DOCUMENT RESUME ED 391 945 CE 070 846 AUTHOR Benjamin, … · ed 391 945. author. title. institution spons agency. report no pub date contract note available from. pub type. edrs

ED 391 945

AUTHORTITLE

INSTITUTIONSPONS AGENCY

REPORT NOPUB DATECONTRACTNOTEAVAILABLE FROM

PUB TYPE

EDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS

DOCUMENT RESUME

CE 070 846

Benjamin, L. Ann, Ed.; Lord, Jerome, Ed.Family Literacy: Directions in Research andImplications for Practice. Summary and Papers of aNational Symposium (Washington, DC, September 7-8,1995).

Pelavin Research Inst., Washington, DC.Office of Educational Research and Improvement (ED),Washington, DC.; Office of Elementary and SecondaryEducation (ED), Washington, DC.; Office of Vocationaland Adult Education (ED), Washington, DC.EC-95-9006; ISBN-0-16-048460-XJan 96RR940290104p.

U.S. Government Printing Office, Superintendent ofDocuments, Mail Stop: SSOP, Washington, DC20402-9328.Collected Works Conference Proceedings (021)Viewpoints (Opinion/Position Papers, Essays, etc.)(120) Reports Research/Technical (143)

MF01/PC05 Plus Postage.Adult Basic Education; *Adult Literacy; Disabilities;Early Childhood Education; *Educational Needs;Elementa.1, Education; *Family Programs; Immigrants;Limited EYglish Speaking; *Literacy Education; ParentRole; Secoyd Language Instruction

IDENTIFIERS *Family Literacy

ABSTRACTThis document contains 10 commissioned papers

presented at a research design symposium on family literacy. It alsocontains a summary of the symposium, which was structured around fivethemes: assumptions and perceptions about family literacy; what weknow from research and praccice and how we know it; defining thecharacteristics of family literacy programs; looking to thefuture--arguing for the top priorities for research and practice; andrefining and articulating the top priorities for research andpractice. The papers include the following: "Integrated Serices,Cross-Agency Collaboration, and Family Licercy' (Judith Alamprese);"English Immigrant Language Learners: Cultural Accommodation andFamily Li:eracy" (Richard Duran); "Designing and Conducting FamilyLiteracy Programs that Account for Racial, Ethnic, Religious, andOther Cultural Differences" (Vivian L. Gadsden); "Family LiteracyProgrdms: Creating a Fit with Families of Children with Disabilities"(Beth Harry); "Longitudinal Study of Family Literacy ProgramOutcomes" (Andrew Hayes); "Family Literacy: Parent and ChildInteractions" (Larry Mikulecky); "Teaching Parenting and Basic Skillsto Parents: What We Know" (Douglas Powell); "IntergenerationalTransfer of Literacy" (Catherine Snow, Patton Tabors); "InformingApproaches to Serving Families in Family Literacy Programs: Lessonsfrom Other Family Intervention Programs" (Robert St. Pierre, JeanLayzer); and "Meeting the Needs of Families in Family LiteracyPrograms" (Dorothy Strickland). Appendixes include a list ofsymposium participants and biographical sketches of commissionedauthors. (KC)

Family Li.Directions in Research and Implications for Practice

131,-

,

A

:.1,.

'

se"-

Jtt 11.14.miailt;*

1,(41`41..

/

44

-JoU S DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Ott of Educational Flmiarch and ImprovornantE CATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION

CENTER (ERIC)This document has been reproduced asreceived from the person or organizationoriginating it

El Minor changes have been made toimprove reproduction quality

Points of view or opinions stated In thisdocument do not necessarily representofficial OERI position or policy

Family Literacy:Directions in Research and Implications for Practice

Summary and Papers of a National Symposium

Edited by L. Ann Benjaminand Jerome Lord

Sponsored by the U.S. Department of EducationOffice of Educational Research and Improvement

in Collaboration withthe Office of Vocational and Adult Education

and the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education's Even Start Program

For sale by the U.S. Government Printing OfficeSuperintendent of Documents, Mail Stop: SSOP, Washington. DC 20402-9328

I SBN 0-16-048460X

U.S. Department of EducationRichard W. RileySecretary

Office of Educational Research and ImprovementSharon P. RobinsonAssistant Secretary

National Institute on Early ChildhoodDevelopment and Education

National Institute on Postsecondary Education, Libraries,and Lifelong Learning

National Even Start Program, Office of Elementary andSecondary Education

Office of Vocational and Adult Education

Conference Planners:

L. Ann BE ijaminJerome LordLenore WebbRita KirshsteinRebecca Shulman

Cover Artist: Katherine Van Horne

This report was prepared in part by Pelavin Research Institute under Contract Number RR 940290. Theviews expressed in this report represent those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinionsof the U.S. Department of Education.

January 1996

4

Foreword

Never before has education been moreimportant to the well-being of the U.S. family, thefate of the country's economy, and the vitality ofAmerican democracy. No matter our age orsocio-economic status, we all confront dramaticsocial, cultural, technological, and individualchanges that demand more and better educationfor all. As a result of change and challenge, statesare raising their academic standards; the workplaceis fast becoming an increasingly sophisticated andtechnologically complex experience that requiresthe improvement of basic skills and thedevelopment of new skills. Daily life, then,demands, as never before, full literacy for allfamily members.

The U.S. Department of Education, under theleadership of Secretary Richard Riley, hassupported and expanded reforms designed tobroaden every family's access to education. Frompre-school programs to adult education, and familyliteracy programs such as Even Start, we haveworked with state and local governments, withthe business community, and with health careorganizations, to bring to all of our country'scitizens a better quality of life through bettereducation.

The Department's Office of Educational Researchand Improvement (OERI) plays a critical role inthis campaign. One of our jobs is to produceresearch and information on innovative programsand practices, including substantive, creative,"user-friendly" research that is especially importantin the emerging field of family literacy. Our goalis to accelerate progress toward the day when thefamily is a miniature learning community inwhich there is shared devotion to helping oneanother to enhance family skills in reading,writing, numeracy, communication, and problemsolving. Should families beset by difficulties anddeprivations be unable to master these essentialskills adequately, family literacy programs offeropportunity, support, and hope; and research aidsin identifying the most effective means of helpingfamily members to help one another bynourishing the potential of every familymemberand fostering the conditions thatpromote both intellectual and emotional growth.

This publication represents an important step indeveloping a family literacy research agenda. Itshows that the key consensus is the convictionthat we must close the chasm between researchand practice.

Sharon P. RobinsonAssistant SecretaryOffice of Educational Research and Improvement

FOREWORD

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the many peoplewhose support and encouragement helped us inplanning the symposium and in preparing thisreport. We are especially grateful to the parentsand staff of the Prince George's County,Maryland, Even Start projects who shared theirlives with us and their perspectives on how familyliteracy programs can make a positive differencefor families.

We gratefully acknowledge the financial assistancereceived from the Office of Elementary andSecondary Education's Even Start Pt-ogram andthe Office of Vocational and Adult Education andthe commitment from Patricia McKee and RonaldPugs ley. We thank the authors and all whoparticipated in the symposium; without their

interest in family literacy and their knowledge andunderstanding of the issues, this project would nothave been successful.

This was a collaborative project and, as with anystrong collaboration, many people deserve ourthanks for contributing to the work. We areespecially grateful to Naomi Karp and DavidYoesel for their vision and constant support, toMaris Vinovskis for his great insight into researchissues, to Veda Bright for her careful attention todetails, to Bob Le Grand for his valuable editorialcomments, to artist Katherine Van Home for hersensitive family portrait that graces the cover ofthis report, and to the staff of Pelavin ResearchInstitute for guiding the process and for helping usto meet our deadlines.

iv ACLNOWLEDGMENTS

Table of Contents

Foreword iii

Acknowledgments iv

Introduction 1

Summary of the Research Design Symposium on Family Literacy 5

Commissioned Papers

Integrated Services, Cross-Agency Collaboration,and Family Literacy, Judith Alamprese 17

English Immigrant Language Learners: Cultural Accommodationand Family Literacy, Richard Durin 25

Designing and Conducting Family Literacy Programs That Accountfor Racial, Ethnic, Religious, and Other Cultural Differences,Vivian L. Gadsden 31

Family Literacy Programs: Creating a Fit with Families of Childrenwith Disabilities, Beth Harry 39

Longitudinal Study of Family Literacy Program Outcomes,Andrew Hayes 45

Family Literacy: Parent and Child Interactions,Larry Mikulecky 55

Teaching Parenting and Basic Skills to Parents: What We Know,Douglas Powell 65

Intergenerational Transfer of LiteracyCatherine Snow and Patton Tabors 73

Informing Approaches to Serving Families in Family Literacy Programs:Lessons From Other Family Intervention Programs,Robert St. Pierre and Jean Layzer 81

Meeting the Needs of Families in Family Literacy Programs,Dorothy Strickland 89

Appendices

A List of Symposium Participants 97

B Biographical Sketches of Commissioned Authors 99

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction

n early 1995, staff members at the U.S.Department of Education's Office of T:',ducationalResearch and Improvement (OERI) belan adialogue with researchers and practitioners on thesubject of family literacy. What began as aninformal trading of papers, articles, and otherinformation, soon grew into a project and amission. The purpose of the project was to bringtogether as much existing information on thesubject of literacyespecially family litera.-yaspossible. The missionthe first federal effort ofits kinti to be attempted on a nationwidescalewas to take the existing research and lifeexperience available now and to synthesize thatinformation into a "road map" for practitioners,researchers, and for the millions of Americanswho need our help to become full participants insociety.

Providing educational support to any family,particularly to families who lack educational andeconomic resources, is an awesome challenge. Itcombines the need to establish a basis of supportservices with particular skills and strategies fordealing with a family's learning needs.

It has become increasingly clear that any family'sstability and productivity are linked not only toemployment and employability, but also to theeducation levels of family members. Some earlychildhood programs like Head Start and EvenStart were designed to "break a cycle" before itbegan. Current family literacy research andpractices focus attention on the proposition thatthe cycle of deprivation and distress that so oftenaccompanies lower levels of literacy skills could atthe very least be mitigated by effectiveinterventions.

Family literacy can be thought of in at least twoways:

as the set of oral, graphic, and symbolicmeans by which family members exchangeand retain information and meaning; and

as the general level at which familymembers use their writing, reading,computing, communication, and problem-solving skills to accomplish the varioustasks of their daily lives.

Wherever the emphasis is placed, the goals ofresearch and practice must ultimately be to furtherour understanding on family learning and improvethe reading, writing, numeracy, communication,and problem-solving skills of both children andadults within the family. We recognize that theconstruction of a research agenda, therefore, muststart with the assumption that any idea orprogram is only fundamentally sound when it hasbeen tested. As yet, there is not a sufficientresearch base for existing programs in familyliteracy.

The changing demographics of the Americanfamily have presented many questions for whichthere are no easy answers. These questionsinvolve

the ways families acquire lit :racy andsustain literacy;

the necessity of choosing and pursuingfinite goals;

the best ways to organize programs aroundthose goals; and

the most effective strategies for helpingfamilies achieve higher levels of literacy.

As we studied the extant work on family literacyand ctnily literacy programs, it became apparentthat we needed to help build bridges betweenfamily literacy and the existing research on fam ilysupport, early childhood, special education, andadult learning research and practice.

In deciding to hold a symposium, we determinedto take the first step in structuring an ongoingresearch agenda focused on family literacy. Wedesigned a Research Design Symposium on FamilyLiteracy to bring together practioners andresearchers to discuss common themes and issues.

INTRODUCTION 1

The symposium was designed around categories ofquestions that would help the participants focustheir dialogue. The questions were designed to

define and characterize the family and afamily's literacy;

conceptualize and structure family literacyprograms;

further define the target populations;

distinguish a family support program froma family literacy program;

identify needed and effective services tostrengthen programs; and

combine strategies and resources ineffective collaborations to shape and movethe dialogue thematically.

While there are excellent sources of research-basedinformation on intervention programs in earlychildhood, the study of family literacy programsremains limited. This is not surprising, as suchprograms have been established as a separate areaof study only in the past decade. With help fromsuch organizations as the National Center forFamily Literacy and the National Center on AdultLiteracy, study and evaluaton have, however,grown in size and immediacy. In fact, severalfamily literacy program evaluations have providedinitial insight into program effects and goals.

We chose distinguished practitioners to participate,and we commissioned 10 papers from leadingresearch scholars that served as backgroundreading for the symposium discussion. Weselected the authors and their paper topics topresent knowledgeable perspectives on diverse butrelevant themes that would address the mostpressing concerns of the various stakeholders infamily literacy and related fields.

The papers are published here, along with asummary of the symposium. The authors andcorresponding titles of their papers are listedbeiow, with a short summary of each paper:

Judith Alamprese, Integrated Services,Cross-Agency Collaboration, and FamilyLiteracy. Two levels of coordinationoperate within family literacy programs:within the construction of the programitself, and federal or state coordination offunding. There is very little research oncoordination, although a theoreticalframework exists that could be tested.

Richard Durin, English ImmigrantLanguage Learners: CulturalAccommodation and Family Literacy.Programs must accommodate the clients'cultures; this is often a real issue withimmigrant families for whom English is asecond language. Literacy is not justlanguageit is also a cultural understandingof reality. Currently, there is a mismatchbetween the services offered to families andtheir real needs, although ethnographycould be used to understand the challengesof these immigrant families. It is essentialto understand the families who are therecipients of family literacy programs.

Vivian L. Gadsden, Designing andConducting Family Literacy ProgramsThat Account for Racial, Ethnic,Religious, and Other Cultural Differences.Families have strengths, and realistic goalscan be constructed based on reading,writing, and other basic skills. It isimportant to understand how cultures drawfrom various traditions, as well as howpeople define themselves within theirculture. Something meaningful to theclient must be presented within the contextof family literacy.

Beth Harry, Family Literacy Programs:Creating a Fit with Families of Childrenwith Disabilities. Programs, when dealingwith families having members with specialneeds, must be supportive and not interferewith the support systems that families havealready constructed. Staff must bothobserve and participate in family life inorder to identify problems and formulatesolutions. To find what is most beneficial,we must consider the meaning of literacy,

2 INTRODUCTION

and how it can be used in tandem withfamilies' already existing beliefs andpractices.

Andrew Hayes, Longitudinal Study ofFamily Literacy Program Outcomes.Longitudinal studies must be purposeful,and they must aim either to evaluate aprogram or to answer specific researchquestions. Researchers should focus on theproblems, not the symptoms. They shouldconsider the complexity of the audience, aswell as whether they will focus on howpeople may make decisions, or how theywill make decisions.

Larry Mikulecky, Family Literacy:Parent and Child Interactions. Researchshows which parental teaching strategieswork better and which are less effective.How this information is used is critical.Family literacy 1/4:an work, and does work,in some instances, with quality control. Itdoes not work when resources are over-extended.

Douglas Powell, Teaching Parenting andBasic Skills to Parents: What We Know.Programs designed to change parentingbehavior indicate success in severaldifferent ways: allowing parents tointegrate new ideas with pre-existingbeliefs; acknowledging the relationshipbetween parenting and other individualfunctioning; tailoring information and skillsto the parents' reality, including theirrelationship with their children; keepingthe focus on parenting; and providing long-term, intensive programs.

Catherine Snow and Patton Tabors,Intergenerational Transfer of Literacy.What goes on in the family around literacylearning? Positive affect is important.Physical closeness and individual attentioncan contribute. Although a child's simpleliteracy skills may be sufficient for the firstfew grades of school, this does not alwaystranslate to the comprehension necessaryby third grade. It is clear that differentoutcomes occur or manifest themselves at

different stages, and that there are manylevels for characterizing what happensbetween parents and children concerningliteracy.

Robert St. Pierre and Jean Layzer,Informing Approaches to Serving Familiesin Family Literacy Programs: LessonsFrom Other Family InterventionPrograms. The research on family literacyprograms shows that, while some smallpositive effects are in evidence amongparticipating mothers and children, thereare no large effects. The broader researchon family inter ventions reveals that high-quality, high-intensity programs producelarge effects. Family literacy shouldsupport programs aiming for large effects;although fewer clients will benefit, theywill benefit more completely.

Dorothy Strickland, Meeting the Needs ofFamilies in Family Literacy Programs.Family needs must be identified and relatedto the program design. It is important tohave a specific plan to address needs in anongoing way. Also, programs should beclient-driven, and clients should beinvolved in the evaluation process. Theirneeds mandate a flexible program structure.

This publication lays the foundation forresearchers, practitioners, and policymakers tocontinue constructing a family literacy researchagenda. The agenda-setting process is ongoing andmust continue so that we can broaden theknowledge base and improve services andoutcomes for families.

L Ann BenjaminNational Institute on Early Childhood

Development and Education

Jerome LordNational Institute on Postsecondary Education,

Libraries, and Lifelong Learning

INTRODUCTION 3

Summary of the Research Design Symposiumon Family Literacy

0 n September 7 and 8, 1995, researchers,practitioners, and policymakers gathered to assistthe U.S. Department of Education in developingits research agenda in family literacy. TheResearch Design Symposium on Family Literacy wassponsored by the National Institute onPostsecondary Education, Libraries, and LifelongLearning (PLLI) and the National Institute onEarly Childhood Development and Education(ECI) of the Office of Educational Research andImprovement (OERI), and was held at PelavinResearch Institute's Conference Center inWashington, D.C. The Office of Elementary andSecondary Education's Even Start program, whichsponsors family literacy projects that integrateearly childhood education, parenting education,and adult basic education for disadvantagedfamilies with young children, and the Office ofVocational and Adult Education, which funds thestate-administered adult education program,provided support. The symposium was attendedby experts in a variety of related areas, includingadult education, early childhood education,learning disabilities and other disabilities, reading,sociology, English as a second language, familysupport, migrant education, program evaluation,and job training and workplace literacy.

Two themes stressed in opening remarks by theacting directors of PLLI and ECI set the tone forthe meeting. Naomi Karp, Acting Director ofECI, called upon participants to begin a dialoguefor producing a research agenda rooted in theassumption that all children and families havestrengths. It is the responsibility of family literacyprograms, she added, to help families identify andbuild on their strengths, and research should beconducted with and for, not on, families.Participants also were asked to identify thecharacteristics and qualities associated withsuccessful programs, and to use this knowledge ingenerating successful family literacy programs.David Boesel, Acting Director of PLLI, noted thattraditional adult basic education and GeneralEducational Development (GED) programs havehad difficulty attracting participation, whileEnglish as a second language classes are often

oversubscribed. What is the difference betweenthese programs, he asked, and how can familyliteracy programs be modeled after programs thatare considered successful? In addition, how canthe effectiveness of family literacy programs bedocumented? These are important questions forboth researchers and practitioners to address.

For practical as well as conceptual reasons, thesymposium was structured around five informativesessions, accompanied by at least one question tostimulate debate, as follows:

Assumptions and Perceptions MoutFamily Literacy

What basic assumptions and perceptionsunderlie our conceptions about families,literacy, and the clients served by familyliteracy programs?

What We Know From Research andPractice and How We Know It

What do we know about research andpractice in family literacy?Flow do we know what we know aboutresearch and practice?To what extent do research and practicereflect assumptions about family literacy?

Defining the Characteristics of FamilyLiteracy Programs

What makes family literacy program-unique from other kinds of programs thatattempt to serve families in some way(e.g., in terms of strategies, programcontent, and structure)?

Looking to the Future: Arguing for theTop Priorities for Research and Practice

What are the fundamental areas, issues,and questions surrounding family literacyas an area of inquiry as well asprogrammatic effort (c.g., evaluationissues, literacy at home vs. school, howclients perceive need)?

SUMMARY OF THE RESEARCH DESIGN SYMPOSIUM ON FAMILY LITERACY 5

I

Refining and Articulating Our TopPriorities for ReseaTch and Practice

What should be the top priorities forestablishing a research and practiceagenda?

Assumptions and PerceptionsAbout Family Literacy

What basic assumptions shape conceptions offamily literacy? The assumptions and definitionsresearchers and practitioners adopt will influencethe direction they will go in establishing prioritiesin research and practice. Symposium participants'assumptions focused on concerns regarding theproblems faced by many familiesproblems suchas financial dependency and inaccessibility ofsupport servicesand a belief in the strength ofeducation and literacy to address many of thoseproblems.

Among the assumptions stated during discussionwere the following:

The basic structure of family literacyprograms should continue to be thestructure presently used in programsestablished by agencies, organizations andinstitutions: a caregiver, a child, and aninstructor who is engaged in improvingfamily members' literacy skills and teachingthe caregiver parenting skills in a centerand at home.

All programs have some effects onparticipantsthat areintended andsome effectsthat are notintended.

Both intendedand unintendedeffects arerelatively equally distributed amongparticipants and include some effectshst a short while and some that endurc.

Family literacy programs as presentlystructured and operating can be modeled,adapted, and disseminated in other sites andcontexts.

Pron'cling coordinated, multi-facetedservices to participants is more ben4icialand effective than providing any singleservice.

Most target families want to acquire higherlevels of literacy for one or more membersof their families.

Parent/caregiver involvement with a childin learning activities is basically a verygood thing for the child.

Defining Family Literacy

The definition of family literacy used by EvenStart and Head Start includes the followingcomponents:

interactive literacy activities betweenparents and their children;

training for parents on how to be theirchildren's primary teacher and to be fullpartners in the education of their children;

parent literacy training; and

early childhood education.

This definition translates into the provision ofthree core services to allfamilies: parentingeducation, adult basiceducation, and earlychildhood education, withsome activities providedwith parents and childrentogether and someinstructional componentstaking place in the home.

Although influenced by socio-culturalfactors, communities, and the extended

family, the family itself is, and should be,treated as the basic unit for literacy and

learning.

that Within the papers, researchers addressed in avariety of ways the need to define family literacy.Andrew Hayes, of the University of NorthCarolina-Wilmington, approached it by

6 SUMMARY OF THE RESEARCH DESIGN SYMPOSIUM ON FAMILY LITERACY

12

enumerating characteristics of "literate families."He noted for example, that literate families havethe ability or means to

acquire needed or desired information fromprinted verbal, symbolic, and graphicmaterials and from oral communications;

communicate their intent or ideas to othersin printed (written) verbal, oral verbal,graphic or symbolic forms;

set short-term and long-term goals for selfand family;

implement plans for accomplishment ofpersonal or family goals;

make valid predictions of the probableeffects of their actions or of familyconditions on themselves and others; and

support the development of familymembers, and help others in the familywith their learning and development.

Richard Durin, of the University of California atSanta Barbara, noted that more than one wayexists to interpret literacy. It is thereforeimportant to put literacy in its particular contextbased on an understanding of how language,culture, and society areinterconnected.

As it is most narrowlydefined, literacyconsists of basicreading skills. Thebroadest definition wasput forth by severalparticipants, whoargued that literacy is acultural conceptnotmerely a set of skills,but a way of thinkingand behaving andresponding to one'senvironment. Somedefinitions includedcomputer literacya keyand therefore arguably an

literacy progam. Sharon Darling, of the NationalCenter for Family Literacy, mentioned that familyliteracy is a term derived from a program thatbegan as intergenerational learning. Many of theparticipants agreed that the concept of "family"should be defined broadly, as well, so to includeany intergenerational unit that includes at leastone caregiver. As symposium moderator DorothyStrickland, of Rutgers University, observed,"Things that seem ordinary are often difficult todefine."

Characterizing ProgramPartidpants

Participants in family literacy programs aregenerally from.at-risk families with little formaleducation. For example, to be eligible for EvenStart, a family must have a low income andconsist of at least one adult who is eligthle foradult basic education and at least one child underthe age of eight. Currently, many longstandingsurvival systemssuch as dependence In theextended family and the communityi.re breakingdown. Charles Geboe, with the Bureau of IndianAffairs, stressed the current severity of th.'sproblem among the American Indian population,leaving parents without a workable model for howto raise their children. Simultaneously,government upport is quickly eroding. With

these factors workingagainst people, onequestion is, How canfamily literacy programsoffer a promising strategyto ameliorate problems offamilies?

Significant changes in literacy, parentingbehavior, and family dynamics appear

when there is a commitment to long-term,intensive work with parents . . . . (B)oth

duration and number of contacts areimportant in yielding more pervasive,

sustained effects . . . . However, evidencesuggests that parenting education or

improvements in parents' circuri,:tances,by themselves, will not result in improved

child outcomes.

skill in the marketplace,essential aspect of any

Everyone agreed familiesare not all alike, but allhave individual identitiesand worth and haveaccumulated a great dealof history, or whatVivian Gadsden, of theNational Center onFa:hers and Families,terms "life text." All

families, added Joyce Muhlestein, member ofOERI's National Educational Research Policy andPriorities Board, have a learning family culture,


although this culture may not be academic orliterate in the traditional sense of the word.Although influenced by socio-cultural factors,communities, and the extended family, the familyitself is, and should be, treated as the basic unitfor literacy and learning. Literacy is tied toparenting behaviorshow family members see,use, and treat written, oral, and symbolic material;therefore, family literacy programs cannot workwith children to the exclusion of parents.However, most practitioners agreed that familyliteracy programs are being driven by theeducational needs of the adults within the familyunit.

Beth Harry, of the University of Miami,-emphasized that programs serving families withspecial needs should have the greatest respect foiadaptive coping strategies that these families arealready using. Vivian Gadsden reiterated thatprograms must encourage participants to see theirfamily and social history as critical to theirliteracy development and the learning process.

Among the research findings or implications notedin the papers were that significant changes inliteracy, parenting behavior, and family dynamicsappear when there is a commitment to long-term,intensive work with parents; and that bothduration and number of contacts are important inyielding more pervasive, sustained effects (seePowell; St. Pierre & Layzer; Hayes). It appearsthat guided opportunities for discussion amonglow-income parents facilitate change in theirparenting attitudes and behavior (Powell; St.Pierre & Layzer; Gadsden). However, evidencesuggests that parenting education or improvementsin parents' circumstances, by themselves, will notresult in improved child outcomes (Powell; St.Pierre & Layzer). This supports conclusions thatefforts to improve outcomes for adults andchildren must be directly targeted to both groups,individually and collectively. Despite theseconcerns, it is widely believed that well-designedand well-executed family literacy programs caneffect a positive chai..;e in families.

Concerns About Assumptions

Agreement on key assumptions provedproblematic for symposium participants, in part

because of the diversity of experiences andperspectives represented, and also because ofconcerns that their assumptions and ideas aboutwhat family literacy should be, might be confusedwith the kinds of assumptions upon which manyunsuccessful family literacy programs base theirpractices.

Participants also mentioned some commonassumptions about family literacy and relatedconcepts that demand careful examination. BethHarry stressed that although literacy is believed tobe an essential tool for maneuvering in oursociety, many people with low-level literacy skillsfunction very well without being literate. A basicassumption of family literacy programs is thatthey are successful as long as they do some good.Rhea Lawson, of the University of Wisconsin,challenged this assumption, asserting that barriersto success are built into many programs. Thesebarriers ;nclude understaffing, lack of effectiveplanning and evaluation, inadequate staffdevelopment, lack of cultural awareness andunderstanding, a focus on obtainixyg funds, and alack of investment in the adults in the program.These problems may explain why programs canresult in failure. Judy Alamprese, of COSMOSCorporation, observed that educators, as well asthe general public, have tended to value theeducation of children above the cducation ofadults. Instead, family literacy programs mustvalue equally the education of both children andadults, and express this in terms of resources.

What We Know FromResearch and Practiceand How We Know It

As we seek to apply research to practice, we mustproceed with caution. Participants proposed thata great deal is known about family literacy andfamily literacy programs that has not yet beenapplied to such programs. However, as LarryMikulecky, of Indiana University, cautioned, whathas been shown to work for one program doesnot necessarily work for a large number ofprograms that may be poorly funded. Moafunded programs are not based on research, andresearchers often observe programs that areunsuccessful in achieving sizable gains in test

kf

SUMMARY OF THE RESEARCH DESIGN SYMPOSIUM ON FAMILY 'LITERACY

1

scores for participants or in advancing a.eir skilllevels. Research to date shows that thedevelopment of literacy skills should be moreclosely tied to fundamental life skills, includingthose required for gainful employment. Researchalso should suggest strategies for moving peoplefrom welfare to work. A further complication isthat practitioners often see the effects on familiesand on individual program participants that arenever measured by researchers either duringparticipation in programs or at any timethereafter.

Sources of Information

Symposium participants suggested a variety ofsources of information to be tapped. For example,Andrew Hayes assured participants that aknowledge base in instructional design exists thatcan inform the development of program standards.This knowledge base can document who familyliteracy clients are (e.g., participants in Even Startprograms and National Center for Family Literacy(NCFL) programs), how best to work with diversegroups, and the different levels of needencountered and accomplishment reached.Research through NCFL and on Even Start familyliteracy programs is beginning to be used todetermine what program features result in thehighest success rates. A great deal of research alsocan be borrowed from other fieldsfor example,the learning disabilities field has accrued at leastsevtn different methods for teaching re-ding. Thiskind of information, too, needs to be circulatedand put to use within the family literacy field.

The familiesthemselves are animpr,rtant source ofinformation and canbest r peak to whatthey need and whatworks for them. "Theparticipants are thereal experts," saidMercedes Perez deCo lón, of Avance-Hasbro Family Resource Centerin San Antonio. "Research will never tell youwhat participants can," she added. However,A ndrew Hayes emphasized the difficulty in usingfamilies themselves to define programs. Ann

Kornblet, of the Learning Disabilities Associationof America, countered that family literacyprogram staffs are not the best judge of whatfamilies need. Hayes and Kornblet agreed thatthere is a difference between symptoms and needs,and that it is the practitioner's duty to ensure thatfamilies receive the services and education theyreally need, not just those they think they need.By offering exposure, knowledge, and informationto families, programs can prepare families to makedecisions for themselves. Ultimately, familyliteracy staff need to work together with familiesto design a program that will build onparticipants' strengths.

From a practitioner's viewpoint, Howard Miller,Director of the Prince George's County,Maryland, Even Start program, also concluded thatmost of what we know about th delivery offamily literacy programs is based on our ownexperiences in working with families. Programsare accountable for achieving observable goals;however, many programs do not have access toresearch literature in a usable form. Without thisinformation, programs lack up-to-date informationon what works, particularly in ways that enablethem to demonstrate long-term effects.

Program Models

Programs often are modeled after existingprograms that are considered to be successful, butthey may not be based upon research findings andhave not necessarily been able to documentmeasurable improvements in family outcomes.For example, four elements of traditional family

literacy programs arewidely considered key,but their effects have notyet been fully measuredover time:

There was rensensmodeled by Evenbuilding a relatio

families and proges

us . . . that one featureStartthe emphasis onnship of trust betweenram staffis absolutelysential.

instruction forparents;

instruction forchildren;

support for parents and consideration ofparenting issues; and


time for parents and children to interacttogether.

Some participants argued that the lack ofdocumented success was due to a failedunderstanding of how to successfully implementthis design; others, such as Larry Mikulecky,argued that a deeper problem is that of idealistic

program designs confounded by the reality oflimited resources. For example, Even Start has

been cast as a model program, even as it struggles

to discover what its own best practices are. Butthere was consensus at the symposium that onefeature modeled by Even Startthe emphasis onbuilding a relationship of trust between families

and program staffis absolutely essential.

Family literacy as a concept is still considered tobe in its infancy, particularly when compared toearly childhood education, and even whencompared to the adult basic education program.Gail Houle of the Office of Special EducationPrograms, asked, "Is family literacy at the point ofidentifying best practices?" The question has notyet been answered.

Defining the Characteristicsof Family Literacy Programs

An important goal of the symposium was toidentify the characteristics and qualities thatdistinguish family literacy programs from otherprograms serving families and to identify whatmakes family literacy programs successful. Asfinancial resources tighten, the successful programcharacteristicsdetermined by theparticipants becomemore important as apolicymaking tool:programs may bejudged and funded (ornot funded) accordingto these characteristics. Currently, JudyAlamprese pointed out, funders do not have accessto useful guidelines; characteristics of successful oreffective family literacy programs can and shouldbe presented to funders in a useful format. Inaddition, researchers suggested that it would bemore effective to fund a few high-quality programs

than to fund a greater number of programs withlow budgets and minimal goals.

Clearly, literacy development is a keycharacteristic of any family literacy program. But,as Patton Tabors, of Harvard University, asked, isthe goal of a family literacy program really toincrease literacy? If it is, must it be for parentsand children? Often self-esteem is raised, but notliteracy. Adult education programs often mustcontend with these issues, as do many existingfamily literacy programs. Also, participantsstrongly urged that family literacy programs mustdeal with the questions of what to emphasize inthe instructional component of the program (e.g.,

whether it is more important to teach job skills toparents, or to have them read to their children).Douglas Powell, of Purdue University, argued thatprograms should maintain a balanced, concretefocus on parenting and child development.Ultimately, while purposefully leaving literacyundefined, participants agreed that it is essentialfor a family literacy program to improve theliteracy skills of both parents and children.

The central point is that, whatever else they mightdo, family literacy programs must serve as anextension of the family itself, rather than anextension of a school environment. Each programmust involve collaboration, with both strongparticipant involvement and coordination ofsupport services and funding sources acrossagencies. Several participants noted that widelyrecognized assumptions do not necessarily playout in practice. For example, althoughparticipants generally agreed that effective family

literacy programs arecharacterized by aparticipant-drivenapproachone in whichparticipants are involvedin the decision-makingprocess and their statedneeds drive program

delivery and instructionDorothy Stricklandmaintained that programs often are not designedthat way. Jean Layzer, of Abt Associates,countered that there is no research evidence thatparticipant-driven programs are more effectivethan other kinds of programs. Rhea Lawsondisagreed, stating there is evidence that if

Family literacy proextension of the fa

an extension of a

grams must serve as anmily itself, rather thanschool environment.


16

participants are involved in planning, retentionrates are higher. Howard Miller concluded, "Wedefine literacy; let parents define the goals."

Defining Characteristics

Symposium participants proposed characteristicscritical to family literacy programs. Programsmust

offer literacy development for parents andchildren;

serve as an extension of the family,recognizing their individual differences;

include strong participant involvement;

coordinate support services and othersources of funding;

establish a designated time and a processfor a parent support system;

include parent-child interaction;

integrate learning and participation onthree levels: parents, children, and parent-child;

integrate core instructional components,total program services, and staffdevelopment;

offer ongoing monitoring of quality by allstakeholders;

define familybroadlyintergenerational,includingchildren andcaregiver(s);

offer programgoals thatconsider othersupportsystems and agencies andother services; and

address long-term student goals.

