Literacy Matters - Winter 2020

school with their children to practice the skills and lessons they were learning while at school. It is evident this teacher strives for open communication and wants feedback to create a positive learning environment in the classroom. Not only are caregivers able to communicate with the teacher, but also, caregivers are able to see the work that their children are doing, and as so, become an active participant in their child’s education. Summary Teacher-caregiver communication is a dynamic process from the classroom to the home. Over time, teachers have moved from using traditional forms of communication such as newsletters and webpages to using new forms of communication such as smartphone applications and flipped video delivery. This was especially true of the teachers in this study. Of the 292 teacher webpages, 66% of teachers had a below-average score or no webpage. This means that webpages may no longer be the most effective way for teachers to communicate with their caregivers. Instead, a trend of alternate communication applications, such as Class Dojo, Bloomz, Remind, and Seesaw, has emerged. These apps allow for direct, one-on-one communication between home and the classroom. Ultimately, teachers must determine what method of communication works best for their classroom, and with that, how they can reach the most caregivers with the best variety of methods. Colleges of education must address caregiver communication within methods courses as well as the theoretical significance of home-school partnerships. Rather than feeling threatened by caregiver communication, preservice teachers can practice effective methods of teacher-caregiver communication within their fieldwork, leading up to internship.

put on a funny hat or another item to make the video but needed no more prep than if she was doing the lesson live with the children. A caregiver said about her 2nd grader, “She watched it over and over again to the point that we had memorized what you (the teacher) said” (anecdotal comment, April 2016). Older students may reap the same benefits by being able to replay the instruction as many times as needed. This method has an additional advantage for homes of English Language Learners, as they can not only replay the video but also practice English by speaking along with the teacher and having more time to listen at their own pace. Additional caregivers and family members have access to the English instruction and school practices, supporting a collective rather than an individual approach to learning, common to some cultures regarding family literacy practices. Improving Teacher Webpages One exemplary teacher webpage of the 292 examined, was a third-grade classroom from County 20 of the 100 counties that were studied. This teacher met nearly all the criteria that we measured. On the website, she included a classroom social media presence, used the communication application Classroom Dojo, used up to date pictures of their students, has all the lessons that they will use in class, and more. This webpage was easy to navigate, and all information was clearly labeled and detailed. What was most impressive was the way that she opened communication for the caregivers in their classroom to contact her. This teacher included her email and phone number and encouraged caregivers to use both whenever they had a question or a concern. She had a comments section on her website where caregivers could submit any questions or comments directly on the webpage. She included several resources that caregivers could use outside of

Reading Matters Research Matters

References

Amstutz, D. (2000). Implications for public school practice. Education and Urban Society, (32) 2, 207-220.

Fox, K. (2016). Homework as a family literacy practice: What counts as best practices for children deemed as high risk for academic failure due to socioeconomic status. School Community Journal , 26 (2), 215-236.

Brown, M. (2007). Educating all students: Creating culturally responsive teachers, classrooms, and schools. Intervention in School and Clinic, 2007 43 (1), 57-62. Retrieved from http://isc.sagepub.com/content/43/1/57. Dearing, E., Kreider, H., Simpkins, S., &Weiss, H. (2006). Family involvement in school and low-income children’s literacy performance: Longitudinal associations between and within families. Journal of Educational Psychology , ( 98 ), 653-664. Denboba, D. (1993). MCHB/DSCSHCN Guidance for Competitive Applications, Maternal and Child Health Improvement Projects for Children with Special Health Care Needs. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Health Services and Resources Administration.

Fox, K. (2010). Homework as a collective practice for language and culture minority families.

Journal of Praxis in Multicultural Education, 4 (1), 1-11.

Gary, W. &Witherspoon, R. (2011). The Power of Family School Community Partnerships: A Training Resource Manual. NEA Education Policy and Practice Department. Washington, D.C.: Center for Great Public Schools. Retrieved from http://www2.nea.org/mediafiles/pdf/FSCP_Manual_2012.pdf

Gay, G. (2000). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research and practice . New York: Teachers College Press.

Epstein, J. (2010). School/family/community partnerships: Caring for the children we share. Phi Delta Kappan, 92 (3), 81-96.

Hornby, G. & Lafele, R. (2011). Barriers to parental involvement in education: An explanatory model . Journal of Educational Review, 63 (1), 37-52.

Epstein, J. & Sanders, M. (2000). Family, school and community partnerships. Handbook of Parenting, 5 , 407-437.

International Literacy Association (2018). Standards for the Preparation of Literacy Professionals. Retrieved from https://literacyworldwide.org/docs/default-source/ resource-documents/standards-appendix-C.pdf

| 40 | Literacy Matters | Volume 20 • Winter 2020 | scira.org

CLICK HERE TO RETURN TO TABLE OF CONTENTS