Abstract
Scholars and practitioners of gifted education have made strides in recognizing the need for equitable identification practices, as well as acknowledging the importance of culturally relevant teaching practices, so that students from traditionally underrepresented student populations (i.e., culturally, linguistically, and economically diverse [CLED] students, rural students) have the opportunity to develop their unique gifts and talents. However, little attention has been paid to the vital roles that parent/family and community have in shaping a gifted and talented child’s future. The relationship between students’ families, communities, and their school is often an overlooked variable, but one that has the potential to make significant improvements in gifted education for traditionally underrepresented students in gifted education. This article identifies potential barriers to forming strong home–school connections and outlines specific strategies for overcoming these stumbling blocks. We discuss ways in which teachers and administrators can utilize specific engagement strategies, rethink structures within the school environment, and employ responsive attitudes and behaviors to cultivate strong, healthy home–school connections.
Keywords
“. . . A strong home–school connection can help families who lack experience in higher education support their students in making informed decisions about college and career options.”
As the field of gifted education seeks to equitably identify and retain traditionally underrepresented student populations (i.e., culturally, linguistically, and economically diverse [CLED] students, rural students) (Mun et al., 2016; Peters & Engerrand, 2016; Siegle et al., 2016), one important variable requires more attention: families. While gifted education scholars and practitioners have made progress in discussing multiple pathways for identification (Hodges et al., 2018; Peters et al., 2019), and the value of culturally responsive teaching practices (Ford, 2010), less research has been done regarding the vital roles that diverse families can play in gifted education. With schools growing more diverse every year, educators must be well equipped to meet the needs of CLED families. According to the United States Census Bureau (2019), K-12 student enrollment comprised 25% Hispanic, 15% Black alone, and 9% Asian alone students in 2018, yet gifted and talented programs have failed to reflect this diversity. Multiple studies have shown that CLED students are less likely to be identified for or proportionately represented in gifted programming (Card & Giuliano, 2016; Hamilton et al., 2018; Hodges et al., 2018; Peters & Gentry, 2012; Siegle et al., 2016).
Thus, the relationship between students’ families, communities, and their school is one that has the potential to make significant improvements in gifted education for traditionally underrepresented students in gifted education. Rodríguez-Brown (2009) defined the home–school connection as, “ . . . a two-way road where families and teachers learn from each other, in order to make learning relevant to children” (p. i). This definition is succinct and pointed. It puts students at the center of the relationship and illustrates the reciprocal nature of learning. Schools and students’ families have much to learn from one another, and this learning is accomplished through ongoing and iterative opportunities to engage. As a product of this relationship, academic communities can become an open and responsive place for gifted and talented students to flourish.
Families are vital in the process of identifying and developing students’ exceptional abilities, as well as providing emotional supports to maximize talent development throughout their academic careers (Jolly & Matthews, 2014; Olszewski-Kubilius et al., 2014, 2018). Establishing a positive, open relationship with families can also help increase student attendance, boost family engagement within the school environment, and even support the use of effective differentiation practices in the classroom (Kronholz, 2016). Family–teacher relationships can also provide a better understanding of how to support students from at-risk environments in their classrooms (Meyer et al., 2011), which may help teachers develop cultural competence and empathy for students and also remove barriers to referral for gifted and talented services (Mun et al., 2020). As students progress, a strong home–school connection can help families who lack experience in higher education support their students in making informed decisions about college and career options (Seward & Gaesser, 2018).
The development of positive home–school connections is a clear need in the field of gifted education. However, many education professionals continue to hit stumbling blocks when it comes to cultivating and maintaining these relationships with CLED families. These factors lie both within the schools and with families, and it is important to understand the causes behind these barriers before it is possible to work on solutions to overcome them.