Fran Tracy-Mumford, State Director of AdultEducation for Delaware, along with JudyAlamprese, stressed the importance of integrationand coordination in the delivery of family literacyprograms. Core components, total programservices, and staff development all must contributeto integration, not fragmentation. The inclusionof parent-child interaction, a parent supportsystem, and the integration and coordination ofparent curriculum, child curriculum, and parent-child curriculum, are also important. RobertMarley, of OERI's National Educational ResearchPolicy and Priorities Board, added that staffdevelopment is crucial, as teachers and supportstaff are the backbone of a successful program. Inaddition, the program must be monitored by allstakeholders, including staff, outside entities, andclients.

Program Goals

The long-term goals of the clients also must beaddressed. Although the idea of includingtechnology (both computers and assistivetechnology) as a necessary aspect of the programwas discussed, it was not included in the final listof defining characteristics generated byparticipants. However, most participantsconsidered technology a very important aspect offamily literacyboth as a tool of inclusion, and asa form of literacy in a modern, technologicalsociety. Gus Estrella, of the United CerebralPalsy Associations, noted the tremendous benefitsof assistive technology to individuals with

disabilities. Without suchassistance he would nothave been able toparticipate in thesymposium.

A program that strives to teach and helpfamilies must also attend to the factorsthat might make it difficult for them toattend classes . . . . These services helpsupport the families' educational needs,

and can provide a bridge to success afterthe program's completion.

offer links

The subject of supportsystems fueled debate onwhat the focus of familyliteracy programs shouldbe. Although participantsagreed that program goals

to should consider other support systems andagencies and should provide links to them, manywere wary of programs stretching themselves too


-AL

thin. Families who are economicallydisadvantaged, especially those who would benefitfrom a literacy program, have many moreproblems and barriers to deal with besidesimproving their literacy skills. The need tosurvive often precludes the possibility of thefamily being organized to pursue educationalgoals. Therefore, a prqgram that strives to teachand help families must also attend to the factorsthat might make it difficult for them to attendclasses (e.g., transportation difficulties, healthneeds, lack of affordable child care). As thenational evaluation of the Even Start Program andother research is beginning to show, these serviceshelp support the families' educational needs, andcan provide a bridge to success after the program'scompletion. However, limited resources dictatethat family literacy programs cannot doeverything. As Jean Layzer stressed both in herpaper and during the conference, research showsthat only high-quality, high-intensity programseffect real change. Anything less leads to smalleffects or none at all a result that shows a wasteof money, and reflects poorly on family literacyprograms.

Given these limitations, some participants argued,programs must focus on a particular goalteachingliteracy skills. It is likely that these skills, ifsuccessfully taught, will enable families to accessother resources on their own. The conclusion,voiced by Lori Connors-Tadros, of johns HopkinsUniversity, was that we must accept both thenarrow and broad definitions of family literacy.

Looking to the Future:Arguing for the TopPriorities for Research andPractice

Nearly every aspect of family lheracy programdesign and effectivenesscontains numerousunanswered questions.The participants listed anumber of questions toorient future research.These questions tendedto ccho group concerns as well as prior discussion.

For the most part, they fell into one of sixcategories:

family functioning;

collaboration with support services;

staff development practices;

comprehensiveness and effectiveness ofprograms;

effective program design strategies; and

measurement of program effectiveness.

One of the challenges of the symposium participantswas to confront the complexity of how familiesfunction. Assuming that something happens witha family's daily functioning that is fundamental tothe initiation and the development of the literacyof its members, the participants raised thefollowing questions:

What is it about the relationship betweenparents and children around literacyactivities at home that is crucial to programcontent in family literacy programs?

How do parents and children learn, bothtogether and separately, and does theirinteraction improve learning?

What different methods do parents use in theexchange of literacy with their children?

How does education in parenting skillsaffect the literacy skills of adults andchildren?

This last question sparked some concern about theunderlying attempt to alter parenting behaviorsaccording to a literacy model; at what point, one

participant asked, doesthis become "culturalimperialism? "

Research shows that only high-quality,high-intensity programs effect real change.Anything less leads to small effects or none

at all.Another area of concernwas the extent to whichsupport services are anessential part of family


(3(a

literacy programs. Having already determined thatavailability of support services was a keycharacteristic of family literacy programs, e

participants focused on questions of extent andstructure:

What is ',.he difference in effectivenessbetween a stand-alone family literacyprogram and one that operates inconjunction with a number of other serviceagencies?

How can the goals and structures (:f. familyliteracy programs be included withinalready existing service institutions?

What strategies are most effective fordeveloping and sustaining interagencycoordination?

Ultimately, to what extent must a familyliteracy program be a family supportprogram in order to be effective?

Staff development also is a key characteristic offamily literacy programs.

What can be used as a model for effectivestaff behavior?

What staff development practices are mosteffective in preparing adult literacyinstructors to be effective in familyliteracy?

Everyone involved with family literacy wants it tobe as comprehensive as possible, but who is the targetaudience for these programs? Some participantswere concerned about the literacy needs of adultsand children with learning disorders anddisabilities, and others worried about groups suchas migrant workers and their families, and childrenand adults with physical disabilities.

How do we target literacy skills to allclient needs regardless of economic orcultural differences?

How can we more efficiently designcomputer networks and assistive

technology to improve family literacyeffectiveness and training?

A fifth set of questions focused on basic programdesign:.

How can we design interventions thatcapitalize on the existing beliefs andstrengths of families?

What roles should the clients themselvesplay in planning, implementing, andevaluating programs?

Finally, the topic of measuring effectiveness elicitedseveral questions:

How can we anticipate both positive andnegative unintended consequences ofprograms, and how do we measure them?

How do we measure best practices infamily literacy?

Ultimately, how do we know if familyliteracy programs work?

Research must focus not only on the causes ofproblems and their relationship to proposedinterventions, but also on families' natural literacypractices, and on what those practices mean to thefamilies, themselves, and how such practiceschange over time.

Refining and ArticulatingOur 'Top Priorities forResearch and Practice

The Research Design Symposium on Family Literacywas a.first step forward in that it brought togetherresearchers, policymakers, and practitioners in oneplace at one time. One conclusion reached byparticipants was that research must be madeaccessible to practitioners; in this way, thecollaboration between researchers and practitionerscan be ongoing, and can then be shared withpolicymakers. Only this involved cooperation ofall concerned parties will bridge the chasm ofwhich Assistant Secretary Sharon Robinson spoke.


Through the questions and answers that weretendered, several key points came out:

Family literacy is perceived and defineddifferently by practitioners, researchers,and families. Some consensus on whatfamily literacy is must be reached. How itis defined will determine how programsapproach evaluation, instruction, staffdevelopment, and program delivery.

All stakeholders must strive to bringtogether the diverse perspectives andexperiences represented in family literacyand related fields so that a common set ofassumptions can be established that willinform the development of key researchquestions.

Researchers and practitioners mustdetermine how best to influence policydecisions.

Research must both substantiate andinform practice. "I knew (what makeseffective practice) before researchers knewit," said Delia Garcia, of FloridaInternational University. Howard Milleremphasized, "We need new information"from researchers to improve practice. Amajor challenge is to develop a mechanismfor getting research information back tofamily literacy programs.

Having state-of-the-art knowledge doesnot guarantee that programs will use it.For example, even though researchers andpractitioners may agree that use oftechnology in instruction, emphasis on apractitioner-driven approach, and a well-trained staff are important to the success ofa program, many programs do not puttheir beliefs into practice. Limitedresources, resistance to change, andmisconceptions about how these tenets canbe translated into practice may inhibit theiradoption by individual programs.

Researchers and practitioners must devisea way to determine when and to whatextent change has taken place in achieving

both short-term and long-term outcomes.That entails being clear about the end onewants to achieve.

We need to know more from states andlocalities about the impact of theirinvolvement in and interpretation of familyliteracy, as well as the impact of these andother factors on program design andfunding.

In addition, the following questions are crucial inbeginning to understand family participation infamily literacy programs:

, .How can researchers and practitionersdesign and implement programs that aremore respectful of family and culturaldifferences, and that foster a sense of hope?

What does it look like for family literacyproviders to serve families well? Programadministrators must be honest about whatis feasible given limited resources. In thespirit of service and compassion for familiesin need, family literacy programs wouldlike to serve everyone, but is that reallyserving families well? Program staff mustchoose how comprehensively families can beserved with limited resources. Programsserving families also must address anymismatch between their perceptions abouteducation and literacy and those offamilies, or between their institutionalcapital and family resources.

What is the best way to influence changesin practice? Will programs be more easilyinfluenced by the quality of informationavailable from research and evaluation, orthrough advocacy? Might the answer tothese questions be dependent, as AndrewHayes suggests, on the notion thatprograms often base their decisions moreon emotion than on objective information?

Next Steps

Researchers and practitioners may address all ofthe above issues in a variety of ways, including:


convening in smaller groups focused onspecific content or process areas;

funding future research activities; and

holding additional meetings or focusgroups, and bringing individuals together atnational conferences.

Also, Fran Tracy-Mumford highlighted theabsence at this symposium of papers bypractitioners, which would provide a different

perspective from that of researchers. Similarly,Naomi Karp observed that participants in familyliteracy programs were not represented at thesymposium and should be present in futurediscussions. What both indicate is that thedevelopment of a research agenda is not a staticactivity and must take into account changingconcerns in any given field.


Integrated Services, Cross-Agency Collaboration, andFamily Literacy

Judith AlampreseCOSMOS Corporation

Recent descriptive studies of family literacyprograms highlight the importance of cross-agencycollaboration. Collaboration among educationand human service agencies in local communitieshas, in fact, emerged as a critical element of familyliteracyin part because of the realization that theprocess of addressing the literacy needs of parentsand children is complex and requires the deliveryof multi-faceted services to meet those needs. Inaddition, family literacy intervention staffincreasingly have identified the provision ofintegrated services as a necessary programcomponent, and have used the collaborativeprocess to build relationships among agenciesdelivering services.

The trend toward a reduction in education andsocial services funding also has prompted programsto work together in exchanging services andmaterials as a strategy for supportingcomprehensive interventions. Family literacyprograms have thus been creative in identifyingthe various resources in a community that may beused to develop an integrated approach, includingeducation as well as family support services.Furthermore, cross-agency collaboration has beenencouraged by the federal programs that authorizethe expenditure of funds for family literacy, suchas Even Start and Head Start. Finally, inherent in

Collaboration among education andhuman service agencies in local

communities has . . . emerged as a criticalelement of family literacy in part because

of the realization that the process ofaddressing the literacy needs of parents

and children is complex and requires thedelivery of multi-faceted services to meet

those needs.

the delivery of any, successful multi-componentprogram is the coordination of agency staffrepresenting the different service components.

While policymakers and practitioners considercross-agency collaboration to be an essentialingredient of an effective family literacy program,there is little evidence concerning the relationshipof collaborative activities to the functioning ofthese programs and the attainment of clientoutcomes. As an initial step in defining theresearch issues that should be addressed concerningthe role and the impact of cross-agencycollaboration and integrated services in familyliteracy programs, this paper presents apreliminary framework for examining the factorsnecessary to sustain collaborations in familyliteracy. The framework is drawn from theclassical research on interorganizationalrelationships and from studies of interagencycoordination in adult education and humanservices. Also discussed in the paper are the areasof inquiry that appear to be important for anyunderstanding of the collaborative process and itsoutcomes for family literacy.

What Is Known AboutCollaboration in FamilyLiteracy

Typology of Programs

Family and intergenerational literacy programs arebeing implemented in communities with varyingdurations and intensity cf services. The four-component model developed as part of Kentucky'sParent and Child Education (PACE) program, andcurrently disseminated by the National Center forFamily Literacy (NCFL) (1995), is acomprehensive approach to breaking the cycle ofpc verty and undereducation in the family systemthat calls for the integration of adult education,

....EGRATED SERVICES AND CROSS-AGENCY COLLABORATION 17

2 2" -

Judith Alamprese

early childhood education, parent and childinteraction time, and parenting education andsupport. In the NCFL model, the fourcomponents are expected to work together in aflexible framework that meets the needs of parentsand children.

Other intergenerational and family educationmodels are being used that do not require the fourcomponents, but still are encouraging parents' andchildren's literacy development, directly orindirectly. One such model provides services toparents and their children with less intensity andduration than the NCFL model and with lessfocus on formal instruction. Other variationsinclude the provision of literacy services tochildren indirectly, basically by enhancing parents'abilities to select books and to read to theirchildrenor to serve children directly insupplemental reading programs wherein the roleof the parent is to support children's literacyefforts, rather than to participate in adult literacyeducation (Nickse, 1991).

Local-Level Collaborations

Since few systematic studies of family literacy haveaddressed cross-agency collaboration (e.g., Quezada& Nickse, 1993; St. Pierre et al., 1993), mostinformation about collaboration in family literacymust be drawn fr, in handbooks and programreports (e.g., the harbara Bush Foundation forFamily Literacy, 1989;-National Center for FamilyLiteracy, 1991; Association for Community BasedEducation, 1993). While the majority of thosedocuments do not describe the collaborativeprocesses that are used by programs and the effectsof those processes, they do provide informationabout the types of organizations involved incollaboration and the challenges faced in carryingout collaboration, and thus are an important datasource for understanding the major r layersinvolved in collaboration.

Cross-agency collaboration has evolved at both thelocal and the state level. At the local level,education and human service agencies may worktogether to fund and to implement a familyliteracy program that reflects one of the servicedelivery models previously described. Even Start

and Head Start programs are working with localadult education service providers, for instance, inorganizing family literacy programs that providecoordinated adult and early childhood educationservices. Within a program, staff from differentservice components collaborate in carrying outservices that represent different levels ofintegration.

Cross-agency collaboration and the provision ofintegrated services are reported in all types of localprograms, but are more likely to occur in thecomprehensive approaches to family literacy.Integrated services can be considered to be oneoutcome of cross-agency collaboration, whereintwo or more entities work together toward acommon goal. In family literacy programs,integration can be defined in terms of the co-location of the delivery of services, the substantiveintegration of the adult and early childhoodeducation curricula, the collaboration among stafffrom the different substantive components thatcomprise a program, the coordination of supportservices that are provided to parents through theprogram, and the coordination of funding sourcesto support a program. For example, in familyliteracy programs using the four-componentmodel, it is optimal to have co-located adulteducation and early childhood education servicesto facilitate the parent-child interaction time.

Sucn services as the above may be directed by thesame agency, as was found in about half of theEven Start programs examined in the nationalevaluation, or they may be provided incooperation with other agencies or throughcontractual relationships with other agencies (St.Pierre et al., 1993).

Another form of integration involves the curriculaused for both parents and children. In programswhere curricula integration is a goal, instructorsfrom the adult and early childhood educationcomponents meet tc plan curriculum and toschedule activities that reinforce desired conceptsin both instructional programs. The FamilyLiteracy Demonstration Project, a coil Aborativeeffort between the Center for Literacy and thePhiladelphia Public Schools, is an exam'. .e ofinstructional content for adults mirroring t. e K-12curriculum for children. As children were

18 INTEGRATED SERVICES AND CROSS-AGENCY COLLABORATION

Judith Alamprese

learning classification using shapes and colors,adults worked on the classification of differenttypes of literature (National Institute for Literacy,1993).

The importance of providing integrated supportservices to families in order to assist them indealing with barriers to participation is a commontheme in descriptions of family literacy efforts.While noting the critical role of these services inmore general family support programs, researchershave acknowledged the difficulty of evaluating theimpact of such services on family functioning (e.g.,Kagan & Shelley, 1987; Weiss, 1988). In familyliteracy programs, the emerging pattern is onewherein programs either provide support servicesdirectly to clients or work in conjunction withexisting networks, such as child care, employmenttraining, and other family support services (Brizius& Foster, 1993). The 10 projects cited in theBarbara Bush Foundation for Family Literacyhandbook (1989) illustrate the range of supportservices that are being offered as part of familyliteracy programs, including the commonlyprovided services of transportation and meals aswell as lending libraries and stipends forpurchasing reading materials, pre-employmenttraining, and medical and dental exams.

The coordination of funding sources is one of themore difficult aspects of operating family literacyprograms. Often the adult education program andthe Even Start or Head Start agencies in a givencommunity have no prior working relationship,and their ability to offer joint programming isproblematic. In an effort to promote coordinatedfunding, the NCFL has structured itsdemonstration programs to require matchedfunding, which encourages the family literccyprogram to seek support from communityagencies that, indeed, can contribute to theprogram's services.

The issue of coordinated funding for educationand human services has been discussed extensivelyat the federal level, and recent research indicatesthat local coordination of funding is facilitatedwhen the state offices administering those fundsprovide technical assistance and encouragement tolocal agencies (Alamprese, Brigham & Sivilli,1992). As block grants become more important,

the issue of the types of services that areauthorized under federal or state programs will bemore critical. Resources such as those providedby the NCFL in describing the possible fundingsources for family literacy have assisted localprograms in organizing their solicitation strategy.As the types of funding and procedures foraccessing money change, further assistance will beneeded to provide local programs with access tomultiple funding sources.

In carrying out a variety of integrated services,family literacy programs have had to developcollaborative relationships with other agencies andorganizations in a community that may includethe immediate exchange of goods or a longer-termcommitment to working together in coordinatingservices and funding. While the conventionalwisdom of family literacy providers is thatcollaboration is an essential element of anyprogram, it is widely recognized that effectivecollaborations are difficult to implement andsustain. The analysis of early data from the EvenStart evaluation noted that while 123 projects wereinvolved in 2,128 cooperative arrangements toprovide core program services, there were anumber of barriers to implementation includingproblems of communication and coordination anddifficulties in structuring support services (St.Pierre et al., 1993). These barriers are echoed inother studies of family literacy andintergenerational programs (e.g., Association forCommunity Based Education, 1993; Quezada &Nickse, 1993).

State-Level Initiatives

Collaboration at the state level occurs betweenstate agencies as well as between state agenciesand local programs. States are moving forward insponsoring special projects or initiatives toencourage the development of family literacyprograms, and have begun to coordin:ire cross-agency funding to facilitate such development.As the first state to implement a comprehensiveapproach to family literacy, Washington instituteda program similar to Even Start in the mid-1980s.In addition, Kentucky has been a leader insupporting the implementation of the four-component model of family literacy, and state

INTEGRATED SERVICES AND CROSS-AGENCY COLLABORATION

n A4.1c

19

Judith Alamprese

officials were active in extending the center-basedmodel programs in North Carolina (Brizius &Foster, 1993).

State support for family literacy has included thepassage of legislation on family literacy (e.g.,Hawaii, Louisiana, and Arizona), a.' well as theinclusion of family literacy provisious as part ofbroader school reform initiatives. In some states,such as Illinois, interagency groups are workingtogether to sponsor family literacy programs. Ina current project sponsored by the Lila Wallace-Reader's Digest Fund, the National Cenler forFamily Literacy is working with California,Illinois, New York, and North Carolina to buildstate infrastructures for family literacy thatinclude a training system for family literacy andinteragency state activities to foster thedevelopment of local family literacy programs.

Private sector organizations and foundations alsoare helping to support family literacy throughprograms such as matching grants. In fact, theWilliam R. Kenan, Jr. Charitable Trust was anearly leader in funding model family literacyprograms in Kentucky and North Carolina. TheToyota Motor Corporation and the John S. andJames L. Knight Foundation continue to supportfamily literacy programs that require matchingfunds from local communities as well as theparticipation of local agencies in partnerships fordelivering services.

As the funding for education and human servicesmoves entirely toward block grants, the lessonsfrom state initiatives on effective cross-agencycollaboration become more critical. However,few of these efforts have been evaluated, pointingto the need for more rigorous studies.

A Preliminary Frameworkfor Family Literacy

An initial step in understanding the conditionsthat give rise to cross-agency collaboration, as wellas the process of developing and sustaininginterrelationships in family literacy, is o use aheuristic device, such as a framework, for definingthe variables of interest and specifying the types of

relationships that might be examined. Theclassical literature on organizational relationshipsand social exchange theory provides a point ofdeparture for developing such a framework.

Agencies generally form interrelationships becausethey are compelled to do so, or because they havea common objective or a mutual need andconsider it in their own best interest to worktogether (Cook, 1977). In the case of familyliteracy, some legislative mandates or state policyinitiatives have called for collaboration byrequiring that agencies join together in developingmulti-component services. Private sectorinitiativr:s in family literacy also have requiredmulti-agency participation in funding and inprogram development.

In contrast to situations mandating or initiatingcross-agency collaboration, agencies mayvoluntarily work together to fund programs or toenter into other arrangements for exchangingservices or information. Under suchcircumstances, the conditions for collaboration arespecified by the participating agencies as a tool formeeting a common need. The actil, ities of localfamily literacy programs in organizing supportservices for clients and in carrying out multi-component services are illustrations of this type ofcollaboration.

Recent research on interagency coordination inadult education (Alamprese, 1994; Alamprese,Brigham & Sivilli, 1992; Alamprese, Schaff, &Brigham, 1987), family literacy and supportprograms (MacDonald, 1994; Quezada & Nickse,1993; Kagan, 1991), and job training (Bailis, 1989;Grubb et al., 1989) provides some insight intounderstanding the factors that are important fordeveloping and sustaining effective collaborations.While these studies have identified similarstrategies used by programs to carry outcollaborations, the work on adult educationcoordination also addresses the structuralconditions that give rise to organizationalinterrelationships.

When organizations attempt to work together atboth the local and state levels, it appears that twotypes of collaboration sti ategies areimportantstrategies organizations use to develop


Judith Alamprese

relationships, and the communication mechanismsthat are used to sustain these relationships. Asnoted in the literature, an initial step thatorganizations take in developing a collaborativerelationship is to determine the benefits and costsof exchanging resources, information, or services.Three factors concerning the perceived benefitsand costs of a relationship are important inorganizational as well as individual development ofrelationships. These are: (1) the extent to whichthe parties involved view the relationship asreciprocal (Gouldner, 1959); (2) the extent towhich the benefits of engaging in a relationshipare perceived to be. at least equal to or more thanthe costs (Blau, 1964); and (3) the extent to whichthe benefits are perceived to be proportional tothe investment that is made in establishing arelationship (Hotnans, 1961). In the case of familyliteracy programs, the agencies invol,ed indesigning the services must first determine whatthey can offer other agencies and what they expectin return. This process where agencies identifythe costs and benefits is a critical step ;.n forming acollaborative relationship and should beundertaken by agencies individually before theyattempt to work together. When agencies meet,they then must decide whether the payoff fromworking together in providing services such asadult and early childhood education outweighs theeffort that is needed to develop and maintain suchservices.

Once organizations decide that it is beneficial toall to work together, they must determine theboundaries of their relationship. Organizationsuse both formal and informal agreements to setboundaries, which often delineate the types andamount of resources that are to be exchanged.Formal agreements usually are needed when fiscalresources or staff are transferred between agenciesor programs, while informal agreements are usedfor other exchanges, such as information, wherestaff rely on personal knowledge and trust. Theavailable data on family literacy programs indicatethat informal arrangements are more likely to beused by the agencies working together in theseprograms. Almost half of the projects in the EvenStart evaluation used informal arrangements, whileless than a quarter of the agencies entered intoformal agreements (St. Pierre et al., 1993). Thispattern of beginning with informal agreements in

establishing collaborative relationships was foundin a study of interagency coordination of state andlocal adult education programs, wherein stateagencies, in particular, used informal agreemerto test the collaborative process before formulatingagreements for interagency transfer of funds orother resources (Alamprese, Brigham, & Sivilli,1992).

Perhaps needless to say, the communication thattakes place both between and within organizationshas been recegnized as an important element indeveloping and sustaining collaborations. In short,agency staff must develop a common set of goalsor a joint visicn about what is to be accomplished.Local family literacy planning groups or state andlocal interagency task forces and advisory councilsare mechanisms that programs use to create amission and to mr. ;tor its progress. In the EvenStart programs, auk a third of the agencies ineach of the three service components (adulteducation, early childhood education, andparenting education) reported the use of anadvisory group (St. Pierre et al., 1993). Programstaff also use their formal and informal networksin building interorganizational relationships. Theannual conferences sponsored by the NationalCenter for Family Literacy have been occasionsfor network building for program staff at bothregional and local levels.

A final aspect of collaboration that is important isleadership, which can come from staff in stateagencies or in local programs. At the state level,the sponsors of a family literacy initiative havecritical roles in guiding interagency activities,fostering connections with local programs, andproviding technical assistance. In addition toproviding coordinated funding through theRequest for Proposal process that combinesfunding streams to support family literacyprograms, state agencies also can encourage localprograms to use set-aside funds to support familyliteracy activities. Local program collaborativesalso need individuals who monitor the progress ofa multi-component pi ogram and assure that therelationships among th,: members are balanced.These individuals hrve critical roles in usingmechanisms such as regularly scheduled meetingsbetween agency representatives to discuss aspects

INTE( RATED SERVICES AND CROSS-AGENCY COLLABORATION 21

Judith Alamprese

of the collaborative that are working and aspectsthat may need alteration.

Tentative Areas for Research

The components of the framework discussedabove provide a starting point for identifying thekey research issues that should be addressedconcerning cross-agency coordination. Given thelack of research on cross-agency coordination infamily literacy, there are a number of areas thatv ould benefit from study. Since most previousresearch in collaboration has not addressed thestuctural conditions that lead to successfulinteragency relationships, it is important tounderstand the conditions, such as legislative orpolicy mandates or voluntary actions, which resultin effective family literacy programs. Theprocesses that agency staff use to join together infunding or providing servim also are not welldocumented. The family literacy field wouldbenefit from research that examines the processesfor assessing the benefits of a relationship; theprocedures used in setting relationship boundariesand establishing formal and informal agreements;the mechanisms for communication such asadvisory councils and networks; and the strategiesthat are useful for providing state and localleadership to a collaborative.

The area of inquiry with perhaps the smallestknowledge base is that dealing with direct andindirect outcomes from collaboration. While notan end in itself, cross-agency collaboration can bethought of as an intervening variable that plays animportant function in effecting outcomes fromfamily literacy programs. A prior step to studyingoutcomes is, therefore, to develop a betterunderstanding of the processes used to generateand to sustain cross-agency collaboration. Oncethe nature of collaboration is documented, itwould be useful to examine whether collaborationleads to improved family literacy services orenhanced support for fa niilies at the communityor state level.

With the solidification of federal funding, the needfor effective cross-agency collaboration becomesmore important. Since the structure of familyliteracy services is a collaborative process, and

little is known about the etfects of that process,any research agenda on family literacy shouldinclude studies of collaboration and its disparateconsequences.

References

Alamprese, J.A., (1994). Strategies for buildingcollaborative relationships and articulatedprograms. In Transitions: Buildingpartnerships between literacy volunteer andadult education programs. Washington,DC: National Alliance of Business.

Alamprese, J.A., Brigham, N., & Sivilli, J.S.(1992). Patterns cf promise: State andlocal strategies for improving coordinationin adult education programs. Washington,DC: COSMOS Corporation.

Alamprese, J.A., Schaff, R.L., Brigham, N. (1987).Project Literacy U.S. (PLUS): Impact of thefirst year's task forces. Washington, DC:COSMOS Corporation.

Association for Community Based Education(1993). Effective practicer in communitybased family literacy: Results of a nati.onalresearch and evaluation project.Washington, DC.

The Barbara Bush Foundation for Family Literacy(1989). First teachers, Was;ington, DC.

Bailis, L.N. (1989). An assessment of the Ji PA rolein state and local coordination activ:ties.Arlington, VA: James Bell Associates,Inc.

Blau, P.M. (1964). Exchange and power in sociallife. New York, NY: Wiley & Sons.

Brizius, J.A. and Foster, S.A, (1993). Generationto generation: Realizing the promise offamily literacy. Ypsilanti, MI:High/Scope Press.

Cook, K. (1977) Exchange and power innetworks of interorganizationalrelationships. Sociological Quarterly,18:62-82.

Gouldner, A. (1959). Reciprocity and autonomyin functional theory. In Gross (Ed.),Symposium on Sociological Theory, 240-70.New York, NY: Harper & Row.

Grubb, W.N., Brown, C., Kaufman, P. & Lederer,J. (April 1989). Innovation versus turficoordination between 'vocational education


2 7

Judith Alamprese

Job Training Partnership Act programs.Berkeley, CA: National Center forResearch in Vocational Educaticn.

Hornans, G.C. (1961). Social behavior: !tselementary firms. New York, NY:Harcourt Brace.

Kagan S.L. (1991). United we stand. New York,NY: Teachers College Press.

Kagan, SI. an4 Shelley, A. The promise andproblems of family support programs. InKagan, S.L., Powell, D.R., Weisshound,B., and Zugker, E.F. (Eds.) (1987).America's family support programs:Perspectives and prospects. New Haven,CT: Yale University Press.

MacDonald, M. (1991). Reinventing systems:Collaborations to support families.Cambridge, MA: Harvard FamilyResearch Project.

National Center for Family Literacy (1995).Family liaracy: An overview. Louisville,KY.

National Center for Family Literacy (1991).Toyota Families for Learning progressreport, Louisville, KY.

National Institute for Literacy (1993). Nationalliteracy grants program: 1992-1993 Finalreport, Washington, DC.

Nickse, R.S. (1991). A typology of family andintergenerational literacy programs:Implications for evaluation, paperpresented at the annual meeting of theAmerican Educational ResearchAssociation, Chicago, IL.

Quezada, S. and Nickse, R. (1993). Communitycollaborations for family literacy. NewYork, NY: Neal Schuman Publishers.

St. Pierre, Swartz, R.J., Murray, S., Langhorst, B.,and Nickel, P. (1993). National evaluationof the Even Start family literacy program:Second interim report. Cambridge, MA:Abt Associates.

Weiss, H.B. (1988). Family support and educationirograms: Working through ecologicaltheories of human development. In H.B.Weiss, and F.H. Jacobs, (Eds.), EvaluatingFamily Programs. New York, NY:Aldine De Gruyter.

INTEGRATED SERVICES AND CROSS-AGENCY COLLABORATION 23

English Immigrant Language Learners:Cultural Accommodation and Family Literacy

Richard DuránUniversity of California Santa Barbara

The first section of this paper sketches in abroad perspective of the nature of literacy and itsintimate connection to the knowledge of culturalpractice, institutional practice, and linguisticpractice. The subsequent section discusses ways inwhich literacy acquisition is implicated in thecultural accommodation of immigrant farrni;zqfrom non-English backgrounds. The paper thengoes on to discuss the importance of research onliteracy interventions aiding the culturaladaptation of immigrant families, and the need forresearch on literacy training interventions thatmight be used to assist the literacy acquisition andcultural accommodation of families. Commentsalso are offered regarding the promise of researchon use of electronic technologies and computers toimprove the literacy of immigrant familymembers.

In trying to understand the nature ofliteracy and literacy needs amongimmigrant families . . . we need to

have a sound grasp of the full range ofcultural, linguistic, and social

knowledge that families need toacquire in order te survive. This

understanding is not well.:served byconsidering only information providedby formal assessments . . . pertaining

to reading, writing, oralcomprehension, and speaking skills.

Literacy OrientationViewed in a narrow sense, literacy is the ability tocomprehend and produce natural language in its

written form. A broader definition of literacyencompasses functional notions of literacy tied tothe ability to use both written and spokenlanguage to accomplish specific problem-solvingand communicative goals arising in the workplaceor in conducting transactions within everydayinstitutions of the community (Venezky, Wagner& Ciliberti, 1990).

This paper pursues a yet broader notiun ofliteracy, as that referring to the general semioticability of individuals to interpret and to act uponthe world within cultural and social communitiesof practice (see Scribner, 1978, and Wertsch, 1991,for a discussion of relevant perspectives). Thisbroader definition of literacy proposes that there isa fundamental connection between language,communication, and everyday cultural activity. Inorder to participate in such everyday activities,individuals must interpret the cultural and socialdemands and contexts of activities, and the meansof using language to participate effectively incultural and social activities. This perspective onliteracy emerges from the consideration of thesocial and cognitive roles language andcommunication play in people's daily lives. Thisapproach to literacy is especially useful for a betterunderstanding of how community members adaptto social environments involving multiple culturalperspectives and multiple languages.

Scribner and Cole (1981), for example, discussways in which Vai tribespeople in West Africa useVai script, written Arabic, and written English inthe pursuit of daily cultural activities. Vai script isused in casual social communication amongcommunity members, while Arabic script is readaloud as part of Moslem religious practice. Englishis used predominamly for formal, governmentpronouncements and documents. One of the mostimportant contributions of Scribner and Cole'sanalysis is the indication that communicativecompetencies in each language are tied intimatelyto the sociocultural identities and cultural practices

ENGLISH IMMIGRANT LANGUAGE LEARNERS 25

Richard Durán

of community members. Particular functions suchas invitations for family gatherings, readingreligious prayers, and communicating laws andedicts, require use of a specific target language, andappropriate discourse forms.

In the context of the United States, Heath (1983),Moll, and others (see papers in Ferdman, Weber &Ramirez, 1994; Saravia-Shore & Arvizu, 1992;Goldman & Trueba, 1987) have examined ways inwhich the daily cultural activities of ethnic andracial minorities are related to both languagepractices and socialization involving differentvarieties of English and different non-Englishlanguages. This body of work suggests thatacquiring and learning to use one or morelanguages cannot be separated from learning howto be a competent participant in activitiesrequiring language use.

Defining literacy as "literate action" (Floriani,1994; Duran & Szymanski, 1995) requires anunderstanding of how people constructcommunication and how they interpret everydaysituations to pursue social ends. Literate actionrequires that individuals construct activities assense-making and goal-achieving endeavorsinvolving the interpretation of culture (Bruner,1986, 1990).

Research suggests that learners of a secondlanguage acquire the second language mosteffectively when it arises as comprehensible input(i.e., when the use of the second language arises inauthentic social contexts with extended meaningand uses for practical problem solving) (see papersin Ma lave & Duquette, 1991; and Krashen, 1981).If we are to help immigrant, non-Englishbackground families develop literacy, we mustexplore how language, culture, and society areintertwined. Furthermore, as will be shown indiscussion of the concrete experiences ofimmigrant family members, we must assess thesocial and personal needs of family members in afirsthand manner, acknowledging the lifeperspectives and values of the family, both as acollective whole and in terms of the needs ofindividual family members.

