Examining and problematising the schools/(‘skills’) focus in programmes focus in programmes

The epistemological and ontological problems identified in Chapter Two in

relation to the skills view of literacy from a social practice perspective are mirrored and further nuanced in the context of family literacy. Purcell-Gates (2000), for example, has observed an ‘ideological division’ between what Gadsden (2002) and Auerbach (1989) term a ‘social-contextual’⁷⁹ approach and what Gadsden (2002) calls a ‘school-like or skills-based’ approach in family literacy programmes.

Drawing on a social practice view of literacy and strengths-based views of families, aspects of the schools focus, which tends to be associated with deficits views of families (Gadsden, 2002), are problematised in this section as these orientations (social-contextual and school-like/skills-based, which align broadly to social practice and skills orientations towards literacy itself), and the gaps between research and implementation evident in them (Auerbach, 1989, 1995; Gadsden, 2002; Wasik et al., 2003), are now discussed.

The focus on school literacy in many family literacy programmes, found by

Auerbach (1995) and others such as Street (1984), reflects the dominant perspective in the wider milieu of literacy as the single unitary phenomenon of essay-text literacy, or at least that it is the most important literacy. This is the case even though research in the ‘literacy as social practice’ tradition has shown it to be a narrow, culture-specific form (Street, 1984), that there are, in fact, many literacies and many modes of literacy and that all these have been found in families (Barton, 1997; Barton & Hamilton, 1998; Kress, 1997, 2000). The dominant perception of (school/essay-text) literacy’s importance for social and economic progress is often combined with concerns about low school achievement of some groups of children and poverty in some communities in arguments in support of family literacy programmes (for example, Darling, 1993). Targeting families from communities where children are not succeeding in school for the purposes of addressing both

79 Gadsden (2002) and Auerbach’s (1989) use of the term ‘social-contextual’ is based on a social

adults’ and children’s educational under-achievement has a ‘surface logic’ in this context. However, notwithstanding the observation in Chapter One that ability with school literacy is, commonsensically, helpful for participation in a society in which school literacy predominates, this emphasis on the one form of literacy marginalises families’ other literacies, categorising them as less important and less worthy. Given the association between literacies and identity described in Chapter Two, such marginalisation is not just of a person’s literacy but also of their

continuous sense of self (Reber & Reber, 2001).

Linked to the belief in the pre-eminence of school literacy, many programmes focus on transmitting the culture of the school to the family, following what Auerbach (1989) called a ‘transmission of school practices’ model, in an effort, as explained in Section 4.2., and well-intentioned as it may be, to improve children’s (and parents) educational achievement. Auerbach (1989, 1995) observed the uni-directionality of approaches based on this belief whereby educators identify the

“needs, problems, and practices” then “transfer skills or practices to parents in order to inform [in other words, to shape] their interactions with their children”

(Auerbach, 1989, p. 169).

Programmes often assume, similarly, that literacy abilities and values are

transmitted in one direction from parents to children, ignoring research such as Pahl’s (2002), Saxena’s (1994) and Puchner’s (1997) for examples, which show cross-generational and bidirectional transmission. The belief in one-way transmission from parents to children locates the responsibility for children’s literacy development with the parents when they are, in fact, one influence among many. This is not to say they are not important, and perhaps the most important, just that they are not alone in their role in their children’s literacy learning (Heath, 1983). It also suggests a view that school interventions are “either less important or already adequate and need only be reinforced at home” (Auerbach, 1989, p. 173). In this context, blaming families, particularly parents, for their children’s poor

achievement is an easy step. Schools are let off the hook, and wider issues which might be the problem are not considered.

Relatedly, Auerbach observes the assumption in many programmes that children succeed in school because their parents do school-like activities with them and,

conversely, that if they do not do well it is because school-like activities have not been done (Gadsden, 2002). However, a variety of practices have been found in families of successful readers suggesting there is no such causal effect (Gadsden, 2008). When parents do not engage in school-like activities with their children, it is thought to be because they do not have the skills themselves or do not value literacy, or because their own problems get in the way (Auerbach, 1989). Yet studies have shown that children of non-reading parents also succeed in school (Schieffelin & Cochran-Smith, 1984, as cited in Gadsden, 2008), all kinds of families including very poor families use literacy in their homes (Taylor & Dorsey-Gaines, 1988), and parents in all kinds of families are concerned about their children’s education (Puchner, 1997). Perhaps most unhelpful of all (and undoubtedly hurtful and potentially harmful) is the tying together of unsupported assumptions about particular kinds of families with assumptions about their literacy practices. For example, the view that low-income and cultural-minority families do not use and or value literacy is often articulated (see, for example, Darling, 1993), yet research such as Heath’s (1983) and Taylor and Dorsey-Gaines’ (1988) has disproved this contention.

