RESEARCH PAPER Effective and inclusive practices in family ... - Review of FLLN.pdf · Effective and inclusive practices in family literacy, language and numeracy: a review of programmes

Effective and inclusive practices in family literacy, language and numeracy: a review of programmes and practice in the UK and internationally

Greg Brooks, Kate Pahl, Alison Pollard and Felicity ReesUniversity of Sheffield, NRDC

RESEARCH PAPER

Welcome to CfBT Education Trust

www.cfbt.com 2


The National Research and Development Centre for Adult Literacy and Numeracy (NRDC) was founded in 2002 as a cornerstone of the Government’s Skills for Life strategy in England.

The Centre’s work is supported financially by DIUS and a range of other organisations.

Our remit is to provide underpinning evidence and practical guidance for teacher educators, teachers and other professionals. We are working to help improve the quality of teaching and learning so that young people and adults can progress, achieve and develop the skills and knowledge they need to succeed in life and work and for policy development.

NRDC is a consortium, led by the Institute of Education, University of London. It brings together the best United Kingdom researchers in the field, together with expert and experienced development professionals and a wide range of talented practitioners.

The partners are:• Institute of Education, University of London• Literacy Research Centre, Lancaster

University• School of Continuing Education, University

of Nottingham• School of Education, University of Sheffield• East London Pathfinder• Liverpool Lifelong Learning Partnership

CfBT Education Trust is a leading charity providing education services for public benefit in the UK and internationally. Established 40 years ago, CfBT Education Trust now has an annual turnover exceeding £100 million and employs more than 2,000 staff worldwide who support educational reform, teach, advise, research and train.

Since we were founded, we have worked in more than 40 countries around the world. Our work involves teacher and leadership training, curriculum design and school improvement services. The majority of staff provide services direct to learners in schools or through projects for excluded pupils, in young offender institutions and in advice and guidance for young people.

We have worked successfully to implement reform programmes for governments throughout the world. Current examples

include the UK Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) Programme for Gifted and Talented Education and a nationwide teacher training programme for the Malaysian Ministry of Education.

Other government clients include the Brunei Ministry of Education, the Abu Dhabi Education Council, aid donors such as the European Union (EU), the Department for International Development (DfID), the World Bank, national agencies such as the Office for Standards in Education (Ofsted), and local authorities.

Surpluses generated by our operations are reinvested in educational research and development. Our new research programme – Evidence for Education – will improve educational practice on the ground and widen access to research in the UK and overseas.

Visit www.cfbt.com for more information.

The views and opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of CfBT Education Trust.

© CfBT copyright February 2008

All rights reserved

A full version of this report is available on www.cfbt.com

www.cfbt.com 3


• Basic Skills Agency at NIACE• Learning and Skills Network• LLU+, London South Bank University• National Institute of Adult Continuing

Education, including the Basic Skills Agency• King’s College London• University of Leeds

Information about NRDC’s research and development programmes and projects can be found on www.nrdc.org.uk

© The University of Sheffield is a member of the NRDC consortium, and its School of Education is one of Britain’s leading centres of research on family literacy, language and numeracy, and on literacy more generally. In addition to Greg Brooks and Kate Pahl, researchers in these areas currently or recently based there include Prof. Peter Hannon, Prof. Jackie Marsh, Prof. Cathy Nutbrown, Dr Maxine Burton, Dr Julia Davies, Dr Kath Hirst, Dr Anne Morgan

(née Kirkpatrick, now at Sheffield Hallam University), Dr Andrey Rosowsky and Dr Jo Weinberger. Particularly influential has been Peter Hannon and Cathy Nutbrown’s ORIM model, analysing family literacy in terms of parents providing Opportunities for their children’s literacy development, Recognition of their children’s literacy practices, Interaction with children to develop their literacy, and Modelling of their own literacy practices.

www.cfbt.com 4


This review is dedicated to the memory of Sheila Wolfendale.

Rosa

Why I didn’t do the homeworkBecause the phone is ringingThe door is nokingThe kid is yumpingThe food is burningTime runs fast.

Rosa (Auerbach 1989)

Lem

Way farNowIt a Church bellRingin’Dey singin’You hear it?I hear itFarNow

(Heath 1983:170)

www.cfbt.com 5

Contents

List of Figures 7

List of Tables 7

Project team 8

Acknowledgements 8

Independent peer review 8

Executive summary 9 Greg Brooks

1 Origins, aims and scope of the review 11 Greg Brooks and Kate Pahl

1.1 Origins of the review 11

1.2 Aims 11

1.3 Scope 11

2 Values, history, definitions, typologies and rationales 12 Kate Pahl

2.1 Values of the study 12

2.2 Family literacy, language and numeracy programmes: a brief history 12

2.2.1 Family literacy 12

2.2.2 Family numeracy 15

2.2.3 Family language (English for speakers of other languages, ESOL) 15

2.3 Definitions, typologies and rationales for family literacy, language and 16 numeracy programmes

2.3.1 ‘Family literacy’ 16

2.3.2 What is literacy? Literacy and literacies 16

2.3.3 What is numeracy? 17

2.3.4 Questions and challenges over definitions 17

2.3.5 Typologies of family literacy programmes 17

2.3.6 Rationale for programmes 18

3 Analysis of the quantitative evidence 20 Greg Brooks with Felicity Rees and Alison Pollard

3.1 What is a meta-study? 20

3.2 This meta-study 20

3.3 The projects covered 20

3.4 The analyses 21

3.5 Findings 24

3.6 Benefits for parents 28

3.7 Benefits for children 28

3.8 Long-term benefits 29

3.9 Some tentative insights 29



www.cfbt.com 6

4 Qualitative analysis of the international projects 32 Kate Pahl

4.1 Introduction 32

4.2 Canada 32

4.3 Europe 33

4.3.1 Parent Empowerment through Family Literacy: a European initiative 33

4.3.2 QualiFLY: a European project on family literacy 34

4.4 Nepal 36

4.5 New Zealand 37

4.6 South Africa 38

4.7 Uganda 41

4.8 USA 41

4.8.1 The Verizon OPTIONS Initiative, Santa Barbara, California 41

4.8.2 Project FLAME, Chicago 43

4.8.3 MAPPS Math And Parent Partnerships, South Western States 44

4.9 Conclusion to qualitative international survey: drawing the threads together 45

5 Family literacy, language and numeracy provision in England and Wales: an overview 47 Kate Pahl

5.1 Introduction 47

5.2 Skills for Families 47

5.3 Keeping Up with the Children 49

5.4 Early Start 50

5.5 Family literacy and language programmes within Sure Start 50

5.6 Family numeracy 52

5.7 IMPACT 53

5.8 Bookstart and Books for Babies 54

5.9 Reading is Fundamental, UK 55

5.10 The REAL Project, Sheffield 55

5.11 PEEP (Peers Early Education Partnership), Oxford 56

5.12 Fathers’ projects 57

5.13 Drawing together some threads: the picture in England and Wales 58

5.13.1 The Basic Skills Agency 58

5.13.2 Family literacy, language and numeracy as delivered by local authorities 59

5.13.3 Initiatives funded through the private sector, charities and voluntary sector 60

5.13.4 Sure Start 60

5.13.5 Literacy and literacies 60

5.13.6 Some future directions 61

6 Conclusions and implications 62 Greg Brooks

References 64


www.cfbt.com 7

Appendices 71

Appendix A: The detailed quantitative analyses 72 Greg Brooks with Felicity Rees and Alison Pollard

Appendix B: Outline details of the programmes analysed qualitatively in chapter 4 137 Kate Pahl

Appendix C: Continuing debates and some emerging principles 143 Kate Pahl

Debate number 1: Family literacy: rhetoric or research? 143

Debate number 2: The causal possibilities of FLLN programmes 143

Debate number 3: Do family literacy programmes perpetuate a 144 normative, middle-class version of schooling?

Debate number 4: Whose literacies are being supported by 145 family literacy programmes?

Debate number 5: Whose numeracies are being supported by 147 family numeracy programmes?

Debate number 6: Whose languages are being supported by 148 family language programmes?

Debate number 7: What kinds of families are being supported by 149 FLLN programmes?

Debate number 8: Whose cultures are being supported by 150 FLLN programmes?

Productive pedagogies and principles of family literacy, language and 151 numeracy programmes

Table 1 The projects analysed quantitatively, and basic information about them 22

Table 2 Summary of findings from the quantitative analyses 25

Table 3 Summary of follow-up findings from the quantitative analyses 30

Table 4 Overview of approved FLLN courses in England, 2005/06 48

List of Tables

Figure 1 Development of family literacy practice in England 13

Figure 2 The ORIM framework 14

List of Figures


www.cfbt.com 8

Project team for this meta-study

Acknowledgements

Independent peer review

Prof. Greg Brooks, project directorDr Kate Pahl (February–November 2006)Alison Pollard (March–July 2005)Felicity Rees (March–July 2005)

The report was read and independently peer-reviewed by:

This report, and the handbook based on the research project, were supported by a number of key people and organisations. We would like to thank the members of the FLLN Advisory Group, chaired by Carol Taylor of the Basic Skills Agency, who gave us substantial and rigorous feedback on our research.

This report could not have been prepared without the substantial support of the following:

Musseret Anwar, CETS CroydonBeryl Bateson, Birmingham LADave Baker, Institute of Education, University of LondonViv Bird, National Literacy TrustSnoeks Desmond, Family Literacy Project, KwaZulu-Natal

Peter Hannon, University of SheffieldRachel Hodge, Lancaster UniversityNan Jackson, Rochdale LAWendy Leak, Rotherham Central Sure StartDesiree Lopez, NRDC, Institute of Education, University of LondonYvonne Spare, University of SheffieldCarol Taylor, Basic Skills Agency at NIACE

We particularly thank the Research and Development team at CfBT for supporting us and working with us throughout the project.

Elaine McCann Bernadette LawlorJeanne HaggartJeff EvansJohn VorhausAndrea Mearing

Cathie ClarkeMorwenna VernonBeryl BatesonCarol Taylor Desiree LopezAmy Butler


www.cfbt.com 9

Executive summary

Context

This study – a meta-study – was commissioned by CfBT Education Trust, and funded by CfBT and the National Research and Development Centre for Adult Literacy and Numeracy (NRDC).

The aims of the meta-study were to

• conduct a UK-wide and international review of family literacy, language and numeracy (FLLN) programmes and practice

• develop an international perspective on effective practices in FLLN, looking both at how literacy, language and numeracy are enhanced by programmes, and also at how families’ wider outcomes are enabled

• identify criteria for promising practice and models of inclusive and diverse FLLN delivery for wide dissemination.

A ‘meta-study’ was taken to include a quantitative and qualitative review, based on studies exhibiting a wider range of research designs than would contribute to a systematic review. This study is based on evidence not only from Britain but also from Canada, Germany, Nepal, New Zealand, South Africa, Turkey, Uganda, the USA, and from a six-nation initiative led by Malta which also involved Belgium, England, Italy, Lithuania and Romania.

Scope of the study

An inclusive stance was taken towards what should be counted as a family, and to the range of practices to be classed as literacy, oracy and numeracy. Holistic and community approaches, and formal and informal learning, were all considered. In multilingual situations a key value of providers and learners is respect for, and building on, learners’ first language.

When first introduced into Britain in the mid-1990s, two-generation FLLN programmes went through a period of fairly detailed central prescription, but since about 2000 the range of programmes has diversified. This review covers not only two-generational approaches but any that acknowledge participants as members of a family. A widespread

assumption of two-generation FLLN programmes is that they not only benefit both parents and children but benefit them more than stand-alone programmes.

Findings: quantitative evidence

Most family programmes aim to improve the ability of parents to help their children’s education. Eight studies report these benefits:

• Family numeracy pilot programmes

• Bookstart in Birmingham

• Family literacy demonstration programmes

• Early Start

• Family literacy for new groups

• Family literacy and numeracy in prisons

• FLAME

• Ħilti clubs

Parents also benefit in their ability to help their children in wider ways, including:

• mothers’ child-rearing practices

• parents’ employment

• parents’ self-confidence

• parents being more involved with their children’s schools.

There is good evidence of benefits to children’s skills, as compared with parents’:

• literacy: 12 studies reported benefits from test data

• language: eight studies reported benefits from test data

• numeracy: six studies reported benefits from test data.

For all three skills the evidence is mixed, and firmer evidence is desirable.

The benefits of family literacy, language and numeracy appear to persist long after the intervention is finished. Seven studies had gathered follow-up data, and almost all of these showed that benefits had been sustained.


www.cfbt.com 10

Impressive results are quoted where programmes worked with mothers in a ‘traditional’ family setting. Programmes such as FLAME in Chicago and MOCEP in Turkey may involve literacy and numeracy, but are part of a broader vision of the role of the parent – community integration and involvement in FLAME, health and child-rearing in MOCEP. Similar insights are found in Nepal and South Africa.

No quantitative study has yet been carried out into whether:

• two-generation FLLN programmes benefit both parents and children

• parents in FLLN programmes make better progress than they would in stand-alone adult basic education programmes

• some approaches to family literacy or language or numeracy are more successful than others.

Findings: qualitative evidence

The FLLN field in England and Wales is vibrant, and more varied than ever before. It has also:

• provided inspiration for some of the increasing number of interesting and effective programmes elsewhere in the world

• contributed at home to parents’, especially mothers’, empowerment through learning, and improved children’s educational prospects.

Research and development was led by the Basic Skills Agency in the field in both England and Wales in the mid and late 1990s, and it has continued to do so in Wales. In England its role has now diminished and has not been taken up in full by any other organisation; leadership for the field remains a pressing issue.

Provision in England through local authorities and the private, charitable and voluntary sectors is excellent in some places and patchy in others.

The role of local authorities remains critical in shaping and delivering policy and practice. Flagship authorities can lead the way in listening to families, taking account of their linguistic and cultural resources, and developing a framework for delivery.

The strength of many UK programmes lies in the complex, community-focused partnerships they encouraged.

• Initiatives such as Shared Beginnings worked at grassroots level to encourage book sharing with young children.

• Local Sure Start initiatives reached across different agencies to work together.

Relatively new international programmes (such as Hamburg, part of the QualiFLY project) are actively working in a multimodal way, drawing on a multiple range of modes to deliver their work.

• Digital storytelling features as a theme in programmes such as the Verizon OPTIONS programme, and has also been described as a key feature of family literacy programmes in Toronto.

• There is some evidence that this is happening in Britain too, and this opens up possibilities for attractive new programmes.

• At the same time, evaluation strategies in rural South Africa and Nepal also rely heavily on visual methods and oral storytelling.

In multilingual situations a key value of providers and learners is respect for and building on learners’ first languages.

Very few fathers have been involved in FLLN programmes, but more organisations are beginning to develop specific programmes for fathers.


www.cfbt.com 11

1.1 Origins of the review

This whole project was commissioned by CfBT Education Trust, and funded mainly by CfBT, with a contribution of about one third of the overall cost from the National Research and Development Centre for Adult Literacy and Numeracy (NRDC), which also carried it out. The project began in April 2005 and ran until December 2006. It was a collaboration between researchers at the Institute of Education, University of London, at Lancaster University and at the University of Sheffield. There were also strategic and crucial contributions from partners in Birmingham, Croydon, Derbyshire (Read On – Write Away!), Rochdale and Staffordshire local authorities – see the accompanying report on the case studies and self-reporting sites. This section of the project, the review of which has taken the form of a meta-study with both quantitative and qualitative aspects, was carried out entirely by researchers at the University of Sheffield.

1.2 Aims

The primary aim of this project as a whole was to identify and support effective and inclusive family literacy, language and numeracy practices.

The aims of this section of the project were to

• conduct a UK-wide and international review of family literacy, language and numeracy (FLLN) programmes and practice

• develop an international perspective on effective practices in FLLN, looking both at how literacy, language and numeracy are enhanced by programmes, and also at how families’ wider outcomes are enabled

• identify criteria for promising practice and models of inclusive and diverse FLLN delivery for wide dissemination.

It was hoped that an international comparative approach would advance understanding of promising practice, both in the UK and elsewhere, and contribute to an understanding of increasingly diverse conceptions of families and their literacy, language and numeracy learning. The review was also intended to contribute to an understanding of the historical development of FLLN, and the political context for learning practices in each country included in the review.

1.3 Scope

Chapter 2 addresses the history of family literacy provision in the UK and the USA, incorporates a discussion of definitions of FLLN, and includes sections on values, typologies and rationales for the field. The next three chapters present the findings of

• quantitative analyses of FLLN programmes from the UK and elsewhere (chapter 3); this chapter also presents our definition of a meta-study

• qualitative analyses of FLLN programmes from the rest of the world (chapter 4), and

• qualitative analyses of FLLN programmes from the UK (chapter 5).

Some conclusions and implications for policy and practice are presented in chapter 6, and a number of continuing debates and emerging principles in the field are discussed in Appendix C.

Chapter 1: Origins, aims and scope of the review

Greg Brooks and Kate Pahl

This section of the project, the review which has taken the form of a meta-study with both quantitative and qualitative aspects, was carried out entirely by researchers at the University of Sheffield.

‘‘

‘‘


www.cfbt.com 12

2.1 Values of the study

The research team took an inclusive approach to the family, in respect of age, gender, size and diversity of culture and ways of living and working. Since the 1990s, there has been a great amount of provision which has explored with families what they do with literacy, language and numeracy (LLN) in supportive and diverse ways, best exemplified by a number of surveys the National Literacy Trust conducted during that period that revealed these initiatives (Hannon and Bird 2004).

It is essential to understand and value family learning and informal learning as ways of participating in and practising LLN and learning. At present, family learning and informal learning are poorly understood, and the informal and creative ways in which families learn literacy, language and numeracy remain under-explored. A primary feature of the context for this work is the growing migration and displacement of peoples, and the changing structures, circumstances and ways of living for families in the early 21st century. For example, we have to understand the needs and circumstances of refugees and other vulnerable communities in order to make a positive and practical response to their literacy, language and numeracy needs and also engage with the LLN practices of families, and to understand what learning they want and need.

Citizenship is a further central dimension: families are part of communities and essential to community development and vibrant social capital. The starting point of good practice in FLLN is to appreciate and to build on the richness and variety of literacy and language activity at home.

2.2 Family literacy, language and numeracy programmes: a brief history

This section offers a brief overview of the history of FLLN programmes. As the report

shows, the history of these has then to be set in context, in relation to values, definitions and perceptions of the field. This is an introduction for those interested in the broad history of the programmes in the USA and UK.

2.2.1 Family literacy

Hannon and Weinberger (2003) suggested that the concept of family literacy originated in the United States. The phrase itself was first used as a term of description by Taylor (1983). When programmes to support and develop family literacy were developed in the USA, they were specifically organised through the Even Start programmes, which were funded through the US Department of Education. Nickse (1993) estimated that there were then already more than 500 family literacy projects in operation in the USA, funded federally.

A model that was developed in the USA, but imported to the UK, was the Kenan model of family literacy, which originated in Louisville, Kentucky and was promoted by the National Center for Family Literacy. This model was intensive (three or four days a week), and long term (over a school year), and focused on low-literacy parents and their preschool children. It included Adult Basic Education for parents, quality ‘High/Scope’ preschool education for children, parent education, and time for parents and children to engage in shared activities (Hannon and Weinberger 2003).

In a survey of family literacy carried out by Hannon and Bird (2004), three studies were described that referred to activity in the USA, namely Morrow (1995), Purcell-Gates (2000) and Wasik, Dobbins and Herrmann (2001). Hannon and Bird also referred to reviews by Hannon (1995) and Wolfendale and Topping (1996) in Britain, as well as Cairney (2002) who looked at family literacy programmes in Australia. Hannon and Bird also reported on activity in Canada, France, Spain, Greece, New Zealand, Brazil, Mexico, and South Africa.

Chapter 2: Values, history, definitions, typologies and rationales

Kate Pahl

At present, family learning and informal learning are poorly understood, and the informal and creative ways in which families learn literacy, language and numeracy remain under-explored.

‘‘

‘‘


www.cfbt.com 13

Hannon and Bird argued that the development of family literacy programmes in England can best be understood in terms of bringing together two strands – early childhood education and adult and community education. This can be represented in a visual model (Figure 1), which is taken from the updated chapter by Hannon, Brooks and Bird (2007).

Hannon and Bird admitted that the initial focus for family literacy, and the rationale adopted by government agencies, was improving children’s literacy. This was tied to a focus on children’s literacy standards in the early 1990s, which culminated in the National Literacy Strategy, rolled out in schools from 1998. Throughout the 1990s family literacy was also growing, after the Adult Literacy and Basic Skills Unit (ALBSU) imported the Kenan model of family literacy from the United States. Following a fact-finding research tour of the USA in 1992–93, ALBSU instituted four demonstration programmes in different ‘areas of deprivation’ in England and Wales

in 1994. They were based in or near primary schools. Details of the programme content and implementation have been reported in an evaluation by NFER (Brooks et al. 1996). This study claimed that the programmes produced changes in reported home literacy activities and significant gains in the literacy achievement of both children and parents. The children began from a very low starting point in terms of measures of vocabulary and reading, with average standardised scores around 85. Gains were of the order of 5 points. Twenty to 34 months later, a follow-up study of families found that children had retained their gains, and that parents reported benefits in finding or retaining employment (Brooks et al. 1997).

The effect of the ALBSU initiative and its associated research was to establish a national prominence for family literacy (Hannon and Bird 2004:19). Family literacy programmes began to recognise the importance of studies of emergent literacy, as well as of family literacy practices involving both children and

Figure 1: Development of family literacy practice in England

Early Childhood Education

Adult and Community Education

Parental involvement in nursery and infant classes

Parental involvement in teaching of reading

Preschool literacy initiatives*

1970s

1980sIncreasing central control

1990s

Family Literacy Practice

2000sIncreasing diversity in rapidly

changing context

Individual-focused adult literacy provision

Community-focused adult literacy provision

Two-generation model from USA via ALBSU/BSA

* It should be noted, however, that in some locations, such as Birmingham, there were family literacy programmes for older children, for example, Year 4 (eight-year-olds).


www.cfbt.com 14

parents. Such activities as parent literacy support groups and family reading groups followed this pattern (Beverton et al. 1993). Many initiatives evolved which were valued for their diversity and for the way in which a number of communities and groups within the community, particularly women, were empowered and developed their skills further. For example, Read On – Write Away! in Derbyshire developed initiatives to support women in their family literacy programme and develop progression opportunities (Davies et al. 2002).

As part of this development of family literacy programmes in the UK, in the years 1994–96 a co-funding scheme of grants to support some 400 smaller programmes was instituted by ALBSU. Poulson et al. (1997) studied 18 smaller family literacy programmes, but the conclusions were unclear.