The work of the sociologist Pierre Bourdieu (1977,1984) suggests various notions of capital which are

helpful in framing relationships between literacyin its expanded sense and social organization,which are particularly relevant to understandingthe literacy needs of immigrant individuals andfamilies. Bourdieu proposed that the ability ofindividuals to participate in everyday activities isgoverned by a variety of forms of human capital.The phrase cultural-linguistic capital can,therefore, be used to refer to the knowledgeembodied in ways of acting and communicating.In order to request assistance from a medicalpractitioner, for example, an individual needs toknow how to act the role of a person seekingmedical assistance, and must be able tocommunicate with medical practitioners based oncommon beliefs about authority and how toprovide information about an ailment. Cultural-linguistic capital is know-how developed throughsocial experience and familiarity with the social,cultural, and linguistic demands of everydayinteractions. In addition, again adapting fromBourdieu, one can suggest that social institutionsthemselves have their own know-how or socialcapita). While cultural capital is know-how thatindividuals bring to social institutions, theinstitutions themselves have know-how that mayor may not be fully congruent with the cultural-linguistic capital of individuals. For example,think of the institutional capital of the hospital interms of knowledge of how to speak andcommunicate about medical ailments withpatients. Further, think about the potentialincompatibility which arises when the cultural-linguistic capital of a patient does not allowadequate access to the institutional capital of thehospital. These are the circumstances faced by anon-English background immigrant seekingmedical care.

The point here is that in trying to understand thenature of literacy and literacy needs amongimmigrant families composed of non-Englishspeakers, we need to have a sound grasp of thefull range of cultural, linguistic, and socialknowledge that families need to acquire in orderto survive. This understanding is not well-servedby considering only information provided byformal assessments or questionnaires pertaining tothe basic reading, writing, oral comprehension,and spezking skills of immigrants. We should go

26 ENGLISH IMMIGRANT LANGUAGE LEARNERS

3 0

Richard Durán

beyond concern for how well immigrants canperform isolated communicative functions.

We should, in fact, utilize better ways ofcommunicating that allow immigrants to act ascompetent participants in significant cultural andsocial activities requiring language use. We needto think of literacy acquisition as being a two-wayendeavor involving reciprocal relationshipsbetween immigrant family members andcommunity institutions. We need to examine thecapital of everyday institutions in terms of thecultural-linguistic and social resources that theyprovide. Ethnographic studies of the survival needsof immigrant families suggest that public andprivate institutions can be ill-equipped to assistimmigrants with vital literacy needs pertaining tohealth care, social services, banking andcommercial exchanges, schooling of children, andother issues.

Examples of Specific LiteracyNeeds of Immigrant FamiliesThat Often Are Not WellServed by Institutions

Not all immigrant families have the same literacyneeds. We are well aware that immigrants withextensive formal education, familiarity withEnglish, and economic resources are not at risk inthe same ways as immigrant families with limitededucational attainment, little knowledge ofEnglish, and no financial resources (DaVanzo,Hawes-Dawson, Valdez tic Vernez, 1994). Ourown ethnographic research among recent Latinoimmigrant families (Garcia-Ramos & Durin, inpreparation) revealed a number of literacy learningnceds among families in the domains of access tohousing, English language learning, employment,family restructuring, health care, anzl. parentalreaction to and involvement in children'sschooling.

While these findings are based on case studies of11 families and cannot be generalized to an entireimmigrant community, let alone to an immigrantpopulation, they are suggestive of areas needingfurther attention in order to better understandhow to make literacy training programs more

effective for immigrant, non-English speakingfamilies.

What the findings cited make clear is thatunderstanding the broader literacy needs offamilies required not only isolated assessment ofbasic reading and writing skills in English or inSpanish, but attention to the cultural and socialknowledge needs of families. Furthermore,poverty, cultural discontinuity, and culturalconflict were found to play important roles in theadaptive strategies shown by families (and topresent real challenges to improving the literacy ofimmigrant families).

In the area of housing, for instance, parentsreported difficulty in understanding the culturaland social meaning of terms used inadvertisements for apartment housing, lease andrental documents, and oral communication withlandlords about housing rules and regulations. Aterm used in a rental document such as head ofhousehold, when translated into Spanish, might betaken to denote "eldest and most respectedhousehold member" in an extended familyhousehold setting, rather than "chief wage earner,"thereby illustrating ways in which cultural andsocial norms might affect coherent communicationregarding housing. Moreover, the high costs ofleasing and renting led many families to live incrowded conditions. In one instance, a total ofnine adults and five children lived in a two-bedroom, one-bathroom apartment in violation ofthe terms of their lease.

The family in question described how they triedto prevent the apartment manager from noticingthat so many people were living in the apartment.This suggests that immigrant families can findthemselves acquiring survival strategies thatmarginalize their acceptance by other communitymembers people who play a critical role intheir survival. The public's concern about the"illegal" status of undocumented immigrants andtheir perceived over-reliance on public welfareexacerbates this marginalization.

While immigrant families expressed a strongmotivation to learn English and to attend classesin English as a second language, manyinterviewees reported that participation in English


.. .

Richard Durán

classes was made difficult by transportation andchild care needs. In one case a parent had to travelfive miles to attend an English class three times aweek between the hours of 7:30-9:30 p.m. For atime a neighbor drove her to the English class.When the neighbor moved, the parent ceasedattending English class because bus transportationto and from the locale in question ceased at 9 p.m.Other family members spoke of feelings ofunwelcomeness and cultural and social distancewhile attending English classes. Some reportedthat they felt ashamed and uneasy when calledupon by the teacher in the presence of otherstudents who showed a noticeably greaterfamiliarity with English.

Poor knowledge of English was recognized byfamily members as a significant impediment toobtaining employment, but knowing how tosearch for acceptable employment was itself asignificant literacy need. Knowledge of jobavailability required being able to locateemployment agencies or public places where jobannouncements were posted or where casual laborwas hired. In the latter situation, there were noformal announcements that a particular gatheringplace (such as the fence surrounding a downtownparking lot) was a place to find workyet thisvenue became known through word of mouthamong immigrant community members.

In the case of skilled labor, informants commentedon the difficulty they faced in understanding thekinds of work experience and skills needed inorder to apply for jobs. Female respondentsindicated that they could only find jobs belowtheir skill levels because of lack of knowledge ofEnglish. Some indicated that they were forced toaccept wages below expected wages in order toretain their jobs. One respondent reported that itwas common for immigrant workers to be givenvirtually no notice about job termination.Another respondent indicated that it was asignificant challenge just to learn how to get to anew job via public transportation. Just learninghow to read a bus schedule in English andrequesting information from a bus driver proveddaunting tasks.

Immigrant families with non-English backgroundsalso expressed the difficulties they experienced in

their social adjustment to life in the United States:they experienced cultural conflicts with their rolein raising children, and a lack of understanding ofthe role schools play in the socialization ofchildren. The lives of families were changedovernight by moving to the United States.Relationships with kin and community weredisrupted, as were culturally valued ways ofconnecting families to community life.Respondents reported that life in the United Statesencouraged relaxing or dropping values ofcompadrizmo, wherein families befriend each otherand support each other's well-being.

Relationships within families also weretransformed. One common complaint of Hispanicimmigrant parents was that they found it caficultto discipline their children in a manner whichestablished proper respect between a child andparent based on values in their natal culture(largely Mexican). Parents reported that some oftheir children threatened to report parents toschool authorities if they were corporallypunished at home. In turn, these parents felt thatdiscipline at school was too lax and was turningtheir children against them.

In Mexico, parents were taught not to questionthe authority of the school, and to trust the socialvalues transmitted through the schools. Theperceived tolerance of schools for children'sinappropriate behavior was viewed as a violationof cultural expectations and a destabilizing force inmaintaining culturally desirable relations withinthe family.

In addition, many parents reported a lack ofunderstanding of the curriculum encountered bychildren at school, and about their children'sprogress in school. Some parents were not awareof low-curriculum tracking of their children, andreported that they were accepting of "satisfactory"grades of students. Participation of Hispanicimmigrant families in school parent meetings alsoproved problematic.

Although Hispanic immigrant children constitutedthe majority of children at one school, parentmeetings were conducted in English with limitedinput and reaction from parents who weredominant in Spanish. Hispanic parents who

28 ENGLISH IMMIGRANT IANGUAGE LEARNERS

31)

Richard Duran

needed a translation of meeting proceedings intoSpanish sat separated from the other parents. Bythe time the translator had completed a translationof the preceding comments, the discussion hadturned to other topics, thereby making theparticipation of Spanish-speaking parents difficult.

Some Directions for LiteracyIntervention Research

Immigrant, non-English background families livingunder economically at-risk conditions havecultural-linguistic literacy needs as well asinstitutional capital literacy needs. We need toexplore ways in which agencies providing literacytraining can be made more sensitive and accessibleto immigrant families. Agencies mustacknowledge the existing cultural-linguistic capitalpossessed by family members, while at the sametime assisting families in acquiring new culturaland linguistic capital. We should pursue intensifiedresearch on community-based literacy programsserving immigrant families which are dedicated tocreating general community consciousness andlocal public policy awareness of the needs offamilies in critical domains of socioculturalsurvival (Fingeret & Danin, 1991). We especiallyneed research on programs and interventions thatstress the importance of individuals and familiesestablishing confidence in their own learning andin helping themselves (Wrigley & Guth, 1992).

Research on literacy initiatives supportingbiliteracy also should be undertaken. There isstrong evidence that the learning of English is auniversal and eminently valued goal ofimmigrants, a goal which is not inconsistent withthe desire of families to retain cultural andlinguistic ties co their natal cultures (Gillespie,1994).

Finally, research should examine ways in whichelectronic technologies can improve the literacy ofimmigrant families and family members. Theemergence of simple-to-use "point and click"computer capabilities has created new forms ofcultural-linguistic and institutional capital that arepotential tools for promoting literacy acquisitionamong non-English background immigrants.Children of immigrant families are 'Ting given

access to computers at school, and some of thecomputer software is available in both Spanish andEnglish versions. The World Wide Web hasemerged as a new medium of communicationaugmenting software and videodisks.

Children are gaining access to this new technologyat an increasing rate. If for no other reason, theimplications of this new medium for children andfamily members need to be investigated. Thisnew medium spans local, national, andinternational settings, allowing users to exploreknowledge bases that would have otherwise beendifficult to access.

Parents' collaboration with children in learning touse electronic technologies seems an especiallypromising area for research. Making electronictechnologies accessible to immigrant families willrequire research on the design of appropriateinstitutional systems to permit families' access totechnologies. What settings will be most effectivefor what purposes? Will school computer labs,libraries, and other public institutions prove asviable as home settings for access to technology?

Clearly, poor immigrant families are unlikely tobe able to afford purchase of computers, software,video disk players, and phone line equipmentnecessary for home access to electronictechnology. And further, family members' use oftechnology will be assisted by the availability ofsuitably trained staff to aid them in the settingwhere technology becomes available.

References

Bourdieu, P. (1977). Cultural reproduction andsocial reproduction. In J. Karabel & A.Halsey (Eds.), Power and ideology ineducation, 487-510. Oxford, England:Oxford University Press.

Bourdieu, P. (1984). Language & symbolic power.Cambridge, MA: Harvard UniversityPress.

Bruner, J. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds.Cambridge, MA: Harvard UniversityPress.

Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cimbridge,MA: Harvard University Press.


r% a),*)

Richard Dull!'

DaVanzo, J., Hawes-Dawson, J., Valdez, R.B. &Vernez, G. (1994). Surveying immigrantcommunities: Polky imperatives andtechnical challenges. Santa Monica, CA:RAND, Center for Research onImmigrarion Policy.

Durin, R. P. & Szymanski, M.H. (1995).Cooperative learning interaction andconstruction of activity. DiscourseProcesses, 19(1), 149-64.

Ferdrnan, B.M., Weber, R.M. & Ramirez, A.G.(Eds.) (1994). Literacy across languages andcultures. NY: State University of NewYork Press.

Fingeret, H.A. & Danin, S.T. (1991). They reallyput a hurtin' on my brain: Learning inLiteracy Volunteers of New York City.Durham, NC: Literacy South. ERICDocument Reproduction Service, No. ED332 026.

Floriani, A. (1994). Negotiating what counts:Roles and relationships, texts andcontexts, content and meaning.Linguistics and Education, 5 (3&4), 241-74.

Garcia-Ramos, R. & Durin, R.P. (In preparation).Latino immigrant life and literacy needs incultural and social contexts.

Gillespie, M.K. (1994). Native language literacyinstruction for adults. Patterns, issues, &promises. Washington, DC: NationalClearinghouse for ESL LiteracyEducation.

Goldman, S.R. & Trueba, H.T. (Eds.) (1987).Becoming literate in English as a secondlanguage. Norwood, NJ: AblexPublishing Corporation.

Heath, S.B. (1983). Ways with words. New York:Cambridge University Press.

Krashen S.D. Bilingual education and secondlanguage acquisition. In California StateDepartment of Education (Ed.), Schoolingand language minority students: Atheoretical framework Los Angeles:Evaluation Assessment and DisseminationCenter.

Malave, L.M. & Duquette, G. (Eds.) (1991).Language, culture, and cognition.Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters.

Saravia-Shore, M. & Arvizu, S.F. (Eds.) (1992).Cross-cultural literacy: Ethnographies ofcommunication in multiethnic classrooms.NY: Garland Publishing, Inc.

Scribner, S. & Cole, M. (1981). Unpackagingliteracy. In M. F. Whiteman (Ed.),Writing: The nature, development, andteaching of written communication: Vol I.Variation in writing: Functional andlinguistic-cultural differences, 71-6.Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates, Inc.

Scribner, S. (1979). Modes of thinking and waysof speaking: Culture and logicreconsidered. In R.O. Freedle, Advancesin discourse processes: Vol. 2. Newdirections in discourse processing, 223-44.Norwood, NJ: Ablex PublishingCorporation.

Venezky, R.L., Wagner, D.A. & Ciliberti, B.S.(Eds.) (1990). Toward defining literacy.Newark, DE: International ReadingAssociation.

Wertsch, J.V. (1991). Voices of the mind: Asociological approach to mediated action.Cambridge, MA: Harvard UniversityPress.

Wrigley, H.S. & Guth, G.J.A. (1992). Bringingliteracy to life: Issues and options in adultESL literacy. San Mateo, CA: AguirreInternational.

30 ENGLISH IMMIGRANT LANGUAGE LEARNERS

34

Designing and Conducting Family Literacy ProgramsThat Account for Racial, Ethnic, Religious, and

Other Cultural Differences

Vivian L. GadsdenUniversity of Pennsylvania

This paper focuses on the issues of race, culture,and class, and their implications for instructionand learning in family literacy programs.'However, the discussion presented in the paperreconfigures the question assumed in the title.'.tather than asking learners to justify their culturaland social histories, it is presupposed thatprograms will assume responsibility for seekingout this information as an essential part ofprogram development, and that they can and willpose the issues for themselves. Learners' racial,ethnic, religious, and cultural history cannot bedismissed easily, even when learners choose not tomake this history an issue in their learning, orwhen the history or the daily experiences of thelearners are dissimilar to those of the instructor orto other learners.

Family and intergenerational literacy programs areamong the most rapidly growing educational

Rather than conceptualizing the racial,ethnic, and cultural histories of learners as

an addendum to design and conduct,programs must assess the strengths and

knowledge voids that their staff membersbring to the task of teaching and the

cultural assets and individual limitationsthat the populations they serve contribute

to the learning environment.

intervention efforts in the United States. Oftenappended to federally funded, school-basedprograms intended to serve low-income familiessuch as Even Start and early childhood programssuch as Head Start, family literacy has beenintegrated into a variety of "life-span" programsthat aim to serve adults and children alike(Mikulecky & Lloyd, 1995). However, the

constructs of these programs differ, sometimesrnatically, and researchers and practitioners in

ottit domains (e.g., workplace and adult literacy)argue that it is difficult to see "how to make suchprograms work," given their varied purposes andthe many interpretations of even the concept offamily literacy.

Family literacy programs, themselves, report thatthey experience many of the problems faced byother types of literacy programs. However, thespecific intergenerational issues embedded in ourconceptualization and implementation of familyliteracy efforts dictate that these programs focuson critical questions of parenting, family support,and reciprocal teaching and learning within andoutside of home contexts. Despite this slightdeviation in the specific purposes and contexts offamily literacy, as a field family literacy and theprograms that have emerged over the past fewyears have not addressed many of the critical andcomplex issues identified by other programs suchas school-based and adult literacy programs.Questions about instructional and curriculardevelopment persist, as do problems of retentionand the more basic issues of program design,development, and implementation for multiple anddiverse populations. Like other literacy efforts,family literacy programs serve populations whoshare common problems, such as problems ofreading and writing and often the attendantproblems of poverty, but who sometimes differgreatly in racial, cultural, and religious affiliation;socio-political histories and ethnic connectedness;socio-economic backgrounds; and life views.

The issues of race, class, and culture are central tofamily literacy and are tied to many of the verypurposes for which parents and children fromdiverse backgrounds enter programs, as well as thereal experiences of their daily lives. In my ownresearch, parents connect the issues of race and

ACCOUNTING FOR RACIAL, ETHNIC, RELIGIOUS, & OTHER CULTURAL DIFFERENCES 31

3 5

Vivian L. Gadsden

class to questions of access, and have clear anddefined purposes for sustaining their participationin programs (see Gadsden, 1995a and 1995b). Theimpact of these racial and cultural factors as wellas life experiences frame the ways that learnersvalue and use literacy, and the ways in which theycome to construct views about the processesinvolved in literacy learning and programparticipation.

The first task of existing programs would seem tobe to re-examine their own purposes, committhemselves to understanding the social and culturalcontexts in which the learners they serve live anddevelop, and conceptualize learning and teachingas reciprocal processes. This puts programs in aposition to collect the different experiences offamily members and to recast them intoappropriate curricula that engage and motivatefamily members who participate in programs. Aspart of the initial step, programs might exploreapproaches to obtaining information aboutlearners' ethnic and cultural beliefs and practices;assessing the importance of these beliefs andpractices to learners' purposes for participating andto their family experiences; and identifying waysthat these beliefs and practices can be integratedinto the program effectively and appropriately.

This paper is divided into four sections, beginningwith an overview of the conceptualizations offamily literacy for programs. The focus thenshifts to the importance of social and culturalpractices within families, and parents' perceptionsof family literacy. Next, instructional concerns ofrace, class, and culture for family literacy areconsidered. As summary and conclusion, thepurposes of family literacy instruction are revisitedand the focus is on ways of thinking about thedesign and development of family literacy effortsthat integrate historical, cultural, and racial issuesinto instruction, and that generate a more globalcontext for family literacy programs.

Conceptualizing FamilyLiteracy

Whether and how practitioners and researchersconsider issues of race, class, or culture are largelymeasures of how they conceptualize the field in

which they work or the goals of that work. Afundamental issue is what family literacy actuallymeans to the establishment and survival ofprograms themselves, and what it means for thosedeveloping instructional and learning activities andthe definitions of family literacy that contribute tothe program's mission. As in other areas ofliteracy, family literacy practitioners andresearchers may:

attend to these issues as "add-ons";

ignore them in favor of a generic, one-size-fits-all curriculum; or

become deeply vested in transformingcurricula.

As noted in other places (e.g., Gadsden, 1994),i ,:search on family literacy is developed around avariety of themes that attempt to explain therelationship between children's performance inschool and parents' literacy levels or literacypractices in the home. Purcell-Gates (1993)identifies four of these themes. One is developedaround research findings that suggest children firstacquire basic cognitive and linguistic skills withinthe context of the family. A second themesuggests that substantial literacy learning occurs inthe years prior to children's receiving formalinstruction. A third describes parents' educationand literacy practices in the home as critical tochildren's school achievement and performance ontests; and a fourth theme stresses the difficultiesfaced by low-literate parents when they assist theirchildren in literacy learning. Embedded in eachone of the themes are cultural identities, histories,and experiences of family members, all of whichcontribute to whether and how learners becomeengaged in and sustain learning.

These themes often are discussed within twoperspectives on family literacy. One perspectivedescribes literacy as composed essentially ofschool-based academic activities within familycontexts, and assumes that parentsparticularlylow-literate, low-income parentswant .o supporttheir children's literacy development, but lack theknowledge and understanding of school-basedstrategies and approaches to assist their children todevelop the literate behaviors required in

32 ACCOUNTING FOR RACIAL, ETHNIC, RELIGIOUS, & OTHER CULTURAL DIFFERENCES

36

Vivian L. Gadsden

classroom settings (see Edwards, 1990). A secondperspective highlights the importance ofunderstanding existing family practices as aprerequisite to developing curricula that buildupon home and community knowledge andexperiences (see Auerbach, 1989). Family practicesand interactions are examined to determine thefunctions, uses, and purposes of literacy withinfamilies; and programs are developed around thecontextual needs of family members.

Several program models were put into effect overthe past ten years, although little, in general, isknown about the design of family literacyprograms (see Paris et al., 1995). The most widelyknown of these models include the Kenan Modelof the National Center for Family Literacy;Parents as Partners, developed by Edwards; theMissouri Parents as Teachers program, developedby Winter and her colleagues; and the HomeInstruction Program for Preschool Youngsters(HIPPY). In addition, parent-child readingcurricula and on-site programs have beendeveloped by researchers such as Strickland andMorrow (1989), Paratore et al. (1992), and Handeland Goldsmith (1989).

The differences in the structure and content ofprogram models (and in their possible outcomes)appear to be modest in some cases, although theinterpretations for practice, stated purposes, orideological bases of the projects may varysubstantially. What is noteworthy, however, isthat, although these program models are useddisproportionately with families of color andfamilies in low-income homes, and although eachmodel highlights its work with differentpopulations, none specifically addresses issues ofracial, class, gender, or cultural differences indiscussions centered upon assessment orinstructional approaches and strategies. Basedupon work done in Michigan, Philadelphia, andother sites throughout the country, manyindividual programs collapse parts of the abovemodels for their own purposes and attempt todevelop culturally responsive curricula (e.g., aChicago program that uses an Afrocentricapproach and a Los Angeles program designed to ..meet the needs of Mexican-American families).

Cultural and Social Practicesof Families

Research studies and data from the field suggestthat programs must be mindful of the strengths offamilies and the cultural communities in whichfamilies exist (Ferdman, 1990). Family literacyefforts that do not build on such strengths maysucceed for parents and children in the short term,but may fail on a long-term basis, or, at least, willnot be sustained. Although strengths have rarelybeen delineated clearly, the social connectedness ofthe family to others in the community and withthose who share common cultural traditions andinterests is often identified as important.

In several studies on families of color, includingpapers written on immigrant and indigenousgroups, researchers describe variability in theapproaches to literacy; relationships amongparents, children, and other family members; andexpectations within the family as a function ofculture. All of these often combine into what Icall family cultures: collections of beliefs, practices,and approaches to which family membersc3r.z.ribute and from which they extract, andwhich are modified over the life-course of thefamily (Gadsden, 1995a).2 These family cultures,as I have noted from my research with multiplegenerations of African American and Puerto Ricanfamilies, provide individual family members with away of constructing their futures within oroppositional to the life-course trajectot y of thefamily. My own research in programs and indifferent cultural communities reminds me thatfamilies wield enormous power in the lives ofadult and child learners and a high level of value isattached to cultural traditions and to the problemsthat families associate with race and racism.

When program staff and practitioners lackknowledge of these familial or cultural traditionsor minimize, ignore, or devalue the importance ofthese factors, their unfamiliarity may beinterpreted as a lack of interest or may result intheir implementing practices and activities for theprogram that offend the learners or their families.Jerri Willett and David Bloome (1992), forexample, show that over time children began toexperience tension, anger. hostility, resistance, and


3 7

Vivian L Gadsden

alienation in their relationships at home whentheir literacy experiences did not enable parents toparticipate. Concha Delgado-Gaitan (1987) foundthat Mexican-American parents wanted a betterlife for their children and were eager to supporttheir children's literacy development, but oftenused systems of supporethat did not mirror thoseof the dominant American culture.

Gail Weinstein-Shr (1991), referring to her workwith Cambodian families, focuses on the degree towhich the western-centered, time-honored view ofhistory and culture constrains the opportunitiesfor children and parents of other cultures todevelop literacy; traditions within families definedchildren's roles in specific ways. My own work(Gadsden, 1995a) with multiple generations withinthe same families suggests that in theintergenerational messages within the AfricanAmerican families studied, perceptions of power,powerlessness, and access are inseparable from thevalue of literacy or the nature of access; parentsconvey the value of literacy along with a sense ofthe difficulty in achieving literacy.

While there is relatively little research thatexamines parents' specific concerns aboutculturally responsive instruction and materials,Lily Wong-Fillmore's accounts (1990) fromHispanic parents suggest that these parents seekout and value sound early educational programsthat are also.culturally sensitive. Parents in aHead Start parent literacy project in the NationalCenter on Adult Literacy described literacy inrelation to its socially enabling qualities and itsrole in empowering their children to addresssocietal inequities (Gadsden, 1995b). In anotherstudy, parents defined access in specific sociallyand culturally contextualized ways, stressing thepotential impact of literacy for ensuring powerand success for future generations (Gadsden,1995a).

Despite research support for the importance ofcultural knowledge and our intuitive sense thatissues of race, class, and culture matter, neitherfamily literacy research nor practice typicallyraises these issues. Some programs may discussthem as separate concerns, cite them in programreadings, or examine them in relationship tofamily members' perceptions, for example,

whether parents and children perceive that literacycan and will make a difference in their lives.Whatever the program's stance, program staffmust determine for themselves how to accessinformation and how to translate what is knownabout culture, ethnicity, race, and gender forfamily literacy learners. This presumes that thestaff will include some people from the culturaland ethnic groups of program participants.However, when this is not the case (and often it isnot), programs and the practitioners who are partof the programs will need to evaluate their abilityto obtain this information and to create learningenvironments that do not simply invite'participants to offer such information but alsorespond to what is learned.

The critical questions here are bound to cultureand to context: Family literacy practitioners, likeother practitioners, enter their classrooms withassumptions and beliefs about their students.Work in family literacy must unravel assumptionsand encourage strong learning contexts respectfulof the lived experiences and goals of parents,children, and other family learners.

Practical Concerns forPrograms

Parents and children who participate in familyliteracy programs, though disproportionately low-income and families of color, differ within thesedescriptions and across a variety of other socialand cultural dimensions. I often consider these in-group variations and the tendency to hope for aunilinear explanation for the behaviors andexperiences of socially less pov 2rful groups. Asan African American, I am asked often to respondto questions about the needs of the blackcommunity or the problems of black children.The people asking the questions assume thatblacks represent a monolithic group with similarexperiences, apparently unaware of or neglectingthe fact that within this collective, called blacks,there are many different subgroups and cultures,just as there are in other cultural and ethnicg-oups.

People who consider themselves black Americansmay be of continental African, Caribbean, or


38

Vivian L. Gadsden

African American heritage; they may be nativespeakers of Spanish, French, English, or differentAfrican languages or dialects; or they may sharecommon histories but have different traditions andfamilial expectations. What most may have incommon, howeveras is true of Hispanics, AsianAmericans, American Indians, and EuropeanAmericansis a core of common examples of howothers respond to them in school, work, or socialsettings. That is, black men may be feared;Hispanics, even those who are native-born, maybe treated as limited-English-speaking immigrants;Asian American students desperately needingeducational support may not receive it because ofa perception that they are all good students; andEuropean Americans may be considered racisteven when the label does not apply. The point isthat racial, cultural, class, and social issues arecomplex for all people across all ethnicgroupsand are not the "natural preserve" ofpeople of color.

How does a family literacy program begin toexamine these issues? Programs will need toseparate the package of issues by identifyingwritten materials and other resources that helpprovide a context, and then reassembling the issueswith the help of the very populations that theyservein a way that enables staff, family learners,and the program to learn and grow. If we addressissues around race, ethnicity, and culture, forexample, we might consider the meaning of theseterms and the ways in which we as practitioners,researchers, and learners manipulate theseconcepts. Historically, curricula in Pre-K-I2 andother educational settings present race and cultureas unchanging, biological concepts, when in factour experiences tell us that these concepts are fluidand change as social situations and practiceschange. In addition, despite the fact that womei.as mothers are over-represented in family literacyprograms, too often issues of gender are excludedfrom discussions or readings.

A family literacy program begins to deal withissues of diversity by developing activities thatencourage learners to examine their own conceptsof the terms and by providing readings thatprovide context for the issues. This processshould begin at the first meeting and in assessmentactivities and should continue throughout the

instructional program. Practitioners and learnersmight share information about their own ethnic,racial, and cultural histories; examine their ownfamily histories and origins; and talk about, writeabout, and analyze their own experiences.Particularly as we work with parents who havegoals around their children's development, thefocus on the family's cultural, social, and ethnichistories can be used as a point of entry toconversations about the purposes, uses, andvaluing of the literacy learning that is occurringbetween parent and child.

Family literacy classrooms must be settings inwhich teachers and students demonstrate mutualrespect for the knowledge and experiences thateach brings into the classroom, and developedupon the premise that teaching and learning arereciprocal activities: within each teacher, there is alearner, and within each learner, there is a teacher.Issues of race, culture, ethnicity, gender, andreligion are difficult to discuss in groups that arediverse and large. I have found that even in myown teaching of university graduate students, theallure of these issues as concepts is more appealingto students than the reality of discussing them.What is important in developing a "space" for thisconversation and in developing appropriatecurricula for the university course and for work infamily literacy programs is to enable students tomeet in pairs and small forums. These smallgroups enable students to speak openly and toengage in a variety of important cognitiveactivities. To determine the best approach to takeand to determine what the most critical andurgent issues are, practitioners must rely on theirown observations and invite "feedback" fromstudents.

Considering Difference andCommonality for Teachingand Learning

There is no fool-proof method to assure thatprograms respond to the expectations of learners.However, this paper suggests ways of thinkingabout "difference" and "commonality."


2 9

Vivian L Gadsden

As an initial step, programs must assess theresources and the limitations of existing programstructures, content, and focus. Rather thanconceptualizing the racial, ethnic, and culturalhistories of learners as an addendum to design andconduct, programs must assess the strengths andknowledge voids that their staff members bring tothe task of teachingas well as the cultural assetsand individual limitations that the populationsthey serve contribute to the learning environment.Programs must investigate the ways that readingand writing activities build upon both differencesand commonalities of families and of the learnerswithin those families. They must encouragelearners to see themselves and their familial andsocial history as critical domains within whichliteracy develops.

Family literacy programs also must "carve out"their purposes, identifying whether programcontent will focus on parenting education, jobpreparation, parent-child interactions, parent-childbook reading, or some combination of activities,and the ways in which these foci can be developedto attend to issues of race, culture, class, andgender.

Next, the programs must be explicit andcommitted to the development of literacy,including notions of reading, writing, computing,and problem-solving. Through activities andexercises that connect reading, writing, culturalissues (including family life), and experiences asintegrative, programs can set the stage for learnersto connect their multiple selves (e.g., as parents,students, and workers) with the program. Inother words, programs signal to learners that it isappropriate and important to include their"cultural selves" in the process of literacy learning.Toward that end, a variety of activities might beused.

In addition, program staff must work with familyliteracy program participants in engaging theirfamily members in discussions about theiremergent literacy skills, in order to help familymembers understand and support the participants'learning. This not only encourages shareddiscourses within families but also increases thecontinuity between the activities of program,homeind other contexts.

Focus on family support requires that familyliteracy programs specialize in a core ofexpectations and program demands. Familyliteracy researchers and practitioners must, then,consider the learner within a context, sometimesas an individual and at other times as a member ofa cultural, ethnic, and social collective called thefamily. Practitioners and family literacy learnerscan go on to construct portraits of learning and ofnew self-images that become a part of home andfamily life and that reflect the personal experiencesof parents and children learning together and may,of course, include grandparents, grandchildren, andother family members. However, the value thatfamily members assign to the learning in a literacyprogram may be affected by the degree to whichnon-program participants in the family view thetime and effort expended by the family literacylearner as intrusive to the daily functioning andexperiences of the family. These issues are a partof the fabric of family life and may be revealedpublicly by learners or masked as private issues.Practitioners can assist learners by not intrudingunnecessarily into their personal lives, but byestablishing a range of activities that are "safeplaces" for learners to explore new ideas and toreconcile their desires for learning with otherpositive and negative experiences in their lives.

The central actors in family literacy programs arethose who learn (and, in many ways, theirfamilies) and practitioners. Like families,programs are most effectively supportive whenthey include an interchange of ideas, trust, andmutual respect, as well as projections for thefuture course of activities and an expectation thatlearning will occur through commitment.Practitioners and family literacy learners are co-constructors of the context of teaching, learning,and knowledge generation. To understand where,when, and how positive change can occur requiresunderstanding how learners and families definethemselves, particularly when the teacher andstudent differ substantially in their cultural, social,or ethnic backgrounds.

With less fear of differences, the practitioner canopen up the possibility of building oncommonalities that are not threats, but rathercont ributions, to knowledge. The practitionerwill need to know, of course, about the learner


0

Vibt .n L. Gadsden

and his or her family, and the learner should beknowledgeable about the practitioner. Both canuse such information as a springboard in co-constructing the couise of instruction andlearning, realizing hopes and goals, and sharingpersonal and intellectual power to expand whathas been called in historical accounts of AfricanAmerican families, "the power of knowledge(Holt, 1990)."

References

Auerbach, E.R. (1989). Toward a socio-contextual approach to family literacy,Harvard Echcational Review, 59, 165-37.

Delgado-Gaitan, C. (1987). Mexican adultliteracy: New directions for immigrants. InSR. Goldman & H. Trueba (Eds.), Becomingliterate in English as a second language.Norwood, NJ: Ab lex.

Edwards, P. (1990). Talking your way to literacy:A program to help non-reading parents preparetheir children for reading. Chicago: Children'sPress.

Ferdman, B. (1990). Literacy and culturalidentity. Harvard Educational Review, 60, 181-204.

Gadsden, V.L. (1994). Understanding familyliteracy: Conceptual issues facing the field.Teachers College Re:ord, 96, 58-86.

