Disengaging Parents in Urban Schooling

Abstract

Drawing on a 5-year qualitative study, this article explores opportunities for and barriers to parental engagement in a small, urban school district. Two competing narratives of parental involvement emerge. In one, parents describe their reluctance to engage formally in a district that continually fails their children. In the other, stakeholders argue that schools will not improve until parents become involved. Data demonstrate that many parents actively support their children’s education, exhibiting various forms of what Yosso terms “community cultural wealth.” This article concludes by questioning the claim that parents are not involved, utilizing Bourdieu’s theories of symbolic capital and symbolic violence to explain the prevalence of this discourse of disengagement.

Keywords

parent involvement urban schools educational policy

Introduction

Parents and educators have been looking out the window, rather than in the mirror. Inadequate parental engagement is seen as a problem for other people’s children—and not our own . . . When educators and parents look in the mirror, they are forced to develop a “can-do” list of actions for how they themselves can improve schools and better support children . . . When parents demand change and better options for their children, they become the real accountability backstop for the educational system.

—Arne Duncan, U.S. Secretary of Education, Speech at the Mom Congress, May 3, 2010

It’s gonna take a major investment for this [school district] to transform, I mean, we’re gonna have to do something with the debt, we’re gonna have to do something with our buildings, and we’re gonna have to do something with our instructional programs. And here’s one: we’re gonna have to reengage parents. Parents are the lost cause, lost, not cause, but the lost leader here. We have a cadre of, of parents that truly are engaged, but we have a cadre of parents that we gotta help them be more effective in parenting.

—Derrick Johnson, Superintendent, Clarksville School District, Interview, December 1, 2008¹

In his remarks to the first annual meeting of the “Mom Congress” sponsored by Parenting magazine, U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan outlined some of the Obama administration’s goals for developing family engagement programs in the nation’s schools. Duncan argued that parents are valuable resources and conceded that “almost every parent, regardless of their race, class, or zip code, wants what is right for their children.” However, at the same time, Duncan explained that—in contrast to his own mother and father—there are many parents who do not have the knowledge to help their children succeed academically:

I was fortunate to grow up in a family with two well-educated parents who read to us each night. But not all parents grew up in middle class families where they acquired information along the way about how to support student learning. (U.S. Department of Education, 2010)

In the second quote, Derrick Johnson, the superintendent of the struggling Clarksville School District (all place and stakeholders’ names are pseudonyms), echoes Duncan’s statement, as he suggests that parents must take more responsibility for their children’s education, and he positions parents as the key to improving a school system plagued by a number of problems.

This article, based on a qualitative study conducted in the Clarksville School District, aims to explore both the causes and effects of this discourse of disengagement, exemplified by the statements of Duncan and Johnson. To do so, this article describes what parental engagement looked like in this small, urban district from 2007 to 2012, exploring the opportunities for and barriers to parental involvement in schooling as conceptualized both by parents and other stakeholders. Drawing on two complementary approaches to understanding cultural capital as outlined by Bourdieu (1979, 1986) and Yosso (2005), this article highlights the positive contributions that Clarksville parents make to their children’s education and considers why many stakeholders engage in a narrative that blames parents for the myriad of problems facing the Clarksville School District.

Results of this study suggest that there are a variety of opportunities for—and barriers to—parental engagement in the district. While examples of engagement are both parent-initiated (e.g., helping with homework after school hours) and institution-initiated (e.g., back-to-school nights), most stakeholders tend to confer more legitimacy on institutional initiatives. In contrast, while interviews and observations reveal a variety of institutional barriers to parental engagement, these barriers are frequently framed in personal terms, blaming parents for a failure to engage. Ultimately, two narratives of parental involvement in the district emerge. In one narrative, parents describe their reluctance to engage formally in a district that continually fails their children, but they discuss a myriad of ways in which they support their children on an informal level. In the second narrative, other stakeholders (including parents describing other parents) argue that education in Clarksville will not improve until parents start to invest in their children’s schooling. Given the multiple examples of parent engagement identified in this study, the article concludes by challenging this second narrative and considering implications for policymakers when they shift their attention to fixing the problems in failing schools rather than “fixing” the parents of the children who attend them.

Literature Review

Although parental engagement may encompass a broad range of activities, this article defines engagement as the work parents do to secure positive academic and social outcomes for their own children by providing support in both the home and the school. This is the type of engagement that was most commonly addressed by stakeholders—including both parents and policymakers—when considering ways in which to increase involvement in the district. Indeed, a great deal of research literature has documented how parental engagement in schools (e.g., volunteering in classrooms or communicating with teachers) increases students’ achievement (Epstein & Salinas, 2004; Gutman & McLoyd, 2000; Miedel & Reynolds, 1999; Munoz, 2000; Sanders & Epstein, 1998). Some studies argue the ways in which parents support their children’s learning in the home has as much—or more—of an effect on students’ achievement than parents’ engagement within the schools. Many studies specifically focus on parental engagement practices with regard to homework and conclude that students’ achievement increases when parents help at home (DePlanty, Coulter-Kern, & Duchane, 2007; Sheldon & Epstein, 2005; Van Voorhis, 2003). Parental engagement may also come in the form of providing moral support for children and displaying interest in their schoolwork, which many researchers argue improves students’ performance outcomes (Epstein, 1995; Harris & Goodall, 2008; Pérez Carreón, Drake, & Calabrese Barton, 2005; Ream & Palardy, 2008).

Although researchers identify many opportunities for parents to become involved in their children’s education at both school and in the home, these opportunities may not be equally available to all parents, and for some parents, engaging formally in school settings may be particularly challenging. For instance, parents may lack material resources, specifically time and money, that would enable them to become more involved in activities at their children’s schools. Fine (1993) argues that low-income parents are occupied with the struggles of day-to-day existence to an extent that makes participation in school activities difficult. Cross-cultural communication is also a challenging barrier for many parents to overcome; indeed, it is often left to the parents—and not the schools—to navigate any cultural differences (Pérez Carreón et al., 2005). Moreover, some researchers have found that school staff members have negative perceptions of low-income and minority parents, which makes communication and involvement in general more challenging. In some cases, teachers or administrators display blatant forms of racism or classism (Friedel, 1999; Reed, 2007). However, sometimes race and class differences between teachers and parents create more subtle barriers to participation, as parents who are not members of the dominant race or class may struggle to relate to their children’s teachers because they do not possess similar cultural capital (Lareau, 2003; Lareau & Horvat, 1999; Reay, 1998).

Although many researchers have identified institutional barriers that make formal participation difficult for low-income and minority parents, studies focusing on the discourse of parental engagement find that these obstacles are often conceptualized as flaws inherent in particular groups of parents. For example, in a review of educational literature, Baquedano-López, Alexander, and Hernandez (2013) identify a “neodeficit discourse” relating to parents, arguing that parents who are not from the dominant culture are often viewed as lacking the necessary skills and knowledge to help their children succeed in school. Similarly, Lightfoot (2004) finds that researchers make a distinction between upper-/middle-class parents, who are characterized as generous contributors to schools, and low-income/minority parents, who are described as lacking the skills and knowledge to add anything of value to their children’s education.

