University of San Francisco
May 6th, 2017
This paper addresses programs that exist, or have existed, that aim to shift deficit perceptions regarding Latinx immigrant families and their literacy practices. Literacy practices are defined closely as belonging to ‘the word’, and they are also more broadly defined as belonging to ‘the world’ (Freire, 1970). The paper begins with an overview of ‘ecological system theory’ (Bronfenbrenner, 1986), and the ‘epistemology of the brown body’ (Cruz, 2001) as they relate to Latinx immigrant families’ experiences with compulsory schooling. I then move into looking at how parent involvement and engagement is articulated in different settings, and the importance of an equity lens (Gorski, 2013). From there I move to looking more closely at family literacy practices, and then to family literacy programs (‘the word and the world’) that have proven successful in the field. These lead to parent and community activism, and to ‘transformative ruptures’ (Delgado Bernal & Alemán, 2017).
Despite clear evidence that points to high expectations of their children and their children’s education (Monzó & Rueda, 2001), Latinx families are often viewed as ‘not caring’ about their child’s future. A concern educators and researchers have is that many parental involvement approaches construct restricted roles for parents in the schooling of their children (Baquedano-López, Alexander, & Hernandez, 2013). These approaches restrict the ways in which parents from non-dominant backgrounds can be productive social actors who can shape and influence schools and other social institutions (Baquedano-López et al., 2013). Not having gone through the US school system is also a barrier as there is much to navigate and understand. Concha Delgado Gaitan (2012) asserts that how schools operate comprises a type of literacy that parents need to understand to successfully participate in their children’s schooling. Hegemonic school practices clash with home-based educational practices that may go unrecognized (Monzó & Rueda, 2001).
Garcia et al. (García, Kleifgen, & Falchi, 2008) report that although the numbers of emergent bilinguals are increasing and there is near consensus in the research community about the crucial role of the home language in their education, there has been a significant decrease in the use of their native language in their instruction over the last decade. It is also the case that the bilingual and multidialectical complexities of Latino life are not as well known as they should be, even to teachers in daily contact with many Latino students (Zentella, 2005). A report from the Frank Porter Graham Center at UNC Chapel Hill (FPG Snapshot, 2007) found that preschool children given the ability to speak with educators in their home language, in this case Spanish, were rated higher in terms of prosocial behavior than those who interacted in English (among other positive findings). This report clearly indicates the importance of home language for children’s social and emotional learning, and there was no impact on learning English.
Ecological systems theory.
Ecological Systems Theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1986) is commonly used in relation to child development and in early childhood education courses. The microsystem involves the child and their direct and intimate interactions, for example at home, at school, or at community centers. The mesosystem looks at the relationships between the elements of the microsystem, for example parent-teacher connections. The exosystem takes us out a little further to look at factors such as the parents’ work environments, while the macrosystem includes cultural patterns and values, specifically personal beliefs, and the political and economic climate in the society in which the child lives. The chronosystem brings in the factor of time.
Delgado-Gaitan (1991) refers to Bronfenbrenner’s hypothesis that making decisions on behalf of the developing person that influence direct and indirect links to power enhances the development potential of a setting. A potent exosystem effect may be microaggressions (T. Yosso, Smith, Ceja, & Solórzano, 2009) occurring in the adults’ workplaces and outside of the home. The child may not experience microaggressions personally but they will be affected by the self-esteem of their family members, and this can impact their schooling. The current political climate is a clear example of the influence of the macrosystem impacting systems closer in. An example of the macrosystem in relation to language comes from governmental restrictions on languages used in certain settings. Macrosystemic pressure may result in teachers refusing to support home languages in the classroom but this may also come from the teachers themselves. In this case there is a dis-ease at the microsystemic level. Dis-ease (Brendtro, 2006) occurs “when teachers undermine parental values, parents undercut teachers and peer values sabotage those of elders”. In the case of Latinx immigrant parents it is unlikely that parents will undercut teachers, but it may be the case that teachers undermine parents, and there is potential for peer values sabotaging those of elders.
