Preparing Teachers to Partner With Multilingual Families and Families of Children With Disabilities: A Systematic Review

Abstract

Family–teacher collaboration plays a critical role in PK–12 schools for multilingual students and students with disabilities. Teacher preparation programs prepare future teachers to collaborate with families before they enter the classrooms, yet little is known regarding the extent to which programs prepare teacher candidates to collaborate with these specific family populations. In this systematic review, the authors synthesize 27 studies conducted in teacher preparation programs that train teachers to collaborate with (a) families of students with disabilities, (b) multilingual families, or (c) multilingual families of students with disabilities. Most studies investigated the collaboration with families of students with disabilities (n = 21), while some investigated multilingual families (n = 8), and very few examined collaborations with families of students who are dually identified, multilingual students with disabilities (n = 2). In a thematic analysis, we identified two family–teacher collaboration program models and several class activities across four types of teacher preparation program models. Our critique identifies methodological strengths and weaknesses of the literature, practice and policy implications, and a call for future research to equitably center family voice in family–teacher investigations.

Keywords

bilingual/bicultural equity parents and families special education teacher education/development family equity family–teacher collaboration multilingual students teacher preparation students with disabilities

Historically marginalized students experience disparate outcomes as compared to their peers (Snyder et al., 2018). For the purposes of our investigation, we focus on three historically marginalized student populations in U.S. PK–12 schools: students with disabilities, multilingual students, and multilingual students with disabilities. The U.S. Department of Education (USDOE) defines these specific student populations, as they are legally entitled to additional education services (USDOE, 2023a, 2023b). According to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 2004), students with disabilities are children aged 3 through 21 who receive special education and related services in PK–12 schools. These students have one or more intellectual, physical, emotional, behavioral, or learning disabilities that significantly impact their educational performance. Under federal law, students with disabilities are ensured a free and appropriate equal access to education with individualized education programs (IEP; USDOE, 2023a). Multilingual students, also known as English learners or emergent bilinguals, are students who speak a language other than English at home and are in the process of acquiring English proficiency (USDOE, 2023b). Multilingual students have diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds and receive English language (EL) services if they are found eligible according to their English language proficiency in speaking, listening, reading, and writing. It is important to distinguish that some students may belong to both student groups: multilingual students with disabilities. Multilingual students with disabilities are entitled to both education services: special education and EL support. In such cases, school teams must work together to meet both language and disability-related needs to ensure an equitable and inclusive learning environment (USDOE, 2022).

Yet, while these students are entitled to receive an equitable education, many report being marginalized. In particular, students with disabilities who identify as part of other marginalized groups (i.e., LGBTQ, Latinx, Black) experience higher levels of suicidal ideation, are victimized at higher rates than their nondisabled peers, and struggle to socially connect with school staff and other students (Forber-Pratt et al., 2020). Likewise, multilingual students and their families consistently report greater instances of discrimination in school communities (Cioè-Peña, 2017) and poorer academic outcomes compared to their White, nondisabled peers (Lavín et al., 2020). As discouraging as it is unsurprising, multilingual students with disabilities may be multiply marginalized. Multilingual students with disabilities and their families report being discriminated against due to their intersecting identities, thus creating more difficult scenarios for them at school and in other aspects of their daily life (Larios & Zetlin, 2022). For example, Larios and Zetlin (2022) reported that school IEP teams may intentionally or unintentionally fall into a deficit mindset, identifying students’ language and/or disability as deficiencies instead of assets when interacting with multilingual families. The outcome is that multilingual families report high levels of dissatisfaction with IEP meetings, leading to decreased participation in the special education process (Rossetti et al., 2017). Although systemic barriers to equitable education exist for multilingual students and students with disabilities, family–teacher collaboration has the potential to diminish barriers and enhance outcomes among these populations of students. Therefore, the purpose of our review is to examine empirical research conducted in teacher preparation programs that train teachers to collaborate with (a) families of students with disabilities, (b) multilingual families, or (c) multilingual families of students with disabilities.

Family–Teacher Collaboration

Family–teacher collaboration (FTC) involves families and teachers building off one another’s expertise, experience, and ideas to benefit students (Turnbull et al., 2022). FTC is a requirement under numerous federal laws applicable to multilingual students and/or students with disabilities, including Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA, 2015) and IDEA (2004). Among students with disabilities, research indicates that FTC results in: (a) student academic and behavioral gains (Strickland–Cohen et al., 2021), (b) reduced conflict between educators and families (Collier et al., 2015), (c) increased parent advocacy and family well-being (Burke & Hodapp, 2016), (d) enhanced teacher instruction (Kyzar et al., 2019), and (e) a school culture that embodies and values diversity and inclusion of all families and students (Turnbull et al., 2022). Similarly, research on multilingual learners demonstrates numerous benefits associated with FTC, including a better understanding of the student and family needs, better academic outcomes, and more successful transitions from school into adulthood (Achola & Greene, 2016).

Despite extant research and federal mandates, FTC is often underrealized in U.S. schools and thereby compromises the advancement of multilingual students with disabilities. There are a number of well-documented barriers to FTC, such as a lack of time to develop relationships with families (Baker et al., 2016) and barriers related to linguistic and cultural differences between families and educators (Kalyanpur & Harry, 2012; Lavín & Francis, 2022). Further, differences in language, educational ideologies, and disability perceptions between teachers and families can result in diminished expectations for family involvement, negative perceptions of families that teachers perceive as “over” or “under” involved (Bezdek et al., 2010), or less involvement in school-centric ways that are traditionally expected or valued in school systems (e.g., volunteering, supporting students to complete homework, attending conferences; Achola & Greene, 2016). Of these barriers, the most pervasive but malleable barrier to FTC is insufficient content, knowledge, and skills in teacher preparation programs—especially knowledge of strategies for collaborating with multilingual families of students with disabilities (Kalyanpur & Harry, 2012; Kyzar et al., 2019).

Teacher preparation programs are designed to equip teacher candidates with the knowledge, skills, resources, and dispositions to effectively teach all students, as well as an understanding of and ability to fulfill the legal roles and responsibilities under federal education law (e.g., special education services, standardized testing, schoolwide behavior support programs). Although FTC is also a critical element of student success and a core element in both general and special education law (e.g., parent engagement plans, student individualized education program team members), there exists a substantial variance in the degree to which FTC content is included in teacher preparation programs. For example, a national survey conducted by Kyzar et al. (2019) found that, although special education faculty respondents overwhelmingly valued FTC as a part of their preparation program, less than half of the programs had a course developed on FTC. Instead, respondents most often addressed FTC during a specific class session within a larger course. Although FTC courses are largely absent in teacher preparation programs, respondents reported that culture and/or culturally responsive practices were addressed in 100% of FTC-specific courses and nearly 90% of other teacher preparation program courses (Kyzar et al., 2019). While this finding is somewhat encouraging, teacher candidates continue to report feeling unprepared to collaborate with families when entering the teaching profession (Day et al., 2025; Riddle & King, 2023). Furthermore, teacher preparation programs are not required to train teacher candidates to specifically collaborate with marginalized families, such as multilingual families or families of students with disabilities. Thus, this teacher preparation gap is speculated to only further exacerbate equitable PK–12 education for multilingual students and students with disabilities.

Theoretical Underpinnings and Author Positioning

While the authors of this review are all faculty in teacher preparation programs, we differ individually in our research specialties as well as in our class, citizenship, ability, age or generation, race, sexual orientation, and gender. Author 1 is an assistant professor of special education and a former K–12 English learner teacher. She examines the intersections of language and disability and guides her research on supporting multilingual learners with disabilities. Author 2 is a Mexican immigrant and naturalized citizen. He is an assistant professor of special education, using culturally relevant pedagogy as a teaching framework (Ladson-Billings, 1995) and LatCrit (Valdés, 1996) and asset-based pedagogies such as Funds of knowledge (Moll et al., 1992) when conducting research. Author 3 is an associate professor in special education and a former special education teacher. They approach their work as a critical constructivist in examining family collaboration and professional partnerships within special education. Collectively, our theoretical underpinnings are framed within an asset-based approach when conducting research that explores relationships between families and schools. Research demonstrates, and we agree, that recognizing the cultural wealth of families and students centers their knowledge construction as valid (Moll et al., 1992; Yosso, 2005).

