ENGAGING THE COMMUNITY CULTURAL WEALTH OF LATINO IMMIGRANT
FAMILIES IN A COMMUNITY-BASED PROGRAM
By
Elizabeth Gil

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
K-12 Educational Administration -- Doctor of Philosophy
2017

ABSTRACT
ENGAGING THE COMMUNITY CULTURAL WEALTH OF LATINO IMMIGRANT
FAMILIES IN A COMMUNITY-BASED PROGRAM
By
Elizabeth Gil
The purpose of this qualitative case study utilizing ethnographic methods was to
understand how family members’ participation in Digital Home, a community-based technology
program in an urban mid-sized Midwestern city, built on and fostered Latino immigrant families’
community cultural wealth (Yosso, 2005) in order to increase their abilities to navigate their
children’s schooling experiences. Two major questions guide this study: 1) How do family
members involved in this community-based program perceive family involvement in their
children’s education and how do they believe schools define parental involvement? 2) How does
participating in this community-based program affect immigrant Latino families’ various forms
of capital? In order to answer these questions, I conducted semi-structured interviews with six
adult program participants, five children, and seven program volunteers, including the program’s
founder and coordinator. I also engaged in participant observation and analyzed various public
and program documents. Study findings show that the program “methodology” built on and
leveraged the cultural characteristics of Latino families and familial, linguistic, and navigational
capital supported and extended families’ educational and personal aspirations. Activating
community cultural wealth, the relationships and knowledge fostered within the program
supported families’ resistant capital, evidenced by parents’ abilities to advocate for their children
within their schools. The program’s approaches can serve as a model for educational leaders to
enact culturally responsive leadership and family engagement practices. While the empowerment

experienced by Digital Home families did not appear to spread widely within districts’ schools,
the program did expand the way parents could participate in their children’s schooling.

Copyright by
ELIZABETH GIL
2017

This dissertation is dedicated to the families from Community School 211 and from Mosaic
Preparatory Academy, with whom I had the opportunity to work and who inspired me, to the
TECH en la Casa families and volunteers, and to my own immigrant family.
Esta disertación está dedicada a las familias de la Escuela Comunitaria 211 y de la Academia
Preparatoria Mosaica, con quienes tuve la oportunidad de trabajar y quienes me inspiraron, a las
familias y los voluntaries de TECH en la Casa, y a mi propia familia inmigrante.

v

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

There are many people who have supported me along this journey, from within the
University, at other institutions, and outside of the academy. I know that my success is the result
of the many blessings and kindnesses people have shown me, and the work of those who help to
create systems in the hopes of promoting community, health, and success.
I want to thank Dr. Muhammad A. Khalifa, who has been my advisor and mentor since
the beginning of my program. Near or far, your guidance, encouragement, and the opportunities
you have offered me have been priceless and I am forever grateful. I look forward to our
continued collegiality and friendship.
I also wish to express my appreciation to my guidance and dissertation committees.
Being able to speak with you regarding my scholarly trajectory and to get feedback on different
aspects of my study have helped me to make decisions along the way and to prepare for my next
steps. Thank you, Drs. Kristy Cooper Stein, Terah Venzant Chambers, and Higinio Domínguez.
The various opportunities offered at Michigan State and the College of Education, and
the support of faculty and administrative staff, have all helped in the day-to-day goings-on.
Among the groups, offices, and initiatives that have added to my professional and personal
development and have made my time at MSU richer than it would have been otherwise are:
Rueda Latin@, the EAD Professional Development Group, the Office of International Studies in
Education, Alliances for Graduate Education and the Professoriate (AGEP), Linking All Types
of Teachers to International Cross-Cultural Education (LATTICE) the Graduate School, the
Community Engagement Graduate Certificate Program, the Chicano/Latino Studies Program,
Project 60/50, Council of Graduate Students (COGS), the Academic Women’s Forum, Mujer a

vi

Mujer, Our Daily Work/Our Daily Lives, UAB, and the Wharton Center for Performing Arts.
My thanks to UCEA and the UCEA Graduate Student Council. I express my gratitude also to the
King-Chávez-Parks Future Faculty Fellowship selection committee for their belief in my work
and in my ability to carry it out.
To my friends within the K-12 Educational Administration program as well as across the
College and the University, thank you for sharing in this experience, for your encouragement, for
listening, for teaching me, and for being happy for me. What a wonderful feeling to have friends
from across so much of the world. Gracias. Gamsahamnida. Terima kasih. Na gode. Teşekkür
ederim. Shukraan. Xie xie. Āmeseginalehu. Cảm ơn bạn. Dios bo’otik. Spasibo. Merci.
This study would not have been possible without the families and volunteers of TECH
en la Casa and without the vision of its founder and coordinator. Andrea, your leadership, care,
and advocacy are a gift to all who meet you. All of those involved with TECH became another
community for me as I lived in East Lansing. A special thanks to those who participated in this
study, giving their time, and even opening their homes to me or offering a ride home after
interviews. I truly hope that writing about TECH will serve to help others learn about the
strength of Latinos and to be a catalyst for establishing positive partnerships. To Ala, a
wonderful, wise, and knowledgeable friend who has taught me so much and who was the first
person I ever heard talk about TECH—I’m so glad I went to that workshop in January of 2013!
To Eva, for your continued commitment to your work and to others—¡Lograrás!
Never the least is my family, Hilda, Alfredo, Claudia, and Jorge Alberto Gil, for whom I
give thanks to God. You are my first teachers, instrumental in shaping this path. I am so
fortunate to have such love as a foundation. I have benefited from great wisdom handed down
across generations, pride in where we came from, and the model of doing a job well. Claudia,

vii

thanks for making learning fun so long ago! Thank you also to my in-laws Myriam and Tom and
to my extended family. ¡Los quiero mucho!

viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................................... xi
LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................................... xii
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 1
Statement of the Problem............................................................................................................ 2
Purpose of the Study ................................................................................................................... 6
Research Questions ..................................................................................................................... 7
Significance ................................................................................................................................ 8
Definition of Terms .................................................................................................................. 10
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 12
CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ....................................................................... 13
Introduction............................................................................................................................... 13
Traditional Parental Involvement Models and Latino Families ............................................... 13
Community-Based Organizations ............................................................................................. 16
Characteristics of Community-Based Organizations................................................................ 17
Structures of Community-based Organizations .................................................................... 17
Norms in Community-based Organizations.......................................................................... 19
Result of Community-Based Structures and Norms ............................................................. 20
Community-Based Organizations Connecting Families to Schools ......................................... 21
From Peer-to-Peer Support to Collective Engagement ......................................................... 22
Developing an Understanding of Community Context ............................................................ 25
Community-Based Initiatives as a Vehicle for Increased Parental Empowerment .............. 28
What Schools Can Learn from Community-Based Organizations ........................................... 30
Theoretical Framework ............................................................................................................. 33
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 39
CHAPTER 3: METHODS ............................................................................................................ 40
Rationale for Qualitative Study ................................................................................................ 41
Rationale for Case Study .......................................................................................................... 41
Project Context and Participants ............................................................................................... 42
Participant Selection ................................................................................................................. 47
Data Generation Methods ......................................................................................................... 48
Participant Observation ......................................................................................................... 49
Semi-structured Interviews ................................................................................................... 51
Document Analysis ............................................................................................................... 54
Data Analysis ............................................................................................................................ 55
Trustworthiness ......................................................................................................................... 56
Role as Researcher .................................................................................................................... 58
Limitations ................................................................................................................................ 61
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 62

ix

CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION .......................................................................... 63
Perception of Langley City and Local School Districts ........................................................... 63
Activating Community Cultural Wealth to Create Digital Home ............................................ 72
Fostering Community Cultural Wealth .................................................................................... 75
The “Methodology” .............................................................................................................. 75
Reducing barriers .......................................................................................................……76
Promoting familial capital through community-building ..............................……………78
Social and familial capital fostering and supporting aspirations ...................……………82
Linguistic capital and positive cultural identity .............................................……………86
Developing navigational capital ....................................................................……………88
Family Empowerment .............................................................................................................. 92
Persistence and Success ........................................................................................................ 93
Engaging in Advocacy for Their Children in Schools .......................................................... 96
Remaining Barriers to Greater Inclusion within Schools ....................................................... 100
Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 103
CHAPTER 5: IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.............................................. 104
Summary of Study Findings ................................................................................................... 105
Implications for Theory .......................................................................................................... 109
Implications for Practice ......................................................................................................... 112
Family Engagement through Cultural Validation ............................................................... 112
Recommendation: Incorporate cultural values and norms in family engagement efforts
…………………………………………………………………………………………..114
Learning from this Community–Based Space .................................................................... 114
Recommendation: Establishing formal partnerships ...………………………………...118
Culturally Responsive Leadership ...................................................................................... 120
Recommendation: Engaging in critical reflection to support action …………………..122
Recommendation: Increasing contact with families and communities ………………………..125
Implications for Further Research .......................................................................................... 127
Final Commentary .................................................................................................................. 129
APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................ 134
APPENDIX A: IRB Approval Letter ..................................................................................... 135
APPENDIX B: Recruitment Flier .......................................................................................... 136
APPENDIX C: Research Participation Information and Consent Form ................................ 137
APPENDIX D: Research Participation Information and Assent Form .................................. 140
APPENDIX E: Interview Protocols........................................................................................ 143
APPENDIX F: Data Analysis Matrix ..................................................................................... 158
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................... 159

x

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Adult Program Participants and Children Interviewed ............................................53
Table 2: Program Volunteers Interviewed .............................................................................53
Table 3: Data Analysis Matrix ...............................................................................................158

xi

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Characteristics of community-based organizations leading to growth and development
of those who participate in the organization ................................................................ 17
Figure 2: Digital Home’s graphic illustrating the envisioned stakeholders interacting in the
program ..................................................................................................................... 106

xii

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
While in the U.S. parental involvement is widely accepted as an important aspect of
successful education, conceptions of parental involvement differ depending on people’s
background experiences and culture (Pérez Carreón, Drake, & Calabrese Barton, 2005). With
dominant views of parental involvement promoting middle-class white norms, parental
involvement of low-income and racial and ethnic minority groups is sometimes less encouraged
(De Carvalho, 2014; Gold, et al., 2002; Orr & Rogers, 2010) than that of parents who align with
those views. U.S. K-12 public schools serve over 12 million Latino children, almost a quarter of
the entire elementary and secondary public school population (Hernandez, Murakami, Cerna,
Medina, & Martinez, 2013). In order to provide effective education to the children they serve,
schools in the United States must consider how best to respond to students’ and families’ needs,
including developing meaningful connections with students’ families, who have a direct impact
on their children’s learning.
Community-based organizations (CBOs) have been central to understanding their
constituents and identifying collective approaches that best engage and empower families,
including Latino immigrants in low-income neighborhoods. By recognizing the needs as well as
the community cultural wealth (Yosso, 2005) their members possess, community-based
organizations have worked with traditionally marginalized families to address racial, linguistic,
and cultural power differentials that result in the voices of urban-based minority groups being
less valued than those of culturally dominant groups in schools (Orr & Rogers, 2010). Digital
Home, a community-based technology skills program working with Latino immigrant families,
has helped to support participants’ existing strengths and to facilitate the development of various
capitals, including navigational and resistant capital (Yosso, 2005), so that parents may better

1

engage with their children’s schools. This study provides an in-depth examination of the
approaches utilized in this community-based setting that fostered families’ different forms of
capital, leading to an expansion of how they could participate in their children’s schooling. In
highlighting how parents viewed children’s education holistically, and not only academically,
this study offers a basis for educational leaders to tap into families’ community cultural wealth in
order to better serve the students and families in their schools by enacting culturally responsive
leadership and family engagement practices.
Statement of the Problem
Research has shown that families of Latino children tend to have positive views of
education and hold aspirations for their children’s educational future. In a survey of 1,054 Latino
parents interviewed in three cities with high Latino populations, 96% of respondents indicated
that they expected their children to go to college (Fann, Jarsky McClafferty, & McDonough,
2009). A survey of a nationally representative sample of over 3,000 adult Latinos found that
95% of Latino parents felt it was “very important” to them that their children attend college (Pew
Hispanic Center/Kaiser Family Foundation, 2004). These data indicate that Latino parents have
positive views about their children attaining a higher education. Despite this, in 2011, only 13%
of Hispanics aged 25-29 attained a bachelor’s degree or higher (United States Department of
Education, 2012).
Latinos continue to have the highest high school dropout rates of any ethnic or racial
group in the U.S. (Fry, 2014), with various factors over time influencing this result (Rumberger,
2011). A Pew Hispanic Center Survey of 2,012 randomly selected, nationally representative
Latino individuals delved into major reasons Hispanics do not fare as well as other students in
schools. Over 40% of adult and youth (aged 16-25) respondents indicated that, “too many

2

teachers don’t know how to work with Hispanic students” (Lopez, 2009) and close to 50% of
respondents indicated that their level of English language skills was a reason they did not
continue their education (Lopez, 2009).
Latino students’ educational success depends on a variety of institutional factors
(Conchas, 2001), including teachers’ and other school officials’ expectations and deficit thinking
about students’ capabilities (Cooper, Denner, & Lopez, 1999; Ramirez, 2003; Valencia, 2002),
and the school cultures of the educational institutions Latinos attend. Culturally, classroom and
school structures and behaviors reflect mainstream U.S. expectations (Hill, 2009), which do not
necessarily reflect those of Latino students and their families. For example, competitive
approaches implemented in some classrooms are in opposition to “communal and interdependent
characteristics of Latino cultures” (Conchas, 2001). Similarly, traditional approaches stress
notions of individual student success (De Carvalho, 2014; Hill & Torres, 2010) rather than the
success of collective groups and may, therefore, not align with the values promoted in Latino
families (Conchas, 2001).
Likewise, traditional concepts of parental involvement emphasize parents being in
service to the school’s efforts to educate the child and center parental involvement on academic
issues (Epstein, Coates, Salinas, Sanders, & Simon, 1997; Reynolds, Mavrogenes, Hagemann, &
Bezruczko, 1993; Zarate, 2007). Schools also tend to look toward formal activities and vehicles
of involvement, such as parent organizations, rather than parent contributions to school success
via informal actions (López, Scribner, & Mahitivanichcha, 2001). In contrast to traditional
notions of parental involvement, Latino parents may emphasize life participation more often than
academic aspects of involvement and may not identify formal school-based parent organizations
(Zarate, 2007) as their channel for involvement.

3

It should be understood that educación itself has a broader meaning than the term
“education” does in English, so Latino families’ ideas of education may differ from what the
school calls “education.” Educación refers not only to academic education but also to the life
education of children, including learning how to behave or act with others (Valdés, 1996). To be
mal educado (“badly educated”) does not refer to attending a bad school or not having good
educational opportunities, but means that someone is rude or impolite or does not have good
conduct with others. The consejos, cultural lessons (Huber, 2009) that parents engage in through
informal conversations with their children, are meant to play a role in their development as moral
people (Valdés, 1996), foster aspirations (Huber, 2009), and promote academic success (Hill &
Torres, 2010; Valencia, 2002). So, while Latino parents may engage in academically-oriented,
school-centered activities emphasized by schools, they perceive their children’s development as
whole people as central to being educado (educated) and view their involvement in their
children’s education accordingly.
Traditional notions of parental involvement, however, would tend to overlook the actions
taken by families outside of the expected school space, resulting in a disconnection between
home and school. Furthermore, schools may assume that parents are already familiar with U.S.
parental role expectations or school traditions (Hill & Torres, 2010; Ramirez, 2003) and,
therefore, interpret parents not being visible at the school as not caring about their children’s
education (De Gaetano, 2007). Immigrant parents are often excluded from discussions about
their children’s schooling because they do not realize that parents viewed as “active” have
greater voice within the school. Language proficiency of immigrant parents can also serve to be a
barrier to engaging with their children’s schools (Ramirez, 2003; Turney & Kao, 2009; Vasquez,
2004.)

4

Scholars have critiqued traditional notions of parental involvement for reproducing
inequity (De Carvalho, 2014; Khalifa, 2010; Vasquez, 2004) through undervaluing the cultural
characteristics of traditionally marginalized students (Khalifa, 2010; López, Scribner, &
Mahitivanichcha, 2001) and by not acknowledging existing power differentials (Auerbach, 2007;
Ordoñez-Jasis, & Jasis, 2004). Therefore, schools that adhere to traditional interpretations of
cultural capital fail to “capitalize on the culture, knowledge, and language of…families”
(Villenas & Deyhle, 1999, p. 441).
Just as students and their families may be marginalized within their school settings,
research has also shown ways in which schools have engaged traditionally marginalized
communities by connecting with people in the communities where their schools are located (e.g.,
Irizarry & Raible, 2011; Jones & Fuller, 2003; Khalifa, 2012; López, Scribner, &
Mahitivanichcha, 2001; Lucas, Henze, & Donato, 1990) and promoting positive relationships
with the students, families, and communities they serve. It is essential that schools pay attention
to the needs and cultural characteristics of their students and families and learn from them in
order to engage them and to educate students effectively. In some cases, community-based
programs have been sites where parents meet outside of school initially, leading to greater
parental involvement and increased inclusion as well as increased academic achievement for
students (e.g., Ordoñez-Jasis & Jasis, 2004). Community-based organizations that work with
Latino families may be positioned to serve as resources from which schools can learn how best
to respond to the needs, and leverage the cultures, of the growing numbers of Latino children in
U.S. schools in order to incorporate these responses institutionally. In order to understand the
successful practices of community-based organizations, we must first understand what structures
and interactions exist within groups that make CBOs effective at fostering involvement.

5

Purpose of the Study
Latino families tend to view education in a positive light and conceptualize it in a holistic
manner, which encompasses formal and informal learning, but schools lean toward a narrower
concept of education centered on academics. This difference in views may lead schools to place
blame on families and view them through a deficit lens in order to explain why Latino students
have less academic success and lower academic attainment. However, school success is tied to
institutional factors that affect students’ and families’ experiences with the institutions attended.
When schools overlook families’ cultures and how these play a role in student learning and
parental involvement, educators are not able to serve families effectively. This study investigates
how a community space centers, rather than neglects, the cultural characteristics of Latino
immigrant families and other community members, integrating existing knowledge and
perspectives held by participants, along with new knowledge that aids their ability to navigate
institutions.
This study begins with the premise that immigrant families have much to offer their
children in terms of education, engaging in life lessons gained through experience as well as
handed down across generations, in addition to academics. However, without incorporating an
awareness of educación, beyond the academic aspect of education, schools will continue to miss
a crucial piece needed to engage effectively with Latino immigrant families. As encompassed
within aspirational capital, families instill in their children the belief that education is an
important aspect of being able to succeed in life. While families can provide various forms of
capital toward success, they also need support to be able to navigate their children’s schooling
experiences. This navigational support need not be limited to the home and school; in fact,
navigational support currently does not occur primarily within the school setting. This study also

6

assumes that school leaders would welcome an increased understanding of the experiences of
Latino immigrant families because they want to engage meaningfully with them to improve
educational experiences for their children.
The purpose of this qualitative case study utilizing ethnographic methods was to
understand how family members’ participation in Digital Home (pseudonym), a communitybased technology program, built on and fostered Latino immigrant families’ community cultural
wealth in order to increase their abilities to engage within the community and to navigate their
children’s schooling experiences in the U.S. By conducting a qualitative case study examining
the context of this community-based site, I gained an understanding of how the program has
served as a springboard for members’ engagement beyond the technology classroom, including
how parents engage with their children’s schooling. This deep understanding of the program can
then be used to identify strategies and structures that could be used productively in schools to
support members of Latino immigrant communities.
Research Questions
The following questions guide this study:


How do family members involved in this community-based program perceive family
involvement in their children’s education and how do they believe schools define parental
involvement?



How does participating in this community-based program affect immigrant Latino families’
various forms of capital?
o How does the development of these forms of capital impact school-family
relations?
o How does the development of these forms of capital impact students’ success?

7

Significance
Because parental involvement is often taken for granted as a vehicle for achievement and
attainment in the U.S. (Reynolds, Mavrogenes, Hagemann, & Bezruczko, 1993), we must
consider what is meant by “parental involvement,” where involvement takes place, and how
different types of involvement are valued. While school representatives tend to regard the school
as the expected hub of parental involvement and center parental involvement within the school,
not all parents may view schools as welcoming places. Studies have suggested that a welcoming
environment is key for immigrant families (Dyrness, 2007; Fann, Jarsky McClafferty, &
McDonough, 2009), yet foreign-born Latino parents in a study conducted by Turney and Kao
(2009) were two-and-a half times more likely than U.S.-born white parents to name feeling
unwelcome in their children’s schools as a barrier to involvement. As studies have shown,
schools currently are not serving their Latino students and families as effectively as they can. If
schools are not the centers of welcome desired by families, it is important to understand, then,
the spaces in which they do get involved and how those spaces provide support for immigrant
families. Community-based organizations have been shown to be spaces of personal
development and empowerment for those involved (Maton & Salem, 1995).
By engaging with those in the community-based space for a prolonged amount of time
and speaking with participants involved in a Latino-serving community-based program, this
qualitative case study utilizing ethnographic methods provides a better understanding of how a
community-based program working with the Latino immigrant families in an urban mid-sized
Midwestern city, a context not studied extensively in the extant literature, builds on these
families’ community cultural wealth (Yosso, 2005). The study examines how the support of
families’ different forms of capital expands the parents’ ability to engage in their children’s
8

schooling experiences. The findings from this study can inform educational leaders regarding
incorporating effective outreach toward Latino families as part of a systematic and sustained
commitment through the district’s parental involvement initiatives and other institutional
structures.
Furthermore, this study contributes to the literature in several ways. It builds upon the
framework of community cultural wealth (Yosso, 2005), various forms of capital possessed by
communities of color that are often not recognized within schools. Several studies have applied
this framework to discuss trajectories toward college, or current college students; another
challenges perceptions of students considering dropping out of school or having dropped out.
Other research has examined parental involvement in the area of literacy. While other studies
have focused on students or parents, this study is situated in the multi-generational context of a
community-based program in a Latino community and how the program helps to draw out
various forms of capital that program participants possess. Furthermore, because smaller
organizations that function mainly with volunteers have been known to be often wary of
researchers who want to study them (Speer & Perkins, 2002), this study can provide valuable
insights that are not often documented by researchers. This study also informs readers about the
experiences of Latino immigrants in an urban mid-sized Midwestern city with a Latino
population of about 13%, whereas previous studies have focused on cities with large Latino
immigrant populations. This population figure is comparable to that of cities not traditionally
known as immigrant gateways, but that now have growing Latino immigrant populations whose
school systems have more recently had to consider how to serve this new population of students
and families.

9

Definition of Terms
The following terms are used and defined as follows in this study.
Community-based Organization – A community-based organization is an entity that is
representative of a community (Murphy, 2014), or a significant segment of a community, and is
engaged in addressing multiple issues, including meeting human, educational, environmental, or
public safety community needs (Warren & Mapp, 2011). Because they address multiple issues
(Murphy, 2014), community-based organizations can provide a comprehensive view to
educational concerns, which are connected to broad issues of immigration, health, and housing
(Hong, 2011). This study also uses the terms “community-based program” and “communitybased initiative” to describe entities that encompass the above characteristics, but that are not
formal organizations.
Immigrant Latino Family – In this study, “immigrant Latino family” includes first and second
generation immigrant families (Portes, & Rumbaut, 2005; Suro & Passel, 2003). First generation
immigrants are those who are foreign-born and now live in the United States, while secondgeneration refers to those born in the United States of at least one foreign-born parent (Suro &
Passel, 2003). In this study, families in which at least one family participant is an immigrant to
the United States or who her/himself was raised by at least one Latino immigrant to the U.S. will
be the focus.
Latino – Latino refers to Spanish-speakers whose region of origin is Latin America, South
America, or the Caribbean (United States Bureau of the Census, 2015). Hidalgo (1998) notes
that the Spanish language is “is at the heart of Latino cultures” (p. 112), helping to link
individuals culturally. This study will use the term “Hispanic” and “Latino” interchangeably.

10

Navigation – The ability to navigate refers to negotiating social institutions (Yosso, 2005) and
overcoming barriers or to working a system to one’s advantage (Auerbach, 2007). In this study,
navigation includes family members’ knowledge of where to find resources and where to ask
questions. In terms of children’s schooling, it includes knowing how to respond to
communication from their children’s schools in order to meet their children’s educational needs;
“ability to navigate schools” refers to family members’ application of their knowledge regarding
resources and interactions with school officials.
Parental involvement – Parental involvement includes both academic involvement and
participation in children’s lives on the part of parents, guardians, and close family members. This
definition includes awareness of children’s lives, monitoring children and teaching respect for
others, as well as establishing trust and communication with their children and advice on life
(Auerbach, 2007; Zarate, 2007). This term may also be used interchangeably with family
involvement in order to include grandparents or other family members who are primary
caretakers or who play a major role in children’s lives. The term reflects the importance of
extended family relations within the Latino family structure (Hidalgo, 1998; Jones & Fuller,
2003).
School officials – School officials are those who have a formal role within a school or district as
teachers, administrators, office staff and support staff. This term may also be used
interchangeably with the term school agents (e.g., Lopez, Scribner, & Mahitivanichcha, 2001),
or institutional agents (Stanton-Salazar & Dornbusch, 1995). These are among the terms that are
found in other educational literature (e.g., Lopez, Scribner, & Mahitivanichcha, 2001; StantonSalazar & Dornbusch, 1995). This study also uses the terms school representatives or school
personnel.

11

Traditional parental involvement – will refer to notions of parental involvement that have
traditionally been adopted by schools, which center the school as the locus of parental
involvement and primarily position parents as being in service of the school to further schooldefined goals. This term may also be referred to as dominant notions of parental involvement.
Conclusion
Chapter 1 has provided background regarding how traditional notions of parental
involvement can exclude families that do not conform to expected mainstream norms in schools.
This chapter has also established the purpose of this study and its significance as well as has
defined terms that will be used throughout this dissertation. Chapter 2 summarizes some of the
current literature regarding parental involvement and community-based organizations, as well as
reviews how involvement in community-based initiatives can be a vehicle for family
involvement and empowerment. The chapter also describes the theoretical framework,
community cultural wealth (Yosso, 2005), which has been applied to this study, and discusses
existing literature related to studies that have also utilized communal cultural wealth as a tool for
examining various contexts. Chapter 3 describes the choices I made in terms of methodology,
including data generation and analytical approach and how I worked toward ensuring
trustworthiness of my study. Chapter 4 presents findings based on an analysis of interviews,
conversations, participant observation, and documents related to Digital Home, a communitybased basic technology skills program geared toward Latino parents in an urban mid-sized
Midwestern city. Chapter 5 offers a brief summary of study findings, provides implications for
research and implications and recommendations for practice.

12

CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Introduction
This review of the literature begins with a brief summary of some of the current literature
regarding traditional parental involvement in relation to Latino families. Then the literature
review discusses community-based organizations’ structures and norms that lead to community
participation and engagement. Following that, I will discuss ways in which participation in
community-based groups has served parents who are members of traditionally marginalized
groups to feel more empowered and able to exercise their voice in school settings. I will then
discuss what schools might learn from community-based organizations. The chapter then
describes community cultural wealth (Yosso, 2005), the theoretical framework which has been
applied to this study, and discusses existing literature related to studies that have also utilized
communal cultural wealth as a tool for examining various contexts. Finally, I address how this
study builds on what is known about community cultural wealth and extends the literature by
applying the theoretical framework to a unique context.
Traditional Parental Involvement Models and Latino Families
In the U.S. parental involvement, defined as active participation in a child’s education, is
widely accepted as an important aspect of successful educational achievement (Reynolds,
Mavrogenes, Hagemann, & Bezruczko, 1993). However, conceptions of parental involvement
differ depending on people’s background experiences and culture (Pérez Carreón, Drake, &
Calabrese Barton, 2005). With dominant views of parental involvement aligning with middleclass white norms, parental involvement of low-income and racial and ethnic minority groups is
sometimes less encouraged (De Carvalho, 2014; Mediratta, Shah, & McAlister, 2009; Orr &
Rogers, 2010). Racial, linguistic, and cultural power differentials tend to result in the voices of

13

urban-based minority groups being less valued than those of culturally dominant groups in
schools (Orr & Rogers, 2010).
A widely-known framework of parental involvement developed by Epstein, Coates,
Salinas, Sanders, & Simon (1997) identifies six types of involvement: parenting, communicating,
volunteering, learning at home, decision making, and collaborating with the community.
However, this framework – which emphasizes a home-school dichotomy, focuses on the parent’s
role as one that serves school-identified goals, and stresses notions of individual student success
(De Carvalho, 2014) rather than the success of collective groups – may not be suitable for Latino
families. Delgado-Gaitan (2004) notes that Latino parental involvement has as a motivation and
as an end goal the promotion of opportunities for students. Further, academic achievement is not
necessarily measured in test scores, but by the way it impacts positive attitudes toward school
(Delgado-Gaitan, 2004).
In a case study conducted in a low-income, high-minority elementary school, Bower and
Griffin (2011) found that traditional methods, such as those proposed by Epstein and her
colleagues, were not sufficient to engage parents. The study revealed that while efforts were
made to communicate with parents on the part of the school, there were not many efforts to
foster communication between Black parents and Latino parents, resulting in uncomfortable
interactions and low participation in the parent-teacher organization in the school. The school
also did not ask parents how they wanted to be involved, instead falling back on school-based,
academically focused parental involvement activities. The authors suggest that developing
networks of parents could result in greater interactions between parents and the school, could
also encourage parents’ support of one another and could create a system of relationships where
parents recruit one another to participate in activities and engage in advocacy for their children.

14

In their quantitative analysis of nationally representative data contained in the Early
Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 1998-99 (ECLS-K), Turney and Kao
(2009) found that immigrant parents from non-dominant groups experienced more barriers to
parental involvement (and to a greater degree) than did native-born white parents. Foreign-born
Latino parents were two-and-a half times more likely to name feeling unwelcome in their
children’s school than were white U.S.-born parents. They were also five-and-a-half times more
likely to indicate that language was an obstacle to being involved in their children’s schools than
were their white native-born counterparts. Scheduling of meeting times that were not convenient
to parents was also a concern for this group of parents.
Furthermore, these traditional notions of parental involvement may not consider the
circumstances or cultures of non-white middle-class parents, including low-income families,
families of color, or immigrant families. In a case study regarding a series of workshops intended
to help Latino immigrant parents of middle school students learn about college planning, Fann,
Jarsky McClafferty, and McDonough (2009) refer to studies indicating that Latino parents have
high aspirations for their children’s future education. However, the Latino immigrant parents
they worked with lacked basic information about planning, as well as needing to have concerns
about their children’s safety and families’ financial circumstances addressed. Once they attended
the workshops, offered in Spanish in a welcoming environment, parents began planning with
their children and sharing information with other parents in their community. Until then, the
parents had been an untouched resource for information sharing.
With the U.S. experiencing an increasingly diverse body of students in public schools,
these institutions need to consider whether schools’ efforts to involve parents are adequately
reaching them. If schools continue to view parental involvement as activities that take place

15

within school buildings during school hours, and only in a language parents do not understand
well, a large segment of parents will continue to be excluded from meaningfully engaging with
schools. It is essential that schools pay attention to the needs and cultural characteristics of their
students and families and learn from them in order to address their needs and build on their
assets to educate children from diverse backgrounds effectively. Community-based initiatives,
where Latino families may have existing relationships and affiliations, can serve as a resource to
facilitate learning about ways that schools can work toward being more inclusive of diverse
families.
Community-Based Organizations
Community-based organizations tend to leverage knowledge about constituents to address
their needs (Osterling & Garza, 2004), cultivate parental leadership, and increase social capital
(Gold et al., 2002). At the same time, as family members learn within the context of communitybased initiatives, they bring together past and present knowledge (Civil, Planas, & Quintos,
2012) to create new resources that are shared and to increase various forms of capital (e.g.,
navigational capital) (Yosso, 2005). These forms of capital are then applied to improving their
children’s educational experiences in the U.S. Examining community-based settings is also
important because research has found that collaborations between districts and CBOs can expand
the educational institutions’ “social resources and expertise, particularly in reaching out to lowincome Latino parents and effectively educating their children” (Ishimaru, 2014, p. 1).
Furthermore, since community-based organizations are not legal entities, they are more trusted
by immigrants with undocumented status and are, therefore, well-positioned to address this
subgroup’s specific needs (Yoshikawa, Kholoptseva, & Suárez-Orozco, 2013).