Epistemology of the Brown Body
Relationships between school and Latinx immigrant families are not evenly matched in terms of power differentials, and respect for home wisdom, the wisdom of the brown body, is often absent. Delgado-Gaitan (Gaitan, 2012) asserts that “knowledge is power, and power is negotiable”. An understanding of how language restrictionism plays out in the wider society may encourage teachers to support home languages in the classroom, to bolster the child’s self-esteem in a setting where individual actions have a direct impact on the child. Pushing back against macro and exosystemic pressures is possible and is, it can be argued, the only moral choice for schools and teachers to make.
Knowledge is not only passed down through books and words, but it is also transmitted through bodies, communal relations, and other forms of non-verbal communication. “Situating knowledge in the brown body begins the validation of the narratives of survival, transformation, and emancipation of our respective communities, reclaiming histories and identities. And in these ways, we embody our theory”(Cruz, 2001, p. 668). Carreón et al. (Carreón, Drake, & Barton, 2005) call on Trueba’s definition of resilience as “the capacity of immigrants to survive physically and psychologically in circumstances that require enormous physical strength and determination”(p. 479). Ada and Campoy (Ada & Campoy, n.d.) assert, “parents are graduates from the University of Life and have accumulated valuable wisdom by living”. The richness of parents’ experiences should not be ignored, and schools are missing the opportunity to learn from their insights, in particular as immigrants (Carreón et al., 2005).
An intergenerational project carried out in Chicago (Gregory, Long, & Volk, 2004) brought Latino elders and 4th grade dual language students together. Initially the elders felt they had nothing to teach the children as they had had so little formal schooling. Drawing on their “funds of knowledge” (Moll, Amanti, Neff, & González, 1992) and their “community cultural wealth” (T. J. Yosso, 2005) showed the elders, and the children, how much wisdom and experience they had to share. It is unsettling to think that these Latino elders had internalized that knowledge from inside a formal setting is of more value than lifelong wisdom and their innate strength. They felt the knowledge of their brown bodies had been discounted by society-at-large.
Family Funds of Knowledge
Language, power and race affect our movements and self-identity in a myriad of ways. Zentella states that children are socialized to language (how they become speakers of their native tongue) and socialized through language (how they become culturally competent members of their community through language). “Before even stepping foot in a school, students have learned the language and culture of their family, community, and social networks. Within these community settings they learn attitudes, norms, practices, beliefs, experiences, and aspirations” (Gaitan, 2012, p.307). It is critical that educators respect the families for their ‘endogenous knowledge’ (García et al., 2008, p.44), for the knowledge that came before and the knowledge that comes after.
Jessica Martell, a second grade dual-language teacher in New York City, invites parents into the classroom to share expertise (Souto-Manning & Martell, 2016). Families come to her as teachers, sometimes to read aloud, sometimes to be interviewed as experts on the day their child was born, and other times to share skills such as making tortas (inspired by the reading of Too Many Tamales by Gary Soto). In this last example, the boy whose mother came in to make tortas experienced (instead of being told) that she was knowledgeable and worthy. Viewing his mother through the lens of teacher changed this seven-year-old child’s opinion of her as knowledge bearer. Ada (1993) states that we need to reexamine what we as educators are doing to acknowledge and validate the home and family. Ada stresses that we cannot allow the school to disenfranchise the family, as happens all too often in the case of language minority and economically disadvantaged students.
Fathers are often missing from the literature on family engagement (Mayorga-Gallo, 2017). Traditionally mothers are the face of family-school engagement, across all demographics. Mayorga-Gallo’s recent book directly addresses paternal engagement in Latinx immigrant families. She details interactions within the school environment and also points out examples of home-based pedagogies. “Mateo’s pedagogies of the home show that he took tremendous pride in developing his children’s Spanish skills. Within their home, Mateo explicitly sought to create an environment that differed from school, where learning was based on real-world experiences” (p. 43). Another example of fathers accessing funds of knowledge is found in the work of Carreón et al. (2005). “Pablo’s descriptions illustrate how his educational engagement and presence within the home space are centered in experientially based knowledge that his sons can immediately apply in their lives [for example fixing cars, and growing vegetables]”(p. 483). It is noted that these practices constitute rich cultural events and beyond the actions comes the interactions, often humorous. Yet these funds of knowledge are not valued in a mainstream educational setting.