As such, our systematic review uses community cultural wealth (CCW) as the guiding theoretical framework. Yosso (2005) introduced CCW to challenge deficit-based perspectives by highlighting the array of knowledge, skills, and resources that communities of color and other marginalized groups draw upon to navigate educational spaces. The CCW framework identifies multiple forms of cultural capital, including aspirational, familial, social, navigational, resistant, and linguistic capital, that families contribute to their interactions with schools (Jiménez, 2020). Specifically, aspirational capital reflects how families maintain hopes and dreams for their children despite barriers. Familial capital reflects how families draw on cultural knowledge, values, and support within family and community networks. Linguistic capital encompasses how families use skills developed through multilingual communication. In addition, social capital reflects how families build and use networks to access resources and support. Navigational capital describes how families maneuver through institutional systems such as schools. Finally, resistant capital reflects how families challenge inequities and advocate for change (Yosso, 2005). By applying CCW, we examine how teacher preparation programs recognize and build upon the linguistic, cultural, and experiential assets of multilingual families and families of children with disabilities, which supports collaboration that validates and leverages these strengths (Lavin & Goodman, 2023; Yosso, 2005).

Additionally, we recognize the power ingrained in our positions within academia and the tensions created between our personal identities and our work. We understand that the work we do needs to be constantly reevaluated to respect our ontological perspectives. More importantly, we acknowledge that when unchecked, our own research can harm those at the margins more than effect positive change (Boveda & Annamma, 2022). It was through our positioning that we recognized the gap in literature on how teacher preparation programs prepare future teachers to work with families. This led us to question what is being done to create meaningful relationships between families and the schools their children attend. Ultimately, this statement is not intended to justify our actions in our systematic review examination. Instead, it highlights the thoughtful decisions we, as authors, made throughout this study to ensure that the purpose, questions, and results would primarily benefit families, while also supporting teacher preparation programs and the broader field of education.

Purpose

Accordingly, we hypothesize that FTC research in teacher preparation for multilingual students or students with disabilities is disjoined, and the research on FTC for multilingual students with disabilities is nearly nonexistent. Furthermore, we speculate that enhancing FTC in teacher preparation has the potential to positively impact PK–12 student outcomes, and thus a review of the literature is warranted. Therefore, the purpose of our systematic review is to synthesize research that investigates the extent to which teacher preparation programs prepare teacher candidates to collaborate with families. Specifically, we are interested if teacher preparation programs prepare teacher candidates (i.e., preservice teachers) to collaborate with families of students with disabilities and multilingual students. Our research questions are: (1) What empirical studies exist preparing teacher candidates to collaborate with families of students with disabilities? (2) What empirical studies exist preparing teacher candidates to collaborate with multilingual families of culturally and linguistically diverse students? (3) What empirical studies exist preparing teacher candidates to collaborate with multilingual families of students with disabilities? And (4) in the studies reviewed, which specific instructional program models or structured pedagogical approaches are implemented to prepare teacher candidates for collaborating with families of students with disabilities and/or multilingual backgrounds in PK–12 settings?

Method

We purposefully selected a systematic literature review methodology to search all empirical quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods literature that met our criteria (Gough et al., 2017). A systematic literature review attempted “to identify, appraise and synthesize all the empirical evidence that meets pre-specified eligibility criteria to answer a given research question” (Cochrane definition, 2015, p. 3). We referred to Heyvaert et al.’s (2013) systematic literature review guidelines when planning our mixed-methods research synthesis approach. As a result, we focused on peer-reviewed studies but also included gray literature (e.g., dissertations) if empirical data collection, analyses, and results were included. To reduce human error, the following systematic procedures were conducted in the collaborative software program, Covidence. Then, the research team recorded our data in a PRISMA figure (see Figure 1).

Figure 1.

PRISMA figure.

Search Procedures

We performed a multiple-gated, systematic search to identify all relevant studies (Gage et al., 2017). This consisted of conducting electronic database searches, hand searches of relevant journals, and an ancestral search of a recent FTC literature search within in-service teacher professional development. We opted to include open dates to capture all policy changes (e.g., Civil Rights Act, IDEA, ESSA) and the evolution of FTC research within teacher education.

Electronic Databases

First, we identified the electronic databases Education Research Complete and PsycInfo, based on descriptions relevant to our work and literature that we commonly derive from those databases relevant to this study. We identified commonly used search keywords used in relevant literature, both in current (e.g., multilingual) and older (e.g., English learner) research, to capture as much relevant literature as possible. This consisted of the team investigating key terms used across each database and conducting preliminary searches with relevant vocabulary. In the preliminary searches, we cross-referenced results against databases, looked at the number of results in tandem with relevance of materials, and evaluated the similarities of literature across databases. In addition to the key terms we identified, we also added Boolean to ensure we captured as much literature as possible with the purposeful use of “AND” to capture each aspect of the research questions. The Boolean phrases used were: (preservice teacher* or student teacher* or teacher candidate* or educator*) AND (partnership* or involvement or participation or engagement or collaboration) AND (famil* or parent* or caregiver* or guardian*) AND (dis* or multilingual* or bilingual* or English learner*). The electronic search resulted in the initial identification of 7,772 studies.

Hand Searches

Next, we conducted a hand search of four relevant journals that were particular to our research questions. We selected the Journal of Teacher Education for its focus on teacher preparation research, TESOL Quarterly for its research aim of bi/multilingual education, Teacher Education Special Education for its research on special education teacher preparation, and the School Community Journal for FTC research. Titles and abstracts were screened for each journal for key terms dating back to the inception of each journal. The hand search yielded four additional studies.

Ancestral Search

Additionally, we elected to conduct an ancestry search of Smith and Sheridan’s (2019) systematic review of in-service teachers receiving FTC professional development. While our systematic review criteria included teacher candidates and not in-service teachers, we opted to scan their reference list. The ancestral search yielded an additional 18 studies.

Screening Procedures

We then exported the title and abstract of each article (n = 7,744) into Covidence for screening. Duplicates were removed (n = 406) from the multiple sources. Two researchers on the team coded each article (n = 7,338) as either possibly meeting criteria or not. To establish interrater reliability (IRR), a third researcher coded 30% of the total included articles (n = 2,202) to reach agreement. There was a 99% initial IRR among the researchers; the three researchers then met to resolve the 40 conflicts and reach 100% agreement. The team erred on the side of caution when screening to not wrongfully exclude potential articles for full-text eligibility. For example, if an abstract contained “teachers” or “teacher professional development” but did not explicitly state preservice teachers or teacher candidates, the article was included for eligibility.

The inclusion criteria consisted of the following: (a) the study examined teacher preparation programs in preparing teacher candidates to collaborate with families, (b) was an empirical study (quantitative, qualitative, or mixed-methods), (c) written in English, (d) conducted in the United States to evaluate our national teacher preparation and affiliated policy landscape, (e) contained participant outcomes, (f) and involved teacher preparation programs instructing family collaboration regarding families of students with disabilities or bi/multilingual families.

Eligibility Procedures

As a result, 61 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility by two researchers. There was a 94% initial IRR between researchers, with the third researcher resolving conflicts. Articles (n = 34) were excluded for the following reasons listed in Figure 2. For example, Moll et al. (1992) was a notable study that examined how teachers can be better prepared to collaborate with multilingual families by recognizing and incorporating the rich cultural and intellectual resources found in students’ homes. Using ethnographic methods, the researchers worked with teachers to conduct home visits and gather qualitative data about family practices, which were then used to inform classroom instruction. However, this study was excluded because it examined in-service teachers and not teacher preparation programs preparing teacher candidates (i.e., preservice teachers).

Figure 2.

Excluded studies.

After articles were excluded for not meeting the inclusion criteria, the final sample consisted of 27 articles for data analysis. First, the research team deductively coded each article regarding the study descriptors (e.g., publication year, author[s], and study methods). To answer research questions 1–3, we then coded (a) FTC preparation aim (e.g., families of students with disabilities, multilingual families, or both); (b) the sample (e.g., teacher candidates: early childhood, special education, bilingual/EL, general education, or did not specify teacher candidate specialization; family participants: child has a disability, is bi/multilingual; or teacher educators/faculty who implement FTC in teacher preparation programs). Finally, for research question 4, the research team coded FTC program descriptors. Inductive codes consisted of a qualitative synthesis of the specific FTC program delivery model, when present. Deductive codes included the (a) setting (e.g., undergraduate or graduate, if the FTC program involved a school district/local education agency [LEA] collaborative site, and the specific geographic region/state/university if listed); and (b) participant outcomes (e.g., teacher, family, and/or teacher educator outcomes). The IRR for the full coding was 98% and was resolved by a third researcher.

