Family literacy programmes

It is often stated that family literacy programmes began to emerge in the 1980s, originating in the US (for example Brooks et al., 2008; Gadsden, 2002; Handel, 1999). However, Hannon (2000), writing from Britain and having examined

publications related to family literacy efforts in several countries, observed that the term began to be applied to educational programmes from this time, but that some programmes actually pre-date the 1980s⁷⁵. This appears to be a more accurate depiction of what has occurred when international perspectives are taken into account and a more expansive view of family literacy programmes is applied, signalling one sense in which the term can have different meanings. According to Hannon (2000) family literacy programmes, broadly conceived, include any programmes which explicitly address the family dimension in literacy learning.

Such programmes share a recognition that learners are part of families, and family members are affected by individuals’ literacy learning (Hannon, 2000, p. 122). On this basis, adult literacy programmes that focus on everyday literacy could also be included within a rubric of family literacy programmes (Furness, 2007b, 2009b).

When the term is used more narrowly, it is usually referring to programmes in the particular style of the prominent Kenan model (Gadsden, 2002) (see Chapter One).

Programmes which fit within a broad categorisation, in Hannon’s (2008) terms, include ‘parent involvement programmes’, community development, and the extension of adult literacy education to include children. Parent involvement programmes “work with parents for the primary purpose of improving their

children’s literacy…cover a wide range of age groups and populations and originate from a variety of organisations including schools, libraries and community service groups” which may work collaboratively to provide a programme (Morrow, Tracey,

& Maxwell, 1995, p. 17). Broad programmes may include those designed to increase parents’ involvement in their children’s schools, pre-school interventions such as tutoring parents in their homes in storybook reading, parenting education and

71 Morrow, Tracey, and Maxwell (1995) cite examples of programmes which predate the 1980s and Hannon, writing in 2000, noted that some programmes now recognised under the “new descriptor” of

programmes aimed at increasing families’ use of libraries (Hannon, 2000; Morrow et al., 1995). (Note that each programme, while contributing to a broad

conceptualisation of family literacy, may nevertheless itself be tightly focused). An example of a community development focus in a family literacy programme is the establishment of a community library as part of the South African National Literacy Initiative (Brooks et al., 2008). The establishment of a local library meant the women participants in the programme did not need to walk a long distance to the nearest town to borrow books, which they also read to their children, as they learnt to read and write in Zulu and then later began to learn English. The library was seen as a means of improving the knowledge and skills of the community and increasing opportunities for education and employment.

New Zealand examples of these kinds of family literacy programmes include the Reading Together programme which helps parents support their children’s reading at home (Biddulph & Allot, 2006, as cited in City of Manukau Education Trust, 2007). In New Zealand, the Home Interaction Programme for Parents and

Youngsters (an international programme) which trains adults to work with parents in their communities who then work with their own pre-school children on

educational activity packs (City of Manukau Education Trust, 2007) is a parent involvement programme which has elements that may also contribute to strengthening communities. Examples of extensions to adult programmes are documented by the National Adult Literacy Agency (2004) in Ireland where family literacy courses were added as a result of interest shown by participants in adult classes.

Some of these broadly defined programmes focus directly on children and only indirectly, if at all, on parents, whilst others focus on parents and only indirectly on children (Hannon, 2000, Nickse, 1993). Programmes in which the literacy of both adults and children is expected to be enhanced indirectly might also be included in a broad definition. Literacy activities organised for families such as

‘read-aloud’ sessions at public libraries are an example of this type of programme (Nickse, 1993). Hannon (2000) reported broad use of the term in such publications as Morrow (1995) and Morrow et al. (1995) in which US programmes are described, and in Wolfendale and Topping (1996) which details developments in Britain,

Australia and New Zealand, suggesting considerable adoption by, and relevance to, the field of a broad conceptualisation.

A narrower use of the term ‘family literacy programmes’ is evident in its

application only to programmes which combine adult basic education and early childhood education in a “dual simultaneous focus on two generations” (Hannon, 2000, p. 122). Adults and their children participate in these programmes and the literacy skills of both are expected to be enhanced (Nickse, 1993). The Kenan model (see Chapter One⁷⁶) typifies this kind of programme. Focusing on low-literacy parents and their pre-school children, programmes based on this model strongly articulate a view of parents as children’s first teachers. Hannon (2000) refers to these programmes as ‘restricted’ because they are limited to families who participate in all aspects of the programme – adult basic education, children’s education, parenting education and time in which parent and child time together – and because they constitute a subset of all family literacy programmes.

Irrespective of their narrow focus and restrictive structure, Kenan-type

programmes are widespread and influential. Originating in Louisville, Kentucky, and now enshrined in federal funding arrangements, there were 500 such

programmes by 1993 (Nickse, 1993, as cited in Brooks et al., 2008). This model has dominated the field in the US to the extent that it appears to be almost

synonymous with ‘family literacy programmes’ and often with ‘family literacy’ in that country (see Hannon, 2000). It has been adopted in essence by the Basic Skills Agency (the funding body for family literacy programmes in the UK (Brooks et al., 2008)) and has been influential in many other countries (Hannon, 2000). The most widely-known New Zealand programmes are locally-contextualised versions of the Kenan model or refer to its component parts in their programme design (Houlker et al., 2006; May et al., 2004). However, as has been suggested by Wolfendale and Topping (1996) and as will be further discussed, there are also more broadly-conceived programmes here (Furness, 2006a, 2007b, 2009b).

