Latina Mothers’ Cultural Beliefs About Their Children,Parental Roles, and Education: Implicationsfor Effective and Empowering Home-SchoolPartnerships

Tina M. Durand

Published online: 11 September 2010

� Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Abstract Parents’ cultural beliefs about children, education, and their caregiving

roles can influence both the parent–child and parent-school relationships. Given

the centrality of the mother–child relationship in Mexican families, mothers were

situated as experts in their children’s development and education in the present

investigation. Specifically, the childrearing and educational beliefs of six immigrant

Latina mothers (five Mexican, one South American) of first-grade children were

examined, as well as their beliefs about their roles in their children’s lives. Quali-

tative descriptive analyses revealed the women’s belief in the centrality of the

maternal role, as well as the traditional cultural values of familismo and educacion.

Five themes that further illuminated the nature and functions of mothers’ cultural

beliefs were generated; namely, the salience of relationships with significant others

in achieving in school. Educators and schools might well build on this knowledge to

create spaces that are open to the perspectives of Latina mothers, and to forge more

effective and empowering partnerships with Latino/a families in children’s early

and later school years.

Keywords Latina cultural beliefs � Latina socialization � Home-school

partnerships

Introduction

Recent perspectives on children’s early school achievement emphasize that

children’s development should not be studied out of context. Rather, it is recognized

that children’s developmental outcomes are embedded in a set of interactive systems

T. M. Durand (&)

Department of Human Development, Wheelock College, 200 The Riverway,

Boston, MA 02215, USA

e-mail: tdurand@wheelock.edu

123

Urban Rev (2011) 43:255–278

DOI 10.1007/s11256-010-0167-5

(Pianta et al. 2007). From this perspective, children’s preparedness and subsequent

performance in school is linked to their experiences outside of the classroom; in

particular, their experiences within the home environment.

Due to high rates of immigration within the United States over the last several

decades, the current population of schoolchildren is more heterogeneous with

respect to its racial and ethnic composition than ever before; as of 2005, nearly one-

in-four children in the US lived in immigrant families (Hernandez et al. 2008).

The successful adaptation of one ethnic group in particular, Latinos, warrants

careful attention. Latinos are currently the largest ethnic minority group in the

United States, who represented 16% of the total population in 2009 (US Census

Bureau 2010). In 2008, Latino students represented 20% of the total public school

enrollment in grades K-12 (US Census Bureau 2010); in particular, the population

of children from Mexican immigrant families continues to grow rapidly, making up

an ever-larger proportion of American students. Because Mexico has long been the

largest source of Latino immigrants to the United Sates, it is unsurprising that 39%

of children in immigrant families in 2000 were of Mexican origin (Capps et al.

2005). Similar to families from Central America, children of Mexican immigrant

families are much more likely to be living in poverty, to live in linguistically

isolated homes, to not be covered by health insurance, and to not be enrolled in a

pre-kindergarten program, compared to youngsters from families of other Latin

American heritages (Hernandez 2004). These circumstances are associated with the

low education levels of Mexican immigrants, and suggest that children of Mexican

national origin may be a particular source of concern with regard to healthy

developmental outcomes and potential. Hence, understanding the factors that

promote Mexican children’s successful adaptation and performance in American

schools should be a foremost priority of researchers, practitioners, and education

policy-makers.

While Bronfenbrenner’s (1986) ecological framework gives us the opportunity to

consider the schooling of Latino children across multiple contexts, some scholars

(e.g., Garcıa Coll et al. 1996; Raffaelli et al. 2005) have stressed that issues of race,

ethnicity, and culture be explicitly (rather than indirectly) addressed in studies that

examine immigrant and ethnic minority families. In particular, the Integrative

Model for examining the development of ethnic minority children by Garcıa Coll

et al. (1996) provides a conceptual framework that incorporates and emphasizes

constructs that are uniquely salient to ethnic minority children and families, such as

racism, discrimination, segregation, adaptive culture (i.e., sets of values/attitudes

that emerge as the product of an ethnic group’s collective history and current

contextual demands), and culturally-specific family roles, beliefs, values, and goals

that differentiate them from mainstream families in the US (Garcıa Coll et al. 1996)

(see Fig. 1).

In the Integrative Model, parents’ beliefs and practices around children and their

socialization practices, goals, and values are conceptualized as emerging from the

adaptive culture of a particular ethnic group. Indeed, parents’ understandings about

the nature of children and development are often shared by members of a cultural

group or subgroup; cross-cultural comparisons show that virtually all aspects of

parenting are culturally informed and patterned (Bornstein 2006). Parents’ belief

256 Urban Rev (2011) 43:255–278

123

and value systems are manifested in parenting practices, and develop with the set

goal of maximizing children’s accommodation and survival within both the family

and society. With regard to immigrant families, parents’ beliefs about children’s

development are profoundly influenced by their experiences within, and accultur-

ation to, the host culture (see Lansford et al. 2007). Mexican immigrants are not are

not unlike other Latino subgroups in the US in that their ability to flourish and

succeed—within and beyond the parenting role- in the host culture is often

challenged by experiences of personal and structural racism that limit economic and

employment mobility, limited proficiency in English, and dominant child-rearing

perspectives that cast Latino and ethnic minority parenting as deficient and problem-

ridden (Garcıa Coll and Pachter 2002; Harwood et al. 2002). In this regard, research

that examines parenting among Latino/a families with a strengths-based perspec-

tive- one that delineates adaptive, culturally-relevant aspects of practice that

promote healthy child outcomes- is critical.

Within families of Mexican-origin, mothers have been described as the primary

socialization agent responsible for maintaining cultural beliefs and values, and

structuring the family environment to support and maintain those values (Valdes

1996). Women’s status rises when they become mothers, due to the belief among

Mexican–Americans that maternal love is greater and more sacred than spousal love

(Falicov 2005). However, the view that Mexican–American mothers are primary

caregivers and fathers the sole disciplinarians is changing, due to mothers’

increasing participation in the labor force, which may influence traditional

patriarchal family structures and roles (see Contreras et al. 2002). Hence,

contemporary views on gender roles around parenting suggest that more complex

dynamics are evolving. Although a patriarchal view of gender roles persists among

Mexican–Americans, factors such as decision-making are often shared by the

Fig. 1 Integrative model for the study of developmental competencies in minority children (adaptedfrom Garcıa Coll et al. 1996)

Urban Rev (2011) 43:255–278 257

123

parents, or involve a process in which the mother commands much authority,

contributing to more egalitarian gender relationships (Falicov 2005).

Given the centrality of the mother–child relationship in Mexican families, it

stands to reason that mothers play key roles in children’s development, socializa-

tion, and earliest school experiences. As immigrant and transnational Latina

mothers strive to mother their children in the US, however, they must do so in the

context of a capitalistic, patriarchal, and increasingly racialized, anti-immigrant

society, whereby Latina women occupy the lowest rung in the labor market, and

might be considered one of the most marginalized groups in the US (Villenas and

Moreno 2001). Notwithstanding this, an emerging scholarship, framed within race-

based, feminist, and activist perspectives, illustrates the dramatic potential of Latina

mothers’ personal narratives and voices as sources of renewed self-realization,

empowerment, and agency in raising and caring for their children, and as sites of

meaningful involvement and advocacy in children’s formal school experiences (see

Delgado-Gaitan 2005; Villenas 2001). In this investigation, I seek to contribute to

this important literature. The present study explores the child-rearing beliefs and

practices of a small sample of predominantly Mexican immigrant mothers of young

children, the impact of adaptive culture on such beliefs, and the potential that

mothers’ unique perspectives hold for supporting children’s early development,

learning, and early relations with schools.

Core Cultural Values Among Latino/a Parents

In their review of the literature on Latino/a parenting, Halgunseth et al. (2006) noted

that the goals of familismo, respeto, and educacion are held by all Latino subgroups,

and underlie many parenting decisions and practices with children. Familismo refers

to family closeness, cohesion, and interdependence, an expectation and reliance on

family members- including intergenerational and extended kin- as primary sources

of instrumental and emotional support, and the commitment to the family over

individual needs and desires (Falicov 2005; Cauce and Domenech-Rodrıguez 2002).