Gadsden, V.L. (1995a). Literacy and poverty:Intergenerational issues within AfricanAmerican families. In H. Fitzgerald, B. Lester,& B. Zuckerman (Eds.), Children of Poverty,85-1!9. New York: Garland.

Gadsden, V.L. (19956). Representations ofliteracy: Parents' images in two culturalcommunities. In L.M. Morrow (Ed.), FamilyLiteracy: Connections in Schools andCommunities, 287-303. Newark, DE:International Reading Association.

Handel, R., & Goldsmith, E. (1989). Children'sliterature and adult literacy: Empowermentthi.ough intergenerational learning. LifelongLearning: An Omnibus of Practice and Resear:h,12, 24-27.

Holt, T. (1990). Knowledge is Power: The BlackStruggle for Literacy. In A.A. Lunsford, H.Moglan, & J.S. Levin (Eds.), The Right to

Literacy. New York: Modern LanguageAssociations.

Mikulecky, L. & Lloyd, P. (1995, May). Parent-child interactions in family literacy programs. Apaper presented a the National Center forFamily Literacy Conference, Louisville, KY.

National Center for Family Literacy. (1993,September). The NCFL Newletter. Louisville,KY: National Center for Family Literacy.

Paratore, J. (1992, December). An investigationof the effects of an intergenerational approachto literacy on the literacy behaviors of adultsand on the practice of family literacy. Paperpresented at the annual meeting of theNational Reading Conference. San Antonio,TX.

Paris, S.G., Gadsden, V.L., Parecki, A & Edelin,K. (1995). Family literacy:Characteristics of exemplary programs inMichigan. NCAL Technical Report.Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania,National Center on Adult Literacy.

Purcell-Gates, V. (1993). Issues for family literacyresearch: Voices from the trenches. LanguageArts, 70, 671-77.

Strickland, D. & Morrow, L. (1989). Creatingcurriculum: An emergent literacy perspective.The Reading Teacher, 42, 722-23.

Taylor, D. & Dorsey-Gaines, C. (1988). Glowingup literate: Learning from inner-city families.Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Weinstein-Shr, G. (1991, April). Literacy andsecond language learners: A family agenda.Paper presented at the annual meeting of theAmerican Educational Research Association,Chicago, IL.

Willett, J. & Bloome, D. (1992). Literacy,language, school, and community: Acommunity-centered view. In A. Carrasquilo& C. Hedley (Eds.), Whole language and thebilingual learner, 35-57. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Winter, M. & Rouse, J. (1990). Fosteringintergenerational literacy: The MissouriParents as Teachers Program. The headingTeacher, 43, 382-86.

Wong-Filmore, L. (1990). Latino families andschools. Unpublished manuscript.

ACCOUN1ING FOR RACIAL, ETHNIC, RELIGIOUS, & OTHER CUI URAL DIFFERENCES 37

4

Vivian L. Gadsden

EndnotesIssues of gender are particularly important to

discussions in family literacy. I have includedonly modest references to gender and to religiousdifferences because both issues deserve widerz.ttention than is possible in this analysis and areincluded in the references to culture as a broadconcept.

'In recent work, I have developed a frameworkcalled "family cultures" which combinesdevelopmental context of families with life-courseissues.

38 ACCOUNTING FOR RACIAL ETHNIC, RELIGIOUS, & OTHER CULTURAL DIFFERENCES

4 2

Family Literacy Programs: Creating a Fit with Families ofChildren with Disabilities

Beth HarryUniversity of Miami

Families with children with special needs can beexpected to have more than their fair share ofchallenges, not the least of which is learning toadapt to their children's disabilities. This paperfocuses on what is known about this type ofadaptation, and how such knowledge can behelpful to literacy interventionists. One caveat,however, should be noted at this point: althoughthe terms adaptation and coping are usedthroughout this paper, it should not be assumedthat families of children with disabilitiesnecessarily see the challenges presented by theirchildren as problems that have to be coped with.Many parents have commented that this is anegative framing of something all families mustdo: confront whatever challenges life brings.

This paper begins with a brief summary of themain and most current research-identified issueson family coping strategies. Second, the need forany intervention program to establish a "fit" withthe coping styles of the family will be considered.Third, trends in research on family literacy thatsuggest effective directions for interventionistsinparticular, with families of low-income minoritystatuswill be identified.

The most important question . . . is howinterventionists can design programs thatwill not add to the challenges faced by

the family, nor disrupt the adaptiveprocess already established by the family. . . . (I)nterventionists must know what

families actually do on a day-to-day basis,and must identify the existing beliefs and

skills of family members regardingliteracy.

Research on Families'Adaptive Strategies

Interventionists who wish to have a positiveimpact on family literacy should be aware of thecoping strategies families are likely to engage in asthey respond to the needs of a child with adisability. Indeed, they should be aware that, overthe years, research on the issue of stress hasshifted its focus from stressors to coping strategies,as it has become clear that many families exhibit asurprisingly high level of salutogenesis (sense ofwell-being), rather than pathology (Antonovsky,1993). This is not to deny, however, that manyfamilies do become overwhelmed by the crisis(Singer, 1993).

A considerable body of research has sought toidentify the factors that determine how stressful achild's disability will be to the family, as well asthe kinds of supports that may alleviate that stress.A review by Shea and Bauer (1991) summarizesthe main determinants as:

parental traits;

the nature of the child's exceptionality;

care-giving demands of the child;

internal social supports;

external social supports;

financial resources; and

family constellation and relationships.

A source of stress noted more recently (Beckman,1994) is the efforts of service providers andintervention programs, their good intentionsnotwithstanding.

CREATING A FIT WITH FAMILIES OF CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES 39

4 3

Beth Harry

Hill's ABCX family crisis model (1949) and recentadaptations (McCubbin & McCubbin, 1987) havebeen useful in sorting out the process ofadaptation to potentially stressful events. The A,B, and C aspects of the model refer, respectively,to the stressful event, the family's personal andmaterial resources for responding to it, and themeaning or interpretation the family places on theevent; the confluence of these three factorsdetermines Xthe nature of the outcome for thefamily.

While early research tended to focus on the A andB factors (such as the nature of the child'sexceptionality and the resources of the family),more recent arsproaches have attended to the Cfactorwith the belief that the meaning familymembers attribute to the event is a crucial factorin their adaptive process. One approach tounderstanding the C factor is to try to identify thecognitive coping strategies used by parents.Turnbull and Turnbull (1993) define cognitivecoping as "thinking about a particular situation inways that enhance a sense of well-being" (p. 1).Researchers who have pursued this concept havebased their work on cognitive adaptive theory,which holds that personal adjustment includesresolution of "a search for meaning," "an attemptto gain mastery," and "enhancing self-esteem"(Behr & Murphy, 1993; Affleck & Tennen, 1993).

From a practical point of view, the mostimportant question for this paper is howinterventionists can design programs that will notadd to the challenges faced by the family, nordisrupt the adaptive process already established bythe family. To ensure that these negatives are notpresent, interventionists must know what familiesactually do on a day-to-day basis, and mustidentify the existing beliefs and skills of familymembers regarding literacy. Affleck and Tennen(1993) recommend that researchers seek toestablish a much greater "descriptive base," andrecommend that this be sought through the use of"intensive time sampling studies of the daily livesof individuals" (p. 145).

In a recent line of research, the team of Gallimorearid colleagues at the University of California, LosAngeles, investigated the ways parents constructwhat they call the family's ecocultural niche. This

research offers detailed documentation of the typesof accommodations parents make to their dailyroutines, in response to the needs of the childwith the disability (Bernheimer, Gallimore &Kaufman, 1993). Not unlike earlier research oncare-taking demands (Beckman, 1983), onedominant finding of this research is that childrenwith high medical and behavioral needs tend torequire greater parental accommodations to theirdaily routines than do children with mild orsevere developmental delays. Such research shouldform the base of intervention designs, so as tocreate a fit between the design and the family. AsBernheimer et al. (1993) state: "Interventions thatare fitted to the existing daily routine [of thefamily] appear to be more sustainable" (p. 266);therefore, researchers should "design interventionsthat capitalize on existing daily routines andecocultural features [rather] than to attempt tocreate new activity slots" (p. 266).

Knowledge has been limited partly because it hasbeen focused on subjects that, typically, are whiteand middle-class (as noted by Behr & Murphy,1993)in part because such families, it is argued,are easier to access through service agencies, andpartly because these are the families who are, itseems, better able to respond to the formalquestionnaire methods traditionally used by suchresearch. It is important to access the views offamilies who do not belong to the dominantcultural groups in the society, partly because theincidence of disability is increasinglydisproportionately high among these groups (U.S.Department of Education, 1992), and because ourknowledge is simply too limited without theirviews. For example, research suggesting that someminority groups may show greater resilience whenfaced with disability is sparse but strong (Marion& McCaslin, 1979; Vasquez, 1973; Mary, 1990;Han line & Daley, 1992).

The research methodology, then, is importantboth in determining the types of data that can becollected and the demographics of the samplelikely to be accessed. With the advent of PublicLaw 99-457 and the increasing call for familycentered services in early intervention, the needfor naturalistic and qualitative methods isbecoming increasingly evident. In the naturalisticparadigm, the view of knowledge acquisition as a

40 CREATING A FIT WITH FAMILIES OF CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES

Beth Harry

dynamic, interactive process allows the researcherto document not only what families' attitudes andpractices are, but why they exist, and how theychange over time. The personal approach of thenaturalistic researcher, who, it is often observed,replaces the traditional research instrument(Peshkin, 1988), allows for the gradualdevelopment of trust and rapport, through whichparents may become comfortable enough to revealconcerns and attitudes that would easily be missedby one-shot, paper and pencil investigations(Daley, 1992). This is particularly true for lowersocio-economic groupsthose populationstypically missed by these methodsand especiallyfor minority groups who, historically have hadconsiderable reasons for not trustingrepresentatives of society's mainstream.

Another aspect of traditional survey methodologyis that a structured questionnaire can only elicitresponses to the questions asked, and is, therefore,very much influenced by the underlying premisesof the researcher. More open-ended approacheshave the capability to find out how the subjectsdefine the issues, rather than mirroring theassumptions of the researcher. This is not to denythat more personalized approaches are also opento bias and require a rigorous self-awareness onthe part of the researcher (Peshkin, 1988; Harry,in press).

Creating a Fit with theAdaptations Families HaveMade to DisabilityIn applying the foregoing discussion to thequestion of family literacy interventions, it issuggested the two central challenges are:

how to ensure that the intervention will bea help and not a hindrance to the family;and

how to design an intervention that respectsand builds on families' beliefs and skillsregarding literacy.

As pertains to the first challenge, interventionistsmust begin by taking into account the likelihood

that any formal intervention might create evenmore stress for the family. There is the stress ofhaving one more set of people to deal with; thestress of having one more activity to do; the stressof having to account to one more person for whatyou did or did not do; and the stress that resultsfrom fearing that your own attempts as well as theintervention may not be successfulthat youmight, in effect, be a failure one more time.

On the positive side: there is the hope that onemore person in your life might help to relieveyour stress; that one more activity might be justthe thing that will create a long-awaitedimprovement for your child or family; the rewardof receiving approbation for your efforts tromsomeone you respect; and the reward of achievingsuccess for your child, your family, and yourself.

The interventionist who faces these possibilities inplanning will do well to begin by gaining adetailed picti: .e of the family's daily life: what arethe daily routines of the home, and what is theimpact of the child with special needs on thoseroutines? What is the social style of the family?As suggested earlier, Goldenberg, Reese, andGallimore (1992) have demonstrated theeffectiveness of the concept of activity settings as ameans of gaining such information. They defineactivity settings as "the concrete and observablemanifestations of leading cultural activities" (p.500). The researchers collect intormation on fiveaspects of the daily activities of families: "thepersonnel present and available for participation;the cultural goals, values, beliefs, and attitudes thatthe participants bring to the activity; theimmediate motives, purposes, emotions, andintentions guiding the action; the nature of thetasks that are accomplished; and the scripts,normative behaviors, and patterns of appropriateconduct used during the activity" (p. 501). Suchinformation will inform the researcher as to whatis likely to fit comfortably into the familyschedule. Concerns about fitting into a family'sdaily schedule are closely tied to my secondquestionhow to fit a design to the family's beliefsystem about literacy. It is not hard to see that anapproach that does not fit with the family's beliefsis more likely to create stress and less likely to besuccessful.


Beth Harry

Creating a Fit with Families'Beliefs and PracticesRegarding Literacy

In our increasingly diverse society, with itswidening gap between rich and poor, literacyinterventions for families are focused on thosewith children most at risk of school failurepoorand minority children. Researchers concernedwith including parents in the development ofchildren's literacy continue to be concerned withan evident discrepancy between the theories ofacademics and the folk theories and cultural stylesof low-income, language minority, and ethnicminority families. As summarized by Goldenberg,Reese, and Gallimore (1992): literacy specialistsfocus on "meaning based and communicativelybased activities with print," while parents interpretliteracy as "learning and mastering theorthographic code" (p. 529).

Several studies vividly illustrate this finding(Daisey & Murray, 1991; Delpit, 1988;Goldenberg, Reese & Gallimore, 1992; McLane &McNamee, 1990; Harry, Allen & McLaughlin, inpress; Stipek et al., 1992). The studies alsostrongly suggest that parents' education and/orsocio-economic level are the importantdeterminants of these beliefs, rather than cultureor ethnicity per se.

Goldenberg et al. (1992) concluded their discussionof the dilemma facing family literacyinterventionists with the statement that there aretwo choiceseither to train parents in the desiredintervention, or to adapt the intervention to theskills and beliefs of the family. They argue for thelatter. "Our intervention plans must be informedby parents' understandings no less than by ourown, presumably more scientific ones" (p. 530).Similarly, on the same issue, Delpit (1990) arguedthat "educators must open themselves to, andallow themselves to be affected by, thesealternative voices" (p. 100).

A dual approach could be argued for, particularlyone that starts with the parents' skills andknowledge and aims to add to parents' repertoires,as appropriate. This approach takes into account

both a respect for parents' views and the beliefthat parents can learn new strategies (Delgado-Gaitan, 1992). Beliefs about how children learnare perhaps closely tied to child rearingphilosophies, and like those philosophies, will notbe changed by precept, only by experience. Tostart where the parents are means that parents willbe afforded an opportunity to experience successin helping their children. Indeed, since decodingskills are an essential part of learning to read, whyshould parents' theories be denigrated? Whyshouldn't more meaning-based approaches beintroduced as additives to, rather thanreplacements for, what parents already do?

Goldenberg's study observed that parents werecomfortable with a more playful literacy stylewhen they perceived an activity as being aconversational, non-school activity. The view thatoral and written traditions are separate, and thatthe latter belongs to schools, should not besurprising when we note that many minoritygroups have come from cultures that hold a strongtradition of oral as opposed to written literacy. Itseems very likely that parents who see progress intheir children's reading and writing can be madeaware of the link between oral and writtentraditions, and will not be averse to increasingtheir repertoire of literacy activities with theirchildren. Thus, I concur with the conclusion ofGoldenberg et al. (1992):

The house of literacy has many rooms, and eachroom that is constructed makes a contribution to theedifice. Learning letters and sounds and how theycombine to form words is a very important part ofliteracy development, along with reading and talkingabout whole texts, pretending to read and write, andso on... (p. 530).

It is strongly recommended that family literacyinterventions utilize open-ended designs requiringa detailed knowledge of the kinds of adaptationsmade by families of children with special needs;and further, that the interventions be based oninformation about families' beliefs and practicesregarding literacy. Designs may begin with aphase of ethnographically detailing such aspects offamily functioningand move on to anintervention that fits into the family's activitysettings and that builds on parents' existing skills

42 CREATING A FIT WITH FAMILIES OF CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES

L ..: .. .. ,-. -.

Beth Harry

and beliefs. The open-ended design will allow formodifications to the intervention in response to anongoing evaluation of the projects' success.

References

Affleck, G. & Tennen, H. (1993). In A. P.Turnbull & H.R. Turnbull (Eds.), Cognitivecoping, families, and disability, 135-50.Baltimore: Brookes.

Antonovsky, A. (1993). The implications ofsalutogenesis: An outsider's view. In A.P.Turnbull & H.R. Turnbull (Eds.), Cognitivecoping, families, and disability, 11-122.Baltimore: Brookes.

Beckman, P.J. (1983). Influence of selected childcharacteristics on stress in families ofhandicapped infants. American Journal ofMental Deficiency, 88(2), 150-56.

Beckman, P.J. (in press). The service system andits effects on families: An ecologicalperspective.

Behr, S.K. & Murphy, D.L. (1993). In A.P.Turnbull & H.R. Turnbull (Eds.), Cognitivecoping, families, and disability, 1151-164.Baltimore: Brookes.

Bernheimer, L.P., Gallimore, R. & Kaufman, S.Z.(1993). Clinical child assessment in a familycontext: A four-group typology of familyexperiences with young children withdevelopmental delays. Journal of EarlyIntervention, 17(3), 253-68.

Daley, K. (1992). The fit between qualitativeresearch and characteristics of families. In J.F.Gilgun, K. Daley & G. Handel (Eds.),Qualitative methods in family research, 3-11.Newbury Park: Sage.

Daisey, P. & Murray, A. (1991). Parents andteachers: A comparison of perceptions andattitudes toward literacy growth. Paperpresented at the New Directions in Child andFamily Research: Shaping Head Start in theNineties, Arlington, VA.

Delgado-Gaitan, C. (1990). Literacy forempowerment. New York: Falmer.

Delpit, L. (1990). The silenced dialogue: Powerand pedagogy in educating other people'schildren. In N.M. Hidalgo, C.L. McDowell,and E.V. Siddle (Eds.), Facing racism ineducation, 84-102. Cambridge, MA: HarvardEducational Review.

Goldenberg, C., Reese, L. & Gallimore, R. (1992).Effects of literacy materials from school onLatino children's home experiences and earlyreading achievement. American Journal ofEducation, 100, 497-537.

Hanline, M.F. & Daley, S.E. (1992). Familycoping strategies and strengths in Hispanic,African-American, and Caucasian families ofyoung children. Topics in Early Childhood,12(3), 351-66.

Harry, B., Allen, N. & McLaughlin, M. (in press)."Old fashioned, good teachers": AfricanAmerican parents' views of effective earlyinstruction. Learning disabilities: Research andpractice.

Hill, R. (1949). Families under stress. New York:Harper & Row.

Marion, R.L. & McCaslin, T. (1979). Parentcounseling of minority parents in a geneticsetting. Unpublished manuscript, University ofTexas, Austin.

Mary, N.L. (1990). Reactions of Black, Hispanic,and White mothers to having a child withhandicaps. Mental Retardation, 28(1), 1-5.

McCubbin, H.I. & McCubbin, M.A. (1987).Family stress theory and assessment: The T-Double ABCX model of family adjustmentsand adaptation. In H.I. McCubbin & J.I.Thompson (Eds.), Family assessment inventoriesfor research and practice, (3-34). Madison, WI:University of Wisconsin, Madison.

McLane, J. & McNamee, G. (1990). Earlyliteracy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UniversityPress.

Peshkin, A.R. (1988). In search of subjectivity -

one's own. Educational Researcher, 17, 17-22.Shea, T.M. & Bauer, A.M. (1991). Parents and

teachers of children with exceptionalities. Boston:Allyn & Bacon.

Turnbull, A.P. & Turnbull, H.R. (Eds.) (1993).Cognitive coping, families, and disability.Baltimore: Brookes.


IA II

Beth Harry

Singer, G. (1993). When it's not so easy tochange your mind. In A.P. Turnbull & H.R.Turnbull (Eds.), Cognitive coping, families, anddisability, 207-20. Baltimore: Brookes.

Stipek, D., Milburn, S., Galluzzo, D. & Daniels,D. (1992). Parents' beliefs about appropriateeducation for young children. Journal ofApplied Developmtntal Psychology.

U.S. Department of Education, Office of SpecialEducation Programs. (1992). A report of theNational Longitudinal Transition Study ofspecial education students. Menlo Park, CA:SRI International.

Vasquez, A.M. (1973). Race and culture variablesin the acceptance-rejection attitudes of parents ofmentally retarded children in the lowersocioeconomic class. Unpublished doctoraldissertation, California School of ProfessionalPsychology, Los Angeles.

44 CREATING A FF1 WITH FAMILIES OF CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES

48

Longitudinal Study of Family LiteracyProgram Outcomes

Andrew HayesUniversity of North Carolina at Wilmington

The question, 'Are family literacy programseffective?" has no simple answer, although Ameri-can society often demands simple answers to com-plex questions. To approach the real complexitylogically, one must discover for whom literacyprograms are effective and under what conditionseffectiveness is assured. To be effective, itself, thispaper will begin by defining conceptual terms usedthroughout, including

evaluation,

research, and

family literacy.

In addition to discussing the above terms and theideas that give them meaning, some conclusionsshall be drawn concerning target families, programoperations, and program effects that have implica-tions for evaluation and research design (as well asfor data interpretation).

When compared to GeneralEducational Development (GED)

production, job placements, or otherdirect adult-education goals, family

literacy programs may show less effectsthan single-service programs. The

cumulative effects on the family areexpected to be greater in the long term

for the family literacy programs,however.

Evaluation

Many definitions of evaluation exist, but the onemost useful for guiding planning and action is:The processes for providing information for choosing

among alternatives in the task of decision-making(Stufflebeam et aL, 1971).

A concept that is central to this definition is an-other term, information, which, as used here, re-fers to data that have the capability to reduce theprobability of error in a choice among alterna-tives. Thus, by definition, information is usefulfor the intended decision-making function; and, tobe sound, evaluation designs must reflect directlyany decisions to be made, including who willmake them and how they will be made.

Research

It seems reasonable that a definition of researchshould be useful for directing the planning andconducting of a project. For definition, researchincludes all processes through which informationis provided for reducing the probability of error inreaching conclusions regarding the object of theresearch itself.

Family Literacy

Several recent publications have addressed the que-stion of how to define family literacy (Brizius &Foster, 1993; Harris & Hodges 1995; Morrow,1995; Morrow, Tracey, & Maxwell, 1995; Mor-row, Paratore, & Tracey, 1994; and Tracey, 1995).All studies have indicated the need for such adefinition, and some have attempted to fill thatneed, with different degrees of success. Most at-tempts, however, have done little to define theconcept in terms that could support planning forinquiry to determine changes in family literacy.

To serve the need for planning evaluations orresearch projects, the definition here focuses onliterate families only. This working definition wasarrived at by determining the capabilities neededby family members to ". . .communicate expecta-tions of accomplishment to their children," asonly one example. The list of capabilities below

LONGITUDINAL STUDY OF FAMILY LITERACY OUTCOMES 45

49

Andrew Hayes

were derived directly from the several generalfamily characteristics that are considered central toproviding a setting or a context that would havedesired intergenerational effects be present.

The literate family capability areas seem to bethose needed to assure a setting and family condi-tions that can suffice to support development andlearning by children within the family context.Each of these items, when considered alone, seemsto be necessary but not sufficient for supportingfamily development. Furthermore, evidence ofchange in only one, or a small number, of theseitems does not indicate that a change in familyliteracy has occurred, even though the change thatdid occur may be important to individual mem-bers or, for that matter, the whole family. Inshort, each of these items identifies an area ofcapability that can be assessed for evaluation ofprogram effects or for research. The definitionhere used for a literate family is made up of manyparts, including the ability or means to

acquire needed or desired informationfrom printed verbal, symbolic, andgraphic materials;

agquire needed or desired informationfrom oral communications;

communicate their intent or ideas to oth-ers in printed (written) verbal, oral ver-bal, graphic, or symbolic forms;

communicate the value and worth ofactions and being of self and family me-mbers;

communicate in oral and written formswith content in the traditional academicarea at a level needed for family tasks;

judge the plausibility of data in print,oral, or graphic forms;

judge the plausibility of goals for self andfamily;

set short-term and long-term goals forself and family;

communicate goals to family members;

make plans for accomplishment of per-sonal and family goals;

implement plans for accomplishment ofpersonal or family goals;

analyze problematic situations, and selectand manage solutions to problems forself or family;

make valid predictions of the probableeffects of their actions or of family con-ditions on themselves and others;

make valid judgments of the perceptionsothers hold of their own behaviors orways of being;

make valid judgments of the quality oftheir own work and conditions;

set and communicat... expectations for selfand others;

support the development of family mem-bers, and help others in the family withtheir learning and development; and

acquire skills needed to make changes inself or family that may be needed or de-sired.

In any given family or target group, the level ofattainment of capabilities at the time of enroll-ment or at any later time may range from full inall areas to substantial deficits in all, or most areas.Literacy needs, therefore, are any deficits in theindividual or family capabilities listed above.

In a further attempt to produce definitions tosupport evaluation and research design, familyliteracy programs are distinguished from 2 ny of thevariety of single-service programs available foradults or children. That being the case, familyliteracy programs are those intervention systemsthat

address one or more of the capabilitiesrequired for a literate family;

46 LONGITUDINAL STUDY OF FAMILY LITERACY OUTCOMES

50

Andrew Hayes

share intergenerational program goalswith the family; and

provide or coordinate services to meetfamily literacy needs in a way that issufficient to produce intergenerational ef-fects.

Conclusions Reached andAssumptions Used forEvaluation and ResearchDesign

In programs designed to address long-term andintergenerational changes in lives or capabilities offamilies, the intervention usually produces directeffects that are attainable during relatively shorttime periods, and in the same categories as thoseproduced by many programs designed to produceonly direct, short-term effects. For example, adult-education programs or work-place literacy pro-grams and family literacy programs may producechanges in the education levels of the adults in afamily or lead to some form of certification ofskill or achievement, but family literacy programsare designed to provide a more complex set ofservices for adults and children than are programsdesigned to provide one primary service. Thedifferent programs, then, should be expected tohave different direct and long-term effects.

While direct, short-term effects of interventionsmay be of significant value in themselves, for pro-grams designed to produce long-term orintergenerational effects, those effects are instru-mental to family changes that may require a longperiod of time to be manifestedmore time, infact, than duration of their participation in a pro-gram. The multiple services with long-term goalsincluded in such programs may cause them to beless efficient in producing direct, short-term effectsthan programs with single, direct-effect goals.Thus, when compared on General EducationalDevelopment (GED) production, job placements,or other direct adult-education goals, family liter-acy programs may show less effects thansingle-service programs. However, it is expected

that the combined effects of the family literacyprogram services will be greater in the long termthan in single-service systems.

Because of the traditional short-term funding pat-terns and political decision time frames for specialprograms, care must be taken in program designand operation to make legitimate the goals of bothlong-term or intergenerational intervention andshort-term indicators of changes in the familycontext or family culture, particularly those thatare causally related to conditions in the lives of thechildren as they grow into adulthood. Withoutthis care, the programs with long-term and familyeffect goals may lose out compared to single-serviceor single-member intervention programs and ser-vices.

Some Points to Consider inFraming Expectations forLong-term Program Effects

The points made in this section describe factorsthat need to be considered in both setting long-te-rm goals and planning evaluation or research pro-jects. These ideas deal with a variety of factors,some of which have implications for methods,some for variable selection, and some for interpre-tation of results. Numbered not necessarily ac-cording to impact, the points are:

1. Correlational studies (as opposed to causalstudies), reported in various professional pub-lications and often quoted glibly in the popu-lar press, have led to many overly simpleconclusions about ways to intervene in orderto address literacy as well as other conditionsof society.. While these findings are not in-correct, all are significantly inadequate forframing public policy or for reaching conclu-sions about causal influences. Yet each find-ing has been used as a major rationale fordirect intervention. Among these findingsare:

Reading material in the home is relatedto reading performance.


5

Andrew Hayes

Education levels of parents are related toa child's later academic success.

The amount of time parents spend read-ing to their children is related to thelater academic performance of those chil-dren.

The amount of time that children spendwatching TV is related negatively toreading and academic performance.

Children of single-parent familiesperform less well than children fromtwo-parent families.

All of these correlational studies and theirconclusions suffer from what is considered tohe a fatal flawinappropriate variables wereidentified by the studies. The variablesactually identified are symptomatic of thecausal variables, but are not the causalvariables, themselves. In all cases, elements ofthe "family culture" are the causal factors; andthose cultural elements are revealed by, ormanifested in, the behaviors or conditionsthat were studied. However, themanifestations, or symptoms, were describedas the causes and thus .assumed by manyprogram planners and advocates to be thecauses.

There is little reason to believe thatintroducing any one of these conditions intofamily settings through intervention will havethe same effects as when they are present inthe family context as a result of their havingbeen introduced into the fam;ly as a normaland natural action by the family.

2. The adults who currently comprise a majorportion of the U.S.'s undereducated classrepresent families with histories ofundereduca-tion, underclass identity, poverty,and so on. Those characteristics are part ofthe system of meaning of the familiespan ofthe family culture. Significant changes inthese families through external interventionprobably will not occur without significantchanges in the system of meaning experiencedby members. To be effective, interventions

expecting to change that culturally-basedsystem of meaning must be as complex,intensive, and of such duration as is neededby the particular target families to makesignificant changes.

3. Even under the worst of social conditions andfrom the most unfavorable family contexts, alarge proportion of children turn out OK.Conversely, even under the best of conditionsand the most favorable family cultures, manychildren do not.

4. A large proportion of adults who enroll infamily literacy programs had unhappy schoolexperiences. Even if they consider educationto be important, they may not think ofschools as good places to be. Adult programsthat are primarily academic in nature, orwhich ar - delivered in settings other thanschools, often do little to change the view ofK-12 schools and schooling that is based ontheir prior experiences as a student in thoseschools.

5. Adult-education programs designed primarilyto prepare for GED or other equivalencycertification can cause changes withintergenera-tional effects on the lives offamilies. Whether or not those effects occurdepends, of course, upon conditions withinthe family and upon changes adults make inthe family context as a result of their owneducation.

6. Existing academically oriented adult educationprograms are not effective for largepercentages of the undereducated adults insociety. A large proportion (perhaps well over50 percent) of those persons who enroll donot remain in the various programs, and alarge proportion who remain make little orno significant changes in their life states afterparticipation. Data on changes and lastingeffects generally are weak.

7. The set of adults who enroll in familyliteracy programs is not homogeneous. Therange of academ.- functioning at the time ofenrollment may be from minimal literacy tonear passage of certification exams, or


r 90

Andrew Hayes

beyond. Families vary, too, according todegree of acceptance of social norms,commitment to change, hopefulness in selfand personal conditions, confidence ofchange, personal capability to learn andchange, and supportiveness of theirenvironment. Both.short- and long-termfamily conditions and effects are differentamong these groups, so there should bedifferent expectations of both short- andlong-term effects.

8. Before the age of three or four the cognitiveand behavioral patterns of children reflectconditions and values of the home setting.Intervention with the family can causepatterns of behavior to change and can causeexpressions of worth and value made byparents and children to change; but even bythis early age, the interventions must countersignificant patterns of behavior.

9. The social maturity of a large proportion ofadults who enroll in family-literacy programsis delayed. In dealing with matters of life,how to solve personal and family problems,and in talking about the future, those adultsdemonstrate behaviors, views, and values thatare similar to those of children during theirearly-adolescent years. Expectations for typesand levels of short- and long-term changesmust reflect those levels of adult socialmaturity.

10. A significantly large proportion of parentswho enroll in family literacy programs showlittle initial understanding of their roles asparents, and especially the role of teacher.

11. Almost all preschool.age children enrolling infamily literacy programs enjoy attendingschool, and enjoy being in school with theirparents, but many (especially boys) seem tovalue school attendance during that ageprimarily because it represents their being"grown up."

Designing and ConductingLongitudinal Evaluation orResearch Projects

It should be clear from the sections above that iflongitudinal studies of family literacy programeffects and conditions are being considered, somedecisions apparently can be based on theinformation produced. When the question aboutdecisions to be made is raised, however, theresponses are either: "We just want to knowwhether the programs are effective," or "We wantto be able to make a case with (whatever thefunding agent) so that funding will continue orincrease."

Both of these responses are suspect as justificationfor longitudinal study projects for a variety ofreasons that should be apparent from the presenta-tion above. Futhermore, these reasons do notprovide the evaluators or researchers with theinformation needed to design and conduct theproject.

"We just want to know" is neither a decision nora question. If this statement actually means, "Towhat extent did we achieve some particular objec-tives?" then the decisions to be made or questionsthat might be answered with that informationneed to be identified and made explicit to thesponsors and investigators. As an example, somedifferent decisions that might be based on thisinformation are ones related to program changes,target-audience changes, or changes in the priori-ties of the organization. These, and other classesof decisions, would require different informationfrom the study. Thus, the decisions to be sup-ported must be made explicit at the time of designto prevent either under- or over-production ofinformation and under- or over-allocation of re-sources.

"We want to get continued, or expanded funding"as a rationale for longitudinal studies generallyignores common processes and rationales for muchof public policy decision-making. We often hearabout the objectivity and rationality of publicpolicy decision-making as a justification for projectevaluations, but my experiences during over 30

LONGITUDINAL STUDY OF FAMILY LITERACY OUTCOMES

5 4)

49

Andrew Hayes

years of planning and evaluation work in almostall states, several federal agencies, and in manycommunities indicate much the opposite. Whilethere certainly are many important exceptions, thebasis for decision and action is much more likelyto be advocacy, incidental and anecdotal evidence,case presentation, political agendas, value systems,or general perceptions than objective evidence ofprogram effectiveness or efficiency. Furthermore,it is unusual for policy decisions to be delayeduntil the longitudinal evidence is available.

What, then, are some reasons for longitudinalstudies of family-literacy program effects? Thatquestion must be answered before engaging in theprocesses themselves.

Conditions Required forJustification of LongitudinalEvaluation or Research

Before the question of long-term effects isaddressed for making decisions or answering ques-tions, there are some standards of another typethat should be considered to determine whetherlongitudinal studies can be justified. These are allmatters that should be determined as a result ofevaluation and monitoring during the operationalperiod or in the shon :erm afterwards, including:

1. There must be some defined and documentedtarget audience for the program, and thataudience must have some demonstrated needfor assistance that can be served by the pro-gram as it was designed.