School Factors
Whether intentional or not, teachers may put up perceived “professional barriers” intended to mitigate family interference with their content and pedagogical areas of expertise (Crozier & Davies, 2007). Educators often pride themselves on being informed experts in what they teach. However, this attitude may also come off to families as unapproachable. The dichotomization, rather than harmonization, of family and teacher roles does not put student learning at the center of the conversation. Instead, it focuses on individual adult attitudes and behaviors. For the purposes of identifying and developing talent in gifted and talented students from CLED backgrounds, educators should recognize key opportunities to gather parent feedback, explore ideas about teaching and learning with the parents, and share knowledge of gifted education practices in a way that is collaborative.
Professional barriers may also go up when teachers are confronted with a need to teach differently. As the student demographics in the gifted and talented classroom become more diverse, so must teaching styles, strategies, and content to better accommodate student needs. Seasoned teachers may put up professional barriers to protect their tried strategies (that may no longer be ringing so true), and less experienced teachers may fear backlash from administration and families if they make changes to established practices (Ndemanu, 2018). The unwillingness to open up to feedback from families and consider adapting our practices to reflect the interests and needs of our diverse gifted and talented students does not facilitate a productive home–school connection. Families are a valuable partner in the formal education process, and this partnership is instrumental in retaining students from CLED backgrounds (Ford & Grantham, 2003). Sharing information about learning in the gifted and talented classroom opens up opportunities for families to provide feedback about their child, and listening to the ways in which families engage one another at home can give teachers great insight about structures or activities to add into the classroom. This type of family involvement not only supports higher engagement, but provides teachers with insight and resources for organically incorporating new, culturally sensitive strategies into the gifted and talented classroom.
Schools may also subvert positive relationships with families by chalking up the lack of familial involvement to cultural differences. This cultural interference view of our families places the blame for poor relationships outside of the school and gives teachers very little motivation to connect with families (Crozier & Davies, 2007). Placing low expectations for involvement on families who speak another language or have different cultural norms creates a self-fulfilling prophecy for schools—if families do not feel welcomed, they will not go out of their way to engage with their students’ schools (Trotman, 2001). Families’ perceptions of how welcoming schools are to the unique backgrounds of their families are critical in building a connection and sustaining involvement (Hornby & Lafaele, 2011).
Researchers have found links between teacher expectations and student characteristics, with higher expectations linked with more positive student academic outcomes (Bergh et al., 2010; Boer et al., 2010; Diamond et al., 2004; Jussim & Harber, 2005). Tenenbaum and Ruck (2007) conducted multiple meta-analyses related to teacher expectations, teacher referral rates for special programs (i.e., gifted, disciplinary, and special education), and teacher speech, whether positive, neutral, or negative, and found differences by ethnicity. According to their findings, teachers’ expectations were highest for Asian American students (d = −.17) and more positive for European American students when compared with African American (d = .25) and Latinx students (d = .46) (Tenenbaum & Ruck, 2007). Diamond et al. (2004) conducted a 6-month ethnographic study in five urban elementary schools and found more “deficit-oriented beliefs” (p. 93), decreased teacher expectations, and a reduced sense of responsibility for student learning in schools with higher concentrations of low-income African American students compared with schools with more affluent populations and/or higher concentrations of White and Chinese students. They observed that “when students’ deficits were emphasized, teachers believed that students’ lack of motivation, families, and limited skill undermined teachers’ ability to effectively teach” (Diamond et al., 2004, p. 93).
Teachers certainly would not set the expectation in their classroom that students from CLED backgrounds will not participate or learn as much. Instead, educators create supports and scaffolds to reach those students to make connections and ensure growth. Why, then, wouldn’t they do the same with the students’ families?