Equity and Parental Involvement
Many teachers and other school personnel continue to perpetuate the myth that parents who do not participate in school-sanctioned forms of engagement do not care about their children’s education. Mayorga-Gallo (2017) comments that parent involvement is based on the premise that students will be more academically successful if educators and caregivers work together to support their learning, and that in most U.S. schools, “this often translates into parents’ help with school-sanctioned tasks such as homework, attendance at school events such as parent-teacher conferences, and volunteering for the school” (p.5). Garcia et al. (2008) argue that the schools have to revise their valuation of these parents’ educative role and redouble their efforts at involving the parents in order to help pave the way for greater educational equity for emergent bilinguals. The need to redouble is echoed in Gorski’s comments (Gorski, 2013) regarding engaging in persistent (my italics) family outreach efforts.
Miano (2011) affirms that lopsidedly focusing on parental performance, as per ‘prescriptive strand’ literature, has assumed that parents should serve schools but not necessarily vice versa. Gorski (2013) asserts that we must work with rather than on families in poverty. To be clear, not all Latinx immigrant families live in poverty, however Gorski’s work is applicable in many situations regarding minoritized populations. He highlights the importance of relationship building, and acknowledges that when we (as teachers) pursue this sincerely it is a much more difficult undertaking that incorporating music or cooperative learning into our teaching. He affirms that it requires a tremendous amount of humility, and a willingness to ask ourselves awfully hard questions, regarding personal beliefs and biases. This comment is premised on a mismatch between students and teachers, but unfortunately this mismatch is all too common.
A 2013 federally funded report (Mapp & Kuttner, 2013) calls for greater outreach and engagement work to happen with minoritized families. This is framed as a paradigm shift in the awareness of “the importance of building family–school partnerships that are focused on student learning and development” (p. 25). Words such as ‘partnerships’ are promising but there is still limited (or no) acknowledgement of home-based pedagogical, social and cultural practices. Without critically examining the structural barriers for many families, these families are viewed as independent actors, thus responsible or not, for student success. Baquedano-López et al. (2013) note that within this frame, the essence of the problem resides not in the structure of schools but in the ways in which “parents fail at their responsibility to educate their children”(p. 152). Zentella (2005) asserts that relying on home-versus-school conflict models can obscure the more powerful role played by institutional inequalities and racism.
Many educators still consider family practices to be barriers to student achievement, to the exclusion of family funds of knowledge (García et al., 2008). A recent study (Steiner, 2014) is fraught with deficit thinking and disregard for community cultural wealth and family funds of knowledge. Steiner examines a family literacy program focused on reading books to children, and discussing these books. This is then set to correlate with higher levels of reading achievement. At no point during this article does Steiner comment on literacy practices already occurring in the home and how connections can be made between the two. A trope of ‘parents as first teachers’ (Baquedano-López et al., 2013) can be problematic as it may dismiss cultural knowledge residing in the family. Early learning programs based on the expectations that minoritized families need interventions to assist them in teaching ways aligned to school are considered to be “not without consequence” as they “introduce a set of cultural practices from the dominant community at the risk of subtractive schooling (Valenzuela, 1999) and reductive literacy practices” (p. 153).
Family Literacy Practices
Baquedano-López et al. (2013) comment that family literacy program models appear to be influenced by two dominant views of literacy. One is a decontextualized perspective whereby (all) families need help to gain the tools to assist their children with school. The other is a contextualized perspective that recognizes home and community knowledge. This viewpoint acknowledges the power of literacy to liberate and empower children and their parents, in the Freirean tradition, and aligns with productive strength-building models of family literacy (Baquedano-López et al., 2013). The authors call for decolonizing family literacy programs that serve as counternarratives to traditional models.
Monzó and Rueda (2001) posit that the functional nature of literacy in home is so different to school based literacy practices that children may not realize what one has to do with the other. Shirley Brice-Heath (2001) found that adults in Trackton did not consciously model, demonstrate or tutor reading or writing behaviors for the young (p. 447). She comments that children, however, went to school with certain expectancies of print and a keen sense that reading is something one does to learn something one needs to know. It is stated that Trackton children’s preschool experiences with print, stories, and talk about the environment differed greatly from those usually depicted in the literature for children of mainstream school-oriented parents (p. 449).