Among the varied programmes included under the rubric of family literacy programmes many, probably most, are closely linked with school literacy

(Gadsden, 2002). This is another sense in which ‘family literacy programmes’ have different meanings. The focus can be on nurturing children’s emergent literacy directly and/or via parents’ interactions with their children or by creating rich literacy environments, preparing children for school generally or particularly around reading, encouraging parent-school relationships and communication, building parents’ understanding of school expectations and culture, helping parents to support children’s or teenagers’ homework and on developing parents’

literacy for the purposes of modeling literacy practices the school values (Brooks et al., 2008; Morrow et al., 1995). Some of these programmes teach very specific strategies for engaging children in reading and developing reading skills (for a New Zealand example see Furness, 2006b). However, non-school-linked family interests can also be found in programmes which have a school literacy focus. An example is the Family Initiative for English Literacy programme in Texas which brought low English proficiency parents and children together to develop the biliteracy of both around topics of interest to them – “puppets (a popular art form in Mexico), extended family, recipes, holidays, cotton (cotton fields surround two of the schools in the project) and Thanksgiving (as celebrated by the Spaniards in 1598)”

(Morrow et al., 1995, p. 55).

As well as developing their own literacy through learning to support their children’s school or family activity-based literacy development, parents may complete school qualifications as part of the programme, for example the General Equivalency Degree (GED) in the US (Brooks et al., 2008; Morrow et al., 1995).

Non-school-linked curriculum for adults may include child development (which is also often linked to emergent literacy, for example learning about age-appropriate literacy activities), parenting skills, nutrition, health care and vocational training.

Adult literacy components, ‘English for Speakers of Other Languages’, community literacy, ‘basic skills’ and ‘life skills’ may link to school literacy or to family, home or community interests and concerns or survival needs (Brooks et al., 2008; St.

Pierre, Layzer, & Barnes, 1995). For example, they may include the ‘school competencies’ of how to read a child’s school report or write a note to a teacher and the ‘everyday survival competencies’ of how to read a bill or write a cheque, as in the Illinois Home English Literacy for Parents Project (Morrow et al., 1995, p.

58). Or, they may involve developing a community library in the context of

recognised community need for knowledge, skills and employment as in the South

African National Literacy Initiative (Brooks et al., 2008). New Zealand examples identified in Furness (2006a) revealed a mix within a range that could be thought of as family literacy programmes. A range of services such as mental and physical health care, substance abuse help and child care are sometimes offered to family members, either directly or through referral (Morrow et al., 1995). Many New Zealand programmes also include these services (Furness, 2006a).

Thus, while the predominance of a focus on school literacy and children’s school literacy achievement is observed in family literacy programmes (see, for example, Gadsden, 2002), programme content does sometimes reflect broader

interpretations of what family literacy is that are inclusive of a wider range of family members’ interests and concerns. As well, when programmes provide access to a range of services beyond those which directly support children’s literacy learning, they offer a more holistic approach to family literacy education. More broadly-based approaches suggest appreciation of the complex nature of family life and the difficulties of various kinds that families may face daily. An expansive interpretation of the term ‘family literacy programmes’, therefore, more accurately captures the range of programmes which can be, and is in practice, included within it. This underlines the important point that there is nothing inherent in the term which should limit it to a narrow meaning, as seen in programmes based on the Kenan model, or aimed primarily at children’s school literacy achievement.

In the context of variability in families and wide-ranging perceptions of what literacy is and what it is for, processes of decision-making regarding family literacy programme content, pedagogy and availability require further comment. Here, a further difference may be seen between programmes which work with families and communities to meet their needs and aspirations and those which offer an

externally-developed model which may be inflexible and unresponsive to local community contexts and varying family circumstances. In New Zealand, the City of Manukau Education Trust has adapted features of the Kenan model to better fit the New Zealand context (Houlker et al., 2006) and Literacy Aoteaora has applied a quite loose version of it that is interpreted variably in each Whānau Literacy

programme, depending on the particular local circumstances (Furness, 2006c).

Whilst no purpose-designed survey has been undertaken in New Zealand to determine the extent and nature of family literacy provision, my analysis of 84 programmes funded through the 2006 Adult Foundation Learning Pool – for the typology referred to in Chapter One⁷⁷ – revealed 57 programmes with elements of family literacy; that is, they involved different generations, they expected to benefit different generations or they included everyday literacy beyond preparation for further learning or work (Furness, 2006a). In addition, there were a further eight government-funded and three privately-funded⁷⁸ Literacy Aotearoa Whānau Literacy programmes which involved family (including extended family) and benefits to family were anticipated (Furness, 2006a). Whilst the conclusions should be treated with care, as they are based on information about the programmes’ intentions rather than what actually occurred, a number of important points relevant to this study can be made.

The large number of adult literacy programmes in which family is seen as a relevant context signals its importance in attracting learners, as has been recognised in adult literacy and foundation learning policy (see Chapter Two).

Relevance to people’s lives (and therefore breadth of content) and a family focus were recurring themes, as were the provision of holistic services intended to address the wellbeing of the whole person and recognition of adults’ multiple roles which can complicate participation. Literacy was seen as purposeful social activity and the goals of programmes were expressed in terms of increasing people’s participation in society generally, or specifically within their families and

communities. This included further personal learning or supporting the learning of others, preparing for employment, managing everyday life and building friendships and relationships. There was, therefore, inclusion of school/essay-text literacy and there were varying kinds and strengths of connections with schools, though very few of these were formal. Funded through the adult pool, they do reflect a concern with adults’ needs and interests, and outcomes for them. Overall, these intentions reflected locally-situated, socially-focused views of literacy located within holistic concern for people.

77 The typology development preceded the current study.

78 Through the Tindall Foundation.

As I have already observed, we know from local family literacy programmes that have been studied that there are literacy and broader gains for adults, but the gains for children are less clear (Benseman & Sutton, 2005; May et al., 2004).

5.2. Examining and problematising the schools/(‘skills’)