![[Table of Contents]](/icons/up.gif){kind=icon}
The lack of a clearly stated definition of family literacy has not diminished interest in exploring it as a means of promoting literacy development in the home, the school, and the workplace. Indeed, increased awareness of the important role of the "family as educator" has sparked a number of federal, state, and local initiatives that provide research on family literacy and family literacy support programs.
This paper focuses on program delivery and collaboration of family literacy programs. It will explore how family literacy programs work and the factors that influence their implementation. Specifically, it attempts to answer the following questions:
Before discussing the questions, themselves, it is necessary to provide a background on some of the assumptions and controversies regarding the topic. This will provide a context and a rationale for determining why these questions are so important.
Whether implicitly or explicitly stated, certain perceptions about families and the development of family literacy seem to pervade discussions about programs. Such beliefs have so far played an influential role in the planning and implementation of family literacy programs, as perceptions serve to inform the decisions made about what is "good" or "bad" for families.
More fundamentally, widely held assumptions provide an added impetus for the family literacy movement, itself. It is important to note, also, that, as used here, the term family is broadly defined to include a range of individuals who live together and function in a more or less traditionally familial way; the term parent refers to anyone fulfilling the responsibilities usually associated with the parent of a child or children over a sustained period of time. The following are some of these key assumptions:
A related assumption is that society (specifically government) has a role in supporting family goals for a better life.
(Partly based on a list generated at the Research Design Symposium on Family Literacy, September 7-8, 1995, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, Washington, D.C.)
Although the assumptions listed above can be applied to all families, they take on a sense of urgency when applied to those families considered most in need. Thus, virtually all of the programs within the realm of family literacy have been targeted toward low-income populations in which literacy achievement has consistently lagged behind that of their mainstream counterparts. At the federal level, family literacy programs are tied to The Adult Education Act (Titles II and III), The Library and Construction Act (Titles I and VI), The Head Start Act, The Family Support Act of 1988 (Title IV-A), and several programs in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, including Chapter 1; Even Start; Title VII Bilingual Education; and Title III, Part B, the Family School Partnership Program. Similarly, at the state and local levels almost all programs are targeted toward those families for whom the need is perceived to be the greatest. The perception of need has been verified by all of the usual determinants, including low income, high unemployment, and chronic school failure. In much of the legislation, guidelines for the use of such funds were established on the basis of these kinds of demographics.
The three issues of greatest concern to the National Center for Family Literacy upon its inception in 1989 continue to be typical of most family literacy programs today:
It is not surprising that most of those involved in family literacy programs were delighted with the new efforts toward supporting families in this way. However, as time went on, others began to worry about the growing and widespread impression that the concept of family literacy really implied family illiteracy and that it was only applicable to low socio-economic and minority groups.
Although commending the excellent accomplishments of many family literacy programs, some stakeholders expressed concern about what they considered to be an emerging "deficit model" of family literacy. This model appeared to be designed primarily to fix families or to "make them over" in some predetermined way with seemingly little investigation of the perceived needs of the families involved or regard for the socio-cultural community of which the families were a part. In the report of New Jersey's Council on Adult Education and Literacy (1993), Florio and Strickland acknowledged the need to concentrate limited resources on families in greatest need, but added:
The Council differs with the National Center's view of Family Literacy policy by concluding that the encouragement and promotion of family literacy must go beyond those families who are perceived as at risk. The Council strongly believes that family literacy programs are not required by disadvantaged families alone, but are important for all families (p. 15).
Other criticisms of family literacy programs go well beyond the need for broadening the audience and application, to concerns about the nature of some intervention programs. Family literacy programs that train parents how to interact with their children (to elicit certain types of literacy outcomes) have been criticized as ignoring the naturally occurring literacy events that exist in virtually all households--as well as the opportunities to make use of what families bring to the learning situation as potential building blocks for literacy development (Anderson & Stokes, 1984; Erickson, 1989; and Taylor & Dorsey-Gaines, 1988).
Morrow and Neuman (1995) acknowledge that: ". . . there is evidence that many low-income, minority, and immigrant families cultivate rich contexts for literacy development and that they support family literacy with effort and imagination" (p. 550). Also, Paratore and Harrison (1995) remind us that "literate practices are present in all families, but that these practices are sometimes incongruent with the uses of literacy in schools" (p. 516).