An examination of the literature reveals that some aspects of parents’ socialization

of young children to familismo values manifest in complex and apparently

contradictory ways within Latino families. For example, Latino/a child-rearing

norms often include a longer state of interdependence between mothers and children

and a more relaxed attitude about children’s early self-reliance skills than would

be considered optimal in Euro-American families (Falicov 2005; Schulze et al.

2001). In their observational work with Guatemalan Mayan and Euro-American

mothers of toddlers, Mosier and Rogoff (2003) noted that Mayan mothers accept

and tolerate a wide range of toddler behaviors viewed as selfish and aggressive by

Euro-American mothers, because they attribute such behavior to toddlers’ cognitive

immaturity and need for explicit adult modeling to accomplish specific tasks.

Similarly, Latino/a parents of school-aged children are found to engage in more

unilateral decision making and have more rules regarding out-of-home behavior

and activities than Euro-American parents (see reviews by Halgunseth et al. 2006;

Harwood et al. 2002).

258 Urban Rev (2011) 43:255–278

123

In contrast, some ethnographic work with immigrant and second-generation

Mexican–American families has found that children were expected to participate

and contribute to household responsibilities and everyday tasks at early ages

(see studies by Azmitia et al. 1996; Delgado-Gaitan 1993). As noted by Harwood

et al. (2002), these apparently contradictory findings may point to a greater overall

emphasis on interdependence among Latino/a families, both in terms of expecta-

tions that the child contribute more to the household at an earlier age, yet assert

his or her own agency (both behavioral and cognitive) at a later age. In both cases,

the role of children in assisting, supporting, and respecting the priority of the

family- central to the goal of familismo- is apparent.

Toward this end, the goal of respeto is the maintenance of harmonious

interpersonal relationships through respect for self and others (Halgunseth et al.

2006). Together, the values of familismo and respeto anchor the parent–child

relationship in a context of closeness, where high value is placed on raising a child

that is well-mannered and respectful of authority figures. In her ethnographic study

of 10 Mexican–American immigrant families, Valdes (1996) found that by the age

of 4, children were taught the verbal and non-verbal rules of respect such as politely

greeting elders, not challenging an elder’s point of view, and not interrupting adult

conversations. Other work with Mexican and Puerto Rican mothers of young

children has shown that they prioritize the values of obedience and respect over

independence, autonomy, and being assertive (Delgado Gaitan 1994; Gonzalez-

Ramos et al. 1998). In their recent focus group work examining the cultural values

of Dominican and Mexican mothers of preschoolers, Calzada et al. (2010) found

that respeto, family, and religion were the most important values that mothers

sought to transmit to their children.

Educacion is another consistent Latino/a childrearing goal that has been

described in the literature on Latino parenting. The term educacion is more

comprehensive than its English cognate ‘‘education,’’ in which moral, interpersonal,

and academic goals are not separated, but intimately linked (Valenzuela 1999). In a

study of Mexican immigrant families by Goldenberg and Gallimore (1995), parents’

definitions of education did not center exclusively on academics, but included

morality, proper behavior, good manners, and respect for elders. Although a large

body of work attests to the high value placed upon education among immigrant

families (e.g., Ceballo 2004; Fuligni 1997; Valdes 1996), this more broad definition

of education may conflict with that held by most educational professionals, who are

overwhelmingly white and of Euro-American descent, in terms of its implications

for how parents socialize children to education and learning. For example, some

research with immigrant Mexican families has shown that parents’ conceptions of

their role in their children’s education is discordant with the view held by teachers;

that is, teachers often expect parents to engage in academic activities and support

their (i.e., teachers’) efforts at home, while parents view themselves as responsible

for children’s social and moral development, with the teacher being the sole

academic instructor (see Goldenberg and Gallimore 1995; Greenfield et al. 2000;

Valdes 1996).

Finding ways to bridge the gap between home and school can be especially

important for children in the early years of school, since young children are

Urban Rev (2011) 43:255–278 259

123

generally more successful learning new information if it contains elements similar

to information previously learned (West 2001). Hence, it is of utmost importance

that teachers become familiar with a range of cultural scripts and belief systems that

may be characteristic of the families that they serve, especially if they truly seek to

maximize the strengths that ethnic minority children bring from their home

environments (Durand 2010). Such understandings are also critical in forging

successful home-school partnerships with ethnic-minority families that are

respectful, inclusive, and empowering (Perez Carreon et al. 2005).

Gender and Parenting Among Latino/a Families

The abovementioned research on Latino/a parenting and parental involvement has

made a significant contribution to the developmental literature on ‘‘normative’’

aspects of parenting that has focused too often on middle-socioeconomic status

(SES), Euro-American samples by articulating culturally-specific aspects of Latino/

a parenting processes that can inform public policy and practice with these

populations (Harwood et al. 2002). Although there has been some shift away from a

pathological perspective to one that emphasizes the resilience and adaptive strengths

of Latino/a families, studies within a feminist lens that focus specifically on

women’s voices add a critical and necessary complement to extant literature. In the

majority of studies with Latino/a families, the use of the gender-neutral term

‘‘parents’’ serves to mask the unique perspectives of Latinas as mothers, thereby

undermining their power and utility in promoting the health and well-being of their

children, families, and communities.

In this regard, the work of Sophia Villenas and Concha Delgado Gaitan serve

as two powerful examples of ethnographic work with Latina mothers grounded

in feminist thinking, whereby they (mothers) are squarely located as the units

of analyses and sources of knowledge. Their work centers on Latina women’s

narratives and life histories, and are considered for the ‘‘pedagogical value’’

(Villenas 2005, p. 274) they hold in raising and educating their children. Villenas’

(2001) ethnographic work with Mexican immigrant mothers in a small North

Carolina town illustrates how the women claimed (and often re-claimed) their

identities as resilient, strong, and ‘‘educated’’ individuals who were responsible for

the moral education of their children. By celebrating their central role in el hogar(the home space), they drew upon traditional cultural values of respect, proper

behavior, family loyalty, buen sentido (common sense), and the insights gained

from their own (often very difficult) lived experiences as immigrants and survivors,

to rear and educate their children. Their narratives revealed their awareness and

resistance to ‘‘benevolent’’ and ‘‘well-meaning’’ forms of racism from professionals

that cast their parenting practices as deficient, rather than nurturing and supportive.

In a similar vein, Delgado-Gaitan (2005) describes her experiences with a group

of immigrant, working-class Central American and Mexican mothers who gathered

together regularly at their community library to discuss how to better support their

adolescent daughters’ education. As the women narrated their life experiences,

themes of determination, resilience, and strength emerged; in connecting with their

cultural histories and experiences, women began to find courage and strength in

260 Urban Rev (2011) 43:255–278

123

themselves and in each other. For example, the women learned how to advocate for

their children’s needs in schools in new ways (also see work by Delgado Gaitan

1994), and how to pool resources (e.g., computers) to facilitate communication

and information-sharing within their own communities, and with family members

in their home countries. In hearing their mothers’ stories, their daughters ‘‘learned

to trust their own strength and have confidence in themselves’’ (Delgado-Gaitan

2005, p. 268).

In this qualitative investigation, I seek to contribute to the abovementioned

literature that celebrates and legitimizes the voices of Latina mothers of young

children, and centers them as key figures in their children’s early development and

learning. Specifically, I explore Latina mothers’ beliefs about education, children,

and their parental roles, guided by the following questions: (1) What are Latina

mothers’ cultural beliefs regarding education? (2) What are their beliefs regarding

children? (3) In what ways do mothers describe their parental roles, especially with

regard to educational and developmental issues? Ethnographic interview transcripts

of six low-income, primarily Mexican–American mothers of first-grade children

were analyzed using qualitative descriptive analyses, providing a nuanced

understanding of the nature and functions of mothers’ cultural beliefs, the ways

in which their beliefs are informed by their respective histories and ecological

circumstances, and their potential for authentic collaborations with teachers and

schools.

Method

Participants

Data for this investigation were drawn from the School Transition Study (STS), a

longitudinal follow-up investigation to the experimental impact evaluation of the

Comprehensive Child Development Program (CCDP) (see St. Pierre et al. 1999).