Other research on discourse considers how certain types of participation are valued over others. For example, Nakagawa (2000) examines policy statements and parent-school compacts and argues that parents are placed in a “double bind,” positioned as both “protectors” and “problems” in their children’s education (p. 448). That is, parents are often portrayed as experts who possess key knowledge crucial for advocating for their children, but at the same time, parents are viewed as a nuisance when they become involved in ways that are not approved by school officials. Macfarlane (2009) argues that parental engagement may even hurt one’s children’s education when parents take actions that go against established conventions. Referencing a group of politically active parents who did not receive approval for their charter school in Australia, Macfarlane argues that because parents’ involvement took unconventional forms (e.g., letter-writing campaigns and visits with government officials), the parents were viewed as “unruly.” In that these actions violated “discourses of ‘proper’ parenting,” the state refused to renew their charter (p. 569).

In a sense, Ramaekers and Suissa (2011) take these analyses of discourse a step further, questioning why the current discourse of parenting conflates the roles of parents and educators in the first place. They argue that the conception of parents-as-educators is not neutral; rather, it reflects a contemporary emphasis on scientific research, particularly developmental psychology, in child rearing. Ramaekers and Suissa contend that parents should have more agency in determining their own ideals of parenting, which may extend beyond the intellectual development of their children.

Taken together, this research suggests that the current discourse of parental involvement does not reflect the full picture of family engagement, as it devalues particular forms of participation and even devalues particular groups of parents. Moreover, this discourse takes for granted that parents must play a key role in their children’s formal schooling, making it difficult for parents to consider alternate dimensions of child rearing. In this manner, the popular discourse surrounding parental engagement may itself actually limit the range of engagement for parents. Thus, as this study considers how opportunities and barriers shape parental engagement in Clarksville, it also takes into account the ways in which local discourse both reflects and shapes those opportunities and barriers.

Theoretical Framework

Undoubtedly, parental engagement is a complex phenomenon that is shaped by a number of factors, including the history of the district, individuals’ own histories in the city, the current political and socioeconomic context of Clarksville, and more. In addition, as parents try to be involved in their children’s education, power relations in the district shape their opportunities for and barriers to engagement. For example, school administrators often use their authority to define “proper” forms of parental engagement. As such, when discussing parental engagement in Clarksville, it is useful to draw upon a theoretical framework that helps explore how power operates in the district. Bourdieu’s theories about power are particularly well suited for this task in that Bourdieu accounts for how power relations shape people’s actions but also considers people’s freedom to act within those limits.

Bourdieu explains that one way that power works is through classifications based on different forms of capital, including economic, social, cultural, and symbolic capital. In brief, economic capital includes money and property, and it is the basis for the acquisition of all other types of capital (Bourdieu, 1986; Swartz, 1997). Social capital refers generally to one’s associates and networks and includes the resources one gains through membership in a particular group (Bourdieu, 1986; Swartz, 1997). Bourdieu also argues, “culture (in the broadest sense of the term) can become a power resource” (Swartz, 1997, p. 75). More specifically, cultural capital is the knowledge and resources that members of the dominant class use in a manner that is favorable to them (Bourdieu, 1986). Finally, Bourdieu (1979) describes symbolic capital, a “disguised form of ‘economic’ capital” that is located in the belief that the dominant class has somehow naturally—and rightfully—acquired its dominance (p. 183).

Although Bourdieu clearly argues that the valuation of certain forms of cultural capital over others is arbitrary, resulting from power structures in society and not the inherent worth of one type of capital over another, critics have argued that Bourdieu’s “theory of cultural capital has been used to assert that some communities are culturally wealthy while others are culturally poor” (Yosso, 2005, p. 76). To counter this “traditional view of cultural capital,” Yosso outlines different forms of community cultural wealth “that marginalized groups bring to the table that traditional cultural capital theory does not recognize” (p. 77). In part, Yosso (2005) builds on the ideas of Moll, Amanti, Neff, and González (1992) who conceptualized “funds of knowledge,” or “historically accumulated and culturally developed bodies of knowledge and skills essential for household functioning and well-being” among Mexican Americans (p. 133). Indeed, both the concepts of “community cultural wealth” and “funds of knowledge” can help researchers and practitioners consider the culture of low-income and minority families from an asset-based perspective.

In recent work, Rios-Aguilar, Kiyama, Gravitt, and Moll (2011) advocate for “a capital approach” to studying funds of knowledge, noting, “the emphasis on the recognition of funds of knowledge has generally not addressed power relations in educational institutions” (p. 166). Rios-Aguilar et al. explain that one of the major recommendations of funds of knowledge literature is that “teachers and school administrators [should] recognize working-class students’ and families’ funds of knowledge in order to help under-represented students succeed in school” (p. 176). However, they point out that institutions may “intentionally misrecognize the funds of knowledge of students and families” and argue that future research should investigate “instances and mechanisms” of this misrecognition (p. 176). Through exploring the dominant discourse about engagement in Clarksville, this article addresses one such mechanism. Moreover, by drawing on Bourdieu’s theories of symbolic capital and symbolic violence, the article considers why various stakeholders (including parents) often misrecognize parents’ efforts to support their children’s education.

Bourdieu argues that symbolic violence occurs when powerbrokers represent “economic and political power in disguised, taken-for-granted forms” (Swartz, 1997, p. 89). In the case of parental engagement, school officials enact symbolic violence when they reframe social or economic constraints that prevent parents from becoming formally involved in terms that indicate parents do not care about their children’s education. For instance, parents may experience symbolic violence when school administrators blame low turnout at parent–teacher conferences on parents’ apathy, rather than acknowledging parents’ long work hours or recognizing a lack of communication on the school’s part. This interpretation allows members of the dominant class to perpetuate a belief that the school success of upper-/middle-class students is attributable (at least in part) to the support they receive from their parents—and not to the economic resources available to them or their schools. In this way, upper-/middle-class parents and other powerbrokers legitimate—and perpetuate—their privilege.

Thus, this article explores parental engagement through two complementary lenses. In the description of findings, this article endeavors to take an asset-based approach, drawing on the work of Yosso (2005) and Moll et al. (1992) to highlight the efforts parents make to support their children’s education. From there, this article draws on Bourdieu’s capital framework, particularly his theories of symbolic capital and violence, to explore why Clarksville stakeholders engage in a discourse that ignores or devalues these forms of engagement.

Research Context and Methods

Clarksville is a small urban center with a predominantly African American population. The city has a total of about 4,000 students, with approximately 45% of this number enrolled in charter schools. Clarksville struggles with issues typical of many urban areas; for instance, employment rates have sharply declined in Clarksville over the last 60 years, as manufacturing plants and other industries have left the city. In addition, the city consistently has lower rates of educational attainment than the surrounding areas, and the district ranks among the lowest in the state in terms of standardized test scores. Plagued by administrative turmoil over the last 20 years, the district was under state control from 1994 to 2010, and it returned to local control when the legislation granting the state the right to take over troubled school districts expired.