Overall, the prominence of school literacy in family literacy programmes represents a diminished opportunity for other foci to flourish within the field.

From a broad and inclusive perspective of what literacy is, other literacies have equal claim as appropriate foci of family literacy programmes, whether based on family or local community languages or Englishes or other text forms. As well, the school literacy focus overshadows other relevant, purposeful and meaningful uses of literacy in families’ lives. Other topics of concern to adult family members relate to their wider parental, family and extended family roles and responsibilities, and their interests, concerns and roles in the community and as a citizen. For example, a class in the University of Massachusettes (UMass) at Boston English Family Literacy Program included a new immigration law, housing, AIDS, language use at work, bilingualism, and daycare (Auerbach, 1989). Such topics may be appropriate programme foci in certain circumstances, alongside tools and strategies for

supporting their children’s literacy learning. In fact, it can be argued that deliberate teaching of literacy to children by parents is unnecessary as literacy learning takes place within the naturally-occuring literacy activity families engage

in as they go about their daily lives. Auerbach (1989, p. 166) points out that “doing formal schoolwork and developing literacy are not necessarily synonomous”.

The ideological nature of literacy described by Street (1984, 1995) (see Chapter Two) is thus strongly evident in family literacy programmes. Programmes, like all endeavours, are shaped by people’s beliefs and values, and theories and models, of how the world is (Gee, 2008). These in turn are founded to varying degrees on assumptions or on fuller understanding. In the family literacy field, this fuller understanding, derived from detailed, literacy as social practice-oriented ethnographic studies, has revealed diversity in families’ literacies and literacy practices rather than lack, and strengths and resilience in families rather than deficits (Barton, 1997). Thus programme emphases represent a choice of some perspectives on literacy and families over others. Programmes may also be seen as manifestations of Street’s (1984) ‘ideological’ and ‘autonomous’ models of literacy when, respectively, they demonstrate appreciation of literacies’ ideological nature and build on a broad view of literacy, or when literacy’s ideological nature is not recognised and they are built on a narrow, school-based view of literacy. The relatively strong emphasis on adults’ role in their children’s school literacy learning compared to their wider parental, family and community roles and responsibilities, interests and concerns can also be interpreted as an ideological choice flowing, with ‘surface logic’ from a narrow, ‘autonomous’ conception of literacy and normative ideas about parents’ roles in families.

Whilst considerable concern has been and continues to be expressed about the

‘disconnect’ between what has been learned through research (in particular the more broadly-conceived, socially-focused studies) and what is implemented in family literacy programmes (for example, Auerbach, 1989; Hannon, 2000; Taylor, 1997), strong examples of programmes based on broad conceptions of what literacy is, how it is (or could be) used and what purposes it serves (or could serve) in family contexts, coupled with strengths-based views of families, do exist. For example, the UMass programme referred to above focused on understanding and acting on community issues of concern to parents as the mechanism through which literacy enhancement occurred (Auerbach, 1989), suggesting that this is one such programme. In working on community issues of concern to the adult family

members as a group, this programme also reflects a more collective orientation or worldview than is often the case in family literacy programmes.

In New Zealand, the typology of family literacy programmes I have developed captures, like Nickse’s (1993), varying configurations of adult and child

involvement and direction of intended benefit (differentiated in five ways) while adding dimensions of holism (how individually or collectively-focused the

programme is), community connectedness (how connected to the community the programmes is), and criticality of pedagogy (how functionally or critically-focused the curriculum and pedagogy are) (Furness, 2006a, 2007b, 2009b) (see also Section 5.1.). A small number of the 57 adult literacy programmes found to have elements of a family orientation had formal relationships with schools. A broad

conceptualisation of family literacy programmes in the spirit of Hannon (2000), Morrow et al. (1995) and Wolfendale and Topping (1996), coinciding with a good deal of our existing adult literacy provision here in New Zealand, underpins this particular study.