It should be pointed out that at least one researcher (Edwards, 1995) has responded to the criticism of highly structured parent training programs by pointing out that ". . . we only have the researchers' fears, doubts, and reservations." Edwards suggests that parent voices, perceptions, and evaluations of the programs be highlighted, rather than downplayed (p. 562). Interestingly enough, both Edwards and those who speak out against parent-training programs would argue that the voices of parents and their perceptions be made more visible in family literacy programs that purport to stand for what parents need and want.
Not surprisingly, as a new area of research and programmatic effort, family literacy is in the process of redefining itself. This process is both healthy and natural and should not be construed as a refutation of existing practice. Rather, it should be viewed as an opportunity to engage in the thoughtful reflection and examination needed to improve and extend existing efforts and to make the best use of available resources. No doubt this process will continue in the coming years as programs mature and come under scrutiny.
There also is no doubt that the questions related to program delivery and collaboration explored in this paper will be central to any future discourse. The following section, therefore, outlines descriptions of some of the most widely known family literacy programs. This is followed by a discussion of how the social and educational needs of families in a community are perceived and identified, and how those needs are related to program design and development.
The following sources were used to examine the perception of needs in family literacy programs: Family Literacy in Action (Nickse, 1989); The Reading Teacher (1989); and The Journal of Reading (April, 1995). Both of the journals used published theme issues devoted to the topic of family literacy. The Reading Teacher is geared to elementary school teachers and reading specialists; The Journal of Reading is geared to middle and secondary school educators and those involved in adult literacy programs. Both journals are published by the International Reading Association.
Below, also, are brief descriptions of all of the programs in Family Literacy in Action, including information about how the programs were initiated and how needs were identified and addressed. In the interest of space, summaries of only two journal articles are included, both representative of those articles in both journals that actually describe family literacy programs. The profiles provided are based entirely on the information presented in the reviews. In each case, it is assumed that the programs were selected for inclusion in these publications because they were representative, if not exemplary, in nature.
Marin County Library Family Literacy Program
Brief Description: home based. Involves non-English-speaking adults and their families in a variety of home- and school-based intergenerational activities. Identification of needs: initiated by volunteer tutor, who noticed that many farm workers' children were falling behind children of Anglo background. Parents recruited through basic-English tutors and by teachers in elementary schools. Implementation: provides at-home tutoring and bookmobile services. Extends services to evening/amnesty/ citizenship classes; attempts to link home with school services.
Beginning with Books
Brief Description: library based. Includes a variety of early intervention literacy programs aimed at promoting reading as a part of everyday family life. Identification of needs: parents participating in adult literacy program were surveyed to determine why they sought help with literacy. Interest in helping their children with literacy and the need for child care during their own literacy improvement sessions were revealed. Implementation: the Read Together Program was designed to provide literacy activities for children while their parents receive literacy services. Transportation is provided as well as a range of library services to parent and child.
Parent Readers Program
Brief Description: higher education based. An intergenerational literacy program for parents enrolled in adult basic education (remedial reading) classes on a college campus. Identification of needs: instructors' observations regarding student apathy about their own learning, but expressing apparent deep concern for the learning of their children. Implementation: workshops are held for students in which they are introduced to children's literature and strategies for sharing with their children.
Motheread, Inc. Brief Description: primarily prison based. Intergenerational literacy project for incarcerated women. Identification of needs: developed in response to "low literate adults wanting to improve their literacy skills in order to read to their children." Implementation: parents attend classes in which children's books are introduced along with a comprehension or critical thinking skill activity. Materials are made available during inmates' visits with their children. (The program also has been adapted to sites other than prisons.)
Project Will
Brief Description: university based. An intergenerational program offering one-on-one reading instruction to low-literate women while providing free child care. Identification of needs: survey revealed that more than half of the county's illiterate adults were women and that the lack of child care was preventing them from taking advantage of existing literacy services. Goals of participants vary, including GED objectives and beyond. Implementation: women participate in small group and one-to-one tutoring sessions while their children are offered a variety of learning experiences. Parent training is geared to student goals.
Kenan Family Literacy Project
Brief Description: community based (may use public school site). Aimed at improving parents' basic skills and attitudes toward education. Identification of needs: outreach program recruits parents with low literacy skills and deemed "at risk." Implementation: involves four basic components--early childhood education for the children, adult education, parenting education, and a pre-employment/self-esteem/job readiness component. Parents and children participate three days a week.