In 1995 ALBSU’s remit was extended to include supporting the development of effective programmes in basic skills for children and young people and changed its name to the Basic Skills Agency (BSA). As the remit for the BSA widened, the field was also developing to understand family literacy in a wider concept. Emerging thinking on such provision was also focused on literacy, language and numeracy activity in the home. As a result of their work with families in Sheffield, Hannon and Nutbrown (1997) sought to develop a conceptual framework for family literacy activity in the home, especially that directed at children. Hannon and Nutbrown developed the ORIM framework (see Figure 2), which identified ways of working with parents and children together within the home. Hannon

and Nutbrown argued that it was possible for parents to provide the circumstances shown.

In 1993 the National Literacy Trust (NLT) was set up with the aim of working with others to enhance literacy standards; to encourage more reading and writing for pleasure by children, young people and adults; and to raise the profile of the importance of literacy in the context of social and technological change. The NLT initiated a series of surveys in order to determine the scale and scope of family literacy provision in the UK. These found that 400 initiatives could be described as family literacy initiatives out of a total of 1300 returns from their survey of literacy initiatives. The picture revealed by the surveys was of provision in a range of settings, including baby clinics, family centres, day nurseries, libraries, after-school clubs, travellers’ sites, playgroups, churches and housing schemes. Many agencies were involved, including schools, adult community colleges, further education colleges, voluntary organisations and educational business organisations, newspapers, community associations, ex-offender organisations, social services and healthcare organisations. Activities were very broad, including the making of books, puppets or story sacks, and some provided resources for parents to use at home. Accreditation was often offered through ‘Open College’ systems (Hannon and Bird 2004). These activities reflect the powerful pull of family literacy activity for parents and children and reflect the excitement many practitioners felt about working in this way with families.

The incoming Labour government in 1997 encouraged further literacy activity. As a result

Figure 2: The ORIM framework

Opportunities for their children’s literacy development (trips, visits, shopping, materials for writing, drawing, books, opportunities for play)

Recognition of their literacy practices (explicitly valuing what children do, and listening to them talking playing and writing)

Interaction with children to develop their literacy (such as spelling out words children want to write, looking at letter/sound names, helping children spell a word)

Modelling of their own literacy practices (reading signs, directions, instructions, packaging, print in the environment, writing notes, letters, shopping lists, reading newspapers)

(Hannon and Nutbrown 1997)


www.cfbt.com 15

of a new enthusiasm for government-sponsored literacy initiatives, a National Year of Reading was run by the NLT in 1998/99, and this also encouraged a wide range of provision. After the Moser report of 1999, Skills for Life was set up as a major government initiative, with the aim of tackling adult literacy and numeracy, and the result was a focus on parents’ skills in adult education.

Since the Hannon and Bird study, and as described in chapter 5, the development of Sure Start was a major government initiative in the UK. Rolling out from 1999 onwards, it has encouraged a plethora of initiatives aimed at encouraging literacy practices within families, and the REAL project in Sheffield has continued to work using the ORIM framework, with teachers and parents in homes (Nutbrown, Hannon and Morgan 2006).

The position today is one of very diverse provision, with very different epistemological models of family literacy. Many local projects, such as the Rochdale family literacy programmes, incorporate a focus on creativity, including art and music activities as well as digital literacies. This is partly to do with the focus on innovation instituted by Skills for Families, an initiative developed by the Basic Skills Agency to encourage innovation and training in the field of FLLN. Sure Start has also encouraged local groups to ‘take hold’ of different models of FLLN and adapt them to local contexts (Weinberger, Pickstone and Hannon 2005). This kind of approach mirrors similar work in developing countries such as Bangladesh (Rogers with Uddin 2005) which focuses on the local and vernacular as a starting point for family literacy programmes (Street 2005). In chapter 5 a further analysis of family literacy programmes within Sure Start provides the context for current policy initiatives.

2.2.2 Family numeracy

Family numeracy developed sometimes in tandem with, and sometimes independently of, family literacy. One early account of a group by Jean Milloy (1994) from Walk in Numeracy, a purpose-built centre on the White City Estate in London focusing on numeracy, described working with students to link everyday maths with ‘school maths’, and she described the content of the sessions as being focused

on how maths is taught in primary schools. Family numeracy was an add-on to the initial concept of family literacy, but focused on everyday maths. Merttens (1993) also addressed the issue of the impact of a family numeracy programme with a focus on school mathematics, showing positive results for the intervention.

Family numeracy programmes to support parents in their numeracy and to help them help their children in their numeracy development were piloted by the Basic Skills Agency between April 1997 and March 1998. The programmes were evaluated in-house in 1998, with statistical analyses by Greg Brooks and Dougal Hutchison (Basic Skills Agency 1998). The model adhered to for the programme made sure that there was a weekly joint session between parents and children, as well as separate sessions for children and parents of between one and a half and two hours. Over 500 families took part in the pilot programme. A new television series, ‘Count on Me’, was broadcast on the BBC to address this issue.

As with literacy, the Standards Fund allocated funding for family courses such as ‘Keeping Up with the Children’ as part of schools’ remit to raise numeracy standards in the late 1990s.

2.2.3 Family language (English for speakers of other languages, ESOL)

The original model of family literacy established by the Basic Skills Agency in 1994, and evaluated by NFER in 1994–5 (Brooks et al. 1996), was also aimed at multilingual families but the local programme designed to do this collapsed after a few months and provided no data. In 1997 the Agency therefore implemented a further set of family literacy pilot programmes which included adapting the model to include working with linguistic minority families where the parents had basic skills needs and the children were aged 3 to 6. The Basic Skills Agency commissioned NFER to evaluate these alternative models (Brooks et al. 1999), and the resulting study concluded that the original model could be successfully adapted for linguistic minority families with a child aged 3 to 6. The parents in the study significantly improved both their English and their ability to help their children. In addition,


www.cfbt.com 16

the children made substantial progress in writing and in early literacy generally.

The same study also showed that the basic model could be successfully adapted for children in Year 4 (age 8) and their parents, but a parallel attempt to adapt it for children in Year 7 (age 11, in England the first year of secondary school) was a failure.

As family literacy programmes expanded and diversified in the late 1990s, many more programmes arose in response to local needs and were developed to enhance linguistic competences. Many of the family literacy courses described by the National Literacy Trust’s surveys of family literacy provision were aimed at multilingual parents. These included programmes in areas of linguistic diversity such as Rochdale, Birmingham, Islington, Coventry and Blackburn. Parent literacy programmes in urban areas such as Southwark built upon the linguistic capacities of the communities they served (Pahl 2000). Community-focused approaches often succeeded in supporting family language programmes (Hannon et al. 2003). The Skills for Families programme also attracted new learners in new settings, and family language programmes in areas where there was a high concentration of multilingual families were particularly successful, for example in Croydon (Pahl 2002a). Part 2 describes initiatives which were aimed at multilingual parents, in particular the programmes based in the USA aimed at Spanish-speaking parents, such as FLAME and MAPPS. The case studies, in particular the studies set in Croydon, Rochdale and Blackburn, further describe family language programmes.

2.3 Definitions, typologies and rationales for family literacy, language and numeracy programmes

2.3.1 ‘Family literacy’

It is thought that Denny Taylor coined the phrase ‘family literacy’ in 1983, and the phrase built on her understanding and recognising of diverse literacy practices within families. This is distinct from the concept of family literacy programmes. The definition of these from the

Basic Skills Agency, when they first began funding family literacy programmes in 1993, was as follows:

Family literacy programmes work with parents and their children to improve the literacy skills of both. On occasions other family members, such as grandparents, brothers and sisters, may be involved, but this is relatively rare in the more intensive programmes.

(ALBSU 1993:9)

The definition from the National Literacy Trust, which supported the development of family literacy programmes in a more diffuse way, was:

…any initiative which aims to work through parents to improve the reading and writing of their children, as well as those which have the improvement of the parents’ literacy as an aim.

‘Family literacy’ can also convey the ideas that there is pre-existing literacy activity in families, that older family members may be engaging children in those activities (and vice versa), and that in practice most programmes often do not deal with isolated individuals but with members of a family (Hannon 1999:122).

2.3.2 What is literacy? Literacy and literacies

There has been considerable debate over whether there can be a ‘settled’ definition of literacy in the context of changes in communicational practices (Kress 2003). However, there have also been clear indications that a focus on language and literacy can be tied to an alphabetic construction of literacy, and Kress and Street (2006) have agreed that to go too far into non-verbal areas where literacy is concerned is not constructive. Therefore, in this study the term ‘literacy’ relates to language and literacy practices tied to alphabetic literacy and to linguistic repertoires.

However, the term ‘literacies’ does signal that there are multiple literacies, in that these literacy practices can be recognised across languages and across domains. In that sense the word ‘literacies’ celebrates the diversity of linguistic practices within families and


www.cfbt.com 17

is therefore retained. It is also recognised that literacy practices within families are linked to a wide range of communicative practices including the use of narrative, and practices such as drawing and model-making. Sometimes these links are very close and ethnographies of communicative practices within families have found this to be the case (Pahl 2002a).

2.3.3 What is numeracy?

Within the numeracy field, the debate has been more about the relationship between everyday maths and numeracy. In this study, the concept of numeracy as a social practice is used, in order to draw attention to the way numeracy is used on an everyday basis within families (Street, Baker and Tomlin 2005). However, it has been argued by Street and Baker (2006) that a multimodal dimension to numeracy aids an understanding of numeracy learning in classrooms. This added dimension to numeracy is one which is of use in considering links between home numeracy practices and a multimodal understanding of learning; that is, an understanding of numeracy as being both linguistic and visual in its properties.

2.3.4 Questions and challenges over definitions

Hannon and Weinberger (2003) argued that there were some problems with the way the term ‘family literacy’ was still acquiring meanings and the way the construct ‘family literacy’ is conceived. Hannon (1999) was concerned that there was a theoretical vacuum at the heart of the definitions of family literacy and that there needed to be a reconsideration of ways of conceptualising family literacy programmes. He argued that there was no distinction currently being made between a ‘family literacy’ programme and a much broader notion of family literacy. He argued that there needed to be distinction between the concept of ‘rhetoric’ in family literacy, and the reality (1999). In some cases, the rhetoric was at odds with the reality, but was being used to drive funding for programmes. He argued that the assumptions underpinning programmes were often at odds with research findings. For example, he argued that according to family literacy research, very few, if any, families could be said totally to lack

literacy or concern for children’s development and education, yet some programmes appeared to be premised on such beliefs.

Auerbach (1989:167) had likewise noted a gap between research and implementation: existing models for family literacy programmes seemed not to be informed by ethnographic research. Both Hannon and Auerbach pointed to an urgent need for ethnographic research into family literacy practices to inform practice within family literacy programmes. By recognising that the definitions of FLLN programmes are contested, this study also opens out the scope to include a focus on research on FLLN practices, which underpins the way FLLN programmes are delivered.

2.3.5 Typologies of family literacy programmes

There appear to be no typologies of family language or numeracy programmes. Therefore, in order to clarify the way in which FLLN programmes are conceptualised, this section on typology examines different models of family literacy, drawing on work by Auerbach (1989) and Nickse (1993) in the USA.

Elsa Auerbach (1989) developed the following typology of family literacy work.

1. Parents working independently from their children on reading and writing.

2. Using literacy to address family and community problems, increasing the social significance of literacy in their lives.

3. Parents addressing child-rearing concerns through family literacy classes.

4. Supporting the development of home language and culture.

5. Interacting with the school system.

Ruth Nickse (1993) described the following different models in the USA.

1. Kenan model: Intensive (3–4 days a week), long-term (over a school year), focuses on low-literacy parents and their preschool children. Includes ABE for parents, ‘High/Scope’ education for children, parent education and time for parents and children to engage in activities together.


www.cfbt.com 18

2. Programmes focusing on reading, e.g. Beginning with Books, Take Up Reading Now, Mothers’ Reading Program (New York), Family Reading.

3. Programmes supporting women’s re-entry into the workplace, such as Wider Opportunities for Women.

Nickse acknowledged the complexity of programmes, and the complexity of families. She produced this typology to help clarify the position:

Type 1: Parent/child (family literacy)

Type 2: Adult/child (intergenerational)

Type 3: Adult alone

Type 4: Child alone.

From this, different family literacy programmes can be identified and sorted. The Basic Skills Agency has always been very clear that their model has to include a session with the children on their own, a session with the parents working on their literacy skills on their own, and then a joint session with parents and children. In that, they draw on the Kenan model of family literacy, and perpetuate it.

Parallel typologies for family language and numeracy could be based on this approach, and indeed, when the Basic Skills Agency developed its family numeracy pilot programmes, it used a three-part model very similar to its family literacy approach (Basic Skills Agency 1998).

2.3.6 Rationale for programmes

FLLN programmes were built on an assumption that the programmes encourage home literacy, language and numeracy activity, and benefit both parents and children. In particular, the research into parental involvement in reading activity in the home, which then looked at cause and effect between reading behaviour in the home and children’s reading scores, encouraged programmes to develop.

Many commentators have pointed to the link between parents’ involvement in their children’s literacy and their children’s

improvements in literacy learning. These include the findings from the Haringey reading project (Tizard, Schofield and Hewison 1982) which involved the following initiative: Children took school-reading books home and parents were encouraged to help their children by talking about stories, listening to children’s oral reading with minimal intervention and ensuring that the shared reading experiences remained enjoyable. Tizard et al. found that the programme produced significant reading test gains. They found that children who read to their parents on a regular basis made significant gains, in fact greater gains than children receiving an equivalent amount of extra reading instruction by reading specialists at school. The research design included two follow-ups, one year and three years on; both showed the children’s gains had been maintained. (However, for a failure to replicate the Haringey effect in a different context, see Hannon 1987, Hannon and Jackson 1987.)

The rationale for family literacy started by drawing on longitudinal data sets. ALBSU (1993) commissioned research into the links between parents’ literacy difficulties and their children’s literacy achievements drawing on the National Child Development Study. The study found that children of parents who reported having literacy difficulties were around twice as likely as others to be in the lowest quartile nationally on reading test scores.

Hannon, however, argued that ‘correlation is one thing, identification quite another’ (Hannon 1999:128). He contended that:

There is an overlap between families where parents have literacy difficulties and families where children have low literacy achievement but it is an extremely small overlap.

(Hannon 1999:128)

He urged caution in over-readily drawing conclusions about a direct correlation between an increase in literacy levels in parents’ skills and a consequent increase in children’s literacy. He argued, with Auerbach, that

The context provided by parents and their consistent support may be more important than any transfer of skills.

(Auerbach 1989:171)


www.cfbt.com 19

More recently, Bynner and Parsons (2006) reported findings from the age 34 sweep of the British Cohort Study 1970, a lifetime cohort study following (originally) all the people born in Britain in one week in April 1970. In 2004, the cohort members were re-contacted and both their own and their children’s literacy was tested. Correlating the two sets of scores showed that children whose parents had the poorest grasp of literacy were much more likely to have poor literacy themselves than children whose parents had good literacy skills. However, the logic of this finding is reversed: what needs to be shown is what proportion of low-scoring children had parents with low literacy scores. This analysis was done by Hannon (1999) for the ALBSU (1993) data and showed that the great majority of children with poor literacy did not have parents with poor literacy. The data reported by Bynner and Parsons (2006) is in a form which does not permit a similar analysis. However, until it can be shown that selecting families on the basis that the parents have poor literacy, also selects a high proportion of the children who are at risk of literacy failure, research appears to provide no firm support for the theory of intergenerational transfer and for intergenerational programmes.

However, Hannon did admit that it is probably safe to conclude that the parental involvement form of family literacy benefits children’s literacy (Hannon 1999). He defined what he called the ‘restricted’ model as being that provision whose availability is restricted to those families where parents are interested, willing, and able to participate as learners themselves. He drew on the two Brooks et al. studies (1996,

1997), to conclude that there was evidence from evaluations in Britain and the USA to support claims that such programmes have positive educational effects for parents and children, but added, ‘There is none to show that they have greater effects, or are more cost-effective, than separate child-focused or adult-focused programmes’ (Hannon 1999:133); this point is addressed further in chapter 3. For that reason, Hannon argued that the rhetoric about ‘restricted’ programmes lacked research support. Hannon therefore warned against the rhetoric implicit within these studies, which asserts that parents with literacy difficulties will have low-achieving children, and that low-achieving children will have parents with literacy difficulties.

Family literacy, language and numeracy practices can be understood as being multiple, in that they involve many generations; and multiple languages are involved when families make meaning (Pahl 2006). Families bring creativity to these multiple practices. They tell stories, create texts and artefacts, and give children space when they listen to them and support their meaning making with words and numbers. By building on families’ strengths, as Zentella has suggested, families’ cultural resources can grow (Zentella 2005). Many practitioners already do this, and this should be celebrated.

In the next three chapters, FLLN programmes in a number of countries will be described in relation to the considerations outlined above, about the nature of FLLN programmes and their relationship to values, cultures, literacies, numeracies and languages.


www.cfbt.com 20

3.1 What is a meta-study?

As we conceptualised it, a meta-study includes but goes well beyond a narrative review, and is somewhere between a ‘best-evidence synthesis’ and a systematic review.

1. A narrative review does not usually gather, tabulate and compare the quantitative evidence for impact from separate studies; nor does it judge some categories of evidence as deserving more weight than others. It may judge studies with large samples as more important, and/or report findings with statistical significances attached, but on the whole it is a continuous text devoid of numerical tables.

2. A best-evidence synthesis goes beyond this by explicitly asking what the strongest evidence is for various sub-questions within the field being analysed. For example, if the question being addressed is ‘What methods are effective in boosting adult learners’ literacy and numeracy skills?’, the various forms of evidence would be arranged in a hierarchy like this:

– randomised controlled trials (RCTs)– other controlled trials– matched-groups pre-test/post-test

quasi-experiments– unmatched-groups pre-test/post-test

studies– one-group pre-test/post-test studies– correlational studies– other quantitative evidence, e.g. adults’

views on their own progress– case studies– judgements of experts on factors thought

to correlate with better progress– other qualitative studies.

3. A systematic review goes beyond a best-evidence synthesis by taking account of all and only the most rigorous evidence available on the question posed. A systematic review addressing a question about effective teaching does not proceed down the hierarchy beyond other controlled trials, since less rigorous designs fail to control possible unknown confounding factors.

3.2 This meta-study

This meta-study went beyond a best-evidence synthesis by analysing the quantitative evidence from a range of evaluations conducted around the world (this chapter), and by providing a complementary qualitative commentary on a overlapping set of studies (chapters 4 and 5), but not as far as a systematic review in rejecting all but controlled trials. This is because we already knew that there are very few controlled trials in the FLLN field: the REAL (Raising Early Achievement in Literacy) project conducted by Peter Hannon and colleagues in Sheffield, Anne Morgan’s Dialogic Reading study, also in Sheffield, and the In-Depth Study within the evaluation of Even Start in the United States seem to be the only genuine RCTs (though the PEFaL project in Malta could be considered a ‘naturally-occurring RCT’). We discovered no non-randomised controlled trials, and most of the evidence consists of data from matched-group and one-group pre-test/post-test studies.

We also discovered no previous review attempting a quantitative analysis of the type presented in this chapter. The most comprehensive recent survey of the field is the volume edited by Wasik (2004), and that is noticeably lacking in quantitative information (though the little which is given on FLAME has been used in this report).

3.3 The projects covered

Relevant projects were identified from the research team members’ prior knowledge and from following reference trails. Table 1 lists the 16 projects identified and analysed alphabetically, and gives some basic information about them. They yielded 19 studies in all, since three projects were the subject of two studies each. Two studies provided data only on parents (one of these only because its data on children could not be accessed at the time of writing), five only on children, and 12 on both.

Some well-known studies have not been included, in particular the Perry Preschool

Chapter 3: Analysis of the quantitative evidence

Greg Brooks with Felicity Rees and Alison Pollard

From their inception in the mid-1980s, family programmes were intended for families in particular need, both economically and in terms of being thought to require a boost to their literacy, language or numeracy skills.

‘‘

‘‘


www.cfbt.com 21

Project in Ypsilanti, Michigan, better known as High/Scope, plus several other US programmes analysed in detail in Karoly et al. (1998). This is because none of those studies gathered quantitative literacy, language or numeracy data on either parents or children. Two British studies were excluded for the same reason (Keeping Up with the Children (Brooks et al. 2003), and the PEEP Enabling Parents study (Sylva et al., forthcoming)).

Table 1 shows that most of the projects with quantitative evidence were still from the English-speaking world, especially England, but there was also some evidence from non-English-speaking countries (Malta, Turkey, and a Zulu-speaking area of KwaZulu-Natal in South Africa), and two of the programmes investigated were bilingual (PEFaL in Malta, FLAME in Chicago). The MOCEP programme in Turkey has one of the longest-running research projects in the field – it began in 1986, and was based on a programme which had begun in 1982. PEFaL in Malta collected data on progress in both Maltese and English. As the full name of FLAME implies, it was designed for Spanish-speakers, and it was intended to benefit the skills of parents and children in both Spanish and English. Part of the Family Literacy for New Groups initiative in England was concerned with linguistic minority families; most of the parents who participated in that aspect were from Mirpuri Punjabi- and Urdu-speaking backgrounds.

From their inception in the mid-1980s, family programmes were intended for families in particular need, both economically and in terms of being thought to require a boost to their literacy, language or numeracy skills. This was true of all the programmes studied for this review. For example, FLAME served a poor Latino neighbourhood in Chicago, MOCEP very deprived communities in several parts of Turkey, PEFaL several such communities in Malta. And although Bookstart had expanded to cover potentially every baby in Britain by about 2003, the two local evaluations analysed here were based in disadvantaged areas of Birmingham and Sheffield.

3.4 The analyses

The detailed quantitative analyses are provided in Appendix A. The point of going into the level of detail shown in the analyses was to tease out exactly which findings can be supported by quantitative evidence, and the strength of that evidence.

The following are methodological observations arising from the analyses.

• The information provided was sometimes patchy, even in well-funded and well-regarded evaluations.

• Some studies for which great importance is claimed had sample sizes too small to bear that weight, e.g. Bookstart in Birmingham.

• Exactly half the studies provided data only or mainly from an intervention group, with no or few comparison group data.

• Even within the other eight studies, none of the programmes had been compared with an alternative intervention, only with ‘no treatment’.

• Most of the evidence arises from test data or, in the case of such aspects as self-confidence, validly from self-report questionnaires, but for some aspects less direct measures were used, e.g. teachers’ reports about parents and children. Reliance on indirect measures of impact was more frequent with regard to parents than children, and there were fewer test data on parents than on children.