Results

We first provide an overview of FTC preparation research in teacher education (n = 27), including the research methodologies and samples utilized. Next, we synthesize the family preparation aims present in studies: families of students with disabilities, multilingual, or both (i.e., research questions 1–3). Then, we synthesize the programs that were implemented in these teacher education studies (i.e., research question 4). Program characteristics regarding their setting, delivery model, and outcomes are reported.

Descriptive Statistics of the Dataset

As seen in Table 1, methodologies varied amongst teacher preparation investigations, with qualitative being the most frequent (n = 13), followed by quantitative (n = 7,) and mixed-methods (n = 7). Qualitative studies consisted mostly of basic qualitative investigations (n = 6) with some focus group implementations (n = 3), case studies (n = 3), and ethnography (n = 1). Quantitative studies included: survey (n = 2), experimental (n = 1), quasi-experimental (n = 1), single case (n = 1), and descriptive (n = 1). The mixed-method studies were all concurrent designs that collected and analyzed quantitative and qualitative data at the same time.

Table 1

Methodologies

		Family Preparation Aim		Sample
Citation	Design	Students With Disabilities	Multilingual Students	Teacher Candidates	Families	Teacher Educators
Accardo et al. (2020)	Experimental	X		General education
Blasi (2002)	Mixed-methods		X	Early childhood
Brown et al. (2014)	Quasi-experimental		X	All concentrations
Collier et al. (2015)	Mixed-methods	X		Special education	X
Flanigan (2007)	Focus groups	X		Not present		X
Fults and Harry (2012)	Mixed-methods	X		Special education	X
Hampshire et al. (2015)	Qualitative	X	X	Early childhood and special education
Holdren (2017)	Single case, multiple baseline	X		Special education	X
Hooks (2008)	Qualitative		X	Early childhood
Keilty and Kosaraju (2018)	Qualitative	X		Special education
Kidd et al. (2005)	Qualitative	X		Early childhood
Kim and Vail (2011)	Experimental	X		Special education
Knight-McKenna et al. (2019)	Mixed-methods		X	Early childhood	X
Kyzar et al. (2019)	Survey	X		Special education		X
McDevitt and Mello (2021)	Case study	X		Special education	X
McHatton et al. (2013)	Ethnographic	X	X	General education
M. M. Murray and Curran (2008)	Survey	X		Special education
M. Murray et al. (2008)	Focus groups	X		Special education
M. M. Murray, Handyside, et al. (2013a)	Focus groups	X		Special education	X
M. M. Murray, Mereoiu, and Handyside (2013b)	Mixed-methods	X		Special education
Patterson et al. (2009)	Mixed-methods	X		Special education
Perouse-Harvey (2020)	Case study	X		General education	X
Robinson and Kelley (2007)	Descriptive	X		Special education
Rodriguez (2022)	Mixed-methods	X		Special education
Santamaría Graff et al. (2020)	Qualitative	X		Special education	X
Sutterby et al. (2007)	Qualitative		X	Bilingual/EL and early childhood	X
Tilley-Lubbs (2003)	Case study		X	Bilingual/EL	X

Note. EL = English learner; IEP = individualized education program.

Samples in the investigations also largely differed, with most researching teacher candidates or teacher educators, and very few studies including families. Teacher candidates ranged from several teacher education disciplines that included: special education (n = 16), general education (n = 4), early childhood (n = 5), and bilingual/EL education (n = 3). Notably, only 10 studies utilized family samples within the field of family preparation in teacher education. Most family samples included families who had a child with a disability (60%), while some included multilingual families in their sample (30%). While national teacher organizations state the value of family voices within teacher preparation, our results show that these voices were largely missing in the research.

Teacher Preparation Literature

Families of Students With Disabilities

The most common family preparation aim was preparing teacher candidates to collaborate with families of students with disabilities (n = 21). Family preparation largely took place within special education teacher education (72%), while some prepared general education (14%) or early childhood (9%) teacher candidates to collaborate with families of students with disabilities. For example, M. M. Murray, Mereoiu, and Handyside (2013b) investigated FTC with special education teacher candidates. Their study’s setting took place in a Collaboration and Consultation in Schools course for teacher candidates in the master of education in special education program. The teacher candidates were assigned two major FTC projects: The Comprehensive Family Paper and the Community Presentation Project. Parents of students with disabilities (n = 7) attended and participated in the course and worked closely with teacher candidates to share ideas, resources, and strategies to develop the team presentation. At the conclusion of the course, special education teacher candidates shared their capstone presentations with the local community. M. M. Murray, Mereoiu, and Handyside (2013b) employed a pre/post quantitative procedure, in which teacher candidates completed the Family/Professional Partnership Survey at the beginning and end of the course. The authors then used paired t-test analyses to compare responses across the two time points to assess changes over the semester. Results showed that teacher candidates significantly improved their ability to create communication systems with families (t = −6.17, p < .000), reported having better knowledge on how to organize meetings with families (t = −4.44, p < .000), and increased their knowledge on resources that can assist families (t = −4.531, p < .000). Mixed-methods findings revealed that teacher candidates reported an improvement of knowledge, beliefs, dispositions, and experiences of FTC.

While it is critical that special education teacher candidates be prepared to work with families of students with disabilities, we note that all teacher candidates must also be prepared. Federal law mandates that students with disabilities receive instruction in the least restrictive environment, meaning they are educated with nondisabled peers to the maximum extent appropriate based on individual needs (USDOE, 2022). In other words, all teachers participate in the special education process to support students with disabilities, not just special education teachers. Therefore, the dearth of research preparing teacher candidates in other disciplines (e.g., elementary, secondary, bilingual/EL, early childhood) to collaborate with families of students with disabilities warrants concern.

Multilingual Families

Less than a third of the studies (n = 8) examined family preparation with multilingual families. Those that examined multilingual family collaboration were largely housed within early childhood teacher education (n = 5). For example, Knight-McKenna et al. (2019) examined FTC preparation for early childhood teacher candidates. In their study, they investigated the impact of academic service learning on early childhood teacher candidates (n = 9) collaborating with multilingual families (n = 10) and their 2–5-year-old children (n = 13). Three qualitative themes documented changes in students’ skills and dispositions across the semester—(1) early semester: a (mostly) positive approach; (2) early to midsemester: now it’s real; and (3) mid- to late semester: gaining confidence and finding family strengths. Convergent mixed-methods findings also revealed that FTC preparation positively impacted the teacher candidates’ dispositions for partnering with culturally and linguistically diverse families.

Other investigations occurred within general education (n = 1) and special education (n = 1) teacher preparation. One study, by Brown et al. (2014), did not explicitly define the teacher candidate sample and categorized the education license band as “all concentrations.” Surprisingly, only two studies investigated the preparation of bilingual education/EL teacher candidates, who are the most likely to interact with multilingual families. Sutterby et al. (2007) examined the preparation of bilingual education/EL teacher candidates collaborating with Latinx families. From 2002–2006, teacher candidates (n = 160) participated in a service-learning program called The Evening Reading Improvement Program. In the program, teacher candidates were provided with conversation prompts to encourage positive interactions with the families. These sentence starters helped the teacher candidates gain family information regarding their home culture and what families wanted for their children in the reading program. Thematic analysis from teacher candidates and families revealed the success of the FTC program and revealed the importance of language to communication and relationship building. However, it should be noted that teacher candidates were (a) overwhelmingly Latinx (85%) and (b) fluent in Spanish themselves, which was also the first language of the family participants.

Multilingual Families of Students With Disabilities

As we hypothesized, there was a dearth of research on preparing teacher candidates to collaborate with multilingual families of students with disabilities (n = 2). The two investigations, Hampshire et al. (2015) and McHatton et al. (2013), both employed qualitative investigations within different teacher preparation concentrations. Hampshire et al. (2015) utilized a basic qualitative approach in examining early childhood and special education teacher candidates collaborating with multilingual families of students with disabilities. Whereas McHatton et al. (2013) employed an ethnographic study on general education teacher candidates who learned to collaborate with multilingual families of students with disabilities while participating in a class activity called “ethnodrama.” In both studies, family participant outcomes were not examined, but teacher candidates reported positive feelings of families after their FTC teacher preparation.

