PERSPECTIVES AND Web viewPERSPECTIVES AND PROVOCATIONS. ... these linguistic resources do not easily...

9

November 2015 Volume 2, Number 2

Across-group Unity, Within-group Diversity: Refugee Parents on Education and Schooling

Laura A. May, Gary Bingham, Sarah Turnbull, and Jennifer Tesler 1

Children come to school proficient in many languages, literacies, and social practices that

work within the communities in which they participate (Gregory, Long, & Volk, 2004; Heath,

1983). Worthy of respect and appreciation, students’ funds of knowledge offer potential for

learning when educators recognize and build upon them (Moll, Amanti, Neff, & Gonzalez, 1992;

Taylor & Dorsey-Gaines, 1988). Nevertheless, too often, educators know little about the

growing numbers of refugee families in the United States. A “wasteland of refugee education

research” exists (Pinson & Arnot, 2007, p. 399) leaving many teachers unaware of distinctive

ethnolinguistic information about refugee students (e.g., the language they speak at home)

(Perry, 2014). The information educators do have is often inaccurate and leads to missed

learning opportunities, inappropriate responses to situations, and misinterpreting of choices made

by refugee children and families (Roy & Roxas, 2011). For example, educators across study

sites, cited behavior and aggression as one of the major obstacles in educating refugee students.

The educators referred to issues at home as the reason for aggression, but did not go further to

investigate the individual circumstances and treat these disruptions on a “case by case basis” (p.

529). Here, working from a community cultural wealth perspective (Yosso, 2005), we present

findings from an analysis of pre-K refugee parents’ perspectives on education and how they

support their children’s education and school success.

1 Laura A. May, Department of Early Childhood Education [email protected] State University

PERSPECTIVES AND PROVOCATIONS

PERSPECTIVES AND PROVOCATIONS | Volume 2, Number 2 May, Bingham, Turnbull, & Tesler

10

Review of Literature

Community Literacies as Cultural Capital

Centering on the cultural wealth of a community makes visible the bodies of knowledge

held by people who do not occupy prominent positions within societal hierarchies (Yosso, 2005).

Rather than considering cultural capital at the level of the individual or nuclear family,

community cultural wealth examines knowledge as lived within groups of people. Six distinct

yet overlapping and interrelated forms of knowledges/abilities comprise the framework:

aspirational capital (goal-oriented resiliency), linguistic capital (communicative repertoire),

familial capital (commitment to community), social capital (networks of support), navigational

capital (function within institutional structures), and resistant capital (ability to challenge

inequality). Languages and literacies are most clearly acknowledged within the linguistic capital

component of Yosso’s framework yet they are used to carry out all six forms (Yosso, 2005).

Languages and literacies operate within communities (Street, 1984, 1995). These

communities are not monolithic, nor do they operate in isolation. Rather, they interact with each

other resulting in dynamic and overlapping ways (Blommaert, Collins, & Slembrouck, 2005).

Technological advances and global developments have reduced geographical boundaries, making

intersections amongst communities ubiquitous (Lam & Warriner, 2012), though, it is important to

note that all do not have equal access to digital resources (Warschauer & Matuchniak, 2010).

Although families possess sophisticated language and linguistic repertoires (Li, 2009),

these linguistic resources do not easily map onto those used in schools, causing them to go

unrecognized (Heath, 1983; Reese & Gallimore, 2000). The variation of practices also yields

discrepancies in family learning support due to the inability to easily map mainstream models of

support for helping young children acquire literacy to refugee family realities (Gregory, Long, &

Volk, 2004; Kenner, 2005). Instead school personnel too often attempt to fill parents with



11

“cultural knowledge that is deemed valuable by the dominant society” (Yosso, 2005, p. 75).

Better communication between school professionals and families is needed.