• As mentioned at the end of chapter 2, much has been made in the literature of the ‘synergy’ effect for parents of intergenerational programmes, that is, the claim that parents attending family programmes make better progress than other adults attending general adult education classes. There has still been no attempt to test this notion empirically. This would require a well-designed study (preferably an RCT) in which half the participating parents receive a normal family learning programme while the other half at first receive only the adult education component, and they and their children receive the rest of the programme later.


www.cfbt.com 22

Ref

eren

ce n

umb

er

and

nam

e

1. B

ooks

tart

– 2

stu

dies

2. B

oots

Boo

ks fo

r B

abie

s

3. C

hild

-to-

child

pro

gram

me

4. D

ialo

gic

read

ing

5. E

arly

Sta

rt (B

asic

Ski

lls A

genc

y)

6. E

ven

Sta

rt –

2 s

tudi

es

7. F

amily

lite

racy

dem

onst

ratio

n pr

ogra

mm

es (B

asic

Ski

lls

Age

ncy)

8. F

amily

lite

racy

for

new

gro

ups

(Bas

ic S

kills

Age

ncy)

9. F

amily

lite

racy

and

num

erac

y in

pris

ons

(Bas

ic S

kills

Age

ncy)

liter

acy,

with

som

e la

ngua

ge a

nd

num

erac

y da

ta

liter

acy

liter

acy,

lang

uage

and

nu

mer

acy

liter

acy

and

lang

uage

lang

uage

liter

acy

and

lang

uage

liter

acy

liter

acy

and

lang

uage

liter

acy

and

num

erac

y

Eng

land

(1

A B

irmin

gham

)

Eng

land

(1

B S

heffi

eld)

Eng

land

(Not

tingh

am

City

and

Cou

nty)

Sou

th A

frica

(M

pum

alan

ga d

istr

ict,

Kw

aZul

u-N

atal

)

Eng

land

(She

ffiel

d)

Eng

land

US

A (6

A –

In-D

epth

S

tudy

)

US

A (6

B –

Nat

iona

l S

tudy

)

Eng

land

and

Wal

es

(Car

diff,

Liv

erpo

ol,

Nor

folk

, Nor

th T

ynes

ide)

Eng

land

and

Wal

es

Eng

land

Age 2-3: 28 + 29

Age

s 5

and

7: n

/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

2001

/02:

592

2003

: 435

, of w

hom

213

re

turn

ed q

res

101 + 98 reducing to

84 + 75

? 361

349

43

Age 2–3: 28 + 29

Ages 5 and 7: 41 + 41

23 + 23

c.1700 + c.600

20 + 12

20 + 20 reducing to

14–17 + 14–17

(200

1/02

: n/a

)20

03: n

ot s

tate

d bu

t pr

esum

ably

435


84 + 75

? 392

316

44

Mat

ched

gro

ups,

po

st-t

est o

nly

Mat

ched

gro

ups,

po

st-t

est o

nly

Unm

atch

ed g

roup

s,

‘pos

t-te

st’ o

nly

One

gro

up p

re/p

ost

stud

y, w

ith o

ppor

tuni

stic

co

mpa

rison

gro

up a

t po

st-t

est

Mat

ched

gro

ups

RC

T

One

gro

up p

re/p

ost

stud

y

RC

T

One

gro

up p

re/p

ost

stud

y

One

gro

up p

re/p

ost

stud

y, w

ith c

ompa

rison

gr

oup

only

at 3

-yea

r fo

llow

-up

One

gro

up p

re/p

ost

stud

y

One

gro

up p

re/p

ost

stud

y

Tab

le 1

: T

he

pro

jec

ts a

nal

ysed

qu

anti

tati

vely

, an

d b

asic

info

rmat

ion

abo

ut

them

1

of 2

Lite

racy

, lan

gua

ge

o

r nu

mer

acy

Co

untr

y

(and

are

a*)

Num

ber

s **

of

Res

earc

h d

esig

n

par

ents

child

ren

* A

reas

are

nam

ed o

nly

whe

n ve

ry s

pec

ific.

** W

here

tw

o nu

mb

ers

are

show

n, th

e se

cond

is fo

r th

e co

ntro

l/com

paris

on g

roup

.

RC

T =

ran

dom

ised

con

trol

led

tria

l

n/a

= n

ot a

vaila

ble


www.cfbt.com 23

Ref

eren

ce n

umb

er

and

nam

e

10.

Fam

ily n

umer

acy

pilo

t pr

ogra

mm

es (B

asic

Ski

lls

Age

ncy)

11.

FLA

ME

– F

amily

Lite

racy

–

Apr

endi

endo

, Mej

oran

do,

Edu

cand

o (L

earn

ing,

Impr

ovin

g,

Edu

catin

g)

12.

Ħilt

i clu

bs

13.

MO

CE

P (M

othe

r-C

hild

E

duca

tion

Pro

gram

)

14.

PE

EP

(Pee

rs E

arly

Edu

catio

n P

artn

ersh

ip) –

2 s

tudi

es

15.

PE

FaL

(Par

ent E

mpo

wer

men

t th

roug

h Fa

mily

Lite

racy

)

16.

RE

AL

(Rai

sing

Ear

ly

Ach

ieve

men

t in

Lite

racy

)

num

erac

y

liter

acy

and

lang

uage

liter

acy

and

lang

uage

liter

acy,

lang

uage

and

nu

mer

acy

liter

acy,

lang

uage

and

nu

mer

acy

liter

acy

liter

acy,

lang

uage

Eng

land

US

A(C

hica

go)

Mal

ta

Turk

ey

Eng

land

(Oxf

ord)

(14A

–

Foun

datio

n P

EE

P)

Eng

land

(Oxf

ord)

(14B

–

Birt

h To

Sch

ool S

tudy

)

Mal

ta

Eng

land

(She

ffiel

d)

517

189

257

102 + 115

n/a

294 +297 reducing to

210 + 225

46 + 21

88 + 88

215 overall; 148 + 144

in m

atch

ed g

roup

s

120

365

102 + 115

64 + 83


215 + 230

54 + 40

88 + 88

Mai

nly

one

grou

p

pre/

post

stu

dy, w

ith

mat

ched

gro

up s

ub-

sam

ples

of c

hild

ren

One

gro

up p

re/p

ost

stud

y

One

gro

up, p

ost-

test

-on

ly s

tudy

Mat

ched

-gro

ups

pr

e-te

st/p

ost-

test

qu

asi-e

xper

imen

tal

stud

ies

Mat

ched

-gro

ups,

pr

e-te

st/p

ost-

test

qu

asi-e

xper

imen

tal

stud

ies

Qua

si-R

CT

RC

T

Tab

le 1

: T

he

pro

jec

ts a

nal

ysed

qu

anti

tati

vely

, an

d b

asic

info

rmat

ion

abo

ut

them

2

of 2

Lite

racy

, lan

gua

ge

o

r nu

mer

acy

Co

untr

y

(and

are

a*)

Num

ber

s **

of

Res

earc

h d

esig

n

par

ents

child

ren

* A

reas

are

nam

ed o

nly

whe

n ve

ry s

pec

ific.

** W

here

tw

o nu

mb

ers

are

show

n, th

e se

cond

is fo

r th

e co

ntro

l/com

paris

on g

roup

.

RC

T =

ran

dom

ised

con

trol

led

tria

l


www.cfbt.com 24

• Though we talk throughout this report of ‘parents’, very few fathers took part in any of these studies – typically under 5%, and none at all in the Turkish programme, which was after all intended only for mothers – but this is a general pattern, as documented extensively by Goldman (2005).

• There is more evidence for literacy (17 studies) and language (15 studies) than for numeracy (8 studies); only one of the latter had numeracy as its sole focus, and in several others it was a subsidiary focus.

• The fact that rather few null or negative results appear in the findings suggests that there may be publication bias in this field as in others – for evidence and arguments on publication bias see Torgerson (2003, 2005; Torgerson et al. 2004). That is, positive findings are more likely to be reported (some researchers are reluctant to report negative or null findings) and academic journals and other outlets are also less likely to accept reports of negative or null findings. This is a further reason to take the findings summarised below with some caution.

3.5 Findings

The findings are presented in full in Appendix A; a summary is provided in Table 2. In the ‘Benefits for parents’ column the ages shown are not of course the parents’ but those of their children when the data were gathered. Also, absence of mention of a form of benefit does not mean that there was no benefit, only that no evidence was gathered on it.

In Table 2 the studies are listed in decreasing order of the strength of their research designs, with randomised controlled trials (RCTs) at the top and a one-group post-test-only study at the bottom. The numbers of parents and children are shown as further guidance on the strength of the evidence; in general, less weight should be attached to very small studies (the Child-to-Child programme, Dialogic Reading, both Bookstart studies) though at the opposite end of the scale diminishing returns operate – the numbers in the Boots Books for Babies study are impressive but smaller numbers would have made the same point.

The description ‘Matched pairs RCT’ for REAL and Dialogic reading means that in those studies the experimenters first identified closely similar pairs of, respectively, families and children, then allocated one member of each pair randomly to their experimental group, and the other to the control group. This is an even stronger design than an RCT where random allocation is carried out without knowing any of the characteristics of the participants.

The reason for placing the Birth To School Study of PEEP in Oxford immediately after the RCTs is this. The data in this study were analysed using a relatively new statistical technique called Propensity Score Matching (PSM) which was developed precisely for designs where random assignment to experimental and control groups is not possible, for example where an intervention is already established, or must be allocated to a particular area or sample. (In this case, PEEP was already established in four deprived areas of south Oxford.) In place of matching individuals or groups beforehand, PSM matches them after the event. Using background and other data gathered at the beginning of a study, for each member of the experimental group PSM identifies the member of the comparison group who is most like that member of the experimental group; when as many such pairs as possible have been identified statistical analysis proceeds on the basis of the groups so constituted. PSM is said by its advocates to go some way towards allowing for the differences between groups that random allocation attempts to eliminate and non-random allocation cannot, and therefore to sustain more robust and reliable statistical comparisons than conventional methods of comparing non-randomised groups.

On reading down Table 2 it is striking that the four studies with the strongest designs (REAL, Dialogic Reading, the Even Start In-Depth Study, PEFaL) reported hardly any positive results, and many fewer than any other group of four studies. This is actually the reason for preferring evidence from RCTs where it is available: what appear to be strong findings from weaker designs might not have appeared so if there had been properly-constituted control groups, since they might have made progress similar to the intervention groups.


www.cfbt.com 25

Ref

eren

ce n

umb

er

and

nam

e

16.

RE

AL

4. D

ialo

gic

read

ing

6. E

ven

Sta

rt –

In

-Dep

th S

tudy

114B

. P

EE

P (B

TSS

)

13.

MO

CE

P

14A

. P

EE

P

(Fou

ndat

ion)

10.

Fam

ily n

umer

acy

pilo

t pro

gram

mes

Mat

ched

pai

rs R

CT

Mat

ched

pai

rs R

CT

RC

T

Mat

ched

-gro

ups,

pr

e-te

st/p

ost-

test

qu

asi-e

xper

imen

tal

stud

y

Mat

ched

-gro

ups

pr

e-te

st/p

ost-

test

qu

asi-e

xper

imen

tal

stud

y

Mat

ched

-gro

ups,

pr

e-te

st/p

ost-

test

qu

asi-e

xper

imen

tal

stud

y

Mat

ched

-gro

ups,

pr

e/po

st

n/a

n/a

Ben

efit

to g

ener

al e

duca

tiona

l qu

alifi

catio

ns b

ut n

ot to

lite

racy

Som

e be

nefit

to m

othe

rs’ c

areg

ivin

g

Age

6: B

enef

its to

mot

hers

’ chi

ld-

rear

ing

prac

tices

and

sel

f-es

teem

Age

7 fo

llow

-up:

Ben

efit

to m

othe

rs’

child

-rea

ring

prac

tices

mai

ntai

ned,

an

d m

othe

rs re

port

ed a

s m

ore

invo

lved

with

thei

r ch

ildre

n’s

scho

ols

n/a

Age

5: B

enef

its to

mot

hers

’ sel

f-co

nfid

ence

and

invo

lvem

ent w

ith th

eir

child

ren’

s sc

hool

s; a

lso,

tuto

rs re

port

ed

bene

fits

to m

othe

rs’ n

umer

acy

and

abilit

y to

hel

p th

eir c

hild

ren

3-ye

ar fo

llow

-up:

Par

ents

rat

ed b

y th

eir

child

ren’

s te

ache

rs a

s m

ore

invo

lved

than

com

paris

on g

roup

with

th

eir

child

ren’

s sc

hool

s

Age

5: B

enef

it to

lite

racy

but

not

vo

cabu

lary

Age

7: B

enef

it to

lite

racy

of c

hild

ren

who

se m

othe

rs h

ad n

o ed

ucat

iona

l qu

alifi

catio

ns, b

ut n

ot o

vera

ll

Pro

babl

y no

ben

efit,

and

ver

y sm

all i

f it

exis

ted

No

adva

ntag

e ov

er c

ontr

ols

Mix

ed re

sults

, no

over

all b

enef

it

Age

s 3,

4 a

nd 5

: Ben

efits

for

liter

acy

an

d la

ngua

ge, b

ut p

ossi

bly

nega

tive

for

num

erac

y

Age

6: B

enef

its fo

r lit

erac

y, la

ngua

ge

and

num

erac

y

Age

7 fo

llow

-up:

Ben

efits

for

liter

acy

and

num

erac

y m

aint

aine

d

End

of s

choo

ling:

hig

her a

vera

ge g

rade

Uni

vers

ity: h

ighe

r pr

opor

tion

atte

ndin

g

Age

s 4

and

5: B

enef

its fo

r lit

erac

y,

lang

uage

and

num

erac

y

Age

5: B

enef

it to

ear

ly n

umer

acy

3-ye

ar fo

llow

-up:

Par

ticip

atin

g ch

ildre

n ra

ted

by th

eir

teac

hers

som

ewha

t be

tter

in s

choo

l tha

n co

mpa

rison

gr

oup

Tab

le 2

: S

um

mar

y o

f fi

nd

ing

s fr

om

th

e q

uan

tita

tive

an

alys

es

1 of

3

Res

earc

h d

esig

n

88 + 88

n/a

101 + 98 reducing

to 84 + 75

294 +297 reducing

to 210 + 225

102 + 115

n/a

517

88 + 88

20 + 20 reducing

to 14–17 + 14–17

101 + 98 reducing

to 84 + 75

15.

PE

FaL

Qua

si-R

CT

Mix

ed re

sults

, no

over

all b

enef

it46 + 21

54 + 40

301 + 303 reducing

to 215 + 230

102 + 115

64 + 83

215

over

all;

148

+ 144 in matched

grou

ps

Num

ber

s o

f

par

ents

child

ren

Ben

efit

s fo

r

par

ents

child

ren


www.cfbt.com 26

Ref

eren

ce n

umb

er

and

nam

e

1A.

Boo

ksta

rt –

B

irmin

gham

1B.

Boo

ksta

rt –

S

heffi

eld

2. B

oots

Boo

ks fo

r B

abie

s

3. C

hild

-to-

child

pr

ogra

mm

e

5. E

arly

Sta

rt

6. E

ven

Sta

rt –

NE

IS

Mat

ched

gro

ups,

pos

t-te

st o

nly

Mat

ched

gro

ups,

po

st-t

est o

nly

Unm

atch

ed g

roup

s,

‘pos

t-te

st’ o

nly

One

gro

up

pre/

post

stu

dy,

w

ith o

ppor

tuni

stic

co

mpa

rison

gro

up a

t po

st-t

est

One

gro

up p

re/p

ost

stud

y

One

gro

up p

re/p

ost

stud

y

Age

2½

–3: B

enef

it to

abi

lity

to h

elp

thei

r ch

ildre

n

n/a

n/a

n/a

Sel

f-re

port

ed b

enef

its to

sel

f-co

nfid

ence

, lan

guag

e, a

bilit

y to

he

lp th

eir

child

ren,

edu

catio

n an

d em

ploy

men

t

No

ben

efit

Age

2½

–3: B

enef

it to

eng

agem

ent

with

boo

ks

Age

s 5

and

7: B

enef

its to

lite

racy

an

d nu

mer

acy

Ben

efits

to li

tera

cy a

nd n

umer

acy

Ben

efit

to u

se o

f lib

rarie

s

Ben

efits

for

liter

acy,

lang

uage

and

nu

mer

acy,

but

ver

y sm

all

Ben

efits

for

child

ren’

s la

ngua

ge

repo

rted

by

the

pare

nts

(evi

den

ce n

ot a

cces

sed

)

Tab

le 2

: S

um

mar

y o

f fi

nd

ing

s fr

om

th

e q

uan

tita

tive

an

alys

es

2 of

3

Res

earc

h d

esig

n

Age 2–3: 28 + 29

Age

s 5

and

7: n

/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

2001

/02:

592

2003

: 435

, of

who

m 2

13 r

etur

ned

qres

?

Age 2–3: 28 + 29

Age

s 5

and

7:

41 + 41

23 + 23

c.1700 + c.600

20 + 12

7. F

amily

lite

racy

d

emon

stra

tion

prog

ram

mes

One

gro

up p

re/p

ost

stud

y, w

ith c

ompa

rison

gr

oup

only

at 2

½-y

ear

follo

w-u

p

Ben

efits

to li

tera

cy a

nd a

bilit

y to

he

lp th

eir

child

ren

3- a

nd 9

-mon

th fo

llow

-ups

: C

ontin

uing

impr

ovem

ent i

n ab

ove

bene

fits

2½-y

ear

follo

w-u

p: C

ontin

uing

im

prov

emen

t in

abov

e b

enef

its, p

lus

maj

ority

had

don

e fu

rthe

r st

udy,

so

me

had

gain

ed e

mpl

oym

ent,

and

part

icip

atin

g pa

rent

s w

ere

rate

d by

th

eir

child

ren’

s te

ache

rs a

s m

ore

invo

lved

with

thei

r ch

ildre

n’s

scho

ols

than

com

paris

on g

roup

Age

3–6

: Ben

efits

to li

tera

cy a

nd

lang

uage

3-m

onth

follo

w-u

p: F

urth

er b

enef

it

9-m

onth

and

2½

-yea

r fo

llow

-ups

: B

enef

its s

usta

ined

2½-y

ear

follo

w-u

p: P

artic

ipat

ing

child

ren

rate

d by

thei

r te

ache

rs

som

ewha

t bet

ter

in s

choo

l tha

n co

mpa

rison

gro

up

361

392

2001

/02:

n/a

2003

: not

sta

ted

but p

resu

mab

ly

435

?

Num

ber

s o

f

par

ents

child

ren

Ben

efit

s fo

r

par

ents

child

ren


www.cfbt.com 27

Ref

eren

ce n

umb

er

and

nam

e

8. F

amily

lite

racy

for

new

gro

ups

9. F

amily

lite

racy

an

d nu

mer

acy

in

pris

ons

11.

FLA

ME

12. Ħ

ilti c

lubs

One

gro

up p

re/p

ost

stud

y

One

gro

up p

re/p

ost

stud

y

One

gro

up p

re/p

ost

stud

y

One

gro

up p

ost-

test

- on

ly s

tud

y

Ling

uist

ic m

inor

ities

and

Yea

r 4:

B

enef

its to

lite

racy

and

abi

lity

to h

elp

thei

r ch

ildre

n

(Yea

r 7:

Not

eno

ugh

evid

ence

)

Ben

efits

to li

tera

cy, n

umer

acy

and

abili

ty to

hel

p th

eir

child

ren

Ben

efits

to la

ngua

ge, a

bilit

y to

hel

p th

eir

child

ren,

and

invo

lvem

ent w

ith

thei

r ch

ildre

n’s

scho

ols

Ben

efits

to s

elf-

conf

iden

ce, a

bilit

y to

he

lp th

eir

child

ren,

and

invo

lvem

ent

with

thei

r ch

ildre

n’s

scho

ols

Ling

uist

ic m

inor

ities

and

Yea

r 4:

B

enef

its to

lite

racy

and

lang

uage

(Yea

r 7:

Not

eno

ugh

evid

ence

)

Ben

efits

to li

tera

cy a

nd la

ngua

ge

Ben

efits

to li

tera

cy

Que

stio

nnai

re e

vid

ence

of b

enef

its

to li

tera

cy a

nd p

ositi

ve a

ttitu

des

to

scho

ol

Tab

le 2

: S

um

mar

y o

f fi

nd

ing

s fr

om

th

e q

uan

tita

tive

an

alys

es

3 of

3

Res

earc

h d

esig

n

349

43 189

257

316

44 120

365

Num

ber

s o

f

par

ents

child

ren

Ben

efit

s fo

r

par

ents

child

ren


www.cfbt.com 28

Non-randomised comparison groups are by definition already different from the intervention groups to start with, and any differences in progress between groups in such designs cannot be attributed unequivocally to the intervention. Despite this, where RCTs are largely lacking, as here, judicious use has to be made of evidence from studies with other designs.

3.6 Benefits for parents

What is immediately noticeable in the column of benefits for parents is the dearth of evidence on their skills.

• Only three studies (Family literacy demonstration programmes, Family literacy for new groups, Family literacy and numeracy in prisons), all of which had one-group designs, reported benefit to parents’ literacy, and the two studies with strong designs which reported a literacy finding for parents (Even Start In-Depth Study, PEFaL) showed no benefit, though Even Start did show a benefit to general education, as did the Family literacy demonstration programmes (‘further study’) and Early Start.

• Only two studies (Early Start, FLAME) reported benefit to parents’ spoken language.

• Only two studies (Family numeracy pilot programmes, Family literacy and numeracy in prisons) reported benefit to parents’ numeracy.

On balance, this probably does mean that parents’ skills benefited, but the situation cries out for much more systematic gathering of data on this in a series of rigorous studies.

Most family programmes have as a further aim for parents that their ability to help their children’s education should benefit. Eight studies report such benefits (Family numeracy pilot programmes, Bookstart in Birmingham, Family literacy demonstration programmes, Early Start, Family literacy for new groups, Family literacy and numeracy in prisons, FLAME, Ħilti clubs). While this is probably cumulative enough to be convincing, it should be noted that none of these studies was an

RCT, only two had comparison groups, and the rest were one-group studies.

A range of wider benefits for parents was reported:

• to mothers’ child-rearing practices (MOCEP, the PEEP Birth To School Study)

• to parents’ employment (Family literacy demonstration programmes, Early Start)

• to parents’ self-confidence (MOCEP, Family numeracy pilot programmes, Early Start, Ħilti clubs)

• parents being more involved with their children’s schools (MOCEP, Family numeracy pilot programmes, Family literacy demonstration programmes, FLAME, Ħilti clubs). Some of these reports came at follow-up stages.

3.7 Benefits for children

Compared with the dearth of evidence on benefits to parents’ skills there was much more on children’s skills, though some of it was mixed.

• Literacy: 12 studies reported benefits from test data (REAL at age 5, MOCEP, Foundation PEEP, the PEEP Birth To School Study, Bookstart in Birmingham at ages 5 and 7, Bookstart in Sheffield, Boots Books for Babies, Child-to-Child programme, Family literacy demonstration programmes, Family literacy for new groups, Family literacy and numeracy in prisons, FLAME) and one from self-report questionnaire data (Ħilti clubs). Two other studies reported positive effects on precursors to literacy (Bookstart in Birmingham: engagement with books at age 2½; Boots Books for Babies: use of libraries). However, in REAL the effect on literacy had washed out by age 7, except for children whose mothers had no formal qualifications; and the other three RCTs (Dialogic Reading, Even Start In-Depth Study, PEFaL) reported no advantage over controls.