Description of Programs

Most investigations did not report a specific FTC program model, but rather investigated family–teacher preparation in typical teacher education coursework and fieldwork experiences (n = 11). Those that investigated specific family preparation programs included several similar delivery models of: family as faculty/intensive extensive collaborative learning program (n = 7) and service learning (n = 5). Other studies described teacher education class activities, including simulated IEP or parent meetings (n = 5), ethnodrama (n = 1), and home-visit recordings (n = 1). See Table 2 for a comprehensive list of programs, their settings, and affiliated teacher candidate and family outcomes.

Table 2

Program Characteristics

	Setting			Program
Citation	University	LEA	Location	Delivery Model	Outcomes
Accardo et al. (2020)	Undergrad	X	Northeast	Service learning	Teacher candidates increased their knowledge of parental collaboration and communication, as well as their reflection on understanding family and student needs.
Blasi (2002)	Undergrad		Southwest	Coursework and fieldwork experiences; not a specific delivery model	Teacher candidates’ views changed to a “family first” perspective, gained confidence in their own ability to work with families, understood the necessity for working in teams, and understood the importance of parent involvement.
Brown et al. (2014)	Both		Midwest	Coursework and fieldwork experiences; not a specific delivery model	Teacher candidates increased their knowledge and attitude of family involvement.
Collier et al. (2015)	Both		Southwest	Family as faculty program	Teacher candidates increased their understanding and appreciation of home–school collaboration and positively impacted their teaching practices and the school–family relationships they have formed with parents of SWDs.
Flanigan (2007)	Both		Illinois	Not a specific delivery model	Teacher educators expressed the importance of preparing teacher candidates in FTC; however, they were concerned that teacher educators need more preparation in this area.
Fults and Harry (2012)	Graduate	X	Location not specified	Coursework and fieldwork experiences; not a specific delivery model	Teacher candidates increased their attitudes toward family collaboration and diversity.
Hampshire et al. (2015)	Undergrad	X	Location not specified	Service learning	Teacher candidates shifted their perceptions of family collaboration, gained insight into the lives of homeless families, and valued service learning.
Holdren (2017)	Undergrad	X	Southwest	Simulated IEP meetings	Teacher candidates increased their parent participation encouragement and completion of IEP meeting components.
Hooks (2008)	Undergrad		South Carolina	Mock parent conferences	Teacher candidates (a) increased their FTC confidence, (b) expanded awareness and appreciation for diversity, (c) improved knowledge of what is involved in communication, and (d) expressed a commitment to involving parents in education.
Keilty and Kosaraju (2018)	Graduate		Northeast	Home-visit video recordings	Teacher candidates increased their understanding of relational vs. participatory help-giving practices.
Kidd et al. (2005)	Graduate	X	Washington, D.C., area	Coursework and fieldwork experiences; not a specific delivery model.	Teacher candidates (a) discussed how their prejudices and fears were challenged as they became familiar with families whose cultures and languages were different from their own and (b) realized they could learn from the families to build upon students’ cultural knowledge.
Kim and Vail (2011)	Undergrad		Southeast	Coursework and fieldwork experiences; not a specific delivery model.	Teacher candidates had perceived the importance of family involvement when participating in the two teaching methods, guest speaker and video, which both contributed equally to perception improvement.
Knight-McKenna et al. (2019)	Undergrad		Location not specified	Service learning	Teacher candidates viewed service learning as an effective pedagogy to help them build family–teacher partnerships. Most teacher candidates reported that they increased their collaboration skills when partnering with diverse families and were able to identify families' strengths.
Kyzar et al. (2019)	Both		Across the United States	Not a specific delivery model.	Teacher educators believed that FTC preparation is important in teacher education, but not enough is being done about it.
McDevitt and Mello (2021)	Undergrad	X	New York City	Coursework and fieldwork experiences; not a specific delivery model.	Mothers of SWDs were satisfied with teacher candidate field-based practicum with family partnerships. Teacher candidates (a) implemented strategies they had learned according to students’ and families’ interests and cultural needs, and (b) acknowledged that parents were the experts on their children.
McHatton et al. (2013)	Undergrad		Location not specified	Ethnodrama	Most teacher candidates improved their (a) attitudes of sympathy for families, (b) surprise or disbelief in school personnels’ negative behavior, and (c) desired to be a considerate teacher.
M. M. Murray and Curran (2008)	Undergrad		Ohio	Family as Faculty program	Teacher candidates perceived that they increased their own FTC knowledge, abilities, and dispositions toward families in the special education process upon the conclusion of the course.
M. Murray et al. (2008)	Undergrad		Midwest	Family as Faculty program	Teacher candidate dispositions changed from viewing parents as uncaring, uninvolved, and unknowledgeable to valuing them as student experts and partners in the decision-making process.
M. M. Murray, Handyside, et al. (2013a)	Both		Midwest	Family as Faculty program	Parents increased their self-efficacy in school decision-making, access to resources, group affiliation, positive perceptions of change, and feelings of mutual respect.
M. M. Murray, Mereoiu, and Handyside (2013b)	Graduate	X	Midwest	Family as Faculty program	Teacher candidates reported an improvement of knowledge, beliefs, dispositions, and experiences of FTC.
Patterson et al. (2009)	Undergrad			Family as Faculty & simulated IEP meetings.	Teacher candidates strengthened three family beliefs: (a) families and parents sincerely care about their children and want to participate in decision-making; (b) all parents and families have valuable information to contribute; and (c) FTC requires planned effort, coordination, and collaboration.
Perouse-Harvey (2020)	Graduate		Midwest	Simulated IEP meetings	Teacher candidates’ beliefs ranged from conveying deficit-based perspectives to asset-based perspectives of SWDs through their language use and underlying perspectives.
Robinson and Kelley (2007)	Undergrad		Pacific Northwest	Simulated IEP meetings.	Teacher candidates increased their FTC beliefs and showed positive attitudes with technology in teacher preparation.
Rodriguez (2022)	Undergrad		Indiana	Coursework and fieldwork experiences; not a specific delivery model.	Teacher candidates increased their self-efficacy in communicating with families of SWDs.
Santamaría Graff et al. (2020)	Undergrad		Midwest	Family as Faculty	Teacher candidates demonstrated growth in their understandings of families’ strengths and their participation in their child’s education. Some teacher candidates continued to view families of SWDs through deficit lenses.
Sutterby et al. (2007)	Undergrad	X	Texas	Service learning	Teacher candidates increased their asset-based value of multilingual families. This included increased knowledge of students’ strengths and needs, knowledge of the Latinx culture, and their use of extended family as a support system. Families expressed that they saw the critical role that language plays in society throughout program participation.
Tilley-Lubbs (2003)	Undergrad		Virginia	Service learning	Teacher candidates and families increased their perceptions regarding their relationship and perceived issues that factor into their collaborative relationship.

Note. FTC = family–teacher collaboration; IEP = individualized education program; LEA = local education agency; SWDs = students with disabilities; Undergrad = undergraduate.

Family as Faculty

Although there are variations in the field, the key tenet of Family as Faculty (FAF) is that novice educators should learn directly from families and involves families serving in instructional roles in university educator preparation programs. Please refer to sources such as Santamaría Graff et al. (2020) for more information about the origins, development, and adaptations of FAF. In this systematic review, program implementation (n = 7) occurred only within special education teacher preparation investigations (Collier et al., 2015; M. M. Murray & Curran, 2008; M. Murray et al. 2008; M. M. Murray, Handyside, et al., 2013a; M. M. Murray, Mereoiu, & Handyside, 2013b; Patterson et al., 2009; Santamaría Graff et al., 2020). In this model, parents of students with disabilities co-plan and teach family collaboration classes with the teacher educator. Investigations found both positive outcomes for both teacher candidates and participating family members.