16

Characteristics of Community-Based Organizations
Community-based organizations (CBOs) possess certain characteristics that can result in
the ability to support the growth, development and empowerment of those who participate in the
organization (Maton & Salem, 1995) (Figure 1). Ideally, CBOs are reflective of the communities
of which they are a part; those involved are moved to participate because of a shared interest in
the goals and relationships with others within the organization (Murphy, 2014). The structures
and norms of community-based organizations support collective efforts and encourage the
commitment of participants to confront issues they are experiencing (Murphy, 2014).




Structures
Community-based
organizations
Norms
R
e
s
u
l
t




Centered on community realities
Composition of staff and volunteers
reflective of membership
Flexibility of roles
Varied ways to participate






Encouragement of participation
Valuing dialogue
Engaging in reflection
Sharing of knowledge expected

 Trust and reciprocity
 Empowerment
 Creation of community change
Figure 1: Characteristics of community-based organizations leading to growth and development
of those who participate in the organization.
Structures of Community-based Organizations
Community organizations vary, including professional service agencies, volunteer

17

organizations, and informal groups (Speer & Perkins, 2002). Community-based organizations
that mainly depend on volunteers tend to function from a more democratic orientation than do
more traditional organizations that maintain a more hierarchical philosophy (Speer & Perkins,
2002). This is due to both the underlying philosophy of organizations and the circumstance of
possessing limited resources (Speer & Perkins, 2002). Tasks and knowledge tend to be spread
out among members, depending on the need and abilities present at the time, and leadership
tends to be more fluid (Murphy, 2014). In this way, organizations are seen more as non-static,
open systems, “porous, contingent, and fostering collective action” (Murphy, 2014, p. 51). A
variety of structural aspects characterize community-based organizations, including their
location, who is involved, and how roles are viewed within the group.
The location of a community-based organization can provide greater access by the
community (Speer & Perkins, 2002), but community is not necessarily determined by geographic
location (Murphy, 2014). Rather than trying to determine a geographic community center, the
basis of placement should be a community’s “life-world” (Murphy, 2014, p. 54). An emphasis on
understanding a community’s reality (Speer & Perkins, 2002) includes staff and volunteers who
reflect the identities of those served (Osterling & Garza, 2004) in the CBOs and who possess a
deep acumen about those in the community, as well as appropriate approaches to problemsolving (Murphy, 2014). Furthermore, community-based organizations often depend on workers’
and volunteers’ abilities to be multi-skilled and to share of those skills and knowledge (Murphy,
2014). The flexibility in role structure within organizations benefits members through being able
to respond to their needs as well as their capabilities (Maton & Salem, 1995). Based on need,
different people can take the lead within the organization, exercise present skills, and develop
new abilities (Maton & Salem, 1995). Inclusivity of broad membership through discussion is

18

important in order to ensure common understandings; in terms of how professionals are viewed
within the community-based structure, the contributions and ideas of both professionals and nonprofessionals are valued (Murphy, 2014). Members also have opportunities to participate in
different ways and in different formats. Group members can participate in organization activities
that include the full membership, as well as in small groups and one-on-one peer interactions,
which can offer a sense of family belonging and can transfer to community life outside of the
organization (Maton & Salem, 1995).
Norms in Community-based Organizations
Norms within community-based organizations support members and guide the structures
discussed above. Philosophies of inclusion are essential to community-based organizations and
their members’ ability to handle difficulties (Murphy, 2014). Encouragement of participation,
information-sharing and adaptation to circumstances are all common aspects of communitybased organizations (Murphy, 2014). Through interaction and participation, group members
develop a sense of reciprocity (Maton & Salem, 1995; Speer & Perkins, 2002). Members’ sense
of trust and reciprocity promotes their tendency to act in the interest of the group (Speer &
Perkins, 2002).
CBOs that function from a strengths-based perspective view members as people with past
and present knowledge and insights. From this point of view, knowledge is created within the
group through participation of members, not only a select few (Murphy, 2014), and collaboration
requires that members within the organization must be part of organizational design or problemsolving (Murphy, 2014). Efforts to educate within the group are open to all and have their
foundation in the local context, with members having a say, also, in how the education will take
place (Murphy, 2014). The education members receive is to be shared with the community. This

19

information sharing aids in maintaining stability in the organization, as the knowledge can stay
within the organization even if participants do not.
As mentioned above, leadership in community-based organizations tends to be more
distributed than in more hierarchical structures (Murphy, 2014). Maton and Salem (1995) found
that in the community-based organizations they studied, leadership was viewed as a
responsibility rather than as a formal position. They found that leaders influenced members
directly as well as motivated those who worked with members in the organization. The leaders
served as visionary, passionate role models who inspired others (Maton & Salem, 1995) and
were skilled, both relationally and organizationally. They accessed resources and supported the
evolution of the organizations as well (Maton & Salem, 1995). Leaders also encouraged the
development of other leaders in the group and were committed to the growth of others (Maton &
Salem, 1995). Rather than fearing others’ involvement in decision-making, this opportunity for
meaningful involvement was interpreted as a strength. The leadership orientation and aspects
identified above help to increase members’ dedication to the group as well as develop human
resources over time, while also engaging material resources.
Result of Community-Based Structures and Norms
Some argue that if community-based organizations do not explicitly discuss power, the
collective efforts toward the communities’ ability to handle its own problems may not develop
and, instead, may keep communities on the margins (Murphy, 2014) despite engagement with a
CBO. However, by working firmly within communities and their daily experiences, CBOs
become genuine centers of empowerment, as participatory, resource-providing mediating
structures (Maton & Salem, 1995; Murphy, 2014). Through their promotion of “participatory
safety” (Onyett 2003, p. 197), where participants can freely express ideas, information-sharing,

20

dialogue, growth of community skills, and self-direction (Murphy, 2014), organizations exercise
responsiveness to community members’ desires and can serve as a lever for change.
Community-Based Organizations Connecting Families to Schools
Community-based organizations can play a role in how families interact with the schools
their children attend, especially in cases where schools are not effectively engaging them. While
school personnel can create welcoming cultures for diverse families, research suggests that these
efforts are not a consistent reality across schools (Zarate, 2007). Schools may still hold negative
assumptions based on what they perceive to be a lack of parental involvement of Latino
immigrant families or deficit views of what these families have to offer. A lack of understanding
of Latino immigrant families’ needs and assets, then, threatens schools’ abilities to work
effectively with this group of families in their schools. Warren, Hong, Rubin, and Uy, (2009)
note that parental involvement efforts in some urban schools are disconnected from the families
and communities the schools serve, while these same communities have strong community-based
organizations that are deeply connected to families. Effectively meeting the needs of constituents
and recognizing what they can contribute are central to the work of community-based
organizations, which offer a space for participants to discuss problems, access resources (Speer
& Perkins, 2002), and improve their personal and professional circumstances. Therefore,
community-based initiatives can serve as a vehicle to connect schools to families that they are
having difficulty engaging.
Community-based initiatives have been utilized to engage traditionally marginalized
families to reform education and improve outcomes for their children through recognizing racial,
linguistic, and cultural power differentials that often result in urban-based, minority groups’
views being less valued than those of culturally dominant groups in schools (Noguera, 2004; Orr

21

& Rogers, 2010). Approaches that bring community members together have been central to
understanding constituents’ needs and identifying collective approaches that best engage and
empower families, including Latino immigrants in low-income neighborhoods (Ishimaru, 2014).
In their analysis of four Latino community-based organizations in different regions of the
United States, Osterling and Garza (2004) identify elements that made the organizations highly
effective in cultivating partnerships and were found in most, if not all, of the organizations
studied. All of the organizations worked to engage families as a unit rather than interacting with
family members as lone-standing individuals; each had different levels of opportunity for
engagement. These varied opportunities ranged from providing emotional support, to developing
academic help skills or training members as advocates and leaders. All of the groups developed
their agendas based on the expressed needs of their members, rather than imposing goals or
assuming what needs were present in the communities. The community-based organizations,
staffed by people who were bilingual and representative of those in the organization, offered
flexible schedules and accessibility to their members. The organizations also worked to establish
partnerships with schools in the Latino communities. Just as these organizations partnered with
local schools, López, Scribner, and Mahitivanichcha (2001) found that the four schools in their
study also collaborated with community organizations in order to meet families’ immediate
needs.
From Peer-to-Peer Support to Collective Engagement
Community-based organizations and initiatives have served as spaces where relationships
among parents have led to the establishment of peer-to-peer support of individuals as well as
have provided collective strength to engage with school officials where they had previously felt
silenced. The relationships developed within the activities of community-based organizations

22

affect participation (Warren, Hong, Rubin, & Uy, 2009) in the organization and beyond
(Murphy, 2014), and parental engagement efforts that focus on relationship-building among
parents promote parental empowerment through information sharing, strengthening kinship ties
and through leadership roles taken on by members within the community (Fann, Jarsky
McClafferty, & McDonough, 2009; Lawson & Alameda-Lawson; 2012). Previous research has
provided examples of how peer support and interactions within organizations have empowered
parents from marginalized groups to amplify their voices beyond their community settings and
into their children’s schools.
In the Community Action Network, a parent engagement program resulting from the
partnership of a school district, a CBO, and a local university, coordinated by a community
parent, parents collectively developed and executed program activities (Lawson, & AlamedaLawson, 2012). As parents developed relationships with one another, they formed peer-to-peer
ties, linking one another with community institutions and offering suggestions about social
service resources in the community. Another organization, Comite de Padres Latinos/Committee
of Latino Parents (COPLA), was first formed for parents to support one another, but then
developed into a formal agency through which Latinos can navigate the school system and
advocate for their children's education (Delgado-Gaitan, 2001). Through opportunities to build
relationships with one another, family members moved from experiencing isolation to
experiencing connection and having networks to which to turn. Through engaging with one
another, parents found strength in their efforts to navigate relationships with their children’s
schools (Delgado-Gaitan, 2001). Similarly, in the Parent Organizing Project (POP), Latino
parents strengthened their relationships and worked with one another to navigate through their
children’s schools (Ishimaru, 2014). These relationships, along with other advocacy, led to

23

increased structural social capital in the form of access to and interchange of information, and
fostered parental capacity to speak out in schools regarding their children’s needs (Ishimaru,
2014).
Within community-based efforts, parents can establish bonds with each other, providing a
kind of familial support (Dyrness, 2007; Hong, 2011). The Logan Square Neighborhood
Association’s Parent Mentor program, for example, provided a place where parents shared their
personal experiences and the ways they encouraged their children (Hong, 2011). One group
member told another, “This is your family now…So you don’t have to feel as if you are on your
own or that you have to do this by yourself. And at the same time, you are going to be a source
of support for someone who needs it” (Hong, 2011, p. 71).
The testimonies of the participants in Madres Unidas (Mothers United), a collective effort
of Latina immigrants who felt silenced and judged within their children’s school setting
(Dyrness, 2007), further solidify the understanding of the importance of relationships developed
within groups that empower parents. The trust built through and the relationships forged within
the community-based space of the group promoted mothers’ ability to resist a sense of
marginalization and to find their collective voice in dealing with school officials. Weekly group
meetings led to trust among group members and offered the opportunity to look critically at the
underlying narratives that kept Latino parents in a lower position in the school. These
discussions resulted in increased confidence to resist the “dominant story” (Dyrness, 2007, p.
266) in the school. One participant shared, “I have learned so much, to speak…I’ve gotten more
courage...before I could barely stand up from my seat to talk!...And now I have a lot of affection
for all of you, because you are also my friends, I consider you my friends, and we have a lot of
confianza [trust and confidence]” (p. 266). Participation in Madres Unidas fostered “mutual

24

affirmation and support” (Dyrness, 2007, p. 266) which resulted in “the mothers fe[eling] safe to
take the risks that learning entails” (p. 266). The strength that the women got from one another
led the mothers to share their participatory research process and findings with the school,
ultimately resulting in the creation of a Parent Center intended to replicate the positive, safe, and
honest home space which Madres Unidas had experienced in a member’s kitchen. The trusted
network fostered in the Madres Unidas example supports the idea that social capital can counter
the power imbalance (Noguera, 2004) that parents may experience in schools and that members
of a community can support each other’s resistant capital (Yosso, 2005). Relationships among
parents, therefore, can help support one another on a peer-to-peer level, but also as they navigate
institutions, by offering advice and serving as a buffer when relations between schools and
parents are not positive. These supportive relationships can help also to strengthen confidence to
interact with school representatives. Through trusted bonds that form, parents become resources
to one another and gain their collective voice, leveraging familial and social capital to further
activate resistant capital.
Developing an Understanding of Community Context
When schools truly understand the specific circumstances of the families they serve, the
schools can begin to transform the notion of parents in service of the school’s goals to
demonstrate the schools’ commitment to the families they serve, not only for strictly academic
reasons, but also because the schools value the families as members of the school community
(Pérez Carreón, Drake, & Calabrese Barton, 2005). Recognizing that parental engagement also
differs based on children’s needs, parental resources and cultural capital can be activated in both
traditional ways, such as volunteering at school, and non-traditional ways, such as having daily
discussions about school with their children (Pérez Carreón, Drake, & Calabrese Barton, 2005).

25

Understanding can be fostered by asking families what their needs are, engaging in the
communities being served, and in being visible in the community.
Whereas traditional conceptions of parental involvement often place parents in the
position of a subject expected to do certain pre-identified activities established by the school,
parental engagement includes acknowledging immigrant parents’ involvement in formal school
spaces and informal spaces (Pérez Carreón, Drake, & Calabrese Barton, 2005). College
preparation workshops offered to Latino immigrant parents in Spanish addressed parents’
specific concerns regarding their children’s college attendance (Fann, Jarsky McClafferty, &
McDonough, 2009). As a result, these parents began college planning with their children to
fulfill their educational aspirations and activated their familial and social capital by sharing
information with other parents in their community. Prior to this engagement experience, the
parents had been an untouched information sharing resource (Fann, Jarsky McClafferty, &
McDonough, 2009). Knowing how long families have been in the United States and whether the
families are within a community that largely reflects their cultural backgrounds can help schools
understand and address what parents may need in the form of childcare, interpreters, or
transportation, for example, to reduce barriers to participation (Jones & Fuller, 2003).
Furthermore, as schools ascertain Latino parents’ understandings of parental involvement and
communicate the school’s own concept of parental involvement, stakeholders can develop new,
negotiated understandings on which to base approaches to engage families (Jones & Fuller,
2003).
It is also important to note that although steps may be taken within the school to involve
parents, it is essential for school staff and leaders to be visible within communities where their
school populations reside. Teachers identified as “exemplary” by Latino community members

26

expressed that they worked effectively in their schools due to engaging themselves in the
community through interactions and acknowledging students’ cultural identities, including
language (Irizarry & Raible, 2011). These teachers “centered the community in their teaching
practice” (Irizarry & Raible, 2011, p. 194), sharing personal struggles of growing up in the
community, or including Latino perspectives in the teaching of history. These teachers also
“immerse[d] themselves in the social and cultural networks of their Latino students and their
…families” (Irizarry & Raible, 2011, p. 188). Having interactions within the spaces frequented
by students and families, for example, walking and taking public transportation routes used by
families, and participating in community activities can give educators a better understanding and
let members of the community see them as well (Jones & Fuller, 2003). Additionally, making
home visits and getting to know families on a personal level raised awareness of families’
realities (Jones & Fuller, 2003; López, Scribner, & Mahitivanichcha, 2001) and the funds of
knowledge possessed by families (González et al., 2005).
Studies have shown that when school leaders make the intentional choice to be visible in
the communities they serve and take on roles as community leaders, they can foster trust and
increased rapport between the school and community (Khalifa, 2012), foster parental
involvement and positive relationships between school representatives and families (González et
al., 2005), and establish a culture of understanding and support for students and their
backgrounds (Lucas, Henze, & Donato, 1990). They can also increase their understanding of
how and where they can get support to establish alliances to support school issues, thereby
building an “advocacy base in the community” (Lucas, Henze, & Donato, 1990, p. 337). This
choice to be visible beyond the space of the school building can result in changed relationships
with the school’s parents, especially in cases where there is a history of distrust (Khalifa, 2012).

27

A study by López, Scribner, and Mahitivanichcha (2001), illustrated how schools with high
migrant student representation that also successfully involved parents viewed themselves as
constantly responsible for meeting parental needs. Personal identification with the migrant
experience and schools’ understanding and knowledge of the migrant families and their
immediate needs informed the varied strategies implemented to get parents into schools (López,
Scribner, & Mahitivanichcha, 2001). Rather than view parental involvement as a way for
parents to serve the schools, these schools looked to mitigate families’ stresses and, therefore,
reduced barriers to their formal involvement in the schools.
These findings suggest that populations of parents, including immigrant parents, who
have been marginalized by traditional school structures of parental involvement need leaders in
their children’s schools to view their roles as transcending the walls of the school, rather than
only inviting from within. Community-based organizations, then, can serve as mediating
structures by both providing their members the support that promotes their empowerment within
the organization and beyond, as the examples discussed above show. In this way, the members
whose empowerment has been fostered within the organizations may take action in ways that
make it less likely for leaders to ignore their voices. Community-based organizations can also
serve as a resource for schools to learn how they can better engage with the communities they
serve.
Community-Based Initiatives as a Vehicle for Increased Parental Empowerment
The examples above illustrate the way community-based spaces support members’ ability
to take action beyond the community-based group. Community organizations have arisen as a
vehicle for changing traditional parent-school interactions, which have tended to marginalize
low-income parents and parents of color. CBOs may work with constituents to raise their

28

awareness and promote collective action in order to achieve common goals. Community-based
organizations have helped to empower parents, especially those traditionally marginalized in
school settings, in order to bring about educational reforms and to make decision-makers
accountable to them. They also connect families to resources and help them navigate systems,
including schools, as well as helping educational institutions better understand the families they
serve. Increased parental empowerment fostered within community-based initiatives leads to
improved experiences within the school for both families and children (Ordoñez-Jasis, & Jasis,
2004). La Familia, a community-based effort that created a space of “collective creation and
solidarity” (Ordoñez-Jasis, & Jasis, 2004, p. 35), led to increased parental involvement in the
school and saw increased student achievement. La Familia was also viewed as a channel for
parents to collaborate with staff, therefore nurturing an inclusive relationship between parents
and the school.
Parental engagement experiences that consider families holistically, recognizing and
responding to educational and non-educational circumstances, can empower the families by
helping them develop an increased sense of being able to act, which results in having better
control over life circumstances (Murphy, 2014). Empowerment also has individual and group
dimensions (McWhirter, 1991; Sleeter, 1991). Freire’s (1990) perspective that constraints exist
simultaneously with possibilities for action is exhibited in community-based efforts. Those who
experience marginalization and who are affected by poverty can also act against it, and even
more so, can affect social change when they have resources and support from partners (Noguera,
2004). Scholars argue the importance of linking schools to communities, both to gain a
meaningful understanding about those they serve (McCray & Beachum, 2014) and to prod the
will of those with power to transform public education (Warren, 2005). Just as community-

29

based organizations have helped to organize their constituents for increased justice in economic,
health, and housing issues, so too can organizing bring school reform. By engaging those most
affected by poor educational conditions (Warren, 2005), community-based organizations can
help to fill in the gaps in understanding of the schools serving low-income students and students
of color (Osterling & Garza, 2004). Furthermore, because they address multiple issues,
community-based organizers can provide a comprehensive view to educational concerns, which
are connected to broad issues of immigration, health, and housing (Hong, 2011).
What Schools Can Learn from Community-Based Organizations
School personnel can learn from community-based organizations in different ways. First,
schools can learn about the families and the communities they serve by tapping into communitybased organizations’ expertise about their constituents. Second, schools can learn to adapt their
ways to resemble more closely the approaches of community-based organizations, including
supporting collective approaches, exercising increased flexibility in response to the
circumstances of families, as well as demonstrating a systematic and sustained commitment to
parents. Schools and institutions interested in engaging diverse groups of parents would benefit
from turning to community-based organizations, which find varied ways to engage with
constituents. CBOs also maintain ties with the people they serve in order to learn from them how
to better meet the needs of traditionally marginalized groups of parents. By forming
relationships, then, with CBOs, schools can improve the educational experiences of students and
their families.
Studies have examined how schools can benefit from interacting or partnering with
community-based initiatives. Through interviews with coordinators of parental involvement
organizations, the Tomás Rivera Policy Institute (Zarate, 2007) found that there was a wide

30

range of programs that addressed parents in various ways, including disseminating information
about K-12 settings, providing leadership development, focusing on advocacy training, and
organizing in the community. Regardless of which of the above foci were central in parental
organizations’ work, the approaches they used to recruit parents were similar. They had goals of
empowering parents to be educational advocates for their children, establishing partnerships with
private and public players, including schools and districts, and stressing the development of trust.
The organizations also evaluated their programs to measure whether results were aligned with
goals and facilitated parental involvement by providing transportation, food, childcare, space for
meetings, and interpretation services. These various elements, which allow for parents to engage
in various ways and address potential barriers to improvement, can serve as an example for
schools seeking to engage and empower families.
Ishimaru (2014) suggests that district collaborations with community organizations can
result in educational institutions expanding their ability to reach out to low-income Latino
parents by helping them gain a better understanding of families, as well as improving the
education of their children. Another benefit schools can gain from the relational approach
enacted by community organizations is the awareness of families’ varying “needs, aspirations,
and desires [for] their children’s education” (Warren, Hong, Rubin, & Uy, 2009, p. 2210). While
these initiatives have been successful, it is important to recognize that they are not a one-sizefits-all approach to engagement; educators need to recognize that it is necessary to adapt efforts
to local circumstances.
Community-based organizations also play an important role in how the sub-population of
families in which at least one parent has undocumented status in the U.S. finds support
(Yoshikawa, Kholoptseva, & Suárez-Orozco, 2013). These families represent five and a half

31

million children in the U.S., 4.5 million of whom are U.S.-born (Yoshikawa, Kholoptseva, &
Suárez-Orozco, 2013). Because community-based organizations are not legal entities, they are
more trusted by the people they intend to serve and can, therefore, bring parents “out of the
shadows” (Yoshikawa, Kholoptseva, & Suárez-Orozco, 2013, p. 11) through partnering with
government agencies and reducing barriers that make parents feel reluctant to give information.
In this way, these families are more likely to participate in programs their children, many of
whom are U.S. citizens, for which they are eligible. Lawson and Alameda-Lawson (2012) also
note in their case study that undocumented parents find community-based organizations a more
welcoming body than formal institutions because CBOs tend to function more flexibly and can
help parents form relationships with formal institutions within the community. This flexibility
and bridging capacity were discussed earlier in the description of effective Latino communitybased organizations presented by Osterling and Garza (2004).
Community-based organizations and schools can partner with one another via the
provision of workshops and programs within the school as well as the school holding activities
within community group spaces. Community-based organizations may have the ability to launch
large-scale campaigns through which schools and districts can ally themselves when issues of
concern align (Mediratta, Shah, & McAlister, 2009), as in the case of Chicago’s Association of
Community Organizations for Reform Now’s (ACORN’s) work with the district to address
teacher pipeline programs. Alliances can also be formed on the school level, though these efforts
can also prove difficult, as protests over issues, such as poor school conditions, might be seen as
criticisms of the schools themselves on the part of the organizations (Mediratta, Shah, &
McAlister, 2009).

32

In some cases, community-based organizations have worked via specific people within
schools, such as parent coordinators, to provide supports, for example, on immigration issues
(Mediratta, Shah, & McAlister, 2009). The democratic approaches that value contributions of
many and the inclusion and development of community voice within organizations position
CBOs as legitimate advocates for equity and fairness in schools.
Theoretical Framework
This study applies the community cultural wealth (Yosso, 2005) theoretical framework to
a community-based technology skills program geared toward Latino immigrant families and
community. Emphasizing “cultural knowledge, skills, abilities, and contacts possessed by
socially marginalized groups” (Yosso, 2005, p. 69), Yosso’s (2005) concept of community
cultural wealth offers an alternative to traditional interpretations of Bourdieu’s (1977) cultural
capital, which maintains that upper- and middle-class knowledge, skills, language, and networks
(Gonzales, 2012) are valued in ways that reproduce society’s hierarchy. The common
interpretations of Bourdieu’s theory position people of color as being deprived of the capital
necessary to experience social mobility. Community cultural wealth brings to light several types
of capital communities of color possess, which resist deficit notions and “serve a larger purpose
of struggle toward social and racial justice” (Yosso, 2005, p. 69) for a collective. The framework
illustrates strengths students from traditionally marginalized groups bring to school from home,
which often go unacknowledged by those in power.
Yosso identifies these overlapping strengths as aspirational, linguistic, familial, social,
navigational, and resistant capital. Aspirational capital refers to communities’ “ability to
maintain hopes and dreams for the future even in the face of barriers” (Yosso, 2006, p. 41). This
form of capital may include parents’ hopes that their children attend college and have

33

opportunities that they themselves have not experienced. Linguistic capital includes the
transmission of cultural values through cuentos (stories), dichos (proverbs), and sharing of
familial oral histories (Yosso, 2006). It refers to the “intellectual and social skills learned through
communication experiences in more than one language and/or style” (Yosso, 2006, p. 43). This
linguistic capital is employed, for example, when children modify their communication styles
based on the different audiences they encounter (Yosso, 2006). Familial capital encompasses the
lessons learned within families offering moral support and guidance for children, as well as
through kinship ties within communities (Yosso, 2006). Through familial capital, members of
communities connect with each other around mutual concerns and help each other solve
problems (Yosso, 2006). Navigational capital is the ability to “make [one’s] way through
institutions not created with [traditionally marginalized communities] in mind” (Yosso, 2006, p.
43). This capital is exhibited when students “achieve even when they struggle” (Yosso, 2006, p.
43). Resistant capital, described as “knowledges and skills cultivated through behavior that
challenges inequality” (Yosso, 2006, p. 49), is developed through the explicit and implicit
communication intended to help people assert themselves in the face of injustice and resist
pressures to engage in the maintenance of unequal conditions (Yosso, 2006). Social capital
activates networks to share information and resources through peer groups (Yosso, 2006). These
“networks of people and community resources” (Yosso, 2006, p. 45) help people maneuver
through institutions via the sharing of information and resources through personal networks and
aid communities in resisting inequities.
Applying the community cultural wealth framework to this study’s context is appropriate
because the participants at the study site are members of a traditionally marginalized group in at
least one of various ways. Study participants are Latino—including members of Latino

34

immigrant families with school-aged children—and most are low-income. In some cases,
participants are further marginalized by their documentation status in the U.S. Yet, while the
participants face barriers due to their ethnic identity in the United States, they also possess rich
cultures and indigenous knowledges, which they activate and share with one another to live their
daily lives and confront difficulties. These knowledges are further developed, and new
knowledges are gained, through their engagement in the community-based technology program.
This study seeks to illuminate specific ways in which family members’ growth translates to their
ability to navigate their children’s schooling in the U.S.
Other studies have applied the theory of community cultural wealth in order to challenge
simplified notions of youth identity, to gain an understanding of how students apply community
cultural wealth in situations connected to higher education or to persist in high school, and to
examine how families and communities support student success in the area of literacy. Burciaga
and Erbstein (2010) explored the role of community cultural wealth in the area of youth wellbeing and youths’ perceptions of themselves in relation to schooling. This study’s findings
indicated that youth who had left school actively engaged in resisting negative stereotypes of
themselves and their communities. While they might be viewed as “dropouts,” they did not
necessarily see themselves in this way, instead, viewing their leaving school as a “pause”
(Burciaga & Erbstein, 2010, p. 7). They also exercised linguistic capital through artistic
expression and writing that acted as outlets to communicate their hopes and feelings. These
youths also had experience navigating systems for themselves and for others. On average, youth
in the study had maneuvered through eight schools between early childhood and high school. In
the case of one youth who intervened with his brother’s school when school officials identified a
speech impediment as a mental disability, navigation sometimes translated into resistance. The

35

youth also identified adult allies as sources of care and guidance, with caring teachers and school
staff as a major resource. However, the participants in the study rarely referred to supports
presumably offered by schools (material resources, enrichment opportunities, and social or
professional networks) as significant. Study participants expressed that learning was important,
but that schooling, which they experienced as being disconnected from their lives, actually
interfered with their aspirations to learn. The study also highlighted that while the youth
exhibited the application of community cultural wealth capitals, these were not enough to
overcome all the barriers the young people faced.
Jayakumar, Vue, and Allen (2013) studied how black students’ experiences in a
community-initiated college prep program brought to light community cultural wealth in
students’ ability to access college opportunities. The students in this study saw their college
aspirations fostered by their community rather than by their schools. The Young Black Scholars
program offered comprehensive assistance in the form of tangible information about the path to
college, whereas schools did not help with providing specifics. The program also connected
students to other members of the community. While study participants indicated that there was a
fifty-fifty chance that school representatives would be helpful to students, the relationships
formed within Young Black Scholars provided social capital. For example, students motivated
each other and shared information with each other.
In their study on college-going information networks, Liou, Antrop-González, and Cooper
(2009) found that community cultural wealth helped support Latino students’ college-going
aspirations. This study found that the students expecting to go to college located their support for
these aspirations within their families and church rather than in their school. Access to
opportunities and information were limited by the school officials’ perceptions of students.

36

Students’ connections to their faith communities provided access to important information and
high achieving multicultural urban peers fostered both social and linguistic capital through
information sharing and conversation. Students in the study also used the marginalization they
experienced in school as a motivator to refute negative stereotypes by performing well
academically.
Huber (2009) examined Latinas’ navigation of higher education in light of discourses
about immigration. This study found that community cultural wealth served to recover humanity
in an environment that dehumanized people with undocumented status. Latinas’ testimonies
revealed that the cultural lessons and stories shared by their families, such as lessons about hard
work and family sharing of migration stories, fostered their aspirations regarding schooling,
including their desires to go on to graduate school. The linguistic capital that the Latinas had
developed through translating for their families carried over into their conversations with
professors. They also found financial and academic support through their community networks.
These social networks also served as sources of navigational help, which led to persistence in
college. Latinas in the study also expressed a sense of responsibility to help others with limited
opportunities due to their documentation status.
Luna and Martinez (2013) applied a community cultural wealth lens to their study on
Latino college students and found that participants utilized their cultural abilities and networks to
resist oppressive conditions in school and to succeed academically. Parents’ influence was
essential to the development of student aspirations and their moral support and encouragement
were crucial to students’ success. The students in the study also sought out guidance regarding
academic pathways that would prepare them for college from their familial networks.
Furthermore, success was viewed as a collective outcome rather than an individual achievement.