Family/School Communication

The productive benefits of dialogic relationships between educators and student families

are well-established (Allen, 2010; Delgado-Gaitan, 2004). Families are interested in their

children’s education and want to support schools in spite of popular beliefs to the contrary

(Dockett & Perry, 2005). Further, though families have the ability to assist schools in educating

their children (Galindo & Sheldon, 2012), hierarchical and unidirectional paradigms of school

communication focused on “how to do school” predominate (Kroeger & Lash, 2011). These

school-to-home initiatives fail to acknowledge families’ language and literacy strengths,

overemphasize discrete skills, and clash with existing family routines and values (Dudley-

Marling, 2009; Orellana & D’Warte, 2010). Popular models of family involvement in schools

tend to reflect narrow understandings of engagement, reinforcing deficit orientations when

families participate in ways that do not align with traditional structures (Doucet, 2011). Instead

of fostering dialogic relationships, often communication constrains and conceals family voices.

In U.S. refugee communities, these constraints are further exacerbated by factors unique

to refugee resettlement zones. Refugees, by definition, have been displaced because of political,

religious, and/or ethnic oppression. The social unrest in their home countries that created the

need for migration also made formal schooling unavailable to many refugees (Waters &

LeBlanc, 2005). As a result, many resettled refugees have not had the opportunity to develop

strategies for interacting with educators and school administrators. The nature of resettlement

also poses challenges; in any given year, most refugees arrive from a handful of countries—

during the first half of 2013, for example, the majority of refugees resettled from



12

Myanmar/Burma, Iraq, Bhutan, and Somalia (UNHCR, 2013). Yet because of the way the

process works, people from previous waves who have been living in refugee camps (sometimes

for decades) are simultaneously arriving from multiple parts of the world. Often, those with the

biggest resettlement numbers are those new to the local U.S. school systems.

Unfamiliar with each other and facing the communicative inconveniences that come

when people do not share the same language, multiple impediments to meaningful conversation

coalesce in ways that can dissuade even dedicated educators from making the most basic

attempts. A clear need exists to learn more in order to better build dialogic relationships between

schools and refugee families.

Methods

For about five years the first two authors have worked closely with a non-profit agency

whose sole purpose is to support resettled refugee families. The school district where the

resettled refugee students are zoned to attend schools serves over 13,000 students coming from

160 countries and speaking 140 languages. This dynamic, multilingual, and transcultural

geographic area embodies worldwide migration and integration. The education and youth

services arm of the organization runs after-school programs, administers summer camps, and

houses one pre-kindergarten classroom, funded by state lottery money.

Sixteen of the 20 families of children enrolled in this classroom agreed to participate in

this qualitative study. The widely diverse families were resettled from Bhutan (N=3), Bosnia

(N=1), Burma (N=4), Liberia (N=2), Somalia (N=5), and Vietnam (N=1). Three of the five

interpreters also requested to be interviewed, adding two additional participants (one from

Bosnia and one from Burma) resulting in 18 participants.



13

We collected all data through semi-structured interviews (Charmaz, 2006). In deference

to cultural and religious gender norms within some of the families, the first (female) author

collected all data. Interviews took place in either a small conference room at the non-profit

agency that housed the pre-K classroom (about half of the interviews) or the family home (the

other half) depending on parent and interpreter joint selection. In addition to language brokering,

interpreters also served as cultural brokers (Pipher, 2002), explaining questions not immediately

understood, and, at times, joining the conversation. After transcribing all 18 interviews, we

engaged in two levels of coding (Charmaz, 2006) identifying thirty descriptive codes that fell

into five overarching categories. Our primary finding was that parents in this study had

aspirational capital, which Yosso (2005) defines as the “ability to maintain hopes and dreams for

the future, even in the face of real and perceived barriers” (p. 77). In other words, despite many

struggles, parents were able to stay positive by drawing on their familial, linguistic, social, and

navigational capital in order to maneuver the educational system. Our findings show specific

insights about education and schooling that were shared within refugee groups, but also highlight

differences across groups. Additionally, our findings demonstrate that parents’ circumstances

(e.g. length of time in U.S.) influence their feelings about education and schooling.