Maria de la Luz Reyes (2011) points out though that while similarities between middle-class preschool literacy practices and social practices of Latino families may not be readily apparent, there is remarkable likeness between the two. Both settings involve oral telling of tales, whether from print material or not; teaching nursery rhymes/dichos/songs/adivinanzas/finger play; providing print materials such as children’s books, novelas, fotonovelas, newspapers; and taking children to museums/Spanish language films/cultural events/church/community events. Reyes notes that the key elements of the literacy practices are essentially the same. Reyes collected the stories of Latinx scholars, Sonia Nieto and Maria Fránquiz among others, who became “biliterate against the odds”. The stories illustrate how Latinx family practices support literacy learning through the practices mentioned above. In the absence of bilingual education programs these scholars went on to succeed as bilingual and biliterate adults. It is not an argument against bilingual education; more an argument for looking for similarities rather than differences between dominant and non-dominant literacy practices.
At El Centro Academy for Children in Kansas City, KS (Nash & Sosinski, 2016) the director involves teachers in deeper examination of specific bilingual practices such as ‘code meshing’ and the use of bilingual teaching materials within a predictable daily schedule. Regarding home language, Geralyn, the director, carries out a survey regarding home language use with questions such as “What language does the child hear in the morning?” This information was used to help understand how and in what contexts children used language(s) at home. Parents were welcomed into the discussion around home languages and the importance of speaking, in this case Spanish, to their children. It is noted that having internalized widely projected deficit views about their own languages and cultural practices, the parents felt anxiety about the dual language approach. This is countered by Parent Groups and Family Nights, and addressing the issue head-on in a holistic manner.
Family literacy program models
The following programs: Pájaro Valley Project (Ada), University and School Partnership (De Gaetano, 2007) and the Carpintería Study (Delgado-Gaitan, 1991), each emphasize the Freirean concept of ‘reading the word and the world’. They are not literacy programs in a traditional sense where the written word takes precedence; rather they view literacy through a broad and holistic lens. Literacy is used as a tool for greater learning, again in a broad sense.
Pájaro Valley Project, CA
The Pájaro Valley Project (Ada & Campoy, n.d.) grew out of the knowledge of the importance of parent involvement in their children’s education. It was based on parents as first and most lasting educators, the importance of the first language to transmit family history and values, and what parents can do to support school no matter their level of formal education. Ada notes that many parents are not aware of their essential role as language models. She states that language not only needs to be accepted, it needs to be explored, expanded and celebrated. By encouraging parent-child interaction, we are facilitating the maintenance and development of the home language.
The Pájaro Valley Project used the Creative Reading Process (Ada, 1987) to relate story conflict in trade books to the parents’ own reality and to inspire praxis (Freire, 1970). From there parents dictated their own thoughts that were written down and then later published to be shared. Ada notes that when we take the contributions offered by the parents and record them on charts, or in books, we show our interest in and appreciation of the parent’s thoughts and experiences (Ada, 1993, p. 15). An important element in the Pájaro Valley Project, and in similar programs conducted by Ada, was that sessions were videotaped and parents had the opportunity to review the sessions and revisit the issues raised. This strengthens awareness of Latinx families as bearers of crucial knowledge.
University and School Partnership in the Northeast U.S.
Yvonne De Gaetano (2007) details a three-year university and school partnership established with a federal grant to improve the educational outcomes of English-language learners in public schools. One of the goals of the program was to use culture as a mediator of learning. The university team consisted of four women-two Puerto Rican and two White, and the project was carried out in two schools in the northeast of the U.S. The researchers began with the assumption that the vast majority of Latino parents do indeed care about their children’s schooling, and that caring is not only manifested in the school building, but also outside.
The first year of the study involved getting to know the parents and establishing relationships of trust. This included emphasizing the conscious and consistent use of two languages. While the researchers presented a framework for workshop topics, they assured participants that they were open to developing agendas based on parent needs and ideas.
Initially the researchers worked separately with parents and teachers but at the end of the first year parents and teachers were asked to meet together. One of the first of these meetings was a luncheon where both groups worked together to prepare the food. By interacting in this manner, people began to see each other in new ways. The project also involved parents observing in their children’s classrooms, community walks for parents to see the community through the eyes of their own children (parents took photos and recorded audiotapes that were then used as learning materials in the classroom), and workshops on the importance of supporting the first language (Spanish) at home and of being positive toward learning the second language (English). All activities were designed with care and clear intentions, and one goal was conveying that knowledge is not necessarily dependent on schooling. Feedback was ongoing and the length of time given to this project allowed for in-depth experience and knowledge building on the part of all participants. It is noted that during the second year all the parents strongly emphasized that they now realized how important their culture and language was in the learning process for their children.