37

The authors suggest that further research look at the community cultural wealth that Latino
parents offer their children.
Harris and Kiyama (2015) use community cultural wealth as one of the theoretical
frameworks in their book examining the high school persistence of Latino students in Rochester.
The authors provide a strengths-based perspective recognizing family and student assets and
illustrating existing community resources. Through the voices of Rochester students and their
families, one of the chapters highlights the worth of school- and community-based programs,
which served as linguistically and culturally affirming places where students established
relationships with adults they trusted and where students found reasons to persist in high school.
Looking at elementary education and parents’ involvement in literacy practices, Larrotta
and Yamamura (2011) studied interactions and relationships within a school-based family
literacy program as a kind of meaningful parental involvement for 10 Latino mothers of students
receiving English as a second language instruction. Their study found that the program supported
aspirational, social, and familial capital as parents gained confidence in their abilities to support
their children’s academic success, and as they built relationships with each other and the school.
During the literacy program sessions, parents received greetings and school-related information
from a school representative, as well as opportunities to learn literacy strategies as a large group
and practice them with a parent partner, and then with their children. Within the program,
various forms of capital were engaged via structuring literacy strategies in ways that connected
to parents’ lives and through parental sharing of personal reflections with one another during
each session.
Previous studies have illustrated the ways in which community cultural wealth capitals
have been manifested in various contexts, including in the lives of youth who left school, in

38

college-going efforts, in higher education settings, and within school- and community-initiated
programs. Most of the studies focus on youth or college-aged people. The current study builds on
the existing literature by examining the role of community cultural wealth within a communitybased program. This study extends the literature by highlighting community cultural wealth
within the goings-on in a program targeted toward Latino immigrant family members in a multigenerational setting. This study also examines how the various forms of capital identified by
Yosso (2005) are activated in family members’ approaches to their children’s schooling. This
study centers the voices of the adult family members of the program, as well as the perceptions
of the school-aged children whose family members are involved. Additionally, program
volunteers’ experiences and observations, combined with those of family participants, provide
multiple perspectives on the ways the program setting builds on families’ capitals applied to
children’s education, combining existing and new knowledge, skills, abilities, and networks.
Conclusion
In this chapter, I provided a brief summary of some of the literature regarding traditional
parental involvement in relation to Latino families. I then discussed literature regarding
community-based organizations, including ways in which participation in community-based
groups has served parents who are members of traditionally marginalized groups to feel more
empowered and able to exercise their voice in school settings, and discussed what schools might
learn from community-based organizations. I then describe the theoretical framework of
community cultural wealth (Yosso, 2005) and discussed findings of existing studies applying the
framework of community cultural wealth. Finally, I address how this study builds on what is
known about community cultural wealth and extends the literature by applying the theoretical
framework to the context of a multi-generational community-based program.

39

CHAPTER 3: METHODS
The purpose of this qualitative study is to understand how family members’ participation
in a community-based technology skills program builds on various capitals families possess and
fosters Latino immigrant families’ ability to navigate their children’s schooling experiences in
the United States. Gaining an understanding about the how a community-based program
provides a space for fostering various forms of capital possessed by Latino immigrant families as
well as how program participants themselves nurture each other’s capital development offers
insight into how Latino family empowerment is then enacted beyond the program’s computer lab
space to play a role in children’s education and schooling. The following questions guide this
study:


How do family members involved in this community-based program perceive family
involvement in their children’s education and how do they believe schools define parental
involvement?



How does participating in this community-based program affect immigrant Latino families’
various forms of capital?
o How does the development of these forms of capital impact school-family
relations?
o How does the development of these forms of capital impact students’ success?
In this chapter I will discuss the choices I made in terms of methodology and why this

approach was appropriate for this study, providing the rationale for conducting a qualitative case
study. I will describe the study context and participants and the way participants for the study
were identified. I will also describe the study setting and participants and will document data

40

generation and analytical approaches. Then I describe the steps taken toward ensuring
trustworthiness of this study. Finally, I will describe my role as the researcher in this study and
will address study limitations.
Rationale for Qualitative Study
In qualitative study, the observer is “located” in the world (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000) and
the researcher is socially engaged with participants in a natural setting (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).
Qualitative research allows for depth of study and acknowledges the importance of context in
understanding social phenomena and people’s experiences (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Qualitative
research also requires interpretation of the data generated through observation, interviews, and a
variety of other methods (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). I sought to gain a deep understanding of how
the approaches employed in Digital Home might serve to foster family members’ abilities
beyond the program, including their involvement in their children’s schooling. Participant
observation in the organization’s technology program over an extended period of time,
examination of organization documents since its inception, and interviews with program
participants, children from the program participants’ families, volunteers, and the organization’s
founder better answered the proposed questions than surveys or questionnaires would.
Rationale for Case Study
More specifically, this qualitative investigation is a case study. It is intensive and
extensive, evolving over time and looking deeply at the group being studied (Creswell,
2007; Flyvbjerg, 2011). Cases also take into consideration the environment in which people are
living (Flyvbjerg, 2011). My study sought to gain in-depth knowledge about the experiences of a
specific group to answer questions that explain the values, behaviors, beliefs, and language of a
culture-sharing group (Creswell, 2007). A case approach using ethnographic methods was

41

appropriate for this study because the approach answered the “how” questions posed (Yin, 2013)
and because I analyzed and interpreted various sources of data to gain a deep understanding of
the case (Creswell, 2007). Much like a quilt maker (Burgess, 2003) fashioning a complete cover
by combining a variety of pieces, a researcher choosing to conduct a case study also brings
together various types of data and incorporates different perspectives to create a complex
portrait. Case study is also an appropriate choice because “it is more adapted to a description of
the multiple realities at any given site” (Lincoln & Guba, 1985, p. 41). This case study will
contribute to the existing literature regarding social networks among Latino immigrants through
the resulting analytic generalizations (Yin, 2013) and concrete universals (Erickson, 1986),
while providing unique insights into the specific contexts of a group in an urban mid-sized
Midwestern city—a context seldom addressed in existing research.
Project Context and Participants
This study took place in an urban mid-sized Midwestern city where Latinos initially
settled in the first half of the 20th century. The city’s Latino population in 2010 comprised a little
over 10% of the total population, almost three times the average Latino population of the state,
according to 2010 Census data (United States Bureau of the Census, n.d.). According to the
National Center for Educational Statistics (n.d.) data for 2000, the Latino population under age
18 living in the local school district was slightly under 15%. This case study will explore the
phenomena of interactions within a technology program run by a community-based organization
to expand Latino immigrant parents’ ability to navigate their children’s schooling experience in
the U.S.
I selected this site because the community-based program is intended to support Latino
immigrant parents in the area, both in terms of developing skills and in fostering fellowship

42

among community members, to help Latino immigrant families connect with their children’s
schools. A retired local school district educator and administrator founded Digital Home 1 in
2011, offering technology skills classes in a computer lab at a community center in a
predominantly Latino area of the city. While the program uses space at the center, Digital Home
is not a community center initiative. According to the Digital Home web site, the initiative
received funding in its first two years through a grant awarded by a religious order in a
neighboring Midwestern state. During this time, participants took classes at no cost. After the
grant period, the program instituted a per-session fee of five dollars in order to be able to pay the
teacher of the courses. However, program fliers noted that no one would be turned away due to
the inability to pay. Initially, the program had five computers, some of which did not function.
The college students who volunteered with the program would bring their own laptops to help
meet hardware needs for the classes. Computers in the lab were purchased through the initial
grant and the local public library system donated some computers and accessories as well. The
public library system also donated over 200 bilingual children’s books and adult books to create
a small library within the program’s lab. Several desktop computers and laptops were available
for children to use while their parents and other adults took their technology classes. A local
technology non-profit also initially funded an instructor for Digital Home, though this support
soon disappeared because the non-profit wanted to focus on programs for children rather than
adult learners. However, the instructor originally provided by the technology non-profit decided
to remain with the program as a volunteer because she felt so strongly about the program and
continued to be the volunteer instructor in subsequent years.

1

Names and identifying information have been changed to maintain the confidentiality of
participants
43

According to program documents, Digital Home had three overarching goals: “to teach
parents/guardians to gain basic computer skills to support their children’s academic
achievement,” to connect students to their parents/guardians, while promoting positive behavior
and academics, and “to motivate university students…to complete their studies through
mentoring opportunities and understanding the importance of their role in serving the
community.” Since 2011, Digital Home has offered two basics courses, Basics I and Basics II,
lasting 10- to 12-weeks per course for one-and-a-half to two hours per session. The courses
addressed use of the internet, word processing, spreadsheet, and presentation software skills, as
well as typing practice. Students also learned about computer storage and memory, how to save
files, how to insert images into documents from clipart libraries, the internet, and external
devices. There were also sessions about how to buy a computer, which emphasized buying
computers to fit users’ needs so that participants could make informed purchases rather than be
talked into spending more money than necessary.
According to the coordinator, the curriculum for the course has evolved over time. At
one time, thought was given to simply translating an existing English Digital Home curriculum,
but participants did not like it, so the course teacher and program coordinator adapted the course
to better address participant interests. In February of 2015, recognizing that a long-running
course was not suited for some participants’ time availability, the program was promoted slightly
differently than in previous offerings, listing it as mini-workshops addressing such topics as
computer brands and operating systems, to protecting your computer from viruses. During that
time, the program also instituted open lab time for students to work on independent projects.
Spanish fliers inform potential registrants about offerings prior to a new generación
(generation) of courses, and a bilingual web site and Facebook pages with some bilingual posts

44

promote the program’s course offerings, share photos from class sessions, and occasionally
provide information about community happenings. Classes generally begin with independent
typing practice followed by a presentation on class content for the day. Then class members
move to the computers to practice skills related to the content presented. Spanish-speaking
volunteers, called technology mentors, are available to answer any questions that participants
may have. The volunteers are also available to work with children who come with family
members. Most of the volunteers have been undergraduate and graduate students who were
bilingual native Spanish speakers. At the end of each class session, adult participants reflected
about their experience during the session, writing about three things they learned and what they
liked about the session. The class period ended with convivio, a familial time during which all
present could share food brought by class participants and join in conversation with one another
from week to week.
In its first three years, Digital Home held a clausura, an end-of-course graduation
ceremony on the campus of a local university, with funding help from an ethnic studies program.
Invitees have included participants, their families, volunteers and program supporters, and
representatives from the community center board. In subsequent years, the clausura took place
in the community room of a local public library branch. The graduation programs have been
predominantly in Spanish with translation into English. Participants have presented their work
and have received certificates of participation and perfect attendance. Children of participants
receive certificates of participation and volunteers get certificates of appreciation as well. During
one of the graduation ceremonies, participants with perfect attendance learned that they would be
receiving free computers to take home.

45

The classes were originally intended for Latino immigrant families with middle and high
school children and then included elementary school families. Soon after the program began,
members of the general community expressed interest in taking the classes so the coordinator
opened the program to them as well. The majority of participants have been Spanish-speaking
immigrant local residents with a range of English language proficiency, though a few
participants are U.S.-born and some live outside of the local area. Most of the participants have
come from Mexico or are from Mexican-American families, though participants have also hailed
from various countries of origin, including Cuba and Ecuador. From the start of the program,
children have been welcome in the lab space while their family members have taken classes and,
at times, have participated as students in the classes as well. This study will focus on program
participants with school-aged children in their families.
Prior to conducting the current study, I conducted two small studies, in 2014 and 2015,
within the Digital Home setting. Some of the findings of these studies showed that Digital Home
has served as a springboard for members and former members of the program to take on roles
beyond that of student and to participate in activities in their local communities. Within the
Digital Home space, participants have found peer support to engage in English classes at a local
university and other classes around the city. They have also gone on to engage in a variety of
activities, including entering a local art contest, and enrolling in a local community college, as
well as themselves teaching Digital Home class sessions to other groups of Digital Home
participants.
I found Digital Home to be a space that respects members’ language and culture. As
previous studies have found, use of native language and recognition of specific interests and
needs of participants led to participants feeling welcome. Participants expressed that being able

46

to take the class in Spanish removed a barrier from participation. Furthermore, participants’
native language was not perceived from a deficit lens, but was centered as the language of
instruction and communication. Participants with less Spanish language knowledge were able to
consult their dominant Spanish peers as a resource. Described as being “like home,” Digital
Home fostered a sense of community where people celebrate milestones and engage in informal
conversation and information sharing. The organization does not require any kind of residency or
citizenship documentation, reducing participation barriers for those members with undocumented
status, providing a safe place to interact with others while developing skills and gaining
information about local resources.
Participant Selection
The study utilized purposeful, snowball sampling in order to identify information-rich
informants, including those who may constitute members of “hidden populations” (Patton,
2014). As some participants may have undocumented status in the U.S., their referral by people
they trust was especially important. I sought to conduct interviews with about 20 participants:
adult family participants and children from participant families, as well as several volunteers
with the program, and the program coordinator. I identified adult program participants based on
my knowledge of families who were participating in the technology classes during the formal
time of this study or who participated in Digital Home computer classes in previous generations.
The program coordinator and program volunteers also helped me identify potential study
participants from immigrant Latino families. In this study, Latino families refers to those in
which at least one family participant is an immigrant to the United States or who were raised by
at least one Latino immigrant to the U.S. Adult family members who chose to participate in the
study also suggested others or referred potential participants to me. Children and grandchildren,

47

who were interviewed were from families of the adult participants in the study who had close
contact with the children, either living with them or having at least monthly interactions with
them.
I also created an introductory flier (Appendix B), primarily in Spanish with some text
translated into English, sharing information about me and describing the study. To ensure that I
was communicating with program participants in an effective way, I shared a draft of the flier
with the coordinator and a long-time program volunteer. The coordinator added a brief message
to potential study participants and her image also appeared on the flier, indicating the
coordinator’s support of my study. I also recruited volunteers who had been technology mentors
with the program over more than one semester, allowing them to interact with different groups of
participants over time and during more than one course period.
I applied for and received a small research grant that included funding to offer study
participants small incentives in the form of $20 gift cards. I also provided refreshments for
interviewees in an effort to help make the interview environment more welcoming and as a
gesture of appreciation for participants. Through this funding, I was also able to provide
contributions in appreciation to the organization, for example, paper and other needed office
supplies. Participants did not know ahead of time that they would receive gift cards for
participating.
Data Generation Methods
In order to gain a rich understanding of the study context, I utilized several forms of data
generation, including engaging in participant observation, conducting semi-structured interviews,
and analyzing various documents. Generating various data points provided the opportunity to
corroborate evidence as well as to gain information from different stakeholders who offered

48

different perspectives about what was going on in this community-based program. These
approaches, which rely on data from various sources and different methods of data generation,
are characteristic of qualitative case studies, which try to capture the complexities of the studied
phenomena. Prior to formally engaging in my dissertation study, I obtained initial IRB approval
(Appendix A), with the determination that my study was exempt. Throughout the study period, I
communicated with the principal investigator (PI) under whom I worked to ensure that protocols
still adhered to exempt status.
Participant Observation
Engaging in participant observation over an extended period of time allowed me as the
researcher to become a “trusted person” (Glesne, 2006, p. 63) immersed within the program
community. Participant observation was also appropriate because I wanted to know about the
attitudes and perspectives of individuals within the program; by interacting with program
members I could ask them directly about their feelings, experiences, and perceptions (Cannell &
Kahn, 1953). Prolonged engagement also offered the opportunity to follow-up with participants
in the space when I had additional questions or wanted to clarify my understandings of what they
had shared with me. Additionally, I conducted member checks, taking “tentative findings back to
some of the participants” (Merriam, 2002, p. 26) I had interviewed to verify whether I was
“captur[ing] their perspectives” (Merriam, 2002, p. 26).
I learned about Digital Home when I attended a workshop facilitated by program
volunteers during a student conference in January of 2013. Since the spring of 2014, I have been
a volunteer technology mentor with the program. At that time, I contacted one of the workshop
presenters, a local university staff member who acted as a liaison between college student
volunteers and Digital Home. She introduced me to the program founder and coordinator. I told

49

the coordinator about myself and, in anticipation of possibly conducting my dissertation study at
this site, I communicated my research interest to the program coordinator. She was open to the
possibility of having the program documented via research, told me about the program, and also
asked about my views of people with undocumented status, as she wanted to ensure that all
participants would be treated well, regardless of their immigration status.
I took field notes after each session I attended from the start of my volunteering. In spring
of 2014 and spring of 2015, I conducted two small studies, generating data through contact with
program participants and volunteers; these helped to inform the design of this current study.
During the current study period, from fall of 2015 to spring of 2016, where possible without
taking me out of being present at activities, I jotted notes during class activities (Emerson, Fretz,
& Shaw, 1995), typing up the field notes and reflections related to what had happened in class.
During the study period, I participated in all of Digital Home’s sessions, which took place twice
per week for one-and-a-half hours per session, over ten weeks. When possible, I participated in
activities shared through the Digital Home Facebook page, that were announced in class, or that I
learned about directly from the coordinator via e-mail, in order to interact with Digital Home
participants outside of the classroom space and to observe interactions between members of the
program. I also attended other activities in the community, where Digital Home families
participated. Additionally, on days when I took rides to or from the study site with volunteers
and/or the Digital Home coordinator, we had conversations about what was planned for the
classes, reflected on how classes had gone, how the participants’ skills were progressing, how to
spread the word about the program, or talked about the history and present context of the city in
general.

50

Semi-structured Interviews
Semi-structured interviews include questions that delve into participants’ personal
experiences as well as reflect theoretical concepts (Galletta, 2013). Conducting semi-structured
interviews also provides the flexibility to probe and to gain insights directly from people closely
associated with study setting (Cannell & Kahn, 1953). As I developed interview protocols, I
considered the purpose of each interview question and each related to the questions I wanted to
answer with my study (Galletta, 2013).
Peers, fellow doctoral students, also looked at my interview protocols when I was
developing them. The first peer read over questions and gave feedback. This peer’s comments
included suggestions to separate questions where I was initially planning to ask multiple
questions at once. She also asked clarifying questions to ensure that my questions were actually
asking what I wanted to know. I made revisions based on peer feedback.
Once I had translated the interview questions, I shared these with another peer, a native
Spanish speaker. My purpose here was two-fold. I wanted to ensure that my translations were
accurate in terms of the information I wanted to gain. I also wanted to ensure that the Spanish I
was using was appropriate for the different stakeholders I was interviewing. Among changes
suggested by this peer reviewer was the use of less formal language usage for the children’s
protocols.
Prior to conducting interviews, I obtained consent or assent (Appendix C) from
participants and assured them of maintenance of confidentiality. I also advised them that they
could discontinue participation at any time without any consequence to them. There were four
different sets of interview questions, one for adult family participants, one for children from the
families of these participants, one for volunteers, and one for the program coordinator. Across

51

interview protocols (Appendix D) I sought to gain an understanding of how participating in the
program supported existing forms of capital identified by Yosso (2005) and how these might be
activated in the ways family members were active in children’s education. Interviewing people
who experienced the program in their different roles allowed me to examine various perspectives
about how participation in Digital Home affected those involved directly or indirectly with
program members, and how the participants in the program themselves shaped the program.
I conducted 17 interviews with 18 participants in English or in Spanish, depending on the
interviewee’s preference. The six adult program participants represent three different Spanishspeaking countries (Table 1). Though one of the adults is U.S.-born, she was raised by an
immigrant mother and has visited the country of origin in the past. The children interviewed
were students in three different local school districts (Table 1). Program volunteers (Table 2)
interviewed included the program coordinator, program volunteer instructors, the liaison between
the program and a local university, and technology mentors. All but one of the adult participant
interviews were conducted in Spanish. All child interviews were done in English. All except one
of the volunteer interviews were conducted in English. The interview lengths for adult
participants ranged from a little over 30 minutes to one hour and twenty minutes. Children’s
interviews lasted between 10 minutes to almost 30 minutes, and volunteer interviews ranged
from 36 minutes to almost one-and-a-half hours. The interview with the coordinator lasted one
hour and fifteen minutes. I also had various follow-up opportunities to communicate further with
participants who had been interviewed.

52

Table 1: Adult Program Participants and Children Interviewed
Adult Participant
Country of Origin

Child, age during study
Districts

Child(ren)
from family
interviewed?

Abel and Mariana
Mexico

Janette, 11
Aarón, 14
Langley

yes

Liliana
Mexico

Danny, 10
Ernesto, 15
California, Langley, Harley

yes

Sofía
Cuba

Children ages 16, 12, 9
Harley

no

Isabel
First generation U.S.-born
(Ecuador)

Sierra, 9
Weston

yes

Diana (grandmother)
Ecuador

Sierra, 9
Weston

yes

Table 2: Program Volunteers Interviewed
Program
Affiliation
Volunteers
Program founder and coordinator; Retired Langley School District teacher
Ana
and administrator
Elisa

University staff at the time of the study; Ana’s former student

Cynthia

Undergraduate student from another part of the state

Manuel

Undergraduate student from another part of the state

José

Graduate student from out-of-state

Danira

Volunteer instructor; immigrant from Guatemala

Octavio

Volunteer instructor; immigrant from Guatemala

Interviews occurred in locations that were accessible and comfortable for interviewees,
that ensured their privacy, and that were conveniently scheduled for participants. Four interviews
took place in the Digital Home computer lab. Several interviews were conducted in a study room
53

of a neighborhood community center near a local university campus. One interview took place
on a local community college campus. Two interviews took place in a family’s home. Another
family was interviewed in the café of a bookstore and another interview was conducted in a local
coffee shop. One interview was conducted by phone. All the interviews were recorded, as all of
the participants allowed the interviews to be audiotaped. During interviews, I jotted down
interviewees responses to questions. This served as a backup in case an audio file became lost or
corrupted. After the interviews, I wrote reflections in my interview notebook. In these notes I
jotted down what I noticed the study participant seemed to stress in their interview and I
sometimes noted where the content of one interview had also been addressed in other interviews.
I transcribed all the Spanish interviews and someone else transcribed interviews in English. I
listened to interview recordings multiple times in order to ensure accuracy of my transcriptions
as well as to confirm accuracy of English transcriptions.
Document Analysis
Document analysis serves several purposes. Documents provide background information
regarding the study context, can lead the researcher to ask additional questions, can help track
changes over time, and can help to support information found via other sources (Bowen, 2009).
Consulting documents related to Digital Home allowed me to see how the organization and its
programs have been presented to the community and to help trace the evolution of the program
since its inception. Reading local media articles about the program, participants and volunteers
provided additional context. Evidence presented in documents served to support or refute other
sources of evidence (Yin, 2013). These documents also led me to ask more questions about the
program prior to my time in the setting and to ask why certain decisions were made. I collected
and analyzed various documents, including public documents and program documentation

54

generated since the program began. Public documents included Digital Home fliers used to
promote classes, the organization’s web site, posts on the organization’s Facebook page, or other
Digital Home information found on the World Wide Web, including articles published in local
media about the program or the program’s stakeholders. Organizational documents included
grant-related documentation, registration questionnaires, and pre- and post-surveys conducted
with participants regarding their knowledge of class topics. In the fall of 2015, about one-and-ahalf years after our first meeting, the program coordinator gave me access to program
documents, such as the progress reports submitted to the program’s funder and adult participant,
children, and volunteer questionnaires. As part of class registration at the start of each course,
participants consented, or not, to their inclusion in possible program promotion or future research
endeavors.
Data Analysis
Data analysis was an iterative process. Throughout the analytical process and conducted
descriptive and inductive analyses. I began with a line-by-line reading of transcripts, field notes,
and documents in order to gain a general sense of “what is happening” (Erickson, 1986, p. 121)
in the data. Descriptive analysis helped me to compose a thick description (Lincoln & Guba,
1985) of the program context. I also read through the data with the community cultural wealth
framework in mind, applying a priori codes reflecting the six types of capital identified by Yosso
(2005) based on mentions of participants. Prior to beginning this coding, I created a matrix
(Appendix E) of possible things participants would say in relation to the framework capitals and
then revisited the matrix after I spoke with participants, adding a column of other references that
I had not anticipated. I engaged in inductive analysis as well. This third approach provided me
with the opportunity to develop codes related to what participants articulated regarding their

55

experiences and perspectives, including paying attention to instances where participants
expressed feelings discrepant to what others shared. Some of these codes related to school-family
relations, parent outcomes, and changes participants experienced. For example, if a person
mentioned changes they noticed as a result of participating in the program, I labeled the segment
“parental outcomes.” As I continued to read, I began to refine these into sub-categories, such as
“parents helping kids with technology or school,” “parents' skills/content learned,” and “parental
independence.” Ultimately, these codes were associated with the theme of family empowerment.
I used MAXQDA qualitative analysis software to maintain files together and document
my coding of the data. The program also facilitated my ability to pull out related segments of
data across data sources. I made notes and memos within the program as well as in a research
journal I kept as I analyzed data. In the journal I noted recurring ideas that participants
mentioned, questions I had for follow-up, and connections I was making across different data
sources and to existing literature. I examined the categories and identified central themes
(Emerson, Fretz, & Shaw, 1995), both due to their repeated appearance as well as those that
reflected findings in the literature applying the theoretical framework. I considered patterns that
confirmed previous research findings in the existing literature as well as those that might
disconfirm previous findings. Throughout the coding process, I made note of code descriptions
in the software program and in my research notebook (Saldaña, 2012).
Trustworthiness
There are several components of trustworthiness that contribute to the strength of a study:
credibility, dependability, and transferability (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Among the efforts to
strengthen credibility were prolonged engagement and continued observation, triangulation,
reflexivity, peer debriefing, and member checking. I also engaged in auditing to promote

56

dependability and confirmability, and engaged in thick description in an effort to work toward
establishing transferability (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). These are all discussed in more depth
below.
Regular engagement at the site since spring of 2014 allowed me to observe the
interactions and occurrences in the class setting over time and to become acquainted with the site
in depth. I also had several opportunities to attend events that participants went to in the
community. Prolonged engagement at the site (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) also gave those engaged
in the Digital Home classes the opportunity to learn about me and to interact with me as well.
Consulting a variety of data sources contributed to a more complex understanding of the context
and to what I noticed. I engaged in triangulation, a technique that uses various data sources and
data collection methods to “confirm emerging findings” (Merriam, 2002, p. 31). Interviewing
stakeholders with different roles in the group provided varied data sources and interviews,
observations, and documents served as different data collection methods, increasing my ability to
determine the consistency of findings (Yin, 2014). Taking field notes during and/or immediately
after each class session maintained the rich detail of the experienced activities (Emerson, Fretz,
& Shaw, 1995). Throughout the analytic process, I looked at the full range of data, considering
confirming and disconfirming evidence, conscious of the potential need to reconsider claims
(Erickson, 1986). Engaging in reflexivity throughout the various stages of my study and
examining my role as the researcher, my personal perspectives, and my relationships with
participants (Yin, 2014) enabled me to consider the entire research context, including my
feelings and reactions to being in the space. Sharing field notes with colleagues, other graduate
students in the field of education, who “ask the difficult questions that the inquirer might
otherwise avoid” (Lincoln & Guba, 1985, p. 283), a form of a peer debriefing, aided in widening

57

my perceptions regarding the content of field notes and developing codes (Lincoln & Guba,
1985). Member checking via sharing emerging findings with some participants supported the
accurate representation of what participants discussed in interviews and conversations (Saldaña,
2012).
In order to promote the confirmability and dependability of my study, I have documented
this study in such a way that another person can follow my procedures of data generation and
analysis, providing an audit trail (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Having an additional person code
some of the data also helped to reduce bias of a single person analyzing all data. Furthermore, I
wrote in a way that incorporated rich descriptions that result in the reader of the study gaining a
comprehensive picture of the study context, thereby supporting transferability. Transferability
does not seek to generalize findings to other contexts, but to provide enough detail that another
person can get a sense of how similar her context is to that of the study she is reading.
Role as Researcher
The responsible qualitative researcher’s interactions with participants indicate an effort
to see them, as best one can, for who they are rather than who they might be assumed to be,
especially from the outside. While the researcher negotiates and recognizes her position as an
insider-outsider, she grapples with several “pretensions” described by Geertz (1988, p. 144),
including “ethnographic ventriloquism,” in which the researcher declares that she speaks from
inside the community depicted. The researcher also needs to recognize power dynamics and the
position she has in even being able to conduct research and to have access to venues through
which that research may be shared and disseminated. Historically it has been those who have
some kind of privilege “who ask and look” (Geertz, 1998, p. 131), while those with less, little, or
no power are “those who are asked and looked at” (Geertz, 1998, p. 131). The researcher is

58

responsible for caring for her participants, from the design stage through to the presentation stage
and possibly beyond. The researcher is reflexive, continually questioning, considering, and
being willing to challenge herself throughout the process.
Who I am, what I have experienced, and what I find important to know about influence
what I choose to research. As a community engaged researcher, I hope that my findings will
make a positive practical impact in the field of education and in the lives of families. My interest
in how Latino immigrant families navigate U.S. school systems stems from both personal and
professional experiences. As a native Spanish-speaking child of South American immigrants and
as someone who worked closely with parents when I was an educator in New York City schools
with high immigrant populations in low-income neighborhoods, I have some personal
understanding of immigrant experiences in the U.S. I can bring these potential language and
experiential bridges into my interactions with the participants in my study. At the same time, I
have not assumed that being a Spanish speaker automatically means that I understand exactly
what participants are expressing. I have listened attentively to various aspects of their
communication with me, including their native expressions and body language.
I also have not assumed that my experience coming from an immigrant family or working
with immigrants equates to knowing the experiences of the participants in the study. Aside from
differences stemming from background nationalities and linguistic expressions, I am familiar
with a different context, the Northeast of the U.S. versus the Midwestern site of my study; I
come from a middle-class background and a predominantly English-speaking community,
whereas several participants in my study are not middle-class, primarily speak Spanish and
reside in a predominantly Latino area.