2. There must be some known (documented)program that the subjects actuallyexperienced.

3. The design of the program or project must beconsistent with sound theoretical principlesfor changing the attributes of families that areidentified for change. The design should spec-ify, among other things, what changes areexpected to occur, the assumptions aboutwhat causes those changes to occur, and therationale for the designed experiences as vehi-cles for the intended changes. If the design

makes little or no sense theoretically as a wayto bring about the intended changes, or if theintensity or duration of the experiences areinadequate to cause the changes desired, thenthere can be little justification for allocationof resources to longitudinal studies of effects.

4. There should be some important question orquestions that need to be answered about theprogram effects for which answers are notadequately available in existing literature orobtainable from short-term studies. If soundtheoretical and technical information basesexist in literature for making the decisions inproject and program design, there is littleneed to try to prove the validity of the theo-retical or technical frameworks by document-ing the outcomes of thei:- application. If, onthe other hand, the model designs are basedon hypotheses of causes-and-effects, such stud-ies may be justified. If there are sound princi-ples supporting the designs, accountabilitydecisions may only require evidence of imple-mentation as designed. If more evidence isneeded, comparison of short-term effects withthose predicted may be useful.

5. There should be ample evidence that the de-signed model was the actual program imple-mented, or that the program actually imple-mented was documented to such an extentthat it can be tested for theoretical validityand then used to explain effects and theirconditions.

6. Any short-term effects that are believed to benecessary conditions for long-term changesmust have occurred to the degree essential toexpect the long-term effects to follow.Short-term evidence must support claims thatdirect, short-term effects actually occurred ofthe form and to the extent required by themodel used to explain how long-tern, effectsOCCI1r.

7. Some decisions or questions of enoughconsequence for justification of the resourcesrequired should be explicit and known by thesponsor and investigators. The particularquestions to be answered, or criterion-information needs should be known to them.

50 LONGITI1DINAL STUDY OF FAMILY LITERACY OUTCOMES

Andrew Hayes

8. Data bases ctucumenting variations in modelimplementation among sites and years ofoperation, and documenting the individualparticipants and their short-termaccomplishments must be available in a formthat can be used by the investigators.

9. The identities of the participants and someinformation about how to contact them mustbe available in a form that can be provided tothe investigators.

10. Relationships with participants that supportongoing contact with them, and that supportgathering information from and about them,should have been established during the timeof their participation.

11. Resources, including money and technicalcapability required to obtain information ofthe forms, quantity, and quality needed,should be available.

Dangers of LongitudinalStudies of Family LiteracyProgram Effects

If family literacy program models have validdesigns and are effective when implemented well,and if evaluation or research projects areimportant, then it is essential that the informationproduced by the investigation provide evidence ofthe validity of the model and of its outcomes.

Data obtained about program effects andconditions leading to those effects are subject toany of a variety of measurement tools, design, andexecution problems. There are manywell-documented forms of data error that mayindicate that programs were not effective or didnu- function as hypothesized, when, in fact, theywere or did function well. Longitudinalevaluation or research projects should not beginunless planners are confident in the design of theproject. Among the processes that may, however,produce no-win outcomes are the following:

1. Comparing small groups of family literacyparticipants in "comparable" groups who

participate in other programs, or some whoare in no program at all. The differencesamong the participants within given familyliteracy programs generally are so great thatgroup statisticsaverage values, forexamplemay be inappropriate to use forinterpretation or comparison. Direct,statistical comparisons with almost anygroups are likely to be suspect because ofnon-equivalence, whether the results arepositive or negative in respect to the questionor purpose intended.

2. Using effects variables that are likely to beaffected significantly by factors other thanones that are under control of theparticipants, or using ones that aresituationally inappropriate. Counting the jobsobtained by people who were formerly onwelfare may not reflect the changesforbetter or for worseof the general economicconditions or job market in an area.Counting enrollment in other educationprograms, or entry into the job market mightbe misleading for the many women who haveyoung children at home, and are staying athome to care for them until they enterkindergarten.

3. Using tests or other measuring devices thatare subject to errors because of socialdesirability or any of several other forms oferror; especially if the data are used as if theerrors did not occur. All forms ofmeasurement or methods of data-collectionare subject to various forms of error, evensuch forms as interviewing or observingbehaviors. All measurement anddata-collection materials and processes mustbe as free of these known forms of error asreasonable to expect in the design.

4. Cenducting economic-impact analyses andreporting data in aggregate form as if theconditions and effects for all families servedare similar. While data in this form tends tobe "sexy," easy to quote, and "headlineready," when presented they are almostalways gross overstatements of effectiveness.


Andrew Hayes

5. Identifying the wrong variables symptomsof, and not the actual interestor identifyingan inadequate set of variables to explainchanges or lack thereof, to study anddocument. Any research relating tointergenerational effects which is for purposesother than hypothesis-development orprediction should address causal variableswhich help us understand the systems ofmeaning comprising the culture of homes,and the variable set must be of anough size tocomprise a sufficient set to explain variance ineffects or conditions. Continuing to addresscorrelations between life states and symptomsor manifestations of social contexts isdistracting to the fields of practice.

6. Planning the project for time periods that areeither too short or too long to be optimumfor providing the information needed.

7. Setting expectations of program effects thatare too high (or too low), and then expectingthe longitudinal study to document theseeffects as if they actually should occur. (Nicks-e, 1993).

8. Failing to specify clear purposes for theevaluation or research project.

9. Using inquiry processes that either havesignificant intervention effects or that createsignificant barriers to data gathering andfollow-up. For example, using participants indata collection is an unnatural activity for thefamily, and would be a form of continuingintervention; and asking participants to keeprecords of their activities may be both asignificant intervention and barrier to theircontinued participation in the longitudinalstudy.

10. Using amount of time enrolled in the programas a factor related to program outcome. Thisvariable can have little meaning as a factorindicating effectiveness of programs withoutaccounting for all of a variety of variables onwhich the participants are different,including, among others, en:ry educationallevel and capability, goal aspirations, orsupportiveness of environment.

Some Purposes forLongitudinal Study

It may seem that the sections above are suggestingthat there is little reason to do any longitudinalevaluations or research. Perhaps in a way theyare. However, it is wise to remember thatevaluation must provide information for decision-making, and research is to provide informationthat makes answering questions less prone toerror. If there are important decisions orquestions that probably will be based on the formsof data that can be provided only by longitudinalstudy, then such studies are essential. If, on theother hand, decisions or conclusions are not goingto be based on such information, then resourcesshould be savedincluding organizational energy.

For family literacy programs and their relatedtarget audiences, there are many unansweredquestions about needs, techniques of intervention,systems of services, differences among audiencesthat justify differences in programs and techniques,and interactions of interventions with othersocietal factors or systems. These questions maybe important to staffs and other decision makerswithin particular program sites, or within the fieldin general.

If longitudinal studies are primarily to serveresearch purposes, they should be justified anddesigned toward that end. Quite often, researchinformation must take a different form fromevaluation information, especially if the decisionsto be made are concerned primarily with policy oradvocacy. Whatever the form, both the level ofinformative detail and the form such detail takeswill differ significantly.

Some Approaches forLongitudinal Study

It should be clear from the above that there canbe no best plan or design for longitudinal study,for the design will always depend upon thepurpose to be served. Some approaches toevaluation or research that may fit theinformation needs for the different conditions areillustrated below. These might be combined in

52

GaNA2..16..

LONGITUDINAL STUDY OF FAMILY LITERACY OUTCOMES

r; 6

Andrew Hayes

many ways, or modified to fit situations that aredifferent.

1. Start the longitudinal study at the time ofplanning the family literacy project and theshort-term evaluation. Plan to produce abase-line data set that can justify attributinglater conditions to program effects or condi-tions and can demonstrate, also, thatchanges actually have occurred.

2. Use case-documentation data systems thatare designed to allow all appropriateaggregation of case data, including a fullrange of objective and subjective data. Begincase documentation at the time the subjectsare identified, and continue throughoutprogram participation and longitudinalstudy.

3. For projects with one, or only a few sites,base evaluation studies on case methods,using some system to classify cases intocategories that are reasonably related togoals, needs, and family conditions.Interpret short- and long-term effects bycategory.

4. Document the variations in modelimplementation each year (or for each clientcohort), and plan to consider any significantvariations in the interpretations of data.

5. For projects with multiple sites, use asystem of best- and worst-case analysis inwhich participating families are selectedfrom among the sites. These would be thecases we might all agree are "the ones thatreally worked or didn't work". Useinvestigative methods traditional inepidemiological studies to determine thereasons for success or failure. These casesmay be identified at any time in theirhistory with the project at which success orfailure can be established, and should befollowed as long as useful. The cases can beselected from among the types identified in#3 above.

6. Use staff from a local site who wereespecially successful in establishing

relationships with participants to maintainthe client-locator _-_-;nponent of thelongitudinal study, and use periodic groupor individual interviews with site staff toobtain any information they have aboutformer participants.

7. To determine how children perform inschools, use a system in which currentteachers are interviewed in person or bytelephone. In this process, ask the teacher toprovide information about two studentsthe one of interest, and one selectedrandomly by picking a number in the rangcbetween one (1) and the highest number ofstudents likely to be on a class roll. Thissecond child provides a randomly selectedcomparison group, giving a normal referent.Furthermore, it provides a way to controlfor social desirability distortions in theresponses made by the teachers.

8. Use deliberate sampling methods to selectsmall sets of families who will be the objectof intensive case study. These samples maybe by family type (#3 above), success stories,or any other useful types, such asrepresentative of a population for whichthere are some particular interests.

9. At each contact point, obtain as muchsituational data for the families as feasible toprovide foundations for interpretations oflater conditions.

Summary

Longitudinal studies of families who participate infamily literacy programs should be purposive innature, and should reflect the variety of technicaland theoretical information available aboutfamilies, political and professional decision-makingprocesses and criteria, cultural and socialphenomena and their potential for change, andinformation-systems design and operation. Thevarieties of needs, goals, and family conditionsamong the participants should be used deliberatelyas factors in data analyses and interpretations; andthis variance should not be perceived merely as a


Andrew Hayes

problem to be solved by ignoring it or trying towork around it because of its problematic nature.

Studies should be grounded in a sound theoreticaldesign of the program model, which is the objectof question, documentation of modelimplementation, documentation of the short-termeffects of model implementation, anddocumentation of the cases to be studied.Longitudinal studies, after all, require too manyresources and too much organizational energy tobe conducted in any way but to obtain effects ofthe highest possible quality.

There seems to be little question at this point inthe history of the field of family literacy,however, that several compelling questions mustbe answered through longitudinal study to provideneeded focus to the field, to support policy action,to make program-design decisions, and to resistthe attacks of critics or others who would use thefield as a strategy to gain support for their owninterests. Since family literacy program goals arelong-term and intergenerational, there are severalsignificant needs for information about how, andto what extent, those goals are, or can beachieved. It will become more difficult over timeto advocate for family literacy programs withoutevidence that important and long-term goals arebeing achieved by given target populationsthrough family literacy programs that are notbeing achieved through other interventionsystems.

References

Brizius, J.A. & Foster, S.A. (1993). Generation togeneration: Realizing the promise of familyliteracy. Ypsilanti, MI: High/Scope Press.

Harris, T.L. & Hodges, R.E. (Eds.) (1995). Theliteracy dictionary: A vocabulary of readingand writing. Newark, DE: InternationalReading Association.

Morrow, L.M., Paratore, J.R. & Tracey, D.H.(1994). Family literacy: New perspectives, newopportunities. Newark, DE: InternationalReading Association.

Morrow, L.M. (Ed.) (1995). Family literacy:Connections in schools and communities.

Newark, DE: International ReadingAssociation.

Morrow, L.M., Tracey, D.H. & Maxwell, C.M.(Eds.) (1995). A survey of family literacy inthe United States. Newark, DE:International Reading Association.

Nickse, R. (1993). A typology of family andintergenerational literacy programs:Implications for evaluation. ERIC DocumentReproduction Service No. ED 362 766.

Stufflebeam, D.L. et al. (PDK National StudyCommittee on Evaluation) (1971).Educational evaluation and decision making.Itasca, ll: F.E. Peacock Publishers, Inc.

Tracey, D.H. (in press). Family literacy: Overviewand synthesis of an ERIC search. Yearbook ofThc National Reading Conference. NRC.


58

Family Literacy: Parent and Child Interactions

Larry MikuleckyIndiana UniversityBloomington

The relationship between children's literacy andchildren's interactions with their parents has longbeen recognized as significant. A growing body ofresearch on how parents and children deal withliteracy, laaguage, and schools in general reveals atapestry of complex interrelationships. Dozens ofresearch studies reveal that approaches to changingparent-child literacy interactions are generallysuccessful. Studies also reveal that simpleinterventions are of limited success and that it isvery difficult to bring about change that transfersto improved literacy in the home.

Aspects of Parent-ChildInteractionsResearch over the past two decades has establishedseveral aspects of ?arent-child interactionsassociated with children's later literacy success.Among these are:

Parent-child interactions are importantto a child's developing literacy

abilities. It is becoming increasinglyclear that these interactions involve agood deal more than simply re(iding to

children and providing thew withbooks . . . . (A) growing body ofresearch indicates that the way in

which a parent speaks with a childmay have as much or more to do withlater reading achievement of the childthan actual time spent reading to the

child.

parental reading to and with children;

complexity of language and strategy usedbetween parents and children;

parental conceptions of the roles ofeducation and literacy; and

literacy modeling and support present inthe home environment.

Parental Reading to and withChildrenResearch from the 1970s and 1980s consistentlyidentifies and reports strong correlations betweenparental reading to and with children andchildren's later success with literacy (Chomsky,1972; Laosa, 1982; Anderson et al., 1985; Teale6c Sulzby, 1986). More recent research hasattempted to idern_fy the essential nature of whattranspires during parent-child reading times tomake them so beneficial. Lancy and Bergin (1992)found children who are more fluent and positiveabout reading came from parent-child pairs whoviewed reading as fun, kept stories moving with a"semantic" rather than a "decoding" orientation,and encouraged questions and humor whilereading. Tracey and Young (1994) studied thehome reading of accelerated and at-risk readers andtheir college-educated mothers. They found nodifference in the frequency of children's oralreading during first grade and, indeed, foundat-risk readers to actually do more oral reading insecond arid third grade than did acceleratedreaders. Tracey (1995), in a later analysis ofvideo-taped reading sessions with accelerated andat-risk readers, notes striking differences in thedegree to which the accelerated reader receivedmore physical and verbal attention, support, andextended oral feedback. In a more in-depth studyof more than 40 families, Baker, Sonnenschein.Serpell, Fernandez-Fein and Scher (1994) analyzed

FAMILY LITERACY: PARENT AND CHILD INTERACTIONS 55

Larry Mikulecky

differences between literacy activities of low- andmiddle-income families.

Low-income parents reported doing more readingpractice and homework (e.g., flashcards,letter-practice) with their kindergarten age childrenthan did middle-income parents; and middle-income parents reported only slightly more jointbook reading with their children than did low-income families. These middle-income parentsdid, however, report a good deal more play withprint and more independent reading by children.The nature of what transpires during reading timeappears to matter a good dealperhaps more thanthe mere fact that parent-child reading occurs.

Complexity of Language andStrategy Use

For more than a decade, Snow and her colleagueshave been examining the role of language use byparents and children during reading and in otherfamily activities such as dinner-time conversationsand explanatory talk (Snow & Goldfield, 1983;Snow, Barnes, Chandler, Goodman & Hemphill,1991; Beals, 1992; Beals & De Temple, 1992).This body of work indicates that explanatory talkduring mealtimes, and to some extent duringreading, plays a greater role in predictingchildren's later reading achievement in school andon tests than does simply reading to children.Further, the aspect of explanatory talk whichseems most relevant are non-immediate ornon-literal comments such as those associated withpredictions, elaborations, and linking new ideas toprevious experiences. An example of suchcomments is the parent who encourages a child toorally compare a caterpillar's cocoon to the child'ssleeping bag while reading a children's book aboutcaterpillars and then further asking for predictionsof what the child thinks will happen next.

Lancy, Draper and Boyce (1989) describe theparents of good readers as using expansioniststrategies which included graduated support orscaffolding as children attempted to understandstories as well as strategies for avoiding frustration.The parent might begin the story and do much ofthe talking in the form of modeling the making ofpredictions. Over time the parent speaks less and

encourages the child ro take a more active role inreading or telling the story. This is easier withbooks read multiple times. If children experiencegreat difficulty, the parents of good readers woulc .help with the difficulty or perhaps make a ',Ate.Parents of poor readers are described by Lancyet al. as using reductionist strategies which focusupon decoding, focused critirism, and sometimeseven covering pictures to avoid a child's-cheating" in figuring out a word. The tone isone of reading as a serious job which the childmust work to master.

Parental Conceptions ofEducation and Literacy

Differences in reading behaviors and strategy usecited above suggest that there might also bedifferences in how parents conceive of educationand literacy. It is not true that low-incomeparents do not value education. Severalresearchers have reported the high value placedupon education by many low-income families.Delgado-Gaitan (1987) reports that obtaining abetter education for children is a major reasongiven for Hispanic immigration to the UnitedStates. Taylor and Dorsey-Gaines (1988), indetailed studies of low-income families whosechildren succeed in school, report extraordinarysacrifices and efforts being made to supportchildren's educationeven when parentaleducation levels were quite low. Fitzgerald,Spiegel and Cunningham (1991), in a study of low-and high-income parents, report low-incomeparents rating the value of education higher thandid high-income parents.

Differing literacy behaviors, however, suggest thatthere may be significant differences in how parentswho value education conceive of literacy.Goldenberg, Reese and Gallimore (1992) reportthat low-income Hispanic parents mainlyemphasize letter naming and spelling-soundcorrespondences when trying to help theirchildren. Baker et al. (1994), cited above, notethat when low-income parents spend time withchildren, they are much more likely to emphasizeexplicit instruction as well as the work andpractice aspects of literacy. Middle-income parentstend to use stories for entertainment, playing, and

56 FAMILY LITERACY: PARENT AND CHILD INTERACTIONS

G 0

Larry Mikulecky

extended conversation starters. Literacy ispresented and modeled as an enjoyable way toentertain one's self and to understand the world.The work of Lancy and colleagues (cited above)tends to confirm these differences in literacyperception and practice.

Baker, Serpell, and Sonnenschein (1995) note thatparent-child literacy relationships are bi-directional.That is, children influence parents and areinfluenced by them. Similarly, a child who findsliteracy learning a painful experience is likely toavoid books and to make the reading experiencepainful for the parent involved. A child wholearns to enjoy reading and to see it as anentertainment is likely to ask for books, seekattention while reading, and begin to read moreindependently. Data reported by Baker et al.support this bi-directional explanation of differingliteracy perceptions and practices.

Literacy Support in the HomeEnvironmentThere is some disagreement about the role ofparental support for literacy in the homeenvironment. Research from the 1970s and early1980s reported by Anderson et al. (1985) identifiedmore books, magazines, and educational literacymaterials in the homes of higher-income familiesand the families of children who performed wellin school. W hen some researchers have expandedthe definition of literacy materials to include morefunctional materials like notes, bills, grocery listsand so forth, the differences between groups arereported to shrink (Delgado-Gaitan, 1987; Diaz,Moll & Mehan, 1986; and Taylor &Dorsey-Gaines, 1988). Heath (1983) reported thatlow-income families used literacy, but in adifferent fashion and for different purposes thandid middle-income families. She suggests that theschools, rather than the families, need to changeto accommodate to these differences and not focusmerely upon middle class literacy use. Moreecent work (Purcell-Gates, 1994) has provided

somewhat contradictory evidence, indicating a lowlevel of print use in low-income homes with thegreatest proportion being for daily routines andemploying simple language at the clause andphrase level.

Interpretations of evidence for other sorts ofparental literacy support also conflict. Low-income parents model less book and magazinereading and tend to take children to libraries lessthan do higher-income parents (Fitzgerald, Spiegel& Cunningham, 1991; Baker et al., 1994). Onthe other hand, low-income parents are reportedsometimes to make extended use of such literacy-related behaviors as storytelling and singing, aswell as making sacrifices to financially andphysically support children's education (Heath,1983; Taylcr & Dorsey-Gaines, 1988; Baker et al.,1994; Gadsden, 1995). Again, the professionaldebate revolves around the meaning of thesedifferences in literacy support and the degree towhich schools focus only on the sort of literacyfound in middle-class homes.

Interventions in Parent-ChildInteractionsEdwards (1995, p. 56) indicates that her worksince the late 1980s has consistently documentedthe desire of low-income parents to learn moreabout what to do when reading to their children.Typical comments from interviews include thefollowing:

I don't know what to do when I open thebook. I mean I don't know what to dofirst, second, third, and so on.

I wish somebody would tell me what to dobecause I am fed up with teachers saying:"Read to your child."

Tracey (1995), citing the work of Topping (1986)and others, notes that experimental studies toteach parents strategies to help their children withreading have been largely successful to the extentthat parents have learned th.e strategies. Someparents have learned to increase wait time beforecorrecting children's reading errors; others havelearned to offer more praise or to use morecontextual prompts as oppos,..d to only word-levelprompts. Still others have learned to readstorybooks to children using dramaticconventions. Evidence of transfer of learning tohome practice and continued use is much more

FAMILY LITCRACY: PARFN1 AND CHILD INTERACTIONS

fA0

57

Larry Mikulecky

rare. Many of these earlier studies can be seen assingle approaches to improved family literacy.

Several more comprehensive family literacyprograms began to make their appearance duringthe late 1980s and early 1990s. These morecomprehensive programs tend to include multiplecomponents such as adult literacy edut:ation,parent education and support, children's literacyeducation, and time for parents and children to betogether. Examples of such programs includemulti-city efforts such as the national Even Startprograms funded by the federal government (St.Pierre, Swartz, Gamse, Murray, Decky, & Nickel,in press) and the Kenan model programssupported by the National Center for FamilyLiteracy (Brizius & Foster, 1993; Potts & Paul,1995) as well as several dozen state and local levelprograms documented by Morrow, Tracey andMaxwell (1995).

Program ResultsEven Start was begun by the U.S. Department otEducation in 1989, and is designed to provideliteracy training for parents while assistingchildren in reaching their full potential as learners.The program is designed for parents of childreneight years and younger, who are, themselves,over 16 years of age, not enrolled in secondaryschool, and weak in basic skills. Programs mustprovide integrated services to accomplish programgoals. There is a good deal of variation in howgoals are accomplished. By the summer of 1994,Even Start was serving more than 26,000 familiesin approximately 474 projects (McKee & Rhett,1995). Evaluation data, thus far, indicate apositive effect on the likelihood of parentsobtaining General Educational Development(GED) credentials. Other positive results are lessclear. Parental literacy gains are apparent onlywhen programs are able to retain adults in classesfor a significant period of time. Parental literacygains are not associated with children's schoolreadiness scores or with literacy skills. No effectsupon parents' attitudes or behaviors related toparenting were detected.

The National Center for Family Literacy hasadvocated an integrated model of family literacy

instruction for nearly a decade, and has developeda system for providing training and support forinstructors and program developers. Brizius andFoster (1993), and Potts and Paul (1995) describein detail the complex integration of programcomponents. Programs have been particularlysuccessful in maintaining program involvement ofclients for approximately 30 hours per week forsix cr more months leading to documented adultliteracy gains and better than expectedperformance of program children upon enteringschool.

Mikulecky and Lloyd (1995) have evaluated theimpact of programs in five cities upon parent-childliteracy-related interactions. After approximatelysix months in programs (100-120 hours of parentand parent-child together time), significant gainsare documented in parent-child home reading,visits to libraries, literacy materials in the home,and children's literacy activities. Children'sreported reading of books and magazines increasedby 60 percent to more than once a day, and thenumber of times children scribbled, printed, ormade letters inereased by 30 percent. Parent bookreading with children increased by nearly 70percent to about once a day and library tripsdoubled to once every two to three weeks.

The programs studied had less impact in positivelyinfluencing parental home literacy modeling andhow parents read to their children. Parents didreport doing more of their own school work athome, but reported no change in leisure readingpatterns. Even though the programs all stressedthe importance of play and conversation asintegral to children's literacy growth, success inthis area was mixed. On rating questions, parentsmade significant gains in recognizing theimportant role of play and conversation indeveloping children's literacy and learning. At thesame time, several parents volunteered informationabout increased use with their four-year-olds offlashcards, workbooks from grocery stores, andworksheets borrowed from older siblings. (Noneof these activities was suggested by programs and,indeed, ran counter to the approach taken bymost instructors). The theme of "literacy aswork," which is documented in the work citedearlier in this paper (i.e., Baker et al. and Laneyet al.), was also noticeable among participants in


62

Larry Mikulecky

Kenan model programs even though programefforts focused upon expanded conceptions ofliteracy. Playing with print, scriBbling, talking,and reading increased, but so too did flashcards,worksheets, and workbooks.

Morrow, Tracey and Maxwell (1995) summarizethe results of several dozen family literacyprograms. The reporied results are consistentlypositiveand results range from positive attitudechange to follow-up reports of children's successin school to increased parental participation inschool-related events. Only a few programs wereable to report on literacy gains and changes inparent-child interactions. One particularly well-documented study (Neuman & Gallagher, 1994;Neuman, 1995) examines young mothersparticipating in a special family literacy program.Literacy-related play settings were created in thehomes of six young mothers who were coached inways to interact with their children while usingliteracy related props such as several children'sbooks as well as a toy post-office and toy grocerystore.

Mothers were coached in how to orally labelobjects and in how to focus their child's attention.In addition, they were taught to create speciallearning situations for their children and ways tocoach and converse with them. This procedure isdescribed by Neuman and Gallagher (1994, p. 398)as "fine-tuning parental assistance." Theresearchers found significant improvement in theareas addressed by their coaching, though thesegains declined during the transfer and maintenanceportions of the study. They advocate this sort ofcoaching for parental literacy much like Lamazecoaching for pregnant women or La Lechecoaching for breast feeding.

Conflicting ViewpointsThis paper earlier discussed the professional debateover the roles of parental support for children'sliteracy among middle- and low-income parents.A similar debate exists on the role of familyliteracy programs. Some researchers and familyliteracy program designers suggest directlyaddressing established aspects of parent-childliteracy interactions by supplementing literacy

materials in the home and directly teachingparents literacy and language strategies associatedwith children's literacy success. Auerbach (1995)and others term this approach a "deficit" modelbecause it assumes family deficits which must beremediated. These researchers suggest a deficitapproach may undermine existing family strengthswhile convincing parents they must becomepeople they are unlikely ever to become.

These researchers recommend, instead, what theyterm a "wealth" model -which identifies andconnects literacy instruction to existing parentalstrengths and immediate social concerns.Auerbach (1995) suggests that parents in suchprograms might learn literacy dealing with suchissues as immigration, employment, housing,safety, and drugs. Other researchers (see Edwardsabove) report that many parents want to knowhow to help their children with literacy, andresent not ',eing shown explicit strategies forreading with their children.

The issue of what to teach about parent-childinteractions can become an especially difficultproblem in programs where instructors aremiddle-income women whose ethnic and culturalbackgrounds differ from those of their students.It is one thing to model ways to read a book to achild. It becomes a much larger and morecomplicated undertaking to suggest that a parentalso change her style of dinner conversation andother parenting behaviors such as the very wayshe explains the world to a child. Furthermore,the concept of reading as fun may be utterlyforeign to an adult who has had a decade or moreof negative experiences with print and schools. Itbecomes very difficult to avoid transmitting thefalse message that the students must abandonnearly all of who they are and become as muchlike the instructor as possible. One of theattractions of the "wealth" model is that itmanages to avoid difficulties by asserting that it isnot necessary for programs to influence parent-child interactions.

On the other hand, research over the last decadeindicates that parent-child interactions are veryimportant. Theories of how language andliteracy develop have been examined, tested, andrcfined. The rekraonships between a child's


Larry Mikulecky

developing literacy and adult literacy modeling,oral explanations, and forms of reinforcement arerelationships that go well beyond merecorrelations. To avoid the possibility of growthin these areas rather than risk the label of "deficit"seems ill advised. This is especially true sincethere is evidence that programs can help learnersmake gains in these areas.

Results from family literacy program evaluationssuch as those cited earlier document theeffectiveness of programs in increasing libraryvisits, materials in the home, the incidence ofparental reading to children, and children'sliteracy-related activity. With extensiveinterventions, it is even possible to influence andfine tune the manner in which parents interactwith their children. Transfer beyond programwalls and maintaining what has been learned havebeen less clearly documented, however.

The sparse, existing evidence suggests programsmay require extensive effori:: from highly trainedinstructors to change parental literacy modeling,complex language use, and conceptions of howliteracy is learned. Indeed, evidence from severalstudies suggests simply urging parents to read tochildren or help with I- umework may lead tomany imitating what is identified as poor andcounter-productive teaching practice. Even so, afew long-term studies indicate a positive impact offamily literacy program involvement in children'searly school success. Data on the impact of pure"wealth" model programs or "empowerment"programs which build curriculum aroundempowering parents to deal with daily socialprotlems are not yet generally available.

A Middle Ground

A middle ground may be possible. Powell (1995)indicates that long-term discussion groups haveproven to be much more powerful tools thandirect instruction approaches in changingparenting beliefs and practices. Such discussiongroups are usually anchored in dealing with aspecific child and specific problems. Often,learning interpersonal relationship skills, whichmay he new to the young parent, are central tothis process. In addition, these groups start by

building upon the parent's current understandingsof how to parent.

Howard Miller, an Even Start Project Director,suggests that trust and timing are also part of themix. Miller (1995) observes:

If you tell me that the way my momma raised mewas wrong, I'm probably not going to listen to you.If 1 learn to trust you and find other things you tellme to be useful, 1 just might think about what youhave to say about raising children.

The power is in the hands of the learner to trynew ideas, not in the hands of the instructor toinculcate them.

National Center for Family Literacy model familyliteracy programs have opportunity for parentaldiscussion groups and trust-building available inthe Parent-Time component of programs. Inaddition, Sharon Darling of NCFL indicates thatprogram integration can help with parent-childinteractions. For example, one program schedulesinstruction so that parents preparing for the GEDexamination learn about wind and the operationof wind upon kites and airplane wings. Duringthe same time period, as part of Parent-ChildTogether Time, parents build and fly kites withtheir youngsters. Parents are encouraged to sharetheir new knowledge and explain kites. In thisway, elaborated use of language and explanationoccurs more naturally as parents become morecapable of explaining the world. Gadsden (1995)suggests still other activities in which parents andolder children can engage in joint projects such astranslation of oral histories into written texts,joint study of family or community histories, andgenealogical analyses. Such tasks would offeropportunity for extended language use as well asdevelopment of interpersonal skills.

Conclusion

Parent-child interactions are important to a child'sdeveloping literacy abilities. It is becomingincreasingly clear that these interactions involve agood deal more than simply reading to childrenand providing them with books. In fact, there issome evidence to suggest that simply telling a


Larry Mikulecky

parent to read to a child may lead to quitedifferent behaviors depending upon thebackground of the parent. Some of thesebehaviors may even be counter-productive. Inaddition, a growing body of research indicates thatthe way in which a parent speaks with a childmay have as much or more to do with laterreading achievement of the child than actual timespent reading to the child.

Educators disagree about what is to be done withthis information. Some suggest that theinformation be ignored, since it implies low-income parents may in some way be deficient. Itis better to focus upon literacy instructiondesigned to give parents more control over theirworld. If this is done, all else will follow. Otherspoint to successes in teaching literacy andparenting strategies to new parents and point outthat many parents want to know how to improvethe literacy of their children.

A middle ground is possible, but only if the issueof parent-child interactions is addressed with agood deal of sensitivity, tact, and respect for allconcerned. Rather than directly teaching newways for parents and children to interact withlanguage and literacy, an interactive approachinvolves generating opportunities for discussion,modeling, and practiceas well as time, energy,and talent.

References

Anderson, R.C., Hiebert, E.H., Scott, J.A. &Wilkinson, I. (1985). Becoming a nationof readers: The report of the Commissionon Reading. Washington, DC: TheNational Institute of Education.

Auerbach, E.R. (1995). Which way for familyliteracy: Intervention or empowerment.In L. Morrow (Ed.), Family literacy:connections in schools and communities,11-28. Newark, DE: InternationllReading Association.

Baker, L., Sonnenschein, S. Serpell, R.,Fernandez-Fein, S. & Scher, D. (1994).Contexts of emergent literacy: Everydayhome experiences of urban prekindergartenchildren. (Research report.) Athens, GA:

National Reading Research Center,University of Georgia and University ofMaryland.

Baker, L., Serpell, R. & Sonnenschein, S. (1995).Opportunities for literacy learning inhomes of urban preschoolers. In L.Morrow (Ed.), Family literacy:Connections in schools and communities236-52. Newark, DE: InternationalReading Association.

Beals, D.E. (1992). Explanation as co-constructeddiscourse: A study of conversations inlow-income families of pre-schoolers.Paper presented at the annual meeting ofthe American Educational ResearchAssociation, San Francisco, CA, April20-24, 1992.

Beals, D.E. & De Temple, J.F. (1992). Homecontributions to early language andliteracy development. Paper presented atthe annual meeting of the NationalReading Conference (42nd, San Antonio,TX, December 2-5, 1992.)

Brizius, J.A. & Foster, S.A. (1993). Generation togeneration: Realizing the promise of familyliteracy. Ypsilanti, MI: High/Scope Press.

Chomsky, C. (1972). Stages in languagedevelopment and reading exposure.Harvard Educational Review, 42, 1-33.

Delgado-Gaitan, C. (1987). Mexican adult literacy:New directions for immigrants. In S.R.Goldman & K. Trueba (Eds.), Becomingliterate in English as a second language,9-32. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Diaz, S., Moll, L. & Mehan, K. (1986).Socio-cultural resources in instruction: Acontext-specific approach. In BeyondLanguage: Social and cultural factors inschooling language minority children,87-229. Los Angeles, CA: CaliforniaState Department of Education andCalifornia State University.

Edwards, P.A. (1995). Combining parents' andteachers' thoughts about storybookreading at home and school. In L.Morrow (Ed.), Family literacy:Connections In schools and communities,54-69. Newark, DE: InternationalReading Association.

Fitzgerald, J., Spiegel, D. L. & Cunningham, J.W.(1991). The relationship between parental


Larry Mikulecky

literacy level and perceptions ofemergent literacy. Journal of ReadingBehavior, 13(2), 191-212.