Mothers' Reading Program
Brief Description: community based (Settlement House). Adult literacy program, largely English as a Second Language (ESL) for mothers of children attending Head Start. Identification of needs: mothers learn of the program upon enrollment of their children. Implementation: mothers attend classes focusing on ESL, using reading and writing of their original texts as well as children's literature. Some activities involve children.
Take Up Reading Now (TURN)
Brief Description: community based. Provides basic reading and writing instruction and other support activities to adults. Helps parents develop learning strategies for their children and awareness of educational resources. Offers some joint activities with children. Identification of needs: need is based on demographic data regarding illiteracy in the area served. Implementation: comprised of three distinct programs--a program that assists parents in becoming advocates for children experiencing difficulties at school; a program for the collection and dissemination of children's books; and a program that shows parents how they can become their child's first teacher.
In these summaries of family literacy programs, little was explicitly stated about the perceived needs of families. However, there was some evidence that needs were, indeed, considered. For instance, the Marin County Library program did report an attempt to adjust to needs as the program progressed. Also, the Beginning with Books program reported some attempt to do a needs survey at the outset of its project. Needs were expressed most often in terms of the project's goals to address existing problems related to illiteracy. Program development closely followed those needs, according to program administrators.
Of the seven articles focusing on family literacy in this themed issue, two were specifically devoted to the description of family literacy programs. Both programs were school based. The Pulaski Elementary School family literacy program was designed to help develop self-esteem in children at an early age through parental encouragement and support of their literacy development. The program consists of a series of parent workshops involving demonstrations and small group discussions around issues of concern. Activities that involve parents in their child's literacy education at home and involve them in the school program are also integral to the program.
Project FLAME--Family Literacy: Aprendiendo, Mejorando, Educando (Learning, Bettering, Educating) provides literacy training to parents not yet proficient in English so they can support their children's literacy learning. It also includes a parents-as-teachers component in which parents learn to select books and share them with their children and learn how to use the library.
Like the programs described in Family Literacy in Action, these school-based efforts initially grew out of needs perceived by the program administrators--in this case, the school. In each instance, the school personnel sought to bring together what is known about home school partnerships and the need to support the literacy development of students obviously in need of such help. Both projects were set in low socio-economic areas where the populations were largely immigrants and minorities. Also, like some of the previous programs described, more was implied about parent input than was actually stated. However, in the case of these two school-based programs, there was some specific evidence that the needs of parents were directly considered. For example, in their report of the Pulaski program, Come and Fredericks (1995) state that, ". . . [t]he key ingredient to the success of the program was the involvement of parents in the planning" (p. 567). In the case of project FLAME, the developers appeared to be extremely sensitive to the cultural and linguistic background of this community of Spanish speakers. Ironically, this sensitivity actually caused them to alter instruction in a way that was counter to their beliefs about good teaching.
"At times, parents' preconceptions are too strong to overcome. We do not support the use of prescriptive grammar study or workbooks in language learning, but to some parents these approaches are synonymous with good teaching. After a few months of working on language in social contexts, they complained that we weren't really teaching English. We agreed to spend some part of each lesson on worksheets. Eventually, parents saw how wasteful and unnecessary this was, but without such responsiveness it is hard to imagine the program being as successful." (Shanahan, Mulhern & Rodriguez-Brown, 1995, p. 589)
In contrasting the programs listed in Family Literacy in Action, published in 1990, with those in The Reading Teacher, published in 1995, it is important to note that the latter were described in detail while the former were only summarized. The time span between these reports is also significant. No doubt those who initiate programs today are much more conscious of the concerns voiced by those who complain about deficit-model family literacy programs.
How are the social and educational needs of families and communities perceived and identified? How are the design and development of family literacy programs related to such needs?
It is clear that the primary sources for determining and articulating needs in a family literacy program are the agencies that implement such a program. In each case, some person or persons felt the need to bring together their knowledge and perceptions of the needs of families deemed at risk of literacy failure. These perceptions are grounded in the day-by-day observations of those who have the power and the will to initiate such programs, and they are supported by demographic data regarding socio-economic status, employment, and school achievement. In some cases, the family literacy programs were planned as an adjunct to existing programs. In others, they were initiated as stand-alone programs in order to provide assistance where those who were in a position to do so had observed a need.
