Programmes and participants

Given that the most overtly family literacy work undertaken in New Zealand is funded through the Tertiary Education Commission’s (TEC) adult literacy and numeracy funding stream – known as the Adult Foundation Learning Pool at the time the study commenced – I used the typology I described in Chapter Four (Section 5.1. and 5.2.), which is derived from applications to this pool, to select programmes to approach to participate in the study (Furness, 2006a)¹¹⁷. Whilst limited by the fact that funding applications expressed intentions rather than what actually occurred, the application forms provided the only readily available¹¹⁸ and consistent information on the aims and content of programmes. In addition, 11 Whānau Literacy programmes funded through a different funding system¹¹⁹ about which less consistent information was available were also later located on the typology. The 97 programmes constituted all the New Zealand government-funded adult literacy programmes of which, interestingly, 54 were found to include

117 The typology development and results are described in full in Furness (2006a).

118 These applications were available to me under a research contract arrangement with the TEC involving ethical considerations such as restricted use of the information and confidentiality.

elements of a family or intergenerational focus. These ranged from both adults and children enrolled in programmes intended to benefit both, to only adults enrolled but the focus including everyday literacy. The programmes were selected from the 42 most strongly family-focused among the programmes on the typology. This meant they were programmes in which adults formally participated and children might also formally participate or were engaged informally in some way with the programme, and both adults and children were expected to benefit from the programme. Using a ‘theoretical sampling’ approach (Silverman, 2005, p. 130), I sought programmes which in addition:

1. Were established and/or where I felt there was the least likelihood of developmental challenge. As much as possible given the newness of the field, I wanted to use programmes which were well-enough established or seemed to have clear aims and processes in place to feel confident that benefits to learners would not be constrained by major developmental issues in the organisation. However, the funding pool was only four years old and many programmes were very new. Therefore new programmes with a history of successful adult education provision were also

considered for inclusion. My knowledge of many of the programmes from my time with the TEC was often helpful in making these judgments;

2. Held the strongest possibility of capturing a full, time-bound cohort of learners. This would be easier from the point of view of ‘bounding’ the study but was not the modus operandi for most programmes and thus was an ideal. If it was not possible it would not in itself have eliminated a programme. Investigation revealed the unlikelihood of this tidy situation eventuating. This was dealt with by prioritising learners who were new or early in their participation, and then adding new learners within a fixed period (between June and December 2006), followed by learners who had been in the programme for longer;

3. Were geographically spread and with an urban-rural mix. The most studied New Zealand programmes were located in a large North Island city. In my quest to open up discussion about how family is

conceptualised and programmes are ‘done’ in New Zealand, and to create

the opportunity to consider the relevance of particular approaches for their particular communities and constituencies, I chose a geographical spread which included both the North and South Islands and cities, small towns, and cosmopolitan and isolated communities. The extent of spread was tempered with the need for such practicalities as travel time and cost in order to be manageable;

4. Were primarily for learners for whom English was their first language or for whom their English competency was beyond what is offered in ESOL programmes. This was another way in which I bounded the study;

5. Were not already researched or had been only minimally researched. I wanted to expand the base of knowledge about New Zealand family literacy programmes;

6. Represented variety in school/community links (i.e. included but were not all school based). This constituted another way in which I could

contribute to opening up the discussion about how family literacy might be constructed here. It was a deliberate strategy to shift the heavy focus on children to a more balanced focus; that is, one that also gave credence to and valued adults’ other interests and concerns. It was nevertheless important to include at least one school-based programme as such programmes are part of the rubric of family literacy programmes in New Zealand and school literacy has dominated programmes internationally.

I wanted to include in the mix a Whānau Literacy programme if it met other criteria. Literacy Aotearoa was developing a conceptual model encompassing aims, content, structure and evaluation of whānau literacy programmes (Furness,

2006d). Whilst the approach drew on the elements of the Kenan model, the choice of how the elements were manifested, and even whether or not all of them were used, was connected to the particular community context in which the programme was located, and thus the approach remained fluid (which is not often the case with Kenan-type programmes). It was a clear example of a different way of doing family literacy programmes, there were a number of them in the country at the

with the tumuaki¹²⁰ of Literacy Aotearoa regarding which programmes she would like to see included. I also attended a two-day hui¹²¹ where I briefly explained the study and that I would be asking, with the tumuaki’s blessing, for one or two programmes to be involved. In one case the tumuaki discussed the possibility with the programme manager before I approached her. These processes represented the first steps in entering the setting.

Overall, nine programmes, including two Whānau Literacy programmes, were selected for possible inclusion. Except in the instance above, their managers were approached first by letter (Appendix 1) and then by follow up phone call. Where partnerships with schools were involved, either the programme manager or I approached the school. Following discussion, and visits in same cases, three North Island programmes were eventually chosen and a fourth (South Island) programme added later. In all cases it was necessary to obtain consent from the participants themselves before involvement in the research could be said to be agreed on. The programme manager discussed the research with the programme participants first, achieving either agreement in principle, or agreement for me to talk with them about the research. Their agreement to participate would depend on how they felt after meeting with me. This step-wise entry was important as it gave time for people to consider what they wanted to do and they were introduced to the idea by people with whom they already had a relationship and so were able to choose more freely than if I had been present at the outset. This was a process of entering the community through the whānau rather than at the level of the individual (Mead, 1996, as cited in Powick, 2002).