Gadsden, V. (1995). Representations of literacy:Parents' images in two culturalcommunities. In L. Morrow (Ed.) Familylitenacy: Connections in schools andcommunities, 287-303. Newark, DE:International Reading Associ-.tion.

Heath, S.B. (1983). Ways with wo;ds. Cambridge,UK: Cambridge University Press.

Lancy, D.F., Draper, K.D. & Boyce, G. (1989).Parental influence on children'sacquisition of reading. ContemporaryIssues in Reading, 4(1), 83-93.

Lancy, D.F. & Bergin, C. (1992). The role ofparents in supporting beginning reading.Paper presented at the annual meeting ofthe American Educational ResearchAssociation, San Francisco, CA, April 20,1992.

Laosa, L.M. (1982). School, occupation, cultureand family: The impact of parentalschooling on the parent-child relationship.Journal of Educational Psychology, 74(6),791-827.

McKee, P.A. & Rhett, N. (1995). The Even Startfamily literacy program. In L. Morrow(Ed.), Family literacy: Connections inschools and communities, 155-66. Newark,DE: International Reading Association.

Mikulecky, L. & Lloyd, P. (1995). Parent-childinteractions in family literacy programs.A paper presented at the National Centerfor Family Literacy conference, Louisville,KY, May 20, 1995.

Miller, H. (1995). Comments made at ResearchDesign Symposium on Family Literacy,U.S. Department of Education, Office ofEducational Research and Improvement,Washington, DC, Sept. 7-8, 1995.

Morrow, L.M., Tracey, D.I-L & Maxwell, C.M.(Eds.) (1995). A survey of family literacy.Newark, DE: International ReadingAssociation.

Neuman, S.B. & Gallagher, P. (1994). Joiningtogether in literacy learning: Teenagemothers and children. Reading ResearchQuarterly, 29(4), 382-401.

Neuman, S.B. (1995). Enhancing adolescentmothers' guided participation in literacy.In L. Morrow (Ed.), Family literacy:Connections in schools and communities,104-14. Newark, DE: InternationalReading Association.

Potts, M.W. & Paull, S. (1995). A comprehensiveapproach to family focused services. In L.Morrow (Ed.), Family literacy:Connections in schools and communities,167-83. Newark, DE: InternationalReading Association.

Powell, D.R. (1995). Teaching parenting and basicskills to parents: What we know. Apaper presented at Research DesignSymposium on Family Literacy, U.S.Department. of Education, Office ofEducational Research and Improvement,Washington, DC, Sept. 7-8, 1995.

Purcell-Gates, V. (1994). The relationships betweenparental literacy skills and functional uses ofprint and children's ability to learn literacyskills. Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Graduate School of Education.

Snow, C.E. & Goldfield, B.A. (1983). Turn thepage please: Situation-specific languageacquisition. Journal of Child Language, 10,535-49.

Snow, C.E., Barnes, W.S., Chandler, J., Goodman,I.F. & Hemphill, L. (1991). Unfulfilledexpectations: Home and school influenceson literacy. Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press.

Taylor, D. & Dorsey-Gaines, C. (1988). Growingup literate: Learning from inner-cityfamilies. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Teale, W.H. & Sulzby, E. (1986). Homebackground and young children's literacydevelopment. In Emergent literacy:Writing and reading, 173-206. Norwood,NJ: ABLEX.

Topping, K. J. (1986) Parents as educators.London: Croom Helm.

Tracey, D.H. & Young, J.W. (1994). Mother-childinteractions during children's oral readingat home. In D. Leu & C. Kinzer (Eds.),Multidimensional aspects cl literacy research,theory, and practice. (Forty-thirdYearbook of the National ReadingConference, 342-50. Chicago, IL:National Reading Conference.


Larry Mikulecky

Tracey, D.H. (1995). Children practicing readingat home: What we know about howparents help. In L. Morrow (Ed.), Familyliteracy: Connections in schools andcommunities, 253-68. Newark, DE:International Reading Association.


Teaching Parenting and Basic Skillsto Parents: What We Know

Douglas PowellPurdue University

The history of programmatic efforts to influenceparents' knowledge and skills regarding childrearing has a long and rich history. Howevei,many important questions remain unanswered.Fortunately, in the past three decades there hasbeen an important increase in the quality andquantity of studies focused on program outcomesand on parenting. While not robust, existingresearch collectively points directly or indirectlyto the importance of five characteristics orelements of programs designed to support orchange parents' behaviors. The five areas areaddressed below, and lessons learned in each of thefive areas are described.

New Knowledge Interactswith Existing Beliefs andPractices

Research points to the value of guidedopportunities to incorporate new information andskills into existing beliefs and skills related toparenting and interactions with children.

In a review of outcome studies of 20early intervention programs targetedat some aspect of family functioning,

analysts concluded that morepervasive and sustained effects are

likely to be realized when theintervention includes 11 or more

contacts over at least a three-monthperiod. Researchers suggest that a

certain duration of contact is essentialto the development of a trustingrelationship between family and

program.

Parenting is an active, cognitive process.Accordingly, program designs that enable parentsto digest and integrate new perspectives onparenting with existing beliefs and practices arelikely to yield greater effects than programdesigns that approach parents primarily as "blankslates" to be written upon with all newknowledge.

Beliefs are cognitive representations of reality(Sigel, 1985) that shape parents' socialization andteaching actions. Parents have been found tohold simultaneously a number of different beliefsregarding how their children learn and becomesocialized, with approximately 87 percent of allstated beliefs falling into one of the followingfour categories:

cognitive processes (child learns throughthinking and reasoning, consideringoptions, drawing in references, weighingconsequences);

direct instruction (child learns from beingtold what to do, from explanations oradvice);

positive feedback (child learns throughexperiencing success, approval, andsupport); and

negative feedback (child learns throughbeing punished or criticized for behavior)(Sigel, Stinson & Flaughter, 1991).

Pertinent to family literacy programs are thebeliefs held by parents regarding the requisites oftheir child's early success in school. A studyusing a national sample found that parents andkindergarten teachers had similar views on theimportance of some characteristics forkindergarten (e.g., child is curious, enthusiastic

TEACHING PARENTING AND BASIC SKILLS TO PARENTS 65

68

Douglas Powell

about learning), but had dissimilar beliefs aboutthe importance of other characteristics (e.g., theability to count to 20, to know the alphabet).For example, most parents /59 percent), but fewkindergarten teachers (7 percent), indicated it isvery important or essential for a child to be ableto count to 20 (West, Hausken & Collins, 1993).(For a review the literature on schoolreadiness, see Powell, 1995.)

Core beliefs about parenting and children'sdevelopment may reflect deeply held values andstem from influential origins; some ideas are likecherished possessions, modified or abandonedreluctantly (Abelson, 1986). Multiple factorsinfluence the development and maintenance ofparents' beliefs. Among these factors, thoseoutside the home include: cultural values andtraditions; socio-economic status; work; socialnetworks of relatives, friends, and neighbors; andadvice from experts. Factors within the homeinclude the characteristics of parents, themselves,(e.g., developmental history, psychologicalattributes, age, gender); marital relationship; andcharacteristics of the child (Okagaki & Divecha,1994).

Of course, ;ndividuals often are slow to changetheir ideas even in the face of compellinginformation, and may disregard or distort newinformation or use it selectively, if new ideasconflict with perceived vested interests (Goodnow& Collins, 1990). For instance, a recentqualitative, longitudinal study of low-income,single mothers found that mothers were receptiveto information from "experts" when theseperspectives furthered their goals for theirchildren; their ideas about preschool learningwere linked to culturally driven models of childrearing, including respect for authority andcontributing to one's family or community(Holloway, Rambaud, Fuller & Eggers-Pierola, inpress).

Discussion is viewed widely as a promisingstrategy for parents to think about newinformation in relation to existing perspectives onparenting. The adult education literature long hassuggested that personal experience be used as alearning resource, and that programs include a

strong experiential component (e.g., Brookfield,1986). Discussion is an opportunity for parentsto digest new information and insight withinexisting belief frameworks.

While more needs to be known about theconditions under which parents modify theirbeliefs and practices, research suggests thatlong-term parent discussion groups can be apowerful tool in facilitating change in the valuesand teaching styles of low-income mothers(Slaughter, 1983), and the child-rearing beliefs andpractices of middle-class mothers and fathers(Powell, 1994). Dialogue was the primaryintervention tool in a program aimed at helpingsocially and geographically isolated, low-incomemothers "gain a voice" and become more activelyengaged in conceptualizing and interacting withtheir children in ways that would promotecognitive development and a sense ofself-competence. In fact, an evaluation found theprogram increased participants' perceived socialsupport and the complexity of theirunderstandings of knowledge and its development(Bond, Belenky & Weinstock, 1992).

In one longitudinal study, informal discussionsamong parents during a program's break (whatthe investigators called "kitchen talk," because thebreak occurred in a kitchen) were found to be asnovel or nonroutine as discussions guided by staffduring the formal segment of the program(Powell & Eisenstadt, 1988). Thus, an informalexchange of ideas among peers may offerperspectives that extend and perhaps evenchallenge existing knowledge, beliefs, andpractices.

Today, disregard for parents' exiAing beliefs andpractices by parent education programs hasgenerated considerable criticism and ethicalconcern All interventions impose an ide-t of "thegood, x desirable, and the healthy" (Sigel, 1983,p. 8), and a dominant professional role in parenteducation programs may undermine parents' senseof confidence (Hess, 1980). For programs aimedat ethnic and language minority populations, theimposition of the dominant culture's standards ofparenting may be viewed as an attempt to "meltaway sociocultural diversity" (Laosa, 1983, p. 337).

66 TEACHING PARENTING AND BASIC SKILLS TO PARENTS

Dou las Powell

Several safeguards have been recommended toprevent manipulations of a parent's goals andexcessive pressure to alter existing beliefs andbehaviors, including clarity in communicationsabout a progrm's theoretical orientation, andrespect for a parent's child-rearing valuft (Brim,1959; Sigel, 1983), along with a collaborative rolefor the professional involved (Cochran &Woo lever, 1982; Hess, 1980). Thus, therespectful, non-intrusive professional rolerecommended in the literature on the ethics t,fparent education programs coincides with imagesof an appropriate professional role derived fromthe literature on parents' beliefs and changeprocesses described earlier.

Parenting in Context

The teaching of parenting skills to parents shouldactively acknowledge the relation of parenting beliefsand behaviors to other aspects of individualfunctioning, including social skills and job-relatedexperiences. Parenting issues cannot be readilycompartmentalized and adequately addressed inisolation. Family literacy programs provide manyopportunities to build on inextricable connectionsamong parenting and other adult roles and skills.Particularly promising are options to integrate andto use similar or complementary pedagogicalstrategies in the adult and parent educationcomponents of any program.

Research findings underscore the central role ofparenting in intricate patterns of beliefs andbehaviors. From studies of intervention programs,one lesson teaches that efforts to address parentingcannot be meaningfully separated from theparent's interpersonal relationship skills. Forexample, an intervention program at theUniversity of Washington attempted to implementa two-step approach to working with "high-risk"mothers, beginning with social skills training andthen moving on to child-rearing knowledge andbehavior. It was assumed that a mother'sinterpersonal competence was a necessarycondition for improving a mother's child-rearingabilities. However, program workers (mentalhealth nurses) discovered it was impossible toavoid parent-child relationship issues in the socialskills component of the intervention, as parenting

issues surfaced repeatedly in the social skillstraining (Booth, Mitchell, Barnard & Spieker,1989).

From studies of work and family life, one learnsthat work exposes an individual to experiences andideas that influence parenting styles and beliefs. Astudy of the effects of participatory workstrategies in a manufacturing plant on theemployee's family roles found that employeesinvolved in decision-making and problem-solvingat all levels of the work setting, primarily throughsmall work teams, reported using the "teammeeting" concept at home and usingcommunication skills that had been learned duringwork training sessions. Illustrative of the findings,one father reported that his participatoryexperiences on the job had led him to ". . . usesome of the things we do at work" with his son,"instead of yelling" at the boy (Crouter, 1984).Other research has found a connection betweenconditions of the work setting (autonomy vs.compliance) and parenting values and practices(with emphasis on self-initiative vs. conformity)(Kohn, 1969; Luster, Rhoades & Haas, 1989).

The parenting-in-context theme also includes theidea that efforts to influence parent beliefs andpractices should tailor the introduction of newinformation and skills to family realities and to thequality of the parent-child relationship. Several areasof research and cumulative program experiencepoint to the merits of "beginning where parentsare."

An early, indirect indicator of the need toacknowledge the ecology of parenthood inparenting programs appeared in the 1960s andearly 1970s, when numerous parent educationmethods frequently used with middle-classpopulations were applied unsuccessfully tolower-income parents. A reviewer of these failedinitiatives concluded that environmental realityfactors such as marital disruption, financialinstability, and inadequate housing worked againsteffective use of group methods with low-incomeparents, ". . . unless the group was supplementedby other services" (Chilman, 1973).

The instructional st: ategy of helping studentsconditionalize their knowledge by pursuing an


a U

Douglas Powell

everyday problem-oriented versus fact- ordiscipline-oriented introduction ofinformationposited as an effective way tosupport the transfer of information or skills to avariety of settings (Bransford, Goldman & Vye,1991)has special significance in teaching skillsrelated to parenting. Specifically, the individualityof a child often is used by parents to disregard theglobal advice or recommendations of experts. Infact, it is possible to agree with an expert's ideabut at the same time reject that idea by claimingsimply ". . . it's a good idea, but it just wouldn'twork with my child" (Goodnow & Collins, 1990,p. 102). Accordingly, parents who acquireknowledge and skills that are tailored tocharacteristics or issues regarding a particular childare likely to use the new information because it ispertinent to their individual situation.Conversely, when experts offer vague advice, it isless likely that parents will derive sophisticatedideas or practices from such advice (Sameroff &Feil, 1985).

Research on the benefits of joint parent-childbook reading also underscores the importance ofconsidering context (i.e., parent-child relationship)in which prescriptions for parenting are to beapplied. There is strong evidence that parent-childreading is related to a number of child successes inlearning to read (Bus, van Uzendoorn & Pellegrini,1995). While these findings lend support to thewisdom of attempts to encourage joint parent-child book reading in family literacy programs,they need to be qualified in a manner thatconsiders the "condition" of the parent-childrelationship. Studies show that in parent-childdyads, where there is an insecure attachment, theparent is less sensitive to the needs and cues of thechild and the joys of reading a book probably areminimal or nonexistent; in fact, such a situationmay have a negative effect on the child's emergentliteracy skills and interests (Bus & van Uzendoorn,1988).

The principle of "beginning where parents are" isconsistent with the social-contextual model offamily literacy that asks, "How can we draw onparents' knowledge and experience to informinstruction?" rather .than, "How can we transferschool practices into home contexts?" (Auerbach,1989, p. 177). (This model is built upon the

conditions and concerns of specific communities,and does not involve a predetermined curriculum.)

Maintaining Balance

If a mother isn't making it financially, and she's justhad a fight with her boyfriend, and he's just split,there ain't no way I can say to her, "OK, let's youand I go play a game with the child," (Mindick,1986, p. 83).

The above words of a home visitor capture theproblem of maintaining focus on the child and onparenting issues when the content boundaries of aparenting program are broadened to includesensitivity to, or intentional efforts to address,adult issues and family functioning.Multiple-focus programs assume that pressingfactors in the environment or within the parentoften interfere with the parent's ability to attendto the child and to the information andsuggestions of the home visitor. Unmet basicneeds (such as shelter and health care) may beviewed, for example, as a cause of parents' givinglow priority to professionally prescribed regimensfor handicapped children (Dunst & Trivette,1988).

Evaluations of multiple-focused programs point toa tendency for child development matters to beignored or overshadowed by "major issues" facingthe parent or family (e.g., Mindick, 1986).However, limited attention to child developmentcontent in multiple-focus home visiting programsmay, have a limited (or no) effect upon the child.

The evaluation results of the Child and FamilyResource Program (CFRP) may be interpreted assuggesting that family circumstances, but not childoutcomes, were improved by the program, as thecontent of home visits focused almost exclusivelyon family needs (Travers, Nauta & Irwin, 1982).Hence, an important lesson is that programsshould maintain a balanced, concrete focus onparenting and child development content.

The CFRP evaluation findings raise questionsabout program designs bascd upon the assumptionthat a primary focus on improving familycircumstances will lead to improved child


Douglas Powell

outcomes. It appears that changes in childoutcomes require concentrated attention toparenting and child issues, but not at the expenseof ignoring pressing family circumstances. Thus,the theme of organizing program content aroundfamily realities needs to be qualified to emphasizethe necessity of a clear agenda regarding parentingand child issues. Certainly, the program's role ofhelping parents maintain a "child's eye view" ofevents, situations, and relationships appears centralto achieving improved outcomes for children.

Intensity Matters

The above descriptions of the origins andmalleability of parents' ideas and practices,coupled with program experiences pointing to thevalue as well as pitfalls of attending to familycircumstances, set the stage for the lesson thatparenting skills cannot be taught "on the cheap."Research points to the importance of providinglong-term, intensive work with parents, especiallythose living in high-risk circumstances.

Quite simply, the magnitude of program eftectsincreases, if programs are intensive. Briefencounters between a program and a parent willnot dramatically alter or strengthen the pattern ofparenting or improve child outcomes.

In a review of outcome studies of 20 earlyintervention programs targeted at some aspect offamily functioning, analysts concluded that morepervasive and sustained effects are likely to berealized when the intervention includes 11 ormore contacts over at least a three-month period.Researchers suggest that a certain duration ofcontact is essential to the development of atrusting relationship between family and program.The 20 programs included in this review wereinitiated at some time in the period frompregnancy to the first three months of the baby'slife, and included populations representing a rangeof socio-economic status (Heinecke, Beckwith &Thompson, 1988).

Recent evaluation results from the Even StartFamily Literacy Program indicate that the amountof time parents participated in parenting educationthrough Even Start was positively related to their

child's receptive vocabulary (St. Pierre, Swartz,Gamse, Murray, Deck & Nickel, 1995).

Concluding Comment

The lessons reviewed herein provide points ofdeparture for designing programs that are likely toyield a significant, positive impact upon parenting.At the same time, key questions remainunanswered. The amount of structure that isappropriate for program workers, for example, isunclear; and thoughtful program developmentefforts are needed to demonstrate workablestrategies for maintaining a balanced, responsiveprogram focus on child and family issues.

Family literacy programs are a field-based"laboratory" for generating research and programdevelopment initiatives that may advance thefield's understanding of how best to support adultsin their child-rearing roles. The focused attentionon literacy within an intergenerational familyframework is an ideal setting for implementing,refining, and extending the lessons described inthis paper, and for enabling all in the field to learnnew and valuable lessons.

References

Abelson, R.P. (1986). Beliefs are like possessions.Journal for the Themy of Social Behavior, 16,223-50.

Auerbach, E.R. (1989). Toward a social-contextualapproach to family literacy. HarvardEducational Review, 59, 165-81.

Bond, L.A., Belenky, M.F. & Weinstock, J.S.(1992). Listening partners: Helping ruralmothers find a voice. Family ResourceCoalition Report, I I, 18-19.

Booth, C.L., Mitchell, S.L., Barnard, K.E. &Spieker, S.J. (1989). Development of maternalskills in multiproblem families: Effects on themother-child relationship. DevelopmentalPsychology, 25, 403-12.


Douglas Powell

Bransford, J.D., Goldman, S.R. & Vye, N.J.(1991). Making a difference in people'sabilities to think: Reflections on a decade ofwork and some hopes for the future. In L.Okagaki & R.L. Sternberg (Eds.), Directors ofdevelopment: Influences on the development ofchildren's thinking, 147-80. Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.

Brim, O.G. (1959). Education for child rearing.New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Brookfield, S. (1986). Understanding andfacilitating adult learning. San Francisco, CA:Jossey Bass.

Bus, A.G. & van Uzendoorn, M.H. (1988).Mother-child interactions, attacIrif!.ent andemergent literacy: A cross-sectional study.Child Development, 59, 1262-72.

Bus, A.G., van IJundoorn, M.H. & Pellegrini,A.D. (1995). Joint book reading makes forsuccess in learning to read: A meta-analysis onintergenerational transmission of literacy.Review of Educatihnal Research, 65, 1-21.

Chilrnan, C.S. (1973). Programs for disadvantagedparents. In B.M. Caldwell & H.N. Ricciuti(Eds.), Review of Child Development Research.3, 403-65. Chicago: University of ChicagoPress.

Cochran, M. & Woolever, F. (1983). Beyond thedeficit model: The empowerment of parentswith information and informal supports. In I.E. Sigei & L. M. Laosa (Eds), Changingfamilies, 225-45. New York: Plenum.

Crouter, A.C. (1984). Participative work as aninfluence on human development. HumanDevelopment, 5, 71-90.

Dunst, C.J. & Trivette, L.M. (1988). A familysystems model of early intervention withhandicapped and developmentally at-riskchildren. In D.R. Powell (Ed.), Parenteducation as early childhood intervention,31-179. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Goodno-...% J.I. & Collins, W.A. (1990).Development according to parenty The nature,fources, and consequences of parents' ideas.Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Heinecke, C.M., Beckwith, L. & Thompson, A(1988). Early incervention in the familysystem: A framework and review. InfantMental Health Journal, 9, 111-41

Hess, R.D. (1980). Experts and amateurs: Someunintended consequences of parent education.In M.D. Fantini & R. Cardenes (Eds.),Parenting in a multicultural society, 141-59.New York: Longman.

Holloway, S.D., Rambaud, M.F., Fuller, B. &Eggers-Pierola, C. (in press). What is"appropriate practice" at home and in childcare? Low-income mothers' views onpreparing their children for school. EarlyChildhood Research Quarterly.

Kohn, M.L. (1969). Class and conformity: A studyin values. Homewood, IL: The Dorsey Press.

Laosa, L.M. (1983). Parent education, culturalpluralism, and public policy: The unceitainconnection. In R. Haskins & D. Adams(Eds.), Parent education and public policy,331-45. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Luster, R., Rhoades, K. & Haas, B. (1989). Therelation between parental values and parentingbehavior: A test of the Kohn hypothesis.Journal of Murriage and the Family, 51, 139-47.

Mindick, B. (1986). Social engineering in familymatters. New York: Praeger.

Okagaki, L. & Divecha, D.J. (1993). Developmentof parental beliefs. In T. Luste7 & L. Okagaki(Eds.), Parenting: An Ecological Perspective,35-67. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Powell, D.R. (1994). Effects of information andsocial support during the early years ofpat enthood: A longitudinal study of MELD.Final technical report to the Bush Foundation.West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University.

Powell, D.R. (1995). Enabling young children tosucceed in school. Washington, DC:American Educational Research Association

Powell, D.R. & Eisenstadt, J.W. (1988). Informaland formal conversations in parent educationgroups: An observational study. FamilyRelations, 37, 166-70.

Sameroff, A.J. & Feil, L.A. (1985). Pareatalconcepts of development. In I.E. Sigel (Ed.),Parental belief systems: The psychologicalconsequenres for children, 83-105. Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.

Sigel, I.E. (1985). A conceptual analysis of beliefs.In I.E. Sigel (Ed.), Parental belief systems: Thepsychological consequences for chudren, 347.71.Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.


73

Douglas Powell

Sigel, I.E., Stinson, E.T. & Flaugher, J. (1991).Socialization of representational competence inthe family: The distancing paradigm: In L.Okagaki & R.J. Sternberg (Eds.), Directors ofdevelopment: Influences on the development ofchildren's thinking, 121-44. Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaurn.

Slaughter, D.R. (1983). Early intervention and itseffects on maternal and child development.Monographs of the Society for Research inChild Development, 48 (4), (Serial No. 202).

St. Pierre, R., Swartz, J., Camse, B., Murray, S.,Deck, D. & Nickel, P. (1995). Nationalevaluation of the Even Start family literacyprogram. Final report to the Office of theUnder Secretary, U.S. Department ofEducation. Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates,Inc.

Travers, J., Nauta, M. & Irwin, N. (1982). Theeffects of a social program: Final report of theChild and Family Resource Program'sinfant-toddler component. Cambridge, MA:Abt Associates.

West, J., Hausken, E.G. & Collins, M. (1993).Readiness for kindergarten: Parent andteacher beliefs. Washington, DC: NationalCenter for Education Statistics, Office ofEducational Research and Improvement, U.S.Department of Education (NCES 93-257).


Intergenerational Transfer ofLiteracy

Catherine Snow and Patton TaborsHarvard Graduate School of Education

This paper provides an analysis of findingsrelated to the intergenerational transfer of literacy,in particular familial attitudes, behavior, andcharacteristics that seem to promote literacyachievement in children. The issue motivatingthis analysis is a search for mechanisms thatexplain why children from some families arrive atschool better prepared for literacy achievementthan othersand how some families continue tosupport i heir children's literacy achievement, afterthey are in school. It is clear that, in general,more litera:e and highly educated parents havechildren who perform better in school. Ourproblem is not so much the difficulty of seeking areason for this fact, but rather the challenge ofselecting from among a multitude of possibleexplanations. We take as our task in this paper,therefore, to assess the many, disparaicexplanations of parental effects on children'sliteracy in an attempt to understand the mostpowerful influences, and to recommend how suchmechanisms for learning might be integrated intopotentially successful family literacy programs.

Vocabulary has been associated witbliteracy development across a variety

of studies . . . . Parenting classeswithin family literacy programs couldwell frus on . . . community, church

and school-related activities as asource of varied conversational topics,

during which new vocabulary andmore ccmplex ideas might well he

introduced into the home.

Social Class Differences

A starting point for much of the previous workon familial influences on literacy has been theevidence associated with social class differences inreading achievement. Thirty years ago, publicattention was alerted to evidence that socio-economic status was related to differences inschool achievement (Coleman et al., 1966).Equality of Educational Opportunity revealed thatthe educational deficit of children from low-income families was present at school entry andincreased with each year they stayed in school.These findings of social class differences in schoolachievement have been confirmed dozens of timessince, in comparisons within and across schoolsystems and in every National Assessment ofEducational Progress (NAEP) report. The 1981report from the NAEP, for example, indicatedthat the reading achievement of children inaffluent suburban schools was significantly andconsistently higher than that of children in"disadvantaged" urban schools, and the 1985NAEP report on reading found that low-income17-year-olds could read only on an elementaryschool level (a level achieved by advantagedstudents at age 13). Not surprisingly,conventional wisdom has held that any factorpresent in middle-claz:s homes is likely to bepositive for school learning, whereas factorspresent in working-class homes work againstachievement.

In lact, though, it is difficult to isolate the factorsthat may prcduce a given effect simply bycomparing middle-class to working-class children.Social class is a "package variable"a summarylabel for an intricate complex of related variablesincluding parental education, occupational status,income, housing conditions, time allocation,attitudes toward school and schooling, experienceswith school, expectations for futtae educationaland occupational success, nature of the family's

INTERGENERATIONAL TRANSFER OF LITERACY 73

Catherine Snow and Patton Tabots

social network, style of parent-child interaction,and many more elements. Replicating findings ofsocial class differences in school achievementbrings us no closer to understanding themechanisms by which those differences developbecause it is rarely possible to sort out the separateeffects of the wide array of factors packagedtogether as "working class" or "middle class."

Complexity of LiteracyA further difficulty in sorting out the mechanismsthat explain familial effects on child literacy is thenature of literacy itself. Literacy is not a singleskill that simply gets better with age orinstruction. We contend that being literate meansdifferent things to the skilled first-grader, orfourth-grader, or high school student or adult.Just as the effects of school experiences can bequite different at different points in a child'sdevelopment (see, for example, Alexander &Entwistle, 1988), so also can the effects of certainfamilial practices related to literacy development.

The actual problem is to decide when we wouldlike to assess or characterize the familial effects onchild literacy. Much of the research in this areahas focused on early effects, to explain differencesobservable in children on school entry. Socialclass differences, however, increase in magnitude aschildren continue in schoolsuggesting thatfamilial effects account for more than justdifferences in emergent literacy skill. A discussionof the mechanisms of family effects, then, mustdistinguish familial influences in terms of whataspect of literacy they influence as well as howthat influence is exerted.

Mechanisms ofIntergenerational TransferDuring the last 25 years, a variety of mechanismshave been proposed to improve familial effects onchild literacy. In this section of the paper, we willreview research supporting each of these candidatemechanisms, prior to assessing them as possibleexplanations for family effects on children'sacquisition of literacy.

Simple Transfer

Much research in the field of literacy developmentdocuments straightforward transfer effects (i.e.,parental literacy skills and behaviors atetransmitted directly to children through activitieslike picture book reading and writing shoppinglists). It is worth noting, however, that most ofthese effects have been documented during thepreschool and kindergarten period (i.e., effects onemergent literacy skills rather than onsophisticated reading). Dyadic book-reading, forexample, has been identified as a source ofknowledge about print (Clay, 1979), letters(Burgess, 1982), and the characteristics of writtenregisters (Feitelson, Bracha & Goldstein, 1986;Purcell-Gates, 1988). Belief in the efficacy ofbook-reading as a site for direct transfer of print-related knowledge has been a source ofintervention-programs (e.g., 'little books' senthome to Spanish-speaking families in California(Goldenberg, Reese & Gallimore, 1992), andFeitelson's classroom library movement (Shimron,1994) in Israel). The presence of refrigeratorletters, posters, paper for making lists, newspapers,and books in the home, and parental efforts todirect children's attention to environmental printhave similarly been assumed to promote childliteracy, through a direct transfer mechanism(Toomey & Sloan, 1994; Goodman, 1984; Harste,Woodward & Burke, 1984).

Transfer explanations account nicely for socialclass differences, particularly in the skills ofkindergarten children. Social class differences inchild performance do not disappear with thesupplementation of parental transfer of printknowledge through interventions like SesameStreet and Head Start. Nowadays, most children,even those from families where the parents havelittle or no education, arrive at kindergarten ableto sing- the alphabet song and to recognizelettersbut the long-term literacy achievement ofchildren from poor families has not improved.

A major criticism of the simple transfer view isthat literacy consists of much more than the printskills that can be transferred during book-reading,attention to ambient print, or collaborations onearly writing tasks. Furthermore, many children

74 INTERGENERATIONAL TRANSFER OF LITERACY

P.4

6 U

Catherine Snow and Patton Tabors

who will go on to be successful readers have, infact, not learned anything about letters or theirshapes, names, or sounds, during their preschoolyears. In Scandinavia, for example, where adultliteracy rates are the highest in the world, parentsare discouraged from teaching their childrenanything about print before they enter school atage 7, suggesting that the powerful effects ofcollaboration go far beyond the transfer of specificbits and pieces of literacy knowledge.

Participation in Literacy Practice

One alternative view of parental effects definesliteracy as social practice, thw emphasizing theparental role in generating a set cf literatepractices in which children can participate.Literacy is seen as a natural reaction to certainsocietal needs, an easy reinvention by children inorder to solve problems they encounter(Goodman, 1986). According to this view, onemajor parental role, then, is to model literacy as apractice useful in solving problems, and toestablish social literacy practices that children canparticipate in as a critical part of their lives, ratherthan simply transmitting or transferring literacy.

Those who emphasize literacy as social practicetend also to believe that literacy is relativelyubiquitous and argue that even very uneducatedfamilies engage regularly in the use of literacy(Leichter, 1974; Taylor & Dorsey-Gaines, 1988),though the specific purposes for which literacy isused may differ from family to family. If literacyis, indeed, a cultural practice more than apsycholinguistic skill, then children for whom thepurposes and rules of school literacy are unfamiliarand obscure might well be expected to failthrough unfamiliarity. It could be argued, though,that the various uses of literacy differ in level aswell as in typethat families who use literacyonly to make lists, recite from the Bible, or fill informs are displaying lower-level, as well as sociallyand culturally distinct, literacy skills.

Some have criticized the social practice theoristsby pointing out that there are many families, evenin the United States, in which literacy practicesarc essentially absent, and the ubiquitous print ofthe la.1-ger environment is invisible to family

members. Purcell-Gates (1995), for example,studied an urban Appalachian family in whichboth parents were illitrate, and practices such asusing street signs to find directions, using foodlabels in shopping, or noting the arrival of mailwere totally unfamiliar. Needless to say, thechildren in this family encountered enormousproblems at school, among which their ignoranceof the possible uses of literacy was as great as theirunfamiliarity with letters and written words.

The social practice view of literacy tends to gohand-in-hand with a view of literacy as relativelyeasily acquired and more or less universala viewin which the mechanism of parental effect isclearly specified, but in which it is very hard toextract an explanation for the fact that somechildren raised in literate homes fail to becomegood readers. Indeed, the only possibleexplanation for failure in the acquisition ofliteracy at school is that the literacy practices achild knows from home are not valued at school(i.e., that there is a home-school mismatch).

Enjoyment and Engagement

Noting enormous individual differences in skills ofchildren from similarly literate backgrounds(differences even among children from the samefamily), other researchers have sought mechanismsof parental effects that can explain variation inoutcomes. One group emphasizes the value ofestablishing positive affect around literacyactivities as a route to the child's development ofactive engagement in literacy tasks. Those whohold this view would argue, for example, that thepositive effects of dyadic book-reading on childliteracy derive primarily from the enjoyment thatis associated with books and the linking of literacywith one-on-one parental attention and affection.Successful parental intervention programsemphasize making book-reading fun and enjoyable(e.g., selecting books of interest to the child andresponding to child interests) (Svensson, 1995).Children, it is assumed, learn from their parentsthat literacy is a source of enjoyment, and theenjoyment they experience motivates them topersist through the often difficult early stages ofliteracy acquisition.



Views ,7egarding the importance of affect inhelping to explain literacy outcomes are supportedby the demonstrated increase in the complexity ofthe reading matter one can comprehend, if thetopic is of interest (Scolldn & Scollon, 1981).Furthermore, reading with engagement andexpectation of enjoyment leads to more time spentreading, i.e., more practice, and thus greaterfluencya major predictor of long-term readingoutcomes.

Of course, as Csikszentmihalyi (1991) points out,many children have sufficient extrinsic motivationto keep them involved in literacy acquisition,since they believe parents' and teachers' preceptsthat literacy is a prerequisite to school success andachievement in later life. But for children whohave less reason to believe in literacy as a route tosuccess (e.g., minority children with adultacquaintances who are unemploYed even whenwell educated), entry into a state of high levelenjoyment while reading`the flow' to useCsikszentmihalyi's termmay be crucial toke4ing children focused on literacy long enoughto make serious gains.

