Beyond Bloodlines: Why Family Tree Assignments Shouldn’t Define Us
Not flesh of my flesh
Nor bone of my bone,
But still miraculously my own.
Never forget for a single minute,
You didn’t grow under my heart
But in it.
~ Fleur Conkling Heyliger
These are the words of Fleur Conkling Heyliger. The sentiment shared by many is that the heart is the accurate indication of family and not that of blood. The stereotypical family resembles two heterosexual parents in their first marriage with straightforward biological lineage in all generations. Family structures are no longer traditional, typical family tree assignments assume a conventional family which causes harm, therefore, instructors should find alternative ways and stop assigning them. When teachers attempt to practice genetics and familial definitions they get it wrong when they use family tree assignments. Alternative ways where students can understand genetics, familial terms, and the supportive people around them are key because today most families have nontraditional structures (Pew Research Center). Due to the vulnerability of their development, younger children are more susceptible to internalizing the world. The definition of family is not defined by genetics but rather by the love and energy that goes into a caring relationship.
As a child growing up in a household formed through an interracial adoption by two mothers, my identity was constantly being singled out. I was first assigned a family tree when I was very young. To be honest, I do not even remember my exact age because so many have come since. The one feeling that has not left me is that of isolation. My family seemed “different” in a way that was strange and atypical to society but to me was my home. It felt confusing, as teachers presented the assignments without the intention to cause pain but still with a lack of awareness. To change the approach toward teaching relationships, we must understand the history of the ideal American Family.
History displays classic ideologies, the American dream, bootstraps, and so on, and the idea of the “All American Family” cannot be ignored. We know that decades earlier iconic family TV shows such as The Brady Bunch and Eight is Enough have not followed traditional family structures. The reality of a typical family is constantly changing, but the social model still revolves around the “normalized” hetero/biological relationships. As more data appears, and the recognition of various familial configurations expands, it becomes clear that the big picture is complex.
Today, there are more families built with nontraditional structures than there are with two heterosexual parents, in their first marriage with biological children (Pew Research Center). The Pew Research Center released data in 2014 that demonstrated fewer than half (46%) of U.S minors are members of two married heterosexual parents in their first marriage (Pew Research Center). This is a stark change from 1960 when 73% of minors fit into this description, and 1980 when 61% did (Pew Research Center). The percentage of typical families has never been 100%. For centuries families have broken the societal mold. Due to the decreasing percentage of children within “traditional” families, institutions of learning should modify the concept of family trees to add awareness while continuing the education around family. Assignments that assume family structures to make their point should not infer family makeup as it makes students feel isolated. The world is shifting when it comes to percentages, the supposed “norm” still refers to a singular type of family. When it comes to the representation of alternative family structures found in media for younger audiences, the results are scarce.
Lilo & Stitch, a 2002 film, examines the question of what is family and its definition. For an adorable creature that answer was, “This is my family. I found it, all on my own. It’s little and broken, but still good.” (Lilo & Stitch). Something as simple as a cartoon image of a family created not by blood but by love lets young children see their family reflected regardless of familial structure. While a movie, it still is an educational marker for families to feel reflected. This reflection should be translated into the classroom.
When teachers and peers aren’t conscientious about a student’s family structure, it can become internalized as society’s expectations. Family tree assignments are one of the ways where students can see themselves reflected. Requiring traditional family trees isolates children who do not fit into the category of a married mother and father without separation. A teacher at Friends Seminary, a private school in Manhattan made special attention to acknowledging the various family configurations which specifically show:
reflect the growing diversity of their schools, which include children from families created through international adoptions, children of gay parents, those born through advanced reproductive technology, those in families broken apart by divorce and rebuilt with stepparents and stepsiblings, and children raised by relatives or foster parents (NYTimes).
When given the time and feedback many schools do recognize the harm that students experience when asked to do a family tree that implies a stereotypical family. Today, different familial structures are no longer secret or shameful, a big change from the past (NYTimes).
While family constructions should not be a point of embarrassment, those with different family structures should not be othered or feel responsible to educate their peers. Teachers must recognize the potential family makeup of their students and appropriately prepare to teach in a way that does not favor the stereotypical mold.
Schools that have addressed the issue have created alternative assignments that allow students to express their loved ones without it seeming dependent on genetics or society’s image. For instance, an assignment created by Welcoming Schools entitled “Circles of Caring” aims for children to explore the creation of families and important adults in their lives (Fink). Alternative examples include “Celebrity Trees” and “TV Trees” which ask students to take a family in the media and present it. While less personal, it teaches familial terms and the basic concept of genetics. These new assignments do not need to erase educational aspects: terms, genetics, connections, and history but can alter them to include children with nontraditional families. Another way to ensure change is to prepare families for upcoming family tree assignments ahead of time. For instance, the Manhattan New School sends a note home to all of the families before a family tree is assigned to give each household time to discuss and create a product that feels good for their student (NYTimes). The steps to erase traditional family tree assignments can be simple, but the outcome if this doesn’t change is detrimental.
It feels as though stereotypical families are in the majority, the reality is different and therefore we should take steps to change society’s image. Even when not intentional, the assigning of a family tree causes vulnerability and pain for students with nontraditional family structures.
Eliminating typical family tree assignments will limit the pain brought to students who might feel diminished and othered by a class assignment. There is importance in both learning familial terms and recognizing the people that support and love you. Family is one of heart and care and does not necessarily have biological similarities or traditional relationships.
Here are resources and documents which teachers and anyone interested can download as alternative assignments:
Alternative Classroom Assignments
Works Cited
Concordia University St. Paul. “The Evolution of American Family Structure.” CSP Global, 10 July 2020, online.csp.edu/resources/article/the-evolution-of-american-family-structure/. Accessed 22 Feb. 2023.
Fink, Kimmie. “Why It’s Time to Rethink Family Tree Assignments.” We Are Teachers, 13 Feb. 2020, www.weareteachers.com/rethink-family-tree/#:~:text=Family%20tree%20activities%20can%20trigger,being%20should%20always%20come%20first. Accessed 22 Feb. 2023.
Holloway, Lynette. “In Schools, Family Tree Bends with Times.” NYTimes, 7 Feb. 1999, www.google.com/url?q=https://www.nytimes.com/1999/02/07/nyregion/in-schools-family-tree-bends-with-times.html&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1677129726997548&usg=AOvVaw3fSSlzLgPmj2mAmDtlu6vA. Accessed 22 Feb. 2023.
Hudgens, Laura. “10 Ways to Rethink the Family Tree Project — and Be More Inclusive to All Students!” Bored Teachers, 1 June 2022, www.boredteachers.com/post/family-tree-alternatives. Accessed 22 Feb. 2023.
Jankovich, Jennifer. “Love Is Not Just Blood — my Mother’s Story of Adoption.” Elephant Journal, www.elephantjournal.com/2020/11/you-grew-under-my-heart/. Accessed 22 Feb. 2023.
Lilo and Stitch. Directed by Chris Sanders and Dean DeBlois, Walt Disney
Pictures, 2002.
Livingston, Gretchen. Fewer than Half of U.S. Kids Today Live in a ‘traditional’ Family. 22 Dec. 2014. Pew Research Center, www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/12/22/less-than-half-of-u-s-kids-today-live-in-a-traditional-family/. Accessed 22 Feb. 2023.
Mackenzie, Meg. “Educational Purpose of a Family Tree.” Classroom, classroom.synonym.com/educational-purpose-family-tree-6687812.html. Accessed 22 Feb. 2023.