For example, Collier et al. (2015) examined an adapted version of the FAF program (i.e., Families as Faculty) with parents (n = 14) sharing their personal experiences with special education teacher candidates (n = 28). In their graduate school implementation, the FAF team created philosophical goals and led teacher candidate discussions surrounding family collaboration. This was followed by teacher candidates conducting home visits to listen to parents’ narratives about raising a child with a disability. Reflective data was collected from the teacher candidates through papers, pre-post program surveys, and a three-year follow-up survey after program completion. Thematic analysis revealed that teacher candidates (a) experienced parent perspectives on school–family interactions, (b) understood the complexities of families’ lives, and (c) related experiences from the families directly to their identities as teachers. FAF programs within several midwestern teacher preparation investigations (n = 4) were specifically titled The Intensive Extensive Collaborative Learning Program. Similar to other FAF program implementations, parents co-facilitated a teacher education course with a teacher educator. Teacher candidates and parents worked closely to share ideas, resources, and strategies to develop a capstone presentation on FTC.

Service Learning

Service-learning programs were the second most frequent in our review (n = 5). Broadly, service learning is an instructional strategy in higher education that integrates course content with community service (Bringle & Hatcher, 1996). In these investigations, teacher candidates critically reflected on their service with community family members and confronted their own stereotypes to deepen their knowledge through guided discussions (Accardo et al., 2020; Hampshire et al., 2015; Knight-McKenna et al., 2019; Sutterby et al., 2007; Tilley-Lubbs, 2003). Service-learning programs were popular throughout several teacher preparation areas. Implementation occurred within the preparation of special education, early childhood, and bilingual education/EL teacher candidates and incorporated the collaboration of multilingual families and families of students with disabilities.

For example, Accardo et al. (2020) investigated a service-learning program titled The Family Collaboration Project. Special education teacher candidates (n = 77) had to identify a student with academic and/or behavioral concerns and interview the student’s parent to gain an understanding of his/her needs. Teacher candidates then analyzed and shared student baseline data with the parent to create a collaborative data-driven student intervention. Teacher candidates shared ongoing student data with parents and made intervention adjustments when needed. As a result, teacher candidates increased their knowledge of parental collaboration and communication, and their reflection on understanding family and student needs.

Additionally, Sutterby et al. (2007) examined a service-learning project titled The Evening Reading Improvement Program with early childhood teacher candidates collaborating with multilingual families. This was an after-school tutoring program that provided teacher candidates with structured opportunities to interact and communicate with Latinx families. Teacher candidates were provided with conversation starters each week to encourage interaction with families in Spanish. While the teacher candidates were multilingual themselves, these prompts helped the teacher candidates elicit information from families about home activities, interests, and what they wanted for their children from the tutoring program. Teacher candidates increased their asset-based value of multilingual families. This included increased knowledge of students’ strengths and needs, knowledge of Latinx culture, and their use of extended family as a support system.

Class Activities

While other investigations did not implement a specific program model, they reported detailed class activity examples within their FTC investigations (n = 7). FTC class activities for teacher preparation consisted of simulated parent meetings (n = 5), digital home-visit recordings (n = 1), and ethnodrama (n = 1).

Simulated parent meetings

Several studies examined the FTC class activity of simulated parent meetings (n = 5), which consisted of either mock parent conferences (n = 1) or IEP meetings (n = 4). Hooks (2008) investigated early childhood teacher candidates (n = 44) participating in mock parent–teacher conferences during their preparation. For the class activity, teacher candidates interviewed adult multilingual learners in a community English class. Teacher candidates were then able to practice parent–teacher conference strategies, and the English students were able to practice their English. After the activity, teacher candidates participated in pre/post reflections regarding their experience. A thematic analysis revealed that the teacher candidates increased their (a) family collaboration confidence, (b) expanded awareness and appreciation for diversity, (c) improved knowledge of what is involved in communication, and (d) expressed a commitment to involving parents in their children’s education.

Holdren (2017) studied simulated IEP meetings with special education teacher candidates (n = 4). In the simulated IEP meetings, teacher candidates participated in 11 in-person IEP meeting simulations that were each 20 minutes. The simulation started when the parent actor entered the room. Then, teacher candidate participants were instructed to greet the parent at the door, direct them to the seat on their right, and begin leading the IEP meeting. Results showed that the teacher candidates increased their parent participation encouragement and completion of IEP meeting components.

Ethnodrama

McHatton et al. (2013) studied the implementation of an FTC class activity called ethnodrama. Ethnodrama, also known as performance ethnography, is an approach to present qualitative research findings by engaging the audience through the conventions of theatrical production (Saldaña, 2011). In the study by Mchatton et al. (2013), the ethnodrama was a performance that bean with negative and positive interactions with school personnel, including teachers, administration, district representatives, and parents. Teacher candidates were provided with descriptions of positive teacher–parent relationships and of how effective teachers can be valued by families. The performance ended with families sharing their hopes and dreams for their child’s academic future. In their investigation, general education teacher candidates (n = 316) reported positive feelings about families and expressed their commitment to work with families of students with disabilities after the ethnodramatic performance. Most teacher candidates improved their attitudes of sympathy for families, surprise or disbelief in school personnels’ negative behavior, and desired to be a considerate teacher.

Home-visit recordings

Keilty & Kosaraju (2018) examined the FTC class activity of home-visit recordings. Teacher candidates viewed recordings of exemplary teacher–family home visits in early childhood. Next, the teacher candidates reflected on the video FTC models and linked their new knowledge to course content. Through their written reflections, teacher candidates increased their understanding of relational vs. participatory help-giving practices from this FTC class activity. The authors noted that while the recordings should not replace actual home visits, they were deemed as an effective introduction for teacher candidates who are preparing to conduct their own home visits.

Discussion

This systematic review highlighted the significance of research and practice in teaching candidates how to effectively collaborate with families of students with disabilities and multilingual families. Addressing Research Question 1, the majority of studies focused on preparing teacher candidates to collaborate with families of students with disabilities, with most investigations situated in special education programs and far fewer examining preparation across general education, early childhood, or bilingual/EL licensure areas. In contrast, findings related to Research Question 2 revealed substantially fewer studies addressing preparation to collaborate with multilingual families, with most efforts concentrated in early childhood teacher education and limited representation in bilingual/EL and general education programs. Findings for Research Question 3 highlighted a critical gap in the literature, as only two studies examined preparation to collaborate with multilingual families of students with disabilities, underscoring the limited empirical attention given to families navigating intersecting systems of language support and special education. Finally, addressing Research Question 4, the review identified that relatively few studies implemented clearly defined instructional program models; when present, these most commonly included Family as Faculty approaches and service-learning models, while many studies relied on isolated course activities (e.g., simulated IEP meetings, ethnodrama, home-visit recordings) rather than sustained or programmatic preparation.

Collectively, these findings indicate that teacher preparation for family–teacher collaboration is unevenly distributed across family populations and licensure areas and is often implemented through fragmented instructional experiences rather than coherent, theoretically grounded program models. Furthermore, interpreted through a CCW lens, the findings suggest that many teacher preparation efforts emphasized compliance-oriented or skills-based approaches to family engagement, while fewer programs explicitly centered families’ linguistic, familial, and navigational capital as assets in collaborative practice.

Therefore, FTC preparation research is severely lacking in teacher preparation programs and is especially scarce in preparing teachers to work with a unique family population: multilingual families of students with disabilities. Accordingly, our review was not intended to identify best FTC practices for these family populations, but rather an entry point to organize existing teacher preparation program models and class activities. As with any systematic literature review, our study is limited by the search terms and databases we used (Gallagher & Scrivner, 2024). Although we employed systematic procedures, it is likely that additional relevant articles were missed because of omitted search terms or database restrictions. Therefore, we discuss the methodological strengths and weaknesses of the included studies, as well as FTC practice and policy implications.

Methodological Strengths and Weaknesses

Methodological Approaches

Researchers employed a wide variety of methods and investigated different types of FTC questions, a strength of the collective work. For example, researchers such as Brown et al. (2014) employed rigorous approaches such as a large-scale quasi-experimental study investigating the impact of coursework on teacher candidates (n = 1,658). As a result, their teacher preparation coursework was deemed significant in increasing knowledge, Wilks’ λ = .613, F(6, 449) = 47.308, p < .001 and positive attitudes toward families, Wilks’ λ = .982, F(3, 1548) = 9.65, p < .001. Further, McDevitt and Mello (2021) employed a robust qualitative investigation. They explored the experiences of teacher candidates (n = 5) and bi/multilingual mothers of students with disabilities (n = 6) who partnered together during COVID-19 school closures. The researchers used multiple data sources and triangulated their findings to develop the theme of the importance of FTC partnership reciprocity in teacher preparation. Despite some strengths in the final 27 studies, additional research is warranted with methodological improvements in terms of quality and quantity.