Finally, teachers and schools may make incorrect assumptions about CLED students’ home lives, their families’ approaches to childrearing, and incongruencies between home and school expectations (Ndemanu, 2018). If teachers routinely make assumptions about the communication capacities of English learner (EL) families, the childrearing attitudes of students living in poverty or in transient situations, or the priorities that families may have for their students’ education, then we run the risk of taking an uninformed, deficit-oriented approach to understanding students and families. When educators let these assumptions influence the ways in which we interact with students at school and drive the reasons behind communications with their families, are we sending the message that we are teaching toward a stereotype? Being mindful of using proactive, rather than reactive, communication with families and sharing open and respectful opportunities to connect helps us to shed stereotypes of CLED students. Educators must examine their own personal biases and beliefs and work to mitigate possible influences in the classroom. Otherwise, there is a real risk of gifted and talented students feeling isolated, like they don’t “fit in” (Ford & Grantham, 2003), or like their teachers have lower expectations for them than for other gifted students. Understanding the expectations and practices coming from students’ homes allows teachers to have a full and complete view of the student, rather than assumptions rooted in bias.
Family Factors
A number of factors influence families’ involvement with their students’ schools. Time and work schedule, language, familial level of education, beliefs about their students’ intelligence (Hornby & Lafaele, 2011; Trotman, 2001), and conflicting goals for students’ futures (Seward & Gaesser, 2018) may result in familial disengagement. These issues can be exacerbated for CLED families because, “[Generally], minorities are less involved, less represented and less informed, and are less likely to have access to resources, as well as more likely to have problems associated with language, transport, communication and child care” (Hornby & Lafaele, 2011, p. 43). When situational, organizational, and mindset factors are stacked against these families, building a relationship with families can be a daunting task.
Despite these blockages, families of CLED students realize the importance that education holds in terms of mobilizing their students (Sime & Sheridan, 2014). They realize that a high-quality education experience that grows their students’ gifts and talents has the potential to create the upward economic and social mobility necessary for the children to overcome hardships associated with families’ circumstances. However, when families’ time, attention, and resources must be carefully budgeted, the previously mentioned family and school factors coalesce to make building a strong home–school connection a very low, if not nonexistent, priority. Families must be convinced that schools can move beyond the White, middle-class norms and structures that are prevalent in American schools (Davidson & Case, 2018) to understand and be responsive to immigrant households. Schools must demonstrate to families from diverse backgrounds that they respect the approaches to education and schooling that immigrant families may have, understand different family dynamics and structures, and share the priorities that families have for developing talents in their students. In addition, teachers and administrators must be aware of and sensitive to the challenges that face undocumented students and families (Free et al., 2014).
Many of these factors boil down to trust. If families don’t have the trust in the schools necessary to invest in a relationship, even well-meaning schools that try to engage their family community may find themselves lacking active participants. Trust comes in a number of forms, including trust that the teacher will do what is best for their student, trust that the organization is receptive and welcoming to the family, trust that their input is valued, and trust that families and schools share the same goals for their students.
Santiago et al. (2016) found that low-income families reported significantly lower trust in their students’ teachers and schools than families from higher income backgrounds. Hornby and Lafaele (2011) pointed out that families who do not speak English fluently may lack confidence in their ability to communicate with the school. In addition, research by Koshy et al. (2013) showed that many CLED families viewed teachers’ primary concerns not as meeting the academic needs of their students, but instead managing behavior and controlling the classrooms. They go on to point out that oftentimes families perceive more behavior problems in schools with high populations of CLED students. When families perceive that instructional time is spent primarily on classroom management, rather than teaching and learning, this undermines the faith in teachers and school systems to provide academically enriching opportunities for students. When these families do not believe that they are able to trust the school as an organization, they will be far less likely to invest their limited resources in a partnership. This reticence simply exacerbates the perception that CLED families do not care about developing their student’s academic talents, when that simply may not be true.
Engagement Strategies
Laying the Groundwork
With all of the factors discussed in this article so far, the thought of forming strong home–school connections seems like a daunting task. But while it does certainly take work on the part of both the family and the school, this task is certainly not an insurmountable one and must be approached from multiple angles to maximize efficacy. Outlined in the next sections are some key strategies that can lay a strong foundation for building this relationship.