Carpintería Study, CA
Concha Delgado Gaitan spent fifteen years researching parental involvement in education in Carpintería, a town near Santa Barbara, California (2012). Over this time she saw many gains that families claimed through their years of mobilizing and organizing the community. Her work sought to examine programs that moved past conventional or school sanctioned activities to nonconventional parent involvement activities. One example of parental involvement from an earlier time period (1991) was a program led by the head teacher of the school district’s Preschool Program, Mrs. Baca. Mrs. Baca educated parents about the preschool curriculum and about ways to design learning activities with children at home. Parents visited the class when they wanted and helped out with tasks. Mrs. Baca essentially designed a preschool curriculum that included teaching parents how to be her coteachers. She sought to make the home and school curricula interdependent so that children would learn in two cooperative settings. Mrs. Baca shaped her classroom curricula so that children would value their language, culture and heritage. Parents in the Preschool Program were convinced by the teacher that they were their child’s most important teacher and that their viewpoints and experiences were valuable in their child’s classroom.
Each of these models confirm the importance of teaching parents and families the vital role they play in their child’s education, in contrast to what systemic forces may have them believe. The role of parent cannot be replaced and no matter the level of formal schooling Latinx immigrant families all have important stories to tell. The epistemology that resides in their brown bodies is of equal value as those of the dominant class, and their funds of knowledge must be tapped to create “humanizing family engagement” (Mayorga-Gallo, 2017). Deficit views can be countered with intention and caring.
From looking at these three models, and from reflecting on other models, for example Miano (Miano, 2011), the element of time cannot be understated. It isn’t clear exactly how long the Pájaro Valley Project lasted but both authors live in the state of California and are still active doing this work. De Gaetano’s work involved an engagement of three years, and Delgado Gaitan spent at least fifteen years with the people in Carpintería. Trust does not come easily, especially for people who are marginalized by the dominant society, thus time is of the essence, in a longitudinal frame.
The studies here, and other work relating to the field of Latinx immigrant families’ educational practices, appear to benefit from having at least one of the researchers belonging to the Latinx community writ large. There is a clear power differential in that these researchers and educators have gone through decades of schooling, whereas the families in question may not have completed primary school. Nonetheless, cultural understandings related to the Latinx community may be shared. It is also possible that the researchers and educators are first generation college students, and/or had parents who were immigrants. De Gaetano’s study had two Puerto Rican researchers and two White researchers. It is likely that if only White educators carried out such a study, even if they were fluent Spanish speakers, results would be different. This speaks to the role of Whiteness in society at large and to the role of Whiteness in educational settings. Power differentials must be critiqued and analyzed by all members of a research team as the studies progress, if real change is to occur.
Future research should continue in the same vein as the programs discussed here. It is clear that deficit views are entrenched and the work of humanizing family engagement is often an uphill battle. It requires time and we are faced with neoliberal education reforms that do not always place value on genuine and caring relationships with families. As these programs show, building relationships and trust is essential, and this can be done in creative ways. In line with the work of Carreón et al. (2005) future research could focus on the experience of Latinx parents with conventional forms of engagement to understand what can be done in the absence of nonconventional forms. Another area to be explored further is in the field of teacher education, informed by the findings presented here. These two areas will be explored at a later date but an area of future research that will be expanded on here is “parents as activists”.
Parents as activists
Research shows that language-minority parents are beginning to question the existing power relations in the home-school relationship (García et al., 2008, p.45). Some parents have begun to form grassroots organizations to address their schools about concerns they have regarding their children’s education. De Gaetano (2007) states that one of the more rewarding and important outcomes of the cultural approach to parental involvement was the growing sense that parents were becoming more aware and active about social issues that affected them and were feeling more empowered to act. Miano (2011) states that political activism on behalf of schools (in her case downtown protests regarding the Governor’s cutbacks) is not generally viewed in the prescriptive or quantitative literature as a form of parent involvement, yet Latinos have historically played key roles surrounding equity in general, and educational equity in particular (i.e. Mendez vs. Westminster).