Beginning in the fall of 1995, the STS was a follow-up investigation of children and

families from three of the 21 original CCDP sites across the United States, selected

for their geographic and ethnic diversity. The primary aim of the STS (n = 390)

was to examine the developmental trajectories of low-income children and families

across home and school contexts, from the early school transition period into the

fifth grade, using a mixed-method approach (see Harvard Family Research Project

2006).

The STS included a representative subset of families (n = 23) who participated

in an ethnographic case component of the study, which explored the proximal

contexts of children’s home, school, and neighborhood environments in greater

depth. Ethnographers spent approximately 2 years with each case study family.

These 23 families were selected for their potential to represent the range of skills,

characteristics, and issues (e.g., family circumstances and functioning) that might

exist in the larger STS study. Hence, while families were not chosen randomly,

attempts were made to select families that were representative of the total STS

sample.

Urban Rev (2011) 43:255–278 261

123

For the present investigation, I analyzed qualitative interview data from six

Latina women1 who were part of the ethnographic subset of families. These women

were purposively selected from the ethnographic case study families in that they

were the only Latino/a families represented. All mothers were first-generation,

immigrant Latina and resided in the Los Angeles area. Although the number of

years the women had been living in the United States is not known, at the time of

data collection, mothers had been living in their respective neighborhoods for an

average of 3 years. Four women reported Spanish as the language used most

frequently at home. Mothers ranged in age from 26 to 43 years old, with an average

age of 35. At the time of data collection, all women were extremely low-income,

with an average reported household (annual) income of $11,000 per year. Education

levels of the women were also low (see Table 1).

Data Collection Procedures

In-depth interviews were conducted with ethnographic case study participants

following the target child’s first grade year. Interviews were conducted by trained

ethnographers who had established relationships with the families over time, in the

respective home of each family. All interviews were taped, transcribed, and

translated, with back translation. Each interview lasted approximately 95 min, on

average. Detailed field notes, which contained ethnographer’s observations,

reflections, and comments regarding the interview process, were written after each

interview.

Although each ethnographer in the overall study was encouraged to approach

each interview somewhat differently, depending on her relationship with each

family and her knowledge of the school and community being studied, the general

focus for the in-depth interviews (i.e., early educational experiences of children and

Table 1 Descriptive data of 6 case study mothers

Age

(years)

Country

of birth

Status Education

(completed)

Income

(annual)

Work Lang.c

Angela 26 Mexico Married \12th grade $12–15,000 FTa English

Rosa 31 Mexico Married 12th grade $15–20,000 Tb English

Ines 42 Mexico Single College $6–9,000 T Spanish

Cecilia 34 South America Single \12th grade $9–12,000 PT English

Consuela 43 Mexico Married No school $9–12,000 No Spanish

Raya 36 Mexico Single \9th grade $6–9,000 T Spanish

All names used are pseudonymsa FT Full time, b PT Part time. c Refers to the language in which the in-depth interview was administered

1 Although there were a total of seven Latina families in the ethnographic subset of STS families, the

interview transcript of one Latina mother was purposively not selected for the present analyses, since the

reported household income of the mother was disproportionately higher than that of the other mothers

included in the ethnographic subsample. It is also important to note that I did not conduct the interviews;

hence, this is a secondary analysis of qualitative interview data from the STS.

262 Urban Rev (2011) 43:255–278

123

families) was determined prior to data collection by the entire STS team. Hence,

interviews followed a semi-structured format, with open-ended questions such as

the following being asked in each interview: what has [target child’s] kindergarten

and first grade year been like? What do you think have been things in his/her life

that have had a positive impact on his/her development? What has it been like

working with the school? How is your communication with her/his teacher? Were

you surprised at anything regarding school? What do you think is special about your

child? The average transcript length was 92 pages (range = 68–120 pages).

Qualitative Approach

Qualitative description was the method utilized here to examine the in-depth

interview data of six Latina mothers.2 Qualitative descriptive studies have as their

goal a rich summary of events in their everyday terms (Sandelowski 2000). Low-

inference, qualitative descriptive studies can also explore the meanings, variations,

and perceptual experiences of phenomena, and will often aim to capture their holistic

and interconnected nature, through the examination of patterns or themes in the text

(Kearney 2001). Because the response style of the women was often fragmented

(e.g., the women rarely spoke in full sentences and often changed topics within

discrete sentences), this approach was well suited to both the data at hand and the

goals of this investigation, which were descriptive, rather than interpretive, in nature.

Specific analysis of these data followed qualitative content analytic procedures

outlined and defined by Weber (1985), Downe-Wamboldt (1992), and Glaser

(1978). This process began with what Glaser (1978) calls open coding, a process of

generating a set of categories that can be labeled and sorted while the analyst

remains unrestricted to predetermined theory. Meaning units (defined as a segment

of text that conveyed a unified message, idea, or thought) and emerging codes were

considered in terms of their dimensions or characteristics, and were compared with

other instances, in the process of constant comparative analysis (Glaser and Strauss

1967).

Codes were designed to be mutually exclusive in this analysis in order to achieve

conceptual clarity. Codes were rearranged and clustered into a list of five general

categories, similar to what Glaser (1978) termed substantive codes, and text

(meaning) units were listed under each category. Interrater reliability of the coding

scheme was obtained by the use of second coder, who coded approximately 12

pages of randomly selected text, until 100% agreement was reached (Downe-

Wamboldt 1992). This process resulted in five categories, which were represented

across the majority (i.e., at least four) of the transcripts:

• Mothers’ conceptions of children- ‘‘what are children like?’’• Mothers’ short and long-term goals for children

• Mothers’ views on their roles as parents

• Mothers’ views on the nature of the mother/child relationship

• Mothers’ conceptions of education

2 For clarity, the in-depth interview data analyzed here come from a single interview with each mother,

conducted in the spring of their child’s first grade year.

Urban Rev (2011) 43:255–278 263

123

These categories were then transformed further to result in the creation of five

themes, respectively, as defined by DeSantis and Ugarriza (2000). As opposed to a

topical label, category, or phrase, a theme is a comprehensive, vivid description that

evokes the essence of an experience (DeSantis and Ugarriza 2000). It is important to

note, then, that the themes presented in the following section are not actual

statements of participants, but my portrayal of their experience, based on qualitative

analyses. I phrase them in first person only to present them more vividly. All themes

represent majority opinions; that is, each theme was derived from codes that were

evidenced by at least four of the participants.

Results

The words and narratives of the Latina mothers presented here are infused with

courage, strength, and commitment, and reaffirm their instrumental roles in

promoting familismo values within the home (Cauce and Domenech-Rodrıguez

2002). As noted in Garcıa Coll’s et al. (1996) Integrative Model, I see their beliefs,

goals and values about children and family profoundly influenced by the past- via

cultural practices or traditions (both positive and negative, as they note)- and the

present- via the contextual demands of their lives. Their words convey the hope and

promise they feel await their children as they move through the early years of formal

schooling. Most of all, like the women in Villenas (2001) study, these women

‘‘claimed their value and their ‘educated’ identities as mothers…’’ (p. 12), despite

their marginalized status as immigrant, poor, and ‘‘uneducated’’ in the formal sense.

Although children are ‘little,’ they are maturing all the time and in manyways, and have unique academic, emotional, and character traits.

Overall, mothers viewed children not as ‘‘miniature adults’’ but as individuals

who were often times ‘‘too little’’ to be accountable for their behavior understand

things; four of the six women mentioned this specifically. These attitudes were most

pronounced for younger children, as Raya’s description of her behavioral

expectations for her youngest son illustrates: ‘‘I mean, well I try for him to behave

with me and all…but he’s the smallest, the littlest…and because the older one- he

knows what he’s doing, he’s twelve, almost thirteen.’’ Consistent with other

research that has examined Latina mothers’ developmental timetables (see Savage

and Gauvain 1998), mothers viewed developmental processes in cognitive, social/

emotional, and behavioral domains as largely dependent on maturation. They

expected children to change as they got older, and that children would ‘‘grow out of

things’’ naturally. In this regard, certain behaviors were deemed ‘‘typical’’ of

children, as illustrated by one mother:

‘‘It’s [behavior] not like it was before. Because she’s growing up and calming

down…and so I think that maybe she’ll grow out of it.’’ (Consuela)

Although mothers acknowledged that some behaviors were typical of children,

they did not hesitate to describe their own children in terms of individual academic,

character, and emotional traits. All six mothers mentioned both character and

264 Urban Rev (2011) 43:255–278

123

academic traits of their children, respectively, at least once during the interview.