I first came to Clarksville in September 2007 as part of a project to document a 3-year period of reform with one of the three members of the most recently state-appointed school board. After the conclusion of that project, I continued to attend school board meetings, and I volunteered at the school district’s Truancy Intervention Center (TIC), the administrative department charged with reducing truancy. While in the district, I utilized qualitative methods to document parental involvement in the Clarksville School District, including semi-structured interviews, participant observation, and document analysis (Hammersley & Atkinson, 1995; Maxwell, 2005; Weiss, 1994).

From 2007 to 2012, I interviewed 78 individuals. Table 1 provides a breakdown of interviews by stakeholder groups, noting participants’ race and gender. For a complete list of interview participants, including the date(s) of interview(s), their specific role(s) in the district, and each stakeholder’s race and gender, see the appendix. I used purposeful sampling to interview a range of parents in an effort to represent the assortment of perspectives in that group (Maxwell, 2005). For example, some parents were actively involved in the district, through frequent participation in board meetings or local politics, while other parents—such as many of the parents I met through the TIC—demonstrated lower levels of public engagement in their children’s education.

Table 1.

Interview Participants by Stakeholder Groups.

		Gender		Race
Stakeholder Group^a	n	Male	Female	African-American	White	Hispanic
Board of Control	2	2	0	1	1	0
Central Administration	6	1	5	6	0	0
Community Members/Activists	4	3	1	1	3	0
Community Organizations	8	5	3	4	4	0
State-Appointed School Board	2	2	0	2	0	0
Elected School Board	3	2	1	2	1	0
Parents	21	5	16	18	1	2
Partnership School	1	1	0	1	0	0
Politicians	2	2	0	2	0	0
Principals	4	1	3	2	2	0
Reporters	3	1	2	0	3	0
Students	14	1	13	12	1	1
Teachers	5	1	4	2	3	0
Truancy Intervention Center	3	2	1	3	0	0

Total	78	32	46	56	19	3

Some individuals fit in more than one stakeholder group; however, for the purposes of this table, individuals only are placed in one group, based on the primary position they occupy. For a more detailed description of stakeholders, see the appendix, where each stakeholder’s multiple roles are noted when applicable.

In addition to interviews, I also conducted observations in a variety of settings. I regularly attended twice-monthly state-appointed school board meetings from 2007 to 2010. I continued attending meetings after the locally elected school board took control, from 2010 to 2012. In addition, I volunteered at the TIC from 2009 to 2012, where I was able to interact with a section of the parent population who is not often present at public meetings. When students are found on the streets of Clarksville during truancy sweeps, they are brought back to the TIC, where a parent or guardian must pick them up. In addition, from December to June 2012, I attended regular court hearings for parents of chronically truant students.

Findings were analyzed using grounded theory, and I used the computer program atlas.ti to code transcripts and field notes to identify themes in the data (Creswell, 2007; Maxwell, 2005). My coding process involved three rounds. In the initial phase, I identified examples of parental engagement. For the second round, I explored these examples, looking for various issues that exist as “central phenomenon of interest” (Creswell, 2007, p. 160). The data fell in two main categories: engagement efforts initiated by parents and opportunities initiated by the school. As such, I created two preliminary inventories. In one, I listed all the examples of parent-driven efforts; in the other, I listed all the examples of school-driven opportunities. I began my third round of coding by grouping the examples in each inventory by themes, or new “coding paradigms” (Creswell, 2007, p. 161). I used these themes to code my data a final time. Figure 1 provides a visual description of what I did during these three rounds of coding.

Figure 1.

Coding process.

Data were triangulated by utilizing a variety of collection techniques (interviews, observations, document analysis) and by gathering data over a time period of 5 years (Hammersley & Atkinson, 1995). I also utilized an informal form of respondent validation by sharing some of my observations and analyses with the director of the TIC, who offered insights and clarifications when appropriate.

Parental Engagement in Clarksville

When discussing opportunities for engagement, Clarksville parents tend to consider the issue from a personal perspective, focusing on actions that they take outside of formal school events to help their children succeed academically (e.g., helping with homework or providing moral support). Other stakeholders, however, emphasize school-supported opportunities for engagement (e.g., attending Parent Teacher Organization [PTO] meetings or back-to-school nights), and most stakeholders tend to regard these institutional forms of involvement as more legitimate than individual actions undertaken by parents in their homes. Interestingly, while opportunities for engagement are generally viewed from an institutional perspective focusing on structures that are established by the school or district, barriers to involvement are discussed in more personal terms. That is, according to most stakeholders in the district, parents are not engaged because of a variety of personal deficits. Even when citing institutional barriers such as economic inequalities or poor systems of communication, stakeholders frame these barriers in personal terms that blame parents—and not the institutions—for a lack of involvement. Thus, this section explores the findings of this study by first detailing efforts for engagement as initiated by parents, and then describing opportunities for engagement provided at the institutional level of the school or the district. Barriers to participation are discussed in similar terms, considering what personal and institutional factors make engagement difficult.

Parent-Initiated Engagement Efforts

When asked to describe how she is involved in her children’s education, Lisa Jordan, a single mother of five children, stated frankly, “I’m not all that involved as I, ’cause I have a lot of things going on in my life . . . I don’t participate in events . . . I’m not the classroom mom” (Interview, June 2, 2011). However, during the course of the interview, Jordan explained several ways in which she tries to support her children in school, including helping them with their homework, seeking a diagnosis and appropriate interventions for her son who has attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), implementing a system of rewards and punishments, asking for her friends’ advice, talking to her children about school, and encouraging her children to learn from her mistakes. Indeed, many of the parents interviewed would not describe themselves as typical “classroom moms” (or dads), as they were not active members of PTOs and did not regularly attend school-sponsored functions. However, during interviews, parents described numerous ways in which they are involved in their children’s education in the schools, as well as in their own homes.

Although oftentimes parent–teacher conferences and back-to-school nights are poorly attended in Clarksville, many parents described having multiple types of informal interactions with the teachers, staff, and administrators at local schools. Many parents said they are at the schools on a daily basis, dropping off and picking up their children. They often use these visits as an opportunity to speak with teachers. Rose Williams, a mother of three children at Central Elementary School, explained, “I’m there from morning when I drop them off and I pick ’em up [in the] afternoon, and I’m always going to their classrooms, so I see the teachers every day” (Interview, May 26, 2011). Teachers confirm that they often have these sorts of informal interactions with parents. Rebecca Warren, an elementary school teacher with more than 10 years’ experience in the district, described seeing her younger students’ parents on many occasions, as they come to school to bring their children lunch, celebrate birthdays, and participate in activities such as Halloween parades (Interview, May 31, 2012).

While this behavior is more typical of parents of elementary school students, parents of high school students also reported taking their children to and from school, often due to concerns about their safety. In fact, some high school parents described staying in regular contact with the staff at Clarksville High School as a result of their worries about their children’s well-being. For instance, parent Connie Barns explained that she volunteered regularly at Clarksville High School, and she continued to volunteer even after her son graduated (Interview, March 13, 2008). Another parent, and the Clarksville High School cheerleading coach, Elyse Mays, explained that she often monitors Facebook or listens to her cheerleaders’ talk for signs of impending trouble at school. For example, when she heard that some students were planning to walk out of the building in a protest, she called the superintendent to warn him (Interview, August, 2, 2012).