59

As a volunteer in the program since spring of 2014, I have had the opportunity to see the
program evolve over time and to become familiar with some of the participants who have
participated over that time period. In working to help participants during class sessions, I may
have appeared as some sort of authority—at least in terms of technical knowledge. In my desire
to help the organization with possible grant or funding leads, I have had an interest in seeing the
organization and its programs succeed. Furthermore, as a participant observer who has engaged
with the program coordinator, other volunteers, and program participants inside and outside the
lab space, personal bonds have formed. As a researcher in this setting for a prolonged period, I
have somewhat of an insider status, but also have an outsider status due to contextual differences
as well as living outside the community in which the program runs.
Over the last several years, there were times when I felt nervous and concerned, not
wanting to seem like I was in the space simply to conduct research. I hoped that the people in
Digital Home knew that I had respect for them and for the community and was not simply in the
space to “take the information and run,” as I describe it and has sometimes happened when
researchers enter traditionally marginalized communities. When Ana allowed me access to
program documents, I think I truly felt that she knew that I could be trusted. Even as I transition
out of the city where Digital Home runs, I am reflecting on “what leaving the field” and
relationships with the program and participants will look like. In disseminating findings to
various audiences, including the local school district, I will continue to have contact with the
program and must consistently consider what this aspect of the research process means for the
Digital Home community.
My personal and professional experiences brought me to this research with the view that
Latino immigrant parents have a strong sense of the importance of the education of their

60

children, both in terms of their formal schooling and in the people they will become. Parents hold
high aspirations for their children and support their children’s education, yet the schools that
educate children from Latino immigrant families may not fully understand this type of support.
Therefore, recognizing context and situating the cultural and social realities of Latino immigrant
families, as well as my own, is essential. At the same time, in conducting this study, I was aware
of the need to be open to the possibility that what I learned through the investigation might run
counter to my initial perceptions. Further, I have hoped that this research would amplify the
voice of Latino immigrant families within the schools their children attend, thereby shaping
practice in their children’s schools and possibly directing their voice to other venues as well.
Limitations
All of the adult participants who were interviewed for this study had been in the U.S. for
over 10 years and have had children in U.S. schools for several years now, so their experiences
may not reflect those of currently or recently arrived parents. Still, their experiences offer
insights based on years of contact with U.S. schools. Additionally, all of the family members
interviewed for this study expressed positive experiences with the program. It is possible that
there have been parents in the program who did not feel that they gained as much as these
participants did, and whose voices are not heard in this study, though even after asking several
study participants directly and based on observation over several years, I have not found parents
who attended the class and did not find it to be a valuable experience. Reasons why some have
not taken Digital Home classes or did not continue are addressed in my final commentary.
Additionally, although the purpose of this study was to gain a deep understanding of the
experiences of those in Digital Home and how the space affected their various forms of capital,
the perspective of the school district is not captured in this study. Having a sense of the district’s

61

point of view would provide an even fuller understanding of the context in which Digital Home
existed and would display more clearly the perspectives from which officials within schools and
districts carried out their work in relation to Latino immigrant families.
Conclusion
In this chapter, I restated the study’s purpose and guiding research questions and
explained in detail the research design of this study. I documented the choices I made in terms of
methodology and why this was the appropriate approach for this study. I also described the study
setting and participants in depth. Then I documented data generation and analytical approaches,
so that the reader would be able to have a clear understanding of these processes. Following that
I described the steps I took to work toward ensuring the trustworthiness of my study, including
triangulation of data sources and collection methods, providing thick description, and engaging
in peer debriefing. Finally, I described my role as the researcher in this study and addressed
study limitations. In chapter four, I will discuss major findings from this study.

62

CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
This chapter presents findings based on an analysis of interviews, conversations,
participant observation, and documents related to Digital Home, a community-based basic
technology skills program geared toward Latino parents in a Midwestern city. Digital Home’s
founder established the program in response to existing inequity in Latino families’ access to the
internet and ability to use technology. Through the “methodology” employed in the program, one
that built on and leveraged the Latino participants’ cultural characteristics, various aspects of
community cultural wealth—familial, linguistic, and navigational capitals—served as a base to
support and extend families’ educational and personal aspirations. Activating community
cultural wealth, the relationships and knowledge base fostered within the program supported
families’ resistant capital, evidenced by parents’ persistence and abilities to advocate for their
children within their schools. While the empowerment experienced by Digital Home families did
not appear to spread widely within the districts’ schools, the program did make an impact in the
way parents could participate in their children’s schooling, and there is interest seeing the
program replicated in another state.
Perception of Langley City and Local School Districts
Digital Home courses took place in an urban mid-sized Midwestern city, an environment
that some study participants perceived as unsupportive of Latino culture, language, and families.
These views were discussed in general, but on occasion were also addressed directly within the
context of the local school system. In their discussion of the societal and schooling context, some
of the participants compared the general environment in which Latinos in the area lived with the
more positive language and cultural experiences that they had in Digital Home. Digital Home
was viewed as an inclusive space, where Latinos had felt excluded elsewhere. Though Latinos

63

have lived in the area for decades, starting in the first half of the 20 th century, these residents
have not necessarily felt that they have been recognized as a presence in the area. Diana, an
Ecuadorian immigrant living in Langley City for close to two decades, talked about where it
would be good to place program fliers so that the Latino community would be informed about
Digital Home, saying “…hay mucha gente hispana aquí, aunque no se vea, pero hay mucha
hispana.”/“There are a lot of Hispanic people here, even if it is not seen, but there are many
Hispanics.” Diana also noted the difference in the number of Hispanics in the area now
compared to when she arrived in Langley City close to twenty years prior.
Elisa, a Digital Home volunteer, long-time resident, and graduate of the Langley School
District, the area of the city where Digital Home runs, also alluded to invisibility in the context
of families who “were undocumented” and who experienced fear at the possibility of
immigration sweeps. “[T]here was that feeling of ‘stay inside your house.’ ‘Don’t say anything.’
‘Don’t make any sudden moves.’ ‘Don’t be noticeable.’” These were all thoughts that she
believed, “…we all know…[lead] to things like depression and, you know, solitude and just
feeling unempowered, you know, disenfranchised.” As a result of some of the area’s families’
immigration status, they experienced isolation and disconnection. This sense of invisibility,
expressed by Diana and Elisa, is one that Donna Marie Harris and Judy Marquez Kiyama (2015)
discuss in their community-engaged study in Rochester, New York, where Latino students and
families’ felt invisible due to navigating institutions that promoted circumstances that opposed
their success.
Aside from expressing a sense that people were hidden away, not speaking families’
native language or concealing knowledge of Spanish also occurred due to attitudes in the area
about speaking Spanish. Several volunteers spoke about the deficit perspectives that society

64

places on speaking Spanish and how these impact the views of children of Spanish-speakers.
When asked what they thought the children took away from the use of Spanish in the Digital
Home classes, those interviewed noted that Spanish-speaking was not as prevalent for the
children as it was for their parents. Elisa described how, among the children, “the
majority…spoke Spanish. But they didn’t see it as something very important to speak…in school
or with…friends.” José, a graduate student volunteer with Digital Home, talked about the
“generational differences” in language usage:
The instruction is in Spanish with the adults, but the kids tend to speak English…
some…are very shy to speak Spanish…most of these participants are migrants from Latin
America, especially Mexico. We have participants from Cuba, from Honduras, from
Guatemala, El Salvador…when they bring their children…they tend to be, obviously,
very fluent in English and not very fluent in Spanish, but that’s a given…one of the
things that I see, and it hurts me, is the fact that in the public setting…These kids are shy
or they do not like, or they negate the Spanish language.
Describing this pattern as “very unfortunate,” José linked the trend to “the challenges that society
is imposing on why these kids are taking that route” and referred to the existing research “on
bilingual education and why kids stop” speaking Spanish. Here, José acknowledged the
underlying messages children receive about their families’ native language. Spanish is not valued
or encouraged outside of children’s homes. Ana, Digital Home’s founder and coordinator, also
referred to how “some of the kids didn’t want to speak Spanish,” but seeing bilingual university
students who were Digital Home volunteers and who are proud of their ability might change
their view.
The comments made by the parents, representing children in three different districts in
the area, illustrated how school environments maintained the existing language barrier. While
some schools had little or no native language resources, even in the Langley School District
(LSD), where there was more diverse language representation, there was still a lack of support.

65

Mariana, a Mexican immigrant and the mother of two students in a LSD school, felt that in order
to get notices sent home in Spanish, parents had to know that they could request notices in their
family’s native language. Because her children were not identified as English language learners,
the accommodation was not made automatically. In terms of one-on-one parent-teacher contact,
Mariana shared how she would tell her child’s Spanish teacher, a non-native Spanish-speaker, to
speak with her in Spanish, but the teacher would not do this naturally, seeming hesitant to do so.
Liliana, a Mexican immigrant and mother of two sons who had been enrolled in the Langley
district but who now attended Harley District schools after the family moved to a different part
of the city, explained her difficulty with understanding everything shared at her children’s
schools solely in English. In her experience, when going to a school meeting “a lo mejor voy a
entender un cincuenta porciento y no, no me siento cómoda”/“maybe I will understand some
fifty percent of it and no, I don’t feel comfortable.” She did not attend as many meetings at the
school as she’d like to because of the language barrier, although, “Quisiera estar allá más, pero,
pues, por el idioma, a veces no.”/“I would like to be there more, but because of the language,
sometimes no.”
Children from program participants’ families also noted concerns about language. When
asked what they would like their school to know about their family, most of the children
answered something related to language or cultural identity. Danny, Liliana’s youngest son, who
remembered very little about the time he spent in Digital Home several years before, aside from
“they always serve food and they always…speak Spanish,” said that he would want the school to
know that the family is “Mexican,” but did not elaborate. Ernesto, Liliana’s eldest son, thought
that the school should know “that my parents don’t speak English that well.” He also said that he

66

thought his parents felt “nervous” when they got to the school “because they don’t speak English
that well and I translate for them.”
Mariana and Abel’s eldest child Aarón, a Langley School District high school student,
also noted that schools should understand that his parents’ “English is not…as good but they do
understand and speak it, just some parts, they just kind of fall off, um, like have some patience
and a translator.” He went on to say that “we’ll go to conferences…there’s a translator there, but
she has to go through like three different families at one time, so I feel like they’re still kinda
short…there’s some teachers that speak English and Spanish and so I feel like that’s good.” In
reference to patience, he explained that teachers “get impatient with” students, but he had not
seen this happen with parents. Aarón recognized the need for schools to provide resources to
help promote communication between school staff and families. Both he and Ernesto highlighted
the importance that schools understand families’ language circumstances which may inhibit
parents’ ability to communicate and their comfort level in the school.
In addition to naming language barriers, lack of culture recognition was also mentioned
by several study participants who wanted schools to understand parents’ linguistic contexts or
wanted to see greater incorporation of culture within school environments. While research has
indicated that using families’ language and including communities’ cultures within curriculum
are elements of working effectively with Latino students (Irizarry & Raible, 2011), most of the
parents interviewed and Aarón mentioned that cultural representation within their respective
schools was limited. Isabel, Diana’s U.S.-born daughter and parent of a fourth grade daughter at
the time of the study, was a graduate of the Langley School District. She intentionally had not
enrolled her daughter, Sierra, in the district because she was concerned about her child being
bullied as she had been. Isabel talked about the curriculum her daughter was being taught in

67

school: “I would love it if [the school] had, if my daughter knew who César Chávez was and
who Frida was…little things like that…She doesn’t know any of the Hispanic leaders…César
Chávez wasn’t just for Hispanics. He was for all human beings.” Isabel enrolled Sierra in a
“Spanish dance group…for her to learn at least a little bit” and made an effort to “teach her who
the Spanish leaders are because there’s not enough teachers putting that into their academics.”
She hoped that in middle school, also within her daughter’s current Wallis School District, this
would change. She also believed that in Sierra’s current school, “there’s like more than half the
school, I think, I feel like are Hispanic and they don’t know about their own culture.” Isabel
viewed the inclusion of culture in the curriculum as beneficial for Latino students, so that they
could understand the contributions of Hispanic leaders, but also felt that learning about these
figures was important for non-Latino students as well.
Just as Isabel observed in her daughter’s school, Aarón, in a conversation separate from his
interview, did not recall the presence of Latinos in the school curriculum, but did think of one
black teacher and one other teacher who included non-Europeans in their lessons. While he could
not name Hispanic Heritage Month activities in his school, he did mention a Latino club that met
before or after school, which students could join. Isabel’s and Aarón’s observations indicate that
their schools’ practices run counter to curricular practices that promote success of traditionally
underserved students. The omission of Latinos in these school curricula can result in feelings of
students’ and families’ experiences, cultures, and language not being valued within formal
education (Bernal, 2002), despite students and families themselves recognizing that they possess
and create valuable knowledge. Research findings have shown that students exposed to
curriculum in which their cultures were represented and who developed positive racial-ethnic

68

identities experienced an increased sense of agency, engagement and positive outcomes related
to academics, high school graduation, and college-going (Sleeter, 2011).
Mariana and Abel, who emigrated from Mexico about a decade prior to taking Digital
Home courses, also expressed a desire for more recognition of all students’ cultures, not only
Mexican culture, in their children’s school. They felt that native countries’ cultures could be
incorporated a bit more “para que no se nos olvide,”/“so that we don’t forget.” They wanted to
see certain days commemorated so that children in general, not only children whose families had
come more recently to the U.S., could have accurate information about the various countries
represented in the school. They added that this did not necessarily have to occur daily, but
perhaps once a year there could be recognition of home countries’ independence days. They gave
the example of how Cinco de mayo is treated in the school as though it were Mexican
independence day, but this is not the case, as this occasion actually marks a battle, something
more to be commemorated, but not necessarily celebrated.
Other parents spoke of the ways American and their home cultures differed in their
approaches to content taught or interactions with school personnel, but that schools did not
explicitly acknowledge. Sofía, who arrived in the area from Cuba just prior to 2000 and who had
three children in the Harley School District, wanted to see schools recognize that certain Latino
cultures hold certain values, different from those of North American culture and that “no se
puede cambiar la cultura de un país,”/“the culture of a country cannot be changed.” She offered
the example of how sex education was addressed in her son’s school and her concern about “how
far” the lessons would go. Liliana also spoke of the differences between what Latinos
communicated with educators compared to what American families shared. She felt that many
Latino families, “no se atreven a decir que si hay problemas en la casa,”/“do not dare to share if

69

there are problems at home,” but that children then bring these problems to school. She added,
“Pero yo sé que los Latinos nunca, no dicen nada”/“But I know that Latinos never, don’t say
anything,” while she has observed that Americans tell the teacher when there are problems and
then the teacher pays attention and helps that child more. She added that she found her younger
son’s teacher to be friendly and that when she attended parent-teacher conferences, the teacher
would ask personal things like how the family is doing. Mariana also pointed out how in Mexico,
parents would be able to speak with their children’s teachers relatively easily, but in her
experience in the U.S. “todo es con ‘appointment’”/“everything is with ‘appointment,’” adding
steps to being able to communicate directly with children’s teachers. This aspect of schooling in
the U.S. has the potential to be an obstacle for many Latino cultures that place a high value on
relationships (Hill, 2009), and for immigrant parents who want to have more relationships with
their children’s teachers (Ladky & Peterson, 2008).
Volunteers with the program further talked about the ways the local district addressed
technology needs and how non-U.S.-born parents were not a priority for the local school system.
Immigrant families, they believed, were not connected with additional supports that might help
them engage more with the school system. Elisa spoke specifically about what she observed and
perceived about the Langley School District based on her many years of familiarity with this
school system. When she was a student in the district, she said, technology programs originated
from short-lived grants, rather than being institutionalized as part of district initiatives “and
usually, for a Latino student to be able to participate in that, it was really rare.” Her statement
demonstrates the perception of a lack of full inclusion, if not exclusion, from additional learning
opportunities for Latino students. Over the years, Elisa had seen that the district would provide
opportunities for students to participate in programs initiated by a technology organization or the

70

local university, “from outside places,” but that these initiatives were “not coming from the
school district.” Instead, “the school district kinda hops on and says, yeah, we have the kids…but
they’re not developing this. They’re not formulating these programs. They’re not funding this
stuff.” Here Elisa expressed her belief that the district did not truly invest in technology
programs, instead these initiatives were contingent upon the interests and efforts of others
outside of the school system. If these projects were not brought to the district, then the programs
simply would not exist. She added that in the approximately 30 years that she has been in the
area, programs for parents have not been a priority “let alone Spanish speaking parents. Because
we’re always, the Spanish-speaking parents are always a second thought…Spanish-speaking
parents have always been a second thought, in our school district and in many school districts.”
Elisa’s view reflects findings related to research on parental engagement in schools, noting that
preparation for fostering involvement is often inadequate, “especially for engaging families for
whom English is a second language” (Hill & Torres, 2010).
Further, Elisa stressed that had Ana not “push[ed] this through, uh, it probably
wouldn’t’ve happened because the school district wasn’t gonna get off their behinds and go
develop this.” In Elisa’s view, Ana was working to do what the district had not. The coordinator
created a program that would both focus on technology and center the needs of Latino families
and students. Octavio, a program volunteer who, himself, questioned how effective the Digital
Home program has been at engaging and empowering more of the community, asked “Why, why
would the school push it? I don’t see why they would push it…they don’t have a self-interest in
pushing it.” While he felt that, “maybe one teacher who’s struggling with a mom who doesn’t
know [how to use computers]…maybe she’ll say, ‘Why don’t you take a class? Why don’t you
go here?’” He did not “think that there’s a, there’s an interest in pushing it.” He did not see any

71

institutional interest on the part of schools to support and promote the Digital Home program. If
anything, Octavio believed, much like Elisa did, that any work toward connecting parents to a
technology program would not be systematic, but would occur by chance. It was in this
environment, one that study participants noted did not always recognize them or their cultural
identities and that did not support the maintenance of bilingualism or make specific efforts to
engage Spanish-speaking parents, that the Digital Home program was conceived and in which
the basic technology skills courses took place. The creation of Digital Home can be viewed as
the result of Ana activating her own community cultural wealth in order to counter a negative
context for local Latinos, in turn fostering community cultural wealth capitals for program
participants, working toward Latino family empowerment.
Activating Community Cultural Wealth to Create Digital Home
The creation of the program illustrates the way the program founder and coordinator,
Ana, tapped into her own community cultural wealth, exercising social, familial, and resistant
capitals in order to develop a vehicle that fostered others’ various forms of capital. Digital Home
began in opposition to existing inequity in the form of a technology gap for area Latinos. Ana, a
recently retired school principal in the Langley School District, had witnessed district schools
increasingly moving toward communicating with parents via e-mail about homework and grades,
and posting school activities on their respective websites. The middle school principal and longtime educator in the area recognized that there “were many parents who did not have access to
the internet and even if they had access to the internet, they didn’t know how to” use it. She
described a gap that would grow and grow “for Hispanic/Latino kids.” She noted the existing gap
for these students “and the computer was going to be, make a bigger gap and I didn’t want that.”
Ana decided to take action in order to counteract the existing disparity and to prevent its

72

widening for Latino students in the area. In response to this concern Ana decided to develop a
proposal for a bilingual community-based program teaching basic technology skills to Latino
Spanish-speaking parents in the greater Langley City area. By teaching family members these
technology skills, she believed, the program would help to resist the potential for an increased
gap and to reduce the existing one, as well as offer an opportunity to practice reading skills and
build community among adult family members who attended.
In order to bring her idea to fruition, Ana, an active member of the local community,
leveraged her own social networks. Ana’s long-standing ties to the local community center, her
part-time work at the public library, her association with a religious order in the region, and her
familiarity with writing grants and reading grant applications as a volunteer for a local nonprofit, all came together to help Digital Home offer its program of classes and to continue
beyond the program’s initial funding. Ana tapped into her relationships with people in the district
and close friends in the community to help read and refine the grant proposal and write
subsequent evaluation reports. She obtained funding to start the program by engaging her longtime affiliation with a religious order focused on promoting justice. By speaking with the
community center’s director, she secured a site for the program. Later, Ana applied for another
grant, locally, that funded a server for the entire community center, a resource that was sorely
needed. She also connected with a local technology non-profit to obtain an instructor for the
classes and collaborated with offices at the local university to help recruit volunteers to serve as
technology mentors for the program and for financial assistance in reserving on-campus space
for end-of-course celebrations.
Once the program to serve parents and guardians in the local community was established,
Ana used her personal connections across the district to spread the word and “tried to see if [the

73

district] would do a mass mailing to the Spanish-speaking parents in the district…to actually help
promote” Digital Home, but that never happened. The Langley School District has not promoted
the program formally since Digital Home’s inception in 2011. The district was willing to
promote the program if it were to be moved to a school site. Ana suspected that the district took
this position “because it would look good for them to have it in the school, I think.” She was
concerned that while the district had better computer labs and newer equipment, parents might be
“more hesitant to go into the schools, especially initially.” This thought of Ana’s reflected not
only her experiences as an educator and community member in the area, but existing research
that has found that non-U.S. born parents were less likely to find schools welcoming than U.S.born parents (Turney &Kao, 2009). By not moving the program and continuing it despite limited
material resources, Ana resisted the district’s seemingly traditional parent involvement
perspective that a program geared toward parents, had to take place in a school building. Ana
also saw advantages to keeping the program at the local community center where participants
could learn about other services that were available to them, such as the clinic and food pantry.
Mariana, a former program participant and current program volunteer, had also spoken about the
advantage of Digital Home taking place in the community center, citing the hours the center is
open compared to school hours. Ana further stressed that the approaches taken in Digital Home,
and not simply the curriculum content, were what was appealing to program participants and
supported them and their learning. Just as the creation of Digital Home was the result of the
program founder’s existing social, familial, and resistant capital at play, the program setting
fostered the community cultural wealth of the adult participants, the children in their families,
and the volunteers who shared the program space.

74

Fostering Community Cultural Wealth
The stories and experiences shared by adult participants, their children, and volunteers
with the program, illustrate how Digital Home became a space where participating families could
learn and grow together and where the different types of capital that Tara Yosso (2005) outlined
in the framework of community cultural wealth were acknowledged and developed. The program
“methodology,” as it was termed by Ana, built on the cultural characteristics of program
participants, heavily emphasizing community-building, thereby fostering familial capital. The
program supported families’ aspirations, their “dream of possibilities beyond their present
circumstances” (Yosso, 2005, p. 78) and promoted linguistic capital through honoring families’
native language and bilingualism. Digital Home also cultivated navigational capital that helped
to leverage existing and emerging social capital and led to greater ability to resist and “maintain
attitudes that challenge the status quo” (Yosso, 2005, p. 81). These various forms of capital
worked together, rather than discretely, as parents applied these different forms of capital in their
daily lives, including toward their interactions with their children’s schools. For children who
shared this community learning space or who heard about their family members’ experiences in
the program, families’ experiences in Digital Home offered opportunities to see family members
persist and succeed; for volunteers, the space led to connection with members from the local
community, to students’ ability to contribute to the community beyond their campus, and to
affirmation of their own Latino identities.
The “Methodology”
The Digital Home “methodology,” which Ana referred to as “how to present that
content… that’s the part that’s very different…it’s a whole different style that’s not your typical,
you know, lecture. The other has to be part of it.” The methodology included individualization

75

via, ideally, one-on-one technology mentoring on the part of volunteers, hands-on practice, and
the “very intentional…sharing” during convivio, which was an expectation in the program. Adult
participants were expected to bring something to share for an after-class meal, as a way to thank
the student volunteers. This was an element that Ana had seen “worked…in the community and
at church.” Even the base Spanish curriculum, used with permission from the library, had been
adapted to be more visual and language-appropriate for the Digital Home participants. Ana
“changed some of the explanations and terminology so that it’d be more understandable.” She
had found some of the translation too literal, so she modified it “so that it would be more
understandable culturally.” Ana recognized that providing technology content was no enough.
She and program instructors also had to be attentive to nuances in language and to its
accessibility for program participants. Additionally, the analogies used in order to teach
technology content aligned with the experience and existing knowledge of class participants. In
explaining units of computer storage, for example, Danira referenced measurement units in
sewing as a comparison. In every subsequent offering of the course, instructors continued to find
and use resources that were in Spanish and which presented content in an accessible manner for
course participants.
Reducing barriers. Digital Home’s coordinator and instructors sought to present content
and create a program space that was accessible to class participants. This included providing
instruction in Spanish, but also communicating in ways that were clear to participants, thereby
connecting to their linguistic capital. The program was also organized to function in ways that
recognized participants’ circumstances, engaging their familial capital, for example. Taking
participants’ life situations circumstances into account, then, reduced barriers to participating in
the technology classes. In order to fulfill Digital Home’s mission to “promote connections,

76

communication, and access” several aspects of the program reduced barriers to participation,
with respect to language, family structure, and potential participants’ immigration status. Digital
Home appears to be the only technology basic skills program in the general area to offer classes
in Spanish. Over the course of the program’s existence, a few participants from outside of
Langley City have traveled to attend the program’s courses because they could not find classes in
Spanish in their own area. Program participants expressed appreciation for being able to take
Digital Home’s classes offered in Spanish because this facilitated their learning, unlike when
people spoke English quicker than they could process the information in English. Danira also
commented on the benefit of Spanish-language instruction for class participants: “les da más
confianza de hacer preguntas…porque …saben el inglés, cómo expresarse, pero no cómo usarlo
para aprender más, entonces…en español se siente más cómodo de hacer la pregunta…uno busca
sinónimos para las palabras [tecnológicas].”/“it gives them more confidence to ask questions…
because…they know English, how to express themselves, but not how to use it to learn more,
so…in Spanish it feels more comfortable to ask the questions…one looks for the synonyms for
the [technological] words.” Danira recognized what several adult participants espoused during
classes and in interviews and what Aarón had said about his own parents’ English language
proficiency. Knowledge of English is not all-or-nothing. Language proficiency exists on a
continuum and non-native speakers need support to help them direct their language skills toward
learning and meaningful interactions.
Digital Home was described by almost all of the study participants as being like family
or, as Mariana described, like “una casa más”/“another home.” The program welcomed children
in addition to their parents or grandparents, and actually was designed with the intention to work
with families and not only with parents, a characteristic of effective community-based

77

organizations working with Latinos (Osterling & Garza, 2004). This aspect of the program took
participants’ familial capital into account, often working with people as part of a family unit
rather than as individuals. By providing space for children to do homework and also use
computers, the program addressed concerns about childcare, inviting participation (OrdoñezJasis & Jasis, 2004). Mariana and Liliana both noted the importance of being able to bring their
children to the classes. Mariana pointed out that this was unlike other programs where “no te
aceptan con niños”/“they don’t accept you with children.” Abel felt that without the ability to
bring their children, they would not have been able to participate. While Mariana did not agree,
she did say that it would have been more difficult to take classes without being able to come as a
family. While Digital Home maintained course enrollment and attendance records, the program
did not require any kind of residency or citizenship documentation for participants. Participants’
ability to take classes without the risk of revealing their immigration status reduced participation
barriers for those members with undocumented status and provided a safe place to interact with
others while developing skills and gaining information about local resources. Ana made this
decision to increase access to a wider population despite the fact that the program would be
ineligible to apply for grants that did require resident and citizenship documentation. This
decision may have served to bring parents “out of the shadows” (Yoshikawa, Kholoptseva, &
Suárez-Orozco, 2013).
Promoting familial capital through community-building. The confianza (trust)
stemming from “mutual affirmation and support” (Dyrness, 2007, p. 266) developed over time as
participants engaged in shared learning experiences, created a sense of community that resulted
in a feeling of extended family. The trust and reciprocity so visible in the Digital Home space
were not necessarily present for the Latino immigrant families in their respective schools. In this

78

space, class participants learned that they could turn to one another for help in the class, but in
general life matters as well. The tone set in the Digital Home classroom space, unlike some
classroom and school structures that reflect mainstream U.S. expectations (Hill, 2009) which are
more individual-centered, reflected the “communal and interdependent characteristics of Latino
cultures” (Conchas, 2001). Familial capital goes beyond the resources shared among people who
know each other and includes the kinship ties that are formed and deepened within members of
the community. This multi-generational setting, described by Ana as a place where “elders can
learn from youth and youth can learn from elders,” was repeatedly referred to in interviews, in
general discussion throughout the years, and at different clausuras, as being a “family.” Digital
Home saw interactions among children, parents, and other adult program participants and
program volunteers develop into cherished, supportive relationships. Several participants talked
about these interpersonal connections as being very much a part of Latino culture and identity.
For participants, Latino identity was described in terms of familial and linguistic capital. Latinos
were described as “muy de familia”/“very family-oriented,” and as a culture where “we need
community.” One person commented to me that in Latino culture, once a relationship is formed,
the link remains. This person also shared that as she formed relationships with parents, their
children became part of those links that formed as well. Study participants also referenced
language and communication styles as part of Latino culture, citing that Latinos share their time
“contando chistes, contando anécdotas”/“telling jokes, telling anecdotes” and sharing sadness as
well. In referencing convivio at the end of each class, Cynthia described that time of sharing as
“just like you would be at a Latino household.” She also equated speaking Spanish as a volunteer
with the program as a way to connect with her culture.
Class participants found motivation in being able to learn among people who became

79

friends and “family.” Mariana described how “no te cansas, no te sientes ni aburrido, no quieres
faltar”/“you don’t get tired, you don’t feel bored, you don’t want to be absent.” Abel added that
at Digital Home, teaching was in line with how class participants wanted to learn: “no es como
algo que te imponen. Es como tu quieras aprenderlo”/“it is not like something imposed upon
you. It is how you want to learn it.” Liliana spoke of the pleasant nature of people in the classes:
“Y siempre, la pasabamos muy bien porque,…eran señoras, no siempre señoras, unos con niños,
o otras señoras muy, muy agradables que hacían que la tarde se fuera rapidito.”/“And always, we
had a good time because…there were ladies, not always ladies, some with children, or other
ladies, very agreeable, who made the afternoon go fast.” Diana echoed Liliana’s sentiment.
Snapping her fingers as she talked about how time flew, she said, “porque todo era que se iba
así.”/“because everything went like that.” For Liliana, “Me sentía en confianza, en familia
porque…todos…ibamos…así al mismo nivel.”/“I felt confident, among family because…all of
us…were going…at the same level.” The time spent in Digital Home included some pushing on
the part of volunteers and many laughs as participants engaged in their new experiences with
computers. People joked around and helped each other in the classes. At one of the clausuras,
Digital Home’s end-of-course celebration, several of the program participants shared PowerPoint
presentations and listed each other as resources they could turn to in class and for non-class
needs as well. Not only did the community share their good times, but their problems also.
Participants talked about how they learned to have more patience and how to help one another.
Isabel described that in Digital Home, she saw people who “care about each other…People are
actually very self-aware of their surroundings, which made me think a little bit more…‘Maybe it
is okay…to do as much as you can for other people.’” For Isabel, as well as for others, the space
was not one solely where she learned technology skills, but where she gained a community of

80

care outside of the support she received from and offered her own family.
Aside from providing a comfortable and enjoyable space for adults and children to learn
and to be, forming supportive, lasting relationships was characteristic of Digital Home’s family
feel. Isabel described the lasting relationship participants could count on with Digital Home.
The thing about Digital Home, when you make a friendship, that is a relationship…that is
always open…you’re always able to go back and ask for that help. It’s never a closed
door…A lot of programs, they shut their door afterwards and they’re like, nope, we’re
done…you can’t talk to these people or something and it’s awkward. With Digital Home,
even if you’re gone for like three years and you come back…it’s truly amazing because
they open their doors and they’re like, ‘hey, how you been? We haven’t seen you in
forever. How [are] you doing?’ And it’s like you never left.
Diana’s involvement with Digital Home echoed Isabel’s description of the open door. She
participated in Digital Home in its first years and returned to take classes to brush up her skills a
couple of years later. Diana found a great deal of moral support at Digital Home, where she
could return to continue learning and to reconnect with caring, supportive people who “de las
cenizas me levantan”/”from the ashes they lift me” when she was having a difficult time. In
Digital Home Diana found connection and kindness within a community that was a source of
strength to persist. Having people to turn to as resources and for moral support helped people
activate their social networks, navigate systems and be able to resist and persevere in the face of
difficulties they encountered day to day.
The children and college students in the program also acknowledged the family feel they
experienced. Aarón described being around the adults in the program as “comfortable to sit next
to them because…you have that feeling, like of a family cuz, like, they’re all welcoming to
you…you have a sense of family in the class and like you’re able to share with them what you
think.” Aarón found Digital Home to be a place of warmth and one where he could express
himself among adults who valued his thoughts. Cynthia, a college student from another part of

81

the state who volunteered with the program, described how the program “fostered…a family
ideal” where participants who may or may not have known each other prior to the program “have
to engage with other students and reach out for help and you probably make relationships.”
Cynthia described how people would “joke around” and how they celebrated birthdays. For
Cynthia, the family aspect “was an impact for me, too. It was like a family away from home.”
Elisa also commented on the importance of these types of relationships for the college students
because, “when they come here to campus…they get homesick really quick. [College volunteers
in Digital Home]…didn’t feel as homesick because…they had each other…and…these
families…would open their doors to them. So they didn’t feel like they were so far from home.”
For volunteers like Cynthia, Digital Home provided a community away from home and people to
whom they could turn when they could not be with their families.
Social and familial capital fostering and supporting aspirations. The members of the
Digital Home community and the stories they imparted demonstrate the ways in which social and
familial capital combined to establish and expand the aspirations of those involved with the
program. Through enacting aspirational capital people maintain their hopes despite facing
obstacles, “often without the means to make such dream a reality” (Yosso, 2005, p. 77). Yosso
notes that “aspirations are developed within social and familial contexts, often through linguistic
storytelling and advice (consejos)” (Yosso, 2005, p. 77). Parents communicated to their children
that success came from doing well in school, but that their interpersonal skills were also
important to succeed in life. Abel, who worked in construction, used an analogy of architectural
plans (theory) and construction (application) to emphasize that academics was not the only thing
that moves one forward in life, saying that “teoría y práctica son cosas muy diferentes”/“theory
and practice are two very different things.” In Abel’s view, interactions with others and the

82

ability to apply what one learns in school are essential to succeeding throughout life.
Almost all of the parents supported their children’s education by going to meetings and
school conferences, and supporting children’s extracurricular activities. They also talked about
being aware of their kids’ assignments and whether they had done their homework. For Liliana,
who talked also about her children’s involvement in church activities, as for almost all of the
adult program participants interviewed, being involved had always been a priority, “siempre he
tenido muy claro que es muy importante estar involucrado y estar viendo cómo.”/“It has always
been very clear to me that it is important to be involved and to see how” to be involved. The way
adult participants spoke about their involvement supports findings on the varied ways that
Latinos view education – the personal development of their children is included in the concept of
educación (Valdés, 1996). Latinos view their involvement in their children’s education, in school
and beyond formal school settings, as an important part of the younger generation’s
development. The adult family members who took Digital Home classes shared both their
academic and personal hopes for the children in their families, in most cases also talking about
their children’s development as healthy and good people. All family members interviewed talked
about wanting the children in their families to pursue education beyond high school. The desires
that they expressed align with much of the literature that has documented families’ high
expectations for their children’s educational attainment (Fann, Jarsky McClafferty, &
McDonough, 2009; Pew Hispanic Center/Kaiser Family Foundation, 2004).
Digital Home’s multigenerational setting, where all could participate and contribute
regardless of age, fostered aspirational capital through offering adult participants the ability to
pursue their own interests in learning and, at the same time, sending a message to the children
that studying was important. Adults worked toward making their own educational and personal

83

aspirations a reality and set an example of continuing to learn beyond traditional school-age.
Diana and Isabel, a mother and daughter who took Digital Home courses at different times,
expressed their hopes for Sierra, Isabel’s daughter and Diana’s granddaughter. Isabel wanted
Sierra to be “better than me…I want her to have so much more opportunity.” She went on to say
that she herself had had opportunities, but that she wanted her daughter to “take advantage of the
opportunity while she’s young.” At the same time, Diana talked about wanting her
granddaughter to graduate and said that she talked to Sierra about being able to learn “aunque
esté uno viejito,”/“even though one is old.” Diana’s consejo to her granddaughter to study while
she is young, to be prepared and not to wait until later was intended to foster Sierra’s aspirations
(Huber, 2009) and promote academic success (Hill & Torres, 2010; Valencia, 2002). Diana’s
two-fold message of being prepared early and of still being able to learn when older stemmed
from her own life experience of putting on hold her own continued schooling to raise her
children and her return to school at a local community college as a result of the encouragement
and success she had experienced at Digital Home. Diana now found great satisfaction in
resuming the schooling she forewent when she was younger, due to various circumstances,
including the need to provide for her children. She said “siempre hay una oportunidad y un
lugarcito para…uno,”/“there is always an opportunity and a little place for oneself.” With her
experience in Digital Home, Diana found a place for herself and the actualization of her personal
aspirations, first in the technology class and then in community college and in her community atlarge. Furthermore, as program participants talked about the ways in which they wanted to apply
the technology skills they learned, for example to build businesses or to be able to create
personal documents such as recipe books, classmates and children were exposed to more ideas
about how new knowledge and skills could translate to their lives.