Academic descriptions of children centered on children’s scholastic progress or

abilities (most often in reading) or direct references to their child as ‘‘intelligent,’’

‘‘bright’’, or ‘‘smart,’’ such as the following:

‘‘yes, he’s changed quite a bit…he’s made a lot of progress in school, but now

he knows them all, in his ABC’s…and he’s very intelligent.’’ (Raya)

Character references were those in which children were described as ‘‘friendly,’’

‘‘considerate,’’ or ‘‘respectful,’’ or ‘‘noble,’’ as described by Angela:

‘‘sometimes [child] has a noble heart. And for me, the most beautiful thing is

to be noble…she asks me if [child] should change, I tell her no, because he has

a very beautiful heart, right? Very noble. He likes to share.’’

References to proper behavior, such as ‘‘my boy can’t lie,’’ or ‘‘so I say my

son…he’s very good…he’s not an aggressive child, or the kind who goes around

bothering other children,’’ were also considered ones that referred to children’s

‘‘good’’ character. In considering the comparative value of these two aspects from

the perspective of mothers; that is, whether they actually valued academic or

character traits in their children more, I examined the frequency of meaning units,

since it is reasonable to assume that mothers might mention aspects that are more

important to them more frequently. In total, there were more references to character

(32 meaning units) than academic traits (20 meaning units) in children, across all six

transcripts. This may be illustrative of a more sociocentric cultural orientation that

prioritizes appropriate behavior and interpersonal skills among the women, as has

been found in other research with Latina mothers (see Miller and Harwood 2001).

In order to learn responsibility, children should have a balance betweenroutine and choice, so they can graduate from school and have betterchoices than I did.

In describing children’s daily lives, all six mothers mentioned children having

tasks/chores to do at home, often within the context of regular routines, such as

homework, that children were familiar with and could follow. Other examples of

children’s routines were helping mothers with household chores (e.g., laundry,

cleaning, setting the table), bathing, and bedtime schedules. Although children had

routines, mothers also reported that children had choices regarding their leisure time

out of school, particularly regarding participation in organized social or sporting

activities. Consuela described her daughter as being able to ‘‘[do] whatever she

wants…skating, bike riding, playing…or watching TV, or whatever she wants,’’

after her homework was done.

Despite this, mothers described those tasks and routines that were not choices as

important in facilitating responsibility and long-term adaptation, as reported by

these mothers:

‘‘It’s my job, but it’s her responsibility to learn how to do things [chores]. And

she’s learned….because I want her to be something and when, you know, she

Urban Rev (2011) 43:255–278 265

123

grows up, that she has learned everything and she can depend on her own.’’

(Ria)

‘‘if he has to go [to school], he’s going to go. Afraid or not, but he’s going to

go. He’s not going to say, ‘I don’t want to,’ or ‘I can’t,’ no. He’s going to go.

You have to learn that…so in school, whoever he gets, I think he’ll go. That’s

how it is in life.’’ (Angela)

Five of the six women made references to long-term goals they had for children.

Out of 30 meaning units (across five transcripts) that indicated a long-term goal,

one-third of these explicitly referenced children graduating from high school or

going to college. Mothers saw getting an education as integral to having more

occupational choices, namely those that they considered to be of a professional

nature. Such choices held the potential for children to have better, more independent

lives than the mothers themselves had:

‘‘because I know that when tomorrow comes…[child] will need to study at the

university. Because I do want to overcome, I want my child to overcome also.

I want my daughter to be a professional. I don’t want her to be…in a day care

like where I work.’’ (Ines)

‘‘You know, and I want her to finish school…I want her to be all into school.

You know, I want her to be someone in life. I don’t want her to be fifteen and

pregnant…I want her to be somebody special…like I want her to be a teacher.

I want her to be like a secretary, nurse, somebody big, you know? I don’t want

her to work like me…I don’t want her to be a maid, you know, a

housekeeper.’’ (Rosa)

At this point in their young children’s lives, mothers expressed both hope and

confidence that their aspirations would become realities for children, as illustrated

by Consuela, who articulated her reasons for emigrating to the United States:

‘‘I think that’s why so many of us immigrants come here. Because we’re

always looking for upward mobility for our children, to live a little better…I

think that

her future is going to be good.’’

The long term goal for children to be more educated and professional was sharply

contrasted by Angela, however, who expressed her desire that her children develop

as moral, rather than intellectual, people:

‘‘The heart that my son has. It’s, it’s that my son is…I tell my husband that I

don’t care that they get to be professionals in life or anything like that. I mean,

for them to be very intellectual, no. But for them to be kind, to have that kind

heart for helping people.’’

Indeed, the above sentiment well illustrates traditional educacıon values

promoted among Latino families. As Valdes (1996) points out, many working-

class Mexican families hold individual achievement and success in lesser esteem

than people’s moral character and abilities to maintain close, harmonious ties across

generations. Overall, however, the descriptions of education, growth, and learning

266 Urban Rev (2011) 43:255–278

123

reflected in the previous two themes illustrate the fusion of traditional Latino (e.g.,

sociocentric) and more Westernized (e.g., individualist) values and goals. On the

one hand, across all transcripts, mothers mentioned socio-emotional characteristics

of their children (e.g., noble, good-natured) more often than cognitive ones (e.g.,

smart, creative) when describing their children. On the other hand, only Angela

actually expressed the long-term goal that her children develop as moral rather than

intellectual beings explicitly. As well, although mothers were not asked specifically

to define education in their own words, their use of the term ‘‘education’’ was

always used in reference to schooling, and the majority of women cited education in

the schooled sense as a long-term goal for their children. This goal is well

documented in the literature on the long-term aspirations of Latino immigrant

parents (e.g., Contreras et al. 2002; Goldenberg and Gallimore 1995; Okagaki and

Frensch 1998; Valdes 1996). Indeed, education in both a moral and academic sense

is an integral part of Latino culture, and is viewed as a vehicle to move children out

of poverty (Delgado-Gaitan 2004).

I am comfortable in my role as purveyor of wisdom, protector of children,and provider of experiences, but it is also my role to be involved in theiracademic development, even when my lack of understanding makes it hard.

All six of the mothers saw themselves as important teachers of children, though

not exclusively in the academic sense. Rather, they described themselves as

children’s most important source of information about how to get along in the world,

similar to the bien sentido (common sense) that children learned from watching and

listening to their mothers in Villenas (2001) study. Mothers confidently described

how they regularly talked with children about how to be safe, how to behave with

other children, and how to find help in school if they needed it. Cecilia stressed that it

was important for children to hear such things from her:

‘‘You know, sometimes I just sit around and think my kids are gonna learn and

just know things automatically without me telling them and that’s not the

case… even if they did know, they still need to hear it from their mom.’’

In turn, mothers were concerned that children keep them abreast of potentially

dangerous situations that may have occurred while children were at school and out

of their care, such as conflicts with other children, or adults that might try to do them

harm: Teaching children to talk and ‘‘tell me’’ about things was mentioned often by

mothers, who wanted children to be forthright with them: ‘‘I always teach them that

whenever anything happens, they gotta come to me, they gotta tell me…’’ (Cecilia).

In this way, mothers viewed their roles as constant guardians and protectors of

children. This protectiveness was also seen on a more practical level, as three

mothers spoke of danger and violence (e.g., shootings or gang activity) in their

neighborhoods. Monitoring children’s activities and whereabouts were strategies

these mothers regularly engaged in:

‘‘I don’t want her going too far out…when she rides her bike, she just rides

around the house…that’s why I don’t like to let them go out. Last night there

was a shooting here.’’ (Consuela)

Urban Rev (2011) 43:255–278 267

123

References to dangerous circumstances permeated these mothers’ narratives, and

influenced both the activities children were allowed to engage in, as well as

mothers’ own roles in protecting them, as Raya noted:

‘‘There are always problems in that school. Shootings and killings and

everything. Sometimes I really think it would be better for my oldest to stay in

school there. For me to send him there. Yes, in Mexico. Because it’s not, it’s

that here you just can’t be in school.’’