Theoretical Frameworks

A notable gap in the literature was the absence of theoretical frameworks to pillar investigations. Theoretical frameworks are essential in serving as the foundation for a study as they anchor the rationale of a study, drive the research questions, and empirically ground the literature review and methods (Gershwin et al., 2022; Grant & Osanloo, 2014). Moreover, theoretical frameworks are especially pertinent in critical research that investigates diverse populations and the affiliated inequitable power dynamics (Morrow et al., 1994). Given that multilingual families of disabilities are often marginalized in family–school partnerships (Larios & Zetlin, 2022), theoretical frameworks are critical within FTC research (Turnbull et al., 2022). Of the peer-reviewed studies, only four incorporated theoretical frameworks (Accardo et al., 2020; M. M. Murray, Mereoiu, & Handyside, 2013b; Robinson & Kelley, 2007; Sutterby et al., 2007). Theoretical frameworks varied and consisted of social constructivist theory (Sutterby et al., 2007), ecological systems theory (Accardo et al., 2020), transformative learning theory (M. M. Murray, Mereoiu, & Handyside, 2013b), and reflective practice theory (Robinson & Kelley, 2007). For example, Sutterby et al. (2007) clearly articulated how social constructivist theory grounded their work in examining teacher candidates’ knowledge about families. Their study’s rationale was driven by the notion that teachers have preconceived attitudes about families through their own backgrounds and previous experiences.

Future researchers may want to address their positionality from the onset of their project to ground their investigation on a theoretical framework that values diversity and centers the experiences of minoritized populations as knowledge and strengthen their methods. For example, Disability Studies and Critical Race (DisCrit; Annamma et al., 2016) and Latino/a Critical Race Theory (LatCrit; Pérez Huber, 2010) are critical frameworks that may inform FTC research by more intentionally examining issues of equity, justice, and diversity in the field and thus yielding results that may help address these issues in the future. Additionally, Bronfenbrenner’s Process–Person–Context–Time (PPCT) Model (Bronfenbrenner, 2005) is an updated ecological framework that also acknowledges the complexity of family–school partnerships by considering the individual at the center and proximal processes. This theoretical framework can inform FTC research by considering the biological and environmental constructs that impact students and their families. Furthermore, we recommend that researchers increase the quality of their FTC investigations by reflecting on how they used the selected theoretical frameworks (e.g., research design, measurement development, data analysis, and interpretation) to ground and inform their investigations.

In addition, conceptual frameworks and models differ from theoretical frameworks by more narrowly defining constructs related to a specific population or topic of interest (Varpio et al., 2020). Conceptual frameworks thereby create a shared understanding of construct definitions, key variables, and processes to shape programming, practices, and policies (Premkumar et al., 2017). Conducting research through a conceptual framework such as culturally relevant pedagogy (Ladson-Billings, 1995) or funds of knowledge (Moll et al., 2013) can be helpful when outlining a project to ensure an asset-based mindset when trying to understand different strengths of a program (Lavin & Goodman, 2023). FTC researchers may consider investigating more topic-specific conceptual frameworks and models to further refine existing frameworks/models within the field to more specifically inform teacher preparation policy and practice.

Purposeful Samples

Another methodological weakness was the lack of purposeful samples in FTC research. Few studies included families in their samples (n = 10), and when they did, family outcome data were treated as secondary to teacher candidate data. An exception was Knight-McKenna et al.’s (2019) study on the impact of academic service learning on FTC. In their study, the researchers comprehensively examined teacher candidates (n = 9), families (n = 10), and preschool students (n = 13) to evaluate the effectiveness of their FTC preparation approach. Most notably, they used all their data sources (e.g., surveys, reflections, and semi-structured interviews) from differing participant groups to triangulate their findings. The study by Knight-McKenna et al. (2019) can be treated as a model to continue collecting reputable data from various participants in FTC research within teacher preparation, to fully evaluate the impact on students and their families.

As a result, if the nature of FTC is to ethically partner with families in teacher preparation, then additional research is warranted that considers elevating family voices (Gershwin et al., 2022). We recommend that family-centered research be conducted alongside families, with families informing research design (e.g., research questions), data analysis and interpretation (e.g., engage in peer debriefing), and dissemination products (e.g., family-centric outlets, local school district implications). Similarly, the field would benefit from a deeper understanding of the perspectives and experiences of marginalized teacher candidates and families. This includes individuals of color, non-native English speakers, individuals with disabilities, and those with other intersectional identities. Such understanding would help form counternarratives and prevent the continued use of strategies and supports that are centered on those who benefit from the dominant U.S. narrative (Lavin & Goodman, 2023). Further, the perspectives of teacher candidates on FTC content and delivery are critical to determining the degree to which teacher preparation FTC content is relevant and meaningful and does not result in disempowerment or even retraumatization based on their own family’s negative experiences in school systems. Future researchers could leverage these recommendations, as little is known regarding the impact of teacher candidates’ own family experiences on their FTC skills.

Longevity Outcomes

Finally, our systematic review revealed a dearth of long-term impacts of FTC preparation. Examining longitudinal teacher data provides valuable insights into the PK–12 education system, teacher effectiveness, and the impact on student outcomes (Darling-Hammond, 2012). Longitudinal data is especially warranted to prepare teachers to collaborate with families when they become in-service teachers, and not just within their teacher preparation programs (Willemse et al., 2018). Within the studies, longitudinal data were not present except for Collier et al.’s (2015) study on the long-term effects of the FTC program, Family as Faculty. In their study, the researchers administered a three-year follow-up survey after teacher candidates participated in the Family as Faculty program, graduated from their teacher preparation program, and were in-service teachers. We recommend that future investigations also analyze longitudinal data on PK–12 student and family outcomes to comprehensively evaluate the FTC transferability of on-the-job skills initially learned in teacher preparation programs. While longitudinal data is often challenging to collect, it has been done and it can be done. Education leaders and policymakers should carefully interpret longitudinal data to inform research-based teacher preparation practices, which in turn lead to a positive school climate that fosters student and family relationships. As such, our investigation has several practice and policy implications specific to multilingual families of students with disabilities.

Implications and Conclusion

Teacher preparation programs play a vital role in shaping the effectiveness of future teachers and the quality of PK–12 education. Although collaborating with families is recommended by national organizations and required by law, the small amount of evidence compiled in this review suggests it may not be integrated well into many teacher preparation programs across the United States. This disparity is even greater when considering FTC with multilingual families who have a student with a disability. The legal mandates that require in-service teachers to collaborate with families are not enough to compel action. For example, our review found only four studies focused on preparing general education teacher candidates. We posit that this reveals a critical gap, especially given the increasing emphasis on inclusive education and co-teaching models (USDOE, 2022, 2023b). General education teachers are often the first point of contact for families and play a central role in fostering collaboration across service providers. The lack of attention to FTC preparation for all teacher candidates risks perpetuating inequities in inclusive settings where multilingual families of students with disabilities are already underserved.

Future education partners may consider investigating the development of FTC skills related to national higher education teacher preparation program accreditation standards (e.g., the Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation, the Council for Exceptional Children, Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium). Institutions of higher education use national accreditation standards to guide teacher preparation programs in the development of course design, coursework, and student assessment to ensure that teacher candidates develop the knowledge, skills, and dispositions needed to meaningfully engage in their work. Utilizing standards as outcome measures would aid education leaders in determining the impact of FTC programs and strategies on core FTC skills. For these mandates to affect real change, there also needs to be strategic planning at the national level surrounding teacher preparation and cultural diversity.

Teacher Preparation and Cultural Implications

The research surrounding FTC with multilingual families and families of students with disabilities was small, and most of the programs did not center families as holders of knowledge. Teacher preparation programs should strive to create authentic opportunities for teacher candidates to effectively collaborate with diverse families (Gershwin et al., 2022; Turnbull et al., 2022). Our results show that few studies explore families as part of collaborative research teams in teacher preparation. Therefore, we recommend that programs not only teach research-based FTC practices but also foster equitable community engagement with families during the development and implementation in teacher preparation. One of the programs discussed in the results (e.g., Family as Faculty) can be a step in the right direction in working together with families to prepare future teacher candidates. Finally, it is well-documented that families from minoritized backgrounds receive less support than families who are White, especially multilingual families who have children with disabilities (Cioè-Peña, 2017). When preparing teacher candidates to work with families, it is important to center the experiences of multilingual families of students with disabilities as important knowledge.