Meet families where they are
This means quite literally to meet the families where they are, that is, in their homes. Initiating home visits as a get-to-know you activity with students and families has some powerful results. Although this may be a bit uncomfortable for us at first, home visits “level the playing field,” so to speak. For many families, the bureaucratic and institutionalized structure of school in general reflects many of the undesirable and unjust power structures they face in their everyday lives and does not foster a sense of community (Nzinga-Johnson et al., 2009). This makes school a place to be generally avoided, when possible. Meeting families in their homes, on their terms, eliminates this juxtaposition and can put families more at ease.
Initial home visits should not be academic in nature. Instead, they should focus on getting to know the student and the family. Home visits should not be imposing, but should be brief meetings wherein the teacher may share information about upcoming opportunities at school, answer family questions, and learn more about what the students enjoy outside of school. Observing the students in their homes may also help teachers recognize the unique ways in which gifts and talents are expressed outside of the academic setting. These types of meetings help both families and teachers begin to view themselves as partners in education (Kronholz, 2016) and begin to make the school a more accessible part of the community.
Any home visits conducted should be arranged with school administration beforehand. Campuses or districts wishing to make improvements to family engagement may include goals for home visits in their campus or district improvement plans. Administrators may offer hourly payment for teachers participating in home visits, so that teachers are properly compensated for their time. Teachers should visit families in groups of two or three for safety reasons and should call ahead to arrange a good day and time for families. Teachers should also do their best beforehand to have a translator available, that is not the student, whenever possible. If families are homeless or their living situation is otherwise unstable or tenuous, agree to meet in a neutral location, like a nearby park or coffee shop.
This is not such a radical shift from attending a student’s athletic game on the weekend or going to a recital or play to encourage show support. Home visits simply make the families a much more active participant in extracurricular interaction. Research by Meyer et al. (2011) has shown that teachers engaging in home visits reported positive relationships and better communication with families, a greater appreciation of how the home environment affects a student’s academic performance, and a better understanding of a child’s behavior in school. Those are powerful resources for teachers that can help unlock and grow students’ potential.
Offer family workshops
As mentioned previously, families are well aware of the important role that education plays for their students, and the ways in which developing talents can function to make students academically, socially, and economically upwardly mobile. However, families who lack higher education (Koshy et al., 2013), those who may not be familiar with the structures or expectations of Western schools, or families who simply don’t know what questions to ask may not engage with teachers or schools because an accessible entry point simply isn’t clear. Many schools offer literacy nights, family continuing education opportunities, and other school-sponsored informational sessions—is it not reasonable to do the same for gifted education? Specially crafted offerings for families of gifted and talented students would provide additional opportunities to learn more about gifted and talented services, characteristics of gifted and talented students, and topics unique to gifted education and childrearing. Equipping families with the knowledge necessary to identify and support giftedness, as well an invitation to engage with their child’s school and teachers, lays the foundation for building a solid home–school connection.
To encourage participation and create an environment of inclusivity, family workshops may take a more casual form, such as a potluck or family panel at a time that works best for family schedules. Hosting workshops that provide both food and child care will ensure that more families attend, and creating a relaxed environment where they are comfortable asking questions will not only help families open up, but may serve to create networking opportunities with other families of gifted and talented students. All family workshops should have interpretation services available, as well as documents for families printed in their home language. Families who can focus on taking in the message, rather than deciphering the language—whether it is the spoken word, formalized structure of the school environment, or the invisible cultural structures—will be more engaged.
In addition to providing families with opportunities to come together to learn about gifted and talented identification and services, schools should facilitate workshops that cover topics of ongoing relevance to families of gifted and talented students. Weber and Stanley (2012) found that families benefited from learning about the developmental characteristics of their gifted and talented children, the different ways in which students may demonstrate gifted behaviors and abilities, traits and strategies associated with social/emotional components of giftedness, and feedback from other families of gifted and talented children. In addition, teachers are recommended to speak with CLED families of gifted and talented students from the community to get a sense of what topics are most relevant to their interests and needs rather than making assumptions. Creating ongoing opportunities to learn evidences a partnership approach to growing gifted and talented children; it is just as important to invest in sharing knowledge and skills with the families than it is to do the same for the child, particularly if the family does not come from a social or cultural background familiar with gifted education.