Linguistic and CognitiveMechanisms

Finally, other researchers have argued that theparental role is most crucial in helping children todevelop oral linguistic precursors to literacy, suchas a sophisticated vocabulary and extendeddiscourse skills, rather than literacy skills,themselves, which can be easily acquired at school,if language prerequisites are in place.

Vocabulary has been associated with literacydevelopment across a variety of studies forchildren speaking different languages and learningto read in a variety of instructional settings(Anderson & Frecbody, 1981). One of the waysthat a larger vocabulary might promote reading isobvious in a language like English, where thepronunciation of words is not easily predictablefrom their spelling. In this case, knowing whatthe word might be can help eliminatemispronunciations and misidentifications in mostcases. However, vocabulary also predicts literacyin languages like Spanish, in which the spelled

form is absolutely unambiguous as topronunciation. It seems likely, then, thatvocabulary knowledge in these cases indexes worldknowledgebackground i Aformation that ...hereader can use to help in the task ofcomprehension.

One might expect that children in families whotalk a lot have larger vocabularies. In fact, talkinga lot might not correlate with talking in ways thatintroduce relatively sophisticated lexical items. Inour work studying 75 low-income families withpreschool aged childrenthe Home-School Studyof Language and Literacy Development(HSSLD)we have found that families who usemore sophisticated or rarer vocabulary, i.e.,vocabulary that goes beyond the 8,500 mostcommon words in the English language, are thefamilies whose children score well on the PeabodyPicture Vocabulary Test, a test of receptivevocabulary given when the children are five yearsold (Beals & Tabors, 1995). It seems, then, thatexposure to less common, more sophisticatedvocabulary at home relates directly to children'svocabulary acquisition.

Beyond voc-.bulary, though, performance on taskslike describing pictures cr :ening stories in a waythat is relatively complete, detailed, andcomprehensible relates to reading. Telling storiesand describing pictures have in common thedemand to produce extended discourse. Extendeddiscourse emerges when talk deals withcomplicated events or topics, when a simple storyis embellished by making connections to feelings,related events, causes and implications, when talkmoves beyond facts to explanation, or beyondopinion to argumentation.

One might expect that children learn how to dothis sort of thing from participating inopportunities at home to hear or provide extendedtextse.g., opportunities at dinner to tell abouttheir day or to listen to their parents explainsomething complicated. In fact, results from theHome-School Study confirm that this is the case(Beals, De Temple, & Dickinson, 1994; Snow &Kurland, in press). It seems, then, thatopportunities to engage in extended discourse inthe home build skills in producing extended

7

IN TERGENERATIONAL TRANSFER OF LITERACY


discourse of precisely the type that is needed forhigh levels of literacy.

Implications for FamilyLiteracy Programs

While family literacy programs are generally awareof the importance of teaching the basic skillsrelated to literacy and often promote book readingas a joint literacy activity between parents andchildren, these programs may not include activitieswhich would promote literacy as social practice orfocus on the need for rich oral languageinteractions, both of which are necessary tosupport children's development of the full rangeof literacy skills. Representative suggestions forhow these aspects of literacy could be introducedinto the four components of family literacyprogramsadult education classes, early childhoodeducation classes, parenting classes, and parent-child interaction periods (Darling, 1995)follow.

Adult education classes, whether in the form ofadult literacy or General EducationalDevelopment (GED) preparation cl-ses, couldmake a greater contribution to family literacy ifone of their goals was to develop their students'self-images as "readers" and "writers." Bydeveloping these sorts of self-images, theseprograms can convey a sense of both thefunctional and entertainment value of reading andwriting. Parents with positive attitudes towardsliteracy will buy books for themselves and theirchildren, will model reading and writingbehaviors, and will create home environments inwhich literacy practices are common and viewedas engaging.

Early childhood education classrooms withinfamily literacy programs are ideal settings for theintroduction of rich oral language opportunities.Researchers have found that staff members who sitdown at snack times and mealtimes with childrenin early childhood classrooms, for example, raisethe level of ,onversation by maintaining topiccontinuity and introducing complex syntax andvocabulary (Dickinson, Cote, 8t. Smith, 1994).Dress-up corners create a context forof children to engage in fantasy play, which hasbeen hund to involve much more extended

discourse than whole class activities or seat work.Engaging children in active, analytic talk duringbook reading generates gains not seen if books aresimply read to children, without questions andopportunities for discussion. In general, smallgroup activities generate more participation andactive talk from children than activities in largergroups, and the systematic introduction of novel,challenging content (e.g., a science corner, booksabout faraway places, discussions of field trips)creates a context in which sophisticatedvocabulary and world knowledge can bedeveloped. Family literacy programs whichinclude quality early childhood educationcomponents can capitalize on all of theseopportunities for exposing children to rich orallanguage.

We know too little about the mechanisms forsupporting richer parent-child talk 'duringinteractions. Although Whitehurst (1988) hassucc,:ssfully trained both parents and preschoolteachers in a technique which he calls "dialogicreading," which has been shown to produce gainsin children's language, th-Te has been no researchon how to stimulate more sophisticated adult talkin general contexts, e.g., during mealtimes orwhile riding the bus. Family literacy programswhich incorporate parent-child interaction periodsmight well be an ideal setting for research on thedevelopment and application of techniques forencouraging this type of talk between parents andchildren. Such work is necessary if family literacyprograms are to do the best job possible ofpromoting parent-child conversation duringinteractions.

Interesting conversations are not likely to occur inthe absence of interesting topics. Research bySnow and her colleagues (1991) and by Anderson,Wilson, and Fielding (1988) demonstrates thatparents who are engaged in a wider variety ofactivities (e.g., political action, social engagements,work outside the home, etc.) have children whoare better readers. This relationship is presumedlymediated by the more interesting conversationssuch parents can engage in with their children.Parenting classes within family literacy programscould well focus on the value of parentalparticipation in community, church and school-related activities as a source of varied


"1 t)o.


conversational topics, during which newvocabulary and more complex ideas might well beintroduced into the home.

Conclusion

We have seen evidence that families supportliteracy development via direct transfer ofknowledge about print, by engaging their childrenin literate practices, by ensuring that literacyactivities are both fun and meaningful, bymodelling the uses of literacy in the home, and byproviding opportunities for children to developthe language skills that will be prerequisite tohigher level literacy functioning. Clearly, all thesemechanisms might well be at work. Preciselybecause literacy is a complex capacity that changesas children grow, and that has prerequisites inseveral different domains of knowledge, thesources of familial support for literacydevelopment are likely to be multiple and varied.

The most widely cited familial supports (transferof knowledge about print and participation in theculture of literacy) may be of particularimportance for children just enteringliteracythese are the familial behaviors thatdistinguish successful versus unsuccessfulkindergarteners and first-graders. Family-inducedmotivation to pursue literacy and family-generatedlanguage abilities, on the other hand, may exerttheir influence throughout the elementary schoolyears. Reading tasks change character mostnotably in the middle of elementary school, whenchildren are first expected to read complex,sophisticated texts and to learn new materialthrough reading; at this point, the motivation topersist and oral familiarity with the types oflanguage used in text may be crucial prerequisitesto success.

In the process of seeking the mechanisms forsocial support of literacy development, researchershave, in effect, redefined literacy, itself, as a farmore complex process than was conceived in thepast. Furthermore, the views of the ways inwhich the fan.ily might play a role in literacydevelopment also have been expanded anddiversified. The challenge facing us as we work toimprove family literacy programs, then, is to

analyze the family's role so as to understand howto help families provide a full range of aids totheir children's literacy development.

References

Alexander, K. & Entwistle, D. (19e8).Achievement in the first two years ofschool: Patterns and processes.Monographs of the Society for Research inChild Development, 218, 53(2).

Anderson, R. & Freebody, P. (1981). Vocabularyknowledge. In J.T. Guthrie (Ed.),Comprehension and teaching: Researchreviews, 77-117. Newark, DE:International Reading Association.

Anderson, R., Wilson, P. & Fielding, L. (1988).Growth in reading and how childrenspend their time outside of school.Reading Research Quarterly, 23, 285-303.

Beds, D. & Tabors, P. (1995). Arboretum,bureaucratic, and carbohydrates:Preschoolers' exposure to rare vocabularyat home. First Language, 5, 57-76.

Beals, D., De Temple, J. & Dickinson, D. (1994).Talking and listening that support earlyliteracy development of children fromlow-income families. In D. Dickinson(Ed.), Bridges to literacy: Children,families, and schools, 19-42. Cambridge,MA: Blackwell.

Burgess, J. (1982). The effects of a trainingprogram for parents of preschoolers onthe children's school readiness. ReadingImprovement, 19, 313-18.

Clay, M. (1979). Reading: The patteining ofcomplex behavior. Portsmouth, NH:Heinemann.

Coleman, J., Campbell, E., Hobson, C.,McPartland, J., Mood, A., Weinfeld, F. &York, R. (1966). Equality of educationalopportunity. Washington, DC: U.S.Office of Education, National Center forEducational Statistics.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1991). Litera .y andintrinsic motivation. In S. Graubard(Ed.), Literacy: An Overview By FourteenExperts, 115-40. New York: TheNoonday Press.


S 0


Darling, S. (1995). Personal communication,Washington, DC, September 8.

Dickinson, D., Cote, L. & Smith, M. (1994).Learning vocabulary in preschool: Socialand discourse contexts affectingvocabulary growth. In C. Daiute (Ed.),The development of literacy through socialinteraction. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Feitelson, D., Bracha, K. & Goldstein, Z. (1986).Effects of listening series stories on firstgraders' comprehension and use oflanguage. Research in the Training ofEnglish, 20, 339-50.

Goldenberg, C. Reese, L., & Gallimore, R. (1992).Effects of literacy materials from schoolon Latino children's home experiencesand early reacLng achievement. AmericanJournal of Education, 100, 497-536.

Goodman, Y. (1984). The development of initialliteracy. In H. Goelman, A. Oberg & F.Smith (Eds.), Awakening to literacy.Exeter, NH: Heinemann.

Goodman, Y. (1986). Children coming to knowliteracy. In W. Teale & E. Sulzby (Eds.),Emergent literacy: Writing and reading, 1-140. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Harste, J., Woodward, V. & Burke, C. (1984).Language stories and literacy lessons.Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Leichter, H. (1974). Some perspectives on thefamily as educator. Teachers CollegeRecord, 76, 198-225.

National Assessment of Educational Progress.(1981). Reading, thinking, writing: Areport on the 1979-1980 assessment.Denver, CO: NAEP.

National Assessment .of Educational Progress.(1985). The reading report card: Progresstoward excellence in our schools.Princeton, NJ: Educational TestingService.

Purcell-Gates, V. (1988). Lexical andsyntactic knowledge of writnarrative held by well-read-tokindergarteners and secondgraders. Research in the Teachingof English, 22, 128-60.

Purcell-Gates, V. (1995). Other people's words.Cambridge, MA: Harvard UniversityPress.

Scollon, R. & Scollon, S. (1981). Narrative,literacy, and face in interethniccommunication. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Shimron, J. (1994). The making of readers: Thework of Professor Dina Feitelson. In D.Dickinson (Ed.), Bridges to literacy:Children, families, and schools, 80-102.Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

Snow, C. (1993). Families as social context forliteracy development. In C. Daiute (Ed.),The development of literacy through 'socialinteraction, 11-24. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Snow, C., Barnes, W., Chandler, J., Goodman, I.& Hemphill, L. (1991). Unfulfilledexpectations: Home and school influenceson literacy. Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press.

Snow, C. & Kuriand, B. (in press). Sticking to thepoint: Talk about magnets as apreparation for literacy. In D. Hicks(Ed.), Child discourse and social learning:An interdisciplinary perspective. NewYork: Cambridge University Press.

Svensson, A.K. (1994). Helping parents helptheir children: Early language stimulationin the child's home. In D. Lancy (Ed.),Children's emergent literacy: From researchand practice, 79-92. Westport, CT:Praeger.

Taylor, D. & Dorsey-Gaines, C. (1988). 'Growingup literate: Learning from inner-cityfamilies. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Toomey, D. & Sloane, J. (1994). Fosteringchildren's literacy development throughparent involvement: A five-year program.In D. Dickinson (Ed.), Bridges to literacy:Children, families, and schools, 129-49.Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

Whitehurst, G., Galco, F., Lonigan, C., Fischel, J.,et al. (1988). Accelerating languagedevelopment through picture bookreading. Developmental Psychology, 24(4),552-59.


81


EndnoteSome of the material in this paper has appearedpreviously in Snow et al., 1991, Unfulfilledexpectations, Chapter 1, and Snow, 1993, "Familiesas social context for literacy development," in C.Daiute (Ed.), The development of literacy throughsoc;al interaction, pp. 11-24.


8 "

informing Approaches to Serving Families in FamilyLiteracy Programs: Lesions From Other Family

Intervention Programs

Robert St. Pierre and Jean LayzerAbt Associates, Inc.

The task of this paper is to explore how lessonsfrom the research on family intervention programscan be used to improve family literacy programs.Research in the following areas is discussed:

childhood education;

adult education and training;

parenting education; and

support services.

The paper then offers suggestions foi- improvingfamily literacy programs.

There is substanial evidence thateffects on children, and effects on

parents are best achieved by servicesaimed directly at parents. There isonly limited evidence that we canachieve effects on children through

earlier effects on parents.

Early Childhood Education

Countless studies of (:arly childhood programshave been conducted over the past three decades.Recent meta-analytic reviews by Barnett (1995)and by Wasik and Karweit (1994), as well asearlier meta-analyses by Mc Key, et al. (1985),conclude that high-quality, intensive, center-basedearly childhood programs can make an importantdifference in the lives of young children. Morespecifically:

Preschool progiams produce gains ofbetween 4 and 11 IQ points but these gainsdecline over time; effects on achievementare more persistent (Barnett, 1995);

. Preschool programs produce large effects ongrade retention and special educationplacement (Barnett, 1995); and

Early intervention programs help childrenget off to a good start; programs withcontinued follow-up have long-term benefitsfor children; and highly intensiveinterventions (such as the Infant Health andDevelopment Program (IHDP, 1990)) aremore effective than less intensive ones(Wasik & Karweit, 1994).

There is little evidence from these reviews thatpreschool programs have large, direct effects uponparents or that early parent effects mediate latereffects on children. This makes serk e since fewearly childhood education programs provideintensive services for parents. Further, Karweit'sreview (1994) concluded that while preschoolprograms help, preschool programs alone are notenough to ameliorate the effects of poverty.

Adult Education and JobTraining

There are two distinct and relevant literatures inthis area: (1) adult education/literacy programssuch as federally funded adult basic education,adult secondary education, and English as a secondlanguage programs, and (2) job training andwelfare-to-work programs.

LESSONS FROM OTHER FAMILY INTERVENTION PROGRAMS 81

Robert St. Pierre and Jean Layzer

Adult Education Programs

Most reviews of adult basic education (ABE)programs have concluded that education andtraining programs have not been able to greatlyincrease adults' literacy skills or job opportunities(Dana, 1992; Duffy, 1992; Mikulecky, 1992).Adult basic and secondary education programshave high dropout rates and low levels ofintensity, making it difficult to see how they canbe expected to lead to positive effects (Moore &Stavrianos, 1994). Even when these programs dohave significant effects on attainment of a GeneralEducational Development (GED) diploma, theliterature seems to indicate that having a GEDcredential does not relate positively to enhancedskill levels, and is not the economic equivalent ofa high school diploma (Murnane ec Willett, 1993;Cameron & Heckman, 1993). Recent nationalstudies provide some evidence about potentiallyeffective adult education practices:

Adults are more likely to be motivated andto achieve more when the curriculumcontent is well suited to their interests andneeds (Webb, et al., 1993).

Adults in ABE programs with highlyindividualized curricula do better than thoseenrolled in programs that are lessindividualized and more structured (Young,et al., 1994).

Given the limited amount of time adultsspend in class and the limited amount ofhomework done, "massed practice" (i.e.,devote more concentrated time to fewerskill areas) may be most effective.

Adult literacy programs lag far behind inusing newer technologies for instruction,even though several major reports,including a recent Office of TechnologyAssessment repoct (OTA, 1993) and aNational Center on Adult Literacytechnology survey (Harvey-Morgan, et al.,1995), have highlighted the reed for suchassistance.

Important predictors of program persistenceare the presence and use of client supportservices (e.g., transportation), placement inday rather than evening clases, programswith high levels of service integration, andmembership in teacher-ba.sed classroomsrather than largely independent study, andclass size of 10 or greater (Young, et al.,1994).

Job Training and Welfare-to-WorkPrograms

For the past 30 years the federal government hastargeted assistzAce to the welfare population sothat they can find work and end their dependencyon welfare. Fischer and Cordray (1995) cite asexamples President Bill Clinton's 1994 Work andResponsibility Act, the JOBS program of theFamily Support Act of 1988, OBRA and TEFRAin 1981 and 1982, Jimmy Carter's Program forBetter Jobs and Income in 1977, Richard Nixon'sFamily Assistance Plan in 1969, the WorkExperience and Training Projects in 1964, and theCommunity Work and Training Program in 1962.Three basic approaches have been used and studiedthrough these and other efforts: (1) the "basiceducation" approach in which the focus is onprovision of education and training w ti..: hopeof building sufficient skills in order that theparticipant can qualify for and find employment;(2) the "job search" approach which focusesprimarily on finding employment; ;>i.d (3)vocational training and on-the-job training(Gueron & Pauly, 1991).

The most recent and most comprehensive analysisof the effects of job training and welfare-to-workprograms (Fischer & Cordray, 1995) reviewed thefindings from 65 major evaluations and concludedthat job training and search programs have smallbut real effects on employment, AFDC receipt,and income. The impacts are about a 3 to 5percentage point difference in employment rate(33 percent in the treatment group vs. 30 percentin the control group) and in AFDC rate (73percent vs. 71 percent), about a 13 percent-19percent increase in earnings ($50-$135 per quarter)and a 3 percent to 9 percent decrease in AFDCgrants ($50 to $100 per quarter). In addition to

82 LESSONS FROM OTHER FAMILY INTERVENTION PROGRAMS

64


these overall findings, the reviewers concludedthat:

Job search interventions had early positiveimpacts on employment and AFDC whilebasic education programs had eady negativeeffects followed by later positive effects.Vocational training and on-the-job-trainingprograms had negative effects.

Impacts are larger for worse-off clients (interms of education and income), and it isimportant to match client needs toappropriate services (i.e , basic education,job search, or vocational training).

Effective program elements include: (1)

extensive job development c'forts and anemphasis on employment, (2i equal use ofjob search and basic education approaches,(3) an emphasis on participation and awillingness to use sanctions to enforceparticipation, and (4) availability of childcare.

Perhaps significant for those interested inimproving family literacy programs, the reviewersnoted that the findings on small effects are notsurprising, especially since job tr,ining andwelfare-to-work interventions addr,ss only a fewof the many problems faced by the welfarepopulation.

Parenting Education

Parenting education is an integral component ofmost family intervention programs. Theunderlying assumptions are that increasedknowledge will result in positive changes inparental attitudes toward and behavior withchildren, and that those changes, in turn, willimprove outcomes for children. Of course, theseare largely untested assumptions. While there issome evidence that parenting education canproduce positive changes in parental attitudes andbehavior, there is little evidence of the hoped-forlink between changes in parents' attitudes and theactual development of their children. In addition,our understanding of what kinds of parenteducation are most effective is clouded by the

variety of approaches and the confounding effectsof differences in target populations, treatmentintensity, and the background and training ofproviders as well as the additive effects of otherprogram components that may accompanyparenting education.

Several rigorously designed studies have foundshort-term positive effects of parenting educationon maternal knowledge, attitudes, and behavior(Johnson & Walker, 1991; Travers, et al., 1982;Andrews et al., 1982; St. Pierre, et al., 1995;Quint, et al., 1994), although there is evidencefrom some other studies that parenting educationis less effective with teen mothers (Pfannenstiel &Seltzer, 1989). A review of 13 randomized trialsof home visiting programs for low-income familieswith infants, which included parenting educationas a major component, found mixed impacts onparental attitudes and behaviors (Olds & Kitzman,1993). Although six of the studies showed smallpositive program effects on children's cognitive orsocial-emotional development, in only two ofthem was this change associated with parentalchange. The authors also looked at home visitinginterventions for families at risk for child abuse orneglect and found no impact on parental behavioroverall; however, in two of the six interventionsthere were positive changes in the caregivingbehavior of unmarried teen mother..

Two experimental studies compared theeffectiveness of hon,e-based and center-basedparent education (Wasik, et al., 1990; Field, et al.,1982). Both revealed the effects on parentbehavior and child development for center-basedmodels only. Since the cen,er-based programsincluded an early childhood education component,whic1-. the parents observed, it is likely that theeffects reported are attributable to this component,rather than to the parent education componentalone. Barnett (1995) used data from 33 earlychiidhood intervention programs to demonstratethat persistent effects on children's schoolperformance are not attributable to programeffects on parents, but rather to early, directeffects on children, themselves.

These studies suggest that while it is poscible touse parenting education to incrase maternalknowledge, to change attitudes, and possibly to



change their behavior with children, parentingeducation will not, by itself, result in improvedchild outcomes. This may be because the effectsare not large enough or because change in parentsoccurs too slowly to affect early child outcomes.In addition, there is only limited research supportfor using paraprofessionals to deliver parenteducation through home visits, an increasinglypopular intervention, if the ultimate outcome isimproved child outcomes. It may be thatprofessionals are more likely to interact directlywith the children in the course of the home visit,in addition to working with the mother,providing a role model for interaction as well asdirect experience for the child. David Olds iscurrently conducting an experimental test of therelative effectiveness of professional andparaprofessional home vlsitors.

Support Services

Support services (e.g., transportation, meals, childcare, counseling, and many others) play a role inmany types of family intervention programs. Therationale is that while such supports may or maynot have a ditect effect on fam ilies, they canremove barriers to participation in the coreprogrammatic services. To our knowledge therehas been no research sp,..:ifically on theeffectiveness of support services in enhancingparticipation in more formal program services.Still, anecdotal evidence suggests their importancein different arenas:

Adult education: A recent nationalevaluation found a strong relationshipbetween client use of support services andhours of instruction received by thoseJients (Young, et al., 1994).

Job training and welfare reform: A recentmeta-analysis cited barriers to work, such aslack of transportation and child care, as areason for the generally smal.: effects ofwelfare-to-work programs (Fischer &Cordray, 1995).

Family literacy: The national Even Startevaluation concluded that over 80 percentof Even Start projects provided a range of

support services that helped adults andchildren engage in core service activities (St.Pierre, et al., 1995).

Improving Family LiteracyPrograms

Based on the evidence presented above, we offersome recommendations for improving familyliteracy programs.

Aim to Achieve Large Effects

There is no evidence that small, short-term effectson children or adults lead to large, long-termimFr.ovements in life chances. On the other hand,some programs which produce large effects onchildren's preschool performance also haveproduced large effects later in life. Family literacyprograms ought to aim to achieve large effectsboth with children and adults. This stance impliesthat it is not worth spending money on familyliteracy programs unless we have reasonableexpectations that they will have large effects.

High-Quality, High-IntensityServices Are Important

There is no evidence that low-quality services leadto large effects. Rather, it is the high-quality,high-intensity programs (e.g., the Perry PreschoolProgram and the Infant Health and DevelopmentProgram [IHDPD which have produced largeeffects. A high intensity program such as theIHDP uses a carefully specified curriculum toprovide a full-week, full-year program for childrenfrom 1 to 3 years of age. It has short-termcognitive effects on children which are on theorder of f.ive to ten times as large as tbe effects oflow-intensity programs. Furher, Wasik andKarweit (1994) concluded that the nrsst effectiveearly childhood inter.entions included intensivechild and parent services that involved a center-based program for children and meetings withparents on a weekly or se-ni-weekly basis fcr atleast a year. Low,intensity parenting componentsdid not add much, if anything, to the effectivenessof a hih-intensity child component.


SG


Many family literacy programs rely on existingiocal service providers for early childhoodeducation or adult education. This approach isefficient because it avoids duplication of services,but it can only be effective if those services are ofa sufficient quaky and intensity to produce largeeffects. Well-run, high 'quality Head Startprograms ought to be sufficient for earlychildhood education, but it is much more difficultto find high-quality, high-intensity adult educationprograms. It often may not be possible to create ahigh-quality, high-intensity family literacyprogram from locally existing services.

Do Not Rely on ParentingEducatio,1 to Preduce ChildEffects

There is substantial evidence that effects oncr iren are best achieved by services aimeddir.ctly at children, and effects on parents are bestachieved by services aimed directly at parents.There is only limited evidence that we can achieveeffects on children through earlier effects onparents. Thus, it is important for a family literacyprogram to provide early childhood educationservices directly for the benefit of children, andnot to ass,ime that it is just as good to provideparenting services to mothers who will then act asenhanced intervenors in their children's lives.Ramey, et al. (1995) support this point when theynote that even programs with a strong parentingcomponent can require years to produce effects.Under this scenario infants lose out, since theydevelop for some years without the benefit ofhigh-quality parenting

Individualize Services

Program designs rarely reflect the fact that adultsvary in their capacitie, and in their deficits.Adults enter adult education and parentingprograms with different levels of motivation,knowledge, and skills, as well as with disparatelearning styles. Why should they be expected tcprogress to the same satisfactory point whenexposed for the same amount of time to a singlecurriculum delivered in a uniform fashion? Whilemany families may benefit from home visits, there

is bound to be variation in the needs of thosefamilies such that some need occasional visits by aparaprofessional while others need more frequentvisits by a highly trained worker with a teachingstyle and curriculum tailored to their needs.Progran. staff often make this point, but thedesign and costs of local programs often do notallow much flexibility. At the same time there arefamilies w ho have little need of one of theprogram components. Even among low-incomefamilies, there are intuitively sensitive andcompetent parents. Must they participate inparenting education as a condition of otherassistance?

Use New Technologies

Sometimes what is observed in programs is lesstelling than what is not observed. In particular,there is little use of new technology in programsfor parents. For example, videotaping has beenused effectively in one or two parent educationprograms, but is not widely used. A greater use ofcomputers and new educational software wouldmake possible greater individualization in adulteducation and family literacy programs.

Combine and Co-Locate RelatedProgram Components

There is evidence suggesting that better effects areachieved when programs for parents and programsfor children are located at a single site. We needto take seriously the multiple effects of such astmegy; children see their parents engaged inlearning activities and acting as positive rolemodels, and parents observe both their chilal en'si2arning activities and also see caregivers andteachers modelling developmentally-appropriatebehavior. At the same time, parents and childreneach benefit directly from the programcomponents directed at them.

Conclusions

To conclude, intensive early childhood proramscan hzve positive effects on children; iAulteducation and job training programs Producepositive effects on GED attainment, but not on


67


literacy skills, and only small effects on income oremployment; and although parenting programscan chaqge parenting skills, there is little researchevidence to show that these improved parentingskills have any impact on children. It is suggestedthat family literacy programs pay attention to thefollowing:

aim to achieve large effects by deliveringhigh-quality intensive services;

question the advisability of relying on localservice providers which may not be able todeliver high quality services; and

do not rely on parenting education toproduce child effects.

These three suggestions, taken together, should beconsidered and discussed in the, process ofproviding the best program service possible.

References

Andrews, S.R., Blumenthal, J.B., Johnson, D.L.,Kahn, A.J., Ferguson, C.J., Lasater, T.M.,Malone, P.E. & Wallace, D.B. (1982). Theskills of mothe:ing: A study of parent childdevelopment centers. Monographs of the Societyfor Research in Child Development., 47, 6, SerialNo. 198.

Barnett, W.S. (in press). Long-term effects ofearly childhood care and education ondisadvantaged children's cognitive developmentand school success. In S. Boocock & W.S.Barnett (Eds.), Early Childhood Care andEducation for Disadvantaged Children: Long-Term Effects. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Cameron, S. & J. Heckman (1993).Nonequivalence of high school equivalents.The Journal of Labor Econorrics, Vol. 11: 1-47.

Datta, L.J. (1992). Youth interventions: Literacy.In T.G. Sticht, M.J. Beeler & B.A. McDonald(Eds.), The Intergenerational Transfer ofCognitive Skills, Volume 1: Programs, Policy,and Research Issues. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Duffy, T.M. (1992). What makes a difference ininstruction? In T.G. Sticht, M.J. Beeler &B.A. McDonald (Eds.), The IntergenerationalTransfer of Cognitive Skills, Volume I:

Programs, Policy, and Research Issues.Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Field, T.M., Widmayer, S.M., Stringer, S. &Ignatoff, E. (1982). Teenage, lower-class, blackmothers and their preterm infants: Anintervention and developmental follow-up.Child Development, 51 426-36.

Fischer, R.L. e> Cordray, D.S. (1995). Jobtraining am. welfare reform: A policy-drivensynthesis. New York: Russell SageFoundation.

Gueron, J. M. & Pauly, E. (1991). From welfareto work. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Harvey-Morgan, J., Hopey, C. & Rethineyer, R.(1995). Computers, technology, and adultliteracy: Results of a national survey oncomputer technology use in adult literacyprograms. Philadelphia, PA: University ofPennsylvania, National Center on AdultLiteracy.

Karweit, N.L. (1994). Can preschool aloneprevent early learning failure? In R.E. Slavin,N.L. Karweit & B.A. Wasik (Eds.), PreventingEarly School Failure: Research, Policy, andPractice. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Infant Health and Development Program (June13, 1990). Enhancing the outcomes of low-birthweight, premature infants. Journal of theAmerican Medical Association, Vol. 263, no. 22,3035-3042.

Johnson, D. & Walker, T. (1991). Final report ofan evaluation of the Avance parent educationand family support program. Report submittedto the Carnegie Corporation. San Antonio,TX: Avance.

McKey, R.H., Condelli, L., Granson, H., Barrett,B., McConkey, C. & Plantz, M. (1985). Theimpact of Head Start on children, families, andcommunities. Washington, DC: CSR, Inc.

Mikulecky, L. (1992). National adult literacy andlifelong learning goals. National Center onAdult Literacy Newsletter. Philadelphia:National Center on Adult Literacy.

Moore, M. & Stavrianos, M. (1994). Adulteducation reauthorization: Background.Washington, DC: Mathematica PolicyResearch.

Murnane, R. & Willett, J. (1993). Do high schooldropouts benefit from obtaining a GED?Using multi-level modeling to examinelongitudinal evidence from the NLSY.


8


Unpublished manuscript. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Graduate School of Education.Olds, D.L., & Kitzman, H. (1993). Review of

research on home visiting for pregaant womenand parents of young children. In The Futureof Children: Home Visiting, Winter, 3, 3:53-92.Center for the Future of Children: The Davidand Lucile Packard Foundation.

Office of Technology Assessment (1993). Adultliteracy and new technologies: Tools for alifetime (OTA-SET-550). Washington, DC:U.S. Government Printing Office.

Pfannenstiel, S. & Seltzer, D. (1989). New parentsas teachers: Evaluation of an early parenteducation program. Early Childhood ResearchQuarterly, 4, 1-18.

Quint, J.C., Polit, D.F., Bos, H. & Cave, G.(1994). New Chance: Interim findings on acomprehensive program for disadvantaged youngmothers and their children. New York:Manpower Demonstration ResearchCorporation.

Ramey, C.T., Ramey, S.L., Gaines, K.R. & Blair,C. (1995). Two-generation early interventionprograms: A child development perspective.In S. Smith (Ed.), Two-generation programs forfamilies in poverty: A new intervention strategy.Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex.

St. Pierre, R., Swartz, J., Gamse, B., Murray, S. &Deck, D. (1995). National evaluation of theEven Start Family Literacy Program: Finalreport. Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates Inc.

Travers, J. Nauta, M. & Irwin, N. (1982). Theeffects of a social program: Final report of theChild and Family Resource Program 's Infant-Toddle. Component. Cambridge, MA: AbtAssociates Inc.

Wasik, B., Ramey, C., Bryant, D. & Sparling, J.(1990) A longitudinal study of two earlyintervention strategies: Project CARE. ChildDevelopment. 61, 1682-96.

Wasik, B.A. & Karweit, N.L. (1994). Off to agood start: Effecu of birth to threeinterventions on early schcol success. In R.E.Slavin, N.L. Karweit, and B.A. Wasik (Eds)Preventing Early School Failure: Research,Policy, and Practice. Boston, MA: Allyn andBacon.

Webb, L., Sherman, J. & Koloski, J. (1993). Areview of research on effective practices inaclillt education programs. In J. Sherman,Identib,ing Effective Adult Education Programsand Practices: Expert Papers and Overview ofReports. Washington, D.C. Pelavin Associates,Inc.

Young, M., Morgan, M., Fitzgerald, N. &Fleischman, H. (1994). National Evaluation ofAdult Education Programs: Final Report.Arlington, VA: Development Associates Inc.


Meeting the Needs of Familiesin Family Literacy Programs

Dorothy StricklandRutgers University

rofessional educators have long recognized andvalued the role of the family in education.However, interest in family litertcy as a conceptto be studied and analyzed is actually rooted inthe work of anthropologists and sociologists whohave long studied the family as a general concept(Leichter, 1974). As a discipline, though, familyliteracy is in its infancy and lacks a widely agreed-upon definition. Ir.- its broadest sense, familyliteracy encompasses both the research and theimplementation of programs involving parents,children, and extended family members and theways in which they support and use literacy intheir homes and in their communities.

The lack of a clearly stated definition of familyliteracy has not diminished interest in exploring itas a means of promoting literacy development inthe home, the school, and the workplace. Indeed,increased awareness of the important role of the"family as educator" has sparked a number offederal, state, and local initiatives that provideresearch on family literacy and family literacysupport programs.

This paper focuses on program delivery andcollaboration of family literacy programs. It willexplore how family literacy programs work andthe factors that influence their implementation.

Perhaps the best "test" to determine howwell program developers link design and

development to the perceived needs ofparticipants is by an examination of theadjustments made to programs as thoseneeds are listened tc and responded to

over a period of time.

Specifically, it attempts to answer the followingquestions:

How are the social and educational needs offamilies in a community perceived andidentified?

How are the design and development offamily literacy programs related to suchneeds?