In now introducing the programmes and the participants, I note that all names are pseudonyms and generic titles are used in place of staff names. I acknowledge two of the programmes as being run by Literacy Aotearoa affiliates. As there are

approximately 50 branches of Literacy Aotearoa, the anonymity of the research site and, most importantly, of the participants and their families, remains (see Section 3.2.). The provider of the programme named as the Hei Awhiawhi Tamariki ki te Panui Pukapuka (HPP)-based Whānau Literacy Programme, who ran several HPP programmes, is also named, as doing so does not disclose the specific programme

120 Māori word for Principal (Ryan, 1994); in this context equivalent to chief executive officer.

121 Māori word for meeting (Ryan, 1994).

in the study or its location. The providers concerned welcomed the opportunity to have their work acknowledged. It was not possible to provide a similar level of information about the fourth programme without rendering participants too easily identifiable.

Tables (2 to 5) which follow each description cover in more detail each

programme’s core focus and structure, context, aims, content, and why I consider it to be a family literacy programme. The reader should note that the aims and content reflect what actually occurred and the perspectives of programme staff and partners, as well as official documentation. Generally speaking, much more was occurring in programmes than was detectable from the programme

documentation alone.

The first of the four programmes selected was the Benley Whānau Literacy

Programme (the Benley programme) located in a large North Island city. It was run within, and in conjunction with, the community’s local school which caters for pre-school to Year 13 education. The community and the school have a strong Pacific presence. Eight of the nine participants in the programme were Pacific people and one was Māori. English was their second language for all but the Māori participant. The programme taught participants English reading, writing and numeracy strategies which matched those that their children would be learning about in school, and how to support their children with their school literacy and numeracy learning. This new, 16 week programme, delivered by a well-established provider with a long history of successful adult literacy education, had a fixed start and end date. This was a family literacy programme because it aimed to support adults to help their children’s learning and to support adults’ learning for their broader everyday purposes, it recognised the centrality of family in the

community, and it fostered the possibility of the adults helping other children in the community in a “whānau-like way” (see Table 2 below).

Four of the nine participants (45%) – three Samoan women and a Cook Islands man – agreed to participate in the study. Two of them had begun the programme in its first week. One began in its fifth week and one in its ninth week.

Participation ranged from 70 to 116 hours. Aveolela, whose husband had recently

children, five of whom were at school with the oldest working. She had been made redundant from her job as a production supervisor where she had worked for three and a half years. Penina, an elderly former teacher and current Sunday School teacher, had lived in New Zealand for ten years. She loved teaching (and learning) and wanted to help her grandchildren with their learning, even though her health was sometimes worrisome. Suni lived with her eight year old son who was born when she was a teenager, and her mother, grandmother and disabled niece. Much of her time involved helping her immediate and extended family with housework and babysitting, and caring for her son and grandmother. She had a caregiving certificate and had had some (unrelated) paid work (mainly packing fertilizer) in the past. Haki was the Minister of his Church. His fifteen year old son was still living at home (and was at school). Haki and his wife were raising two of their grandchildren aged six and eight.

175

Table 2. Benley Whānau Literacy Programme Overview

Core focus and structure Context Aims Content Family orientation

Provided by local adult 8 hours per week intensity Core focus: adult learning for most Pacific adults in the community

Programme is a mix of parent involvement programme (Morrow et al., 1995) and adult everyday literacy programme (Furness, 2006a, 2009b) (with elements of community development)

Participants may also help other children in the community in a

“whānau-like way” (and who may

The second programme was the Hei Awhiawhi Tamariki ki te Panui Pukapuka-based Whānau Literacy Programme (the HPP-Pukapuka-based programme) located in a school in a small rural Māori community, also in the North Island. The programme was built around an oral language development programme for Year One and Two children (Hei Awhiawhi Tamariki ki te Panui Pukapuka or HPP¹²²) which the adults in the programme learned to deliver. The adults learned about the theory

supporting the approach and why various skills taught and assessed by the school were important for language and reading development and learning. While learning and using the programme, the adults were encouraged to reflect on their own skills, interests and goals, and to apply their learning in their personal and family contexts. This programme ran in ten-week blocks with fixed start and end points; the adults could participate in any number of blocks. All of the adults were new to this form of the programme, though one had participated in the child-tutoring component previously. This was a family literacy programme because the tutored children were usually members of the participants’ extended family, the adults practiced and used the skills with their own children, a whānau approach characterises the school, and all of the community are connected to one another (see Table 3 below).

