![[Table of Contents]](/icons/up.gif){kind=icon}
[Commission Papers: Integrated Services...]
On September 7 and 8, 1995, researchers, practitioners, and policymakers gathered to assist the U.S. Department of Education in developing its research agenda in family literacy. The Research Design Symposium on Family Literacy was sponsored by the National Institute on Postsecondary Education, Libraries, and Lifelong Learning (PLLI) and the National Institute on Early Childhood Development and Education (ECI) of the Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI), and was held at Pelavin Research Institute's Conference Center in Washington, D.C. The Office of Elementary and Secondary Education's Even Start program, which sponsors family literacy projects that integrate early childhood education, parenting education, and adult basic education for disadvantaged families with young children, and the Office of Vocational and Adult Education, which funds the state-administered adult education program, provided support. The symposium was attended by experts in a variety of related areas, including adult education, early childhood education, learning disabilities and other disabilities, reading, sociology, English as a second language, family support, migrant education, program evaluation, and job training and workplace literacy.
Two themes stressed in opening remarks by the acting directors of PLLI and ECI set the tone for the meeting. Naomi Karp, Acting Director of ECI, called upon participants to begin a dialogue for producing a research agenda rooted in the assumption that all children and families have strengths. It is the responsibility of family literacy programs, she added, to help families identify and build on their strengths, and research should be conducted with and for, not on, families. Participants also were asked to identify the characteristics and qualities associated with successful programs, and to use this knowledge in generating successful family literacy programs. David Boesel, Acting Director of PLLI, noted that traditional adult basic education and General Educational Development (GED) programs have had difficulty attracting participation, while English as a second language classes are often oversubscribed. What is the difference between these programs, he asked, and how can family literacy programs be modeled after programs that are considered successful? In addition, how can the effectiveness of family literacy programs be documented? These are important questions for both researchers and practitioners to address.
For practical as well as conceptual reasons, the symposium was structured around five informative sessions, accompanied by at least one question to stimulate debate, as follows:
Among the assumptions stated during discussion were the following:
The definition of family literacy used by Even Start and Head Start includes the following components:
This definition translates into the provision of three core services to all families: parenting education, adult basic education, and early childhood education, with some activities provided with parents and children together and some instructional components taking place in the home.
Within the papers, researchers addressed in a variety of ways the need to define family literacy. Andrew Hayes, of the University of North Carolina-Wilmington, approached it by enumerating characteristics of "literate families." He noted for example, that literate families have the ability or means to
Richard Dur?n, of the University of California at Santa Barbara, noted that more than one way exists to interpret literacy. It is therefore important to put literacy in its particular context based on an understanding of how language, culture, and society are interconnected.
As it is most narrowly defined, literacy consists of basic reading skills. The broadest definition was put forth by several participants, who argued that literacy is a cultural concept--not merely a set of skills, but a way of thinking and behaving and responding to one's environment. Some definitions included computer literacy--a key skill in the marketplace, and therefore arguably an essential aspect of any literacy program. Sharon Darling, of the National Center for Family Literacy, mentioned that family literacy is a term derived from a program that began as intergenerational learning. Many of the participants agreed that the concept of "family" should be defined broadly, as well, so as to include any intergenerational unit that includes at least one caregiver. As symposium moderator Dorothy Strickland, of Rutgers University, observed, "Things that seem ordinary are often difficult to define."
Everyone agreed families are not all alike, but all have individual identities and worth and have accumulated a great deal of history, or what Vivian Gadsden, of the National Center on Fathers and Families, terms "life text." All families, added Joyce Muhlestein, member of OERI's National Educational Research Policy and Priorities Board, have a learning family culture, although this culture may not be academic or literate in the traditional sense of the word. Although influenced by socio-cultural factors, communities, and the extended family, the family itself is, and should be, treated as the basic unit for literacy and learning. Literacy is tied to parenting behaviors--how family members see, use, and treat written, oral, and symbolic material; therefore, family literacy programs cannot work with children to the exclusion of parents. However, most practitioners agreed that family literacy programs are being driven by the educational needs of the adults within the family unit.
Beth Harry, of the University of Miami, emphasized that programs serving families with special needs should have the greatest respect for adaptive coping strategies that these families are already using. Vivian Gadsden reiterated that programs must encourage participants to see their family and social history as critical to their literacy development and the learning process.
Among the research findings or implications noted in the papers were that significant changes in literacy, parenting behavior, and family dynamics appear when there is a commitment to long-term, intensive work with parents; and that both duration and number of contacts are important in yielding more pervasive, sustained effects (see Powell; St. Pierre & Layzer; Hayes). It appears that guided opportunities for discussion among low-income parents facilitate change in their parenting attitudes and behavior (Powell; St. Pierre & Layzer; Gadsden). However, evidence suggests that parenting education or improvements in parents' circumstances, by themselves, will not result in improved child outcomes (Powell; St. Pierre & Layzer). This supports conclusions that efforts to improve outcomes for adults and children must be directly targeted to both groups, individually and collectively. Despite these concerns, it is widely believed that well-designed and well-executed family literacy programs can effect a positive change in families.