Parents also discussed interacting with teachers and administrators to address specific problems that their children encounter in school. For instance, Elizabeth Cooper described how her son, who has been diagnosed with both Asperger’s Syndrome and Tourette’s Syndrome, was bullied at a district elementary school. After her son repeatedly came home bruised and crying, she spoke with his principal, teachers, and the head of special education services in the district. Ultimately, Cooper said she “just had a lot of problems with anybody hearing me” (Interview, March 15, 2012). Nailah Smith, a mother with children at a different elementary school, described confronting a teacher whom she believed pulled her daughter by the ear to remove her from the classroom, and who also regularly referred to her daughter as “Miss Thing,” instead of calling her by her name. Eventually, Smith spoke with the principal and tried to contact district administrators, although she felt as if she “didn’t really get anywhere” (Interview, June 9, 2011).

All of these informal types of interactions with schools illustrate what Yosso (2005) terms navigational capital, or “skills of maneuvering through social institutions [specifically those] not created with Communities of Color in mind” (p. 80). In the instances described above, parents find resourceful ways to make contact with teachers and administrators outside of formally established venues. Parents take advantage of routine interactions with school staff to communicate about their children, ask questions, and make their expectations known. Not only that, but parents draw on a variety of sources of information—their children, their own experiences in the schools, even social media—to keep abreast of important issues or events in Clarksville.

In addition to describing interactions with school faculty and staff, parents in Clarksville described many ways in which they are involved with their children’s education outside of school. For example, several parents described the value they see in simply talking with their children, both to show an interest in their lives and to stay informed about what is happening at their schools. Syreeta Fayad, a school police officer with children and grandchildren in the district, said that she talks with them every day, to provide encouragement (Interview, March 21, 2012). Kevin Entler described talking with his children to intercept any potential problems they may encounter. He explained that he talks “about different things that’s going on in school, and [I] ask ’em about different children” (Interview, May 17, 2012). While parents demonstrated concern for their own children, it is important to note that this concern extended to grandchildren, and even children outside their family, illustrating a “more broad understanding of kinship” or “familial capital” (Yosso, 2005, p. 79).

Several parents discussed incentive structures they create for their children to motivate them to work hard in school. For example, Lisa Jordan said that her children see their efforts at school rewarded—or not—around Christmastime. She explained her children understand her policy: “You like Fs and Ds, Santa don’t like you” (Interview, June 2, 2011). Other parents promise their children generous gifts as rewards for school success. Sandra Murray promised each of her children that she would make a matching contribution to their savings accounts when they graduated from high school (Interview, November 3, 2011). Elizabeth Cooper bought her teenage son an expensive phone and video games to persuade him to go to school (Interview, March 15, 2012). Miguel Garcia told his son he would give him his truck if he successfully completed his senior year and graduated (Interview, March 29, 2012).

In addition, parents described how they use their own educational experiences as examples to motivate their children. Dora Miller, a recent immigrant from Liberia, said that she talks to her children about school because “I’m not educated, and the thing that happen to me, I don’t want for it to happen to any of my children.” While she referred to herself as uneducated, Miller actually pursued learning opportunities in the United States, attending literacy classes to prepare for her citizenship exam, which she passed (Interview, June 8, 2012). Elyse Mays explained that she shares her life story not only with her three daughters, but also with all of the cheerleaders she coaches in a mentoring class she teaches at the high school. Mays said, “I tell them about my struggles . . . so that they can understand life is not perfect, but you may fall down, but you can get back up” (Interview, February 5, 2008). Through both tangible incentives and inspirational stories, parents in Clarksville draw on “aspirational capital” (Yosso, 2005, p. 77). In creating systems of rewards and punishments, parents establish high expectations for their children to meet, and through sharing their own stories, they “nurture a culture of possibility” (Yosso, 2005, p. 78).

While all of the parents in this study described a variety of informal ways in which they engage in their children’s education, parents in Clarksville are still frequently characterized as “not involved.” When asked what the district must do to improve, stakeholders repeatedly stated that parents have to become more engaged. For example, teacher Evelina Greene expressed the widespread opinion that “there needs to be more parent support” (Interview, December 7, 2007). George Miller, a former elected school board member, complained that parents ask for too much and do too little in terms of their children’s education. He suggested sarcastically, “Well how about doing this: as soon as you [parents] have your baby, drop it off here at the administration building and come back in 12 years?” (Interview, October 19, 2007). Moreover, many parents contribute to this general characterization of other parents, lamenting that adults pass on a sense of helplessness to their children. For instance, Jacqueline Allen argued that schools must do more to hold parents accountable for attending school functions, otherwise parents convey an attitude of indifference to their children: “They’ve lived here all their life, ‘This is the way it is,’ is their motto,” and they have little motivation to “see their kids do better” (Interview, May 3, 2012). Kevin Entler argued that education in Clarksville will not improve as long as parents complain without doing anything to help the schools. He explained that rather than becoming involved in constructive ways, many parents take the stance, “I can’t stand this school,” and their children “go to school and feel the same way” (Interview, May 17, 2012).

These comments—and their stark contrast with the myriad of examples of involvement discussed above—provide a clear example of Bourdieu’s (2001) concept of symbolic violence. That is, although many Clarksville parents are engaged in a variety of informal ways in their children’s education, the dominant discourse privileges formal engagement over informal involvement, and stakeholders devalue or do not even acknowledge the efforts that parents make to support their children’s education outside of the school. Thus, given the emphasis on school-sponsored forms of engagement, it is important to explore the institution-initiated opportunities for involvement that exist in the district.

Institution-Initiated Opportunities for Engagement

As noted above, when discussing the level of parental involvement in the district, stakeholders tended to focus on more formal opportunities for engagement. For example, attendance at PTO meetings was often cited as a measure for the overall level of parental involvement in the district, and a frequent comparison was made between parents’ attendance at boys’ basketball games and parents’ attendance at PTO meetings. Parent and PTO officer Connie Barns summarized this common sentiment: “There is a big disconnect if you can have 500 [parents] to a basketball game and eight to the PTO meetings” (Interview, March 13, 2008). While PTO meetings were the most frequently cited forum for participation, there were a number of other district initiatives designed to connect parents with schools and services during the tenure of Derrick Johnson, the Clarksville superintendent from 2007 to 2010. For instance, over his 3 years, Superintendent Johnson hosted a number of “Parent Summits,” community meetings designed to teach parenting skills and share resources, which Dr. Johnson explained were part of his strategy of “marketing our children to our parents” (Interview, March 10, 2009). This superintendent executed a number of other large-scale events in the district, including meetings to introduce community partners to parents, general parent and community get-togethers, and a “parade of schools” to tour the district’s new buildings with parents and community members.

Along with the superintendent, teachers also described reaching out to parents. Several Clarksville educators discussed the manner in which they tried to communicate regularly with their students’ parents. Teacher Rebecca Warren described her efforts to engage with more parents at district scheduled parent–teacher conferences: “I send home a letter saying that if this time isn’t feasible for you, give me a call, we’ll set up a time, we’ll have a phone conference” (Interview, May 31, 2012). Warren reported that her efforts go largely unrewarded, as she might see eight out of 25 parents at a given conference time. Andrea Barela, the president of the teachers union, explained that teachers tend to contact parents primarily “on an individual basis,” and that the majority of parent–teacher interactions are “teacher initiated” (Interview, February 2, 2012).