• Language: eight studies reported benefits, all from test data (MOCEP, Foundation PEEP, the PEEP Birth To School Study, Child-to-Child programme, Family literacy demonstration programmes, Family literacy


www.cfbt.com 29

for new groups, Early Start, Family literacy and numeracy in prisons) but the relevant study with the strongest design, REAL, reported no advantage over controls.

• Numeracy: six studies reported benefits, all from test data (MOCEP, Foundation PEEP, Family numeracy pilot programmes, both Bookstart studies, Child-to-Child programme), but the PEEP Birth To School Study’s main finding on numeracy was negative – the comparison group made better progress.

For all three skills, this mixed picture probably means, on balance, that the benefits were genuine, but again firmer evidence would be desirable.

The only wider benefit for children reported as occurring during a programme was Ħilti clubs’ report of more positive attitudes to school.

3.8 Long-term benefits

All too often educational innovations have an impact while they are running but the effect wears off afterwards. Wherever possible, therefore, participants should be followed up at some later point. Of the 19 studies analysed here, five reported follow-up data gathered some while after the end of the programme: REAL, MOCEP, Foundation PEEP, Family numeracy pilot programmes (once each), and Family literacy demonstration programmes (three times). Also, the two Bookstart studies in effect gathered only follow-up data, since the ‘intervention’ (the gift of the book pack) had occurred years earlier. (The PEEP Birth To School Study gathered data on children at four points and on parents at five, but all of these were while the study was running.)

The relevant data, extracted from Table 2, are repeated in Table 3.

The findings can be summarised by saying that only REAL reported evidence of wash-out, and then only partially. The most impressive and most long-term results were from MOCEP – no other programme analysed here has been in existence long enough to produce such findings.

3.9 Some tentative insights

In looking at the different studies we were struck by the fact that particularly impressive results are quoted where programmes worked with mothers who were in a ‘traditional’ family setting. We also found it striking that programmes such as FLAME in Chicago and MOCEP in Turkey may involve literacy and/or numeracy, but that these are part of a broader vision of the role of the parent – community integration and involvement in FLAME, health and child-rearing in MOCEP. Similar insights come from the programmes in Nepal and South Africa analysed in chapter 4.

FLAME targets Hispanic families, and it may be that, among groups who do not have the main national language as their mother tongue, access to schooling is seen as a passport to greater opportunity.

FLAME participants are described as ‘mothers… [who] never went out of their houses without their husbands’. It is easy to see that a broadly conceived and well-structured programme could benefit such women, giving them contact with their peers in a situation that enables them to build self-esteem by developing parenting skills and to participate more fully in everyday life. The Turkish programme was targeted specifically at mothers and children, and reported increased self-esteem among participant mothers, at the same time as a decrease in self-esteem among the control group. This could be because the programme looked at ‘positive and negative’ discipline within the home, and the evaluation asked specific questions about whether parents shouted at or beat their children. Raising awareness of enlightened discipline, and providing mothers with strategies to implement it (e.g. by paying attention to children, setting up appropriate settings and activities for them) is likely to raise self-esteem, whereas asking questions about ‘negative’ discipline of parents who may feel they do not have strategies to cope other than by shouting at or beating their children is likely to undermine self-esteem.

It is difficult to imagine a British study asking such sensitive questions of parents. It is often difficult to gain access to homes to observe


www.cfbt.com 30

Reference number and name

16. REAL

13. MOCEP

14A. PEEP (Foundation)

10. Family numeracy pilot programmes

7. Family literacy demonstration programmes

n/a

Age 7: Benefit to mothers’ child-rearing practices maintained, and mothers reported as more involved with their children’s schools

n/a

3-year follow-up: Parents rated by their children’s teachers as more involved than comparison group with their children’s schools

3- and 9-month follow-ups: Continuing improvement in benefits to literacy and ability to help their children

2½-year follow-up: Continuing improvement in above benefits, plus majority had done further study, some had gained employment, and participating parents were rated by their children’s teachers as more involved with their children’s schools than comparison group

Age 7: Benefit to literacy of children whose mothers had no educational qualifications, but not overall

Age 7: Benefits for literacy and numeracy maintained

End of schooling: higher average grade

University: higher proportion attending

Ages 5: Benefits for literacy, language and numeracy maintained

3-year follow-up: Participating children rated by their teachers somewhat better in school than comparison group

3-month follow-up: Further benefit 9-month and 2½-year follow-ups: Benefits sustained

2½-year follow-up: Participating children rated by their teachers somewhat better in school than comparison group

Table 3: Summary of follow-up findings from the quantitative analyses

Long-term benefits for

parents children

parent-child interaction, perhaps because parents feel that they fall short of an ideal standard and are reluctant to be observed failing. The authors of an evaluation of Bookstart observe that ‘issues ranging from housekeeping to safety and anxiety about how the data may be used to judge the quality of child care’ may be behind parents’ reluctance to be observed.

Although this may not be a popular stance, on the basis of the quantitative analyses we wondered how far the real value of family literacy and numeracy programmes is the extent to which they encourage, and give both parents and children the opportunity to experience and develop constructive dialogue (in the broadest sense of ‘communication between individuals’). This may be why particular success was reported

in programmes where the adults involved were offered opportunities to exchange ideas with one another – whether about issues associated with childcare or about other aspects of life and life skills. The Turkish study referred to the fact that the follow-up survey of children in school showed that their literacy and numeracy scores were both related to their pre-test scores in ‘pre-literacy’ skills, and quoted this as evidence of the ‘importance of literacy skills in initial school success’.

In relation to gender issues, the Turkish evaluation reported greater gains for girls in both pre-literacy and pre-numeracy skills at the end of the programme. This finding may be an effect of girls’ well-reported early strengths in language development, or may be to do with mothers being role models in the programme.


www.cfbt.com 31

Most of the programmes analysed here were intensive, providing several hours of sessions a week for up to 12 weeks in community venues – certainly most of the programmes developed by the Basic Skills Agency in Britain followed this model. However, a few took a quite different tack. In particular, MOCEP delivered its programmes partly through home visits, and REAL almost wholly so, and such initiatives were not notably less successful. There may be support here for the recent

greater diversity of programmes in England noted by Hannon (2003), Hannon and Bird (2004) and Hannon et al. (2007).

However that may be, family literacy, language and numeracy programmes seem now to be an established part of the educational scene in several countries and to be spreading to others. And despite the limitations of the quantitative evidence analysed here, they have a valuable part to play.


www.cfbt.com 32

4.1 Introduction

This chapter deals with the qualitative evidence from projects outside the UK. The relevant projects are listed alphabetically by country (or continent, in the case of Europe). In each case, the project is described, and analysed in relation to the values, epistemologies and models set out in chapter 2. Where possible, contact details are given.

This is not intended to be an exhaustive list of all the projects in the world, but is intended to provide practitioners and researchers with an overview of the range of projects that have run in the last five years, in a wide geographical spread, drawing on a range of models and with different outputs. Projects were selected from Canada, Europe, Nepal, New Zealand, South Africa, Uganda and the United States. The quantitative data from three of the studies (the Malta section of PEFaL, the Mother-Child Education Program in Turkey, FLAME in Chicago) have already been analysed in chapter 3. Chapter 5 surveys the current context for and state of FLLN practice within England and Wales.

The criteria for selecting the studies included:

• programmes which valued home literacies, languages and numeracies

• programmes which took an inclusive approach to community literacies

• programmes that developed a number of community partnerships

• programmes which had a high impact on participants, either qualitatively or quantitatively recorded

• programmes that were clearly described and well defined and had undertaken some evaluative strategies

• (mainly) programmes active in the last five years (i.e. after 2000).

However, not all the projects fulfilled all the criteria. Some (e.g. QualiFLY) had only just

started, but still had useful elements which practitioners and policy makers can learn from. Others, such as the Nepal project, had no data from 2001 onwards but were interesting for research and practice, and provided examples from the field that can inform practice.

Appendix B sets out the salient features of the studies.

4.2 Canada

LAPS, Calgary, Alberta

Type of programme: Literacy, language and parenting

Literacy and Parenting Skills (LAPS) was an innovative family literacy programme designed to provide literacy and parenting skills to parents. The programme was delivered in the form of a training package that was developed for use in a number of settings, including community centres, women’s shelters, jails, drop-in centres and community housing projects. The project’s training manual, published in 1996, included facilitators’ instructions, participants’ handouts, and an outline of twelve 2½-hour sessions. Topics covered by these sessions included: Building Self-Esteem in Your Children, Positive Discipline, Anger Management, Communication and Listening Skills, Nutrition, Safety, Conflict Management, Families, Ages and Stages. The project was created in Calgary, Alberta, at Bow Valley College, in partnership with the Further Education Society of Alberta.

The LAPS project team also developed an English as a Second Language programme and a programme aimed at First Nations, Métis and Inuit (FNMI) parents. These sessions were developed to reflect the cross-cultural approaches and cultural sensitivity appropriate for the participants. In addition, work included the development of a training package, which was used to train literacy coordinators, ESL instructors and community workers to facilitate

Chapter 4: Qualitative analysis of the international projects

Kate Pahl

In each case, the project is described, and analysed in relation to the values, epistemologies and models set out in chapter 2. Where possible, contact details are given.

‘‘ ‘‘


www.cfbt.com 33

a LAPS programme in their community. In 1999 a video called ‘Path to Learning’ was developed portraying the LAPS programme in a variety of settings.

Note on sources: This report has been written drawing on limited information available on the LAPS website.

Contact details on LAPS: www.nald.ca.laps Family literacy in Canada: www.famlit.ca/

4.3 Europe

4.3.1 Parent Empowerment through Family Literacy: a European initiative

Type of programme: Literacy and language

ContextThis project was described in an article for a special family literacies issue of the journal Literacy (Camilleri, Spiteri and Wolfendale 2005). The article describes the genesis of, rationale for, and running of, the Parent Empowerment for Family Literacy Project (PEFaL), a European Union-funded six-nation family literacy initiative that took place between 2001 and 2004. Whilst a number of features of the project were typical of family literacy programmes, some aspects of PEFaL were identifiably distinctive. These included the multicultural, transcultural and linguistic dimensions, and an innovative attempt to encourage parent and child participants to communicate with each other across countries by email and the internet. PEFaL was the first Grundtvig Action Thematic Project within the EU Socrates Programme to be coordinated by a Maltese institution. It was also the first Grundtvig Thematic Project focusing on family literacy. The project partners came from Belgium, England (Bury), Italy, Lithuania, Malta and Romania. The motivation behind the bid by the partners was a common concern: how to reach vulnerable families who are often marginalised in their community, and are not normally reached by the regular compulsory school and adult lifelong learning systems.

The H-Model of family literacy provisionThe ‘H-Model’ assigned joint session time

for the parents and their children, as well as separate sessions for both before and after the joint session. One tutor worked with the children and another with the parents, each programme taking from eight to twelve families. The model family literacy programme had two components: the children’s component and the parents’ component, both in the joint and the separate sessions. The Lithuanian and Maltese partners worked on the design of the child component, whilst the Belgian, Romanian and Maltese partners worked on the design of the parent component, with the support of the English partner.

The model was based on two sessions a week for ten weeks over a school term, and was targeted at children aged 6 to 8, with suggested extensions for older children. Parents and children met separately for the first week, to allow for induction and pre-testing. They also met separately for the eighth week, in which the parents designed story bags and developed the session during which they would use the bags with their children the following week. The design of the story bags and the session itself served as a key internal assessment tool, to gauge how much the parent participants had, in fact, developed their competences not only in the development and application of specific literacy strategies, but in the cognitive and social skills necessary to develop the session on the basis of the joint sessions they would have participated in previously, and to negotiate the sharing of roles and responsibilities.

Project outputsThe PEFaL project generated a wealth of resources and outputs. In all areas, ‘deliverables’ exceeded numerically the minimum set at the beginning of the project. The main ones are outlined as follows.

• Training programme for family literacy tutors, with attendant resources. These include one video in English describing in detail a typical family literacy session, and a second video in each of the languages of the participating countries with feedback from key stakeholders who participated in the programmes, such as parents, tutors and heads of schools.


www.cfbt.com 34

• Model family literacy programme, with separate children’s and parents’ components for each session, and attendant resources. One particular resource deserves special mention, namely a big book entitled ‘When I Feel Lonely’ that was translated into the languages of the project, and was the first big book in Flemish, Italian, Lithuanian, Maltese and Romanian.

• Adaptations of the model family literacy programme and resources were made in the languages and cultures of the participating countries.

• The Parent Leaders’ Lifelong Learning Portfolio was piloted during the ‘experiential’ part of the concluding conference, and is intended to help parent leaders value their learning experience as they provide service within parent-in-education programmes and within their school and local communities.

• 20 host schools in local communities hosted family literacy programmes.

• 64 trained and experienced family literacy tutors formed core teams in six European countries.

• 30 family literacy programmes were organised in the participating countries.

(Camilleri, Spiteri and Wolfendale 2005)

Contact: www.pefalmalta.org.mt/

Note: This report was put together drawing on the article, cited below, by Camilleri, Spiteri and Wolfendale, about the project, in addition to consulting the website, above. Juan Camilleri’s Master’s dissertation provides more detail.

ReferencesCamilleri, J. (2004) Literacy as a family affair: an evaluation of effectiveness of local and trans-national family literacy programmes. Unpublished M.Ed. dissertation, University of Sheffield School of Education.

Camilleri, J., Spiteri, S. and Wolfendale, S. (2005). Parent Empowerment for Family Literacy: a European initiative. Literacy, 39, 2, 74–80.

4.3.2 QualiFLY: European project on family literacy

Type of programme: Family literacy and language, focused on training practitioners

This project, coordinated by the UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning (formerly the UNESCO Institute for Education) in Hamburg, Germany, and funded by the European Union in the framework of the Socrates/Grundtvig programme, started with a first meeting in İstanbul in November 2005, and was scheduled to run until summer 2007. It involved seven institutions from six countries. The institutions were the Ethnocultural Dialogue foundation in Bulgaria, the National Adult Literacy Agency in Ireland, the Università Popolare di Roma in Italy, the Foundation for Educational Services in Malta, the Mother-Child Education Foundation in Turkey, and the Institute of Teacher Training and School Development of the City State of Hamburg. In this review, the projects from Hamburg and Turkey are focused on. The Hamburg project had just started while the Turkish project had a much longer history.

Contact: www.unesco.org/education/uie/QualiFLY/

Hamburg (part of QualiFLY)

Type of programme: literacy and language

ContextIn the autumn of 2004, the (then) UNESCO Institute for Education and the State Institute for Teacher Training and School Development began a family literacy pilot project at nine locations (seven schools and two kindergartens) in socially disadvantaged districts of Hamburg involving the parents of five-year-old preschool children. The objectives of the project included promoting children’s early literacy skills and improving parents’ literacy skills. The programme was supported by the German ‘Bund-Länder-Commission for Educational Planning and Research Promotion’ for five years as part of the programme, ‘Promotion of Children and Young Adults with Migrant Backgrounds’. After a two-year pilot phase, the project was to be evaluated with a view to expansion.


www.cfbt.com 35

Note on sources: This report was put together with information from the website, above, and a small information sheet from the website on the Hamburg project.

Turkey (part of QualiFLY)

Mother-Child Education Program

Type of programme: family literacy, language and parenting

Theoretical contextThis programme drew upon a Piagetian model of development, that is, a cognitive model which privileges mother-child interaction (the project now also targets fathers). It also drew on a perspective which considers some environments to be more advantageous than others for school success. It defined its perspective as ‘ecological’ (Bekman 1998) in that it saw two-way interaction as the key to the growth and development of the child. This strongly developmental perspective coloured the programme. The programme foregrounded the role of the mother in supporting the child’s development. Using socio-cultural theory, from Vygotsky, the programme argued that, by scaffolding parent-child interaction, the child would develop verbal and linguistic skills. Home environmental factors were considered critical in the child’s linguistic development. A focus on shared activity would, it was argued by the project team, develop the child’s linguistic ability. The project was therefore aimed at ‘at risk’ children from low socio-economic backgrounds.

Turkey is a country with a population of over 62 million, and it was estimated that enrolment in secondary school is 76% for men and 50% for women (1995 figures). Turkey does not have universal early childhood education. A number of different models prevail, including Centre-based models, but these do not always reach the right targets. It was against this background that the Mother-Child Education Foundation was established.

Origins of the projectThe project dates back to 1982, and drew on the research project, the ‘Turkish Early Enrichment Project’. This project was a four-year longitudinal study which set out to assess the impact of both centre-based

education and home intervention on the overall development of the child. The home intervention programme had two main elements: a programme to foster the overall development of the children, and a programme to foster their cognitive development. The project was studied from 1982 through to 1992. As a result of this study, the Mother Training programme was revised thoroughly to become a 25-week programme with five-year-old at-risk children as the target.

A new cognitive training programme to develop school readiness, focusing specifically on pre-literacy and pre-numeracy, was developed by the team (Kagıtçıbası, Bekman and Sunar 1991, Kagıtçıbası, Bekman, Özkök and Kusçul 1995). A new component, Reproductive health and family planning, was added. The revised programme ran with weekly group meetings and was renamed the Mother-Child Education Program (MOCEP). The groups meet weekly in an adult education centre, and the participants follow pre-set worksheets and are supported to share books at home with their children. In addition, a ‘mother enrichment programme’ supports women’s health and a positive self-concept for women. The meetings are run by adult education tutors who are trained by the Mother-Child Education Foundation staff.

EvaluationThe programme was evaluated in 1998 (Bekman 1998) using a pre/post control group quasi-experimental design. The research showed that children within the programme achieved significantly higher mean scores in pre-literacy and numeracy. Negative methods of discipline were less apparent in the programme group (Bekman 1998). Qualitative feedback from mothers and children described changes in the children’s behaviour and relationships, described in interviews by mothers, and a description of changes in interaction. Mothers were more ready to listen to their children and more confident in their ability to help their children, and felt that the programme gave their children a fair chance at school.

The fathers projectThe programme has since continued, and grown to include fathers. A pilot fathers programme was developed in 1996 at a public


www.cfbt.com 36

education centre in İstanbul. Following that, a course was set up at a glass factory, with 15 fathers participating. A library was formed at the building, and a book exchange scheme developed. Following the pilot study, 33 voluntary teachers were trained in delivering the programme. Eighty-nine projects were realised with these teachers at primary schools and Public Education Centres in 2001, with the permission of the District Directorate of National Education; and 928 fathers participated in the programme. A total of 1799 fathers benefited from this service in İstanbul and Kocaeli, in January 2002.

In 2002–03 the project was revised further, and the programme was reduced to 13 weeks. The programme focused on fathers finding out about effective parenting methods, the prevention of child abuse, and more equitable relations between men and women in relation to child-rearing. A focus on play and early literacy was embedded within the programme. The programme was evaluated using a questionnaire and in-depth interviews of the fathers. Significant differences were found between fathers who had participated in the programme and those who had not, particularly in open communication.

Note on sources: This report was prepared drawing on the first two evaluation reports below, which are two long (100-page) documents, with a great deal of detail and description within the accounts of the project.

ReferencesBekman, S. (1998) A Fair Chance: An Evaluation of the Mother-Child Education Program, İstanbul: Mother-Child Education Foundation Publications.

Koçak, A.A. (2004) Evaluation Report of the Father-Child Support Program. İstanbul: Mother-Child Education Foundation Publications.

Ka ̆gıtçıba ̧s ı, Ç., Bekman, S., Özkök, Ü.S. and Ku ̧s çul, Ö.H. (1995) Anne Destek Programıel kitabı (Handbook of Mother Support Program). Anne Çocuk E ̆gitim Vakfi Yayınları No.1 (Mother-Child Education Foundation publication No.1). İstanbul: Mother-Child Education Foundation Publications.

Ka ̆gıtçıba ̧s ı, Ç., Bekman, S. and Sunar, D. (1991) Anne Destek Programı Klavuzu (Handbook of Mother Enrichment Program), Ankara: UNICEF.

For more information contact: www.acev.org/english/index.asp

4.4 Nepal

Family Literacy in Nepal

Type of programme: family literacy and language

This section looks at some of the literacy programmes that have been run by a number of voluntary sector projects in Nepal, with a particular focus on women’s and family literacy, relying on information from UNESCO and Save the Children. In her 1995 review, Robinson-Pant reflected that, while there was quite a lot of quantitative analysis of the effectiveness of literacy programmes in Nepal, ‘reflections on the more qualitative impact of literacy on people’s lives are rare’. She also considered the ‘taken for granted’ nature of the idea that literacy must be a ‘good thing’. In the same way that some family literacy programmes in the West uncritically consider FLLN to be a ‘good thing’, Robinson-Pant argued that it was a key topic for discussion in the rural areas of Nepal. Another key area was the selection, training and supervision of literacy facilitators.

In this section, rather than focusing on Family Literacy, the focus is on women’s literacy programmes, as these were more common, and impacted strongly on children’s literacy.

The link between literacy and empowerment was highlighted in some programmes, such as Tuladhar (1994) who described how participatory video-making can become a way of empowering women, and enabling them to use their literacy skills. Robinson-Pant stressed how visual literacy is an increasing focus in Nepal.

Robinson-Pant described a number of studies of women’s literacy in Nepal, notably ‘From Learning Literacy to Regenerating Women’s Space: A Story of Women’s Empowerment in


www.cfbt.com 37

Nepal’ (Parajuli and Enslin 1990). This study gave an in-depth personal account of a ‘small experiment’ in Gunjanagar village, which explores how literacy can be an enabling factor in empowering women. Literacy classes gave women legitimate space to retell their untold stories. This study argued that ‘reading and writing, if grounded in local realities and dialogical in method, can be a real force for initiating empowerment of disadvantaged groups’ (Robinson-Pant 1995:5).

Robinson-Pant also highlighted a family literacy programme developed from the Save the Children/US Nepal Field Office (Manandhar, Leslie and Shrestha 1994). The project began by identifying the ways in which literacy could improve the quality of family life amongst the Kumal community in the pilot village of Adai Gaon. To meet the need for childcare information, a Nepali ‘baby book’ was developed with health information and space to record the stages in the baby’s life. Other activities included children writing down family history and stories, a homework club in the community and a notebook system to improve communication between school and home.

The Seti project is a major initiative that focuses on women’s and girls’ education. This project took an integrated approach to literacy and focused on setting up literacy classes for girls in the far west of Nepal. The programme was evaluated in a report which looked at the objectives and methodology of the project, and considered the successes of the project, which mostly lay in the area of improvements to health and changing attitudes to education, with more girls and women saying they would now prioritise educating their daughters.