In general, cross-cultural studies reveal Latino parents to be more protective and

monitor their children more frequently than non-Latino parents (see Halgunseth

et al. 2006). Yet, as specified by Garcıa Coll et al. (1996), the neighborhood was a

powerful inhibiting context for the mothers in this analysis that undoubtedly

influenced their beliefs and practices. Studies (e.g., Parke and O’Neil 1999; Taylor

1997) have shown that parents are more vigilant and regulating of their children’s

experiences when they perceive the neighborhood as less safe. While LeVine and

New (2008) argue that ensuring the physical safety of children is a universal goal of

parents, both the priority that parents must place on this goal and the strategies that

are used to promote it vary based on context. Here again, we see mothers’

cognitions and practices around protection and monitoring as the product of

traditional beliefs around the parental role in this area and current contextual

demands. For these mothers living amidst seemingly challenging environments,

being a protector and guardian of children in a very literal sense was a salient

dimension of their parental role.

Mothers also viewed themselves as responsible for disciplining children at home;

fathers were not mentioned in any descriptions of disciplinary practices. Mothers

spoke of the contrast between the more corporal styles of discipline they were used

to in their native countries, and the alternative strategies they learned through

various programs:

‘‘before, with the big ones, I did [spank children]. There were times when they

wouldn’t do their chores for me. Because, I don’t know if it’s because we

came here to this country, and it’s different here. And people worry more

about children…or about…Also, I went to some classes for, for parents.’’

(Consuela)

However, spanking as a form of discipline was clearly distinguished from hitting,

which might be characterized as more harsh and abusive, as suggested in the

following statement by Angela:

‘‘I do give him spankings and all…and I’m against the idea that…well you

shouldn’t hit them as abuse. But parents should have a certain authority to

discipline them, yes, you know? So for things like that, now I say to my

children, ‘clean your room,’ and I can threaten them if they don’t obey, but

I’m not going to hit them…’’

The central role that mothers described themselves having with regard to

disciplinary practices fits within the cultural expectations of parents that define

Latina women’s role as caretaker, and fathers’ role as provider (Cabrera and Garcia

268 Urban Rev (2011) 43:255–278

123

Coll 2004), yet defies the growing empirical trend that indicates Latino fathers are

becoming more actively engaged with their children (Cabrera et al. 2009; Caldera

et al. 2002). Of the three mothers that were married, only one was employed full

time (implying they may be at home more), which may account for the findings

here.

Mothers spoke with less confidence, but no less commitment, regarding their role

in facilitating children’s academic development at home. Specifically, although half

of all mothers reported they could not always read or understand their children’s

homework because of their own lack of schooling or inability to read English, these

factors did not dissuade them in their efforts to become engaged in children’s

academics or schoolwork, since such was mentioned by all six women. Mothers

reported that they helped their child academically through direct teaching, reading,

or rules regarding the completion of homework; Angela noted that ‘‘…I’m a little

bit tough with them, in the sense that they finish their homework with me.’’ Cecilia,

who lamented over not helping her child with schoolwork, commented that her child

would be doing better academically ‘‘if she had me by her side.’’ Cecilia also

commented that she had actually been unaware that that was something teachers

expected her to do:

‘‘she’ll [child] come home and tell me, ‘Mom, the teacher told me that you

have to help me how to read…I mean, I would try, but not, I wouldn’t really

try it…I just assumed that somebody else would do the job for me…and now

I’m finding out that…teachers can’t, teachers can’t do this alone, you know.’’

In this regard, mothers tried to comply with teacher’s requests regarding school

preparedness at home, especially regarding language and reading instruction: ‘‘I also

teach her Spanish, because I promised the teacher I swould teach her Spanish…we

have taken out some books… ‘‘(Ines). Since the interviews were conducted in the

spring, perhaps mothers’ agency in supporting children’s academic development at

home had been influenced by their interactions with the school over the course of

the year.

Most of the women did not mention questioning or challenging teachers about any

aspect of their children’s schooling. However, Rosa and Raya spoke at great length

about occasions where they demanded that teachers offer alternate placements or

policies for their child. For example, after hearing about her child’s report of an

ongoing problem with another student, Rosa explained that ‘‘…I went straight to her

[teacher]. Because I think it’s very important for a parent to do that.’’ However, these

behaviors were not typical of most of the women, who maintained relations with their

children’s schools and teachers only through scheduled conference times.

Although mothers’ acculturation levels with specific regard to education were not

measured in this study, the nature of their early relations with schools were

consistent with literature that suggests both ethnic and class-based differences in

parents’ school involvement practices and advocacy, which suggest that the

tendency for parents to question teachers about their practices, ask for clarification,

or challenge them on certain issues is a practice more commonly seen among upper-

SES, formally educated parents, who draw upon higher levels of financial, social,

and cultural capital when interacting with schools. In her ethnographic work with

Urban Rev (2011) 43:255–278 269

123

both upper-middle and low-income families, Lareau (2003) noted that low-income

parents were hesitant to discuss or voice concerns regarding school-related issues

because of feelings of insecurity and inferiority with school personnel and curricula,

and because of their own negative experiences with school.

With specific regard to Latino families, Delgado-Gaitan (2004) notes that parent

involvement and advocacy in the school may often be compromised by language

issues, but is often more nuanced than this; many Latinos’ experiences with schools

in the United States have been ones of estrangement, conflict, and inequity. However,

since immigrant Latino parents see schooling as the only possible vehicle for their

children’s futures, they may view the costs of raising concerns as simply too great.

These observations may help to explain the overall satisfaction and lack of discontent

with children’s early school experiences that was reported by all mothers in the

present analyses. As well, children attended schools with high percentages of Latino

children, which may have added to parents’ comfort levels within the schools.

Raising children is my life, and I want to do it better than my mother did,because my children need me more than they need anyone.

Five of the mothers explicitly- and spontaneously, since this was not a direct

question- stated that raising their children was the most important thing in their

lives. This importance was reflected in the way mothers described the profound

effect that having children had on them, and the sacrifices they were willing to make

for their children. Mothers described having children as essential, motivational, and

all-encompassing:

‘‘There are two things that have happened in my life. One is having my

daughter, and the other is having known God.’’ (Ines)

‘‘I can’t live life and separate myself from the reality that…there’s more to

just feeding kids and bathing them and changing their clothing…or even

playing with them. They need to feel that passion within you…that you

connect that…it’s all around- like surrender to the fact that you have children

and you are a mother.’’ (Cecilia)

The essence of mothering was also described in more practical terms, as Angela

commented that although raising children could be difficult, it was her obligation to

do so: ‘‘and I’ll tell you about that-it’s not easy being at home with three children in

one house…but they’re our children. I mean every day you have to make their

meals, feed them- and take them to school…it’s not easy, but it’s our

responsibility.’’ The sacrifices mothers described making for children most often

regarded their time and work. Mothers reported that they were working in order for

their children to have more. As much as possible, mothers attempted to adapt their

work schedules so they would maximize their time with their children:

‘‘for pay that, that I am earning, that…is not much, working five hours. I accept

it because it adapts to my daughter. But in reality, I want to tell you that I don’t

want to do it all my life. Not even [child]- she wouldn’t want to do it either.

Because of that I need to work….right now, I need to dedicate myself to her…I

feel that from here on out this is going to be my schedule with her.’’ (Ines)

270 Urban Rev (2011) 43:255–278

123

Mothers clearly felt that their children were most attached to them- that they were

the most important person in their children’s lives. Ines spoke of her child as hers,‘‘but she is mommy’s child, mommy’s child, I love her very much. What else can I

tell you?’’ She went on to describe how she is ‘‘everything’’ to her daughter:

‘‘[if someone asked her] ‘what is your mom to you?’ Oh well, my mom is my

friend, my sister, my doctor…she is my…the one who cleans me, the one that

bathes me, the one who irons…I am everything to her. Or that is, she is

beginning to feel, she begins to adore, she begins to see.’’