Become an active community member
Families, schools, and the larger community are strong, interconnected influences on students. Dikkers (2013) referred to these structures as “overlapping spheres of influence” (p. 115), and while it is impossible to separate them from one another completely, these influences become increasingly disconnected as students progress through school. This is problematic because it creates gaps between the family/school relationship and the school/community relationship. These relationships represent opportunities to partner with these structures, which have vital roles in growing and shaping students. Davis (2016) urged teachers of diverse students to connect with their families and communities, particularly to help understand the “historical legacy of communities, how the challenges of systemic discrimination affect the lives of students and families, and what unique skills they’ve developed to survive and overcome unjust conditions” (p. 44). When schools miss these opportunities, students are the ones who lose out.
Sometimes a school simply exists within a community. The neighborhood children attend classes, but the school functions as its own organization, apart from the influence of the surrounding community. Schools like this, then, will not reflect the unique cultural and ethnic influence of its surrounding neighborhood or town, and it will be largely out of touch with the needs, priorities, and goals of the community as a whole. Teachers and school leaders can take steps to strengthen their relationship with the community in a number of ways. School personnel can take advantage of volunteer opportunities, network with faith-based organizations, create relationships with social support services who also work with community members (Dikkers, 2013; Haeseler, 2011), and partner with local organizations to work together for a cause important to the community. If families can see that their student’s school is an active and invested partner in the community, this will serve to strengthen and maintain the family/teacher relationship. When schools send families the message that they support not only students’ academic development, but recognize the wider social and economic value that education has for the betterment of the community, parents/families will be more likely to support a strong home–school connection. Furthermore, if students can see that their school reflects and supports the goals and values of their community, then the “overlapping spheres of influence” will continue to impact and shape their academic growth and talent development well beyond their early years.
Gifted and Talented Services
Identification
It is critical to leverage families in the identification and placement process for gifted and talented services. The work of Ford et al. (2008) demonstrates the many ways in which deficit thinking regarding students can negatively affect identification and retention of students from CLED backgrounds. In tandem with work around reversing these attitudes and beliefs, schools can also tap families as resources of useful information to inform identification. Grantham et al. (2005) noted that when schools involve culturally diverse parents and families in this process, their children have greater likelihood of “not being overlooked” (p. 146). Families can provide valuable feedback on the early childhood experiences of their children, from language acquisition, environmental factors, to previous student opportunity to learn (OTL). Hodges et al. (2018) suggested implementing talent development programs to provide traditionally underidentified students with exposure to enrichment and opportunities to develop otherwise untapped potential; understanding these students’ backgrounds is key to helping these talents unfold. Family feedback, provided through conferences, focus groups, interviews, behavioral checklists (Hertzog et al., 2018), or other forms of correspondence, gives practitioners a well-rounded view of the student as they progress through such talent development programs.
For example, if a student scores at or below their peers on an academic achievement test, but above average on tests of nonverbal skills or creativity, would it be helpful to know that they are transient and have had to make do with tenuous and unsafe living conditions during their formative years? Absolutely. Perhaps they have, through circumstance, had the opportunity to develop creative and nonverbal skills but not necessarily academic ability. What about the refugee student, whose family are ELs and speaks a different language altogether at home? If this student demonstrates average overall academic achievement and above-average mathematical ability, would they stand out as “gifted”? Despite their potential, this is unlikely. Family feedback in both of these cases would paint a far more vivid and holistic picture than simply knowing that both of these students would be coded in some district student management systems as “at risk.” In utilizing a talent development structure to more effectively identify diverse gifted and talented students, including information from families, can provide key pieces in evaluating an overall student profile. Schools can consider including G/T identifier interview questions in family conferences, structuring a short feedback form for families, or creating a family interview protocol as a part of their identification structure. In this way, student backgrounds do not become a limiting factor for identification for gifted and talented programs, but another avenue to understand how both achievement and ability can be understood and developed within an individual context.