Findings

In spite of coming from different continents, practicing different religions, participating

in different cultures, and speaking different languages, the parents we talked with had much in

common. They worked similar jobs, shared experiences with navigating U.S. schools, and held

similar viewpoints on language learning and sustaining. Following Yosso (2005), they evidenced

similar navigational and linguistic competences. The parents, though, possessed considerable

variance in their own amount of formal school. Neither did they agree on everything, holding



14

wide-ranging goals for their children and different levels of willingness to critique U.S. schools.

These differences did not fall along ethnolinguistic or country of origin group lines. Rather, they

fell along situational aspects of the refugee experience including length of time in the U.S.,

children’s ages at arrival, and where they fell in the succession of resettled people from their

ethnolinguistic group.

Shared Experience and Similar Viewpoints

Parental work. Viable positions were with employers that included chicken factories,

restaurants, and retail store warehouses, jobs that required little formal education or English

proficiency. Mothers stayed at home allowing them to take English classes and pick children up

from after-school tutoring. As one mother commented when asked how she spent her days, “I

have school with kids, cleaning, cooking, and care.” This statement reflects the predominant

experience. Indeed, all but two of the mothers reported child-related responsibilities, household

work, and attending English classes. In addition to work experiences, parents also shared

responsibility for transcending the family-school language barrier.

Interpreting and translating. For all older siblings (those not attending the Pre-K), in

K-12 schools, parents provided their own interpreters in order to obtain school resources such as

teacher feedback about their child’s learning or behavior. In a few cases in interactions with K-12

schools, families accessed interpreters through the refugee-serving agency that housed the pre-K.

When the school initiated communication, the interpreter was either a child from the school or

provided by the family. When families initiated the communication, they always provided the

interpreter. Interpreters also included neighbors, relatives, or other members of their

ethnolinguistic group with more developed English proficiency. Most language brokering,

though, was done through children. Children acted in this translational role not only for their



15

own families but also for other families in their communities. As one mother explained: “[If I

have to communicate with school] most of the time, I tell his friend…like, if the child is sick, I

tell the friend who then tells the teacher.” When asked about their feelings about the practice of

using children as interpreters, parents were matter-of-fact about it as can be seen in the following

data snippet

Author: The children do? Do you like it like that?

Parent: No choice. That is what I have to do.

As others have found, we saw that the work children were doing as language brokers was going

unvalued (Orellana, 2009). The educational system also failed to recognize the complexity of the

practice of child interpreting. For example, during parent-teacher conferences, child interpreters

often moderate the teacher’s report in ways that diminished the quality of their own classroom

performance (García-Sánchez & Orellana, 2006).

Parents also reported that it was rare to receive written documents from school that had

been translated into their home language from school. In the few cases they did receive translated

paperwork, the information related to something official such as the H1N1 flu virus or an

upcoming meeting about the state testing.

Academic support. Parents reflected pride in their pre-K children’s academic abilities,

“He knows his numbers. He knows his alphabet. That is a great thing. That is a great honor.”

They provided support for their children’s academic success including reading to them, working

with letters, practicing name writing, playing games, viewing educational television, asking

questions, and creating more difficult homework when that sent from school was too easy. In

addition, parents obtained assistance for their children through neighbors, school tutoring

programs, and after school programs (some with fees). All families supported their children



16

academically with supports aimed directly at a) facilitating their children’s completion of

homework and/or b) enhancing existing school experiences. As one mother articulated,

Mother: Sometimes she has homework. Mostly my husband will help her in her

studies. She gets homework like…she learns her letters, numbers, and

practices writing her name in English…her alphabet, and he helps her.

Sometimes she brings the card with the picture. If she knows the object

and if she can recognize the object, she will tell [the teacher]. And if not,

then the teacher asks her to learn the object’s name. Then she learns it at

home and then takes it back.