Superintendent Johnson also expressed the desire to hold parents accountable. To do so, he implemented a Truancy Intervention Program that included picking up and transporting students who break the daytime curfew law in the city; providing services for these students at the district’s new TIC; prosecuting students, parents, and business owners who violate daytime curfew laws; and making referrals to Truancy Court for all truant students with 10 or more unexcused absences (Field notes, January 18, 2009). In an interview, Dr. Johnson explained his main rationale for opening the TIC: “Believe it or not, it wasn’t about truancy . . . the truancy initiative was about getting parents involved, that was the underlying mission of that, it was about getting parents involved, it was about forcing parents to parent” (Interview, March 10, 2009).

Thus, teachers and administrators discussed a variety ways in which they try to engage parents. While some teachers described reaching out on a personal level, administrators described attempts to connect with parents on a larger scale. Although these stakeholders contend that parents are crucial to their children’s educational achievement, they often suggest that parents lack the desire or the skills necessary to help their children achieve academic success. Moreover, while Dr. Johnson spoke of holding parents accountable and school staff members noted the difficulties they encounter in trying to reach parents, they failed to validate the myriad of ways in which parents are involved outside of the school setting—or even informally within the schools. In addition, parents described many difficulties they encounter when they try to become involved in more formal ways in the district, and these obstacles extend beyond not knowing and not caring enough.

Barriers to Engagement

In some respects, there is agreement between parents and other stakeholders regarding barriers to parental engagement in the district. Both parents and other stakeholders state that parental involvement is complicated by institutional factors relating to poverty, poor communication systems, unwelcoming school environments, and a lack of resources. However, stakeholders frequently frame these barriers in a way that blames the parents—and not the schools—for the persistence of these problems.

Parents and other stakeholders agree that the difficult economic situation in Clarksville creates barriers to family involvement in schooling. According to the 2006-2010 American Community Survey, 30.9% of families in Clarksville have an income below the poverty level, and the median household income in Clarksville is $26,787. Therefore, it is not surprising that many parents said they lack resources that would help them be more involved with their children’s schools. Some parents explained they do not have the opportunity to go to their children’s school because of their work hours. During observations at Truancy Court, parents’ lack of resources often manifested itself in the form of serious illness or disability, which some parents explained prevented them from closely monitoring their children’s school attendance.

Stakeholders besides parents in Clarksville agreed that the economic conditions in the city make it difficult for many families to muster the time and resources necessary to participate in more formal ways in their children’s schooling. The superintendent, Dr. Johnson, described the Clarksville population as “captives that just have to stay and continue. Everybody [who] has resources has left” (Interview, December 7, 2007). Because of this reality, stakeholders explained that parents often work multiple jobs to support their multiple children who attend all different schools, which makes participation difficult. As former PTO president Donald Brose explained, “you can’t expect parents to . . . be at meetings if they’re working, if they’re on second shift” (Interview, June 14, 2012).

However, while parents focused on how economic realities make it difficult for them to find time to spend at schools, other stakeholders emphasized how economic hardships contribute to a deteriorating family structure in Clarksville, with a large number of households headed by single mothers who fail to adequately support their children academically. For example, Clarksville High School principal, Dr. Joyce Carman, argued that without stay-at-home mothers, children “have to fend for themselves, and that impacts school. That impacts their achievement, that impacts their behavior” (Interview, October 21, 2009). Similarly, longtime Clarksville resident and newly elected school board member Evelyn Doonan argued that the newest generation of parents “are so caught up in trying to make ends meet that they don’t see the necessity [of becoming involved] . . . And I think that started when children started having children” (Interview, June, 26, 2012). Thus, while stakeholders do not blame parents for the difficult economic times, many believe that parents adapt to their circumstances in dysfunctional ways.

In addition to highlighting economic challenges, both observations and interviews revealed the extent to which communication proved an obstacle for parents seeking to become more involved in the district. This barrier was quite apparent at Truancy Court in Clarksville, where parents who only spoke Spanish had limited options for interacting with the judge and district representatives. With no translator present, parents frequently had their children translate. In many cases, the child who was translating was the same child who was cited for truancy. Even parents who are native English speakers reported issues with communication. For example, many parents said that their children’s schools either fail to share important information or share it when it is much too late. Tanya Rollins, the PTO president, said that when her daughter attended Clarksville High School, “a lot of things . . . were happening at the school . . . I never had knowledge of it. I never received things in the mail” (Interview, December 7, 2007).

Parents of students with Individualized Education Programs (IEP) detailed a variety of ways in which school faculty both failed to communicate and to keep accurate records. Lisa Jordan shared her experiences at her daughter’s IEP meetings, where the teachers “said they couldn’t find what we talked about in her plan proposed last year” (Interview, June 2, 2011). Monica Nighman, who has two children in special education, explained that when she attends their IEP meetings, the principal is never present. When the IEP team comes to a decision regarding services for her children, the staff tells her: “Oh, well, we can’t do that, it, that has to come from the principal” (Interview, June 1, 2009). Other parents noted they were often frustrated when they came to the school, trying to get information, only to encounter teachers or counselors who had no answers.

Certainly, parents were not the only people in the district to note communication challenges. Like parents, many stakeholders felt the school district did not do enough to share information with families. Angela Abernathy, TIC director, explained that school staff members often do not give parents enough notice about events “because we’re always behind the eight ball” (Interview, January 26, 2012). She traced this problem back to the administration and added that because of budget problems, the district often does not know if specific programs will be able to run until the last minute, which often means giving late notice to parents. In addition, while parent liaisons were hired early in Dr. Johnson’s tenure to help pass along important information to parents, community activist Brian Holden found that these liaisons “tended to get pulled for other jobs” and lacked adequate training (Interview, February 5, 2010).

While acknowledging that the schools could do better in terms of disseminating information, other stakeholders also blamed parents for difficulties with communication. Some employees said that parents frequently gave the district incorrect or outdated contact information, making them impossible to locate. Former PTO president Donald Brose explained that sometimes parents purposely give false addresses to send their children to particular district schools (Interview, June 14, 2012). Although frustrating for school officials, this action represents another informal way in which parents engage in their children’s education, trying to select the best schools out of the choices available to them. At the TIC, Abernathy and her staff perform many home visits and often find abandoned homes. Not only that, but parents’ phone numbers change frequently or are often disconnected. Thus, while acknowledging that school officials could do more to communicate effectively with parents, district employees argue that when they are able to provide accurate information, parents cannot be located or do not listen.

Parents also cited an unwelcoming school atmosphere as a barrier to participation. Parent Miguel Garcia said the Main Office staff at the high school is not friendly: “They act, some of them act snotty when you ask them a question. Like, they don’t even want to answer” (Interview, March 29, 2012). According to school police officer Syreeta Fayad, the Main Office is as far as most parents can hope to go at the high school. When asked what happens when parents come to Clarksville High School to talk to a teacher or administrator, she replied,

Can’t do it . . . You gonna have to . . . for a teacher, you gonna have to [wait] two to three days . . . Matter of fact, I can go as far back as three months to see Dr. Carman [the principal]. You cannot see Dr. Carman. Our students don’t know what Dr. Carman look like, other than that picture . . . up on the third floor. (Interview, March 21, 2012)

Even when parents do gain access to the school, perhaps to volunteer or to meet with staff, security is a concern. Connie Barns, who volunteered regularly at the high school, said that some days her son said to her, “Mom, don’t go down [to the] first and second floor by yourself. Please don’t,” as he was scared for her safety (Interview, March 13, 2008).