Retention
Leverage diverse backgrounds and cultures
Families of CLED students come from many backgrounds and experiences and possess rich funds of knowledge (Moll et al., 1992). As part of culturally responsive teaching practices, it is important to include curricular components relevant to students so that they are able to engage meaningfully with the content and strengthen their ethnic identity (Gay, 2002; Kitano & Lewis, 2005). Gay (2002) defined culturally responsive teaching as, “using the cultural characteristics, experiences, and perspectives of ethnically diverse students as conduits for teaching them more effectively” (p. 106). Showing students that their culture and backgrounds are important to the learning in their classroom creates an intentionally inviting environment and supports continued engagement (Ford, 2015). When students participate in activities oriented around their individual interests or reflections of their perceived self-identity, they are more likely to recognize the beneficial and lasting effects of the learning (Ecker-Lyster & Niileksela, 2017). Relevant and engaging content that speaks to student identity is key in retaining traditionally underrepresented students in gifted and talented programming.
This is a valuable opportunity to include families in the classroom. From reading a variety of culturally diverse literature and examining the juxtaposition of the words in their original language versus English, to learning about modern historical events from multiple perspectives, there are many areas to include students’ families and their cultural and ethnic backgrounds into the classroom. Making real efforts to involve families not only in the school as a whole, but as active participants in their child’s gifted education experience increase families’ positive perceptions of schools, and increase trust levels (Tomlinson & Jarvis, 2014).
Help families help students
Families of students receiving special education services help educators set goals and monitor progress through participation in Individual Education Plan (IEP) teams, or provide feedback throughout the response to intervention (RtI) process to identify the most effective academic interventions for their students. As gifted education does not have the same legal obligations that support such levels of family involvement in their child’s education, the responsibility falls upon teachers to provide opportunities to create family–school partnerships that support student talent development. If students enter gifted and talented programs with a limited prior OTL because of social or economic circumstances, or students are ELs, family and feedback and insight is critical to help educators take a strengths-based approach to gifted education (Bianco, 2010). Rather than viewing these students as children with gaps that need to be filled, we can use family partnerships to identify and leverage student strengths to develop talent and support areas of need.
Families who lack advanced formalized education, or who are from impoverished or rural communities, may wish to help their students make academic decisions that serve to develop their gifts and talents, but do not have the knowledge or skills to guide their child toward advanced coursework, college, or career options. Families of students who will be first-generation college attendees need both direct and indirect support in helping students make decisions. Both teachers and counselors can help families develop the talents of their students by providing ongoing information regarding advanced learning opportunities, as well as open conversations with families about the academic, social, and emotional benefits to capitalizing on these opportunities (Seward & Gaesser, 2018).
Working with family and student teams to set goals, providing guidance on what both schools and families can do to attain those goals, and using feedback from all parties to drive this process is key in building a strong home–school connection.
Conclusion
Establishing and maintaining a strong home–school connection requires openness to new experiences and ideas, willingness to consider new strategies and practices, and dedication to nurturing an ongoing relationship on both the parts of the families and schools. Cultivating this connection can be facilitated through a variety of avenues, including outreach, restructuring school mindsets and systems, and open two-way communication. Building these relationships is an investment for schools, families, and communities that will pay dividends. From identification and retention of students from CLED backgrounds in gifted and talented services to providing community connections, growing positive family relationships is a key component of healthy gifted and talented programs that meet the needs of all students.
Footnotes
Conflict of Interest
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.
Bios
Kari Lockhart, MS, is a doctoral student at the University of North Texas, and a public school administrator for gifted and talented education. Her work in K-12 education includes gifted and talented programming, as well as English/language arts and reading.
Rachel U. Mun, PhD, is an assistant professor in educational psychology at the University of North Texas. At the microlevel, she explores socioemotional development and decision-making for high-ability students (emphasis on immigrants) within family, peer, and academic contexts. At the macrolevel, she examines ways to improve equitable identification and services for K-12 high-ability learners from diverse populations.