Author: Okay, is there anything else you do to help them learn?

Mother: Sometimes she asks questions like, “Where does this flower come from?”

[I respond with something like,] “This comes from the store. Naturally we

have to plant them. It grows in the soil.” I explain that way.

As indicated by this mother, the parent most proficient in English tended to help with homework

within the families we talked with. Additional academic supports were also pulled in as needed

including recruiting the assistance of neighbors, other family members, or agencies to help their

child with homework. Parents made these supports available.

Functional supports. In addition to supporting children directly through a close focus on

academic learning, parents articulated a number of supportive, yet more indirect ways, to get

their children ready for school. Functional or instrumental supports served to ensure the children

were prepared to benefit from the opportunity to be in school. Examples of functional supports

described by parents typically involved navigating the public school system, getting their child

ready in the morning, providing transportation, securing school supplies, and attending to



17

children’s food, clothing, health, and safety needs. For instance, one mother stated, “I help him

brush and get ready. Put his shoes on and go.” At times family members worked together to

collectively provide the necessary functional supports. As a mother reported,

When she comes from the school, I will get her dress ready and fold it in the bag. In the

morning, my husband does everything for her. And her grandmother takes her to the bus

stop.

Families worked together to form the social networks of support needed to navigate not only the

day-to-day schooling issues, but also the complex institutional procedures needed to identify the

specific school for which their child was zoned, negotiate the difficult process of providing the

appropriate documentation to enroll their children in school, identify and obtain requested school

supplies, and fill out appropriate forms for the school lunch program. Many of these tasks

required access to print-based English.

Valuing language. Parents valued the English language as indicated through attending

English classes, allowing their children to correct their pronunciation, and, at times, stating a

preference for English over heritage languages. Parents also expressed the importance of their

children maintaining their home language(s) so they could communicate with family and

commented that they were already seeing signs of child resistance to speaking in their heritage

language(s). As others have found, sustaining native-language proficiency can be difficult even

in environments designed to support it (Worthy, Rodríguez-Galindo, Assaf, Martínez, & Cuero,

2003). Despite these similarities, parents also varied considerably.

Diverging Experiences and Viewpoints



18

Educational access. Substantial disparities in opportunities to participate in formal

schooling existed for the parents. Due to financial and/or conflict-related reasons inherent with

being a refugee, many of the parents had not had an opportunity to attend school at all in their

home countries. The educational opportunity disparity continued within the international refugee

camps. It is common for people, including many of the parents we talked with, to live for

decades within a camp. These camps tend to focus on basic physiological issues such as clean

water, nutrition, and the spread of disease, leaving relief organizations and host countries to

piecemeal educational components together based on interest and resources (Waters & LeBlanc,

2005). Depending on home country and camp conditions, many parents had access to

educational opportunities. Some experienced limited, informally structured education they

referred to as “under the tree.” In these settings, volunteers or non-governmental organization

workers provided instruction on an ad hoc basis. The content prioritized basic literacy skills yet

varied considerably. Indeed, one parent reported learning about Christian martyrs. Other parents

had some formal schooling that was interrupted by the same events that instigated their refugee

status. Still other parents had completed high school and attended college. As a result, parents

from the same country of origin did not share the same educational histories.

Evaluation of US school system. Considerable variability also existed in how parents

articulated their opinions of the U.S. educational system. In spite of the difficult-to-navigate

institutional aspects, parents were, on the whole, positive about US schools and teachers. They

were pleased with the quality and education of the teachers and the absence of corporal

punishment and school fees.

Although positive attitudes about U.S. schools were evident in most interviews, not all

praised the education system. Concerns related to student dress (e.g. low-hanging pants of the



19

adolescents they saw in the neighborhood, lack of clear gender-based dress norms) and practices

that would not have occurred in their home countries (e.g. public displays of affection). Other

concerns related to school practices more fully discussed in the next section. Despite uneasiness

with these practices, parents were inclined to express positive thoughts when speaking about

their child’s future.