While some stakeholders felt the schools could be more accommodating, many others blamed the parents themselves for the negative reception they sometimes receive in district buildings. These stakeholders explained that parents often come to school defensive about their children or still upset about their own bad experiences in district schools. Teacher Rebecca Warren said that parents frequently come to school because their children are having discipline problems, and under these circumstances, “they come in very defensive . . . they come in yelling” (Interview, May 31, 2012). Warren attributed this defensiveness to the parents’ own bad experiences in the school. Elected school board member Evelyn Doonan explained that sometimes parents are too quick to become offended, arguing they lack interpersonal skills, and when teachers raise issues about their children, the parents lash out. Doonan said, “They are so frustrated . . . the fuse is so short, they start off being civil, and then somebody makes them think they’re playing on their intelligence, then they explode” (Interview, June 26, 2012).

Despite being portrayed as defensive, many parents openly acknowledged that they lack the necessary expertise or resources to participate more fully in their children’s schooling. Some parents expressed the belief that they did not have the requisite knowledge to help their children. Indeed, in Clarksville, some parents found elements of the curriculum difficult to understand, as teaching methods had changed greatly since they were in school. Moreover, some parents expressed frustration that they lacked materials that would help them understand their children’s work. Lisa Jordan noted a common complaint in the district, explaining that her children “don’t bring home any books, they bring home ditto sheets” (Interview, June 2, 2011). This lack of textbooks was a concern that parents frequently raised at board meetings. In fact, when Dr. Johnson began his tenure in Clarksville, he acknowledged this shortage of books, stating that the district was in need of math, science, and social studies texts (Field notes, September 27, 2007).

Although parents talked about lacking content knowledge and not having access to school curricula, other stakeholders frequently complained that parents do not know how to parent and lack the child-rearing skills necessary to raise successful students. Dr. Johnson acknowledged that while some parents are engaged, the district has many parents who lack basic parenting skills. Dr. Johnson hoped to help enroll parents in General Educational Development (GED) classes and possibly start a parent university (Interview, December 1, 2008). Indeed, the Parent Summits he later hosted provided community members with a variety of parenting resources.

In sum, there are a variety of barriers to parental involvement in the Clarksville School District. Although many of these barriers are institutional in nature (economic hardships, poor communication systems, a lack of school resources), they are often attributed to personal failings on the part of the parents. Again and again, stakeholders stated the belief that parents in Clarksville simply do not value education, and many argued that this mind-set creates the biggest barrier for parents’ participation in their children’s schooling. In contrast, parents express reluctance to invest their time and energy in becoming formally involved in a district that provides their children with an inadequate education and frequently seems unwelcoming toward their participation. Even so, parents demonstrated the value they place on their children’s education by supporting their children in a variety of informal ways.

Discussion

To problematize a discourse of disengagement, this article illustrates the various ways in which parents participate in their children’s schooling in Clarksville. Yosso’s (2005) theory of community cultural wealth provides a helpful framework for articulating various assets that Clarksville parents use to support their children’s education. In particular, as noted above, parents demonstrate navigational, aspirational, and familial capital as they find creative ways to interact with school staff outside of formally established venues, inspire their children to persist in school despite various obstacles, and commit to the well-being of children beyond their immediate family.

Despite all the ways in which Clarksville parents describe supporting their children’s education, a discourse of disengagement persists, even among Clarksville parents themselves. Bourdieu’s theory of capital proves useful in explaining this phenomenon. Following Bourdieu’s framework, formal engagement in school settings requires that parents possess economic capital (e.g., a flexible or regular work schedule that allows visits to schools), social capital (e.g., access to networks that provide information about what is happening at schools), and cultural capital (e.g., their own educational experiences that inform their understanding of what is expected of parents in formal school settings). However, the link between formal engagement and these types of capital has become misrecognized, as stakeholders frequently frame parental involvement in terms of how much parents value education, rather than connecting formal opportunities for engagement to the economic, social, and cultural resources to which parents have access. In this sense, parents’ levels of formal engagement in schools has become a type of symbolic capital. Bourdieu (1979) explains that symbolic capital is valuable “inasmuch and only inasmuch as it conceals the fact that it originates in ‘material’ forms of capital which are also, in the last analysis, the source of its effects” (p. 183).

When formal involvement in schools is “unrecognized as capital and recognized as legitimate competence,” there are important consequences for both parents and policymakers (Bourdieu, 1986, p. 245). First, low-income and minority parents may experience symbolic violence when they accept a discourse that contends they just do not care enough about their children’s education because they do not participate in particular ways. While the damage inflicted by symbolic violence is not always visible, at times, parents’ pain was perceptible in Clarksville. For example, at a truancy hearing in district court, one mother worried that she could not afford to pay a fine as a consequence for her daughter’s repeated absences. The mother explained to the judge that she has 11 children, one of whom is hospitalized with a terminal illness. Because the mother had to spend time at the hospital, her daughter occasionally stayed home from school to care for her younger siblings. The mother wept in front of a packed courtroom as she explained, “I do the best I can. My other kids are out of control. I know that” (Field notes, February 16, 2012). On a different note, parent Lisa Jordan expressed regret for choices she had made in her life:

I wish I could take it back . . . if I could, if I got that one chance to say what would you do differently, I would have finished school, wouldn’t of had no children, and hopefully this life would have been different, ’cause my life’s been hell, and, like, the kids, we just experienced this hell . . . and when shit is fucked up at home, it’s fucked up at school. (Interview, June 2, 2011)

Despite articulating a number of problems with the schools her children attend, ultimately, Jordan traced the source of her children’s difficulty in school back to decisions she made in her life and problems at home. These examples notwithstanding, parents in Clarksville (including Lisa Jordan) demonstrate a great deal of resilience, overcoming symbolic violence they experience and supporting their children in a variety of ways, as outlined above.

A second consequence of parental engagement becoming a form of symbolic capital is that this misrecognition has tremendous power to shape the conversation about school reform in Clarksville and districts like it. That is, rather than focusing on what school leaders and policymakers should do to improve educational outcomes, the discussion centers around what parents fail to do and how they must do better. For instance, in Clarksville, Superintendent Johnson made increasing parental involvement one of his key reform efforts, creating initiatives such as the Truancy Intervention Program to hold parents accountable and hosting Parent Summits to help “market” children to their parents. However, as this study demonstrates, and as a variety of other researchers attest, parents already are involved in their children’s education, although oftentimes in ways that are not recognized or valued by school officials or the general public (García & Guerra, 2004; González, 2005; Moll et al., 1992; Yosso, 2005).