Farima Pour-Khorshid (2016) writes about reaching out to her students’ parents and bringing them in to her K-1 classroom. Pour-Khorshid comments, “the mothers became like honorary teachers in our class”, similar to participation encouraged by Mrs. Baca (Delgado-Gaitan, 1991) and Jessica Martell (Souto-Manning & Martell, 2016). Pour-Khorshid got a pink slip in her second year of teaching due to lack of seniority. In response, some of the parents organized and brought their kids to the school board meeting and spoke out against her pink slip. Pour-Khorshid writes, “The same parents that were often silenced, disregarded, and disrespected in this country were now unapologetically advocating for me in their vibrant English, because their words were far from sounding ‘broken’ ”(p. 28). The value Pour-Khorshid placed on these parents likely strengthened their belief in themselves as teachers of their children, and in themselves as actors in the schooling of their children. When faced with a threat, the parents mobilized in an attempt to save what Pour-Khorshid brought to the school. Delgado Bernal and Alemán (2017) use the term “transformative ruptures” to describe actions that expose and interrupt pervasive coloniality and structural inequities (p. 5). The actions of these parents, and activism among Latinx immigrant families in general is a transformative rupture that shifts perceptions and alters relations of power. It would not have occurred without intentional work with parents and children.
Ada states (1993) that we want parents and students to be able to analyze their reality, to understand the structures and forces that constrain them, to feel strong enough to question the world around them, and free enough to engage in solidarity with others in order to shape and transform that world. Schools need to recognize the funds of knowledge that exist in emergent bilingual children’s families and communities, to be accountable to them, and to achieve closer mutual engagement for a higher quality education (García et al., 2008, p. 47). It may not always be possible for parents to be involved in their children’s education in nonconventional ways, but an awareness of the benefits of programs that reach out beyond the school walls, with the intention of strengthening family and school ties, is critical for all of us who work in the field.
Respecting the epistemology of the brown body and gaining an understanding of systemic oppression as it reaches the young child, help guide us on this path. From the literature reviewed here we see a path from parent engagement to parent activism. This is important for all families in many different arenas, but it needs to be curated differently when there is a strong mismatch between school and home, as often happens with Latinx immigrant families and U.S. educational settings. All children deserve to see their parents held up with respect, and we must fight against schooling practices that diminish them. Delgado Bernal and Alemán (2017) draw on the work of Anzaldúa to reflect on what parents had to say about the Adelante (College Prep) program. The authors pull from “nothing happens in the ‘real’ world unless it first happens in the images in our heads” (Anzaldúa, 1987, p. 87), and state that one can understand transformative ruptures as chipping away at structures of oppression that allow us to dream audaciously and work toward something different (p. 90). When we uplift family and community voices we are all uplifted, in the spirit of liberation.
Ada, A. F. (1987). Creative Reading: A Relevant Methodology for Language Minority Children.
Ada, A. F. (1993). A Critical Pedagogy Approach to Fostering the Home-School Connection. Viewpoints.
Ada, A. F., & Campoy, F. I. (n.d.). Promoting Effective Home-School Interaction. Retrieved from http://almaflorada.com/doc/Home-School-Interaction.pdf
Anzalduá, G. E. (1987). Borderlands: the new mestiza = La frontera (1. ed). San Francisco, Calif: Aunt Lute Books.
Baquedano-López, P., 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.
Brendtro, L. K. (2006). The Vision of Urie Bronfenbrenner: Adults Who Are Crazy About Kids. Reclaiming Children and Youth, 15(3), 162–166.
Brice-Heath, S. (2001). Protean Shifts in Literacy Events: Ever-Shifting Oral and Literate Traditions. In E. Cushman (Ed.), Literacy: A Critical Sourcebook (pp. 443–466). Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1986). Ecology of the family as a context for human development: Research perspectives. Developmental Psychology, 22(6), 723–742.
Carreón, G. P., Drake, C., & Barton, A. C. (2005). The Importance of Presence: Immigrant Parents’ School Engagement Experiences. American Educational Research Journal, 42(3), 465–498.
