Evidence Against Deficit Accounts: Conversations About Science in Mexican Heritage Families Living in the United States

Abstract

Neoliberal deficit approaches assume that parents’ schooling level predicts their effective guidance of children’s science learning. In four case studies of Mexican-heritage parents—two with Basic Schooling and two with Higher Schooling—and their 4-year-old children, we explored conversational science practices—questioning, making predictions, evaluating evidence—during a sink-and-float game. Contrary to deficit accounts, Basic Schooling parents evaluated evidence more, and their children asked more conceptual (rather than procedural) questions; Higher Schooling parents questioned their children more, using teacher-like directiveness. These findings contradict erroneous deficit beliefs about Basic Schooling families and inform future attempts to reduce inequities in science education.