Note on sources: Information on Literacy in Nepal is taken from Robinson-Pant’s (1995) analysis of the literature, and her more recent book (2001) published by UNESCO, Why Eat Green Cucumber at the Time of Dying? Exploring the link between women’s literacy and development: A Nepal Perspective, as well as the Seti project, below.

For more information on the Seti project, contact: www.literacyonline.org/explorer/seti_over.html

ReferencesMandandhar, H., Leslie, K. and Shrestha B.M. (1994) Family Literacy in Nepal: A case study from Save the Children/US Field Office. Paper presented to UNESCO World Congress on Family Literacy, Paris.

Parajuli, P. and Enslin, E. (1990) ‘From learning literacy to regenerating women’s space: a story of women’s empowerment in Nepal’, Convergence, 33, 1.

Robinson-Pant, A. (1995) Literacy in Nepal: Looking through the literature. Education for Development Occasional Papers Series 1 Number 1.

Robinson-Pant, A. (2001) Why Eat Green Cucumber at the Time of Dying? Exploring the link between women’s literacy and development: A Nepal Perspective, Hamburg: UNESCO Institute for Education.

Tuladhar, S. (1994) ‘Participatory video as a post literacy activity for women in rural Nepal’, Convergence, 37, 2/3.

4.5 New Zealand

Manukau Family Literacy programme evaluation (2002)

Type of programme: family literacy, language and numeracy

ContextThe Manukau Family Literacy Programme (MFLP) grew out of an initiative developed in partnership between the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Social Development, and the Literacy Taskforce of the City of Manukau Education Trust. The adult literacy strategy (2001) prompted an extensive programme of innovative approaches to the teaching of literacy, through the adult literacy innovations pool. The Tertiary Education Strategy 2002–07 detailed a priority goal of raising foundation learning skills so that all people can participate in the knowledge society. It was in the context of these two strategies that work progressed in the implementation of a family literacy model.

SettingsThe project was set in two schools, Bairds Mainfreight Primary School on Otara and


www.cfbt.com 38

Rowandale School in Manurewa. The initial planning for the programmes began in 2002 and the two pilot site programmes began in 2003. The course at Bairds was taught in partnership with Manukau Institute of Technology’s School of Foundation Studies. Components of the course included family literacy, mathematics and computing. The project also employed a teacher aide to support the children, following research by Brooks et al. (2001) showing that this helped achieve impact in adult literacy. The course at Rowandale was delivered by the Auckland Institute of Technology with a lecturer appointed to work off campus at the school. The course was built around the AIT’s Certificate in Introduction to Early Childhood Curriculum.

EvaluationThe course was evaluated by Dr John Benseman of the University of Auckland. The evaluation was conducted on the basis of success case study evaluation methodology. From this, Benseman argued that case studies are a powerful way of drawing out key features of a programme. The impact on participants included increasing participants’ chances of getting a job, progressing into higher education, and wanting greater involvement with their child. Learners enjoyed the activities, particularly the maths, and talked about the overall impact in relation to increased self-confidence. The values of the course inculcated self-belief and higher motivation to do more courses, and an increased interest in education.

Contact details: www.comet.org.nz

Note on sources: This report was based on the comprehensive evaluation report, cited below, by Benseman (2004).

ReferenceBenseman, J. (2004) ‘I’m a different person now’ An evaluation of the Manukau Family Literacy Programme, New Zealand: Ministry of Education.

4.6 South Africa

Family Literacy Project Evaluation by Jill Frow, November 2004

‘I feel full of Education. Forward FLP!’

(Quote by Mpumlwane learner)

Type of programme: family literacy and language, literacy and health

ContextThis programme operates in a deeply rural area of the Southern Drakensberg in KwaZulu-Natal, a community where adults have had limited access to education and literacy rates are low. Many rural schools are of poor quality. Books are beyond the range of most people. The HIV/AIDS epidemic threatens the health of the population. Literacy is now seen by the community as a way forward to develop employment and educational opportunities.

Adult literacy education in South AfricaThere is no clear consensus about the number of adults who experience literacy difficulties in South Africa. It is clear that there are many adult women who experience literacy difficulties. Between 7 and 8 million adults in South Africa are estimated to have difficulties with literacy. However, the right to basic adult education is enshrined in the South African constitution. Among the many programmes aimed to raise literacy achievement in South Africa, one is the South African National Literacy Initiative, which has entered into partnership with the University of South Africa. In addition, policies are in place to protect and support the rights of children to early and appropriate provision and care, notably in White Paper no 5 on Early Childhood Development. In the province in KwaZulu-Natal 70% of the early childhood development provision falls below the poverty line, and spending on public schooling in 2003/04 was 39 times higher than on early childhood development provision (Widerman and Nomdo 2004).

Values and epistemologiesThis project takes as its starting point the concept, from Morrow (1995:5), that we should be providing ‘environments which enable adult


www.cfbt.com 39

learners to enhance their own literacies, and at the same time provide environments which promote the literacies of their children’. As this summary will show, this project aims to support the existing community development skills of participants in running community libraries, and to enrich and support existing literacy and language practices in families. Initially (March 2000) the purpose was to get parents and children reading together as a valuable and enjoyable activity. Sessions held with the parents on their role in developing early literacy skills in their children soon evolved to include support for adult literacy. Five family literacy groups were set up, each with a woman from the community trained as group facilitator. The project adopted a holistic approach to both the evaluation and delivery of family literacy programmes, in that wider benefits, such as health awareness, and the context that the families found themselves within, formed the basis of many of the sessions.

The community library projectThe director of the project, Snoeks Desmond, began to question the statement often heard that ‘People do not read’. Instead, they countered: ‘How can people read when they have nothing easily available to read?’ The project then became a project about finding a way of providing books to communities. In order to find something to read, women would have to travel miles to the nearby small town. Early on in the life of the Family Literacy project, each of the seven groups was given a sample of books. Women were encouraged to borrow books to read with their children at home.

After three years of literacy input, the women in the family literacy groups could read and write in Zulu. The project team then began to work on English as a second language. The project drew on a book from CEPDA, an NGO in Nepal, and obtained permission to rework this book. A research project established that the community library would be a means of improving the knowledge and skills of the community, providing increased possibilities for employment and education. The library was set up with support from Biblionef, a Cape Town-based NGO, and run by the family literacy project facilitators. Desmond says:

The Family Literacy Project members run the community libraries themselves, with the help of project staff. They feel they have moved a long way from having no books, to borrowing books from the small box of books initially provided by the project, to running their very own library.

(Desmond 2005b)

The project was evaluated using the concepts of how the programme offered literacy opportunity, instruction, cooperation, and socio-emotional quality. The project team drew on these, as well as the REFLECT philosophy, much used in communities around the world.

Evaluation report 2003The evaluation from 2003 (Kvalsvig et al. 2003) looked at a larger sample of women who participated in the project, and compared their ways of interacting with children with those of women who were not involved, as well as women who had recently joined the project. The focus was on finding a methodology to uncover the ways in which the project had influenced family practices with respect to literacy, and to understand how new ideas were being absorbed and utilised within families.

Two research assistants from the Human Sciences Research Council conducted the study. The research participants were caregivers to children between the ages of 3 and 5 years. Three groups of women were recruited, 12 women who had been in the programme for two years (Group 3), 10 women who had recently joined the programme (Group 2), and further group of 10 caregiver/child dyads were recruited into the study as a control group (Group 1). The informants were interviewed on video camera, and an interaction between caregiver and child was videotaped. This interaction involved first discussing two pictures with a child, then handing the child a book the wrong way round and upside down, followed by giving a child a drawing book and some crayons and asking the child to draw a picture. The resulting data were analysed using SPSS, and NVivo software was used to code the transcripts according to content and utterances.


www.cfbt.com 40

Differences between the three groups were assessed both quantitatively and qualitatively.

One major finding was that, when the group of caregivers who had attended the programme for two years discussed the picture with the children, the interaction was longer, more detailed and more specific about the picture. The evaluators concluded that the difference between Group 3 caregivers and the less experienced groups lay in the content, fluency and frequency of their interactions (2003:29). Group 3 caregivers were less directive with the children when handling books, and children drew a wider variety of drawings when asked to draw a picture.

Evaluations 2004–05The 2004 evaluation (Frow 2004) was carried out using multimodal activities including an interactive game with balls, to encourage participants to share information freely, followed by a sharing exercise on what the most important events in the community had been that year. As well as participants, coordinators were interviewed about their perceptions of the project, and what they would like to see for the future. These perceptions included an enormous concern about the devastating effects of the AIDS virus on the community, concern about lack of water, lack of roads, high crime rate, unemployment, lack of electricity, and death of animals. These were combined with delight in having a new library, being position 1 in adult learners’ week, and receiving certificates in Cape Town.

The gains from the project also included discussing issues with family members and having improved relationships at home, learning to write one’s name, learning English, learning how to take care of the sick and having a chance to learn again. Ideas for the future included working in more schools, making more impact on the local community, and supporting people to move on in their learning. In addition, there is a desperate need to empower learners to develop Heath Support groups for people with AIDS, and to generate income to combat unemployment.

The 2005 evaluation, carried out by Snoeks Desmond (Desmond 2005a), looked at the

impact on the community. It acknowledged the need to support Literacy Facilitators, who were community members working with the groups, and the report described strategies to support their work, such as Growth Workshops. The evaluation focused on the impact of the work of the learners, the coordinator and director, the community facilitators and the family members. A number of different strategies, including games, oral stories, drawings and verbal and written feedback, were used to elicit responses around impact. Children and parents were asked their views, to give an intergenerational aspect to the evaluation.

The impact of the programme included teenagers learning in the library on Sundays, being more interactive with children, and improving English. A total of 67 adult learners participated in the evaluation, and 56 children drew pictures and helped with the evaluation. Learning to read and write, learning English, opportunities to travel, access to books, learning income generating skills and home visiting are the most valuable facets of the programme, according to the learners.

Contact details: www.familyliteracyproject.co.za/

Note on sources: Four different evaluation reports were consulted (below) and each was long and full of description.

ReferencesDesmond, S. (2005a) Family Literacy Project: End of year evaluation. www.familyliteracyproject.co.za/evaluation_report.pdf accessed 27.6.06

Desmond, S. (2005b) Family Literacy and Community Libraries. LIASA Eighth Annual Conference, September 2005

Frow, J. (2004) Family Literacy Project Evaluation, South Africa

Kvalsvig, J.D., Qotyana, P. and McLennan-Smith, G. (2003) Bringing literacy skills to young children: a qualitative evaluation. Child, Youth and Family Development, Human Sciences Research Council of South Africa.


www.cfbt.com 41

4.7 Uganda

Family Basic Education (Literacy and Adult Basic Education, LABE), Kampala, Uganda

Type of programme: family literacy and language, parenting

ContextIn 1997 the Government of Uganda launched the Universal Primary Education (UPE) programme which made it free and compulsory for school-age children to attend school. However, only 22.5% of all children were still in school by 2003. In order to deal with this problem, FABE was launched in Bugiri district, Uganda, in September 2001. The project was managed by Basic Education (LABE) Uganda, an indigenous national level NGO. FABE targeted 1080 parents, principally mothers with low literacy rates, 2880 children in primary grade 1 and primary grade 2, and 18 school PTAs. It also targeted 72 primary (grade 1) and primary 2 teachers and 36 adult literacy instructors in rural communities. The project was initially based in Bugiri and then spread to other regions.

The projectThe project worked to engage children in school by training teachers in interesting ways of working with children and in actively engaging parents within the learning system. FABE also contributed to community involvement by supporting parents with parenting and literacy skills. Rural literacy instructors identified more tailored literacy content in order to enable parents to support their children’s learning activity in lower primary grade classes. This involved increasing the awareness of the value of education within the community.

A Rural Rapid Appraisal (RRA) undertaken pointed towards broader adult basic education needs, rather than only focusing on school content. The appraisal also pointed to the need to encourage educational practices that supported a link between school learning and community indigenous practices. Activities included school open days, parents’ literacy classes, parents’ sensitisation workshops, shared family learning, and parent-child reading and writing sessions.

EvaluationEvaluations considered changes in the number and frequency of parents visiting school, the number and variety of joint school-community education plans, the number of children attending school on a daily basis, and the frequency of family dialogue on education issues, as well as the levels of improved reading, writing, numerical and parental skills of parents and the increased availability of learning materials and rate of use of interactive teaching resources.

Note on sources: This report on the FABE project was prepared on the basis of the web-based information provided by Harvard University below, as well as one leaflet, and a small mention of the project on the UNESCO website.

Contact information: www.innovations.harvard.edu/awards.html?id=6202 www.labe.8k.com/ (Site last updated 2003)

4.8 United States of America

4.8.1 The Verizon OPTIONS Initiative, Santa Barbara, California

Type of programme: family literacy and language, parent empowerment

ContextThe Verizon OPTIONS Initiative: Supporting Families’ Multiple Literacies was a multi-stranded initiative, with a family literacy element embedded within it. It was a partnership of four service programmes, with the core aim of providing English language instruction and support to families in order to improve children’s academic achievement in California’s English-only schools. This was following Proposition 227 that English is the required language of instruction in a majority of California’s high schools. An allocation of $50 million was made available to provide English language instruction to parents and other community members to support their children. However, there were no provisions for an evaluation of the programme. In order to address this, the Gevirtz Research Center at the University of California, Santa Barbara, undertook a four-year study of the Santa


www.cfbt.com 42

Barbara elementary school programme, leading in 2003 to a partnership with three other projects working to provide support to minority families in a neighbouring school district. This partnership was known as the Verizon OPTIONS initiative.

ProjectThe initiative aimed to increase levels of fluency in English language and literacy and to increase parental support for children’s English literacy development, as well as supporting the greater engagement of parents and children in technology-based literacy activities. It also aimed to enhance home support and educational aspirations, increase family participation in school activities and provide a greater sense of belonging to the school and its community. The project involved the following four partner organisations.

• The Gevirtz Research Center family literacy programme together with the Isla Vista Youth Project’s School Readiness Program, which offered ESL development for adults, while their children learned English and school readiness skills. Adults also learned strategies for helping their children at home with literacy development and school work.

• The Parents, Children and Computers Project, which was a computer literacy class which gave parents the chance to work on computer skills while children participated in learning activities, with a joint session built in.

• Community Affairs Board Corps. This programme provided undergraduate university students with the opportunity to support school-age students in English language literacy at home, and supported families in supporting their children’s literacy skills.

• Engaging Latino Communities for Education. Enlace y Avance worked to support Latino students to enter and complete college, and provided a bilingual leadership training programme for parents to acquire a deeper understanding of the school system.

EvaluationThe evaluation study lasted one year and employed both qualitative and quantitative methods of data collection and analysis. The initiative impacted upon 475 participants, including parents and children. The dataset

included quantitative assessments of English fluency and literacy levels of parents, and qualitative data included videotapes, fieldnotes and interviews collected during the class sessions as well as an open-ended evaluation and a focus group discussion. Each of the four projects was evaluated using a mix of qualitative and quantitative methods.

The findings were that the participants in the Gevirtz family literacy programme improved significantly from pre- to post-test on every quantitative measure. As well as the quantitative measures, descriptions were given of the children’s changing attitude to school, descriptions of increased book sharing, library use and the ability of parents to translate from English to Spanish to understand announcements and flyers and letters from school. Increases in skill and confidence were also reported. Nine out of 13 participants completed a digital story, which was shown to all the participants’ families, students and staff, as well as at an end of year Celebration.

More general outcomes From the Enlace y Avance programme, bilingual parents were encouraged to participate in a bilingual leadership training programme. Participating parents attended parent information conferences, and became more aware of their rights and began to talk more with schools about their children’s education. Many families took up multiple options and became more confident in their lives. Programme managers were pleased that they worked closely across the four partners, and by strategising together, partners were able to provide comprehensive, streamlined services.

Contact: [email protected].

Note on sources: This report was prepared drawing on the paper below, plus a PowerPoint presentation attended by the author at AERA San Francisco, April 2006.

ReferenceHerrity, V.A., Ho, H-Z., Dixon, C.M. and Brown, J.H. (2006) The Verizon OPTIONS initiative: Supporting Families’ Multiple Literacies. Paper prepared for the American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, San Francisco, April 7–11.


www.cfbt.com 43

4.8.2 Project FLAME, Chicago

Type of programme: family literacy and language

ContextProject FLAME was set up in 1989 by academics at the University of Illinois at the Chicago School of Education as part of a request for funding from the US Department of Education. The purpose of the programme was to support parents of preschoolers and primary grade students by providing information and sharing knowledge about ways to provide a home environment rich in literacy learning opportunities for their children. The project began as a three-year partnership with the Chicago Public Schools focusing on the predominantly Mexican-American low-income Pilsen neighbourhood. It later spread to Wicker Park, another Chicago Latino neighbourhood. In 2004 it had five demonstration centres in schools and park districts in Chicago which serve 12 schools.

ProjectThe project drew on a model which involves Literacy Opportunity, Literacy Modelling, Literacy Interaction and Home-school Relations. The core components of the FLAME programme were the Parents as Teachers and Parents as Learners programmes, family literacy sessions and ESL classes. In addition, the project involved book sharing, book selection, book fairs and using the library, teaching the ABCs, creating home literacy centres, maths at home, children’s writing, homework help, classroom observations, parent-teacher get-togethers, community literacy, and songs, games and language. The project drew on a socio-cultural framework from the work of Gee (1999), Rogers (2003) and the New London Group (1996), which emphasises that, culturally and linguistically, parents have a lot of knowledge that they share with their children.

EvaluationEvaluations from 1998 (Rodríguez-Brown 2004) described how parents were recruited through the schools that FLAME served. Participants filled out a questionnaire each year, which included a section on home literacy practices as well as a section on

home-school relations. Evaluations of these showed that parents made significant improvements in home literacy activities, as well as increasing their knowledge and understanding of what their children learned at school. FLAME parents published an anthology of their writing, in Spanish and English. In addition, parents learned language skills through the participatory approach. Annual evaluation results showed that children of participating families made significant gains.

The qualitative results for parent-child interaction include a higher level of interaction with children, and reading and writing by parents with children and in their first language, increased understanding by parents of their role in supporting their children’s learning, and an increased interaction by parents with the school.

Because FLAME validated the parents’ native language and knowledge, the project led to self-efficacy, and through Project FLAME mothers had a more active role in the community, gained jobs and participated in opportunities outside the home. Validation of knowledge was particularly important, in that parents were encouraged to share literacy activities in their home languages, and the programme developed networks for parents which strengthened their cultural resources and enabled further networking to take place.

Note on sources: This information is taken from the Project FLAME website and Rodríguez-Brown (2004).

ReferenceRodríguez-Brown, F. (2004) ‘Project FLAME: a parent support family literacy model’, in: Wasik, H.B. (ed.) (2004) A Handbook of Family Literacy. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, New Jersey, 213–30.

Contact: www.uic.edu/educ/flame/flameobjectives.html


www.cfbt.com 44

4.8.3 MAPPS Math And Parent Partnerships: South Western States

Type of programme: numeracy

MAPPS Math And Parent Partnerships: Involving Parents in the Mathematics of the Schools, Changing Attitudes about Mathematics, and Raising School-Age Competencies in Mathematics

‘The experience and the confidence that is being built by these parents is awesome. To see them get up there and put on a mike and see them speak in front of a crowd, it’s true community effort and growth.’

(Civil, Bernier and Quintos 2003)

HistoryA grant from the National Science Foundation funded the development of MAPPS activities and materials. These were piloted in four working-class, heavily Hispanic districts in the Southwestern United States – in Tucson (AZ), Chandler (AZ), Las Vegas (NM), and San Jose (CA).

ProjectIn 2006, MAPPS Programs were in place in twelve districts in nine states around the country. At a typical site in a single year, over 2300 parent-hours were logged in MAPPS activities. The project aimed to help parents understand that success in mathematics is important for their children, become familiar with the new curriculum materials and changes in teaching mathematics, believe that their children are capable of being successful in doing mathematics, deepen their understanding of mathematics, and know that doing it can be satisfying.

MAPPS activities for parents

Mathematics workshopsSeventeen two-hour workshops were developed. These gave parents and their children a stimulating and enjoyable experience with a single topic of mathematics – for example, multiplication, surface area, number sense, the nature of π, and making sense of data. Parents and children worked in groups cooperatively and used hands-on materials to solve problems of school mathematics. Workshop leaders helped

parents make connections between workshop activities and those of the school mathematics classroom, real world applications, and access to careers. Workshop leaders also provided parents with activities to do at home. There were workshops for grades K–4 and 5–8. However, all these workshops would also be suitable for parents with high-school children.

Maths for Parents mini-coursesThere were five mini-courses, each based on a theme of school mathematics: Algebra, Whole Numbers, Fractions, Geometry, and Organizing Data. Each course took place in eight two-hour sessions spread out over a single semester. In these courses parents were actively engaged in doing mathematics.

Leadership developmentIt was intended that parents, along with teachers, would eventually lead workshops. In order for them to feel comfortable in this role, they participated in sessions in which they were given strategies and guidelines for facilitating the workshops, recruiting participants, and managing logistics.

EvaluationIn a paper presented at the American Educational Research Association conference in 2003 (Civil, Bernier and Quintos 2003), the researchers drew on classroom observations held with a small group of mothers, who were in one of the leadership teams. A systematic approach to classroom observation was developed, which involved the mothers watching a classroom observation with the team from the university and then conducting an observation on their own. Following the observations, the team conducted semi-structured interviews with the mothers about their impressions, enquiries and connections to their children’s schooling and to their own experiences with learning and teaching mathematics. In the observations and discussions following them all observations were equally valid. All conversations were video- and audiotaped. In addition, fieldnotes were taken. The aim was to capitalise on parents’ voices. Also, 19 out of a total of 44 teachers were interviewed.

The teachers worked with the parents to deliver the courses, and became learners


www.cfbt.com 45

themselves. There were complex issues about parents being in the teaching role. However, the evaluation concluded that the project was sharing power with parents, which had an impact on the community and on the schools.

Contact: http://math.arizona.edu/~civil/http://math.arizona.edu/%7Emapps/

Note on sources: This report was prepared drawing on the paper below as well as information available on Marta Civil’s website, above.

ReferenceCivil, M., Bernier, E. and Quintos, B. (2003) Parental involvement in mathematics: A focus on parents’ voices. Paper presented at the annual meeting of AERA, Chicago, IL, April.

4.9 Conclusion to qualitative international survey: gathering the threads together

In the accounts of the projects and in the summaries in Appendix B several aspects stand out. One is a shift in the way programmes are delivered. It is noticeable that the relatively new programmes (such as Hamburg, part of the QualiFLY project) are actively working in a multimodal way, drawing on a multiple range of modes to deliver their programmes. Digital storytelling features as a theme in programmes such as the Verizon OPTIONS programme, and has also been described as a key feature of family literacy programmes in Toronto (Cummins 2005). However, to counterbalance that, it is interesting that evaluation strategies in rural South Africa and Nepal also rely heavily on visual methods and oral storytelling.