Aspirations for children. Although all parents expressed positive aspirations for their

preschool aged children’s educational and/or life success, parents varied greatly in the

articulation of these goals. Many parents articulated that they wanted children to be successful

and have specific, often prestigious, occupations. For example, a mother articulated: “A big

person. To be an engineer, a doctor, or someone like that.” Other parents left the specific career

decision up to their child but stated a desire for success in life with, as one mother stated, “I want

them to be a great person later on. But I don’t know what they will chose, what subject. But I

wish them a good thing.” Following this line, some parents spoke about their desire for their

children to be a moral or great person reflecting familial competence. Parents also spoke about

educational aspirations, especially as they related to attending a university. “She is five and I

have a lot of expectations for her. Good expectations. And I believe . . . [she] will go to college.”

Similarly, as articulated by one mother, being successful in education meant a more successful

future. “I want most of them to go to the university because, I don’t know. I don’t want them to

wind up like me in the warehouse.” Parents were positive about the futures of the Pre-K children

due to early schooling, stating that, though school had been difficult at first, the children were

making good progress. At the same time they were concerned about the children’s older siblings

as further discussed in the next section. As stated previously, these differences did not fall along

country of origin lines.



20

Differentiating Circumstances

Patterns of divergence emerged based on parents’ experiences that related to the length of

time families had been in the U.S., their place and community in the resettlement wave, and the

age of their children upon arrival to the U.S.

Length of time in the U.S. Generally, the more time parents spent in the U.S., the more

critical they became of its educational system. As one mother stated, “Yep, American school, it’s

good for American people, it is not good for others. Not for us. I think there are a lot of problems

at school because of the system.” She wished she had known more about the structures of

schools and had more choices in where her children attended schools. Over time, they became

increasingly concerned with practices they saw and experienced. They did not understand some

practices such as in-school suspension and the placing of students in classes solely based on age

and without considering English proficiency or previous schooling. The concerns about school

customs were likely aggravated by but not limited to communication difficulties. Even when the

parents did feel school officials understood their concerns, such as in the case of a mother

complaining about her child being bullied, they did not have confidence that their concerns

would be addressed. While the parents could see nothing but promise soon after arriving, we

saw discouragement increase with increased time spent in the U.S.

Place in community. Depending on when parents were relocated as compared with other

people from their home country, they had different educational opportunities and access to

resources. Families who were amongst the first of their ethnolinguistic group to relocate to the

U.S. had more difficulty navigating their experiences upon arrival than those who came later in

the wave. Yet, the group from the earlier wave did not have the same gaps in access to education.

Arriving earlier meant they had not spent the same amount of time in a country without a



21

functioning educational system or living in a refugee camp with piecemealed, ad hoc schooling.

As compared with other parents from their country, the longer parents had been here, the higher

their levels of education.

Arriving in the U.S. later in the wave also had both affordances and limitations. Coming

later meant an established network of support. People from their home countries acted as

language and cultural brokers with experience helping other families just like them alleviating

some of the difficulties experienced by earlier arrivals. Yet, the more time families spent in

unstable countries and refugee camps, the more likely they were to have had no or little access to

education. In addition to comparisons within the participant group, families indicated this

information with statements such as the following

[My siblings] were big enough. They were older, so they could go to school. But the

problems, by the time I was old enough, the problems had started, and we were refugees

and had to move.

So regardless of when they arrived respective to others, they were advantaged by some

resettlement contextual factors yet disadvantaged by others.