This is not to say that parents and other community members were never consulted informally about their perception of need. It merely suggests that the articulation of needs is largely the responsibility of those who write the grants and administer the programs. Systematic surveys of needs are either rare or not reported in the literature. To those who initiate and administer family literacy programs, the needs may appear so overwhelming that an assessment would only confirm the obvious. The questions posed here about the perception of needs, however, may be another matter. While there is little question about whether or not a need exists, there is some question about how the clients themselves view these needs. What is their take on the obvious?
Some would argue that it is unrealistic to expect parents to take the initiative in programs of the types described here. Each requires expertise both in administration and instruction. They also require funding of some type. Since the very populations being addressed are among the most needy socio-economically and educationally, it is unlikely that they would either demand or initiate such programs on their own. As Shanahan et al. (1995) point out, "Latino families, despite low economic status, are highly concerned about the success of their children, though they are often uncertain how to negotiate the American educational system" (p. 587).
Nevertheless, it is reasonable to expect that programs would attempt to tap the perspective of their clients in some way as they plan and implement their programs. This is implied in some descriptions and left out completely in most others. Thus, it is often difficult to determine the degree to which parents helped plan the programs or shaped the direction of the programs once they are in place. The lack of attention to this is perhaps even more significant when programs claim to be partnerships. Indeed, the term "partnership" may be a reality in some cases. However, failure to mention how control is shared would imply that the partnership is either something to which they aspire or not a high priority.
As expressed in the reports of family literacy programs, development appears highly related to needs. This is not surprising, since the articulation of needs is largely the function of program administrators, and programs are often funded by outside agencies that require a close match between goals and implementation. But whether or not they seek outside funding, program developers must state their objectives and how they will be met. Perhaps the best "test" to determine how well program developers link design and development to the perceived needs of participants is by an examination of the adjustments made to programs as those needs are listened to and responded to over a period of time.
The literature reveals a growing body of information regarding family literacy and a growing number of highly successful family literacy programs. The overwhelming need for such programs and the pressure for funding have resulted in programs that are largely planned and implemented by those who, although close to the point of need, are not necessarily as collaborative with the target population as they might be. Some critics are concerned by the absence of the voice of the target population and the expression of their perceived needs.
Recent literature indicates that there may be a growing trend toward more flexibility and attention to community perceptions of need and greater efforts toward program flexibility in adjusting to those needs. Following are some conclusions and suggestions:
Anderson, A.B., & Stokes, S.J. (1984). Social and institutional influences on the development and practice of literacy. In H. Goelman, A. Oberg, & F. Smith (Eds.), Awakening to Literacy, 24-37. Exeter, NH: Heinemann.
Come, B. & Fredericks, A.D. (1995). Family literacy in urban schools: Meeting the needs of at-risk children. The Reading Teacher, 48, 566-70.
Edwards, P.A. (1995). Empowering low-income mothers and fathers to share books with young children. The Reading Teacher, 48, 558-64.
Erickson, F. (1989). Forward: Literacy risks for students, parents, and teachers. In Allen & J. Mason (Eds.), Risk Makers, Risk Takers, Risk Breakers: Reducing the Risks for Young Literacy Learners, xiii-xvi. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Florio, L. & Strickland, D.S. (1993). Adult literacy in New Jersey: A report of the Council on Adult Education and Literacy. Trenton, NJ: New Jersey Department of Labor.
Leichter, H. (1974). Families as environments for literacy. In H. Goelman, A. Oberg, & F. Smith (Eds.), Awakening to Literacy, 38-50. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Morrow, L.M. & Neuman, S.B. (1995). Introduction: Family literacy. The Reading Teacher, 48, 550-51.
Nickse, R.S. (1990). Family literacy in action: A survey of successful programs. Syracuse, NY: New Readers Press.
Paratore, J. & Harrison, C. (1995). A themed issue on family literacy. Journal of Reading, 38, 516-17.
Shanahan, T., Mulhern, M. & Rodriguez-Brown (1995). Project FLAME: Lessons learned from a family literacy program for linguistic minority families. The Reading Teacher, 48, 586-93.
Taylor, D. & Dorsey-Gaines, C. (1988). Growing up Literate. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
-###-
[Appendix A]