One key feature of some of the programmes was the attempt to link indigenous literacy practices with literacy programmes. The FABE programme in Uganda focused on links across home and school. Many projects also train parents to become facilitators, so that their voices and their ideas are developed within the programmes. Listening to parents, and keeping their voices heard, was integral to the MAPPS project to deliver family maths in the South Western States of the USA, despite

some points of conflict. In South Africa, the role of the community facilitators was vital in acquiring a community library. Tragically, one important community facilitator died of AIDS, exposing the harsh realities of the project’s context. Many of these projects of necessity adopt a holistic approach to family literacy, language and numeracy, bringing in issues of health, survival and family interaction to an already focused programme.

A different context in the United States is the current policy shift against community languages. The teaching of Spanish is banned in schools in Arizona and California. Out of this policy challenge have come initiatives such as Verizon that try to mitigate the disadvantage that parents who speak Spanish experience when faced with such problematic language policies. The work of the MAPPS project in drawing on home funds of knowledge, using Spanish as the medium for this, is a positive example of working against the anti-Spanish policy. Robinson-Pant also talks of similar complexities around language policy in Nepal, and she argued for the importance of understanding the value and use of community languages in different domains (Robinson-Pant 2001). Project FLAME explicitly draws upon the Funds of Knowledge model, as well as work by Rogers (2003), Gee (1999) and the New London Group (1996), in order to make their epistemological stance visible and theorised. Visibility of epistemological stance was found in programmes such as FLAME and the Mother-Child Education Program in Turkey, where university researchers were closely involved with the projects.

However, the visibility of home literacy and numeracy practices within programmes was variable. Some programmes were focused on parents learning how to navigate the school experience and orient them into school-focused activities, such as Verizon and the Mother-Child Education Program in Turkey. Others, notably the programmes in Uganda, South Africa and Nepal and the MAPPS project, engaged more directly with the out-of-school experiences of the women who participated, and the programmes were shaped by their experiences. In most cases, this was from necessity, as to engage with participants meant learning to listen to


www.cfbt.com 46

their concerns, which may focus on health and access to water and electricity, not literacy. Again, this reflects the more holistic approaches many programmes have taken.

Another interesting debate is how much family literacy is, in fact, women’s literacy. In Nepal, the review focused on women’s literacy programmes, rather than family literacy. Robinson-Pant, in her study of women’s literacy programmes in Nepal, argues that it is important to view programmes from the perspectives of participants, rather than identifying ‘barriers’ to literacy (2001:29). She also critiques one of the programmes described above, arguing that by introducing a ‘baby book’ into the programmes, this ‘could be described as more functional, typical of an efficiency gender approach and important Western literacy practices’ (Robinson-Pant 2001:38). She warns that notions of ‘empowerment’ need to be unpacked as they tend to be equated with ‘functional’ literacy in many development settings. By focusing on women’s literacy, it could be argued that children’s literacy also benefits. However, studies such as Hannon (2000) have also asked that this link not be taken completely for granted.

Part of this debate is linked to a wider one about ways in which family literacy, language and numeracy programmes are more holistic in their aims. As stated by Brooks et al. in chapter 3:

…programmes such as FLAME in Chicago and the Mother-Child Education Program in Turkey may involve literacy/numeracy, but… these are part of a broader vision of the role of the parent.

In Turkey, gender is the focus both for the Mother-Child Education Program and for the father education programme. A clearly stated aim of these programmes is to empower women in their dealings with men, and to enable men to realise that the way they parent and their interaction with the family needs to be respectful to women (Bekman 1998). As again stated in chapter 3, the outcomes for girls were very strong:

In relation to gender issues, the Turkish evaluation reports greater gains for girls in both pre-literacy and pre-numeracy skills at the end of the programme. This finding may be an effect of girls’ well-reported early strengths in language development, or may be to do with mothers being role models in the programme.

Perhaps a way forward would be to argue for a more holistic view of family literacy, language and numeracy that acknowledges the way in which women are positioned within families, and considers the extent to which the programmes focus on women’s goals in changing their lives. One notable exception is the father education programme in Turkey which was the subject of a recent evaluation (Koçak 2004). As argued in chapter 2, family literacy, language and numeracy programmes need to be constantly aware of changing family patterns and respond to the way in which families are constituted and shifting.


www.cfbt.com 47

5.1 Introduction

This chapter provides an overview of family literacy, language and numeracy provision in England and Wales. Rather than focusing on individual cases, it highlights the main developments in the field. It concentrates on major initiatives that have had an impact on policy and practice in the FLLN field. Where possible, evaluation reports are used, as these provide evidence of the initiatives as successful and therefore offering useful models to practitioners, and it is intended that the case studies carried out within the wider project can be read drawing on all of this contextual background.

These initiatives, discussed in sections 5.2–5.11, are the following:

Skills for FamiliesKeeping Up with the ChildrenEarly Start *Family literacy programmes within Sure StartFamily numeracy *IMPACTBookstart * and Books for Babies *Reading is Fundamental (RiF)The REAL project, Sheffield *PEEP (Peers Early Education Partnership), Oxford *.

(* = programme whose quantitative data were analysed in chapter 3.)

There is also a separate section (5.12) on fathers’ involvement, which describes FLLN initiatives involving fathers.

The aim in providing this review is to contextualise the initiatives discussed, which can be read in the context of the policy developments and thinking around FLLN in general. Each initiative will be discussed separately, and at the end of the report some conclusions are drawn about FLLN programmes in the UK.

Part of the context is the availability of funding. Some programmes are eligible for central

government funding, while others rely on raising money from other sources, notably local authorities and charitable trusts, with some from the European Union. The range of FLLN programmes for which central government funding was available in England in the financial year 2005/06 is shown in Table 4. Several are included among those reviewed in this chapter. It was not possible to collate information on how other programmes were funded.

5.2 Skills for Families

The Basic Skills Agency and specialist partners contacted by the Department for Education and Skills (DfES) and the Learning and Skills Council (LSC) established Skills for Families as a national initiative in 2003/04. The aim of the first phase was to develop a coherent, cross-agency approach to area-wide programmes for families, and included the development of new programmes accompanied by training, support and evaluation. The initiative ran between March 2003 and July 2005 and aimed to:

• pilot local infrastructures for planning and managing family literacy, language and numeracy

• develop and test a range of delivery models, using LSC funding and based on the Skills for Life learning infrastructure and the National Curriculum, to improve the literacy, language and numeracy skills of parents and children

• test approaches to teacher training and capacity building for schools and other organisations working with families, linking closely with Skills for Life’s front-line staff training strategy at all times

• disseminate effective practice to other local authorities, voluntary organisations and other relevant agencies.

The initiative was based on 12 regional collaborative partnerships, local authorities, and local LSCs, selected in March 2003. The programme was expanded from August 2004, with a focus on extending the piloted

Chapter 5: Family literacy, language and numeracy provision in England and Wales: an overview

Kate Pahl

There is also a separate section (5.12) on fathers’ involvement, which describes FLLN initiatives involving fathers.

‘‘ ‘‘


www.cfbt.com 48

* C

an b

e ex

tend

ed. S

ee F

amily

Pro

gram

mes

: Gui

danc

e fo

r Lo

cal L

earn

ing

and

Ski

lls C

ounc

ils a

nd L

ocal

Aut

horit

ies

2005

/06.

So

urce

: Hea

thco

te a

nd B

roo

ks (2

005)

, p.8

, up

dat

ed f

rom

info

rmat

ion

kind

ly s

upp

lied

by

Pen

ny L

amb

Tab

le 4

: O

verv

iew

of

app

rove

d F

LL

N c

ou

rses

in E

ng

lan

d, 2

005/

06

Nam

e o

f

pro

gra

mm

eC

hild

ren’

s ag

e

rang

e co

vere

dP

aren

t/ca

rer

and

ch

ild, o

r p

aren

t/ca

rer

onl

y?

Tast

er/W

ork

sho

p

Usu

ally

2–4

hou

rs*

Intr

od

ucto

ry

Usu

ally

9–1

3 ho

urs*

Sho

rt

Usu

ally

30–

49 h

ours

*In

tens

ive

Usu

ally

72–

96 h

our*

(b

ut c

an b

e fr

om

60 h

ours

)

Pla

y an

d La

ngua

ge

0–3

year

sP

aren

t/ca

rer

and

child

3

3

Ear

ly S

tart

: B

aby

Talk

0–1

yea

r;

Sm

all T

alk

1–2

year

s;

Talk

Tog

ethe

r 2–

3 ye

ars

0–3

year

s

Par

ent/

care

r

and

child

3

Pla

ying

with

Lan

guag

e 3–

5 ye

ars

Par

ent/

care

r

and

child

33

Fam

ily L

itera

cy

3 years +

Par

ent/

care

r

and

child

3

3

3

Fam

ily N

umer

acy

3 years +

Par

ent/

care

r

and

child

3

3

3

Com

bine

d Fa

mily

Li

tera

cy a

nd/o

r La

ngua

ge a

nd/o

r N

umer

acy

5 years +

Par

ent/

care

r

and

child

3

3

Kee

ping

Up

with

the

Chi

ldre

nS

choo

l age

Par

ent/

care

r on

ly

3

3

3

Ski

lls fo

r Fa

milie

s S

prin

gboa

rd

Sch

ool a

ge

Par

ent/

care

r on

ly

3

Fam

ily F

inan

ce

Sch

ool a

ge

Par

ent/

care

r an

d ch

ild

3

3


www.cfbt.com 49

local infrastructure; developing and testing a range of delivery models; developing additional materials to support literacy, language and numeracy provision in family groups; and disseminating effective practice to other local authorities. Each project was tackled in a different way, with some focused on fathers’ projects, some looking at new target groups such as childminders, some using ICT in a more tailored way in programmes to support learning, and some developing into a new area, such as Keeping Up with the Kids at Key Stage 3 (11- to 14-year-olds). The whole initiative (which ended in 2005) also provided resources for professional development and training. The local partnerships were in these areas: Cheshire, Coventry, Croydon, Derbyshire, Gloucestershire, Hampshire and Portsmouth, Knowsley, Newcastle and South Tyneside, Suffolk, Wakefield, West Sussex, Wirral.

A summary of phase one (2003/04) argued that Skills for Families enabled LSCs to substantially increase the capacity for delivering FLLN, to forge new partnerships, develop new models of delivery, review quality assurance systems, recruit new settings, and increase numbers of learners engaged in FLLN programmes. Evidence from the local studies, however, also shows that providers were anxious about the sustainability of some of their programmes which had been developed using Skills for Families funding.

Note on sources: This report was prepared using the report below entitled Strengthening family literacy, language and numeracy, plus information available on the Learning and Skills Council website, which gives all the Skills for Families publications, plus a summary of phase one of the project (2003/04). There has been no overall evaluation of the Skills for Families projects, but independent local evaluations have taken place, for example in Croydon (Pahl 2004a).

Contact: www.lsc.gov.uk/National/Partners/PolicyandDevelopment/SkillsForFamilies/default.htm

ReferenceSkills for Families: Working together to extend and embed family literacy, language and numeracy. Strengthening family literacy,

language and numeracy: Planning for quality. (Crown Copyright 2004)

5.3 Keeping Up with the Children

(Note: A variant on this initiative was called Keeping Up with the Kids but its usual title is retained for clarity.)

Keeping Up with the Children was a family literacy and numeracy initiative designed to help parents support their children’s development in literacy and numeracy. The first classes began in September 2000, and between then and March 2001 nearly 3000 courses lasting 12 hours were run by 122 LEAs. The project was evaluated by Brooks et al. (2002), and the evaluation found it was successful in both recruiting across the qualification range and attracting a wide range of parents.

The aim of the courses was to inform parents about the new developments in teaching in primary schools in England, notably the literacy hour and the daily mathematics session, rolled out in all schools as part of the National Literacy and Numeracy Strategies. The course introduced parents to key concepts from primary literacy and numeracy teaching, while also supporting parents and children in their literacy and numeracy. The aim of the courses therefore was to empower parents to help their children at home, while keeping them informed about new developments in literacy and numeracy teaching and supporting their own skills.

The evaluation distributed questionnaires designed to assess parent confidence, one for the beginning and one at the end of the courses. In addition, fieldwork was carried out to study different models of Keeping Up with the Children. The evaluation reported that the course was delivered in many different ways, and adapted to cultural and community contexts. In that sense, the evaluation reported that the ‘model’ was not strongly adhered to, but was stretched to respond to parents’ interests and needs. Where appropriate, sessions were held in parents’ home languages, and conducted at times suitable for parents. In some cases, parents learned new skills, such as using hand-held computers, and it was reported in the evaluation that both parents and children experienced increased confidence.


www.cfbt.com 50

Note on sources: This account is based on the evaluation report prepared for the Basic Skills Agency by the University of Sheffield and the National Foundation for Educational Research.

ReferenceBrooks, G., Cole, P., Davies, P., Davis, B., Frater, G., Harman, J. and Hutchison, D (2002) Keeping Up with the Children. Evaluation for the Basic Skills Agency by the University of Sheffield and the National Foundation for Educational Research, London: The Basic Skills Agency.

5.4 Early Start

Early Start focused on supporting parents with very young children, and on developing interaction and early literacy and language. The Basic Skills Agency established it in 2001/02 and it continued in 2002/03. In late 2002 the Agency commissioned the University of Sheffield to carry out a national evaluation, which took place in the spring term of 2003, and reported in 2004 (Brooks et al. 2004).

Early Start was an initiative for children of under four years and their parents, designed to enhance the parents’ skills and various aspects of young children’s development. The Agency’s description of the programmes suggested that, like its family literacy and family numeracy programmes, Early Start drew on the Kenan model (as described in chapter 2), that is, sessions for parents and children separately running simultaneously, and sessions where parents and children work together. Parents, in their own session, both work on their own skills and learn how to assist their children’s development, while simultaneously the children receive high-quality early years provision.

A distinctive feature of Early Start was the explicit attention given to a fourth element, ‘home time’. It had always been envisaged that parents would try out and develop, at home, activities to which they had been introduced in the session. Early Start built on earlier programmes, in that home time would build directly on joint activities undertaken in the setting.

About 600 parents participated in the first year of Early Start. The evaluation found that activity-based sessions, with good modelling by early years staff and adult tutors working

together, were possibly the most powerful means available for conveying strong messages about pedagogy and cognitive and linguistic content. The team also argued that, while it was possible for an Early Start setting to be excellent while not delivering the full model, it was easier for a setting to be excellent if it was delivering the full model.

The evaluation focused on the extent to which the initiative was delivered as a partnership between a number of agencies, what difference the initiative made to participating parents, and, if differences were found, what the factors were that accounted for those differences. The evaluation found that, in 2003, parents’ major motive for participating was to benefit their child’s education. Other motives parents had included increasing and improving quality time with their children, and expanding their own opportunities. Wider benefits included improved confidence and self-esteem and the overall finding was that the programme was a success and was working well.

Note on sources: This report was prepared using the Basic Skills Agency evaluation, cited below.

ReferenceBrooks, G., Cook, M., Hadden, S., Hirst, K., Jones, S., Lever-Chain, J., Millman, L., Piech, B., Powell, S., Rees, F., Roberts, S. and Smith, D. (2004) Early Promise: the University of Sheffield national evaluation of Early Start for the Basic Skills Agency, London: Basic Skills Agency.

5.5 Family literacy and language programmes within Sure Start

In 1998, the British Government announced a new initiative for England, to be called Sure Start, a programme to support children, families and communities, through the integration of early education, childcare, health and family support. Sure Start local programmes were one element of the initiative. They were based in areas of disadvantage, and aimed to improve the health and well-being of young children under four and their families. The initiative was to be delivered through local programmes, which were given a high degree of autonomy, both in terms of delivery and ways of evaluating their provision. By 2004 there were 524 Sure


www.cfbt.com 51

Start programmes in England, and it was estimated that the programmes had reached 400 000 children. It was a large scale preschool intervention programme that worked across a number of areas, involving partnerships between several agencies to deliver community-focused support to parents and children in areas of socio-economic disadvantage.

In 2004 the National Evaluation of Sure Start (NESS) team produced a summary of its findings on local programmes (2004). The summary also drew on individual evaluations from local programmes, some of which had been carried out by university staff, others by Sure Start staff. NESS found that, as the local Sure Starts got under way in 2000/01, there was widespread support for the philosophy of Sure Start across professional boundaries, and partnerships were critical in developing successful local Sure Start programmes. The initial evaluation found that targeted outreach was an important strategy for accessing families, and that parents had a high level of confidence and trust in Sure Start. Preliminary analysis of the partial dataset suggested a positive limited effect of Sure Start local programmes, and the particular finding was that mothers were more likely to treat their child in a warmer and more accepting manner than in comparison areas. Confidence-building was also mentioned as a significant aspect of what Sure Start offered parents. Fathers’ involvement was low, but higher in areas where there was a member of staff targeting them.

An evaluation of Rotherham Rawmarsh Sure Start by the University of Sheffield (Brooks et al. 2003) found that the programme offered a number of opportunities for parents to meet up, get support, and prepare their children for school. The programme improved access to quality play, and offered a holistic range of services to local parents. A number of different types of provision to support children’s early literacy and language were developed, including Stay and Play sessions, Early Language groups at the nursery, and a Stay and Learn Playbus. The evaluation found evidence that parents found these resources extremely useful.

Rotherham Central’s Sure Start evaluation (Rotherham Central Sure Start 2006) found that Sure Start children were more likely to be ready

for school, and that the programme enabled more children to have more opportunities for creative, active and expressive play. More parents and carers knew about how to help their children’s language development. Partnerships were effective; for example, Rotherham Central Sure Start was running family literacy classes for parents of Reception children with Ferham School.

A major book, Learning from Sure Start (Weinberger, Pickstone and Hannon 2005) drew together findings of evaluations of Sure Starts in Sheffield, in particular the Sure Start in the Foxhill and Parsons Cross area. The book described interventions such as a dialogic reading intervention programme (Morgan 2005) that was aimed at parents. (For the quantitative data from this programme, see chapter 3.) Dialogic reading was originally developed in the United States (Whitehurst et al. 1988), in order to encourage parents to use specific techniques when reading with their children. These included evocative techniques, such as ‘what’ questions, feedback which echoed children’s responses, and progressive change, which enables the child to achieve more than planned. The target group was parents and their children within the age range of 2½ to 3 years old. The programme was implemented using an experimental design, with an intervention group and a control group. It was short and intensive and lasted six weeks. Forty parents were interviewed before the programme, and children were assessed on language and literacy skills. The programme did have some difficulties. Home visits, which involved changing books, and discussing issues with families, were very time-consuming, and the impact on children’s skills was very small. However, within the programme, parents reported increased enjoyment of books with their children.

A study by Marsh (2005) surveyed the home literacy practices in relation to digital and popular cultural texts of parents in the Foxhill and Parsons Cross Sure Start area. From a total of 260 questionnaires sent out to parents, 44 were returned, and 26 parents were interviewed in the homes. Parents were asked about patterns of children’s use of media such as mobile phones, music, and digital artefacts. Television was a primary text within the home, and contributed


www.cfbt.com 52

to a range of social and linguistic skills. Over two thirds of the families owned computer games, and fathers often played with their young children, encouraging them to participate in joint games playing. Children also enjoyed mobile phone practices, and were competent with a wide range of electronic media.

Note on sources: To prepare this report, the Weinberger, Pickstone and Hannon book, Learning from Sure Start was drawn on (in particular the chapters by Marsh and Morgan and the introduction), also the National evaluation summary (a leaflet), the qualitative evaluation of the Rotherham Rawmarsh Sure Start by Brooks et al., which is a substantial document (187 pages) and the Rotherham Central Sure Start evaluation, which is relatively short.

ReferencesA Flying Start: How Sure Start has made a difference in the lives of young children and their families in the Rotherham Central area. (March 2006)

Brooks, G., Cole, P., Hines, M., Lewis, M., Ohn, T., Pollock, A., Ritchie, L. and Vincent, C. (2003) Achievement in Adversity: Rotherham Rawmarsh Sure Start in 2002, Sheffield: University of Sheffield.

Marsh, J. (2005) Media, popular culture and young children, in Weinberger, J., Pickstone, C. and Hannon, P. (eds) Learning from Sure Start, Berkshire: Open University Press, 166–76.

Morgan, A. (2005) A dialogic reading intervention programme for parents and preschoolers, in Weinberger, J., Pickstone, C. and Hannon, P. (eds) Learning from Sure Start, Berkshire: Open University Press, 177–87.

National evaluation summary: Towards understanding Sure Start local programmes: Summary of findings from the National Evaluation (June 2004), Sure Start.

Weinberger, J., Pickstone, C. and Hannon, P. (eds) (2005) Learning from Sure Start, Berkshire: Open University Press.

Whitehurst, G.J., Falcom, F., Lonigan, C.J., Fischel, J.E., Valdez-Mechaca, M.C. and Caulfield, M. (1988) Accelerating language development through picture-book reading, Developmental Psychology, 24, 552–8

5.6 Family numeracy

In England, family numeracy was an add-on to the initial concept of family literacy, but focused on everyday mathematics. Family numeracy programmes were piloted by the Basic Skills Agency between April 1997 and March 1998. The aim of the pilot was to find out if an intergenerational numeracy programme, for both parents and their children, could work as effectively as the family literacy programmes. The aim of the pilot programmes was to investigate the most effective methods of raising the level of home support for numeracy, offering a quick start and immediate gains in numeracy for 3- to 5-year-old children, and offering a restart for parents’ numeracy learning.

An evaluation (Basic Skills Agency 1998), conducted in-house but with a statistical appendix by Greg Brooks and Dougal Hutchison, found that the children who took part in the family numeracy pilot programmes made significantly more progress than the children in a comparison group. Parents became more involved with school activities and supporting in class. The programme adhered to a clear model, that is, a minimum of 1-hour weekly joint sessions, a minimum of 2 hours weekly of separate sessions for the parents, a minimum of 1½ hours for the children, and a minimum of 40–45 hours for the programme, with joint and separate sessions sequenced to ensure links and continuity. Over 500 families took part in the pilot programme. The evaluation looked at the numbers of parents and their children taking part, then assessed progress of the participating children (4–5.3 years old only) and of a comparison group of children; at changes in numeracy-focused home activity, number of families on each course, how many adults gained accreditation, and other areas of progress and progression. The participating children’s progress on both the number scale and the mathematical language scale was statistically significantly greater than that of the comparison children.