Implications

In his 2010 speech to the Mom Congress, U.S. Secretary of Education Duncan argues that parents’ misperceptions of themselves as involved in their children’s education leads to an “insidious paralysis in civic life,” as they wait for others to solve the problems that plague their children’s schools (U.S. Department of Education, 2010). This article, instead, contends that an “insidious paralysis” occurs when policymakers blame parents for school failures, reframing systemic problems in terms of parents’ deficits rather than taking decisive action to make schooling more equitable for all students. For example, schools in Clarksville would benefit from additional material resources, more responsive staff and faculty members, and better systems of communication.

Certainly, initiatives designed to engage parents have a variety of benefits, particularly those programs that seek to draw on the capital that parents possess and address unequal power relations between parents and school officials (see Ishimaru, 2014; Warren, Hong, Rubin, & Uy, 2009). However, these initiatives should not be framed as the key to improving struggling schools when they are simply one element of well-functioning districts. Moreover, it is unrealistic to expect even the most inclusive parental engagement practices to remedy the systemic problems that plague underfunded schools. In her analysis of a successful model of community-oriented school reform, Ishimaru is careful to point out that while collaboration between schools and community organizing groups may help parents and other concerned community members to “leverage their respective resources” to improve educational opportunities, they “are not a silver bullet for the challenges of struggling schools” (p. 212).

Finally, while investing more resources in struggling schools is of primary importance, working to challenge a discourse of disengagement can also produce significant effects. Although Bourdieu argues that power and privilege are reproduced through social structures, he still maintains that change is possible. He explains,

If we grant that symbolic systems [e.g., discourse] are social products that contribute to making the world, that they do not simply mirror social relations but help constitute them, then one can, within limits, transform the world by transforming its representation. (Bourdieu, 1979, p. 13)

In this sense, if district stakeholders—including administrators, teachers, and parents themselves—push back against a discourse of disengagement and argue forcefully that low-income and minority parents are involved in meaningful ways in their children’s education, they can help refocus current policy debates in education. When policymakers work from the perspective that low-income and minority parents are engaged and invested partners in educational reform, they can move from trying to reform parents to the task of reforming the schools themselves.

Footnotes

Appendix

Interview Respondents, 2007 to 2012.

Pseudonym	Date(s) of Interview(s)	Role(s) in District	Gender	Race
Abernathy, Angela	10/5/09	Director, TIC	F	AA
	1/26/122/13/13
Abrams, Randall	3/12/08	President, Clarksville NAACP	M	AA
Adams, Jay	6/21/12	Parent & Elected School Board Member	M	AA
Allen, Jacqueline	5/3/12	Parent	F	AA
Andrews, Walter	3/26/08	Former Teacher & Principal	M	W
Barela, Andrea	9/30/0711/13/082/2/12	Teacher & President of Teachers’ Union	F	W
Barns, Connie	3/13/08	Parent & PTO Member	F	AA
Beardsley, Michael	5/17/12	Parent	M	AA
Brose, Donald	6/14/12	Parent & Community Activist	M	AA
Carlyle, Ryan	9/20/07	Reporter	M	W
Carman, Gayle	10/21/09	Principal, Clarksville HS	F	AA
Connelly, John	3/15/12	Student, Clarksville HS	M	W
Cooper, Elizabeth	3/15/12	Parent	F	W
Crosby, Christian	10/18/12	State Representative	M	AA
Davis, Bernard	4/19/12	Community Activist &Elected School Board Member	M	AA
Doonan, Evelyn	6/26/12	Elected School Board Member	F	AA
Dorey, Daniel	6/24/08	Community Activist	M	W
Drazen, Linda	11/5/07	Teacher, Oak Grove ES	F	AA
Elmore, Tom	9/18/08	President, Hamilton University	M	W
Entler, Kevin	5/17/12	Parent	M	AA
Fayad, Syreeta	3/21/12	Parent & School Police Officer	F	AA
Fritz, Paul	4/24/08	Local Reverend & Community Activist	M	W
Gabriel, Victoria	3/6/08	Administrative Assistant to the Superintendent	F	AA
Garcia, Miguel	3/29/12	Parent	M	H
Greene, Evelina	12/7/07	Teacher, Miller MS	F	AA
Hartmann, Janet	9/28/07	Assistant & Acting Superintendent	F	AA
Holden, Brian	2/5/10	Community Activist	M	W
Hume, Barbara	12/12/07	Community Member &Former District Employee	F	AA
Johnson, Derrick	12/7/0712/1/083/10/096/15/10	Superintendent	M	AA
Jordan, Lisa	6/2/11	Parent	F	AA
King, Olivia	1/10/08	Parent	F	AA
King, Olympia	3/29/08	Student, Clarksville HS	F	AA
Landreth, Donna	3/26/08	Executive Director, Local Education Foundation	F	W
Leonard, Cheryl	3/11/10	Human Resources Director	F	AA
Linsley, Robert	6/14/12	Caseworker, TIC	M	AA
Loedel, Paul	6/23/10	State-appointed School Board Member	M	AA
Major, Anthony	11/5/08	State-appointed School Board Member	M	AA
Mancini, Sharon	9/20/07	Reporter	F	W
Marilo, Rosemary	2/28/08	Principal, Oak Grove ES	F	W
Matta, Mark	3/10/106/13/12	Teacher, Health Careers HS	M	W
Mays, Elyse	2/5/088/2/12	Parent & Cheerleading Coach	F	AA
Mead, Edward	12/5/07	State-appointed School Board Member	M	AA
Miller, Dora	6/8/12	Parent	F	AA
Miller, George	10/19/071/13/09	Elected School Board Member & Charter School Board Member	M	W
Mitford, Michelle	10/29/076/1/09	Principal, Hamilton Charter	F	AA
Murray, Sandra	11/3/11	Parent	F	AA
Nardell, Nancy	5/28/09	Associate District Counsel	F	AA
Nighman, Monica	6/1/09	Parent	F	AA
Paulson, Kenneth	2/9/12	Former Clarksville Mayor	M	AA
Philip, Patricia	3/6/08	Program Coordinator, Clarksville Youth Organization	F	AA
Pope, Scott	8/18/08	Director, Youth Court	M	W
Posner, Thomas	2/16/12	Caseworker, TIC	M	AA
Price, Donna	10/31/07	Parent	F	AA
Quillen, Robert	2/14/08	Local Professor & Former Resident	M	AA
Richards, Jasmine	6/14/12	Parent & Former TIC Caseworker	F	AA
Rivera, Adelia	2/22/12	Parent	F	H
Rivera, Daniela	2/22/12	Student, Clarksville HS	F	H
Robson, Terry	1/11/08	Assistant Superintendent	F	AA
Rollins, Tonya	12/7/0710/1/09	Parent & PTO President	F	AA
Smith, Nailah	6/9/11	Parent	F	AA
Trallis, Peter	10/24/07	Board of Control Member	M	W
Varsity Cheerleaders (11)	8/13/08	Students, Clarksville HS	F (11)	AA (11)
Walker, Joseph	3/5/08	President, Local Charitable Organization	M	W
Warren, Rebecca	12/5/0711/13/085/31/12	Teacher, McKinley ES	F	W
Wayland, Sandra	12/19/07	Program Director, Local Education Foundation	F	AA
Williams, Rose	5/26/11	Parent	F	AA
Withington, Sarah	10/23/08	Reporter	F	W
Worden, David	2/15/086/16/09	Founder, Clarksville Arts Academy	M	AA

Note. TIC = Truancy Intervention Center; F = Female; M = Male; AA = African American; NAACP = National Association for the Advancement of Colored People; W = White; PTO = Parent Teacher Organization; HS = High School; ES = Elementary School; H = Hispanic; MS = Middle School.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

Author Biography

Kathryn McGinn Luet is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Language, Literacy, and Sociocultural Education at Rowan University. Her research focuses on parental engagement in education, urban school reform, and critical pedagogy.