Mothers acknowledged that their work schedules or lack of money to buy

children things or enroll them in activities sometimes impacted their parenting.

Despite these difficulties, however, they still regarded themselves as the person

most capable of caring for their children:

‘‘…I always come to the conclusion that there’s no way in the world there’s

gonna’ be a human being besides me who will care for them better than I will.

And that’s what keeps me, you know, going.’’ (Cecilia)

Indeed, it was on this topic- the impact of their mothering on children’s growth

and development- that these women appeared to be their most empowered. Despite

the changes in Latino/a family roles due to factors such as migration, acculturation,

and employment in the US described earlier, the mothers here seemed to both

embody and revel in traditional marianismo values that emphasize the women’s role

as mother, and celebrate the mother’s self-sacrifice and suffering for her children

(Cauce and Domenech-Rodrıguez 2002).

The type of relationship that mothers wanted to have with their child was

strongly affected by their own experiences in childhood. Mothers expressed a strong

desire that their children have different and better childhoods than they did. Women

described how their mothers were too strict or harsh with them, and that they wanted

to be different with their own children:

‘‘It’s that I’m hearing my mom…And I say, I don’t want to be that way…she

was very harsh, she would beat us and mistreat us…so I don’t want that for my

children.’’ (Angela)

‘‘I was embarrassed to tell my mom…my mother was really hard on us and I

guess that was one of the things that I was afraid to tell her…and I don’t want

her to be like that. I want her to tell me everything.’’ (Rosa)

Cecilia, who had a particularly difficult past, commented that ‘‘I don’t want my

kids to have to experience the pain I’ve gone through in my life.’’ Overall, these

mothers did not speak with fondness about their own childhoods, yet were more

hopeful about the lives of their own children. On the one hand, their sentiments

about their own mothers were different than those shared by the Latina women in

studies by Villenas and Moreno (2001) and Delgado-Gaitan (2005), who looked

upon their own mothers as sources of strength, endurance, and resilience. On the

other hand, however, they shared their beliefs about their children’s potential and

promise in the United States, and their desire to teach their children to valerse por si

Urban Rev (2011) 43:255–278 271

123

misma (to be self-reliant) (see Villenas and Moreno 2001) in their quest for a better

life.

Children’s education and learning are most strongly influenced by thepeople in their lives.

Mothers strongly equated education with schooling, as noted in the earlier

descriptions of mothers’ long-term goals for children. In fact, across all transcripts,

mothers’ explicit use of the word ‘‘education’’ was most often used in this context. It

was also noted previously that out of the six women, only one mentioned her child’s

good character as a long-term goal. Based on this, it seems that these women

equated being well schooled with being educated in the academic sense.

More often, mothers used the word ‘‘learning’’ to describe children’s progress

both in and out of school, in both academic (‘‘well the big change right now is that

he’s learned to read’’ [Angela]), behavioral (‘‘but when it comes to like learning and

doing things on her own, she can do it on her own’’ [Rosa]), and experiential (‘‘I

take her [to mother’s workplace] 2 or 3 days a week…that’s a way for her to learn a

lot of things’’ [Rosa]). Since I did not code the data by counting all mentions of the

word ‘‘learning’’ and analyzing all referents to it, the value mothers placed on each

type of learning cannot be determined. However, the question of who or what were

important influences on children’s learning and education was very relevant here.

In this regard, all six mothers considered people- not books or academic

materials- to be the greatest influence on children’s education and learning.

Although mothers often mentioned their children learning to read or their reading

progress, children’s reading was often described in the context of interactions that

occurred with parents:

‘‘I have to tell her, my child, let’s read…then we go and sit down there, and we

are there. Or do you want to hear a cassette? ‘oh yes, let’s go’’’. (Ines)

‘‘I always read to them…he sits down to copy them, and what he likes- he

calls me, ‘Mommy, what’s this here? Ok, I’ll read it to you from the beginning

so you know.’’ (Raya)

Books, school materials, or curriculum content were not mentioned by mothers as

facilitative of children’s knowledge, learning, or learning behaviors. However,

teachers were considered integral to such processes, as the responses of Raya and

Cecilia regarding why they thought their children had made such progress in the

previous school year illustrate:

‘‘Ah, more than anything, because…it has a lot to do with the teacher, you

know? It depends on the teacher, how she would show enthusiasm about doing

something…like when she has them do stories…’’ (Raya)

‘‘because she [teacher] seems to take a special interest in [child]. The only

teacher that I ever remember was in sixth grade, my English teacher, she was

the only one that ever cared. She made a difference in my life and I think

[child’s teacher] did, did for [child].’’ (Cecilia)

Family members, most notably parents and siblings, were also considered

integral to children’s learning, education, and development. Older siblings were

272 Urban Rev (2011) 43:255–278

123

described as helping children with reading, homework, and knowing how to protect

themselves. Consuela reported that grandparents, aunts, or other extended family

members were often available to assist her daughter with schoolwork: ‘‘so there’s

always someone in the house to help her…because with people to help her, she has a

lot of people to help her.’’ Parents, however, were cited most often as influential to

children’s development. Although mothers’ involvement in children’s schoolwork

was discussed earlier, five mothers also described their own individual attitudes,

characteristics, and behaviors as potentially influencing children. Put another way,

in the words of Angela, children would ‘‘learn what they see in their parents’’:

‘‘and if they see that they [parents] don’t care, they won’t care either. They’ll

be like, ‘my mother doesn’t care, why should I care’?’’ (Rosa)

‘‘The way I am, she is. So then she sees me, how is she not going to get

frustrated if she sees me. And then I tell her, don’t get frustrated my child, and

she is looking at me.’’ (Ines)

Indeed, the theme that people, rather than books or instructional materials, are the

most important sources of children’s education and learning ran throughout all six

transcripts. While the low-income status (i.e., less access to material resources) of

all the mothers undoubtedly may account for some of this, the findings are

consonant with Delgado-Gaitan (2004) observations, based on years of ethno-

graphic work with Latino families and communities, that there is a strong cultural

emphasis is on relationships with others in the process of achieving in school, and

that mothers’ desire for their children to have a better life accounts for the sacrifices

they make on behalf of their children. However, it is interesting to consider how this

value- people as key contributors to the learning process- as it was expressed by the

women here influenced their sense of agency in doing so. Previous work with Latino

families (e.g., Goldenberg and Gallimore 1995; Holloway et al. 1995) has suggested

that Latino parents do not consider direct support of children’s academic learning

(i.e., shared reading, homework instruction) as part of their parental role. In

addition, many Latino families may draw a clear boundary between the school and

the home because they respect the teacher’s authority and thus give full authority for

their children’s education to the school (Delgado-Gaitan 2004).

In partial contrast to this, all six mothers in the present analyses commented on

their efforts to provide instructional support to children at home, through direct

support of homework, reading, and writing activities, even though some mothers

acknowledged their limitations in these areas with respect to language and their own

educational backgrounds. In any event, the relational context of education and

learning that was described by the mothers is undoubtedly another manifestation of

the values of both familismo and educacıon within the home.

Discussion

As second-generation Latino children embark on their school careers, it is likely that

mothers have been their primary socializing agents. As articulated recently by

Doucet and Tudge (2007), a cultural perspective on children’s transition to formal

Urban Rev (2011) 43:255–278 273

123

schooling and performance in the early school years suggests that an awareness and

understanding of the diversity of parents’ attitudes, cognitions, and goals for

children is necessary in order to create receiving (i.e., school) environments that are

truly ready to serve children from diverse backgrounds. Indeed, a greater

understanding of these processes can guide interventions and practices with

immigrant children, and foster stronger collaborations between immigrant Latino

parents and schools.

As noted by Villenas (2001), Latina mothers are ‘‘key to providing children with

the cultural integrity to resist their deficit framing as ‘minority’ students

in…English-speaking/nonbilingual schools…’’ (p. 22). Their voices and perspec-

tives need to be heard, and their impact on children’s development recognized. The

present investigation contributed this end by examining the childrearing and

educational beliefs of six Latina mothers of first-grade children, and their beliefs

about their roles in their children’s lives. Historically, the childrearing values,

attitudes, and practices of the dominant, Euro-American, middle-class have been

considered the ‘‘norm’’ for optimal child development, and have served as the

standard upon which all other parenting practices have been compared (Garcıa Coll

and Pachter 2002). Since the diversity of America’s families and school population

is dramatically increasing and is likely to be the most pronounced among younger,

school-aged children, it is critical that our knowledge base about parenting beliefs,

values and processes begin to incorporate the full range of normative experiences to

which children are exposed (Garcıa Coll and Pachter 2002).