The report strongly argued for a core model of family numeracy sessions, which included the time allocation described above. In addition, the report argued for a firmly structured numeracy curriculum, applied rigorously, based


www.cfbt.com 53

on challenging numeracy objectives for each strand, planned with meaningful and explicit links between the different strands of provision. The curriculum for children was drawn from the early years content of the National Curriculum for mathematics. The curriculum for the adults led to the accreditation of their numeracy gains. In particular, teaching in the joint session needed to focus on links between the activities and home contexts, so that the activities were transferable, with the introduction of a ‘bridging’ activity to both parents and children.

In a subsequent study, Family Numeracy Adds On, by Brooks and Hutchison (2002), teachers who were then (in early primary school) teaching some of the children who had participated were interviewed. Data were collected on 60 participants, and on 60 comparison children. Family numeracy children were rated more highly in relation to their numeracy skills than comparison children, and the support they received from their families was superior. Family numeracy children also had higher motivation and their parents were twice as likely as those of comparison children to be involved with their child’s school.

Note on sources: This report was preparing using the two publications cited below. Family Numeracy Adds On is slim pamphlet; Family Numeracy Adds Up is a more substantial publication.

ReferencesBasic Skills Agency (1998) Family Numeracy Adds Up, London: Basic Skills Agency

Brooks, G. and Hutchison, D. (2002) Family Numeracy Adds On, London: Basic Skills Agency.

5.7 IMPACT

IMPACT was started in 1985 by Ruth Merttens, who was at that time a lecturer in the then Department of Teaching Studies, Polytechnic of North London. The project ran for a year in a dozen primary schools in north London, where Ruth introduced the philosophy of getting parents involved with their children’s mathematics learning. IMPACT originally stood for ILEA Mathematics, Parents and Children and Teachers. Ruth was joined by Jeff Vass

as a researcher, and IMPACT then adopted a more formal process of dissemination and evaluation. IMPACT aimed to develop partnerships in children’s learning – which involves teachers, parents and children. It was concerned both with developing good practice and with the research that underpins this. It was initially run in the London Boroughs of Barnet and Redbridge and in Oxfordshire, but had spread to 33 LEAs throughout England by 1992.

The programme helped primary schools to establish the regular involvement of parents and children in collaborative mathematical activity within the home. It involved a period of in-service training for teachers, followed by meetings for parents, who then set up certain informal activities to be carried out at home. The parents and children then returned these activities to the school. The project relied heavily on concepts of everyday mathematics, and aimed to listen to the voices of parents (Merttens and Vass 1993). It was described by Andrew Brown and Paul Dowling as a process in which the parents constructed and engaged with teacher discourses through the recontextualisation of mathematics activities in the home (Brown and Dowling 1993). After 1985 IMPACT expanded into many primary schools in the UK, and also in the USA and Canada. Jeff Vass moved to Southampton University in the mid-1990s, followed in 1997 by Ruth Merttens, and the project continued, being run by Lyn Taylor at what had by then become the University of North London. By 2004 IMPACT had become integrated into a wide range of programmes across the UK, and the project itself was ended in July 2004.

Note on sources: This report was prepared using the website below, as well as the book edited by Ruth Merttens and Jeff Vass, cited below, plus a set of conference papers put together by Merttens et al., cited below. Both the book and the report are substantial; the web site consists of one page.

Website: Institute for Policy Studies in Education, London Met: a website describing the project: www.londonmet.ac.uk/research-units/ipse/projects/completed-projects/p23.cfm (accessed 28.9.06)


www.cfbt.com 54

ReferencesBrown, A. and Dowling, P. (1993) The bearing of school mathematics on domestic space, in Merttens, R., Mayers, D., Brown, A. and Vass, J. (eds) Ruling the Margins: Problematising Parental Involvement, London: University of North London Press/Institute of Education, University of London, 39–52.

Merttens, R. and Vass, J. (eds) (1993) Partnership in Maths: Parents and Schools: The Impact Project, London: The Falmer Press.

5.8 Bookstart and Books for Babies

Bookstart, or Books for Babies, as an initiative, takes as its starting point the idea of giving babies a book at a very young age, to share with parents at home. Bookstart was initiated in 1992 by the Book Trust, working in cooperation with Birmingham Library Services, the South Birmingham Health Authority and the University of Birmingham School of Education. The parents of newborn infants received information and advice regarding their role in their child’s health and general welfare, and reading with and talking to babies was encouraged from the first months of the child’s life. The project was evaluated by Wade and Moore (1996, 1998a, b, 2000). By 1997, at least 26 other local Bookstart projects had been initiated. In 1999 the supermarket chain Sainsbury’s became a major sponsor for a few years. In Nottingham, the Boots pharmaceutical company sponsored a Books for Babies project (Bailey et al. 2000, 2002).

Then in December 2004 the British Government announced that it would support the programme by funding the provision of a book bag for every child each year for the first three years of life. As from September 2005 each child would receive three Bookstart gifts instead of one. The books are purchased at substantial discount from publishers (because of the quantities involved), and similarly with other materials – this means that the book bags are provided at about one quarter of retail cost, and the retail value of the programme in 2005–08 was estimated at £120 million.

The focus of the projects was on the production of a pack, presented at the child’s first hearing test. In many cases, the packs were made up by librarians who liaised with

health visitors. In some areas, nursery nurses gave out the pack and explained its contents to parents and carers. All packs contained a book. Most packs contained information about local library services, and a library membership card was included in them.

The evaluation by Wade and Moore of the University of Birmingham (1998a) showed that early contact with books led to more awareness of books, more book sharing, more parental enrolment in libraries, and family use of books. A longitudinal study, carried out by Wade and Moore (1996), followed up children and found evidence of impact at age 2 to 3. Two further studies (Wade and Moore 1998b, 2000) followed some children from the original 1992 cohort to school entry and then to Key Stage 1 assessments at age 7, and found they were significantly ahead of comparison groups in reading and number.

An evaluation of the Boots Books for Babies project in Nottingham aimed to determine the impact of the project on parents, especially in relation to book usage (Bailey et al. 2002). In doing so, it drew on the ORIM model developed by Hannon (1995). The evaluation included both a quantitative and a qualitative dimension. The project team found that in the libraries in areas where the project had been launched, baby registrations increased by 54%, as opposed to libraries in non-Books for Babies areas, where registrations stayed the same or went down.

Note on sources: This report was prepared using the publications below. The Evaluation report on Books for Babies provides more detail than the article.

ReferencesBailey, M., Harrison, C. and Brooks, G. (2000) The Boots Books for Babies Project Evaluation, Nottingham: University of Nottingham. (mimeograph)

Bailey, M., Harrison, C. and Brooks, G. (2002) The Boots Books for Babies project: Impact on library registrations and book loans. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 2, 1, 45–63.

Wade, B. and Moore, M. (1996) Children’s early book behaviour. Educational Review, 48, 3, 283–8.


www.cfbt.com 55

Wade, B. and Moore, M. (1998a) A Gift for Life, Bookstart: The First Five Years. A description and Evaluation of an exploratory British Project to Encourage Sharing Books with Babies. The second Bookstart Report, London: Booktrust.

Wade, B. and Moore, M. (1998b) An early start with books: literacy and mathematical evidence from a longitudinal study. Educational Review, 50, 2, 135–45.

Wade, B. and Moore, M. (2000) A sure start with books. Early Years, 20, 2, 39–46.

5.9 Reading is Fundamental, UK

Reading is Fundamental, UK was established in 1996, following RiF, Inc, which is a children’s and family literacy programme in the USA. Reading is Fundamental (RiF), UK was an initiative of the National Literacy Trust that focused on the distribution of books to children to read at home, and supports reading activity in the home through targeted book distribution and book-related activities. The project focused on children and families in areas of social disadvantage, and worked with volunteers to deliver programmes. Much of the work was in partnership with other agencies. By 2006 RiF, UK had already distributed 630 000 books to over 210 000 children and young people, and was currently supporting around 300 projects reaching over 20 500 children. RiF projects had been set up in schools, libraries, football clubs, early years centres, bookshops, after-school and study support centres, women’s refuges, prisons and parents’ groups. One RiF project was All Books for Children, a partnership between Starbucks Coffee Company, UK, and the Library Service, which aimed to encourage families to enjoy libraries. Other projects worked with schools to support book reading through book distributions.

Another programme managed by RiF was Shared Beginnings, a programme which aimed to help parents and carers of under-threes to develop confidence and skills to engage more fully in children’s language development through play, making and using books, and using environmental resources. The project was developed within the Newcastle Literacy Trust with Reading is

Fundamental, UK. The project consisted of ten sessions, with parents and young children, followed by an evaluation session six weeks later. The sessions included library visits, the creation of a story on computers for the children, making a photo lift-the-flap book and shared activities such as visits to the local park. An evaluation report by Hannon and Hirst (2002) undertook fieldwork in three different settings, and aimed to discover, by observation, analysis of documents, interviews with key informants and attendance records, whether the project had achieved its aims of increasing parents’ and children’s book sharing. Positive outcomes were found for the parents’ confidence with books and the children’s engagement with books.

Note on sources: This report was put together from information on Reading is Fundamental, UK, on the National Literacy Trust’s website (below) plus a relatively short evaluation report on Shared Beginnings, cited below.

Contact: www.literacytrust.org.uk

ReferenceHannon, P. and Hirst, K. (2002) Report of an evaluation of Shared Beginnings, Sheffield: University of Sheffield. (mimeograph)

5.10 The REAL Project, Sheffield

The Raising Early Achievement in Literacy (REAL) project was a project begun by a team of university researchers and teachers in Sheffield, in order to support children’s literacy at home and support parents both in their desire to help their children with literacy and in their own learning goals. The project began in 1995 and brought together the university, the local authority and many Sheffield schools to promote family literacy work with parents of preschool children. The project aimed to develop methods of working with parents to promote the literacy development of pre-school children, to meet some of the literacy and educational needs of the parents so involved, to ensure the effectiveness of those methods, and to disseminate the methods to practitioners and policy makers (Nutbrown, Hannon and Morgan 2005).


www.cfbt.com 56

The project had two phases. In 1995/96 early years educators worked with university researchers to develop a range of methods for working with parents, which was developed into the Opportunities, Recognition, Interaction and Modelling (ORIM) framework (see chapter 2). The second phase (1996–99) involved five main components: home visits by programme teachers; provision of literacy resources; centre-based group activities; special events; and postal communication between teacher and child. A total of 88 families from ten schools participated in the programme. Teachers from the programme schools participated in a specially developed professional development programme to support their practice. Within each aspect of the ORIM model, parents and teachers were encouraged to provide examples to illustrate where this was happening. In addition, a jigsaw of different possible activities enabled parents to point to what they were already doing, and fill in blank pieces of the jigsaw with their own thoughts and ideas.

An evaluation was carried out which looked at outcomes both in terms of children’s and adults’ literacy and learning, elicited the parents’, children’s and teachers’ views on the project, and considered issues such as participation and the quality of the processes. The teachers reported that they found ORIM a useful model to work with. Parents reported that the programme had helped their children a lot and that both they and their children had enjoyed the programme. Programme children had a wider awareness of environmental print and when the project team conducted a quantitative evaluation (see chapter 3) the results were statistically significant.

Other projects that have drawn on the ORIM framework include the FAST (Families and Schools Together) project in Sefton, and a project in Canada called PRINTS (Parents’ Roles Interacting with Teacher Support). These projects have been evaluated and found to be effective (Nutbrown, Hannon and Morgan 2005).

Note on sources: This report was put together using the book by Nutbrown, Hannon and Morgan (2005), cited below, which is a substantial account of the REAL project and early literacy work with families.

ReferenceNutbrown, C., Hannon, P. and Morgan, A. (2005) Early Literacy Work with Families: policy, practice and research, London: Sage Publications.

5.11 PEEP (Peers Early Education Partnership), Oxford

PEEP (the Peers Early Education Partnership) in Oxford is a birth-to-age-5 early intervention programme that aims to raise educational attainment, especially in literacy, by supporting parents and carers in their role as first educators. PEEP was set up in 1995 on four housing estates in Oxford, all of them areas of economic disadvantage. PEEP developed a five-year programme of support for parents (from birth to five years), which offered materials, group sessions and home visits to parents. The focus was on reading readiness, and connected activities include the development of listening, talking, playing and singing activities. One of the intended outcomes of PEEP for parents was to know about, understand and use ORIM to support their children’s learning.

While PEEP was initially conceived as a literacy programme, it had an expanding focus on numeracy, self-esteem and readiness to learn. There was also a strong focus on the interaction between parents and child, and the programme supported ‘parents as parents’, encouraging them in their role as their children’s first communicators. Literacy as stemming from interpersonal relationships was central to PEEP’s philosophy, as was positive self-esteem.

The programme took place through weekly group meetings as well as home visits. Groups took place at a variety of locations throughout the community, such as the local Sure Start centre.

Evaluation of PEEP

The aim of the Birth To School Study evaluation (Evangelou et al. 2005a and b) was to investigate the effects of PEEP on parents and children within the area it served. The study lasted for seven years, and aimed to determine whether the programme had an effect on the community as a whole, and also


www.cfbt.com 57

whether it had an effect on a sub group of families who attended a group session before their child was three years old. The evaluation was conducted using a quasi-experimental design, comparing a sample of families from the PEEP catchment area (regardless of whether they attended the groups or not) with a sample of families from a similar area elsewhere. Therefore the team followed a cohort of (initially) 300 children in the PEEP area, and a comparison group of equal size in another town in Oxfordshire, from birth in 1998/99 to school entry in 2003/04.

Findings included evidence about the effect of PEEP on parents, on children’s cognitive development and on the socio-emotional development of the children. The findings showed that when the children were one year old, parents who had attended at least one weekly PEEP session reported a significantly enhanced view of their parent–child interaction. When the children were two years old, parents who attended PEEP groups also were rated higher on the quality of the care giving environment. The findings for children showed that those in the PEEP area fell significantly behind the comparison group at age two, but by age five had caught up a lot. The study concluded that early interventions lead to cognitive and social benefits for children, particularly those at risk of low educational achievement.

Note on sources: This report was prepared drawing on the reports below, of which one (the full report 2005a) is 189 pages long. For details on the earlier evaluation of ‘Foundation PEEP’ see chapter 3.

ReferencesEvangelou, M., Brooks, G., Smith, S., Jennings, D. and Roberts, F. (2005a). The Birth to School Study: a longitudinal evaluation of the Peers Early Education Partnership (PEEP) 1998–2005. (Sure Start Unit Research Report no. SSU/2005/FR/017) London: DfES.

Evangelou, M., Brooks, G., Smith, S., Jennings, D. and Roberts, F. (2005b). The Birth to School Study: a longitudinal evaluation of the Peers Early Education Partnership (PEEP) 1998–2005. (Sure Start Unit Research Brief no. SSU/2005/SF/017) London: DfES.

5.12 Fathers’ projects

The Green Paper Every Child Matters (HM Treasury/DfES 2003) made recommendations for family learning programmes, better communication between parents and schools, and involving fathers in school life. A review was carried out in 2003–04 (Goldman 2005) in partnership with a DfES Fathers Advisory Group, which looked at how best to involve fathers in schools. The report included a guide to effective practice, drawing on 13 in-depth case studies of schools and family learning providers in England and Wales that successfully engaged fathers. The report covered wider family learning as well as FLLN. A review of research on fathers’ participation in FLLN reported the following:

• 5% of parents who participated in LSC-funded family learning programmes were men (NIACE 2003)

• 96% of parents who participated in the BSA-funded family literacy initiative were women (Brooks et al. 1996)

• 97% of parents in the family numeracy pilot programmes were women (Brooks et al. 2002).

Goldman (2005:102) described research which showed strong relationships between fathers’ involvement and children’s success at school. The study looked at strategies to include and develop fathers’ involvement. These included a focus on quality sports, ICT and internet activities, arts and crafts, and visits to local community venues such as libraries and museums. Examples of successful initiatives in the Goldman study included an initiative in Hampshire called the Hampshire Teenage ‘Dads and lads’ book club, five reading groups set up in libraries for teenage boys and their fathers, a Fathers and Reading project set up by the Community Education Development Centre (CEDC, now ContinYou), and a Fathers and Education project in Suffolk.

Another example of an innovative project was a project called The Big Book Share: Libraries and Family Reading in Prisons, a family literacy project for male prisoners at Nottingham Prison, which has now extended to six other prisons, including women’s prisons. The aim of this


www.cfbt.com 58

project was to enable fathers in prison to contribute to their children’s reading, as well as to build the fathers’ own literacy skills, and to support fathers’ parenting skills. The project also aimed to build closer links between fathers and public libraries. The project was run in partnership with the Reading Agency, Nottingham City Libraries and HMP Nottingham.

Note on sources: This report was put together drawing on the Goldman report, cited below, which is a substantial publication, with a great deal of detail.

ReferencesGoldman, R. (2005) Fathers’ Involvement in their Children’s Education, London: National Family and Parenting Institute

HM Treasury and DfES (2003) Every Child Matters, Norwich: The Stationery Office.

The Reading Agency (2003) The Big Book Share: Libraries and Family Reading in Prisons: A Handbook, St. Albans: The Reading Agency.

5.13 Drawing together some threads: the picture in England and Wales

In this final section the picture in England and Wales is considered and then set in the context of the international studies. Chapters 2 to 4 are drawn upon to suggest what research on epistemologies and values can teach family literacy practitioners. The aim in writing this report was to introduce practitioners to key concepts, epistemologies and values in the area of family literacy, language and numeracy, as well as to contextualise the area, provide historical context and a policy overview from the perspective of England and Wales in the field of effective and inclusive practice in family literacy, language and numeracy.

The picture at the moment is of a number of key organisations initiating most of the FLLN provision. However, when the current picture is considered, it shows that there is, at present, somewhat of a policy vacuum connected with FLLN. No single agency is in charge of the field, and a number of agencies are taking responsibility, in different ways. In this section, the various agencies connected to FLLN are

described and their roles delineated, and the implications of this diversity are considered. Finally, a way forward for policy and practice in FLLN is suggested.

5.13.1 The Basic Skills Agency

Beginning in 1993, the Basic Skills Agency was for six or seven years the leading organisation in both research and development in the FLLN field in England and Wales. In that period it developed all five of the key initiatives funded by central government: Family literacy demonstration programmes, Support for local family literacy programmes, Family literacy for new groups, Family numeracy pilot programmes, and Family literacy and numeracy in prisons; it also commissioned evaluations of them. As the field began to diversify in the early years of this decade the Agency continued to play a powerful role in both initiating and evaluating FLLN projects. Those developed in this period were Keeping Up with the Children, Early Start, Skills for Families, Family Finance, Play and Language, and Playing with Language, and under development in 2005–06 was a scheme for involving grandparents with their grandchildren’s literacy, language and numeracy.

Given the Agency’s central role, it is worth considering its overall impact within England and Wales. It acted as a strong advocate for FLLN, moving it into a number of different domains. It argued for the importance of infrastructure and working in partnership through the initiative Skills for Families, which was valuable, although there were concerns about its sustainability. The original Family literacy demonstration programmes and then the evaluations by Brooks et al. (1996, 1997, 1999) offered powerful models for many international programmes to follow, including programmes such as PEFaL. The Agency’s programmes aimed to provide sustainable models for working with parents and with young children. The programmes introduced a new range of practitioners to working across age ranges and to focusing on literacy, language and numeracy in different contexts.

From 2001 the Agency’s roles in England and Wales have increasingly diverged. In Wales it has cradle-to-grave responsibility for basic skills, and in that country receives all the


www.cfbt.com 59

research and development funding devoted to this sector.

In England, on the other hand, from 2001 the Agency no longer channelled funding to FLLN; it comes instead from the Learning and Skills Council. Moreover, with the setting up of the National Research and Development Centre for Adult Literacy and Numeracy in 2002 the Agency lost all its responsibility for research and part of its responsibility for development with respect to adult basic skills in England. Instead, the Agency has increasingly focused on developing effective practice in schools and other organisations.

Reflecting on the Agency’s role, much of its work has sought to engage young families and has been pro-active and innovative. Many of the models it developed have been found to be robust (Brooks et al. 1996, 2002, 2004). Returning to the epistemological discussions in chapter 2, however, it is worth considering how much, if at all, the Agency prioritises learning from families, in the way that FLAME, the South Africa Family Literacy project, FABE in Uganda, and others take for granted. A policy context which builds on a focus on programme managing, such as the Agency offers, but which also includes a focus on what families can teach the field, would create a positive culture for FLLN programmes to flourish.

In addition, the Agency did not engage explicitly with much of the theoretical debate around FLLN, in contrast to projects like FLAME, Chicago, which made their epistemology visible and drew on a socio-cultural model, citing research from scholars like Gee (1999) and Rogers (2002). By contrast, literature from Skills for Families quotes Ivan Lewis MP, then Minister for lifelong learning, who stated that ‘family literacy, language and numeracy courses can be an effective way of breaking the cycle of underachievement’ (Skills for Families: Strengthening family literacy, language and numeracy 2004:3). The Skills for Families literature does not cover what families can teach providers.

So the Agency’s role has diminished significantly in the years 2000–06. In particular, its leadership role for FLLN has slipped away – and, even more worryingly for the field, has not

been allocated to or picked up by any other organisation or group. However, historically, its role was critical in shaping and delivering FLLN programmes in England and Wales.

It was announced in November 2006 that the Agency was to be privatised in April 2007 and to have its government funding withdrawn a year later. This radical action makes the question of leadership for the field in England and Wales even more acute. In May 2007, the Agency became part of NIACE.

5.13.2 Family literacy, language and numeracy as delivered by local authorities

Much of FLLN provision is now funded by the Learning and Skills Council. However, the LSC’s budgeting arrangements are designed only for provision for adults, so that funding for children’s participation in FLLN is bolted on and is not easy to secure. This constitutes a difficulty with funding streams. Other funding streams, such as the Neighbourhood Renewal Fund and Sure Start, are therefore essential for local providers.

At a local level, it is possible to see evidence of programmes drawing on research evidence to develop FLLN provision. A notable example of this is the Rochdale Borough Literacy Policy: Literacy Changes Lives (2006) which examines what it means to be literate by drawing on a social practices view of literacy, considers evidence of the relationship between home support and children’s educational attainment, develops an asset model to further support the Local Authority’s multilingual families, and places creativity at the heart of learning. In Rochdale, it is acknowledged that family learning consists of much more than funded courses. The project draws on the work of the REAL project and PEEP to develop a multi-stranded approach to family learning, offering parents and children opportunities, recognition, interactions and models of literacy users. Built into the programme’s values and principles is an adherence to key values and principles as set out in chapter 2 of this review. This open acknowledgement of both research sources and an epistemology to drive FLLN provision forward is to be welcomed.


www.cfbt.com 60

The role of local authorities remains critical in shaping and delivering policy and practice. A flagship authority such as Rochdale, with its new literacy policy, can lead the way for adopting an epistemology which both listens to families and their different linguistic and cultural resources, and develops a framework for delivery.