Agreement on key assumptions proved problematic for symposium participants, in part because of the diversity of experiences and perspectives represented, and also because of concerns that their assumptions and ideas about what family literacy should be, might be confused with the kinds of assumptions upon which many unsuccessful family literacy programs base their practices.
Participants also mentioned some common assumptions about family literacy and related concepts that demand careful examination. Beth Harry stressed that although literacy is believed to be an essential tool for maneuvering in our society, many people with low-level literacy skills function very well without being literate. A basic assumption of family literacy programs is that they are successful as long as they do some good. Rhea Lawson, of the University of Wisconsin, challenged this assumption, asserting that barriers to success are built into many programs. These barriers include understaffing, lack of effective planning and evaluation, inadequate staff development, lack of cultural awareness and understanding, a focus on obtaining funds, and a lack of investment in the adults in the program. These problems may explain why programs can result in failure. Judy Alamprese, of COSMOS Corporation, observed that educators, as well as the general public, have tended to value the education of children above the education of adults. Instead, family literacy programs must value equally the education of both children and adults, and express this in terms of resources.
As we seek to apply research to practice, we must proceed with caution. Participants proposed that a great deal is known about family literacy and family literacy programs that has not yet been applied to such programs. However, as Larry Mikulecky, of Indiana University, cautioned, what has been shown to work for one program does not necessarily work for a large number of programs that may be poorly funded. Most funded programs are not based on research, and researchers often observe programs that are unsuccessful in achieving sizable gains in test scores for participants or in advancing their skill levels. Research to date shows that the development of literacy skills should be more closely tied to fundamental life skills, including those required for gainful employment. Research also should suggest strategies for moving people from welfare to work. A further complication is that practitioners often see the effects on families and on individual program participants that are never measured by researchers either during participation in programs or at any time thereafter.
Symposium participants suggested a variety of sources of information to be tapped. For example, Andrew Hayes assured participants that a knowledge base in instructional design exists that can inform the development of program standards. This knowledge base can document who family literacy clients are (e.g., participants in Even Start programs and National Center for Family Literacy (NCFL) programs), how best to work with diverse groups, and the different levels of need encountered and accomplishment reached. Research through NCFL and on Even Start family literacy programs is beginning to be used to determine what program features result in the highest success rates. A great deal of research also can be borrowed from other fields--for example, the learning disabilities field has accrued at least seven different methods for teaching reading. This kind of information, too, needs to be circulated and put to use within the family literacy field.
The families themselves are an important source of information and can best speak to what they need and what works for them. "The participants are the real experts," said Mercedes P?rez de Coln, of Avance-Hasbro Family Resource Center in San Antonio. "Research will never tell you what participants can," she added. However, Andrew Hayes emphasized the difficulty in using families themselves to define programs. Ann Kornblet, of the Learning Disabilities Association of America, countered that family literacy program staffs are not the best judge of what families need. Hayes and Kornblet agreed that there is a difference between symptoms and needs, and that it is the practitioner's duty to ensure that families receive the services and education they really need, not just those they think they need. By offering exposure, knowledge, and information to families, programs can prepare families to make decisions for themselves. Ultimately, family literacy staff need to work together with families to design a program that will build on participants' strengths.
From a practitioner's viewpoint, Howard Miller, Director of the Prince George's County, Maryland, Even Start program, also concluded that most of what we know about the delivery of family literacy programs is based on our own experiences in working with families. Programs are accountable for achieving observable goals; however, many programs do not have access to research literature in a usable form. Without this information, programs lack up-to-date information on what works, particularly in ways that enable them to demonstrate long-term effects.
Some participants argued that the lack of documented success was due to a failed understanding of how to successfully implement this design; others, such as Larry Mikulecky, argued that a deeper problem is that of idealistic program designs confounded by the reality of limited resources. For example, Even Start has been cast as a model program, even as it struggles to discover what its own best practices are. But there was consensus at the symposium that one feature modeled by Even Start--the emphasis on building a relationship of trust between families and program staff--is absolutely essential.
Family literacy as a concept is still considered to be in its infancy, particularly when compared to early childhood education, and even when compared to the adult basic education program. Gail Houle of the Office of Special Education Programs, asked, "Is family literacy at the point of identifying best practices?" The question has not yet been answered.
Clearly, literacy development is a key characteristic of any family literacy program. But, as Patton Tabors, of Harvard University, asked, is the goal of a family literacy program really to increase literacy? If it is, must it be for parents and children? Often self-esteem is raised, but not literacy. Adult education programs often must contend with these issues, as do many existing family literacy programs. Also, participants strongly urged that family literacy programs must deal with the questions of what to emphasize in the instructional component of the program (e.g., whether it is more important to teach job skills to parents, or to have them read to their children). Douglas Powell, of Purdue University, argued that programs should maintain a balanced, concrete focus on parenting and child development. Ultimately, while purposefully leaving literacy undefined, participants agreed that it is essential for a family literacy program to improve the literacy skills of both parents and children.