It is now widely recognized that immigrant families in the United States do not

merely disregard or reject the beliefs and practices of their cultures of origin in favor

of those of the majority culture, but selectively adopt some majority group norms,

and to varying degrees, through the process of acculturation (Borstein and Cote

2007; Garcıa Coll and Pachter 2002). In Garcia Coll et al’s (1996) Integrative

Model, family traditions, values, beliefs, and goals for children are rooted in a

group’s collective history, culture, religion, and nationality, yet are profoundly

impacted by contextual factors, such as acculturation, language proficiency,

socioeconomic status, interactions with schools, and neighborhood contexts, as

well as by the unique experiences of individual families. Because the present sample

was extremely small and fairly uniform in terms of demographic characteristics

such as age, level of education, and income, the potential impact of these factors on

mothers’ beliefs and practices as reflected in the themes generated was not

discernible in consistent ways. For example, all mothers, regardless of their

educational level, income, or work status, engaged in academic activities with

children at home, albeit in ways they were comfortable with. The two women who

raised concerns to school personnel were very different; Rosa was married, fluent in

English, and had more education than Raya, who had limited formal schooling and

fluency in English, and was a single mother. Put another way, there was both

continuity and variability in the childrearing and educational beliefs and practices of

these Latina mothers. Examining the potential impact of contextual factors on the

developmental outcomes of immigrant Latino families and children with larger

samples, using longitudinal methods, is a critical area for future research.

274 Urban Rev (2011) 43:255–278

123

There is considerable evidence that Latinos tend to have an interdependent or

collectivist orientation that prioritizes the cultural values of familial interdepen-

dence, respect, and the salience of relationships with others as central to one’s

identity (see Oyserman et al. 2002). In particular, the traditional goal of familismowas reflected by the mothers. First, mothers saw raising their children as their most

important job; that ‘‘raising children’’ was ‘‘[her] life,’’ as expressed by one mother.

Mothers expressed the belief that their children learned essential lessons and skills

such as routines, safety, and how to behave with others from them. As well, mothers

spoke of their attempts to assist children with reading and schoolwork, although

their limited education and knowledge of English (in some cases) limited their sense

of agency in this area. The way that the childrearing goal educacion was expressed

in the voices of these mothers was very interesting; clearly, their conceptions of

education were multifaceted, including social, moral, behavioral, practical, and

cognitive dimensions. Although the education of children was viewed as funda-

mentally relational, the mothers cast themselves as most central in this regard.

In short, mothers described their roles as advisors, models, protectors, and

teachers of children. The women’s almost exclusive focus on themselves, as

opposed to fathers, for example, as the most significant models for children may

be a manifestation of traditional marianismo values, yet this need not be viewed

as a detriment. Although the single-parent status of half the mothers has

implications for the adaptive function marianismo can play- indeed, these mothers

had to rely on themselves out of necessity and survival- it also points to their

potential as sources of ‘‘expert’’ knowledge upon which their children can draw

comfort, strength, and resilience as they navigate their school experiences.

Implications for Home-School Partnerships

That Latina mothers care deeply about their children’s education and are committed

to helping them succeed using a variety of strategies was demonstrated in this

analysis. Also, while grounded in the values familismo and educacıon, of a range of

mothers’ beliefs and practices was demonstrated. By building on mothers’

perspectives, home practices, and ‘‘expert’’ knowledge about their children, schools

and practitioners can enhance Latino parental involvement in children’s education.

It is known that high-achieving Latino students report high levels of involvement in

home and at school (Delgado-Gaitan 2004). Connecting across the home-school

border requires teachers and educators each to know and understand the cultural

beliefs and values of the other. Yet, schools must be committed to ‘‘resituating the

dynamics of power and privilege’’ (Villenas 2005, p. 276), and create opportunities

and spaces for mothers’ voices to truly be heard. Can Latina mothers of diverse

backgrounds and circumstances be treated with dignity and respect? Can they speak

first, not last? Can there be dedicated spaces within buildings where they can meet

together? Can they be called upon- trusted- to interpret particular situations and

behaviors and offer solutions? Can their perspectives inform aspects of school

policy and practice? These are examples of critical questions that must be seriously

considered if schools truly seek to be sites of meaningful growth, change, and

empowerment for immigrant and ethnic minority children and families.

Urban Rev (2011) 43:255–278 275

123

As noted by Rogoff (2003), in order to begin to see and understand the beliefs

or practices of another culture, we must first be willing to suspend those of our own.

Since those in positions of power (e.g., teachers) are largely socialized not to do this,

especially with low-income or ethnic minority parents, this process may prove to be

difficult. It is my belief, however, that such processes are necessary, and that

professional educators must bear their weight. Only then will we, as professionals,

be able to view Latina mothers as legitimate partners, consider seriously their

understandings and meanings regarding children and education, and join with them

in maximizing the potential of Latino children developing and learning in the

United States.

References

Azmitia, M., Cooper, C. R., Garcıa, E. E., & Dunbar, N. D. (1996). The ecology of family guidance in

low-income Mexican-American and European American families. Social Development, 5, 1–23.

Bornstein, M. H. (2006). Parenting science and practice. In I. E. Sigel & K. A. Renninger (Eds.),

Handbook of child psychology, vol. 4: Child psychology and practice (pp. 893–949). NY: Wiley.

Borstein, M. H., & Cote, L. R. (2007). Knowledge of child development and family interactions among

immigrants to America: Perspectives from developmental science. In J. E. Lansford, K. Deater-

Deckard, & M. H. Bornstein (Eds.), Immigrant families in contemporary society (pp. 121–136). NY:

Guilford.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1986). Ecology of the family as a context for human development: Recent

perspectives. Developmental Psychology, 22, 723–742.

Cabrera, N. J., & Garcia Coll, C. (2004). Latino fathers: Uncharted territory in need of much exploration.

In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the father in child development (4th ed., pp. 417–452). Mahwah,

NJ: Erlbaum.

Cabrera, N. J., Shannon, J. D., Mitchell, S. J., & West, J. (2009). Mexican American mothers’ and fathers’

prenatal attitudes and father parental involvement: Links to mother-infant interaction and father

engagement. Sex Roles, 60, 510–526.

Caldera, Y. M., Fitzpatrick, J., & Wampler, K. S. (2002). Coparenting in intact Mexican American

families: Mothers’ and fathers’ perceptions. In J. M. Contreras, K. A. Kerns, & A. M. Neal-Barnett

(Eds.), Latino children and families in the United States: Current research and future directions(pp. 107–131). Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.

Calzada, E. J., Fernandez, Y., & Cortes, D. E. (2010). Incorporating the cultural value of respeto into a

framework of Latino parenting. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 16(1), 77–86.

Capps, R., et al. (2005). The new demography of America’s schools: Immigration and the no child leftbehind act. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.

Cauce, A. M., & Domenech-Rodrıguez, M. (2002). Latino families: Myths and realities. In J. M. Contreras,

K. A. Kerns, & A. M. Neal-Barnett (Eds.), Latino children and families in the United States:Current research and future directions (pp. 1–25). Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.

Ceballo, R. (2004). From barrios to Yale: The role of parenting strategies in Latino families. HispanicJournal of Behavioral Sciences, 26(2), 171–186.

Contreras, J. M., Kerns, K. A., & Neal-Barnett, A. M. (Eds.). (2002). Latino children and families in theUnited States: Current research and future directions. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.

Delgado Gaitan, C. (1994). Socializing young children in Mexican-American families: An intergener-

ational perspective. In P. M. Greenfield & R. R. Cocking (Eds.), Cross-cultural roots of minoritychild development (pp. 55–86). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Delgado-Gaitan, C. (1993). Parenting in two generations of Mexican American families. InternationalJournal of Behavioral Development, 16, 409–427.