84

The children from program families also talked about goals they wished to pursue.
Ernesto, a high school sophomore and Liliana’s eldest son, had plans to be an engineer, while his
younger brother Danny, wanted to develop video games. Isabel’s daughter, Sierra, had
aspirations to be a veterinarian and Mariana and Abel’s daughter, Janette, wanted to be a video
editor. She said that while she already had some familiarity with “some things about the
computer,” being at Digital Home “showed me to, like, go deeper.” In this way, Janette’s
engagement over the years with the content taught in Digital Home supported her aspirations.
The content she learned in Digital Home increased her social capital in the form of information
gained, which then had an impact on her future plans. While he was not certain what area of
study he would pursue, Aarón talked about attending college, saying, “I’m the first child and my
parents didn’t go to college so I want to start the cycle, [of] going to college…so that we could
all get a better education and…do the same thing for like the next generation that comes.”
Aaron’s comment about starting a college cycle is indicative of the “culture of possibility”
(Yosso, 2005, p. 78) fostered within his family and further supported in Digital Home, where
Aarón’s contact with students pursuing higher education had come “mainly” through his
interactions with college volunteers in the program. Identifying himself as a future firstgeneration college student and the first in his family to attend, he saw his attending college as the
start of a new educational pattern for his family. He would be the first, but certainly not the last.
In this way, Aarón also expresses his education not in terms of himself as an individual, but as an
advancement for his family (Gonzales, 2012).
Ana’s idea to include college volunteers in the program was “a way to connect [families]
with the university…they could see that there were other Latinos…that the university was real
and it was a tangible option for their children...Many of them had not been to the university…or

85

knew university students.” As José described, he had seen children in the program “become
inquisitive,” asking students, “‘why are you going to school?’ Or ‘what are you studying for?’”
José believed that the volunteers who came from an academic setting became “role models…Not
only for the kids but also for the parents,” serving as a “link” that made them think, “‘hey,
there’s somebody who’s resembling me, who has the same ethnic background as me and my
child can also aspire to go to college.’” Meeting the college students created “a positive
association of, of understanding that college is available and that it’s attainable if you work
hard...” Interactions with college students gave both adult family members and children real-life
examples of Latinos who were at a stage that the families aspired to reach and made the goal of
attending higher education more attainable.
Linguistic capital and positive cultural identity. While instruction in Spanish had the
practical result of reducing barriers due to language, an obstacle documented by numerous
studies on parental involvement (e.g., Fann, Jarsky McClafferty, & McDonough, 2009; Ladky &
Peterson, 2008; Turney & Kao, 2009), honoring students’ home language also sent positive
messages about bilingualism and cultural identity that countered the societal messages
previously discussed in this chapter. Aarón talked about the importance of bilingual volunteers
who worked with the class participants, not only for their ability to communicate flexibly
between two languages, but for the way they could relate to the parents and others taking classes.
Referring to Danira, a Guatemalan immigrant herself, Aarón said that “having the bilingual
teacher…help[ed] them and she was able to connect with them, too. Like, ‘I had the same
problem, too, when I was, when I was like you.’” This observation on Aarón’s part points to
aspects found to be effective characteristics of community-based organizations, an awareness of

86

the community reality of members (Speer & Perkins, 2002), and volunteer representation
reflecting the identities of those served (Osterling & Garza, 2004) by the program.
For Cynthia, speaking Spanish at Digital Home “felt like I was going back to my
culture.” Her experience volunteering also “helped me realize what I really need to work on as
far as my Spanish…I can hold a conversation but…when you speak to a native speaker, it’s a
little bit more difficult.” She referred to the differences between the Spanish she spoke with her
parents and the type of Spanish she needed to interact with others. She also talked about how
further developing her Spanish language abilities also helped her professional development,
using formal Spanish to develop bilingual web pages. Ties between language and culture were
further evident on occasions when college students came to the program with their course
assignments for Spanish classes. For example, the community enjoyed sharing the different
words used across various Spanish-speaking countries. Elisa described how “everybody would
just start laughing” about the nuances of Spanish language across Latino cultures. Members
within this community also joked around and told stories that had been shared in their families
and that were part of their home cultures. After the distribution of certificates at one clausura,
time was spent telling chistes (jokes) and sharing cuentos (stories) as the group ate and enjoyed
each other’s company.
Ana believed it was important for children in the program to “hear the university students
speaking Spanish, which is what I wanted them to hear. Because it’s one thing to hear their
parents,” but she would point out to the children, “they’re learning Spanish…they want to keep
their Spanish…you know, they’re using Spanish in this way.” She would also point out that these
college students’ bilingualism would afford them opportunities like getting jobs due to their
language skills. As a result of seeing these bilingual college students, she thought, “the kids

87

started to feel like, ‘oh, okay. It’s okay for me to speak Spanish. It’s not just mom and dad that
speak it.’” Ana’s comment, much like José’s commentary regarding children and their use of
Spanish, alluded to the fact that the children lived in environments that did not value families’
native language. The opportunity for children to see college students whom they deemed
successful also embrace Spanish, a form of communication the younger students had only seen
used within their homes, could dismantle an implicit dichotomy of choosing their home culture
or success in school (Nieto, 1996). Octavio, who was a volunteer instructor for a couple of the
Digital Home generations (this term refers to each semester of courses), believed that children
“get a, a positive message, watching people who they respect, using Spanish for…important
information.” Children, then had chance to see speaking Spanish as an asset and a tool that they
could utilize to access additional resources. Aarón identified himself as a bilingual and was
proud to speak both English and Spanish
I feel like being bilingual is good…you’re able to teach people that, let’s say someone
that only speaks English try to speak to someone that only speaks Spanish, they would
never connect. So you need someone that speaks both languages to translate. So I feel
like I’m kind of like a connector to both worlds, kinda.
Through opportunities to practice Spanish and to interact with others who valued bilingualism
and connected it with their Latino identity, youth and college students received positive
messages related to language and culture. Through sharing about the differences within their
language, all involved grew in appreciation for the richness of Latino culture and language.
Developing navigational capital. Digital Home fostered program participants’
navigational capital, which “acknowledges individual agency within institutional constraints”
(Yosso, 2005, p. 80), and increased parents’ abilities to access resources within and beyond their
community to better understand how to direct their children’s schooling experiences. Among the
program’s goals, Ana said, was to help participants be able to “access…[and] understand the

88

system, because…there is a cultural…difference in many cases” between the way many of the
immigrant families were living the way things work in the U.S. Ana talked about cultural
differences between expectations in parents’ native countries and those in the United States:
“sometimes when the person goes and they’re told ‘no’…they just accept the ‘no’…I was like,
‘No, you pay taxes. Those services are there for you…you don’t have to be rude or
disrespectful…but you can demand that…they take care of you.’” The idea that parents’ taxes
pay teachers’ salaries or help to fund the schools their children attended was new to them.
Parents’ ability to navigate the institutions they encountered grew through discussions and
“lessons” targeted toward families’ knowledge base regarding the systems they encountered
daily, including the educational systems in which their children were enrolled. When parents
gained a greater understanding of how U.S. systems worked and what the expectations were for
them and their children, adult family members used their “handle over their technology,” as Elisa
referred to it, as well as the information that was shared, to help their children with schoolwork
and to help them prepare for their future.
A number of study participants, adult family members, children, and volunteers alike,
shared how parents’ knowledge of their children’s schooling context rose and how they could
help their children with schoolwork in ways they had not been able to before. Abel and Mariana
talked about having a greater understanding of why their children needed to use a computer.
Mariana and Sofía both talked about working side by side with their sons to use e-mail or to
work on assignments. Liliana and Danny both talked about an occasion when he had “this
PowerPoint thing and my mom helped me.” Liliana remarked that at the time he came with this
assignment, she knew how to use PowerPoint, but had he come two weeks prior to that, she
would have been asking what PowerPoint was. Liliana shared that what she learned at Digital

89

Home also made a big difference in terms of being informed about what was going on in school,
“si yo no hubiera agarrado las clases aquí, yo no sabría cómo usar…los correos electrónicos, y
entonces, no me enteraría de todas las cosas que pasan.”/“If I had not taken the classes here, I
wouldn’t know how to use e-mail, and then, I wouldn’t find out about all the things that happen.”
With their computer skills, Aarón explained, his parents became “like another resource I could
use” because “they’ll know where to go and where and what to look up to help me with anything
I need.” As Aarón and other study participants shared, parents were able to use their newly
learned technology skills to help guide their children as the students completed schoolwork.
Cynthia remarked that parents, many of whom had children in elementary school, “would
express to the entire class that…they felt great that they were able to help their children out
because they…know…where to go and where to find things and help their kids out with their
homework.” Manuel, another undergraduate volunteer, speculated that what parents learned in
classes probably “helped them…being more outgoing…especially being more involved with
their kids’ school work and being more…productive at school.” He added that “seeing…what
their kids are actually going through or what they need help with” increased their awareness
aware of “’my son or daughter is struggling with this’” and then could consider what they had
learned from Digital Home “‘that I can…apply to my son or daughter’s schoolwork.’” According
to Manuel, not only could parents help their children with assignments, but they gained a greater
understanding of what their children experienced in school, and where they might need help,
seeking to apply their skills and what was learned in conversation to their children’s formal
education.
Digital Home, also offered “little lessons,” such as information about what a GPA (grade
point average) is. The parents would bring their children’s report cards to class because Ana

90

wanted the parents to see how their children were improving and to ensure that parents
understood “the citizenship codes” and the grading system on the report cards because in “most
of the other places, like in Mexico,” grading systems were different. Here, parents learned, for
example, that an “‘A’… would be equivalent to a 10, basically. And that’s a good, good thing.”
In terms of knowledge of opportunities beyond high school, as volunteers would share what they
were studying when they were introduced to the group, parents also became aware of the varied
areas of study available in college and this was “a very [eye-]opening experience for” them.
Danira also referred to families having the opportunity to go “un poquito más allá de, de lo que
conoces”/“a little beyond what you are familiar with,” when they were introduced to “la
comunidad americana, porque es, es diferente a nuestras comunidades, realmente”/“the
American community, because it is different to our communities, really,” when class was held at
a public library branch and families were exposed to the library system and all of its resources.
When Ernesto was invited to join his school’s chapter of the Junior National Honor
Society, Liliana asked Ana if this was important, and Ana explained how Junior National Honor
Society leads to National Honor Society and how universities look upon honor society
membership. Ana shard an article she had seen about Harvard offering full scholarships to
students who were in the Honor Society. Subsequently, Ernesto joined and completed his service
hours at Digital Home as a junior technology mentor. Liliana also described how she and another
mother each received letters about a college scholarship opportunity for their children. When
Liliana showed Ana the letter, the coordinator explained to her, and she explained to me during
the interview, that if the family received one $500 award and then another, they could bring these
funds together to help defray the costs of her children’s education. This new knowledge helped
to make college aspirations more of a reality. Liliana further explained that she would always

91

take school papers to Ana and Elena, another volunteer, showing them and saying, “Entendí esto
así,”/“This is how I understood this.” Although she and others understood some of what school
notices explained, they wanted to be certain and Ana was always knowledgeable: “Siempre
veníamos aquí con cualqier papel, aunque entendíamos algo, para estar seguras—que Ana dijera,
porque ella siempre sabe.”/“We always came here with any paper, even though we understood
some of it, to be sure—that Ana would [confirm] it, because she always knows.” In this way,
parents directed the trust that they had established with Ana and others at Digital Home toward
learning to navigate their children’s schools and to become more aware of opportunities.
Family Empowerment
Participants in Digital Home experienced empowerment in different ways. For some,
participation in the program led to a transformation in how they understood themselves and
positive possibilities in their lives and, for others, it manifested in belief in their abilities to take
actions toward their goals (Sleeter, 1991). In founding Digital Home, Ana saw the program as a
potential vehicle for “people to get a kind of education that can motivate them and give them the
self-confidence to do other things.” As the stories of Digital Home participants demonstrate, the
increased self-confidence families experienced grew out of engaging multiple types of capital
that became “part of the knowledge base of resistant capital” (Yosso, 2005, p. 80) that
participants enacted to face their fears, to persist and succeed, and to advocate for their children.
José emphasized the sense of “empowerment” he witnessed develop over time. In explaining
how he defined “empowerment,” José said that it is “the ability of an individual to have agency
in their decision-making that will alter positively their immediate and long term livelihood.” In
Digital Home, families experienced empowerment through their newfound technology skills,
which connected them with information, with others, and with their children’s schools. The

92

message that they had rights to information and services empowered them to ask questions, and
their successes in the program encouraged them to reach beyond their individual knowledge and
their usual spaces. Members in the community also took on positions of leadership within the
spaces they frequented.
Persistence and Success
In Digital Home, some participants arrived never having turned on a computer and some
had fears about breaking something or that learning technology skills would be too difficult.
However, by the end of each course, participants left with new skills and ideas of how they
might use them. José shared that, as parents continued to learn in the class, he would hear them
say, “phrases like ‘I never thought that I was able to do this.’ ‘I never thought that I was gonna
be able to accomplish that.’ ‘I never knew this existed.’” Where there were “all these…doubts at
the beginning…Digital Home helps them with opening them up in regards to the, to the world, to
the technological world.” He described the parents as becoming “very inquisitive.” As José
noted, class participants surpassed what they initially believed they were capable of and
continued to seek to increase their knowledge and use of the technological resources now in the
palms of their hands. At one clausura, the mother of an elementary school son shared with
everyone her sense of happiness at being able to help her son with his schoolwork and expressed
that she felt more a part of the world. Ana also pointed to this example during her interview,
saying that this mother “felt like now, she was part of society…That really touched me hard
because that’s almost feeling like you’re a nobody and now she felt like a somebody.” Ana was
taken aback at how this parent’s participation in Digital Home resulted in her no longer feeling
completely disenfranchised. Danira noted a sense of self-satisfaction, this sense of “Oh, yo
también puedo”/“Oh, I can [do it], too,” as some of the adult students prepared to co-teach

93

lessons themselves. Program participants saw that they were able to start teaching their peers as
they had been taught by Digital Home instructors. Liliana summarized the impact of the courses
the parents took: “A lo mejor no es para muchas personas, es…cualquier cosa, pero para los que
no sabíamos nada,…es bastante, porque de no saber ni de prender la computadora a ahora, a
hacer cosas, y envestigar cosas que a veces necesitamos”/“Maybe it’s not for many people,
it’s…just anything, but for those of us who knew nothing…it’s a great deal, because from not
knowing not even how to turn on the computer, and now do things, and investigate things that
we sometimes need” was a major positive change. Liliana described how significant and
enduring the Digital Home experience was for her and her peers who went from having virtually
no experience with computers to becoming self-sufficient. Through persisting in the classes and
facing their fears, participants experienced a sense of empowerment through succeeding in
attaining content knowledge and skills some initially did not know they could learn. For some,
learning in the classes also helped them to feel less isolated and disconnected from society. With
these new skills, they now could look for information they needed, gaining a sense of
independence and ability to provide for their own needs.
Diana’s experience with Digital Home transformed her whole outlook “Y me ayudó
mucho y aprendí mucho, y también con los diplomas que me dieron…Fue como…una patadita
que yo siempre digo que me dio Hogar Digital.”/“And it helped a lot and I learned a lot, and also
with the diplomas they gave me…It was like…a little kick, I always say, that Digital Home gave
me.” The little kick to which she referred was the impulse to pursue English classes at a local
community college. Participating in Digital Home courses, where people talked to her and her
classmates “con amor, con cariño”/“with love, with care” resulted in her feeling that, “He
cambiado,…digamos que 95%. Es que di un giro, di un giro [emphasizes this last word]…Me

94

cambió la mente y cuando entré para el CC, más toda vía. La manera de, de ver las cosas…Uno
tiene derechos…como ser humano, como persona.”/“I changed…say 95%. It's just that I took a
turn, I took a turn [emphasizes this last word]…My mindset changed and when I entered CC,
still more. The way of, of seeing things…One has rights to…everything, as a human being, as a
person…” The sense of worth that was communicated to Diana gave her the strength to pursue
her aspirations and the relationships she had established at Digital Home continued to help her
persist when she experienced challenges at the community college and in her life in general.
Within the program space, children observed their parents succeed and reach an end goal
to its end. Danira believed that children witnessing their parents’ learning was an essential aspect
of the program and the children’s comments supported this belief as they discussed their parents’
recognition at Digital Home’s closing celebration. In talking about what it was like to be
involved in several Digital Home clausuras, Aarón said, “I think it was like, like a milestone for
them [his parents] because they actually got on and used the computer. And I think that’s what
other people felt, too…a feeling of accomplishment.” He further noted that he felt good about
seeing his parents graduating because, “I saw them learn and get through something without
quitting.” Sierra also received positive messages from seeing her mother and grandmother’s
recognition at the program’s closing ceremonies: “It felt good because it was part of my family.
It felt, it made me feel like my family were being really, they, it means they can succeed and it
makes me feel like, that, that since my family could succeed in anything, so could I.” For Sierra
and for others, seeing the adults in their lives recognized at the Digital Home graduation
ceremony inspired pride and belief in children’s own possibilities for success and for working
toward the completion of a goal.

95

Engaging in Advocacy for Their Children in Schools
Parent participants also gained a sense of empowerment through being able to advocate
for their children in their school settings. Program participants were encouraged to exercise their
voice by asserting their rights and acting toward getting desired outcomes. The examples
described in this section are focused on children’s schooling, though some parents shared other
examples as well. Elisa, like other volunteers, noticed parents’ participation “really helped them
see that they had a voice” and that the people on the receiving side of that communication,
educators, people in participants’ work places, and in doctors’ offices “were receiving their
messages and…thought they were important.” She described how parents started to pursue
opportunities at their children’s schools and to reach out to personnel at their children’s schools,
where they would not have before. She attributed this motivation to the “connections…[and]
networking” the parents were experiencing in the program, both in person and via technology.
Elisa described that parents were talking to teachers “and not being afraid” because with their
technology knowledge, they felt encouraged to talk to their children’s teachers to let them know
that communication was welcome: “they felt that they could come out…and…let [teachers]
know, ‘if something happens, let me know.’…They felt very comfortable.” This increased
comfort parents gained through their personal connections within the program and through the
technology skills learned led them to feel that they could engage more with those in their
children’s schools in order to learn more about and to pursue opportunities offered by the schools
which might benefit their children. As Elisa described it, the parents who might have felt timid
approaching their children’s schools would no longer “go hide in their little cave…they’re going
to be out and about and asking people ques7tions.” José felt that parents’ ability to “ask around
within the school” empowered them to be able to address concerns when they knew “that their

96

kid’s struggling in school.” José and other volunteers urged parents to inquire within the school
about “free services that might help [a struggling] child.” He noticed that parents could be “more
involved [in this way] because Digital Home gives them ideas, which perhaps they were not
aware of before.” The encouragement to engage with their children’s schools and to ask
questions, paired with an expansion in the ways parents could participate, led these adult
participants to feel more comfortable to communicate with their children’s teachers and to be
more directly involved with their children’s schooling.
On different occasions, Mariana recounted how she had made changes to her children’s
academic programs. She told me that she was prepared to hear “no” at first, but that she still
advocated for programmatic changes. She described the different people she had to go through
before being able to speak to a counselor to make changes. Her years of having children in the
local school system, as well as conversations and contacts she had made in Digital Home, taught
Mariana to better navigate her children’s schools, figuratively and literally. She noted that being
in Digital Home provided an opening to resources and ideas that aided her ability to navigate her
children’s school system.
Upon learning that Janette’s math class had a substitute teacher rather than someone
permanently assigned, Mariana had her daughter’s class changed. Previously, when Aarón had
been in middle school, she had his program completely changed as well. She explained that she
arranged for Aarón to be transferred from a Spanish class that was too low-level and would not
push him, to a French class. She also had him moved into advanced math, once she realized that
there were different sections of the same subject. She removed him from his assigned health
class, saying that the content in the class appeared to be the same as he had already been taught
in other programs the family had participated in in the community. Mariana also shared that she

97

wanted her son to take art so that he would have varied experiences and added that Aarón started
playing the saxophone in his school band. Mariana ensured that her children were in classes that
would challenge them and stressed to her children that learning was more important than earning
high marks in easier classes. The academic changes that Mariana advocated for sent her children
the message of learning and working in challenging environments over easy grades and also
improved her children’s trajectories toward college, as math courses, for example, have been
found to predict college enrollment and graduation (Crosnoe, 2009).
Isabel, who described Digital Home as a “life changer,” experienced, perhaps, the
greatest change in terms of being involved in her daughter’s schooling and educational
experiences. Isabel translated the messages she heard and the encouragement she received in
Digital Home to paying much more attention to notices sent home and to actively advocating for
her daughter’s safety at school. She found a great deal of backing from the people in the
program, especially from the trusting relationship she had formed with Ana, whom Isabel had
remembered as her middle school vice principal, but whom she did not know well until Digital
Home. In comparing her parental involvement approach prior to and after attending the Digital
Home course, she shared:
I feel a lot better knowing that because Digital Home and working with Ana, it made me
realize a lot, and if it wasn’t for her support, I would just let things slide like I did before.
I wouldn’t ask questions like I did before. Now I’m so focused in her education that they
expect me to ask questions and they’re like, ‘oh, no, here she comes again.’ Yeah, I am
coming over here. I’m gonna ask every question because it is important. It’s not
something that you should take lightly at all. It’s, it’s regarding that piece of your heart
that’s walking out the door every day.
Prior to attending Digital Home, Isabel would not ask questions, instead using her mother-in-law
as a surrogate. For Isabel, asking questions was inappropriate. She “was taught that in middle
school, don’t ask questions because then you’re stupid.” She had also learned that, “You don’t

98

ask the teacher questions. You just believe whatever the teacher tells you.” Isabel had received
messages as a student that discouraged her from asking questions, even as an adult. She has also
learned that asking a teacher questions was unacceptable.
Like many parents who are not comfortable in their children’s schools because of their
own schooling experiences (Auerbach, 2007), Isabel’s educational past made her hesitant and
averse to making contact with Sierra’s school. When she received e-mails from the school, she
did not feel she had time to read them: “I never checked them because I felt like it was a big
bother or that it wasn’t important.” However, as she spent time in Digital Home, “I became more
confident in saying [to teachers],‘Hi, how [are] you doing? How is this year going?’...cuz I was
very shy before…I wouldn’t talk to the teachers. I wouldn’t ask questions.” She described how
Now I do ask questions. Now I want—to know what’s going on this week in school. ‘Do
you have a schedule for her so that way, I know what you guys are doing every single
day?’ I like to know things. Very, very OCD about how everything goes, step by step by
step, and it’s very nice to know that I can kind of put the teachers on edge because I know
that I, I, do have that right to ask all these questions about my daughter and her education.
That it’s not shameful. It’s not disrespectful. It’s not something I can’t do. It’s not taboo
anymore.
Isabel went from feeling ashamed to ask questions to asking many questions in her daughter’s
school, “I’ll talk to the secretary…and the secretary has a very monotone look to her face, but I
can see when she becomes irritated…and it really stirred her a little bit that I started asking all
these questions. I saw like an expression of shock, like ‘oh, you talk.’” Isabel’s confidence came
from feeling, “like I had a voice.” She noticed that even the school secretary observed her
transformation from a silent parent to one who was vocal in the school. She expressed that she
witnessed this increase in confidence in her classmates as well.
When Sierra was being bullied in school, Isabel found encouragement to speak with her
daughter’s teacher. She recounted how she felt, “I don’t know if I can. [Ana] was like, ‘no, go

99

ahead and talk to the teacher’…that’s your daughter. If you feel like something’s not being done
for you, you need to go and…fix it. Get mad, Isabel.” While Isabel felt unsure about speaking to
her daughter’s teacher regarding Sierra being bullied, Ana reassured her that she could and
should take action to rectify the situation on her daughter’s behalf. The support she had from
others in the program, whom she felt accepted her just as she was, “felt very liberating.” In
describing how she is more actively involved in her daughter’s schooling and in getting Sierra
involved in extra-curricular activities; she spoke of her former sense of feeling “powerless”
compared to “now I’m more aware of my surroundings instead of being dead to the world and
just drudging along…kinda like a zombie.” Isabel recognized the difference in herself, between
feeling helpless prior to attending Digital Home classes, to feeling free to be herself and to be
more vocal and alert.
Digital Home participants received explicit communications that they had the right to be
served well by institutions and agencies they came in contact with, and that no question was
wrong. These direct messages along with implicit messages of acceptance, led parents in the
program to engage their navigational, social, and familial capital toward advocating for their
children’s academic trajectories and safety, and to resist possible dismissal of their concerns on
the part of school personnel. In these ways, parents became more directly engaged with their
children’s schools.
Remaining Barriers to Greater Inclusion within Schools
While the Digital Home space provided improved access to participants by centering
their native language and valuing bilingualism, and by empowering them in the various ways
described above, obstacles to greater inclusion remained, especially in the areas of language and
communication, a common barrier for immigrant parents (Ladky & Peterson, 2008; Turney &

100

Kao, 2009), and recognition of culture. While some schools had little to no native language
resources, even in Langley School District, where there was more language representation,
Mariana described how her children’s school did not easily accommodate Spanish-speaking
families whose children were not identified as English language learners. As described
previously Mariana also encountered reluctance on the part of her child’s Spanish teacher, a nonnative Spanish-speaker, to speak with her in Spanish. On the other hand, both Mariana and
Liliana talked about Spanish-speaking teachers in the Langley District being a helpful resource.
They both referred to Spanish-speaking teachers who offered them assistance even when the
educators were not their children’s teachers. Mariana, for example, received advice on which
summer programs might be best for her son to attend. The teachers who offered this advice
enacted their own linguistic capital as bilinguals to aid parents and to help them navigate the
system to increase opportunity and potential success. These teachers were also people in the
schools with whom the parents felt a connection due to the care and understanding the educators
demonstrated and their willingness to help the families navigate different issues.
As explained by Liliana, trying to understand everything shared at school, including
written notices sent home, solely in English was difficult and left her feeling uncomfortable and
not as eager to attend meetings at the schools. Still, Liliana took this situation as a given. She
expected not to have native language resources to which she could turn: “es que es Harley. De
hecho, cuando mi hijo iba a la escuela en Langley, allá había maestros que hablaban español y si
uno no sabía, ellas nos ayudaban, pero allá en Harley, no.”/“it’s that it’s Harley. In fact, when my
son went to school in Langley, there were teachers who spoke Spanish and if we didn’t know,
they helped us, but there in Harley, no.” In the Langley District, there were bilingual personnel

101

who could help parents understand what they did not know, but in the Harley District, Liliana
could not count on such assistance.
In Digital Home, where “identity was center to what was going on [and]…the language
was center to how things were being taught,” according to Elisa, learning was facilitated through
a recognition of families’ language and culture, through responsiveness to their needs and
concerns (Auerbach, 2007; Murphy, 2014; Osterling and Garza, 2004), and through discussions
intended to help parents navigate their school spaces. These types of communication were
facilitated by language, but also by the underlying respect for and understanding of the families.
However, while the program’s ability to engage families’ community cultural wealth made a
great difference in the lives of the Digital Home families in terms of an expanded knowledge
base and increased understanding of U.S. schooling, parents’ forms of capital still did not
penetrate school spaces in a way that “resistance takes on a transformative form” (Yosso, 2005,
p. 81). The experiences regarding the absence of human resources that could help parents
connect more readily with and within schools, both in terms of communication and navigation of
the school system, indicate that the schools themselves did not realize the “potential of
community cultural wealth to transform the process of schooling” (Yosso, 2005, p. 70).
Children’s indication that they wanted their schools to understand their families’ language
circumstances and their cultural background is further evidence that schools did not have a grasp
of either of these. The tensions revealed within interviews regarding perceptions of the local
school district and district’s lack of promotion of the program offer insight into why
transformation remained more with those in the space of Digital Home rather than more
generally in the schools. Additionally, because families were not concentrated within one school,
but had children enrolled in different schools and districts, collective action within schools was

102

also more difficult to realize. Still, by their own accounts, the experiences in Digital Home have
positively impacted the families involved and potentially others with whom they come in
contact. Furthermore, a person who was familiar with the program when she lived in the
Midwest is now looking to establish a program patterned after Digital Home in another city and
region of the United States.
Conclusion
Digital Home’s methodology, building on families’ cultural characteristics, engaging and
developing community cultural wealth, formed a basis on which parents were able to expand the
ways in which they were involved in their children’s schooling. Through developing trust and
strong relational ties, and by providing a space to gain a greater understanding of schooling in
the United States, parents experienced a sense of empowerment. As a result, parents directed
their energies to shaping their children’s academic trajectories and advocating for their children’s
safety. While the promotion of families’ community cultural wealth was not able to completely
counteract or remove the language and cultural barriers that families experienced in their
children’s schools, the program did make a positive difference by expanding the ways families
involved themselves in their children’s schooling and in terms of their increased confidence as a
result of being encouraged to exercise voice and having a greater understanding of systems in the
U.S. Furthermore, the stories and experiences shared by those involved with Digital Home can
serve as a model for other community-based programs and provide insights to school and district
leaders regarding effective approaches for engaging Latino families in schools. These
understandings serve as a basis for the recommendations offered in the next chapter, so that
educational leaders can enact culturally responsive leadership and promote culturally responsive
family engagement practices.

