Advertisement

Journal of Educational Change

, Volume 12, Issue 2, pp 241–255 | Cite as

Revisiting emotional geographies: Implications for family engagement and education policy in the United States

  • Michael P. Evans
Article
First Online:

Abstract

From 2000 to 2001, Andy Hargreaves produced a series of publications introducing the concept of distinctive emotional geographies of teaching. The concept addressed how teacher emotions are situated within the context of their work and influence interactions with students, colleagues, administrators, and families. Hargreaves contended that understanding the emotional geographies of teachers would help build stronger relationships among stakeholders. He also predicted that educational policies centered on accountability that fail to develop commitments from families and communities threatened to exacerbate preexisting tensions. Ten years later, Hargreaves’ prescient observations provide important insights on the challenges encountered by the No Child Left Behind Act and implications for policy proposals being entertained during the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act in the United States. This article revisits the concept of emotional geographies, utilizes its conceptual framework to examine policy efforts focused on the issue of family engagement, and offers recommendations for new directions in educational policy.

Keywords

Educational change Educational policy Emotional geographies Teacher emotions Family engagement 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Anyon, J. (2005). Radical possibilities. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  2. Baum, A. C., & Swick, K. J. (2008). Dispositions toward families and family involvement: Supporting preservice teacher development. Early Childhood Education Journal, 35, 579–584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boston Public Schools. (2010). Parent University. Retrieved from http://www.bostonpublicschools.org/parentuniversity.
  4. Bryk, A. S., & Schneider, B. (2002). Trust in schools: A core resource for improvement. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  5. Bullough, R. (1989). Teacher education and teacher reflectivity. Journal of Teacher Education, 40(2), 15–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chilcott, L. (Producer), & Guggenheim, D. (Director). (2010). Waiting for superman [Documentary]. United States: Paramount Pictures.Google Scholar
  7. Coalition for Community Schools. (2010). Community schools: Results that turn around failing schools. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.communityschools.org/assets/1/AssetManager/Turning_Around_Schools_CS_Results2.pdf.
  8. Communities for Excellent Public Schools. (2010). Our communities left behind: An analysis of the administration’s school turnaround policies. Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
  9. Connelly, F., & Clandinin, D. (1990). Stories of experience and narrative inquiry. Educational Researcher, 19(4), 2–14.Google Scholar
  10. Crowson, R. L., & Boyd, W. L. (2001). The new role of community development in education reform. Peabody Journal of Education, 76(20), 9–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. de Carvalho, M. E. P. (2001). Rethinking family-school relations: A critique of parental involvement in schooling. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  12. Epstein, J. L., Sanders, M. G., & Clark, L. A. (1999). Preparing educators for school family community partnerships. Baltimore: Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed at Risk.Google Scholar
  13. Family Engagement in Education Act. (2010). 111th Congress, 2nd session, H.R. 5211.Google Scholar
  14. Fried, R. L. (1995). The passionate teacher. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  15. Gage, N. L., & Needels, M. C. (1989). Process-product research on teaching: A review of criticisms. The Elementary School Journal, 89(3), 253–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gitlin, A., & Margonis, G. (1995). The political aspect of reform: Teacher resistance as good sense. American Journal of Education, 103, 377–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Graue, E., & Brown, C. P. (2003). Preservice teachers’ notions of families and schooling. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19, 719–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Grumet, M. R. (1988). Bitter milk: Women and teaching. Amherst, MA: The University of Massachusetts Press.Google Scholar
  19. Hargreaves, A. (2000). Mixed emotions: Teacher’s perceptions of their interactions with students. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16, 811–826.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hargreaves, A. (2001a). Beyond anxiety and nostalgia: Building a social movement for educational change. Phi Delta Kappan, 82(5), 373–377.Google Scholar
  21. Hargreaves, A. (2001b). The emotional geographies of teachers’ relations with colleagues. International Journal of Educational Research, 35, 503–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hargreaves, A. (2001c). Emotional geographies of teaching. Teachers College Record, 103(6), 1056–1080.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hargreaves, A., Shirley, D., Evans, M. P., Stone-Johnson, C., & Riseman, D. (2006). The long and short of school improvements: Summary of the evaluation report of the Raising Achievement Transforming Learning project of the Specialist Schools and Academies Trust. London: SSAT.Google Scholar
  24. Hargreaves, A., Shirley, D., Harris, A., & Boyle, A. (2010). Collaborative edge: How helping others helps you. Principal, March/April, 16–20.Google Scholar
  25. Henderson, A. T., & Mapp, K. L. (2002). A new wave of evidence: The impact of school, family, and community connections on student achievement. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.Google Scholar
  26. Huss-Keeler, R. (1997). Teacher perception of ethnic and linguistic minority parental involvement and its relationship to children’s language and literacy learning: A case study. Teacher and Teacher Education, 13(2), 171–182.Google Scholar