Child’s age upon arrival in U.S. Generally speaking, mothers spoke more

optimistically, expressed higher aspirations for their younger children, and could see definite

benefits to arriving in the U.S. early in life. The fact that their child was in school at such a

young age was encouraging. As one mother said, “Back home, we used to send [kids to school]

at the age of six. Here we sent him at the age of four so I would hope that he has learned at this

early stage so many things.” In addition, parents reported feeling they were better able to

navigate the school settings, monitor the academic progress of their younger children, and

understand their children’s homework in order to help. It was much easier for them to identify



22

academic successes such as their children learning to write their names, form letters and

numbers, and read words in English than it was to identify progress or relative academic

performance at the upper grades.

Older children stepped into academic contexts not suited to their needs. In addition to

language proficiency issues, children who arrived as adolescents had often missed schooling,

been exposed to traumatic events for much longer periods of time, and been diagnosed with

disabilities due to earlier untreated medical issues, such as hearing disabilities due to earlier

untreated ear infections. Compounding the physiological issues were added difficulties the

families faced in navigating the complex institutional structures that accompanied the healthcare

and special education systems.

All together, these circumstances led to less optimism by parents about their older

children’s futures.

My daughter was 12 when she came here to the United States. She missed school. She

did not attend pre-K like [younger daughter]. She didn’t go to first grade. She didn’t go to

2nd grade. She started in 5th grade...They say, “What is she missing? Does she qualify?...

But [younger daughter], she came here at 4 and went to school at age 4. Nothing’s

missing, and I have no doubt she will stay like this.

In addition to the direct comparisons, the parents were also more measured when asked to talk

about their older children’s futures. The pride and prestigious occupations listed for the

preschool aged present were not as common with the older children. One mother reported, “In 8th

grade, my daughter said she wanted to be a forensic scientist, now I don’t know. I want her to go

to college and everything good. I don’t know if she will though.”



23

Conclusion and Practical Implications

Yosso (2005) argues that in order to maintain all the forms of community cultural wealth,

there needs to be resistance to subordination and inequality. Our analysis indicated that parents

were supporting their children and had aspirations for them despite struggles in the U.S. Overall,

we leave this analysis knowing much more than when we began, yet many questions remain. For

example, we need a deeper understanding of what schools are asking for parents to do (e.g.,

school supplies, registration systems, etc.) and how refugee parents navigate these expectations

and experiences. What sorts of experiences do refugee families endure to perform the basic

functional tasks needed for school enrollment and attendance? How do these experiences

compare with other families whose children attend U.S. schools? What could the school do to

facilitate improve communication with refugee families? Even with these lingering questions,

practical implications from these findings exist.

In spite of the incredible diversity within this group of parents, they had quite a bit in

common, particularly as related to navigating the U.S. educational system and supporting their

children’s success within it. Considerable within-group diversity also existed but did not fall

along ethnolinguistic lines. Rather, patterns were identified that divided groups according to

experiential factors that come as a part of the refugee resettlement process.

Without removing any of the urgency surrounding the need for teachers to understand the

cultural and linguistic backgrounds of all of their students, we find some hope in the fact that

there are considerable similarities across ethnolinguistic groups. Rather than frustration over the

complexity involved with constantly changing groups of people, we are confident that

simultaneous attention to; a) building relationships with people; and b) learning about the

refugee experience as a whole, has the potential to go far towards improved communication and



24

collaboration between schools and families. We see an opportunity for schools in the positive

regard for education and the U.S. identified in recently resettled refugee families.

References

Allen, J. (2010). Literacy in the welcoming classroom: Creating family-school partnerships that

support student learning. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.



25

Blommaert, J., Collins, J., & Slembrouck, S. (2005). Policentricities and interactional regimes in

“globalized” neighborhoods. Ethnography, 6, 205-235.

Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative

analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Delgado-Gaitan, C. (2004). Involving Latino familias in schools: Raising student achievement

through home-school partnerships. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Dockett, S., & Perry, B. (2005). Starting school in Australia is ¨a bit safer, a lot easier and more

relaxing¨: Issues for families and children from culturally and linguistically diverse

backgrounds. Early Years, 25(3), 271-281.