The central point is that, whatever else they might do, family literacy programs must serve as an extension of the family itself, rather than an extension of a school environment. Each program must involve collaboration, with both strong participant involvement and coordination of support services and funding sources across agencies. Several participants noted that widely recognized assumptions do not necessarily play out in practice. For example, although participants generally agreed that effective family literacy programs are characterized by a participant-driven approach--one in which participants are involved in the decision-making process and their stated needs drive program delivery and instruction--Dorothy Strickland maintained that programs often are not designed that way. Jean Layzer, of Abt Associates, countered that there is no research evidence that participant-driven programs are more effective than other kinds of programs. Rhea Lawson disagreed, stating there is evidence that if participants are involved in planning, retention rates are higher. Howard Miller concluded, "We define literacy; let parents define the goals."
Symposium participants proposed characteristics critical to family literacy programs. Programs must
Fran Tracy-Mumford, State Director of Adult Education for Delaware, along with Judy Alamprese, stressed the importance of integration and coordination in the delivery of family literacy programs. Core components, total program services, and staff development all must contribute to integration, not fragmentation. The inclusion of parent-child interaction, a parent support system, and the integration and coordination of parent curriculum, child curriculum, and parent-child curriculum, are also important. Robert Marley, of OERI's National Educational Research Policy and Priorities Board, added that staff development is crucial, as teachers and support staff are the backbone of a successful program. In addition, the program must be monitored by all stakeholders, including staff, outside entities, and clients.
The subject of support systems fueled debate on what the focus of family literacy programs should be. Although participants agreed that program goals should consider other support systems and agencies and should provide links to them, many were wary of programs stretching themselves too thin. Families who are economically disadvantaged, especially those who would benefit from a literacy program, have many more problems and barriers to deal with besides improving their literacy skills. The need to survive often precludes the possibility of the family being organized to pursue educational goals. Therefore, a program that strives to teach and help families must also attend to the factors that might make it difficult for them to attend classes (e.g., transportation difficulties, health needs, lack of affordable child care). As the national evaluation of the Even Start Program and other research is beginning to show, these services help support the families' educational needs, and can provide a bridge to success after the program's completion. However, limited resources dictate that family literacy programs cannot do everything. As Jean Layzer stressed both in her paper and during the conference, research shows that only high-quality, high-intensity programs effect real change. Anything less leads to small effects or none at all -- a result that shows a waste of money, and reflects poorly on family literacy programs.
Given these limitations, some participants argued, programs must focus on a particular goal--teaching literacy skills. It is likely that these skills, if successfully taught, will enable families to access other resources on their own. The conclusion, voiced by Lori Connors-Tadros, of Johns Hopkins University, was that we must accept both the narrow and broad definitions of family literacy.
One of the challenges of the symposium participants was to confront the complexity of how families function. Assuming that something happens with a family's daily functioning that is fundamental to the initiation and the development of the literacy of its members, the participants raised the following questions:
This last question sparked some concern about the underlying attempt to alter parenting behaviors according to a literacy model; at what point, one participant asked, does this become "cultural imperialism? "
Another area of concern was the extent to which support services are an essential part of family literacy programs. Having already determined that availability of support services was a key characteristic of family literacy programs, the participants focused on questions of extent and structure:
Staff development also is a key characteristic of family literacy programs.
Everyone involved with family literacy wants it to be as comprehensive as possible, but who is the target audience for these programs? Some participants were concerned about the literacy needs of adults and children with learning disorders and disabilities, and others worried about groups such as migrant workers and their families, and children and adults with physical disabilities.
A fifth set of questions focused on basic program design:
Finally, the topic of measuring effectiveness elicited several questions:
Research must focus not only on the causes of problems and their relationship to proposed interventions, but also on families' natural literacy practices, and on what those practices mean to the families, themselves, and how such practices change over time.
The Research Design Symposium on Family Literacy was a first step forward in that it brought together researchers, policymakers, and practitioners in one place at one time. One conclusion reached by participants was that research must be made accessible to practitioners; in this way, the collaboration between researchers and practitioners can be ongoing, and can then be shared with policymakers. Only this involved cooperation of all concerned parties will bridge the chasm of which Assistant Secretary Sharon Robinson spoke.
Through the questions and answers that were tendered, several key points came out:
In addition, the following questions are crucial in beginning to understand family participation in family literacy programs:
Researchers and practitioners may address all of the above issues in a variety of ways, including:
Also, Fran Tracy-Mumford highlighted the absence at this symposium of papers by practitioners, which would provide a different perspective from that of researchers. Similarly, Naomi Karp observed that participants in family literacy programs were not represented at the symposium and should be present in future discussions. What both indicate is that the development of a research agenda is not a static activity and must take into account changing concerns in any given field.