103

CHAPTER 5: IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The purpose of this qualitative study is to understand how family members’ participation
in a community-based technology skills program builds on and draws out various capitals
immigrant Latino families possessed and fosters their ability to navigate their children’s
schooling experiences in the U.S. How did Latino immigrant families’ participation in Digital
Home affect their various forms of capital as identified by Yosso’s (2005) community cultural
wealth framework? How did participating in this program impact families’ relationships with
their children’s schools and their children’s own success? This study has shown that by having
the opportunity to learn within a space that honored and built upon their cultural characteristics,
and where care and relationship-building were central, families gained a sense of empowerment.
Empowerment transformed how they understood themselves and positive possibilities in their
lives or increased their belief in their abilities to act (Sleeter, 1991), resulting in their ability to
expand the ways they engaged in their children’s education, including advocating for their
children by engaging directly with school officials. However, the various capitals parents
possessed still could not overcome all barriers. Families’ sense of inclusion in schools continued
to be limited by language barriers and by schools’ lack of recognition of families’ cultures. In
this chapter, I will offer a brief summary of the current study’s findings in relation to the above
research questions. Situating these findings in the larger narrative of family engagement,
community-based spaces, and culturally responsive leadership, I summarize what educational
leaders can learn about engaging Latino immigrant families by looking at the culturally
responsive approaches enacted by those in Digital Home. I present implications for theory and
practice, along with recommendations for practice, and implications for further research, which
stem from study findings and an understanding of the Digital Home context.

104

Summary of Study Findings
All of the parents interviewed were involved in their children’s education in ways aligned
with the literature on how Latino parents tend to perceive their involvement in their children’s
education. The parents viewed educación as a holistic endeavor, not only focused on academic
success, but also emphasizing children’s development as good people. Among the ways they
supported their children’s development included consistently communicating with their children
about their educational and parental expectations, and taking their children to activities at school
as well as in the community so their children could participate. For the most part, parents also
saw the activities that schools promoted as parental involvement–attending parent-teacher
conferences, and signing homework–as aspects of involvement that were reasonable and part of
their parental responsibilities. While the one grandmother Diana was less available to attend
school events when her children were growing up, both she and her daughter Isabel (now a
parent herself) talked about how she had encouraged and worked with her children to study when
they were growing up. In fact, the grandmother commented that she now sees her daughter doing
with her grandchild what she had done with her own children years ago, encouraging her
granddaughter to develop her academic potential.
Involvement in Digital Home fostered existing capital, such as aspirational capital, held
by those involved in the program, but also strengthened other forms of capital through the
development of trusting relationships, shared information, and communal learning. The program
acknowledged that participants brought their ways of knowing to the Digital Home space.
Experiential knowledge and community were valued in the program. While mainstream
perspectives often place value on individuality (Bernal, 2002), the trust and reciprocity fostered
in the space highlights and acknowledges relationship and interdependence. A graphic shared at

105

each first class and at each program closing illustrates the cycle of connections between the
various stakeholders envisioned by the program (Figure 2), though the arrows would more
accurately be multidirectional. These stakeholders include parents and guardians, students,
college-student volunteers, school staff, and community resources, who would come together to
learn with and from one another.

Figure 2: Digital Home’s graphic illustrating the envisioned stakeholders interacting in the
program.
Those involved with the program also noted that the Spanish language technology classes
offered an opportunity to have greater access to technological language because participants
could use their linguistic capital to learn. For others, Spanish provided a cultural connection and

106

opportunity to increase their skills as bilinguals, or to be in a space where there was pride in
being bilingual—resisting negative societal views on Spanish speaking. Participants’ familial
capital nurtured a “healthy connection to [the community] and its resources” (Yosso, 2005, p.
79) because people whom they trusted, classmates and volunteers alike, discussed and problemsolved together by sharing advice and experiences, and by applying newfound technology skills
to access information and connect or reconnect with others. Furthermore, being able to share this
learning space with their children reduced participation barriers connected to the need for
childcare and gave all a greater opportunity to learn from each other. This structural and
emotional support served as tools that increased the abilities with which participants could
navigate the institutions with which they engaged daily. For participants with school-aged
children in their families, this included navigating their local school systems. The successes
experienced by participants in the class, through gaining skills and overcoming fears, coupled
with their increased abilities to navigate, and the positive messages encouraging participants to
assert their rights, also increased their resistant capital. This resistant capital was activated via
participants’ engagement in spaces they previously had not frequented, such as an ESL class on a
local university campus, or might have felt they had less rights to, such as social services or even
responses from children’s schools. Ways that parents advocated for children directly with their
children’s schools included making changes to their academic programs and addressing bullying.
In terms of family-school relations, there was a sense from parents that they could and
should approach school officials with their concerns, a change for some parents from their
experiences prior to participating in Digital Home. Still, when parents had questions regarding
their understanding of notices sent home, for example, some parents interviewed did not look to
school representatives for clarification. Instead, they turned to those in the Digital Home

107

community, especially the program founder and coordinator, to confirm or correct their
understandings of school information. No parents mentioned parent-teacher organizations,
district parent centers or liaisons as a source of support, information, or connection. Parents did,
however, mention that when there were Spanish-speaking teachers in their children’s schools,
they sometimes went to these faculty members for clarification or advice regarding their
children’s involvement in different programs, whether they were their children’s teachers or not.
Children within Digital Home benefitted from the program in various ways, both related
to their out-of-school experiences and their formal schooling. Children commented on witnessing
their adult family members succeed by seeing the course to its end, overcoming fears, and being
recognized for their participation during the program’s clausuras. Children also noted their
family members becoming independent in their technology use. Their family members’
participation sent messages of persistence and accomplishment and even gave them a greater
sense of being able to succeed, personally, because their family members could. Children also
learned typing skills, how to use programs such as PowerPoint, and gained a deeper
understanding of technology skills and knowledge that they applied to their schoolwork, and that
also put them ahead of their peers. These children helped their peers using their advanced
knowledge and reported that their peers recognized them as knowledgeable in technology skills.
Children of Digital Home parents also benefitted from their parents’ greater understanding of
why they needed to use technology and identified their parents as additional resources because
they could use their technology skills to help their children with school-related tasks.
Digital Home was also a place for several of the children who were interviewed to
practice leadership skills. Some of the children who attended with their parents were looked to
by other children in the program as role models from whom they took behavior cues, such as

108

helping other adults in the program during the hands-on learning time. One child was also able to
complete his Junior National Honor Society service requirement at Digital Home by serving as a
volunteer technology mentor. Furthermore, children were able to develop positive identities as
bilinguals, with one child noting the significance of the setting being a bilingual space so that
everyone could learn and then relating bilingualism to himself and his ability to be a “connector”
to Spanish- and English-speaking “worlds.”
Implications for Theory
Community cultural wealth is a theory that opposes dominant interpretations of cultural
capital (Yosso, 2005). As such, it serves as a tool to reframe the deficit discourses often
associated with traditionally marginalized communities, which portray them as not having “the
social and cultural capital required for social mobility” (p. 70). Instead, community cultural
wealth highlights the various assets people of color possess and which they apply daily in
confronting systemic obstacles, including deficit thinking, which Yosso (2005) calls “one of the
most prevalent forms of contemporary racism in US schools” (p. 75). Applying the community
cultural wealth framework in this study helps us to view parental involvement beyond the
traditional paradigm, acknowledging the assets and holistic view that immigrant Latino parents
bring to their engagement with their children’s education, which includes formal schooling and
school spaces, but also focuses on children’s development as people, overall. Employing this
framework places participants’ experiences within the context of the challenges they faced in
environments that did not appear to value their cultures or rendered them invisible. As Ana’s
reason for beginning Digital Home illustrates, the coordinator saw an issue with existing
circumstances that created a gap for Latino students. This gap did not stem from the Latino
parents and students in the district, but from limitations in access to and information about

109

systems. As this study reveals, tensions arose at times due to cultural differences between U.S.
systems and those in families’ native countries, and due to the perceived priorities or omissions
on the part of local school districts in relation to inclusion of Latinos and aspects of Latino
culture.
This study offers additional evidence to support the idea that learning in culturally
validating spaces can be transformational when the strengths and abilities people hold are viewed
as a starting point, rather than framed from a deficit perspective. Digital Home stressed an
approach that met people where they were (Auerbach, 2009) in terms of their technology skillsbased knowledge, comfort level, and identities, but also recognized and adapted program content
to how participants wanted to apply their new knowledge and toward participants’ personal
goals. The program addressed the daily concerns of family and other participants, including
issues of housing, immigration, and job skills, through group discussions that took place over the
duration of the courses. Although direct references to power and discrimination were not central
in class discussions, the messages transmitted in the program regarding participants’ rights
stemmed from a perspective of social justice and the assumption that members had the agency to
address and solve their problems, thereby encouraging participants to take action and not accept
obstacles as insurmountable absolutes.
Further, by focusing on the lived experiences and knowledge of the program’s adult and
child participants as well as those of the volunteers involved in the program, this study illustrates
the ways that educational transformation can take place in small, practical ways that are very
powerful. In my time spent within the program, and through informal conversations and formal
interviews with participants, I had the opportunity to witness community cultural wealth in
practice in their lives. The multiple generations present in Digital Home formed familial bonds

110

with one another, becoming resources for each other, as several expressed, solving problems
together and maintaining ties outside of the Digital Home space. These kinship relations further
served as a source of strength for participants to venture beyond their zones of comfort and
advocating for themselves and for others. In relation to children’s schooling, parents spoke of the
ways their experiences in the program provided support for navigating existing structures, such
as bureaucracies that discouraged ongoing and meaningful parental communication in schools.
The program also countered societal messages that downplayed the value of families’ native
language or tended to exclude diverse cultures within the curriculum and school environment.
Linguistic capital in the form of bilingualism was explicitly positioned as a valued as a tool for
learning, an opportunity-opener, and an aspect cultural identity. This study further exemplifies
the complexities of language, in terms of diversity across Spanish-speaking countries, but also in
the way language functions as a tool for learning and how language proficiency should be
understood.
This study provides a tangible, in-depth example of Yosso’s (2005) community cultural
wealth theory from which educational leaders can learn how to engage diverse families in
culturally responsive ways. This study’s findings demonstrate how a community space builds
relationships, and centers culture and families’ aspirations in ways that local districts have not,
resulting in a lesser sense of inclusion, if not exclusion, for diverse families. Digital Home can
serve as a model for how leaders can recognize and build on the assets and varied forms of
capital of traditionally marginalized groups, Latino immigrant families in this case, in order to
enact in culturally responsive family engagement and leadership. This will be addressed in
greater depth within the section regarding implications for practice. Further research related to
the community cultural wealth framework should examine how technology learning, specifically,

111

serves as a medium for drawing out families’ various forms of capital. Additionally, research can
assess the potential ripple effect as a result of participants’ initial involvement in communitybased programs such as Digital Home, as they utilize their skills and the confidence gained to
engage in a wider range of arenas and share their new understandings with others in the
community.
Implications for Practice
Family Engagement through Cultural Validation
As documented in chapter 4, a major aspect of Digital Home’s welcoming nature was its
inclusiveness and effort to meet participants where they were (Auerbach, 2009). Classes were
paced for groups’ overall beginner skill-levels with the idea of moving everyone forward. Aarón,
a child who spent several years in Digital Home, contrasted schools and Digital Home. In
schools, he said, “they have set goals for people…they’ll…move on without them,” but in
Digital Home, if someone needed more time, “they would wait for that person, too, and then they
all move on as one, one group and they’ll learn. And if one person didn’t know, another student
can help them learn.” Learning was not for individual success, but was a communal achievement
(Gonzales, 2012). Adult participants were recognized as a part of families and their families were
welcome in the space, whether weekly or on occasion. This culturally validating space was
responsive to participants’ dispositions to view trusting relationships as foundational to their
comfort and ability to learn. The interactions in Digital Home encouraged knowledge creation
that was multi-generational and multi-directional, and that established a sense of extended
family, with everyone having the potential to be a teacher as well as a learner.
The collectivistic perspective reflected in the community established over the weeks
courses were taught built on the importance of interconnectedness and relationship representative

112

of the Latinos in this setting. Those in the setting worked with one another, supported each other
(Lawson, & Alameda-Lawson, 2012), and celebrated happy moments and milestones, laughing
together (Gonzales, 2012) and also sharing moments of sadness with one another. These
interactions beyond content learning were typical of this community. Just as the program
emphasized a “methodology” that welcomed and encouraged families by centering their cultural
characteristics and their lived realities (Speer & Perkins, 2002) in the program, leading to a sense
of welcome and messages of encouragement, schools can learn from the example of Digital
Home about the ways to reduce the more rigid and formal nature parents may find in schools
(López, Scribner, & Mahitivanichcha, 2001), which do not foster a sense of welcome or
connectedness.
Technology skill-building and community-building served as foundations to address a
variety of concerns in the lives of participants in a way that reflected how the group wanted to
learn and in ways that validated their cultural norms. As Elisa mentioned in her interview, “a lot
of the programming and the curriculum did not address immediately the needs of school,” but
there was an overarching goal that with the technology skills learned, participants would be able
to use their skills to communicate with others outside of their home. Participants used their new
skills in various ways, including to earn promotions at work and to reconnect with, in some
cases, long-lost family.
The approaches that validate the cultural characteristics of the families attending the
program result in culturally responsive family engagement. Culturally responsive family
engagement strives to connect with families as a unit and from a perspective of understanding
their characteristics, strengths, and needs. The success that Digital Home has had in working
with the families who attend the program’s classes serves as a reminder to schools that being part

113

of the community is an effective way to reach families, especially those who traditionally have
not been as included.
Recommendation: Incorporate cultural values and norms in family engagement
efforts. It is important that district and school leaders provide opportunities for parents to engage
in ways that align to their cultural values and norms, just as Digital Home’s coordinator did.
School systems must act in ways that relay a message that families’ cultures are valued and allow
for relationships to develop. This requires an ongoing commitment by leaders to help develop
these relationships. Rather than address parents separate from their children, family engagement
should include opportunities for family learning based on family interests and needs. There is
also potential for leveraging the presence of elders in the community who can share their
knowledge and wisdom within school spaces. Educators and educational leaders should be aware
that engagement need not be rigid and need not look like a formal workshop or meeting in a
school building, but can take place in community spaces frequented by the families they serve.
Learning from this Community–Based Space
Digital Home exemplifies several aspects found to be characteristic of community-based
organizations that promote participation among groups. Among the elements that enabled the
program space to be supportive of participants, children, and volunteers were an understanding
of community context, community needs and strengths, and self-direction. The program also
incorporated qualities of community-based initiatives found to be effective in working with
Latino families, including cultural representation of the program participants within the body of
volunteers, addressing multiple issues instead of focusing on one goal, flexibility, addressing
families as a unit, and cultivating parental leadership. These features came together to make
Digital Home a program that was responsive to the needs and desires of those in the program and

114

that viewed participants as being capable of addressing and solving their own problems.
Digital Home did not intend only to teach technology skills, but to also utilize this area of
need and interest to help members of the community access information about and address
additional issues they faced. While the formal content of Digital Home’s curriculum centered on
technology, the program space allowed for discussing issues and considering possible actions to
take regarding concerns about immigration, housing, parenting skills, formal education, and
involvement in community activities in general. By acknowledging the multiple issues
(Ishimaru, 2014; Osterling & Garza, 2004) that arose, the program sent participants a message
that their concerns were heard and that their voices mattered (Maton & Salem, 1995; Speer &
Perkins, 2002). The program coordinator recognized the social inequities experienced by
participants (Auerbach, 2007; Lopez, Scribner, & Mahitivanichcha, 2001; Ordoñez-Jasis, &
Jasis, 2004), and this influenced decision-making in establishing the program. Aware that there
might be people with undocumented immigration status interested in the classes, there was no
requirement to show identification or to provide a social security number. This decision limited
funding sources that could subsequently be pursued, but as a major goal of the program was to
increase access and to encourage the perception of the program as a safe and trusted space
(Yoshikawa, Kholoptseva, & Suárez-Orozco, 2013), this was an accepted trade-off. Furthermore,
as noted in chapter 4, when participants were informed of the ways systems in the U.S. work,
such as social services or school funding, they were also encouraged to assert themselves and
ensure that they were receiving adequate service or availing themselves of resources they might
need. Several of those interviewed talked about the program urging participants to assert their
rights as tax-payers and, as Diana said, “como persona”/“as a person.”

115

The majority of Digital Home volunteers over the years were students from Latino
backgrounds and from different parts of the United States, or from outside of the U.S. Most were
proficient in both English and Spanish. In some cases, volunteers were students studying Spanish
and hoping to practice their language skills. When students were not as comfortable speaking
Spanish they engaged in volunteering tasks they felt more able to do, like helping children with
homework. Although many of the program volunteers were not from the local area, program
participants shared a common interest and cultural values, including the importance of a sense of
family. Volunteers spoke about how being with Digital Home families and other local
community members reminded them of being with family elders or siblings in their own
families. Together all of those at Digital Home explored the nuances of Spanish as a common
language. Other volunteers were longer-term members of the community and had a deep
understanding about the history and context of Latinos in the area. In this way, the volunteer
body at Digital Home reflected an important characteristic of community-based organizations
regarding contextual understanding (Murphy, 2014) and, more specifically for those that worked
effectively with Latinos, regarding the importance of participants’ language and culture (De
Gaetano, 2007; Osterling & Garza, 2004) being represented in order to encourage families’
involvement.
While Digital Home had a curriculum of specific content units, flexibility was also part of
the curricular structure. Throughout the weeks of Digital Home’s courses, class content was
modified in response to participants’ comments, conversations among the group, and direct
participant requests. Unit pre-tests informed program instructors to adapt lessons according to
participants’ initial knowledge base and skills. Participant needs and feedback were essential to
planning and no single course offering was exactly the same as a subsequent offering of the

116

course. For example, the basic technology course might teach the same skills, but different
support materials or assignments might be used to support skill practice.
Parent leadership within the Digital Home community could be observed in a variety of
ways. Adult participants applied their organizational skills as they coordinated the weekly
convivio, ensuring that anything needed for the meal and fellowship time was supplied. The
program coordinator and instructor also encouraged participants to take on teaching roles as they
became more knowledgeable and confident in their abilities, an aspect illustrative of a
commitment to members’ personal growth and leadership development (Maton & Salem, 1995).
Several of Digital Home’s alumni began to prepare to co-teach content and a few returned to the
program to serve as volunteers, bringing their children or grandchildren to help as well. This
form of leadership enacted on the part of former participants was indicative of leadership as a
commitment rather than resulting from holding a formal title (Maton & Salem, 1995). The
program coordinator also solicited input from participants when developing fliers to recruit
future class members. Digital Home’s adult participants also made announcements in church
prior to the start of a new course period. People’s affiliations with churches in the area were one
source of recruiting program participants, as word of mouth from Digital Home alumni promoted
the program as a positive and important learning opportunity.
Furthermore, there was fluidity in terms of roles within Digital Home. During different
offerings of courses, when content unfamiliar to those who had been technology mentors was
taught, they sat in on classes as students. The coordinator was perceived to be a knowledgeable
resource who “siempre sabe”/“always knows.” While she was well-informed and prepared, she
did not hesitate to ask questions when she was unsure about a piece of content or about speaking
Spanish, and she enthusiastically sat down to be a student along with others when topics she was

117

unfamiliar with were taught. This orientation within the Digital Home community was not lost
on participants. At one clausura, as participants shared about their experiences in Digital Home,
one person who had just completed the course said that in Digital Home “ninguno es mejor que
otro.”/“no one is better than anyone else.” Everyone was valued and all were treated with
respect.
Recommendation: Establishing formal partnerships. Research conducted by Warren,
Hong, Rubin, and Uy (2009) has documented that while some community-based organizations
successfully engage urban families, at times, schools in the very same urban area remain
disconnected from the families they serve. Digital Home has proven to be a welcoming place
where participants find a safe space to engage in a learning community and has served as a
springboard for participants to engage in the broader community. The program has also equipped
parents with navigational knowledge that has aided them in better understanding U.S. school
expectations and structures, enabling them to make better-informed decisions about and
advocating for their children in school. Community-based programs that work with Latino
families may be positioned as resources from which schools can learn how best to improve
rapport with (Ramirez, 2003) and engage the growing numbers of Latino children and families in
the U.S. in respectful ways and then incorporate these responses institutionally.
Community-based initiatives can serve in a bridging capacity between families and
school systems. Given that research has found that parents, especially those from traditionally
marginalized groups, are less likely to feel welcome and comfortable going into their children’s
schools (Auerbach, 2007; Turney & Kao, 2009), community-based programs can serve as a
bridging space. For example, a beginner technology class might be offered in a general
community space, with an advanced course being offered in a school building where hesitant

118

parents might go once they feel more comfortable and where there may be greater capacity to
offer higher level technology skills topics. Family members could initially take the course in the
community space and then be informed that subsequent courses will be offered within a school
site. Still, as Digital Home’s coordinator noted, the program is not just about the curriculum or
about the equipment available. This comment on Ana’s part reflected the feeling articulated by a
composite parent character in one of Yosso’s (2006) counter-stories. The parent expresses that
focusing on material conditions for students is insufficient if “We have new textbooks and new
buildings, but no corazón [heart] inside those buildings that listens to and appreciates our kids”
(Yosso, 2006, p. 38). In the same way that material resources would not necessarily improve the
educational experiences of children in schools, any program that would be offered directly by the
district should consider aspects that make Digital Home effective in engaging those who come
into the space. Care, addressing issues that are not directly academic (Auerbach, 2009;
DeMatthews, Edwards, & Rincones, 2016) but that are center in people’s lives, viewing families
as a unit rather than engaging with parents as individuals, and developing of parental (or family)
leadership (Osterling & Garza, 2004) are all essential. In order to understand what happens in
community-based spaces, district and school leaders should make efforts to experience the
spaces firsthand to get a clear picture of methods in place. This study can serve as a resource to
help educational leaders gain an understanding of how families have benefitted from their
involvement in Digital Home, in relation to their lives in general and in terms of children’s
schooling, and to learn about how families perceive their relationships with their children’s
schools.
Formal partnerships between school systems and grassroots community-based initiatives
can benefit both the schools and the community-based efforts. Digital Home maintains a positive

119

reputation within the community and has earned the trust of families and community members
who have benefitted from its classes. By associating with a trusted community-based initiative,
schools may increase their ability to reach out to Latino immigrant parents. Through
acknowledging and listening to the expertise present in the community, a school system
partnering with a community-based initiative such as Digital Home can send the message that it
is aware of valued community spaces and relationships and appreciates these also. By taking on
this orientation intentionally, with time perhaps schools where relationships were previously
strained or were not established may be improved (González et al., 2005; Khalifa, 2012). In turn,
school systems’ material resources can help build the capacity of community-based initiatives.
For example, districts have the capacity and material resources to send program fliers to all
Spanish-speaking homes in the district, where a volunteer-run program likely would not.
Culturally Responsive Leadership
While much recent research highlights the importance of educational leaders’ ability to
lead in diverse contexts and to be able to adjust their leadership practice to be responsive to the
populations in their schools, studies have also found that school leaders feel unprepared to
resolve diversity-related tensions or lacked material and district-level supports that would help
them address these issues (Young, Madsen, & Young, 2010). Findings such as these suggest that
preparation programs are not adequately preparing their students for these circumstances
(Auerbach, 2009) and that improved preparation programs and in-service professional
development that reflect culturally responsive leadership are greatly needed.
The term culturally responsive leadership implies a sense of action and urgency (Khalifa,
Gooden, & Davis, (2016) on the part of educational leaders who “create school contexts and
curriculum that responds effectively to the educational, social, political, and cultural needs of

120

students” (p. 1278). In their synthesis of the literature regarding culturally responsive leadership,
Khalifa, Gooden, and Davis (2016) identify four aspects of culturally responsive leadership:
critical self-awareness, ensuring culturally teacher preparation and responsive curricula,
promotion of culturally responsive and inclusive school environments, and engaging students
and families in community contexts. Educational leaders participate in ongoing critical reflection
and are willing to “engage in new ways of knowing and doing” (Lopez, 2015, p. 173). Culturally
responsive leaders seek to “build capacity on issues of equity, diversity, and social justice”
(Lopez, 2015, p. 173). This leadership orientation requires intentionally engaging in practices
that challenge existing circumstances that are not conducive to the success of all children and
ensure inclusion of diverse students and families (Johnson, 2017). Furthermore, culturally
responsive approaches are not actions that are engaged in sporadically, but are embedded into the
institutional culture of a school (Auerbach, 2009; DeMatthews, Edwards, & Rincones, 2016;
Smith, 2005). Rather than be a separate strand, diversity-related efforts should be an integrated
part of the organization’s overall mission (Young, Madsen, & Young, 2010). Culturally
responsive leaders understand that they must recognize the “community, institutional, and
societal forces that impinge on urban students, their families, and the school itself, forces that
include poverty, racism, and inequities” (Crow & Scribner, 2014, p. 299) as a part of their ability
to lead effectively. The Digital Home coordinator was a culturally responsive leader who applied
her understanding of local context and history, founded on her experience as a long-time
educator and community member, to help establish an environment that was culturally
responsive for all involved in the program. This approach was “embedded within a
given…community, and society at a given place in time” (DeMatthews, Edwards, & Rincones,
2016). By embedding this knowledge in the program design, she helped set a tone that affirmed

121

participants’ identity while also establishing a space to address challenges faced by members of
the community.
Educational leaders who have been successful in engaging in culturally responsive
practices in schools address more than academic issues, viewing “community needs as a ‘bridge’
to meeting school goals” (Auerbach, 2009, p. 16). Family engagement tends to be perceived as
part of a “broader moral commitment to social justice and educational equity for disenfranchised
Latino families” (Auerbach, 2009, p. 9). Digital Home utilized the teaching of technology skills
to not only helped parents connect to their children’s schools, but as a vehicle for parents and
other participants to access information that could be used in various aspects of their lives. While
studies highlight the importance of educational leaders’ efforts to reach out to communities and
to marginalized families, (Auerbach, 2009; DeMatthews, Edwards, & Rincones, 2016;
Theoharis, 2010), studies also indicate that, on the whole, educational leaders may not know
where to start or how to do so effectively.
Recommendation: Engaging in critical reflection to support action. As culturally
responsive leadership begins with examining personal values and beliefs (Lopez, 2015)
regarding education, students and their families, being critically conscious is a first step toward
taking action toward equity. Educational leaders, therefore, need to be aware of their own biases
and consider whether or not their behaviors foster inclusion for all. In addition to engaging in
critical reflection by looking within themselves, they must also examine the current systems and
circumstances present within their schools.
Educational leaders need to think about whether or not their actions model ways for
teachers to establish welcoming environments in their school buildings (DeMatthews, Edwards,
& Rincones, 2016; Madhlangobe & Gordon, 2012; Smith, 2005; Theoharis, 2010) and assess

122

how their school settings are, or are not, positive spaces for the families of their students.
Considering how the school perceives family engagement and how these perceptions shape
relationships with families can help those in schools consider whether the values they espouse in
terms of student and family support align with their actions (Nuri-Robins, Lindsey, Terrell, &
Lindsey, 2007). As leaders recruit new faculty and staff, they can make conscious efforts to
ensure that those hired believe in the ability of all students to succeed and do not have deficit
thinking about diverse students and families. Digital Home made efforts to recruit volunteers
who were committed to working respectfully with Latino immigrant families and who had an
understanding of or were open to learn about, participants’ cultures. Hiring personnel who
exhibit knowledge of the populations present in the school, and the local context and history of
the school, is another way to act upon the realization that intentional hiring is a key piece to
establishing responsive, inclusive school environments.
Professional development examining equity and justice issues (Theoharis, 2010) can help
faculty and staff reflect on and be able to talk about issues of inequity, where they might be
tempted to engage in “racial erasure” (McKenzie & Scheurich, 2004, p. 613), a practice used to
avoid addressing racism and its effects within schools. Such professional development may also
promote educators’ ability to think and “talk about differences [in a way] that recognizes and
respects individuals and their cultures” (Nuri-Robins, Lindsey, Terrell, & Lindsey, 2007, p. 16).
Furthermore, professional development can include ways that teachers may use home-school
experiences in their teaching practice (Grant & Wong, 2004; Ladky & Peterson, 2008;
Madhlangobe & Gordon, 2012) and tap into the knowledges and literacies that students engage
with at home (González et al., 2005) and within other spaces in their communities. Faculty and
staff would benefit from professional development that helps them understand the linguistic and

123

cultural backgrounds of their students and families in order to foster better relationships and
disrupt deficit narratives built on assumptions about families’ abilities or interest in supporting
children’s education. Professional development can include learning about languages, about
educational expectations in other countries, and the effect of racism in the lives of families and
students (Grant & Wong, 2004).
Within educational leadership programs, racial autobiography (Gooden & O’Doherty,
2015) has been used as a tool of reflection with pre-service and in-service educational leaders.
The assignment, a “brief autoethnography” (Gooden & O’Doherty, 2015, p. 18), intends to have
students look deeply at the roots of their current beliefs about race and to consider the contexts
that have shaped their own racial identities. In their use of racial autobiography in their own
leadership preparation classes, Gooden and O’Doherty (2015) found that students engaged in
self-reflection and expressed an increased commitment to act and become anti-racism advocates.
This assignment served as a foundation to “support critical examination of individual, cultural,
and institutional racism and dismantle the structures that perpetuate the current opportunity gap
that students of color experience in our schools” (Gooden & O’Doherty, 2015, p. 18), and by
extension, their families. Further, when leaders evaluate their personal culture as well as that of
their schools, they can understand personal and institutional barriers to equity in their schools
(Nuri-Robins, Lindsey, Terrell, & Lindsey, 2007).
Skrla, Scheurich, Garcia, & Nolly (2004) recommend conducting equity audits to
systematically examine and make plans to disrupt inequities in schools by assessing teacher
quality, program equity, and achievement equity. Family engagement should be included in the
programming strand of equity audits in order to systematically look at how schools are reaching
out to families and how families perceive their relationships with schools and school personnel.

