Journal of Education, 50(4), 451–468. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2020.1722062

69.

Turnbull

Erwin

Soodak

Shogren

(2015). Families, professionals, and exceptionality: Positive outcomes through partnerships and trust. Pearson.

70.

Turvalon

Murray-García

(1998). Cultural humility versus cultural competence: A critical distinction in defining physician training outcomes in multicultural education. Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved, 9(2), 117–125. https://doi.org/10.1353/hpu.2010.0233

71.

Urbina-Bernal

Batalova

(2025, April 17). Immigrants from Asia in the United States. Migration Policy Institute. https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/immigrants-asia-united-states

72.

Vaughn

B. J.

White

Johnston

Dunlap

(2005). Positive behavior support as a family-centered endeavor. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 7(1), 55–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/10983007050070010601

73.

Walsh

(2002). The development of self in Japanese preschools: Negotiating space. In Bresler

Ardichvili

(Eds.), Research in international education: Experience, theory, and practice (pp. 213–224). Peter Lang.

74.

Wang

(2008). Family-school relations as social capital: Chinese parents in the United States. The School Community Journal, 18(2), 119–146. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ818862

75.

Web

A. F.

Michalopoulou

L. E.

(2021). School psychologists as agents of change: Implementing MTSS in a rural school district. Psychology in the Schools, 58(8), 1642–1654. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22521

76.

Weingarten

Zumeta Edmonds

Arden

(2020). Better together: Using MTSS as a structure for building school-family partnerships. Teaching Exceptional Children, 53(2), 122–130. https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059920937733

77.

E. D.

(2014). The color of success: Asian Americans and the origins of the model minority. Princeton University Press.

78.

Yamamoto

Bao

Suh

(2021). Demand and direct involvement: Chinese American and European American preschoolers’ perceptions of parental involvement in children’s schooling. In Chu

Thelamour

(Eds.), Conceptual and methodological approaches to navigating immigrant ecologies (pp. 199–218). Springer.

79.

Yamamoto

Bempechat

(2022). Reconceptualizing parental involvement: A sociocultural model explaining Chinese immigrant parents’ school-based and home-based involvement. Educational Psychologist, 57(4), 267–280. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2022.2094383

80.

Yamamoto

Liu

J. L.

(2016). Does socioeconomic status matter for Chinese immigrants’ academic socialization? Family environment, parental engagement, and preschoolers’ outcomes. Research in Human Development, 13(3), 191–206. https://doi.org/10.1080/15427609.2016.1194706

81.

Yeager

K. A.

Bauer-Wu

(2013). Cultural humility: Essential foundation for clinical researchers. Applied Nursing Research, 26, 251–256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apnr.2013.06.008

82.

Zhong

Zhou

(2011). Chinese Immigrant parents’ involvement in their children’s school education: High interest but low action. Brock Education, 20(2), 4–21.10.26522/BROCKED.V20I2.167

83.

Zhou

Zhong

(2018). Chinese Immigrant parents’ involvement in their children’s school-based education: Behaviours and perceptions. In Guo

(Ed.), Home-school relations (pp. 89–111). Springer. 10.1007/978-981-13-0324-1_6