Cruz, C. (2001). Toward an epistemology of a brown body. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 14(5), 657–669.
De Gaetano, Y. (2007). The Role of Culture in Engaging Latino Parents’ Involvement in School. Urban Education, 42(2), 145–162.
Delgado Bernal, D., & Alemán, E. (2017). Transforming educational pathways for Chicana/o Students: a critical race feminista praxis. New York, NY: Teachers College Press, Columbia University.
Delgado-Gaitan, C. (1991). Involving Parents in the Schools: A Process of Empowerment. American Journal of Education, 100(1), 20–46.
FPG Snapshot. (2007). FPG Snapshot: Relationship of English-Only to Young Children’s Social and Language Skills. Chapel Hill, North Carolina: Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed (30th anniversary ed). New York: Continuum.
Gaitan, C. D. (2012). Culture, Literacy, and Power In Family–Community–School–Relationships. Theory Into Practice, 51(4), 305–311.
García, O., Kleifgen, J. A., & Falchi, L. (2008). From English Language Learners to Emergent Bilinguals (Research Review). New York, N.Y.: Teachers College, Columbia University.
Gorski, P. (2013). Reaching and teaching students in poverty: strategies for erasing the opportunity gap. New York: Teachers College Press.
Gregory, E., Long, S., & Volk, D. (Eds.). (2004). Many pathways to literacy: young children learning with siblings, grandparents, peers, and communities. New York: RoutledgeFalmer.
Kohli, R., & Solórzano, D. G. (2012). Teachers, please learn our names!: racial microaggressions and the K-12 classroom. Race Ethnicity and Education, 15(4), 441–462.
Mapp, K. L., & Kuttner, P. J. (2013). Partners in Education: A Dual Capacity-Building Framework for Family-School Partnerships. Austin, TX: SEDL.
Mayorga-Gallo, S. (2017). Mi padre: Mexican immigrant fathers and their children’s education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Miano, A. A. (2011). Schools Reading Parents’ Worlds: Mexican Immigrant Mothers Building Family Literacy Networks. Multicultural Education, 18(2), 30–38.
Moll, L. C., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & González, N. (1992). Funds of Knowledge for Teaching: Using a Qualitative Approach to Connect Homes and Classrooms. Theory Into Practice, 31(2).
Monzó, L., & Rueda, R. (2001). Constructing Achievement Orientations Toward Literacy: An Analysis of Sociocultural Activity in Latino Home and Community Contexts (Center for the Improvement of Early Reading Achievement No. #1-011). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.
Nash, K., & Sosinski, G. (2016). Leadership in a Dual-Language Community Preschool: Small Steps Toward Creating an Asset-Based Program. In S. Long, M. Souto-Manning, & V. M. Vasquez (Eds.), Courageous Leadership in Early Childhood Education: Taking a Stand for Social Justice. New York: Teachers College Press.
Pour-Khorshid, F. (2016). H.E.L.L.A.: Collective Testimonio that Speak to the Healing, Empowerment, Love, Liberation, and Action Embodied by Social Justice Educators of Color. Association of Mexican American Educators Journal, 10(2), 16–32.
Reyes, M. de la L. (Ed.). (2011). Words were all we had: becoming biliterate against the odds. New York: Teachers College Press.
Souto-Manning, M., & Martell, J. (2016). Reading, writing, and talk: inclusive teaching strategies for diverse learners, K-2. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Steiner, L. M. (2014). A Family Literacy Intervention to Support Parents in Children’s Early Literacy Learning. Reading Psychology, 35(8), 703–735.
Yosso, T. J. (2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community cultural wealth. Race Ethnicity and Education, 8(1), 69–91.
Yosso, T., Smith, W., Ceja, M., & Solórzano, D. (2009). Critical Race Theory, Racial Microaggressions, and Campus Racial Climate for Latina/o Undergraduates. Harvard Educational Review, 79(4), 659–691.
Zentella, A. C. (2005). Building on strength: language and literacy in Latino families and communities. New York : Covina, Calif: Teachers College Press ; California Association for Bilingual Education.
 They might, however. Kohli & Solórzano (2012) write about microaggressions in schooling, including the early years.
 Speaking as part of the 2007 Jocelyn Solis Lecture Series at the CUNY Graduate Center.