124

Through this vehicle, schools can look at data regarding whether families of all groups of
students, including ethnically, racially, and linguistically diverse students and students of varied
ability, are equally feeling included and respected by school officials. “Inclusion,” in this case,
refers to more than parents coming into the school building, but also refers to whether they feel
valued, and whether their needs and strengths are recognized and acted upon.
Recommendation: Increasing contact with families and communities. As mentioned
previously, partnering with community-based organizations and initiatives can be mutually
beneficial to both the community-based space and the school system. Community-based
organizations are a source of information and can serve as models by which educational leaders
can connect with the communities in which they serve. Additionally, schools can improve their
understanding of families, especially those from traditionally marginalized groups, and the
community contexts in which they live by inviting community members into their schools and by
going into communities themselves.
In order for schools to be able to respond to familial concerns, they need to know more
about the families they serve. In Digital Home, the time that those in the space had to talk with
one another facilitated community members learning about one another and their interests.
Additionally, since the courses took place over a span of weeks, participants and volunteers had
consistent contact over several months. Research has found that on-going (Ladky & Peterson,
2008; López, Scribner, & Mahitivanichcha, 2001), informal contact between teachers and
immigrant families improves relationships between school and home (Ladky & Peterson, 2008).
Incorporating oral histories (McKenzie & Scheurich, 2004), sharing families’ stories (Grant &
Wong, 2004) and taking interest in children’s life events all connect children’s school lives to
their lives outside of the school building (Ladky & Peterson, 2008). Parents can be invited to

125

serve on panels (Grant & Wong, 2004) in the school or community spaces in order to share their
experiences with teachers. One suggestion Aarón had for schools was to invite parents into the
school to share with students what they do for a living. He recognized that parents had valuable
information to share and schools would benefit from recognizing them as a resource as well.
Developing community mentoring relationships, including recruiting non-native English
speaking mentors (Grant & Wong, 2004), would offer students and parents the chance to “see
‘themselves’” (Grant & Wong, 2004, p. 22) and tap into additional role models from within their
communities, much like the Digital Home technology volunteers did, in terms of supporting
aspirations and modeling possibilities. This effort would also recognize the resources already
present in the community, as in Ernesto’s case where his interest in becoming an engineer
stemmed from meeting an engineer within his community.
Aside from inviting communities into schools, it is also important that educators
themselves spend time within communities. Ana was not only visible within Digital Home, but
was active in the church that several participants attended and also participated in other local
community organizations and events. She often shared information in Digital Home regarding
happenings in the community and at the local university, and program participants and
volunteers were encouraged to do so as well. For schools, neighborhood walks (Jones & Fuller,
2003; McKenzie & Scheurich, 2004) and home visits (González et al., 2005; McKenzie &
Scheurich, 2004) serve as ways for educational leaders and teachers to get to know families and
communities better. McCray and Beachum (2014) emphasize the importance of leaders making
an effort to engage possible community networks, including faith-based institutions. Being
visible within communities is an intentional decision that can extend an educational leader’s role
from school building leader to leader within the community as well, fostering trust (Khalifa,

126

2012) and family and community involvement. Educational leadership programs can also ensure
that their programs incorporate community engagement within their course of study.
Johnson (2017), for example, recommends that leadership preparation programs include
apprenticeships in the community and field-based experiences requiring students “to engage with
diverse families and communities in civic forums” (p. 196), including having the opportunity to
“work under the leadership of parents and neighborhood leaders in community-based projects”
(p. 196). In a sense, these approaches to educational leadership blur the line between school and
community as completely discrete entities by establishing a supportive culture that recognizes
students and families holistically.
Implications for Further Research
This study has illustrated the ways in which Digital Home, a community-based program,
has been developed and implemented, centering the language and cultural characteristics of the
adult participants and their families in order to promote and further develop the community
cultural wealth of those involved with the program. The study has also raised additional
questions and opened the door for future research that is beyond the scope of the current study.
Taking a more in-depth look at the program founder and coordinator’s various identities
as a Latina, a former migrant worker, an educator, an organizer, a community member, and a
Catholic would offer insight into the influences that played a role in her decisions as a leader in
schools as well as in her local community. While a body of literature regarding Latino leaders is
beginning to be developed (e.g., Cortez-Covarrubias, 2015) and published, specifically looking
at Latino leaders’ personal backgrounds and experiences as leaders, this is still an emerging area
(Hernandez & Murakami, 2016). Further, looking at this aspect of leadership and Latino identity
will contribute to the field’s understanding of leaders from diverse backgrounds, and how they

127

lead in order to promote social justice, which is also important in light of the growing ethnic
diversity in K-12 schools and the need to ensure leadership toward the success of all students,
regardless of background.
While the focus of this study was not college persistence or mentorship, this study’s
findings indicate that college students’ participation in Digital Home provided additional social
supports to them in terms of feeling connected to their home cultures and to a community beyond
their school campus. Further research on how this volunteer opportunity played a role in
students’ college years, and possibly beyond, could offer insights into how community
engagement influences students’ perception of themselves culturally, of their ability to complete
their college degrees, and of their sense of leadership through contributing to communities.
Additionally, looking further at the aspects of university-community partnerships that facilitated
students’ volunteerism, and those that were not flexible enough to be sustained, could lead to
recommendations informing university outreach with diverse communities and programs that
function outside of the norm of existing university-community partnerships.
Following Digital Home children and families in subsequent time periods would
contribute to understanding the potential long-term effects of community-based programs that
work closely with families. Extending this study longitudinally to see how families do or do not
trace back certain Digital Home experiences to other aspects of their lives will offer insights into
what elements of programming and approaches appear to be most effective for program
participants.
Finally, as the findings of the current study are disseminated within the community and
local school systems, documenting how this study is received will facilitate an understanding of

128

the continued tensions, negotiations, and collaborative successes experienced in promoting
community engagement within formal educational settings.
Final Commentary
The program’s continuation requires participants to attend classes and volunteers to assist
class participants and children who attend, as well as other resources. The program coordinator
believed that if the program could “get them in,” participants would benefit from taking Digital
Home classes and see how valuable the program is. However, reach more members of the
community is an energy-intensive process, especially in a context that works on the basis of
relationships and personal connection. One former Digital Home student echoed the belief of
how beneficial the classes are, stating that some of the reasons she has heard for people not
attending are actually excuses because those who have not taken the classes don’t know just how
useful it is to learn how to use a computer.
As mentioned in the limitations section of chapter three, this study does not engage the
voices of families in the community who have not enrolled in Digital Home’s classes, or those
who have not completed the course. Within my discussions with Digital Home volunteers, there
was a mention that some students from the community who enroll in class work seasonally, so
they might begin a course, but not complete it. Other members of the community go to their
home countries for several months in the year and this time falls within the course duration.
Among other reasons study participants believed people did not attend classes included work
schedules, church commitments, transportation limitations, not being aware of when each set of
classes started, and children’s school events. The initial change in cost from free to $5 per class
session after the program no longer had grant funding was also identified by as a possible factor
by some, though another study participant did not think cost was a deterrent. Classes are no

129

longer advertised as carrying a fee, but fliers note that donations are accepted. While those who
took the class surpassed fears of being incapable of learning, some in the community who had
not attended still expressed concerns that they could not learn or felt the content was too
difficult. For others, the content was too basic. Not having a computer or internet access at home
was also a reason for not taking classes. One study participant also mentioned that people in the
community with undocumented immigration status might still be hesitant to participate in a
public space for fear of encountering immigration officials, especially during times of heightened
public rhetoric regarding “illegal” immigration. Regarding this last concern, the program has
been careful about how and where it advertises the classes, as maintaining a sense of safety and
access for those who want to participate is of the utmost importance.
There are also a couple of observations I can offer that address those who do not
continue. There was the case of one person, Rita, who had started the course previously, but did
not finish it. Rita returned in the spring of 2017 and completed the course. She also mentioned, in
her class introduction, that she quit her second job precisely to be able to complete the course
this time. Another participant who is the mother of two school-aged children, Rosario began the
course, bringing her daughter with her. She attended several sessions, but did not complete the
course. However, she was invited to and encouraged to attend the end-of-course clausura to
receive a certificate of participation. As we spoke at the clausura, she mentioned that she feels
even more motivated now to complete what she started. These two instances, where participants
who did not complete courses initially, received the message that they could return is reflective
of the “open door” described by Isabel.
While questions about sustaining the program were not asked directly in interviews,
many of the adult participants and the volunteers voiced concerns about the program being able

130

to continue. They were aware that after the initial grant period, class sizes had gotten smaller and
they knew that the program was run completely voluntarily. Some expressed that they hoped that
this study could open the doors for there to be more awareness about the program as well as for
obtaining funding or other support, such as promotion by the district or the community center
institutionalizing Digital Home as a program of its own, to help ensure the program’s
continuation and its expansion. Financially, it would be ideal if there were a grant large enough
through which a person could be hired as a dedicated program director. Obtaining financial
resources would also help with maintaining the computer lab.
For recruitment of volunteers not familiar with the community program, part of
recruitment would mean helping people really to get a strong sense of the program. At the
program’s latest graduation event, which occurred after this study’s data collection, one guest
who had been hearing from her friend who volunteered at Digital Home throughout the year,
remarked that after seeing and hearing program participants and their families speak during the
clausura, she now really understood the program and what she had been hearing about all school
year. Resources toward updating the web site and developing short videos (for example, with
student testimonies) would help with a variety of aspects needed by the program: encouraging
students to register, recruiting volunteers, and having materials that can be shared with potential
funders. Despite the challenges faced by the program, as was discussed at a planning meeting in
spring of 2017, as long as there are people who want to come and learn, the program will be run.
Digital Home was conceived in response to existing and potentially increasing gaps in
technology skills and access for Latino families in an urban mid-sized Midwestern city. Digital
Home’s founder and coordinator developed the program using her experiences as a long-time
educator and community member as a foundation for the program. Her experiences as a middle-

131

school teacher who worked with students from diverse backgrounds and varying levels of
English proficiency in one classroom, and not knowing “all the languages…German and Polish
and Arabic” motivated her to “learn different strategies and different ways to get information
across to people.” Teaching “struggling learners [that] oftentimes…other teachers didn’t want in
their classroom” led to the realization that she needed to maintain student interest by looking
beyond the textbook and thinking about her own learning style, which she thought was similar to
that of her students. As a result, she made efforts to “involve them in their own learning.” She
then “carried [these approaches] over to my work with the adults” in Digital Home. In the
community, she had observed potlucks and informal meeting time during events help to build
community among event goers and this was then incorporated into Digital Home. The
coordinator had shared with me that she did not have a formal theoretical base for her decisions
as she planned Digital Home, but her own lived experiences in schools and within the
community guided her decision-making and her ideas about what would work. She thought that
this study, connecting the program to formal research and theoretical foundations, might help to
legitimize the program in the eyes of the local district. She was optimistic that the study’s
findings and analysis of other program data would encourage the formal school system to help
institutionalize the program in ways it had not since Digital Home’s inception. This study does
not capture the reasons why the district has not recognized Digital Home as a formal community
partner without the program moving to a school building in the district. However, I have
wondered if traditional ideas of what valid knowledge is and who holds it are at play in the
district’s decision. It is hoped that this study’s findings will serve as a basis for renewed
communication efforts between the program and the local district. Time will tell if having the
program connected to a formal scholarly study will help to motivate greater collaboration. Still,

132

while Digital Home has not been able to spread more widely across the district to more families,
its impact on the lives of those who have been a part of the program should not be
underestimated. As they themselves have expressed, the program has been a “life changer,” a
mindset transformer, a vision opener, and a place where they experienced success. The
participants have taken these successes with them into different aspects of their lives, going
beyond the familiar.

133

APPENDICES

134

APPENDIX A
IRB Approval Letter

135

APPENDIX B
Recruitment Flier

APRENDIENDO DE LAS FAMILIAS DE TECH
Mi nombre es Elizabeth Gil. Soy estudiante trabajando en mi
doctorado en la Escuela de Educación en Michigan State University.
Soy hija de padres inmigrantes colombianos y me crié en la ciudad
de Nueva York. Tengo un hermano y una hermana. Como maestra
en escuelas del Bronx y de Harlem, tuve el placer de trabajar con
grupos de estudiantes y familias diversas en escuelas (primarias)
elementales. Me gusta trabajar con y aprender de las familias Latinas
en los Estados Unidos. Tengo interés en aprender más sobre cómo
las escuelas pueden mejorar la forma de servir estudiantes Latinos. Ese aprendizaje para mi
viene de hablar con los padres Latinos. Por eso me gustaría hablar con ustedes quienes han
participado en los cursos de TECH, sea reciente o en los años pasados. Si participaron en
algún curso de TECH en la Casa y tienen hijos, nietos, o sobrinos que son estudiantes en la
escuela del grado kínder a doce (K-12) por favor de contactarme. Gracias.
LEARNING FROM TECH FAMILIES
My name is Elizabeth Gil. I am a student at Michigan State University, working on my doctorate at the
College of Education. I am the daughter of immigrant Colombian parents. I was raised in New York City
and have a brother and a sister. As a teacher in schools in the Bronx and Harlem in Manhattan, I had the
pleasure of working with diverse groups of students and families in elementary schools. I have an interest in
learning more about Latino immigrant families in the US and how schools can improve how they serve
Latino students. I would like to talk with current and past years’ TECH en la Casa participants who have
children, grandchildren, nieces or nephews currently in school in grades K-12.

Para contactar a Elizabeth/To contact Elizabeth: gileliza@msu.edu
Me llamo Andrea M. Rodríguez. Soy fundadora y directora de TECH en la Casa. Estamos en el quinto año
de dar cursos de computación básica en español para adultos, especialmente padres/madres de familias.
Solo hemos podido ofrecer los cursos de TECH con el apoyo y colaboración de mucha gente y
organizaciones como Cristo Rey Community Center, Our Lady of Victory Missionary Sisters, Capital Area
District Libraries y los voluntarios de Michigan State University y Lansing Community College. Me da
mucho gusto que Elizabeth Gil esté haciendo este trabajo de investigación. Es importante saber qué tipos de
programas son de beneficio para las familias Latinas. Y es muy importante que las familias Latinas puedan
compartir sus opiniones sin prejuicio y para que tengan voz en como mejorar la educación para los niños
Latinos en los Estados Unidos.

http://techenlacasaspanish.weebly.com
Andrea M. Rodríguez
Directora de/Director TECH en la Casa
Imagen de http://faithpub.com/your-stories-andrea-rodriguez-1115

136

APPENDIX C
Research Participation Information and Consent Form
You are being asked to participate in a research study about your experience participating in
Digital Home activities. This study will primarily focus on your experiences as part of the
organization.
I am asking your consent to 1) speak with you informally about your participation in Digital
Home classes, 2) allow the researcher to observe and participate in classes, and 3) interview you
individually about your experiences participating in Digital Home classes one to two times. Each
interview will last up to one hour and will be audio recorded. Some portions of class will be
audio recorded throughout the research period. However, your name will not be mentioned in
any of the audio recordings or transcriptions.
Participation in the study is completely voluntary. You have the right to say “no” at any time.
You may change your mind at any time, refuse to answer certain questions, or discontinue
participation at any time. Your decision to participate in the study does not affect your
participation in Digital Home or any related activities. All results of this research will be treated
with strict confidentiality. Your name or other identifying features will not be used in any
analysis or in any reporting of this research. The results of this study may be published or
presented at professional meetings, but the identities of all research participants will remain
anonymous. Only the primary investigators (Dr. Terah Venzant Chambers and Elizabeth Gil)
will have access to the data. Your confidentiality will be protected to the maximum extent
allowable by law.
Participating in the study poses minimal to no risk to you. The only activity you will be asked to
do is to respond to interview questions. You and other participants may benefit as the results of
this research study are used to learn more about how to improve the experiences of Latino
community members.
If you have concerns or questions about this study, such as scientific issues, how to do any part of
it, or to report an injury, please contact the project investigators: Terah Venzant Dr. Chambers,
email: terah@msu.edu, telephone: (832) 421-3456, or Elizabeth Gil gileliza@msu.edu, phone:
917-674-7668, mail: 620 Farm Lane, Erickson Hall, Michigan State University, Michigan, East
Lansing, MI 48824.
If you have any questions about your role and rights as a research participant, or would like to
register a complaint about this study, you may contact, anonymously if you wish, the Michigan
State University’s Human Research Protection Program at (517) 355-2180, FAX (517) 4324503, or e-mail irb@msu.edu, or regular mail at: 408 West Circle Drive Room 207, MSU, East
Lansing, MI 48824.
My name is: _______________________________________________________
Please check the following statement as applicable:
____I voluntarily agree to be interviewed and give assent for the interviews to be audio taped.
Participant Signature ____________________________________ Date _________________
Participant Name (printed)________________________________ Date _________________

137

Formulario de información y consentimiento para participación en estudio de investigación
Estimado participante de TECH en la casa:
Mi nombre es Elizabeth Gil y soy estudiante doctoral en Michigan State University. Estoy
trabajando en un proyecto, en un estudio de investigación acerca de su experiencia participando
en actividades TECH en la casa. Este estudio se centrará principalmente en sus experiencias
como parte del programa.
Le pido amablemente su consentimiento para 1) hablar de manera informal acerca de su
participación en clases de TECH en la casa, 2) permitir que la investigadora observe y participe
en las clases, y 3) entrevistarlo/a una a dos veces individualmente sobre sus experiencias en las
clases de TECH. Cada entrevista durará aproximadamente una hora y será audio grabada.
Algunas partes de la clase pueden ser audio grabadas durante del período de investigación. Sin
embargo, su nombre no se mencionará en ninguna de las grabaciones de audio o transcripciones.
La participación en el estudio es completamente voluntaria. Usted puede cambiar de opinión en
cualquier momento, negarse a responder a ciertas preguntas, o dejar de participar en cualquier
momento. Su decisión de participar en el estudio no afecta su participación en TECH en la casa
o cualquier otra actividad relacionada. Todos los resultados de esta investigación serán tratados
con estricta confidencialidad. Su nombre u otros elementos de identificación no serán utilizados
en ningún análisis o reporte de esta investigación. Los resultados de este estudio pueden ser
publicados o presentados en conferencias profesionales, pero las identidades de todos los
participantes en la investigación se mantendrán anónimas. Sólo las investigadoras (Dra. Terah
Venzant Chambers y Elizabeth Gil) tendrán acceso a los datos. Su confidencialidad será
protegida en la medida máxima permitida por la ley.
La participación en el estudio plantea un mínimo o ningún riesgo para usted. Ud. y otros
participantes pueden beneficiarse ya que los resultados de este estudio de investigación se
utilizarán para obtener más información sobre cómo mejorar las experiencias de los miembros de
la comunidad Latina en Lansing.
Si tiene dudas o preguntas acerca de este estudio, por favor comuníquese con las investigadoras
del proyecto: Dra. Terah Venzant Chambers, correo electrónico: terah@msu.edu, teléfono: (832)
421-3456, o Elizabeth Gil gileliza@msu.edu, teléfono: 917-674-7668, correo postal: 620 Farm
Lane, Erickson Hall, Michigan State University, Michigan, East Lansing, MI 48824.
Si usted tiene alguna pregunta acerca de su papel y sus derechos como participante en la
investigación, o si desea presentar una queja sobre este estudio, puede ponerse en contacto, de
forma anónima si así lo desea, con el Programa de Protección de Investigación Humana de
Michigan State University al (517) 355-2180 , FAX (517) 432-4503, o irb@msu.edu e-mail o
correo postal: 408 West Circle Drive Room 207, MSU, East Lansing, MI 48824.
Cordialmente,

Elizabeth Gil
Estudiante doctoral
Michigan State University
138

Su firma y fecha indican que usted conoce el contenido de esta carta y que ha decidido participar
en el proyecto descrito en la carta. También indica que ha recibido una copia de esta carta.
____ Yo acuerdo voluntariamente para ser entrevistado/a y doy consentimiento para que las
entrevistas sean grabadas en audio.
Firma del participante ____________________________________
Nombre del participante (impreso) __________________________ Fecha _________________

139

APPENDIX D
Research Participation Information and Assent Form
You are being asked to participate in a research study about your experience participating in
Digital Home activities. This study will primarily focus on your experiences as part of the
organization.
I am asking your assent to 1) speak with you informally about your participation in Digital Home
classes, 2) allow the researcher to observe and participate in classes, and 3) interview you
individually about your experiences with Digital Home classes. Each interview will last up to
one hour and will be audio recorded. Some portions of class will be audio recorded throughout
the research period. However, your name will not be mentioned in any of the audio recordings or
transcriptions.
Participation in the study is completely voluntary. You have the right to say “no” at any time.
You may change your mind at any time, refuse to answer certain questions, or discontinue
participation at any time. Your decision to participate in the study does not affect your
participation in Digital Home or any related activities. All results of this research will be treated
with strict confidentiality. Your name or other identifying features will not be used in any
analysis or in any reporting of this research. The results of this study may be published or
presented at professional meetings, but the identities of all research participants will remain
anonymous. Only the primary investigators (Dr. Terah Venzant Chambers and Elizabeth Gil)
will have access to the data. Your confidentiality will be protected to the maximum extent
allowable by law.
Participating in the study poses minimal to no risk to you. The only activity you will be asked to
do is to respond to interview questions. You and other participants may benefit as the results of
this research study are used to learn more about how to improve the experiences of Latino
community members.
If you have concerns or questions about this study, such as scientific issues, how to do any part of
it, or to report an injury, please contact the project investigators: Terah Venzant Dr. Chambers,
email: terah@msu.edu, telephone: (832) 421-3456, or Elizabeth Gil gileliza@msu.edu, phone:
917-674-7668, mail: 620 Farm Lane, Erickson Hall, Michigan State University, Michigan, East
Lansing, MI 48824.
If you have any questions about your role and rights as a research participant, or would like to
register a complaint about this study, you may contact, anonymously if you wish, the Michigan
State University’s Human Research Protection Program at (517) 355-2180, FAX (517) 4324503, or e-mail irb@msu.edu, or regular mail at: 408 West Circle Drive Room 207, MSU, East
Lansing, MI 48824.
My name is: _______________________________________________________
Please check the following statement as applicable:
____I voluntarily agree to be interviewed and give assent for the interviews to be audio taped.
Participant Signature ____________________________________ Date _________________

140

Participant Name (printed)________________________________ Date _________________

141

Formulario de asentimiento (para estudiantes de edad minima de 7 años)
Mi nombre es Elizabeth Gil y soy estudiante doctoral en Michigan State University. Estoy
trabajando en un proyecto sobre las experiencias de personas participando en actividades de
TECH en la casa. Me gustaría invitarte a ser parte de este proyecto que nos ayudará mejor
entender cómo apoyar a las familias Latinas con estudiantes en las escuelas locales. El estudio ya
ha sido explicado a tu padre, madre, o tutor(a), y tienes permiso para participar si así lo deseas.
Tu participación en el proyecto es voluntaria y en cualquier momento puedes decir que no deseas
seguir participando. Parte del estudio incluye una o dos entrevistas contigo durante la cual me
puedes hacer preguntas a mi or puedes saltarte preguntas si así lo deseas. La entrevista será
grabada en audio.
Si deseas participar, usaré un nombre falso en lugar de tu nombre verdadero en mis reportes por
escrito de manera que nadie sepa que tú estás incluido/a en el reporte.
Tu decisión de participar en el estudio no afecta participación en TECH o cualquier otra
actividad relacionada.
Si tienes preguntas sobre este studio, me gustaría saber cuáles son y que podamos hablar.
Por favor escribe tu nombre y firma si deseas participar en el estudio.

Nombre de estudiante

Firma de estudiante

Fecha

Nombre de padre o tutor

Firma de padre o tutor

Fecha

Elizabeth Gil
Estudiante doctoral
Michigan State University

Fecha

142

APPENDIX E
Interview Protocols
Interview Protocol for Adult Family Members
Hello. Thank you for taking time to meet with me today. I appreciate your helping me learn
about your experiences here in the U.S., as well as your experiences in Digital Home. As a
reminder, anything you say here will be confidential and none of what you share will be
connected with your name.
1. How and when did you hear about Digital Home? Tell me a little about how you came to take
classes with Digital Home and your experiences with Digital Home. (past participants: When did
you participate?)
Prompts:
What made you enroll in classes?
What have you learned in Digital Home, including content and interpersonal skills?
Do you participate in other programs provided in the community? Did you learn about the
program(s) through Digital Home?
2. What is valued in Digital Home?
3. What has been useful to you in the process of taking classes with Digital Home? How have
you used what you have learned?
Prompts:
How has your participation benefitted you and or a family?
Do other members of your family use the services?
4. How would you describe relationships with classmates? [familial capital]
Prompts:
How do the relationships with others in Digital Home help you to connect to your
community?
5. Where do you go when you need help with something, for example, with completing
paperwork? (social capital)
6. Tell me about a time that you have had to navigate a system in the U.S. [navigational capital]
Prompts:
What resources did you use to navigate?
What challenges did you encounter?
7. Can you describe your relationship with the school(s) the child(ren) in your family attend?
How does the school reach out to parents?

143

8. Has anything in Digital Home had a connection for you in terms of how you might interact
with your child(ren)’s/grandchild(ran’s)/niece’s/nephew’s school(s)? In your own schooling or
approaches to learning?
Prompts:
Have you developed skills that have helped you use school resources or to interact with the
school?
Does Digital Home inform you about resources related to other educational opportunities?
Do you have conversations with others in Digital Home about schools or education?
9. Is there anyone else that you recommend I speak with?
Thank you again for your time. Your talking to me is very important in helping me to
understand your experiences in Digital Home. I hope that I can meet with you again at a
future date.

144

Protocolo para entrevistar a los miembros adultos de la familia
Gracias por tomarse el tiempo para hablar conmigo hoy. Agradezco su ayuda
para aprender acerca de sus experiencias aquí en los EE.UU., así como sus
experiencias en Hogar Digital. A modo de recordatorio, todo lo que diga aquí será
confidencial y nada de lo que comparta estará conectado con su nombre. Puede
saltar cualquier pregunta que no quiera contestar.
1. ¿Cómo se enteró de Hogar Digital? ¿Cuándo se enteró del programa? (participantes
de pasadas generaciones: ¿Cuándo participó?)
2. ¿Qué le hizo inscribirse en las clases?
3. ¿Cómo se siente estar en Hogar Digital? ¿Cómo se siente cuando está en el hogar
digital?
4. ¿Cómo se siente acerca de las clases que se ofrecen en español?
5. a) ¿Qué ha aprendido/aprendió en las clases que ha sido útil para usted? ¿Cómo ha
usado lo que ha aprendido?
Preguntas generadoras:
¿Cómo su participación ha sido de beneficio para usted y su familia?
¿Los otros miembros de su familia utilizan los servicios?
b) ¿Qué ha aprendido/aprendió en las clases que eso no ha sido tan útil? ¿Qué ha
aprendido pero no ha usado?
6. ¿Cómo describiría las relaciones entre los compañeros de clase? ¿Y con los
voluntarios? [capital familiar]
Preguntas generadoras:
¿Ve a sus compañeros fuera del Hogar Digital?
¿Ha desarrollado nuevas relaciones como resultado de Hogar Digital?
7. ¿Usted participa en otros programas en la comunidad? ¿Cómo se enteró sobre
este/estos programa(s)?
8. ¿Dónde va cuando necesita ayuda con algo, por ejemplo, con la realización de
trámites? [capital social]

145

adultos de la familia, p. 2/3

9. a) ¿Cómo es la forma de hacer las cosas aquí, diferente de la forma en que se llevan
a cabo en su país de origen? [Capital de navegación]
b) Cuénteme acerca de los recursos que ha utilizado para ajustarse a esas diferencias.
Preguntas generadoras:
¿Qué desafíos ha encontrado debido a estas diferencias?
10. ¿Cuáles son sus esperanzas para el/los niño(s) en su familia? (Por lo general,
educativamente) [capital de aspiración]
11. ¿Cómo está involucrado en la educación de sus hijo(s)/parientes quienes están en
la escuela?
12. ¿Ha cambiado con el tiempo su idea de lo que significa estar involucrado? Si es
así, ¿qué ha hecho que cambien sus ideas? (Si la familia tiene más de un hijo,
pregunte si hay diferencias en la experiencia entre los niños mayores y los más jóvenes
y por qué esto puede ser.)
13. a. ¿Cómo se siente cuando se va a la escuela de su hijo? - ¿Cómo se siente
cuándo recibe una carta o una llamada de la escuela o el maestro?¿Puede describir su
relación con la gente en la(s) escuela(s) del/de los niño(s) en su familia?
Preguntas generadoras:
¿Cómo se conecta(n) la(s) escuela(s) con su familia?
¿Qué le piden a las familias?
¿Las escuelas, toman en cuenta la opinión de las familias?
¿Cómo se inicia el contacto con el/los maestro(s), administración?
b. ¿Hay alguna forma que le gustaría que la escuela se comunicara o involucrara a las
familias?
c. ¿Qué le gustaría que la escuela supiera acreca de su familia?
14. ¿Cree que su participación en DH ha cambiado como puede participar educación
del/ de la/ de los niño/a/os de su familia? ¿Cómo Ud. participa en la educación del/ de
la/ de los niño/a/os de su familia?
15. ¿Cree que su participación en Hogar Digital ha hecho una diferencia en cómo le va
en la escuela a el/la/los niño/a/(s) de su familia? En caso afirmativo, ¿Cómo?

146

adultos de la familia, p. 3/3

16. ¿Cree que su participación en Hogar Digital ha cambiado la forma en que usted se
ve a sí mismo/a?
Preguntas generadoras:
¿Ha desarrollado habilidades que le han ayudado utilizar recursos de la escuela o para
interactuar con la escuela?
¿Hogar Digital le informa sobre recursos relacionados a oportunidades educativas?
¿Tiene/Tuvo conversaciones con otras personas en Hogar Digital sobre las escuelas o
la educación?
17. ¿Hay alguna otra persona con quien me recomiende hablar?
18. ¿Hay algo acerca de sus experiencias con Hogar Digital o como miembro de la
familia [especificar] de un niño en edad escolar que cree que es importante que yo
sepa?
19. ¿Quién cree Ud. Que debe saber sobre este estudio?
20. ¿Tiene alguna pregunta para mí?
Gracias de nuevo por su tiempo. Aprender de usted es muy importante para mí.
Espero que podamos hablar de nuevo en una fecha futura.