All three participants in this programme were Māori women and all agreed to participate in the study¹²³ (100%). Jen, 19 years of age, had moved into the community to be with her partner, a farm worker. They had a three year old daughter. Kate, a single mother, had two sons aged six and eight and was very involved in her community and marae. She lived on her marae and across the road from her mother. Paula, whose husband had died when her children were very young, lived with her parents and grandfather and her two children aged eight and ten. All three women were studying for a National Certificate in Iwi Māori Social Services.

122 Hei Awhiawhi Tamariki ki te Panui Pukapuka is the real name for the actual oral language programme.

123 The programme started with five participants, all of whom had agreed to paticipate in the study. I had completed the network map and the first interview with them all when two chose to not continue in the programme and therefore their involvement in the research.

177

Table 3. Hei Awhiawhi Tamariki ki te Panui Pukapuka-based Parent Whānau Literacy Programme Overview

Core focus and structure Context Aims Content Family orientation

Provided by Kia Maia and Associates in a school at the school’s request English literacy of Year 1 and 2 children

Skills are practiced on and used with own children

The third programme was the Ormond Whānau Literacy Programme (the Ormond programme). Located in a small North Island town, it was one of Literacy

Aotearoa’s Whānau Literacy programmes. This programme combined structured components of fixed duration with ongoing, informal components. The

programme included twice yearly 14-16 week programmes run jointly with a local trust covering wide-ranging topics including gardening, cooking, healthy eating, fitness, budgeting and waiata¹²⁴; drivers license courses; and individualised literacy tuition. Young mothers came with their pre-school children and made crafts, practiced writing or developed their CVs; others called in for help in sending an email or to photocopy a document. There were 28 mainly Māori enrollees in this programme (Programme Manager, Interview 1) including those in literacy tutor training which was also supported by the centre. This was a family literacy programme because of its focus on parenting, home management and the

literacies of everyday life, along with the strong whānau focus of programme staff and inclusion of whānau in the centre itself (see Table 4 below).

Six of those already enrolled (23%) were recruited for the study. All women, five were Māori and one was Indian. They had participated in the programme for varying lengths of time and were participating in varying ways. Andrea, who was very involved with her church, had six school-aged children of whom the youngest was very ill, an ailing father whom the family moved to live with, and an

unemployed alcoholic husband who was a builder by trade. She worked part time as a cleaner and later full time in a bakery (night shift). Emma, a qualified chef, had a four year old child and had recently left her marriage and returned to her home town. Hahana, whose parents stayed with her for long periods, had two children aged six and eight and was expecting her third child. Her eldest son lived in another town with his father. Sarah and her husband, both recently fom India, owned a dairy and had two school-aged children. Selena lived with her mother, her two pre-school children and a seven year old niece whom she was caring for. Tess and her husband had a pre-school child. Practicing budhists, they had settled in Tess’s home town where Tess’s husband worked as a prison guard, after several years overseas.

124 Māori word for song, chant, song poem (Ryan, 1994).

179

Table 4. Ormond Whānau Literacy Programme Overview

Core focus and structure Context Aims Content Family orientation

Community programme

The fourth programme was also one of Literacy Aotearoa’s Whānau Literacy programmes. The Preston Family Literacy Programme (the Preston programme) was located in a predominantly Pākehā community within which there was a small Tongan community. This programme brought together a group of women for one morning a week in which time an organised activity took place. The emphasis was on communication and social skills and opportunities for new experiences around which skills could be built and practiced. Participants also had individualised literacy tutoring connected to their personal interests and needs, and sometimes home visits. All but one participant in the women’s programme were Pākehā. The other participant was Tongan. In addition, as an outreach, the Programme

Manager was attempting to build links with another extended Tongan family to support their English literacy development and aspirations. The participants recruited in the study had varying involvement. This was a family literacy programme because of its focus on the literacies of everyday family and community life and its involvement with whole families (see Table 5 below).

Five of the ten current programme participants (50%), of which three were Pākehā women and three were Tongan women (one in the women’s programme and two in the outreach programme), and one former participant, a Pākehā woman, agreed to take part in the study. Anna lived with her second husband who was twenty years older than her and her son who was in his twenties. Carrie, who was 65, lived alone. Kalasia was a single mother of four school-aged children. La’a and Lose were sisters-in-law whose husbands had initially come to New Zealand to play rugby for a local club and who worked at the local meat works. They lived together with La’a’s parents, of whom the father was a Church Minister. La’a’s mother had recently had twins whom La’a helped to look after. Lose was expecting a baby.

Both young women had Tongan qualifications and were interested in furthering their education. Sue had moved to the area to be near her mother after leaving her husband. She had two teenage sons.

181

Table 5. Preston Family Literacy Programme Overview

Core focus and structure Context Aims Content Family orientation

Community programme work (in the one family) some of which is with two adult generations

Other procedural aspects require comment. Another part to the initial process of entering the setting was the first research task: the development of a social network map (see Section 4.2.). In one of the sites this was done in a group and in

Other procedural aspects require comment. Another part to the initial process of entering the setting was the first research task: the development of a social network map (see Section 4.2.). In one of the sites this was done in a group and in