As the teacher workforce in PK–12 public schools continues to be White and female in its majority, the student population continues to diversify. These are facts that need to be addressed within various policies when preparing teacher candidates. Teacher preparation programs can equip their teacher candidates to learn culturally responsive practices and how to continuously reflect on their implementation to benefit their students and their families once they are in a classroom setting. These practices can support teacher candidates in developing a stronger understanding of how to collaborate with families of diverse cultures, abilities, and perspectives. Strengthening equitable FTC preparation in teacher preparation programs is a promising step toward fostering more inclusive and collaborative PK–12 school communities.

Footnotes

ORCID iD

Jamie Day

Authors

JAMIE DAY is an assistant professor of special education at the University of Missouri, 311E Townsend Hall, Columbia, MO 65211, jamieday@missouri.edu. She researches strategies to prepare effective personnel for K–12 multilingual learners with disabilities and technology-based literacy interventions.

CARLOS E. LAVÍN is an assistant professor in special education at the College of Charleston, 86 Wentworth Street, #320, Charleston, SC 29424. His research interests include the intersectional space occupied by Latino students with disabilities, counterspaces in higher education institutions, and international special education.

GRACE L. FRANCIS is an associate professor of special education at George Mason University, 4400 University Drive, 218 Finley Building, Fairfax, VA 22030, M15788, gfranci4@gmu.edu. Her research interests include the influence of expectations on the transition to adulthood and family support policies and practices that result in a high quality of life for individuals with extensive support needs.

References

*Accardo

A. L.

Xin

J. F.

Shuff

(2020). Special education teacher preparation and family collaboration. The School Community Journal, 30(2), 53–72. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1276815.pdf

Achola

E. O.

Greene

(2016). Person-family centered transition planning: Improving post-school outcomes to culturally diverse youth and families. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 45(2), 173–183. https://doi.org/10.3233/JVR-160821

Annamma

S. A.

Conner

D. J.

Ferri

B. A.

(2016). DisCrit: Disability studies and critical race theory in education. Teachers College Press.

Baker

T. L.

Wise

Kelley

Skiba

R. J.

(2016). Identifying barriers: Creating solutions to improve family engagement. School Community Journal, 26(2), 161–184. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1124003.pdf

Bezdek

Summers

J. A.

Turnbull

(2010). Professionals’ attitudes on partnering with families of children and youth with disabilities. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 45, 356–365. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23880110

*Blasi

M. W.

(2002). An asset model: Preparing preservice teachers to work with children and Families “of Promise.” Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 17(1), 106–122. https://doi.org/10.1080/02568540209595003

Boveda

Annamma

S. A.

(2022). Beyond making a statement: An intersectional framing of the power and possibilities of positioning. Educational Researcher, 52(5), 306–314. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X231167149

Bringle

R. G.

Hatcher

J. A.

(1996). Implementing service learning in higher education. The Journal of Higher Education, 67(2), 221–239. https://doi.org/10.2307/2943981

Bronfenbrenner

(Ed.). (2005). Making human beings human: Bioecological perspectives on human development. Sage.

10.

*Brown

A. L.

Harris

Jacobson

Trotti

(2014). Parent teacher education connection: Preparing preservice teachers for family engagement. The Teacher Educator, 49(2), 133–151. https://doi.org/10.1080/08878730.2014.887169

11.

Burke

M. M.

Hodapp

R. M.

(2016). The nature, correlates, and conditions of parental advocacy in special education. Exceptionality, 24(3), 137–150. https://doi.org10.1080/09362835.2015.1064412

12.

Cioè-Peña

(2017). The intersectional gap: How bilingual students in the United States are excluded from inclusion. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 21(9), 906–919. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2017.1296032

13.

Cochrane. (2015). Guidance for writing a systematic review. https://community.cochrane.org/sites/default/files/uploads/inline-files/PLS%20guidance%20final%20draft%20%28v%2020%29.pdf

14.

*Collier

Keefe

E. B.

Hirrel

L. A.

(2015). Listening to parents’ narratives: The value of authentic experiences with children with disabilities and their families. School Community Journal, 25(2), 221–242. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1085720.pdf

15.

Darling-Hammond

(2012). Powerful teacher education: Lessons from exemplary programs. John Wiley & Sons.

16.

Day

Campbell

A. R.

Kennedy

(2025). Teacher candidates’ self-efficacy amid vanishing equity policies. Journal of Education, 206(2), 171–183. https://doi.org/10.1177/00220574251360621

17.

Every Student Succeeds Act, 20 U.S.C. § 6301. (2015). https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/1177

18.

*Flanigan

C. B.

(2007). Preparing preservice teachers to partner with parents and communities: An analysis of college of education faculty focus groups. The School Community Journal, 17(2), 89–109. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ794786.pdf

19.

Forber-Pratt

A. J.

Merrin

G. J.

Mueller

C. O.

Price

L. R.

Kettrey

H. H.

(2020). Initial factor exploration of disability identity. Rehabilitation Psychology, 65(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1037/rep0000308

20.

*Fults

R. M.

Harry

(2012). Combining family centeredness and diversity in early childhood teacher training programs. Teacher Education and Special Education, 35(1), 27–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406411399784

21.

Gage

N. A.

Cook

B. G.

Reichow

(2017). Publication bias in special education meta-analyses. Exceptional Children, 83(4), 428–445. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402917691016

22.

Gallagher

M. A.

Scrivner

(2024). Teachers’ beliefs about language diversity and multilingual earners: A systematic review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 95(4), 822–861. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543241257533

23.

Gershwin

Holdren

Aceves

(2022). Family-professional partnership research: Key methodological considerations for elevating family voices. In Farmer

T. W.

Talbott

McMaster

Lee

Aceves

T. C.

(Eds.), Handbook of special education research: Theory, methods, and developmental processes (pp. 127–139). Routledge.

24.

Gough

Oliver

Thomas

(2017). An introduction to systematic reviews. Sage Publications Ltd.

25.

Grant

Osanloo

(2014). Understanding, selecting, and integrating a theoretical framework in dissertation research: Creating the blueprint for your “house.” Administrative Issues Journal, 4(2), 122–6. https://doi.org/10.5292014429

26.

*Hampshire

P. K.

Havercroft

Luy

Call

(2015). Confronting assumptions: Service learning as a medium for preparing early childhood special education preservice teachers to work with families. Teacher Education Quarterly, 42(1), 83–96. https://www.jstor.org/stable/teaceducquar.42.1.83

27.

Heyvaert

Maes

Onghena

(2013). Mixed methods research synthesis: Definition, framework, and potential. Quality & Quantity, 47, 659–676. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-011-9538-6

28.

*Holdren

N. R. O.

(2017). Training pre-service special education teachers to facilitate meaningful parent participation in IEPs using simulated meetings (Publication No. 1968739724) [Doctoral dissertation, University of California]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/training-pre-service-special-education-teachers/docview/1968739724/se-2

29.

*Hooks

L. M.

(2008). Help! They don’t speak English: Partnering preservice teachers with adult English language learners. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 29(2), 97–107. https://doi.org/10.1080/10901020802059433

30.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400. (2004). https://sites.ed.gov/idea/statute-chapter-33

31.

Jiménez

R. M.

(2020). Community cultural wealth pedagogies: Cultivating autoethnographic counternarratives and migration capital. American Educational Research Journal, 57(2), 775–807. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831219866148

32.

Kalyanpur

Harry

(2012). Cultural reciprocity in special education: Building family-professional relationships. Paul H. Brookes Publishing Company.

33.

*Keilty

Kosaraju

(2018). The impact of an early intervention home visiting experience on student learning in a dual early childhood/special education graduate preservice program. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 39(3), 243–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/10901027.2018.1457579

34.

*Kidd

J. K.

Sánchez

S. Y.

Thorp

E. K.

(2005). Cracking the challenge of changing dispositions: Changing hearts and minds through stories, narratives, and direct cultural interactions. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 26(4), 347–359. https://doi.org/10.1080/10901020500413304

35.

*Kim

E. J.

Vail

(2011). Improving preservice teachers’ perspectives on family involvement in teaching children with special needs: Guest speaker versus video. Teacher Education and Special Education, 34(4), 320–338. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406411410076

36.