Delgado-Gaitan, C. (2004). Involving Latino families in schools: Raising student achievement throughhome-school partnerships. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

276 Urban Rev (2011) 43:255–278

123

Delgado-Gaitan, C. (2005). Family narratives in multiple literacies. Anthropology and EducationQuarterly, 36(3), 265–272.

DeSantis, L., & Ugarriza, D. N. (2000). The concept of theme as used in qualitative nursing research.

Western Journal of Nursing Research, 22(3), 351–372.

Doucet, F., & Tudge, J. (2007). Co-constructing the transition to school: Reframing the novice versus

expert roles of children, parents, and teachers from a cultural perspective. In R. C. Pianta, M. J. Cox,

& K. L. Snow (Eds.), School readiness and the transition to kindergarten in the era ofaccountability (pp. 307–328). Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing Co.

Downe-Wamboldt, B. (1992). Content analysis: Method, applications, and issues. Health Care forWomen International, 13, 313–321.

Durand, T. M. (2010). Celebrating diversity in early care and education settings: Moving beyond the

margins. Early Child Development and Care, 180(7), 835-848

Falicov, C. J. (2005). Mexican families. In M. McGoldrick, J. Giordano, & N. Garcia-Preto (Eds.),

Ethnicity and family therapy (3rd ed., pp. 229–241). NY: The Guilford Press.

Fuligni, A. J. (1997). The academic achievement of adolescents from immigrant families: The roles of

family background, attitudes, and behavior. Child Development, 68(2), 351–363.

Garcıa Coll, C., Lamberty, G., Jenkins, R., McAdoo, H. P., Crinic, K., Wasik, B. H., et al. (1996). An

integrative model for the study of developmental competencies in minority children. ChildDevelopment, 67, 1891–1914.

Garcıa Coll, C., & Pachter, L. M. (2002). Ethnic and minority parenting. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.),

Handbook of parenting, vol. 4 : Social conditions and applied parenting (2nd ed., pp. 1–20).

Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Glaser, B. G. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, Anslem. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitativeresearch. NY: Aldine de Gruyter Press.

Goldenberg, C., & Gallimore, R. (1995). Immigrant Latino parents’ values and beliefs about their

children’s education: Continuities and discontinuities across cultures and generations. Advances inMotivation and Achievement, 9, 183–228.

Gonzalez-Ramos, G., Zayas, L. H., & Cohen, E. V. (1998). Child-rearing values of low-income, Puerto

Rican mothers of preschool children. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 29,

377–382.

Greenfield, P. M., Quiroz, B., & Raeff, C. (2000). Cross-cultural conflict and harmony in the social

construction of the child. In S. M. Harkness, C. Raeff, & C. M. Super (Eds.), New directions forchild and adolescent development, no. 87: Variability in the social construction of the child(pp. 93–108). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Halgunseth, L. C., Ispa, J. M., & Rudy, D. (2006). Parental control in Latino families: Anintegrated

review. Child Development, 77(5), 1282–1297.

Harwood, R., Leyendecker, B., Carlson, V., Asencio, M., & Miller, A. (2002). Parenting among Latino

families in the US. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting: vol. 4. Social and appliedparenting (2nd ed., pp. 21–46). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Hernandez, D. J. (2004). Demographic change and the life circumstances of immigrant families. Future ofChildren, 14, 17–48.

Hernandez, D. J., Denton, N. A., & Macartney, S. E. (2008). Children in immigrant families: Looking to

America’s future. Social Policy Report, 22(3), 1–23.

Holloway, S. D., Rambaud, M. F., Fuller, B., & Eggers-Pierola, C. (1995). What is ‘‘appropriate practice’’

at home and in child care?: Low-income mothers’ views on preparing their children for school.

Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 10, 451–473.

Kearney, M. H. (2001). Levels and applications of qualitative research evidence. Research in Nursing andHealth, 24, 145–153.

Lansford, J. E., Deater-Deckard, K., & Bornstein, M. H. (Eds.). (2007). Immigrant families incontemporary society. NY: Guilford Press.

Lareau, A. (2003). Unequal childhoods: Class, race, and family life. CA: University of California Press.

LeVine, R. A., & New, R. S. (Eds.). (2008). Anthropology and child development: A cross-culturalreader. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.

Miller, A. M., & Harwood, R. L. (2001). Long-term socialization goals and the construction of infants’

social networks among middle-class Anglo and Puerto Rican mothers. International Journal ofBehavioral Development, 25, 450–457.

Urban Rev (2011) 43:255–278 277

123

Mosier, C., & Rogoff, B. (2003). Privileged treatment of toddlers: Cultural aspects of individual choice

and responsibility. Developmental Psychology, 39, 1047–1060.

Okagaki, L., & Frensch, P. A. (1998). Parenting and children’s school achievement: A multiethnic

perspective. American Educational Research Journal, 35(1), 123–144.

Oyserman, D., Coon, H., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2002). Rethinking individualism and collectivism:

Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 3–72.

Parke, R. D., & O’Neil, R. (1999). Social relationships across contexts: Family-peer linkages. In

W. A. Collins & B. Lausen (Eds.), Relationships in developmental contexts: The Minnesotasymposium on child psychology (Vol. 30, pp. 211–239). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Perez Carreon, G., Drake, C., & Barton, A. C. (2005). The importance of presence: Immigrant parents’

school engagement experiences. American Educational Research Journal, 42(3), 465–498.

Pianta, R. C., Cox, M. J., & Snow, K. L. (Eds.). (2007). School readiness and the transition tokindergarten in the era of accountability. Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing Co.

Raffaelli, M., Carlo, G., Carranza, M. A., & Gonzalez-Krueger, G. E. (2005). Understanding Latino

children and adolescents in the mainstream: Placing culture at the center of developmental models.

In L. A. Jensen & R. W. Larson (Eds.), New directions for child and adolescent development,vol. 109: New horizons in developmental theory and research (pp. 23–32). San Francisco: Jossey-

Bass.

Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature of human development. NY: Oxford University Press.

Sandelowski, M. (2000). Whatever happened to qualitative description? Research in Nursing and Health,2, 334–340.

Savage, S. L., & Gauvain, M. (1998). Parental beliefs and children’s everyday planning in European

American and Latino families. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 19, 319–340.

Schulze, P. A., Harwood, R. L., & Schoelmerich, A. (2001). Feeding practices and expectations among

middle-class Anglo and Puerto Rican mothers of 12-month-old infants. Journal of Cross-CulturalPsychology, 32, 397–406.

St. Pierre, R. G., Layzer, J. I., Goodson, B. D., & Bernstein, L. S. (1999). The effectiveness

of comprehensive case management interventions: Evidence from the national evaluation of

the comprehensive child development program. American Journal of Evaluation, 20, 15–34.

Taylor, R. D. (1997). The effects of economic and social stressors on parenting and adjustment In

African-American Families. In R. D. Taylor & M. C. Wong (Eds.), Social and emotional adjustmentand family relations in ethnic minority families (pp. 35–52). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates.

US Census Bureau (2010) Facts for features: Hispanic heritage month 2010. Retrieved July 15, 2010

from http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/pdf/cb10ff-17_hispanic.pdf.

Valdes, G. (1996). Con respeto: Bridging the distances between culturally diverse families and schools.

New York: Teachers College Press.

Valenzuela, A. (1999). Subtractive schooling: US-Mexican youth and the politics of caring. Albany: State

University of New York Press.

Villenas, S. (2001). Latina mothers and small-town racisms: Creating narratives of dignity and moral

education in North Carolina. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 32(1), 3–28.

Villenas, S. A. (2005). Latina literacies in convivencia: Communal spaces of teaching and learning.

Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 36(3), 273–277.

Villenas, S., & Moreno, M. (2001). To valerse por si misma between race, capitalism, andpatriarchy:

Latina mother-daughter pedagogies in North Carolina. Qualitative Studies in Education, 14(5),

671–687.

Weber, R. P. (1985). Basic content analysis. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

West, M. M. (2001). Teaching the third culture child. Young Children, 55, 27–32.

278 Urban Rev (2011) 43:255–278

123