References

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, 149-182. doi:10.3102/0091732X12459718

Bourdieu

(1979). Outline of a theory of practice ( Nice

, Trans.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Bourdieu

(1986). The forms of capital. In Richardson

J. G.

(Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241-258). New York, NY: Greenwood Press.

Bourdieu

(2001). Masculine domination ( Nice

, Trans.). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Creswell

J. W.

(2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.

DePlanty

Coulter-Kern

Duchane

K. M.

(2007). Perceptions of parent involvement in academic achievement. The Journal of Educational Research, 100, 361-368. doi:10.3200/JOER.100.6.361-368

Epstein

J. L.

(1995). School/family/community partnerships: Caring for the children we share. Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 701-712. Available from http://www.kappanmagazine.org/

Epstein

J. L.

Salinas

(2004). Partnering with families and communities. Educational Leadership, 61(8), 12-18. Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership.aspx

Fine

(1993). [Ap]parent involvement: Reflections on parents, power, and urban public schools. Teachers College Record, 94, 682-710. Available from http://www.tcrecord.org/

10.

Friedel

T. L.

(1999). The role of Aboriginal parents in public education: Barriers to change in an urban setting. Canadian Journal of Native Education, 23(2), 139-158. Retrieved from http://www.lights.ca/sifc/cjne.htm

11.

García

S. B.

Guerra

P. L.

(2004). Deconstructing deficit thinking: Working with educators to create more equitable learning environments. Education and Urban Society, 36, 150-168. doi:10.1177/0013124503261322

12.

González

(2005). Beyond culture: The hybridity of funds of knowledge. In González

Moll

L. C.

Amanti

(Eds.), Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practices in households, communities, and classrooms (pp. 29-46). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

13.

Gutman

L. M.

McLoyd

V. C.

(2000). Parents’ management of their children’s education within the home, at school, and in the community: An examination of African-American families living in poverty. The Urban Review, 32, 1-24. Retrieved from http://www.springer.com/education+%26+language/journal/11256

14.

Hammersley

Atkinson

(1995). Ethnography: Principles in practice (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.

15.

Harris

Goodall

(2008). Do parents know they matter? Engaging all parents in learning. Educational Research, 50, 277-289. doi:10.1080/00131880802309424

16.

Ishimaru

A. M.

(2014). Rewriting the rules of engagement: Elaborating a model of district-community collaboration. Harvard Educational Review, 84(2), 188-216.

17.

Lareau

(2003). Unequal childhoods: Class, race, and family life. Berkeley: University of California Press.

18.

Lareau

Horvat

E. M.

(1999). Moments of social inclusion and exclusion: Race, class, and cultural capital in family-school relationships. Sociology of Education, 72, 37-53. doi:10.2307/2673185

19.

Lightfoot

(2004). “Some parents just don’t care”: Decoding the meanings of parental involvement in urban schools. Urban Education, 39, 91-107. doi:10.1177/0042085903259290

20.

Macfarlane

(2009). Navigating a treacherous game: Conceptualising parental engagement in contemporary Queensland schooling. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 30, 563-576. doi:10.1080/01425690903101056

21.

Maxwell

J. A.

(2005). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.

22.

Miedel

W. T.

Reynolds

A. J.

(1999). Parent involvement in early intervention for disadvantaged children: Does it matter? Journal of School Psychology, 37, 379-402. doi:10.1016/S0022-4405(99)00023-0

23.

Moll

L. C.

Amanti

Neff

González

(1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory Into Practice, 31, 132-141.

24.

Munoz

M. A.

(2000). Parental volunteerism in kindergarten: Assessing its impact in reading and mathematics tests. Louisville, KY: University of Louisville. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED464745)

25.

Nakagawa

(2000). Unthreading the ties that bind: Questioning the discourse of parent involvement. Educational Policy, 14, 443-472. doi:10.1177/0895904800144001

26.

Pérez Carreón

Drake

Calabrese Barton

(2005). The importance of presence: Immigrant parents’ school engagement experiences. American Educational Research Journal, 42, 465-498. doi:10.3102/00028312042003465

27.

Ramaekers

Suissa

(2011). Parents as “educators”: Languages of education, pedagogy and “parenting.” Ethics and Education, 6, 197-212. doi:10.1080/17449642. 2011.623002

28.

Ream

R. K.

Palardy

G. L.

(2008). Reexamining social class differences in the availability and the educational utility of parental social capital. American Educational Research Journal, 45, 238-273. doi:10.3102/0002831207308643

29.

Reay

(1998). Cultural reproduction: Mothers’ involvement in their children’s primary school. In Grenfell

James

(Eds.), Bourdieu and education: Acts of practical theory (pp. 55-71). London, England: Falmer Press.

30.

Reed

W. A.

(2007). Inside connections: Local teachers’ perspectives on parental engagement in an urban elementary school. Teacher Education & Practice, 20, 297-309. Retrieved from https://rowman.com/page/TEP

31.

Rios-Aguilar

Kiyama

J. M.

Gravitt

Moll

L. C.

(2011). Funds of knowledge for the poor and forms of capital for the rich? A capital approach to examining funds of knowledge. Theory and Research in Education, 9, 163-184. doi:10.1177/1477878511409776

32.

Sanders

M. G.

Epstein

J. L.

(1998). School-family-community partnerships in middle and high schools: From theory to practice (Report No. 22). Baltimore, MD: Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed at Risk. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED423330)

33.

Sheldon

S. B.

Epstein

J. L.

(2005). Involvement counts: Family and community partnerships and mathematics achievement. The Journal of Educational Research, 98, 196-206. doi:10.3200/JOER.98.4.196-207

34.

Swartz

(1997). Culture and power: The sociology of Pierre Bourdieu. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

35.

U.S. Department of Education. (2010). Looking in the mirror: Final remarks of Secretary Arne Duncan to the Mom Congress [Press release]. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/news/speeches/2010/05/05032010.html

36.

Van Voorhis

F. L.

(2003). Interactive homework in middle school: Effects on family involvement and science achievement. The Journal of Educational Research, 96, 323-338. doi:10.1080/00220670309596616

37.

Warren

M. R.

Hong

Rubin

C. L.

P. S.

(2009). Beyond the bake sale: A community-based relational approach to parent engagement in schools. Teachers College Record, 111, 2209-2254.

38.

Weiss

R. S.

(1994). Learning from strangers: The art and method of qualitative interview studies. New York, NY: The Free Press.

39.

Yosso

T. J.

(2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community cultural wealth. Race Ethnicity and Education, 8, 69-91. doi:10.1080/1361332052000341006