Before discussing the questions, themselves, it isnecessary to provide a background on some of theassumptions and controversies regarding the topic.This will provide a context and a rationale fordetermining why these questions are so important.

Family Literacy: SomeWidely Held Assumptions

Whether implicitly or explicitly stated, certainperceptions about families and the development offamily literacy seem to pervade discussions aboutprograms. Such beliefs have so far played aninfluential role in the planning andimplementation of family literacy programs, asperceptions serve to inform the decisions madeabout what is "good" or "bad" for families.

More fundamentally, widely held assumptionsprovide an added impetus for the family literacymovement, itself. It is important to note, also,that, as used here, the term family is broadlydefined to include a range of individuals who livetogether and function in a more or lesstraditionally farn'tial way; the term parent refers toanyone fulfilling the responsibilities usuallyassociated with the parent of a child or childrenover a sustained period of time. The following aresome of these key assumptions:

MEETING THE NEEDS OF FAMILIES 89

Dorothy Strickland

Most families seek to improve the generalconditions of their lives by:

seeking economic self-sufficiency andgeneral well-being;

setting up goals of self-sufficiency andgeneral well-being as desirable forindividual families and for the commongood of the community; and

realizing that some families are at greaterrisk than others of not attaining theirgoals for improvement.

A related assumption is that society(speciically government) has a role insupporting family goals for a better life.

Most families make special efforts toimprove the lives of their children,especially in terms of:

wanting what is best for their children;

functioning as the first and mostimportant educators of their children;

understanding and acting upon their rolein building a supportive learningenvironment for their children, thusbenefiting the entire family;

taking advantage of opportunities forself-improvement and learning, again,benefiting the entire family; and

seeking help in creating a positivelearning environment at home.

Literacy plays a major role in theachievement of family goals, especially interms of the following realities:

-- viewing attainment and improvement ofliteracy positively in our society;

-- families' differing in their perceptions ofhow literacy is attained and improved;

socio-cultural factors having a stronginfluence on how families pursue theirliteracy goals; and

acknowledging that all families have aculture of learning that is worthy anduseful in the attainment of their ownliteracy goals.

(Partly based on a list generated at the ResearchDesign Symposium on Family Literacy, September7-8, 1995, Office of Educational Research andImprovement, Washington, D.C.)

Family Literacy: Who IsDoing What for Whom andWhy?

Althcugh the assumptions listed above can beapplied to all families, they take on a sense ofurgency when applied to those families consideredmost in nee: Thus, virtually all of the programswithin the realm of family literacy have beentargeted toward low-income populations in whichliteracy achievement has consistently laggedbehind that of their mainstream counterparts. Atthe federal level, family literacy programs are tiedto The Adult Education Act (Titles II and III),The Library and Construction Act (Titles I andVI), The Head Start Act, The Family Support Actof 1988 (Title IV-A), and several programs in theElementary and Secondary Education Act,including Chapter 1; Even Start; Title VIIBilir gual Education; and Title Ill, Part B, theFamily School Partnership Program. Similarly, atthe state and local levels almost all programs aretargeted toward those families for whom the needis perceived to be the greatest. The perception ofneed has been verified by all of the usualdeterminants, including low income, highunemployment, and chronic school failure. Inmuch of the legislation, guidelines for the use ofsuch funds wer established on the basis of tliesekinds of demographics.

The three issues of greatest concern to theNational Center for Family Literac y upon itsinception in 1989 continue to be typical of mostfamily literacy programs today:

90 MEETING THE NEEDS OF FAMILIES

9

Dorothy Strickland

low level of literacy skills possessed by alarge percentage of our adult population;

growing number of children living inimpoverished, disadvancaged homes andfailing in school; and

rapid increase in the level of literacyrequired for employment.

It is not surprising that most of those involved infamily literacy programs were delighted with thenew efforts toward supporting families in thisway. However, as time went on, others began toworry about the growing and widespreadimpression that the concept of family literacyreally implied family illiteracy and that it was onlyapplicable to low socio-economic and minoritygroups.

Although commending the excellentaccomplishments of many family literacyprograms, some stakeholders expressed concernabout what they considered to be an emerging"deficit model" of family literacy. This modelappeared to be designed primarily to fix families orto "make them over" in some predetermined waywith seemingly little investigation of the perceivedneeds of the families involved or regard for thesocio-cultural community of which the familieswere a part. In the report of New Jersey'sCouncil on Adult Education and Literacy (1993),Fiorio and Strickland acknowledged the need toconcentrate limited resources on families ingreatest need, but added:

The Council differs with the National Center's viewof Family Literacy policy by concluding that theencouragement and pre.:,.,ia of family literacymust go brvond those families who are perceived asat risk. T )uncil strongly believes that familyliteracy pr -ms are not required by disadvantagedJamiiie . .e, but are important for all families (p.15).

Other criticisms of family literacy programs gowell beyond the need for broadening the audienceand application, to concerns about the nature ofsome intervention programs. Family literacyprogtams that train parents how to interact withtheir children (to elicit certain types of literacy

outcomes) have been criticized as ignoring thenaturally occurring literacy events that exist invirtually all householdsas well as theopportunities to make use of what families bringto the learning situation as potential buildingblocks 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 richcontexts for literacy development and that theysupport family literacy with effort andimagination" (p. 550). Also, Paratore andHarrison (1995) remind us that literate practicesare present in all families, but that these practicesare sometimes incongruent with the uses ofliteracy in schools" (p. 516).

It should be pointed out that at least oneresearcher (Edwards, 1995) has responded to thecriticism of highly structured parent trainingprograms by pointing out that ". . . we only havethe researchers' fears, doubts, and reservations."Edwards suggests that parent voices, perceptions,and evaluations of the programs be highlighted,rather than downplayed (p. 562). Interestinglyenough, both Edwards and those who speak outagainst parent-training programs would argue thatthe voices of parents and their perceptions bemade more visible in family literacy programsthat purport to stand for wh2r parents need andwant.

Not surprisingly, as a new area of research andprogrammatic effort, family literacy is in theprocess of redefining itself. This process is bothhealthy and natural and should not be construedas a refutation of existing practice. Rather, itshould be viewed as an opportunity to engage inthe thoughtful reflection and examination neededto improve and extend existing efforts and tomake the best use of available resources. Nodoubt this process will continue in the comingyears as programs mature and come underscrutiny.

There also is no doubt that the questions relatedto program delivery and collaboration explored inthis paper will be central to any future discourse.


9 2

Dorothy Strickland

The following section, therefore, outlinesdescriptions of some of the most widely knownfamily literacy programs. This is followed by adiscussion of how the social and educational needsof families in a community are perceived andidentified, and how those needs are related toprogram design and development.

Family Literacy Programs: ALook at the Perception ofNeeds

The following sources were used to examine theperception of needs in family literacy programs:Family Literacy in Action (Nickse, 1989); TheReading Teacher (1989); and The Journal of Reading(April, 1995). Both of the journals used publishedtheme issues devoted to the topic of familyliteracy. The Reading Teacher is geared toelementary school teachers and reading specialists;The Journal of Reading is geared to middle andsecondary school educators and tnose involved inadult literacy programs. Both journals arepublished by the International ReadingAssociation.

Below, also, are brief descriptions of all of theprograms in Family Literacy in Action, includinginformation about how the programs wereinitiaced and how needs were identified andaddressed. In the interest of space, summaries ofonly two journal articles are included, bothrepresentative of those articles in both journalsthat actually describe family literacy programs.The profiles provided are based entirely on theinformation resented in the reviews. In eachcase, it is assumed that the programs were selectedfor inclusion in these publications because theywere representative, if not exemplary, in nature.

Programs Listed in FamilyLiteracy in Action

Marin County Library Family Literacy ProgramBrief Description: home based. Involves non-English-speaking adults and ,.heir families in avariety of home- and school-basedintergenerational activities Identification of needs:

initiated by volunteer tutor, who noticed thatmany farm workers' children were falling behindchildren of Anglo background. Parents recruitedthrough basic-English tutors and by teachers inelementary schools. Implementation: provides at-home tutoring and bookmobile services. Extendsservices to evening/amne. y/ citizenship classes;attempts to link home with school services.

Beginning with BooksBrief Description: library based. Includes a varietyof early intervention literacy programs aimed atpromoting reading as a part of everyday familylife. Identification of needs: parents participating inadult literacy program were surveyed to determinewhy they sought help with literacy. Interest inhelping their children with literacy and the needfor child care during their own literacyimprovement sessions were revealed.Implementation: the Read Together Program wasdesigned to provide literacy activities for childrenwhile their parents receive literacy services.Transportation is provided as well as a range oflibrary services to parent and child.

Parent Readers ProgramBrief Description: higher education based. Anintergenerational literacy program for parentsenrolled in adult basic education (remolal reading)classes on a college campus. Identification ofneeds: instructors' observations regarding studentapathy about their own learning, but expressingapparent deep concern for the learning of theirchildren. Implementation: workshops are held forstudents in which they are introduced tochildren's literature and strategies for sharing withtheir children.

Motheread, Inc.Brief Description: primarily prison based.Intergenerational literacy project for incarceratedwomen. Identification of needs: developed inresponse to "low literate adults wanting toimprove their literacy skills in order to read totheir children " Implementation: parents attendclasses in which children's books are introducedalong with a comprehension or critical thinkingskill activity. Materials are made available duringinmates' visits with their children. (The progrimalso has been adapted to sites other than prisuns.)

92 MEETING THE NEEDS OF FAMILIES

9j

Dorothy Strickland

Project WillBrief Description: university based. Anintergenerational program offering one-on-onereading instruction to low-literate women whileproviding free child care. Identification of needs:survey revealed that more than half of thecounty's illiterate adults were women and that thelack of child care was preventing th:m fromtaking advantage of existing literacy services.Goals of participants vary, including GEDobjectives and beyond. Implementation: womenparticipate in small group and one-to-one tutoringsessions while their children are offered a varietyof learning experiences. Parent training is gearedto student goals.

Kenan Family Literacy ProjectBrief Description: community based (may usepublic school site). Aimed at improving parents'basic skills and attitudes toward education.Identification of needs: outreach program recruitsparents with low literacy skills and deemed "atrisk." Implementation: involves four basiccomponentsearly childhood education for thechildren, adult education, parenting education, anda pre-employment/self-esteem/job readinesscomponent. Parents and children participatethree days a week.

Mothers' Reading ProgramBrief Description: community based (SettlementHouse). Adult literacy program, largely English asa Second Language (ESL) for mothers of childrenattending Head Start. Identification of needs:mothers learn of the program upon enrollment oftheir children. Implementation: mothers attendclasses focusing on ESL, using reading and F, ritingof their original texts as well as children'sliterature. Some activities involve children.

Take Up Reading Now (TURN)Brief Description: community based. Providesbasic reading and writing instruction and othersupport activities to adults. Helps parentsdevelop learning strategies for their children andawareness of educational resources. Offers somejoint activities with children. Identification ofneeds: need is based on demographic dataregarding illiteracy in the area served.Implementation: comprised of three distinctprogramsa program that assists parents in

becoming advocates for children experiencingdifficulties at school; a program for the collectionand dissemination of children's books; and aprogram that shows parents how they can becometheir child's first teacher.

In these summaries of family literacy programs,little was explicitly stated about the perceivedneeds of families. However, there was someevidence that needs were, indeed, considered. Forinstance, the Marin County Library program didreport an attempt to adjust to needs as theprogram progressed. Also, the Beginning withBooks program reported some attempt to do aneeds survey at the outset of its project. Needswere expressed most often in terms of theproject's goals to address existing problems relatedto illiteracy. Program development closelyfollowed those needs, according to programadministrators.

Programs Described in TheReading Teacher, April 1995

Of tlie seven articles focusing on family literacy inthis themed issue, two were specifically devoted tothe description of family literacy programs. Bothprograms were school based. The PulaskiElementary School family literacy program wasdesigned to help develop self-esteem in children atan early age through parental encouragement andsupport of their literacy development. Theprogram consists of a series of parent workshopsinvolving demonstrations and small groupdiscussions around issues of concern. Activitiesthat involve parents in their child's literacyeducation at home and involve them in the schoolprogram are also integral to the program.

Project FLAMEFamily Literacy: Aprendiendo,Mejorando, Educando (Learning, Bettering,Educating) provides literacy training to parentsnot yet proficient in English so they can supporttheir children's literacy learning. It also includes aparents-as-teachers component in which parentslearn to select books and share them with theirchilcren and learn how to use the library.

Like tl:e programs described in Family Literacy inAction, th.se school-based efforts initially grew out


9

Dorothy Strickland

of needs perceived by the programadministratorsin this case, the school. In eachinstance, the school personnel sought to bringtogether what is known about home schoolpartnerships and the need to support the literacydevelopment of students obviously in need of suchhelp. Both projects were set in low socio-economic areas where the populations were largelyimmigrants and minorities. Also, like some of theprevious programs described, more was impliedabout parent input than was actually stated.However, in the case r'f :aese two school-basedprograms, there was some specific evidence thatthe needs of parents were directly considered. Forexample, in their report of the Pulaski program,Come and Fredericks (1995) state that, ". . .

key ingredient to the success of the program wasthe involvement of parents in the planning"(p. 567). In the case of project FLAME, thedevelopers appeared to be extremely sensitive tothe cultural and linguistic background of thiscommunity of Spanish speakers. Ironically, thissensitivity actually caused them to alter instructionin a way that was counter to their beliefs aboutgood teaching.

"At times, parents' preconceptions are too strong toovercome. We do not support the use of prescriptivegrammar study or workbooks in language learning,but to some parents these approaches are synonymouswith good teaching. After a few months of workingon language in social contexts, they complained thatwe weren't really teaching English. We agreed tospend some part of each lesson on worksheets.Eventually, parents saw how wasteful andunnecessary this was, but without such responsivenessit is hard to imagine the program being assuccessful." (Shanahan, Mulhern & Rodriguez-Brown, 1995, p. 589)

In contrasti,ig the programs listed in FamilyLiteracy in Action, published in 1990, with thosein Me Reading Teacher, published in 1995, it isimportant to note that the latter were described indetail while the former were only summarized.The time span between these reports is alsosignificant. No doubt those who initiate programstoday are much more conscious of the concernsvoiced by those who complain about deficit-modelfamily literacy programs.

Family Literacy Programs:Relating Development to Need

How are the social and educational needs offamilies and communities perceived andidentified? How are the design and developmentof family literacy programs related to such needs?

It is clear that the primary scurces for determiningand articulating needs in a family literacy programare the agencies that implement such a program.In each case, some person or persons felt the needto bring together their knowledge and perceptionsof the needs of families deemed at risk of literacyfailure. These perceptions are grounded in theday-by-day observations of those who have thepower and the will to initiate such programs, andthey are supported by demographic data regardingsocio-economic status, employment, and schoolachievement. In some cases, the family literacyprograms were planned as an adjunct to existingprograms. In others, they were initiated as stand-alone programs in order to provide assistancewhere those who were in a position to do so hadobserved a need.

This is not to say that parents and othercommunity members were never consultedinformally about their perception of need. Itmerely suggests that the articulation of needs islargel) the responsibility of those who write thegrants and administer the programs. Systematicsurvey if needs are either rare or not reported inthe literature. To those who initiate andadminister family literacy programs, the needsmay appear so overwhelming that an assessmentwould only confirm the obvious. The questionsposed here about the perception of needs,however, may be another matter. While there islittle question about whether or not a need exists,there is some question about how the clientsthemselves view these needs. What is their takeon the obvious?

Some would argue that it is unrealistic to expectparents to take the initiative in programs of thetypes described here. Each requires expertise bothin administr, and instruction. They alsorequire funding of some type. Since the verypopulations being addressed are among the most

94 MEETING THE NEEDS OF FAMILIESlei J

1

Dorothy Strickland

needy socio-economically and educationally, it isunlikely that they would either demand or initiatesuch programs on their own. As Shanahan et al.(1995) point out, "Latino families, despite loweconomic status, are highly concerned about thesuccess of their children, though they are oftenuncertain how to negotiate the Americaneducational system" (p. 587).

Nevertheless, it is reasonable to expect thatprograms would attempt to tap the perspective oftheir clients in some way as they plan andimplement their programs. This is implied insome descriptions and left out completely in mostothers.. Thus, it is often difficult to determine thedegree to which parents helped plan the programsor shaped the direction of the programs once theyare in place. The lack of attention to this isperhaps even more significant when programsclaim to be partnerships. Indeed, the term"partnership" may be a reality in some cases.However, failure to mention how control isshared would imply that the partnership is eithersomething to which they aspire or not a highpriority.

As expressed in the reports of family literacyprograms, development appears highly related toneeds. This is not surprising, since thearticulation of needs is largely the function ofprogram administrators, and programs are oftenfunded by outside agencies that require a closematch between goals and implementation. Butwhether or not they seek outside funding,program developers must state their objectives andhow they will be met. Perhaps the best "test" todetermine how well program developers linkdesign and development to the perceived needs ofparticipants is by an examination of theadjustments made to programs as those needs arclistened to and responded to over a period of time.

Summary and Conclusions

The literature reveals a growing body ofinformation regarding family literacy and agrowing number of highly successful familyliteracy programs. The overwhelming need forsuch programs and the pressure for funding haveresulted in programs that are largely planned and

implemented by those who, although close to thepoint of need, are not necessarily as collaborativewith the target population as they might be.Some critics are concerned by the absence of thevoice of the target population and the expressionof their perceived needs.

Recent literature indicates that there may be agrowing trend toward more flexibility andattention to community perceptions of need andgreater efforts toward program flexibility inadjusting to those needs. Following are someconclusions and suggestions:

Family literacy programs must overtlyground their efforts in needs as perceivedby the communities they serve.

Once a potential program is conceived,specific plans should be outlined to engagethe target population in the planningprocess (e.g., interviews, discussion groups,community surveys, and so on).

Plans also should include both informal andformal systematic opportunities forcollaborative review and reflection on thepart of all participants.

Planning should highlight and build on thestrengths of the community to be served.Opportunities for participants to contributetheir ideas and efforts, in whatever wayfeasible, would promote a sense ofcollaboration and ownership.

With limited resources, programs should betargeted to the most needy. However,attempts to link projects with ongoingefforts in the general population aredesirable. Parents need to know thatfamily literacy is something that is apriority for the entire population.Programs should be aware that, althoughthey and their community are unique inmany ways, the problems these programsare addressing are universal in nature.


Dorothy Strickland

References

Anderson, A.B., & Stokes, S.J. (1984). Social andinstitutional influences on the developmentand practice of literacy. In H. Goelman, A.Oberg, & F. Smith (Eds.), Awakening toLiteracy, 24-37. Exeter, NH: Heinemann.

Come, B. & Fredericks, A.D. (1995). Familyliteracy in urban schools: Meeting the needs ofat-risk children. The Reading Teacher, 48, 566-70.

Edwards, P.A. (1995). Empowering low-incomemothers and fathers to share books with youngchildren. The Reading Tt...:her, 48, 558-64.

Erickson, F. (1989). Forward: Literacy risks forstudents, parents, and teachers. In Allen & J.Mason (Eds.), Risk Make> s, Risk Takers, RiskBreakers: Reducing the Risks for Young LiteracyLearners, xiii-xvi. Portsmouth, NH:Heinemann.

Florio, L. & Strickland, D.S. (1993). Adult literacyin New Jersey: A report of the Council on AdultEducation and Literacy. Trenton, NJ: NewJersey Department of Labor.

Leichter, H. (1974). Families as environments forliteracy. 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 ReadingTeacher, 48, 550-51.

Nickse, R.S. (1990). Family literacy in action: Asurvey of successful programs. Syracuse, NY:New Readers Press.

Paratore, J. & Harrison, C. (1995). A themed issueon family literacy. Journal of Reading, 38, 516-17.

Shanahan, T., Mulhern, M. & Rodriguez-Brown(1995). Project FLAME: Lessons learned froma family literacy progr 71 for linguisticminority families. The Reading Teacher, 48, 586-93.

Taylor, D. & Dorsey-Gaines, C. (1988). Growingup Literate. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

96

9 7

MEETING THE NEEDS OF FAMILIES

Appendix A

List of Symposium Participants

Authors of Commissioned PapersTith Alamprese, COSMOS CorporationRichard Durán, University of California, Santa BarbaraVivian L. Gadsden, National Center on Fathers and FamiliesBeth Harry, University of MiamiAndrew Hayes, University of North Carolina, WilmingtonJean Layzer, Abt AssociatesLarry Mikulecky, Indiana University, BloomingtonDouglas Powell, Purdue UniversityDorothy Strickland, Rutgers UniversityPatton Tabors, Harvard University

Respondents (Practitioners)Gus Estrella, United Cerebral Palsy AssociationsDelia Garcia, Florida International UniversityCharles Geboe, Bureau of Indian AffairsHoward Miller, Prince George's County, Maryland, Even Start ProjectFran Tracy-Mumford, Delaware Adult and Community Education

PLLI and ECI StaffAnn Benjamin, ECIDavid Boesel, PLLIVeda Bright, ECINaomi Karp, ECITeresita Kopka, PLLIJerome Lord, PLLI

Pelavin Research Institute StaffRita KirshsteinRebecca ShulmanLenore Webb

Other Observers and ParticipantsSharon Darling, National Center for Family LiteracyDavid Fleishman, National Center for Learning DisabilitiesGail Houle, Office of Special Education ProgramsAnn Kornblet, Learning Disabilities Association of AmericaRhea Lawson, University of WisconsinColumbus (Chris) Lee, Office of Vocational and Adult EducationMary Lovell, Office of Vocational and Adult EducationRobert W. Marley, National Educational Research Policy and Priorities BoardMarcia Martin, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban DevelopmentPatricia McKee, Grants Administration, U.S. Department of EducationWilliam Mehojah, Bureau of Indian AffairsJoyce Muhlestein, National Educational Research Policy and Priorities BoardMercedes Perez de Colon, Avance-Hasbro National Family Resource CenterEve Robins, National Adult Literacy and Learning Disabilities CenterSharon P. Robinson, Assistant Secretary, Office of Educational Research and ImprovementSheila Smith, Foundation for Child DevelopmentLori Connors Tadros, Johns Hopkins UniversitySusan Thompson-Hoffman, Office of the Under Secretary, U.S. Department of EducationBarbara Wasik, University of North Carolina at Chapel HillBayla F. White, Office of Migrant Education, U.S. Department of Education

APPENDIX A

9097

Appendix B

Biographical Sketches of Commissioned Authors

Judith Alamprese

Judith Alamprese is a director at COSMOS Corporation in Bethesda, Maryland, where she isresponsible for initiatives in adult education, policy analysis, and job training. She has led numerous researchand evaluation projects in the fields of adult literacy and basic skills program effectiveness, workplace literacy,interagency coordination, and state assessment systems. Her early work in adult education includes thedevelopment of the National External Diploma Program, the first competency-based, applied-performancehigh school diploma for adults. She was also a member of the research team at the Family DevelopmentResearch Center, one of the early family intervention programs for at-risk families.

The topic of interagency collaboration has been an ongoing focus of Ms. Alamprese's research, whichhas included studies of community task forces created as part of the Project Literacy U.S. media campaign andof state and local coordination of adult education funding and services. Currently, Ms. Alamprese is assessingthe outcomes from the interagency staff development projects funded by the National Institute for Literacy,and is evaluating the operation of education and business partnerships funded by the National WorkplaceLiteracy Program. She also is studying the development of state infrastructures for family literacy incollaboration with the National Center for Family Literacy. Ms. Alamprese's recent publications includereports on the implementation of the National Literacy Issues Forums in adult basic education programs, andthe development of client satisfactory progress standards for Connecticut's welfare reform program.

Richard Durin

Richard Duran is Professor of Education in the Graduate School of Education, University ofCalifornia, Santa Barbara. He received his Ph.D. in Psychology from the University of California at Berkeleyin 1977, specializing in the areas of quantitative and cognitive psychology. He worked as a Research Scientistat Educational Testing Service from 1977-1984 prior to joining the U.C.-Santa Barbara faculty.

Dr. Duran conducts research on literary acquisition of language minority children and families. Hisresearch in these areas is sponsored by the Center for Research on Education of Students Placed At Risk, theNational Center for Research on Cultural Diversity and Second Language Learning, and the National Centerfor Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing. He edited a special issue of the journal DiscourseProcesses (January-February 1995) on the topic of literacy among Hispanics. His recent publications includeVerbal Comprehension and Reasoning Skills of Latino Students, and Cooperative Learning Interaction andConstruction of Activity.

Vivian L. Gadsden

Vivian L. Gadsden is Co-Director of the National Ccnter on Fathers and Families, and is anAssistant Professor of Education at the University of Pennsylvania. Since 1990 she has served as AssociateDirector of the National Center on Adult Literacy at '.he University of Pennsylvania. Dr. Gadsden's researchfocuses on family development and literacy acrosr te life-span and examines issues of race, gender, culture,and poverty within the context of intergenerational learning. Among her current research projects are a

APPENDIX B 99

9

multigenerational study of family development and literacy within 25 African American families (funded bythe Spencer Foundation and the National Acz.,emy of Education) and a parent-child Head Start project(supported by the National Center on Adult Literacy). Her recent work appears in Teachers College Record,Urban Education, and Theory Into Practice. Co-editor (with Daniel Wagner) of Literacy Among AfricanAmerican Youth (Hampton Press), Dr. Gadsden is completing a booklength volume entitled Passages in Time,based on her multigenerational study.

Beth Harry

Beth Harry entered the field of special education as a parent of a child with cerebral palsy. She isnow Associate Professor of Special Education at the University of Miami, Florida, and her particular interestis in families and cultural issues. Dr. Harry's research and teaching focus on the impact of culture and socialstatus on the needs and perspectives of families of children with disabilities, and on professionals' interactionswith such families. Dr. Harry uses ethnographic research methods to investigate these issues, with particui...-regard to African American and Hispanic parents. She is the author of Cultural Diversity, Families and theSpecial Education System, a study of Puerto Rican parents' perspectives, and of several articles published inleading educational journals.

Andrew Hayes

Andrew Hayes teaches education administration and instructional design and evaluation at theUniversity of North Caro lim; at Wilmington. He has his doctorate in educational administration from theUniversity of Georgia, and his master's degree from Louisiana Polytechnic University in the same field. Atthe University of North Carolina, Dr. Hayes coordinated planning for the master's degree programs ineducational leadership, and coordinated planning for a proposed doctoral program in educational leadership.Dr. Hayes served as Principal Investigator of the William R. Kenan, Jr. Charitable Trust Family LiteracyProject Evaluation for the National Center for Family Literacy. He also assisted the Governor's Office ofChildren and Youth of Hawaii in adoption of family literacy as a state strategy. Dr. Hayes has publishedover 50 project reports, monographs, articles, and conference presentations on topics such as institutes fordelinquents, assessment and change of school climate, planning and evaluation, research methods, decision-making processes, instructional design, and family literacy. He is a member of the American EducationalResearch Association, American Evaluation Association, Eastern Educational Research Association, NorthCarolina Association for School Administrators, and Southern Regional Council on EducationalAdministration.

Jean Layzer

Jean Layzer is a Senior Associate at Abt Associates Inc. For the past 20 years she has studiedprograms and policies that promote the welfare of young children and their families. Most recently, shedirected a national study of early childhood programs for disadvantaged preschoolers and an evaluation ofProject Giant Step, an innovative program for four-year-olds and their families in New York City. Shecurrently directs a national study of family support programs and is involved in studies of Head Start healthservices, Head Start Family Service Centers, and the Comprehensive Child Development Program.

100

1 sAPPENDIX B

Larry Mikulecky

Larry Mikulecky is Professor of Education and chair of the Language Education Department atIndiana University at Bloomington. He received his doctorate from the University of Wisconsin and amaster's degree from John Carroll University. Mikulecky is a member of Phi Beta Kappa and has beenawarded Indiana University's Gorman teaching award as well as its highest teaching award, the FredericBachman Lieber Distinguished Teaching award. He is also recipient of Laubach of Canada's DistinguishedService Award and the state of Indiana's Community Service Award for literacy work.

Dr. Mikulecky's research examines the literacy requirements for success in business, the military,universities, and secondary schools. His most recent research has examined assessment issues in adult literacyprograms, workplace literacy programs, and family literacy programs. He has served as principal investigatoron over 20 research projects funded by the U.S. Departments of Education and Labor as well as foundationand corporate sponsorship. Dr. Mikulecky has published more than 100 journal articles, textbook chapters,and textbooks. He is lead author on the recent Simon & Schuster series Strategic Skill Builders for Banking aswell as the basic skills series On the _lob, published by Cambridge Publications. He has also been ProjectDirector for nearly a dozen Computer Assisted Instruction study skills programs designed for college studentswith funding from the federal government and corporate sponsors. He is currently directing the NationalCenter on Adult Literacy's Workplace Literacy Impact Evaluation studies.

Douglas Powell

Douglas Powell is Professor and Head of the Department of Child Development and Family Studiesat Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana. His primary areas of research interest are early childhood andparent educational support programs, and families as learning environments. Currently he directs a researchand demonstration project focused on parents' use of inquiry and connections with nonfamilial institutions asstrategies for facilitating children's learning. He is a former Editor of the Early CL'Iclhood Research Quarterlyand member of National Education Goals Panel technical resource groups for goals focused on schoolreadiness and school-family partnerships. He is past chair of the Early Education and Child DevelopmentSpecial Interest Group of the American Educational Research Association. One of his recent publications isEnabling Young Children to Succeed in School (AERA, 1995).

Catherine Snow

Catherine Snow received her Ph.D. in psychology from McGill University in 1971, after which sheworked for several years in the linguistics department of the University of Amsterdam. Her early researchfocused on the features of children's social and linguistic environments that facilitated language development;cross-cultural differences in mother-child interaction; and factors affecting second language acquisition. Sincemoving to the Harvard Graduate School of Education in 1978, she has done research on the factors affectingthe acquisition of literacy (co-authoring Unfulfilled Expectations: Home and School Influences on Literacy withW. Barnes, J. Chandler, I. Goodman, and L. Hemphill), and on the relationships between aspects of orallanguage development and later literary achievement, in the Home School Study of Language and LiteracyDevelopment. She has also pursued these topics in work with multilingual children, including 150 second-through fifth-graders at the United Nations International School and both elementary and middle schoolchildren in bilingual programs in New Haven, Connecticut.

APPENDIX B 101

Dr. Snow has written about language policy issues in the United States and in developing nations,and was co-editor with Courtney Cazden of English Plus: Issues in Bilingual Planning in Preschool Education, areport to UNICEF. She serves on the National Research Council Panel to establish a research agenda forLimited English Proficient and Bilingual Children. Currently, she is the Henry Lee Shattuck Professor ofEducation in the Department of Human Development and Psychology at the Harvard Graduate School ofEducation.

aobert St. Pierre

Robert St. Pierre is a Vice President at Abt Associates Inc., where for the last 20 years he has beenprincipal investigator for educational research, evaluation, and policy analysis projects spanning diverse areassuch as family literacy, family support, child development, compensatory education, curricular interventions,school health education, and child nutrition. He has published widely in evaluation and educational researchjournals, and is active in the American Evaluation Association. He currently directs national evaluations ofthe Even Start Family Literacy Program and the Comprehensive Child Development Program.

borothy Strickland

Dorothy Strickland is the State of New Jersey Professor of Reading. She was formerly the Arthur I.Gates Professor of Education at Teachers College, Columbia University. She has also served ori. the facultiesof Kean College of New Jersey and Jersey State College. She taught in the New Jersey public schools for 11years, six as a classroom teacher and five as a reading consultant and learning disabilities specialist.

Dr. Strickland has her M.A. and Ph.D. from New York University. She received her B.S. at NewarkState College. She has authored more than 100 publications. Her books include Language, Literacy and theChild; Emerging Literacy: Young Children Learn to Read and Write; Educating Black Children: America'sChallenge; and Families: An Anthology of Poetry for Young Children. She has also held elective office in boththe National Council of Teachers of English and the International Reading Association, where she is pastPresident. She serves on numerous state and national advisory boards.

Dr. Strickland is the recipient of a National Council of Teachers of English award for research, theRewey Bell Inglis award as Outstanding Woman in English Education, and the International ReadingAssociation's Outstanding Teacher Educator of Reading award. She has been presented with an HonoraryDoctorate of Humane Letters from Bank Street College.

Patton Tabors

Patton Tabors is a Research Associate in Education at the Harvard Graduate School of Education.Prior to completing her doctoral degree at Harvard in 1987, Dr. Tabors taught fifth and sixth grades in avariety of inner city settings. She is presently the coordinator for the Home-School Study of Language andLiteracy Development, a longitudinal study of the social precursors to literary achievement in children fromlow-income families. Recent responsibilities have also included directing the Book Reading Project, anembedded observational study of the New Chance and JOBS evaluations for the Manpower DevelopmentResearch Corporation, which involved assessing the book reading behaviors of over 600 welfare-recipientmothers and their young children.

102 APPENDIX B

I 0

Dr. Tabors' research interests include first- and second-language acquisition, and the connectionsbetween language and literacy development, particularly in low-income populations. She has co-authored avariety of presentations and articles concerning findings from the Home-School Study and the Book ReadingProject with Catherine Snow, David Dickinson, and graduate students who have completed thesis work onthese data. She is presently writing Nobody, Yesbody: A Handbook for Early Childhood Educators of ChildrenLearning English as a Second Language.

APPENDIX B 103

103

United StatesDepartment of Education

Washington, DC 20208-5520

Official BusinessPenalty for Private Use, $300

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONWASHINGTON. DC 20202

OFFICIAL BUSINESSPENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE, $300

POSTAGE AND FEES PAIDU.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

PERMIT NO. G-17

SPECiAL FOURTH CLASS MAIL

EC 95-9006

U.S. Dept. of Education

Office of EducationalResearch and Improvement (0ERI)

ERICDate Filmed

July 29, 1996

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOffice of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI)

Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC)

NOTICE

REPRODUCTION BASIS

This document is covered by a signed "Reproduction Release(Blanket)" form (on file within the ERIC system), encompassing allor classes of documents from its source organization and, therefore,does not require a "Specific Document" Release form.

This document is Federally-funded, or carries its own permission toreproduce, or is otherwise in the public domain and, therefore, maybe reproduced by ERIC without a signed Reproduction Releaseform (either "Specific Document" or "Blanket").