  27. Ladson-Billings, G. (1999). Preparing teachers for diversity: Historical perspectives, current trends, and future directions. In L. Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds.), Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 86–124). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  28. Lareau, A. (2000). Home advantage: Social class and parental involvement in elementary education. Boulder, CO: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  29. Lawrence-Lightfoot, S. (2003). The essential conversation: What parents and teachers can learn from each other. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  30. Lawson, M. A. (2003). School-family relations is context: Parent and teacher perceptions of parent involvement. Urban Education, 38(1), 11–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Little, J. W. (1990). The persistence of privacy: Autonomy and initiative in teachers’ professional relations. Teachers College Record, 91(4), 509–536.Google Scholar
  32. Lopez, M. E., Kreider, H., & Coffman, J. (2005). Intermediary organizations as capacity builders in family educational involvement. Urban Education, 40(1), 78–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lortie, D. C. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study (2nd ed.). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  34. Louis, K. S., Leithwood, K., Wahlstrom, K. L., & Anderson, S. E. (2010). Learning from leadership project: Investigating the links to improved student learning. Final report of research findings. St. Paul, MN: University of Minnesota, Center for Applied Research and Educational Improvement.Google Scholar
  35. Meier, D., & Wood, G. (Eds.). (2004). Many children left behind: How the No Child Left Behind Act is damaging our children and schools. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  36. MetLife Inc. (2010). The MetLife survey of the American teacher: Collaborating for student success. New York: Author.Google Scholar
  37. Murrell, P. C. J. (2001). The community teacher: A new framework for effective urban teaching. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  38. NASULGC. (1998). Returning to our roots: Student access. Washington, DC: National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges. Retrieved from http://www.aplu.org/NetCommunity/Document.Doc?id=182.
  39. National Family, School, and Community Engagement Working Group. (2010). Talking leadership, innovating change: Profiles in family, school, and community engagement. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.hfrp.org/publications-resources/browse-our-publications/taking-leadership-innovating-change-profiles-in-family-school-and-community-engagement.
  40. Noddings, N. (1992). The challenge to care in schools. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  41. Olivos, E. M. (2006). The power of parents: A critical perspective of bicultural parent involvement in public schools. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  42. Public Education Network, & National Coalition for Parent Involvement in Education. (2010). NCLB action briefs. Community and parent decision-making: A review. Retrieved from http://www.ncpie.org/nclbaction/comm_parent_involvement.pdf.
  43. Ravitch, D. (2010). The death and life of the great American school system: How testing and choice are undermining education. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  44. Rogers, J. (2006). Forces of accountability? The power of poor parents in NCLB. Harvard Educational Review, 76(4), 611–641.Google Scholar
  45. Rogers, J., Saunders, M., Terriquez, V., & Velez, V. (2008). Civic lessons: Public schools and the civic development of undocumented students and parents. Northwestern Journal of Law and Social Policy, 3, 201–218.Google Scholar
  46. Rothstein, R. (2004). Class and school: Using social, economic, and educational reform to close the Black White achievement gap. Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute.Google Scholar
  47. Schutz, A. (2007). Home is a prison in the global city: The tragic failure of school based community engagement strategies. Review of Educational Research, 76(4), 691–743.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Shirley, D., & Evans, M. P. (2007). Community organizing and No Child Left Behind. In M. Orr (Ed.), Transforming the city: Community organizing and the challenge of political change (pp. 109–133). Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Press.Google Scholar
  49. Shunow, L., & Harris, W. (2000). Teachers thinking about home-school relations in low income urban communities. The School Community Journal, 10(1), 9–24.Google Scholar
  50. Sunderman, K., Kim, J. S., & Orfield, G. (2005). NCLB meets school realities. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  51. Tichenor, M. S. (2004). Preservice teachers’ attitudes toward parent involvement: Implications for teacher education. Teacher Educator, 33(4), 248–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. US Department of Education. (2002). No Child Left Behind: A desktop reference. Washington, DC: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/nclbreference/reference.pdf.
  53. US Department of Education. (2004). Parent involvement: Title I, Part A, non regulatory guidance. Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
  54. US Department of Education. (2010a). Blueprint for reform: The reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/blueprint/blueprint.pdf.
  55. US Department of Education. (2010b). Built for teachers: How the Blueprint for Reform empowers educators. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/blueprint/teachers/index.html.
  56. US Department of Education. (2010c). Supporting families and communities: Reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/blueprint/index.html.
  57. Valdes, G. (1996). Con respeto: Bridging the distances between culturally diverse families and schools: An ethnographic portrait. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  58. Waller, W. (1932). The sociology of teaching. New York: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Zimmer, R., Gill, B., Razquin, P., Booker, K., & Lockwood, J. R. (2007). State and local implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act: Title I school choice, supplemental educational services, and student achievement (Vol. 1). Washington, DC: US Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies Service.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Education Health and SocietyMiami UniversityOxfordUSA

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options