Doucet, F. (2011). Parent involvement as ritualized practice. Anthropology & Education

Quarterly, 42(4), 404-421.

Dudley-Marling, C. (2009). Home-school literacy connections: The perceptions of African

American and immigrant ESL parents in two urban communities. Teachers College

Record, 111(7), 1713-1752.

Galindo, C., & Sheldon, S. B. (2012). School and home connections and children’s kindergarten

achievement gains: The mediating role of family involvement. Early Childhood

Research Quarterly, 27(1), 90-103.

García-Sánchez, I., & Orellana, M. F. (2006). The construction of moral and social identity in

immigrant children’s narratives-in-translation. Linguistics and Education, 17(3), 209-239.

Gregory, E., Long, S., & Volk, D. (Eds.). (2004). Many pathways to literacy: Young children

learning with siblings, grandparents, peers, and communities. New York, NY: Routledge

Falmer.



26

Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life, and work in communities and classrooms.

New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Kenner, C. (2005). Bilingual families as literacy eco-systems. Early Years, 25(3), 283-298.

Kroeger, J., & Lash, M. (2011). Asking, listening, and learning: Toward a more thorough method

of inquiry in home-school relations. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(2), 268-277.

Lam, W. S. E., & Warriner, D. S. (2012). Transnationalism and literacy: Investigating the

mobility of people, languages, texts, and practices in contexts of migration. Reading

Research Quarterly, 47(2), 191-215.

Li, G. (Ed.). (2009). Multicultural families, home literacies, and mainstream schooling.

Charlotte, NC: Information Age.

Moll, L.C., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching:

Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory into Practice, 31,

132-141.

Orellana, M. F. (2009). Translating childhoods: Immigrant youth, language, and culture. New

Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Orellana, M. F., & D’warte, J. (2010). Recognizing different kinds of “head starts.” Educational

Researcher, 39(4), 295-300.

Pinson, H., & Arnot, M. (2007). Sociology of education and the wasteland of refugee education

research. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 28(3), 399-407.

Pipher, M. (2002). The middle of everywhere: Helping refugees enter the American community.

New York, NY: Harcourt, Inc.



27

Reese, L., & Gallimore, R. (2000). Immigrant Latinos’ cultural model of literacy development:

An evolving perspective on home-school discontinuities. American Journal of

Education, 108(2), 103-134.

Roy, L. A., & Roxas, K. C. (2011). Whose deficit is this anyhow?: Exploring counter-stories of

Somali Bantu refugees experiences in ¨doing school.¨ Harvard Educational Review,

81(3), 521-541.

Street, B. V. (1995). Literacy in theory and practice. New York, NY: Cambridge University

Press.

Taylor, D., & Dorsey-Gaines, C. (1988). Growing up literate; Learning from inner-city families.

Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. (2013). UNHCR Mid-Year Trends 2013.

Geneva, Switzerland. Downloaded from http://www.unhcr.org/pages/49c3646c4d6.html

Warschauer, M., & Matuchniak, T. (2010). New technology and digital worlds: Analyzing

evidence of equity in access, use, and outcomes. Review of Research in Education, 34(1),

179-225.

Waters, T., & LeBlanc, K. (2005). Refugees and education: Mass public schooling without a

nation-state. Comparative Education Review, 49(2), 129-147.

Worthy, J., Rodríguez-Galindo, A., Assaf, L. C., Martínez, L., & Cuero, K. (2003). Fifth-grade

bilingual students and precursors to “subtractive schooling.” Bilingual Research Journal,

27(2), 275-294.

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.



http://www.unhcr.org/pages/49c3646c4d6.html

PERSPECTIVES AND Web viewPERSPECTIVES AND PROVOCATIONS. ... these linguistic resources do not easily...

Documents

Transcript of PERSPECTIVES AND Web viewPERSPECTIVES AND PROVOCATIONS. ... these linguistic resources do not easily...