147

Interview Protocol for Children
Hello. Thanks for meeting with me today. I appreciate your helping me learn about what
you think of Digital Home and you and your family member’s/members’ involvement in
Digital Home. As a reminder, anything you say here will be confidential and none of what you
share will be connected with your name.
1. Who in your family goes/went to Digital Home classes? When (if not currently participating)?
2. Before your family member went to Digital Home did you share your technology knowledge
with your family?
3. Do/did you and your family member(s) ever talk about what they learned in Digital Home?
(If no, will ask what the child thinks happens in Digital Home.) (If yes)
a. What did they learn/are they learning?
b. Have you seen them use what they have learned?
4. Did/do you ever attend class with your family member(s)?
(If yes)
a. What do/did you do during Digital Home?
b. Did you interact with other kids during Digital Home class time?
c. Have you learned anything at Digital Home that you used in school or that you
talked about with someone at school?
d. How would you describe Digital Home and the people in Digital Home?
5. How do you help your family member(s) with Digital Home now?
6. How do(es) your family member(s) help you now that he/she has participated in Digital
Home?
7. How does your school communicate with or involve families? Is there a way you wish your
school communicated with or involved your family?
8. Do you think that Digital Home has helped your family member to help you with school in
any way or to connect with people at your school?
9. How would you describe Digital Home to someone who is not familiar with Digital Home?
10. Is there anything else that you would like to share about Digital Home?
Thank you. Your answers help me to understand more about what happens at Digital Home
and what people learn. I hope that if I have more questions, I can meet with you again.

148

Protocolo de entrevista para niños
Hola. Gracias por tomar su tiempo para hablar conmigo hoy. Agradezco su ayuda
para aprender acerca de lo que piensa sobre Hogar Digital y usted y la
participación de los miembros de su familiar en Hogar Digital. A modo de
recordatorio, todo lo que diga aquí será confidencial y nada de lo que comparta
será conectado con su nombre. Puede saltar cualquier pregunta que no quiera
contestar.
1. ¿Quién en tu familia va/fue a clases de Hogar Digital? ¿Recuerdas cuándo (si no
está participando actualmente)?
2. Antes de que tu miembro de la familia fuera a Hogar Digital Ud. compartías lo que
sabías acerca del uso de las computadoras con tu familia?
3. Has hablado con este/estos miembro(s) de la familia sobre lo que han aprendido en
Hogar Digital o ¿Has visto lo que ha(n) aprendido en las clases?
(Si no, va a preguntar lo que el niño piensa que ocurre en el hogar digital.) (En caso
afirmativo)
a. ¿Qué aprendieron/están aprendiendo?
b. ¿Has visto cómo ha(n) utilizado lo que ha(n) aprendido?
4. ¿Has asistido alguna vez a clase con el/los miembro(s) de su familia?
(En caso afirmativo)
a. ¿Qué hiciste durante la clase de Hogar Digital?
b. ¿Interactuaste con otros niños durante la clase Hogar Digital?
c. ¿Has aprendido algo en Hogar Digital que ha utilizado en la escuela? Ha hablado
con alguien en la escuela sobre algo que aprendió en Hogar Digital? ¿Cuénteme?
5. ¿Has asistido a un evento de graduación de Hogar Digital (clausura)? ¿Cómo fue
esa experiencia?
6. ¿Cómo describirías Hogar Digital a alguien que nunca ha estado en una clase?
7. ¿Cómo te sientes acerca del hecho que las clases son en español? [Capital
lingüístico]
8. ¿Cómo ayudas a un miembro de tu familia (s) con el uso de las computadoras
ahora?
9. ¿Cómo le ayudas ahora el/los miembro(s) de tu familia que ha(n) participado en
Hogar Digital?
10. a. ¿Cómo crees que se sienten tus papas cuando van a las escuelas? (e.g., se
ponen emocionados; nerviosos, o evitan hablar con los maestros porque no pueden
hablar inglés, o si el niño tiene que traducir muchas cosas para sus papas)

149

b. ¿Cómo involucra la escuela a los miembros de su familia? (Dependiendo de la
respuesta, le preguntaré acerca de si los miembros de la familia participan.)
Estímulo: ¿Son las cartas o boletines de noticias de la escuela enviadas en un idioma
que los miembros de su familia entienden?
11. ¿Hay una manera en que deseas que su escuela se comunique con tu familia?
¿Hay una manera que deseas que participe tu familia? Cuénteme cómo.
12. ¿Crees que Hogar Digital ha ayudado al miembro de tu familia con tu escuela en
alguna forma? (ejemplo: conectar con la gente en su escuela, estudios, participación)
13. ¿Qué quieres ser cuando seas grande?/¿Cuáles son tus planes para el futuro?
¿Qué te ha hecho decidir que esto es lo que quieres hacer? [Capital de aspiración]
14. ¿Hay algo más que te gustaría compartir sobre Hogar Digital?
15. ¿Quién debe saber acerca del programa?
16. ¿Tienes alguna pregunta para mí?
Gracias. Sus respuestas me ayudarán a entender más acerca de lo que sucede en
Hogar Digital y lo que la gente aprende. Espero que si tengo más preguntas,
pueda hablar contigo otra vez.

150

Interview Protocol for Volunteers
Thank you for meeting with me today. I appreciate your helping me to learn about the
experiences you have seen with Digital Home and your experiences with Digital Home. As a
reminder, anything you say here will be confidential and none of what you share will be
connected with your name.
1. How and when did you learn about Digital Home? When did you volunteer?/Since when
have you been a volunteer?
2. How would you describe Digital Home and what happens in Digital Home? (interactions,
content)
3. What is valued by those who participate in Digital Home classes?
4. How would you say that a majority of participants with school-aged children in their families
find out about the Digital Home classes?
5. What have you seen the participants with school-aged children in their families do with what
they have learned in the classes?
6. How have family participants shaped what happens in Digital Home?
7. Is Digital Home is a place where families or participants can be informed about other
resources in the community?
8. Do you see people who participate in Digital Home at any of the community events you
attend? Do you think this is a result of their participation in Digital Home?
9. What impacts have you seen for the participants in the program, or even for the volunteers
who participate?
Prompt: Can you give some examples?
10. For families with children in schools, can you talk a little bit about whether or not you’ve
observed participants connect more to their children’s schools or experienced a change in
how they are involved in the children’s education (in and out of school)?
11. Is there anything else that you’d like to add about Digital Home or anything that you’ve seen
with families, anything that that you’ve experienced yourself, on the volunteer end?
12. Is there anyone else you suggest I speak with?
Thank you so much for your time. I hope that if I have additional questions, at some point, I
can contact you again.

151

Protocolo de entrevista para voluntarios
Gracias por reunirse conmigo hoy. Agradezco su ayuda para aprender acerca de las
experiencias que ha visto con Hogar Digital y sus experiencias con el programa. A
modo de recordatorio, todo lo que diga aquí será confidencial y nada de lo que
comparta estará conectado con su nombre. Puede saltar cualquier pregunta que no
quiera contestar.
1. ¿Cómo se enteró acerca de Hogar Digital? ¿Cuándo aprendió acerca de Hogar
Digital?
2. ¿Cuándo fue usted voluntario? / ¿Desde cuándo has sido voluntario?
3. ¿Cómo describiría el Hogar Digital y lo que sucede en Hogar Digital? (Interacciones,
contenido)
4. ¿Cómo ha visto que la mayoría de los participantes con niños en edad escolar
averiguan acerca de las clases para Hogar Digital?
5. ¿Qué ha visto que los participantes con niños han hecho con lo que han aprendido
en las clases?
6. ¿Cómo los participantes con niños en su familia han ayudado a formar lo que ocurre
en Hogar Digital?
7. ¿Hogar Digital es un lugar donde las familias puedan estar informados acerca de
otros recursos en la comunidad? ¿Puede dar algunos ejemplos?
8. ¿Usted ve las personas que participan en Hogar Digital en algunos otros eventos
que asista en la comunidad? ¿Usted piensa que esto es el resultado de la participación
de ellos en el Hogar Digital?
Preguntas generadoras: ¿Qué relación ve usted? / ¿Qué te hace decir eso?
9. ¿Qué impacto ha visto para los participantes en el programa, o incluso para los
voluntarios que participen? ¿Puede dar algunos ejemplos?
10. Para las familias con niños en las escuelas, ¿puedes hablar un poco acerca de si o
no sabes si los participantes se conectan más a las escuelas de sus hijos? Cuenta
cómo.
Preguntas generadoras:
¿Ha escuchado o presenciado un cambio en la forma en que están involucrados en la
educación de los hijos (dentro y fuera de la escuela)?

152

Protocolo de entrevista para voluntarios, p. 2

11. ¿Cómo cree que los participantes de la familia (incluyendo los niños) ven el uso del
español en el programa? ¿Por que dices eso? [Capital lingüístico]
12. ¿Hay alguna otra persona con quien me recomienda hablar?
13. ¿Hay algo más que usted piensa que yo deba saber sobre Hogar Digital o cualquier
cosa que usted ha visto con las familias, o que usted ha experimentado como
voluntario?
14. ¿Quién cree Ud. Que debe saber sobre este estudio?
15. ¿Tiene alguna pregunta para mí?
Muchísimas gracias por su tiempo. Espero que si tengo preguntas adicionales,
en algún momento, me puedo contactar con usted de nuevo.

153

Interview Protocol for Coordinator
Thank you for meeting with me today. I appreciate your helping me to learn about what you have
seen with Digital Home. As a reminder, anything you say here will be confidential and none of
what you share will be connected with your name.
1. When did you decide to establish Digital Home?
2. Why did you select this vehicle and not something else?
3. How have your experiences as a former principal and teacher in the area influenced Digital
Home as an organization and the way the curriculum has evolved? (organizational skills,
knowledge of curriculum, people connections, awareness of people’s needs in the
area/community)
4. How would you say that a majority of participants with school-aged children in their families
find out about the Digital Home classes?
5. What is valued by those who participate in Digital Home classes?
6. How would you describe the interactions and the environment in Digital Home?
7. What have you seen the family participants in Digital Home do with what they have learned
in the classes?
8. How have family participants shaped what happens in Digital Home?
Prompt:
Are there directions they have taken Digital Home that you had not anticipated when you
began the program? Can you give examples?
9. Have the participants changed the way you think about the program? In what way?
10. Do you find that Digital Home is also a place where family participants can be informed
about other resources in the community?
11. Do you see people who participate in Digital Home at any of the community events you
attend? Do you think this is a result of their participation in Digital Home?
a. What do interactions outside of Digital Home look like?
b. How have these evolved over time?
12. For families with children in schools, can you talk a little bit about whether or not you’ve
observed participants connect more to their children’s schools or make a difference in how
they are involved in the children’s education?
13. What has been Digital Home’s relationship with the local school district? What would you
like it to be like?

154

14. Is there anything else that you’d like to add about Digital Home or anything that you’ve seen
with families, anything that that you’ve experienced yourself?
15. Is there anyone else you suggest I speak with?
Thank you so much for your time. I hope that if I have additional questions, at some point, I can
contact you again.

155

Protocolo para entrevistar directora
Gracias por reunirse conmigo hoy. Agradezco su ayuda a mí para aprender
acerca de su experiencia con Hogar Digital. A modo de recordatorio, todo lo que
diga aquí será confidencial y nada de lo que comparta estará conectado con su
nombre. Puede saltar cualquier pregunta que no quiera contestar.
1. ¿Puede describir Hogar Digital? (Por ejemplo, el formato del programa, el lenguaje,
las metas, los participantes, el lenguaje)
2. ¿Cuándo decidió establecer el Hogar Digital? ¿Puede hablar sobre el proceso de
hacer realidad HD?
3. ¿Por qué seleccionó este enfoque para lograr lo que usted acaba de describir, y no
otra cosa?
4. ¿Cómo ha influido a Hogar Digital como programa su experiencia como ex-director y
ex-maestra en el área?
5. ¿Cómo han influido sus experiencia como ex-director y ex-maestra en el área la
forma en que el plan de estudios ha evolucionado? (Capacidad de organización,
conocimiento de los programas, las conexiones de las personas, el conocimiento de las
necesidades de las personas en el área / comunidad)
6. ¿Cómo diría que la mayoría de los participantes con los niños en edad escolar en
sus familias han aprendido acerca de las clases de Hogar Digital? ¿Ha cambiado esto
en los últimos años?
7. ¿Cómo describiría las interacciones y el medio ambiente en Hogar Digital?
8. ¿Qué han podido hacer los participantes de familias con niños en las escuelas con lo
que han aprendido en la clase?
9. ¿Cómo han influido los participantes de familias lo que ocurre en el Hogar Digital?
Preguntas generadoras:
¿Hay direcciones que han tomado Hogar Digital que Ud. no había previsto cuando
comenzó el programa? ¿Puede dar ejemplos?
Protocolo para entrevistar directora, p. 2

10. Los participantes han hecho que cambie su manera de pensar acerca del
programa? ¿De qué manera?

156

11. ¿Le parece que Hogar Digital es también un lugar donde los participantes de la
familia pueden ser informados acerca de otros recursos en la comunidad, incluso,
recursos educativos?
12. ¿Ha visto a las personas que participan en Hogar Digital en eventos de la
comunidad en los cuales Ud. participa? ¿Usted piensa que esto es el resultado de su
participación en Hogar Digital?
a. ¿Cómo son las interacciones de participantes fuera de Hogar Digital?
b. ¿Cómo han evolucionado las relaciones con el tiempo?
13. Para las familias con niños en las escuelas, ¿puedes hablar un poco acerca de sí o
no los participantes se han conectado más con las escuelas o si hay una diferencia en
la forma en que están involucrados en la educación de los niños?
14. ¿Cuál ha sido la relación de Hogar Digital con el distrito escolar local? ¿Cómo le
gustaría que fuera?
15. ¿Hay algo más que le gustaría añadir acerca de Hogar Digital o cualquier cosa que
usted ha visto con las familias, o alguna cosa que usted ha experimentado?
16. ¿Qué le gustaría ver que suceda como resultado de este estudio?
17. ¿Hay alguna otra persona con quien me recomienda hablar?
18. ¿Quién cree Ud. Que debe saber sobre este estudio?
19. ¿Tiene alguna pregunta para mí?
Muchísimas gracias por su tiempo. Espero que si tengo preguntas adicionales,
en algún momento, podemos hablar de nuevo.

157

APPENDIX F
Data Analysis Matrix
Table 3: Data Analysis Matrix

158

REFERENCES

159

REFERENCES
Auerbach, S. (2007). From moral supporters to struggling advocates: Reconceptualizing parent
roles in education through the experience of working-class families of color. Urban
Education, 42(3), 250-283.
Auerbach, S. (2009). Walking the walk: Portraits in leadership for family engagement in urban
schools. School Community Journal, 19(1), 9.
Bernal, D. D. (2002). Critical race theory, Latino critical theory, and critical raced-gendered
epistemologies: Recognizing students of color as holders and creators of knowledge.
Qualitative Inquiry, 8(1), 105-126.
Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice (Vol. 16). Cambridge university press.
Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research
Journal, 9(2), 27-40.
Burciaga, R., & Erbstein, N. (2010). Challenging assumptions, revealing community cultural
wealth: young adult wisdom on hope in hardship. Healthy Youth. Healthy Regions
Working Paper, Center for Regional Change, UC Davis.
Burgess, R. (2003). The Role of theory in field research in R. G. Burgess (Ed.). Field research:
A Sourcebook and field manual. United Kingdom: Routledge.
Cannell, C. F., & Kahn, R. L. (Eds.) (1953). The Collection of data by interviewing. Research
Methods in the Behavioral Sciences, 327-80.
Civil, M., Planas, N., & Quintos, B. (2012). Immigrant parents’ perspectives on their children’s
mathematics education. In Towards Equity in Mathematics Education (pp. 267-282).
Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
Conchas, G. Q. (2001). Structuring failure and success: Understanding the variability in Latino
school engagement. Harvard Educational Review, 71, 475 – 504.
Cooper, C. R., Denner, J., & Lopez, E. M. (1999). Cultural brokers: Helping Latino children on
pathways toward success. The Future of Children, 51-57.
Cortez-Covarrubias, E. P. (2015). Latinas leading for social justice: Resistance and recognition
through dual language programs (Doctoral dissertation, CALIFORNIA STATE
UNIVERSITY, LOS ANGELES).
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five
approaches. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.

160

Crosnoe, R. (2009). Family–school connections and the transitions of low-income youths and
English language learners from middle school to high school. Developmental Psychology,
45(4), 1061–1076. Doi: 10.1037/a0016131
Crow, G. M., & Scribner, S. P. (2014). Professional identities of urban school principals. In R.
Milner & K. Lomotey (Eds.), Handbook of urban education (pp. 287-304). New York,
NY: Routledge.

De Carvalho, M. E. (2014). Rethinking family-school relations: A Critique of parental
involvement in schooling. Routledge.
De Gaetano, Y. (2007). The Role of culture in engaging Latino parents’ involvement in school.
Urban Education, 42(2), 145-162.
Delgado-Gaitan, C. (2001). The Power of community: Mobilizing for family and schooling.
Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
DeMatthews, D. E., Edwards, D. B., & Rincones, R. (2016). Social Justice Leadership and
Family Engagement A Successful Case From Ciudad Juárez, Mexico. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 0013161X16664006.
Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (2000). Introduction: The Discipline and Practice of Qualitative
Research. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.). Handbook of qualitative research.
Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage Publications.
Dyrness, A. (2007). ‘Confianza is where I can be myself’: Latina mothers’ constructions of
community in education reform. Ethnography and Education, 2(2), 257-271.
Emerson, R. M., Fretz, R. I., & Shaw, L. L. (1995). Writing Ethnographic Fieldnotes. Chicago,
IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Epstein, J.L., Coates, L., Salinas, K.C., Sanders, M.G., & Simon, B.S. (1997). School, Family,
and Community Partnerships: Your Handbook for Action. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin
Press.
Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching (pp. 119-161).Handbook of
research on teaching.
Fann, A., Jarsky McClafferty, K., & McDonough P.M. (2009). Parent involvement in the
college planning process: A case study of P-20 collaboration. Journal of Hispanic
Higher Education, 8(4) 374–393. doi: 10.1177/1538192709347847
Flyvbjerg, B. (2011). Case study. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of
qualitative research (4th ed) (pp. 301-316). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Freire, P. (1990). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Continuum.
Fry, R. (2014, October 2). U.S. high school dropout rate reaches record low, driven by
161

improvements among Hispanics, blacks. Retrieved from
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/10/02/u-s-high-school-dropout-rate-reachesrecord-low-driven-by-improvements-among-hispanics-blacks/
Galletta, A. (2013). Mastering the semi-structured interview and beyond: From research design
to analysis and publication. NYU Press.
Geertz, C. (1988). Being here: Whose life is it anyway?. Works and lives: The Anthropologist as
author. Redwood City, CA: Stanford University Press.
Glesne, C. (2006). Becoming qualitative researchers: An Introduction, 4th edition. Boston:
Pearson.
Gold, E., Simon, E., Brown, C., Blanc, S., Pickron-Davis, M., Brown, J., et al. (2002). Strong
neighborhoods, strong schools. The indicators project on education organizing. Chicago,
IL: Cross City Campaign for Urban School Reform Research for Action, Inc.
Gonzales, L. D. (2012). Stories of success: Latinas redefining cultural capital. Journal of Latinos
and Education, 11(2), 124-138.
González, N., Moll, L. C., Floyd Tenery, M., Rivera, A., Rendon, P., Gonzales, R., & Amanti, C.
(2005). Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practice in households, communities, and
classrooms. González, N., Moll, L. C., & Amanti, C. (Eds.) Mahwah, N.J: L. Erlbaum
Associates.
Gooden, M. A., & O’Doherty, A. (2015). Do you see what I see? Fostering aspiring leaders’
racial awareness. Urban Education, 50(2), 225-255.
Grant, R. A., & Wong, S. D. (2004). Forging multilingual communities: School-based strategies.
Multicultural Perspectives, 6(3), 17-23.
Hernandez, F. & Murakami, E.T. (Eds.). (2016). Brown-eyed leaders of the sun: A Portrait of
Latina/o educational leaders. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Hernandez, F., Murakami, E., Cerna, J., Medina, V., & Martinez, G. (2013, November). The
Brown-eyed leaders of the sun: Latinos and school leadership. Paper presented at the
meeting of the University Council for Educational Administration, Indianapolis, IN.
Hidalgo, N. M. (1998). Toward a definition of a Latino family research paradigm. International
Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 11(1), 103-120.
Hill, N. E. (2009). Culturally-based world views, family processes, and family–school
interactions. In S. L. Christenson & A. Reschly (Eds.), The handbook on school–family
partnerships for promoting student competence (pp. 101 – 127). New York: Routledge.
Hill, N. E., & Torres, K. (2010). Negotiating the American dream: The paradox of aspirations
and achievement among Latino students and engagement between their families and
schools. Journal of Social Issues,66(1), 95-112.

162

Hong, S. (2011). A cord of three strands: A new approach to parent engagement in schools.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Huber, L. P. (2009). Challenging racist nativist framing: Acknowledging the community cultural
wealth of undocumented Chicana college students to reframe the immigration
debate. Harvard Educational Review, 79(4), 704-730.
Irizarry, J.G. & Raible, J. (2011). Beginning with El Barrio: Learning from exemplary teachers
of Latino students. Journal of Latinos and Education 10(3), 186-203.
Ishimaru, A. M. (2014). When new relationships meet old narratives: The Journey towards
improving parent-school relations in a district-community organizing collaboration.
Teachers College Record, 116(2).
Jayakumar, U., Vue, R., & Allen, W. (2013). Pathways to college for Young Black Scholars: A
Community cultural wealth perspective. Harvard Educational Review, 83(4), 551-579.
Johnson, L. (2017). Culturally responsive leadership for community empowerment.
In Multicultural Education in Glocal Perspectives (pp. 183-199). Springer Singapore.
Jones, T. G., & Fuller, M. L. (2003). Teaching Hispanic children. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Khalifa, M. (2010). Validating social and cultural capital of hyperghettoized at-risk
students. Education and Urban Society, 42(5), 620-646.
Khalifa, M. (2012). A Re-new-ed paradigm in successful urban school leadership principal as
community leader. Educational Administration Quarterly, 48(3), 424-467.
Khalifa, M. A., Gooden, M. A., & Davis, J. E. (2016). Culturally responsive school leadership: A
Synthesis of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 1272-1311.
Kim, J. (2012). Defining and assessing parent empowerment and its relationship to academic
achievement using the National Household Education Survey: A focus on marginalized
parents.
Ladky, M., & Peterson, S. S. (2008). Successful practices for immigrant parent involvement: An
Ontario perspective. Multicultural Perspectives, 10(2), 82-89.
Larrotta, C., & Yamamura, E. K. (2011). A Community cultural wealth approach to
Latina/Latino parent involvement: The Promise of family literacy. Adult Basic Education
and Literacy Journal, 5(2), 74-83.
Lawson, M. A., & Alameda-Lawson, T. (2012). A case study of school-linked, collective
parent engagement. American Educational Research Journal, 49, 651-684.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.

163

Liou, D. D., Antrop-González, R., & Cooper, R. (2009). Unveiling the promise of community
cultural wealth to sustaining Latina/o students’ college-going information
networks. Educational Studies, 45(6), 534-555.
Lopez, A. E. (2015). Navigating cultural borders in diverse contexts: building capacity through
culturally responsive leadership and critical praxis. Multicultural Education Review, 7(3),
171-184.
López, G.R., Scribner, J.D., Mahitivanichcha, K. (2001). Redefining parental involvement:
Lessons from high-performing migrant-impacted schools. American Educational
Research Journal, 38(2), 253-288.
Lopez, M.H. (2009). Latinos and education: Explaining the attainment gap. Pew Research
Hispanic Center. Retrieved from http://www.pewhispanic.org/2009/10/07/iiieducational-attainment-and-enrollment-in-school/
Lucas, T., Henze, R., & Donato, R. (1990). Promoting the success of Latino language minority
students. An Exploratory study of six high schools. Harvard Educational Review, 60,
315-40.
Luna, N. A., & Martinez Ph D, M. (2013). A Qualitative study using community cultural wealth
to understand the educational experiences of Latino college students. Journal of Praxis in
Multicultural Education, 7(1), 2.
Madhlangobe, L. & Gordon, S.P. (2012). Culturally responsive leadership in a diverse school: A
Case study of a high school leader. NASSP Bulletin 96(3) 177–202 DOI:
10.1177/0192636512450909
Maton, K. I., & Salem, D. A. (1995). Organizational characteristics of empowering community
settings: A Multiple case study approach. American Journal of community
psychology, 23(5), 631-656.
McCray, C. R., & Beachum, F. D. (2014). School leadership in a diverse Society: Helping
schools to prepare all students for success. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
McKenzie, K. B., & Scheurich, J. J. (2004). Equity traps: A useful construct for preparing
principals to lead schools that are successful with racially diverse students. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 40(5), 601-632.
McWhirter, E. H. (1991). Empowerment in counseling. Journal of Counseling and Development:
JCD, 69(3), 222.
Mediratta, K., Shah, S., & McAlister, S. (2009). Community organizing for stronger schools:
Strategies and successes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Merriam, S. (2002). Assessing and evaluating qualitative research. In S. Merriam (Ed.)
Qualitative research in practice: Examples for discussion and analysis (pp.18-36). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
164

Murphy, J. W. (2014). Community-Based Organizations. In Community-Based Interventions (pp.
47-62). Springer New York.
National Center for Educational (n.d.) School districts demographic system. Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/sdds/index.aspx
Nieto, S. (1996). Affirming diversity: The Sociopolitical context of multicultural education (2nd
ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman.
Noguera, P. A. (2004) transforming urban schools through investments in the social capital of
parents. New York, New York: In Motion Magazine
Nuri-Robins, K., Lindsey, D. B., Terrell, R.D. & Lindsey, R. B. (2007). Cultural proficiency:
Tools for secondary school administrators. Principal Leadership, 8(1), 16-22.
Onyett, S. (2003). Teamworking in mental health. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Ordoñez-Jasis, R., & Jasis, P. (2004). Convivencia to empowerment: Latino parent organizing at
La Familia. The High School Journal, 88(2), 32-42.
Orr, M., & Rogers, J. (2010). Unequal schools, unequal voice: The Need for public engagement
for public education. In M. Orr & J. Rogers (Eds.). Public engagement for public
education: Joining forces to revitalize democracy and equalize schools (1-24). Palo Alto,
CA: Stanford University Press.
Osterling, J.P. & Garza, A. (2004). Strengthening Latino parental involvement forming
community-based organizations/school partnership. NABE Journal of Research and
Practice, 2(1), 270-283.
Patton, M.Q. (2014). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and
practice. Washington, D.C.: Sage.
Pérez Carreón, G., Drake, C., & Calabrese Barton, A. (2005). The Importance of presence:
Immigrant parents’ school engagement experiences. American Educational Research
Journal, 42(3), 465-498.
Pew Hispanic Center/Kaiser Family Foundation (2004). National survey of Latinos: Education.
Washington, DC: author. Retrieved January 28, 2016 from
http://www.pewhispanic.org/files/reports/25.pdf
Portes, A., & Rumbaut, R. G. (2005). Introduction: The Second generation and the Children of
Immigrants Longitudinal Study. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 28(6), 983-999.
Ramirez, A. F. (2003). Dismay and disappointment: Parental involvement of Latino immigrant
parents. The Urban Review, 35(2), 93-110.
Reynolds, A. J., Mavrogenes, N.A., Hagemann, M., & Bezruczko, N. (1993). Schools, Families,
and Children: Sixth Year Results from the Longitudinal Study of Children at Risk.
165

Rumberger, R. (2011). Dropping out: Why students drop out and what can be done about it.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Saldaña, J. (2012). The Coding manual for qualitative researchers. Washington, D.C.: Sage.
Skrla, L., Scheurich, J. J., Garcia, J., & Nolly, G. (2004). Equity audits: A practical leadership
tool for developing equitable and excellent schools. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 40(1), 133-161.
Sleeter, C. (2011). The Academic and social value of ethnic studies: A Research review.
National Education Association Research Department.
Sleeter, C. E. (1991). Introduction: Multicultural education and empowerment. In C.E. Sleeter
(Ed.) Empowerment through multicultural education. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Smith, C. A. (2005). School factors that contribute to the underachievement of students of color
and what culturally competent school leaders can do. Educational Leadership and
Administration, 17, 21-32. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/EJ795072.pdf
Speer, P. W., & Perkins, D. D. (2002). Community-based organizations, agencies and
groups. Encyclopedia of education, 431-441.
Stanton-Salazar, R. D., & Dornbusch, S. M. (1995). Social capital and the reproduction of
inequality: Information networks among Mexican-origin high school students. Sociology
of Education, 116-135.
Suro, R., & Passel, J. S. (2003). The Rise of the second generation: Changing patterns in
Hispanic population growth.
Turney, K., & Kao, G. (2009). Barriers to school involvement: Are immigrant parents
disadvantaged?. The Journal of Educational Research, 102(4), 257-271.
United States Bureau of the Census. (n.d.) County population estimates by demographic
characteristics - age, sex, race, and Hispanic origin. Retrieved from
http://factfinder2.census.gov
United State Bureau of the Census. (2015). Hispanic origin. Retrieved January 1, 2016, from
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/meta/long_RHI725214.htm
United States Department of Education. (2012). Educational attainment. National Center for
Education Statistics. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=27.
Valdés, G. (1996). Con respeto: Bridging the distances between culturally diverse families and
schools. New York: Teachers College Press.
Valencia, R. R. (2002). " Mexican Americans Don't Value Education!" On the Basis of the Myth,
Mythmaking, and Debunking. Journal of Latinos and Education, 1(2), 81-103.

166

Vasquez, O. A. (2004). A Participatory perspective on parental involvement. In J. Mora & D. R.
Diaz (Eds.), Latino social policy: A Participatory research model (pp. 57-87). New York:
Haworth.
Villenas, S. & Deyhle, D. (1999). Critical race theory and ethnographies challenging the
stereotypes: Latino families, schooling, resilience and resistance. Curriculum Inquiry
29(4), 413-445.
Warren, M., Hong, S., Rubin, C., & Uy, P. (2009). Beyond the bake sale: A community-based
relational approach to parent engagement in schools. The Teachers College Record,
111(9), 2209-2254.
Warren, M., & Mapp, K. (2011). Community Organizing and School Reform Project. A
Match on dry grass: Community organizing as a catalyst for school reform. New York,
NY: Oxford University Press.
Warren, M. R. (2005). Communities and schools: A new view of urban education
reform. Harvard Educational Review, 75(2), 133-173.
Yin, R. K. (2013). Case study research: Design and methods. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
Yoshikawa, H., Kholoptseva, J., & Suárez-Orozco, C. (2013). The Role of public policies and
community-based organizations in the developmental consequences of parent
undocumented status. Social Policy Report, 27(3), 1-17.
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. J. (2006). Critical race counterstories along the Chicana/Chicano educational
pipeline. New York: Routledge.
Young, B. L., Madsen, J., & Young, M. A. (2010). Implementing diversity plans: Principals'
perception of their ability to address diversity in their schools. National Association of
Secondary School Principals. NASSP Bulletin, 94(2), 135-157. doi:
10.1177/0192636510379901
Zarate, M. E. (2007). Understanding Latino Parental Involvement in Education: Perceptions,
Expectations, and Recommendations. Tomas Rivera Policy Institute.

167