*Knight-McKenna

Hollingsworth

H. L.

Ammerman

(2019). Fostering partnerships with families: Academic service-learning in the Little Village. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 40(2), 57–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/10901027.2018.1514338

37.

*Kyzar

K. B.

Mueller

T. G.

Francis

G. L.

Haines

S. J.

(2019). Special education teacher preparation for family–professional partnerships: Results from a national survey of teacher educators. Teacher Education and Special Education, 42(4), 320–337. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406419839123

38.

Ladson-Billings

(1995). But that’s just good teaching! The case for culturally relevant pedagogy. Theory Into Practice, 34(3), 159–165. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405849509543675

39.

Larios

Zetlin

(2022). Bilingual and monolingual parents’ counterstories of the Individualized Education Program (IEP) meeting. Urban Education, 57(7), 1207–1229. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085918804003

40.

Lavín

C. E.

Francis

G. L.

(2022). Looking in the shadows: Literature on undocumented Latinx students with disabilities. Journal of Latinos and Education, 23(1), 424–437. https://doi.org/10.1080/15348431.2022.2149529

41.

Lavin

C. E.

Goodman

(2023). Reflective journaling: A path toward cultural competence for teacher candidates in special education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 133, 104300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2023.104300

42.

Lavín

C. E.

Mason

L. H.

LeSueur

Haspel

(2020). The dearth of published intervention studies about English Learners with learning disabilities or emotional and behavioral disorders in special education. Learning Disabilities, 25(1), 18–28. https://doi.org/10.18666/LDMJ-2020-V25-I1-10203

43.

*McDevitt

S. E.

Mello

M. P.

(2021). From crisis to opportunity: Family partnerships with special education preservice teachers in remote practicum during the COVID-19 school closures. The School Community Journal, 31(2), 325–346. http://www.schoolcommunitynetwork.org/SCJ.aspx

44.

*McHatton

P. A.

Bradshaw

W. L.

Winneker

(2013). Introduction to working with diverse families through performance: Using ethnodrama as an instructional tool. Action in Teacher Education, 35(1), 38–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/01626620.2012.743444

45.

Moher

Liberati

Tetzlaff

Altman

D. G.

(2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. BMJ, 339(7716), 332–336. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b2535

46.

Moll

L. C.

Amanti

Neff

Gonzalez

(1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory Into Practice, 31(2), 132–141. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1476399

47.

Moll

L. C.

Soto-Santiago

S. L.

Schwartz

(2013). Funds of knowledge in changing communities. In Hall

Cremin

Comber

Moll

L. C.

(Eds.), International handbook of research on children’s literacy, learning, and culture (pp. 172–183). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118323342.ch13

48.

Morrow

R. A.

Morrow

R. A.

Brown

D. D.

(1994). Critical theory and methodology. SAGE Publications.

49.

*Murray

Curran

Zellers

(2008). Building parent/professional partnerships: An innovative approach for teacher education. The Teacher Educator, 43(2), 87–108. https://doi.org/10.1080/08878730701838819

50.

*Murray

M. M.

Curran

E. M.

(2008). Learning together with parents of children with disabilities: Bringing parent-professional partnership education to a new level. Teacher Education and Special Education, 31(1), 59–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/088840640803100106

51.

*Murray

M. M.

Handyside

L. M.

Straka

L. A.

Arton-Titus

T. V.

(2013a). Parent empowerment: Connecting with preservice special education teachers. The School Community Journal, 23(1), 145–168. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1004336.pdf

52.

*Murray

M. M.

Mereoiu

Handyside

L. M.

(2013b). Building bridges in teacher education: Creating partnerships with parents. The Teacher Educator, 48(3), 218–233. https://doi.org/10.1080/08878730.2013.795636

53.

*Patterson

K. B.

Webb

K. W.

Krudwig

K. M.

(2009). Family as faculty parents: Influence on teachers’ beliefs about family partnerships. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 54(1), 41–50. https://doi.org/10.3200/PSFL.54.1.41-50

54.

Pérez Huber

. (2010). Using Latina/o Critical Race Theory (LatCrit) and racist nativism to explore intersectionality in the educational experiences of undocumented Chicana college students. Educational Foundations, 24, 77–96. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ885982.pdf

55.

*Perouse-Harvey

E. M.

(2020). Speaking up for all kids: Developing pre-service general education teachers as advocates through critical coursework and simulated IEP meetings (Publication No. 2480292447) [Doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan]. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.

56.

Premkumar

David

Ravindran

(2017). Conceptual models and theories: Developing and research framework. Indian Journal of Continuing Nursing Education, 18(1), 48–53. https://journals.lww.com/ijcn/_layouts/15/oaks.journals/downloadpdf.aspx?an=01586100-201718010-00007

57.

Riddle

M. A.

King

E. T.

(2023). Teacher candidates’ communication and collaboration with family and community during COVID-19. Action in Teacher Education, 45(1), 22–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/01626620.2022.2157905

58.

*Robinson

Kelley

(2007). Developing reflective thought in preservice educators: Utilizing role-plays and digital video. Journal of Special Education Technology, 22(2), 31–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/016264340702200203

59.

*Rodriguez

(2022). Assessing pre-service teachers’ attitudes and self-efficacy in collaborating with families about ASD (Publication No. 2711964748) [Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University]. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.

60.

Rossetti

Sauer

J. S.

Bui

(2017). Developing collaborative partnerships with culturally and linguistically diverse families during the IEP process. Teaching Exceptional Children, 49(5), 328–338. https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059916680103

61.

Saldaña

(2011). Ethnotheatre: Research from page to stage. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315428932

62.

*Santamaría Graff

Manlove

Stuckey

Foley

. (2020). Examining pre-service special education teachers’ biases and evolving understandings about families through a family as faculty approach. Preventing School Failure, 65(1), 20–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/1045988X.2020.1811626

63.

Smith

T. E.

Sheridan

S. M.

(2019). The effects of teacher training on teachers’ family-engagement practices, attitudes, and knowledge: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 29(2), 128–157. https://doi.org/10.1080/10474412.2018.1460725

64.

Snyder

T. D.

de Brey

Dillow

S. A.

(2018). Digest of education statistics 2016 (NCES 2017-094). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2017/2017094.pdf

65.

Strickland–Cohen

M. K.

Kyzar

K. B.

Garza–Fraire

F. M.

(2021). School–family partnerships to support positive behavior: Assessing social validity and intervention fidelity. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 65(4), 362–370. https://doi.org/10.1080/1045988X.2021.1913084

66.

*Sutterby

J. A.

Rubin

Abrego

(2007). Amistades: The development of relationships between preservice teachers and Latino Families. The School Community Journal, 17(1), 77–94. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ794792.pdf

67.

*Tilley-Lubbs

G. A.

(2003). Crossing the border through service -learning: A study of cross-cultural relationships [Doctoral dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University] (Publication No. 305303132). ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.

68.

Turnbull

Francis

G. L.

Burke

Kyzar

Haines

S. J.

Gershwin

Shepherd

K. G.

Holdren

Singer

(2022). Families and professionals: Trusting partnerships in general and special education (8th ed.). Pearson.

69.

Willemse

T. M.

Thompson

Vanderlinde

Mutton

(2018). Family-school partnerships: A challenge for teacher education. Journal of Education for Teaching, 44(3), 252–257. https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2018.1465545

70.

U.S. Department of Education. (2022). Office of special education programs. Home. https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/osers/osep/about.html

71.

U.S. Department of Education. (2023a). About IDEA. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. https://sites.ed.gov/idea/about-idea/

72.

U.S. Department of Education. (2023b). The Office of English Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement, and academic achievement for limited English proficient students (OELA). Office of English Language Acquisition. https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oela/index.html

73.

Valdés

(1996). Latina/o ethnicities, critical race theory, and post-identity politics in postmodern legal culture: From practices to possibilities foreword. La Raza Law Journal, 9, 1–32.

74.

Varpio

Paradis

Uijtdehaage

Young

(2020). The distinctions between theory, theoretical framework, and conceptual framework. Academic Medicine, 95(7), 989–994. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000003075

75.

Yosso

T. J.

(2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community cultural wealth. Race Ethnicity and Education, 8(1), 6991. https://doi.org/10.1080/1361332052000341006