5.13.3 Initiatives funded through the private sector, charities and voluntary sector

Other initiatives described in the review include the work of the REAL project in Sheffield, funded by the Nuffield foundation; Books for Babies, funded by Boots; Bookstart, which was originally funded from the voluntary sector and then from the private sector, but is now funded through government; and Reading is Fundamental UK, which is funded from the voluntary sector and run by the National Literacy Trust. PEEP is also funded through a number of voluntary charitable organisations. These projects have focused on innovation and on aiming to link research and practice from the start. These projects, in particular PEEP and the REAL project, have generated high-quality research, resulting in several longitudinal datasets.

Have these programmes, which have drawn on ‘funds of knowledge’ from home, listened to the voices of parents and children? The REAL project in Sheffield did give space to the voices of families as heard by literacy professionals, and left room in its conceptual framework for families to bring their own thoughts and experiences to the programme, through the use of a jigsaw, with blank spaces left for families to describe ideas for literacy work. In 2005, the National Literacy Trust ran a Social Inclusion Project which resulted in a handbook, aimed at practitioners, which presented a collaborative literacy process, to enable partnership working to take place (Bird and Akerman 2005). The handbook argued for a community literacy strategy, in order to enable wider benefits for communities to be sustained through innovative partnership work.

5.13.4 Sure Start

The strength of many UK programmes lies in the complex, community-focused partnerships each initiative encouraged. The concept

of community-focused provision was first identified by Hannon et al. (2003), who were able to point to particular models of provision which fulfilled community-focused criteria. These criteria included partnership working, shared vision and an approach which included development and innovation. For example, Shared Beginnings worked at grassroots level to encourage book sharing with young children, and local Sure Start initiatives likewise reached across different agencies to work together. Sure Start is a unique initiative in the UK, in that it adopts a holistic approach to early years support, and, like the Mother-Child Education Program in Turkey, has as one of its aims raising the confidence of parents, as well as specific aims connected to child health, welfare and education. In that sense, the Sure Start programmes have drawn on the more holistic models of family literacy described in chapter 4.

Shared partnership work, in areas of regeneration, is exciting in this context. This project’s case studies of local practice in Rochdale, Derbyshire and Croydon are examples of where practitioners are making new alliances, working across domains to deliver exciting new programmes. The initiatives described above are the initiators of these exciting local programmes.

5.13.5 Literacy and literacies

However, many of the programmes in England and Wales adhere to a view of literacy which is mono-modal and non-digital, and the concept of literacy as a multimodal communicative practice, embedded within a wider landscape of communication, is not present. Recent insightful work by Crystal (2006) has pointed to the idea of a new communicative form of language, which lies between speech and writing, instantiated in online forms. While this study continues to adhere to a model of literacy as connected to reading and writing, literacy now is embedded within a wider communicational landscape that includes a plethora of communicative forms (Kress 2003). As stated in chapter 2, literacy is changing, and home literacy practices are shifting with new technologies.

Family literacy needs to take account of this. Digital literacies, text messaging and other


www.cfbt.com 61

popular cultural forms, such as television, PlayStation games and instant messaging, are not recognised as literacy practices to draw and build upon with families. New projects, such as a current research project at the Institute of Education, University of London entitled Camcorder Cultures: Media Technologies and Everyday Creativity, funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Council, are exploring the use of video cameras in everyday lives as part of family’s communicative home practices (for more information see www.childrenyouthandmediacentre.co.uk/projects).

In that context, the work of Marsh (2005) is to be welcomed in drawing attention to new literacy practices within families. It is to be hoped that family literacy programmes in England begin to listen and learn from families’ multiple literacies and multiple resources. In that sense, programmes in England and Wales may usefully look at differently conceptualised programmes and consider what they might like to learn from other sources.

5.13.6 Some future directions

In 2005, Bird, Pahl and Taylor (2005) wrote an editorial for a special issue of the UK Literacy Association journal Literacy on family and community literacies, in which they described what they identified as some key concerns in the field of family literacy. They were concerned that because family literacy spans different policy areas, including early years, family learning and adult basic skills, it will fall between funding gaps. There is continued concern that FLLN funding comes from the Learning and Skills Council’s funding stream, but the aspect that is focused on children continues to be a ‘bolt-on’.

In addition, the link between research and practice continues to be critical in developing programmes. A series of carefully evaluated studies in the 1990s (Brooks et al. 1996, 1999) ensured a loop back from research to practice, while longitudinal studies such as the REAL project and PEEP have ensured that the rationale for programmes remains securely grounded in an evidence-based approach (Nutbrown, Hannon and Weinberger 2005). There continues to be a need for carefully observed, longitudinal studies of family literacy, language and numeracy practices

which then inform curricula and programmes. These studies need to offer illuminating cases of practice which offer practitioners the opportunity to reflect upon existing practices, and build upon them in generative and creative ways.

One way forward would be to echo the focus on creativity in schools currently being developed by Creative Partnerships, an Arts Council-funded initiative in the UK which supports partnerships between schools and artists by developing a focus on creativity in family literacy, language and numeracy. This new focus would be welcomed.

Another focus would be on the holistic approaches to FLLN that other countries have developed. These include a focus on interaction (Turkey), child health (Nepal and South Africa), community empowerment (Chicago and Canada) and teacher training (QualiFLY in Europe). It is hoped that these more innovative models from the international analyses will inform the way in which family literacy, language and numeracy is conceptualised and planned. One major recent innovation, Sure Start, adopts some of these approaches, but it is held back by its focus on children from birth to age 4.

In future, it is to be hoped that this holistic model, which learns from communities, is research-led, and has a community-focused approach, will feed back into FLLN programmes. In the editorial by Bird, Pahl and Taylor, the writers suggest that these ways of working should be nurtured through local initiatives, but also at government level. An inclusive and effective approach to family literacy, numeracy and language should both listen to families, and move the research-led models of provision on, so that practitioners can learn from them and families can develop and grow.


www.cfbt.com 62

When first introduced into Britain in the mid-1990s, two-generation family literacy, language and numeracy programmes went through a period of fairly detailed central prescription. Only programmes which adhered to the Basic Skills Agency’s models were eligible for central government funding, and others had to seek alternative sources of money.

However, since about 2000 the range of programmes in Britain, both those eligible for government funding and others, has diversified. This development has been welcomed by the profession, and may allow for more appropriate tailoring of programmes to local and individual circumstances. Meanwhile, well-designed programmes funded at national level continue to be widely used, and may represent the best choice where they fit local circumstances and/or where it would be onerous to develop a new programme from scratch.

Family literacy and language programmes are more frequent than family numeracy programmes both in Britain and, apparently, around the world.

There appear to have been no studies, either quantitative or qualitative, in which different approaches to family literacy or language or numeracy have been compared. Thus there is no research basis for claiming that any one programme is more effective than any other.

Similarly, no research has yet been done into the claim that parents in FLLN programmes make better progress than they would in stand-alone adult basic education programmes. This claim requires rigorous investigation if it is to become more than an article of faith.

The quantitative research evidence can be summed up as showing fairly convincingly that parents benefit in their ability to help their children and in wider ways, and that children’s skills benefit; however, there is only just enough evidence to suggest that parents’ own skills benefit. There is also hardly any evidence on wider benefits for children.

Only seven of the 16 studies with quantitative evidence had gathered follow-up data. However, almost all of these showed that benefits had been sustained.

The international evidence suggests that mothers benefit particularly where programmes work with them in a ‘traditional’ family setting.

Very few fathers have been involved in FLLN programmes, but more organisations are beginning to develop specific programmes for fathers and children.

From the international qualitative evidence it seems that newer programmes are increasingly multi-modal, using both traditional formats such as storytelling and new technologies such as text messaging. There is some evidence that this is happening in Britain too, and this opens up possibilities for attractive new programmes.

In multilingual situations a key value of providers and learners is respect for and building on learners’ first language.

The Basic Skills Agency led research and development in the field in both England and Wales in the mid- and late 1990s, and has continued to do so in Wales. In England, however, its role has changed and continues to evolve. Now that the Agency is to be privatised and have its government funding withdrawn, leadership responsibility for the field in both countries is a pressing policy question.

This is especially the case because provision in England through local authorities and the private, charitable and voluntary sectors, though excellent in places, is patchy. The strong offer of programmes funded from central government needs to be both maintained and refreshed; focused research has a clear and essential role to play here. In addition, the ambiguous position of funding for the children’s element of FLLN programmes as a bolt-on to funding for the parents’ element needs to be resolved.

Chapter 6: Conclusions and implications

Greg Brooks

Family literacy and language programmes are more frequent than family numeracy programmes both in Britain and, apparently, around the world.

‘‘ ‘‘


www.cfbt.com 63

The family literacy, language and numeracy field in England and Wales is vibrant, and more varied than ever before. It has provided inspiration for some of the increasing number of interesting and effective programmes elsewhere in the world, and at home has

contributed to parents’, especially mothers’, empowerment through learning, and to policy objectives, and has improved children’s educational prospects. It can continue to do so, given adequate support.


www.cfbt.com 64

A Flying Start: How Sure Start has made a difference in the lives of young children and their families in the Rotherham Central area. (March 2006)

Adult Literacy and Basic Skills Unit (1993) Parents and their Children: the intergenerational effect of poor basic skills, London: Adult Literacy and Basic Skills Unit.

Auerbach, E. (1989) Towards a social contextual approach to family literacy. Harvard Educational Review, 59, 2, 165–81.

Bailey, M., Harrison, C. and Brooks, G. (2000) The Boots Books for Babies Project Evaluation, Nottingham: University of Nottingham, School of Education. (mimeograph)

Bailey, M., Harrison, C. and Brooks, G. (2002) The Boots Books for Babies project: Impact on library registrations and book loans. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 2, 1, 45–63.

Barton, D. (1994) Exploring family literacy. RaPAL Bulletin, no. 24, 2–5.

Barton, D. and Hamilton, M. (1998) Local Literacies: reading and writing in one community, London: Routledge.

Basic Skills Agency (1998) Family Numeracy Adds Up, London: Basic Skills Agency

Basic Skills Agency (undated) Family literacy and numeracy in prisons, London: Basic Skills Agency.

Bekman, S. (1998) A Fair Chance: An Evaluation of the Mother-Child Education Program. İstanbul: AÇEV (Anne Çocuk E ̆gitim Vakfi, Mother-Child Education Foundation).

Benseman, J. (2004) ‘I’m a different person now’ An evaluation of the Manukau Family Literacy Programme, New Zealand: Ministry of Education.

Bernstein, B. (1996, reprinted 2000) Pedagogy, Symbolic Control, Identity: theory, research, critique, Oxford: Rowman and Littlefield.

Beverton, S., Hunter-Carsch, M., Obrist, C. and Stuart, A. (1993) Running family reading groups: Guidelines on how to develop children’s voluntary reading, Widnes: United Kingdom Reading Association.

Bird, V. and Akerman, R. (2005) Literacy and Social Inclusion: The Handbook. National Literacy Trust and Basic Skills Agency.

Bird, V. and Pahl, K. (1994) Parent literacy in a community setting. RaPAL Bulletin, no. 24, 6–15.

Bird, V., Pahl, K. and Taylor, C. (2005) Editorial to the special issue on Family and Communities Literacies. Literacy, 39, 2, 57–58.

Blackledge, A. (2000) Literacy, Power and Social Justice, London: Trentham Books Ltd.

Booker, L. (2002) Starting School: Young Children Learning Cultures, Buckingham: Open University Press.

Booktrust (2003) Bookstart Partnership Report, London: Booktrust.

Brooks, G., Gorman, T.P., Harman, J., Hutchison, D. and Wilkin, A. (1996) Family Literacy Works: The NFER Evaluation of the Basic Skills Agency’s Family Literacy Demonstration Programmes, London: Basic Skills Agency.

Brooks, G., Gorman, T.P., Harman, J., Hutchison, D., Kinder, K., Moor, H. and Wilkin, A. (1997) Family Literacy Lasts: the NFER Follow-up Study of the Basic Skills Agency’s Demonstration Programmes, London: Basic Skills Agency.

Brooks, G., Harman, J., Hutchison, D., Kendall, S. and Wilkin, A. (1999) Family Literacy for New Groups: The National Foundation for Educational Research Evaluation of the Basic Skills Agency’s Programmes for Linguistic Minorities, Year 4 and Year 7, London: Basic Skills Agency.

Brooks, G., Cole, P., Davies, P., Davis, B., Frater, G., Harman, J. and Hutchison, D. (2002) Keeping Up with the Children: evaluation for the Basic Skills Agency by the University of Sheffield and the National Foundation for Educational Research, London: Basic Skills Agency.

Brooks, G., Cole, P., Hines, M., Lewis, M., Ohn, T., Pollock, A., Ritchie, L. and Vincent, C. (2003) Achievement in Adversity: Rotherham Rawmarsh Sure Start in 2002, Sheffield: University of Sheffield.

References


www.cfbt.com 65

Brooks, G., Davies, R., Duckett, L., Hutchison, D., Kendall, S. and Wilkin, A. (2001) Progress in Adult Literacy: Do Learners Learn? London: Basic Skills Agency.

Brooks, G. and Hutchison, D. (2002) Family Numeracy Adds On: the follow-up study of the Basic Skills Agency’s pilot programme, London: Basic Skills Agency.

Brooks, G., Cook, M., Hadden, S., Hirst, K., Jones, S., Lever-Chain, J., Millman, L., Piech, B., Powell, S., Rees, F., Roberts, S. and Smith, D. (2004) Early Promise: The University of Sheffield national evaluation of Early Start for the Basic Skills Agency, London: Basic Skills Agency.

Brown, A. and Dowling, P. (1993) The bearing of school mathematics on domestic space, in Merttens, R., Mayers, D., Brown, A. and Vass, J. (eds) Ruling the Margins: Problematising Parental Involvement London: University of North London Press/Institute of Education, University of London, 39–52.

Burgess, A. (2002) Writing practices in two adult literacy classes. Unpublished M.Ed. in Literacy dissertation, University of Sheffield School of Education.

Cairney, T. (2002) Bridging home and school literacy: in search of transformative approaches to curriculum. Early Child Development and Care, 172, 2, 153–72.

Camilleri, J. (2004) Literacy as a family affair: an evaluation of effectiveness of local and trans-national family literacy programmes. Unpublished M.Ed. in Literacy dissertation, University of Sheffield School of Education.

Camilleri, J., Spiteri, S. and Wolfendale, S. (2005) Parent Empowerment for Family Literacy: a European initiative. Literacy, 39, 2, 74–80.

Civil, M., Bernier, E. and Quintos, B. (2003) Parental involvement in mathematics: A focus on parents’ voices. Paper presented at the annual meeting of AERA, Chicago, IL, April.

Colwell, D. (2006) An investigation into problem-solving by adults in their everyday lives. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of London.

Comings, J. (2005) Afterword. In Pahl, K. and Rowsell, J. Literacy and Education: understanding the new literacy studies in the classroom, London and Thousand Oaks CA: Paul Chapman.

Crystal, D. (2006) How Language Works: how babies babble, words change meaning and languages live or die, London: Penguin.

David, M.E., Edwards, R., Hughes, M. and Ribbens, J. (1993) Mothers and Education: Inside Out? Exploring Family-Education Policy and Experience, Basingstoke: Macmillan.

Davies, P., Bird, V., Hamilton, M., Hannon, P., and Taylor, C. (2002) Read on – Write Away! Evaluation Report, Matlock, Derbyshire: Derbyshire County Council.

Desmond, S. (2005a) Family Literacy Project: End of year evaluation. www.familyliteracyproject.co.za/evaluation report.pdf accessed 27.6.06

Desmond, S. (2005b) Family Literacy and Community Libraries. LIASA Eight Annual Conference, September.

Dunn, Lloyd M., Dunn, Leota M., Whetton, C. and Burley, J. (1997) British Picture Vocabulary Scale, Windsor: NFER-Nelson.

Evangelou, M., Brooks, G., Smith, S., Jennings, D. and Roberts, F. (2005a). The Birth to School Study: a longitudinal evaluation of the Peers Early Education Partnership (PEEP) 1998–2005. (Sure Start Unit Research Report no. SSU/2005/FR/017) London: DfES.

Evangelou, M., Brooks, G., Smith, S., Jennings, D. and Roberts, F. (2005b). The Birth to School Study: a longitudinal evaluation of the Peers Early Education Partnership (PEEP) 1998–2005. (Sure Start Unit Research Brief no. SSU/2005/SF/017) London: DfES.

Evangelou, M. and Sylva, K. (2003a) The effects of the Peers Early Education Partnership (PEEP) on children’s developmental progress, London: DfES research report 489.

Evangelou, M. and Sylva, K. (2003b) The effects of the Peers Early Education Partnership (PEEP) on children’s developmental progress, London: DfES research brief 489.

Frow, J. (2004) Family Literacy Project Evaluation, South Africa.

Gamse, B., Conger, D., Elson, D. and McCarthy, M. (1997) Follow-up Study of Families in the Even Start In-Depth Study: final report, Cambridge MA: Abt Associates Inc.


www.cfbt.com 66

Gee, J. P. (1999) An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and Method, London: Routledge.

Gilbert, K. and Appleby, Y. (2005) ‘Sometimes I tell them from my old family’: Bi-lingual family language, literacy and numeracy learning. Lancaster Literacy Research Centre Working Paper No 10.

Goksel Gocer, A. (2005) ‘AÇEV’s programs.’ Presentation to UNESCO Regional Conference on family literacy, Lyon, France, April.

Goldman, R. (2005) Fathers’ Involvement in their Children’s Education, London: National Family and Parenting Institute.

Gonzalez, N., Moll, L., and Amanti C. (eds) (2005) Funds of Knowledge: Theorizing Practices in Households, Communities and Classrooms, Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Gorman, T.P. and Brooks, G. (1996) Assessing Young Children’s Writing: a Step by Step Guide, London: Basic Skills Agency.

Gregory, E., Long, S. and Volk, D. (eds) (2004) Many Pathways to Literacy: Young Children Learning with Siblings, Grandparents, Peers, Communities, London: Routledge.

Hall, N. (2004) The child in the middle: agency and diplomacy in language brokering events, in Hansen, G., Malmkjaer, K. and Gile, D. (eds) Claims, Changes and Challenges in Translation Studies, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 285–97.

Hannon, P. (1987) A study of the effects of parental involvement in the teaching of reading on children’s reading test performances. British Journal of Educational Psycholoogy, 57, 1, 56–72.

Hannon, P. (1995) Literacy, Home and School: Research and Practice in Teaching Literacy with Parents, London: Falmer Press.

Hannon, P. (1999) Rhetoric and research in family literacy. British Educational Research Journal, 26, 1, 121–38.

Hannon, P. (2003) Family literacy programmes. In Hall, N., Larson, J. and Marsh, J. (eds) Handbook of early childhood literacy research, London: Sage Publications, 99–111.

Hannon, P. and Bird, V. (2004) Family literacy in England: theory, practice, research, and policy, in Wasik, B.H. (ed.) Handbook of family literacy, Mahwah, NJ and London: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Hannon, P., Brooks, G. and Bird, V. (2007) ‘Family literacy in England’, in Elfert, M. and Rabkin, G. (eds) Gemeinsam in der Sprache baden: Family Literacy. Internationale Konzepte zur familienorientierten Schriftsprachförderung, Stuttgart, Germany: Ernst Klett Sprachen for UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning, Hamburg, Germany, pp.10–31.

Hannon, P. and Hirst, K. (2002) Report of an evaluation of Shared Beginnings, Sheffield: University of Sheffield. (mimeograph)

Hannon, P. and Jackson, A. (1987) The Belfield Reading Project: Final Report, London: National Children’s Bureau, and Rochdale: Belfield Community Council.

Hannon, P. and Nutbrown, C. (1997) Teachers’ use of a conceptual framework for early literacy education with parents. Teacher Development, 1, 3, 405–20.

Hannon, P., Nutbrown, C. and Morgan, A. (2005) Effects of a family literacy programme on children and parents: findings from the REAL project. Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association conference, Glamorgan, September.

Hannon, P., Pahl, K., Bird, V., Taylor, C. and Birch, C. (2003) Community-focused Provision in Adult Literacy, Numeracy and Language: An Exploratory Study, London: NRDC Publications.

Hannon, P. and Weinberger, J. (2003) Family Literacy. Unit 7 of Literacy in a Wider Context. Department of Educational Studies, University of Sheffield, Sheffield.

Heath, S.B. (1983) Ways with Words: Language, Life and Work in Communities and Classrooms, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Herrity, V.A., Ho, H-Z., Dixon, C.M. and Brown, J.H. (2006) The Verizon OPTIONS initiative: Supporting Families’ Multiple Literacies. Paper prepared for the American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, San Francisco, April 7–11.

Hewison, J. (1988) The long-term effectiveness of parental involvement in reading: a follow-up to the Haringey Reading Project. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 58, 184–90.

HM Treasury and DfES (2003) Every Child Matters, Norwich: The Stationery Office.


www.cfbt.com 67

Hornberger, N.H. (ed.) (2003) Continua of Biliteracy: An Ecological Framework for Educational Policy, Research, and Practice in Multilingual Settings, Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd.

Johnston, B. (1999) Calculating people: Measurement as a social process. Literacy and Numeracy Studies, 9, 2.

Johnston, B. (2002) Capturing numeracy practices: memory-work and time. Ways of Knowing Journal, 2, 1, Brighton UK: University of Brighton.

Ka ̆gıtçıba ̧s ı, Ç., Bekman, S., Özkök, Ü.S. and Ku ̧s çul, Ö.H. (1995) Anne Destek Programıel kitabı (Handbook of Mother Support Program). Anne Çocuk E ̆gitim Vakfi Yayınları No.1 (Mother-Child Education Foundation publication No.1). İstanbul: Mother-Child Education Foundation Publications.

Ka ̆gıtçıba ̧s ı, Ç., Bekman, S. and Sunar, D. (1991) Anne Destek Programı Klavuzu (Handbook of Mother Enrichment Program), Ankara: UNICEF.

Karoly, L.A., Greenwood, P.W., Everingham, S.S., Houbé, J., Kilburn, M.R., Rydell, C.P., Sanders, M. and Chiesa, J. (1998) Investing in Our Children: what we know and don’t know about the costs and benefits of early childhood interventions, Santa Monica CA and Washington DC: Rand Corporation.

Karther, D. (2002) Fathers with low literacy and their young children. The Reading Teacher, 56, 2, 184–93.

Kvalsvig, J.D., Qotyana, P. and McLennan-Smith, G. (2003) Bringing literacy skills to young children: a qualitative evaluation, Child, Youth and Family Development, Human Sciences Research Council of South Africa.

Keating, C. (2005) The person in the doing: negotiating the experience of self, in Barton, D. and Tusting, K. (eds) Beyond Communities of Practice: Language, Power and Social Context, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kell, C. (2006) Crossing the margins: Literacy, semiotics and the recontextualisation of meanings. In Pahl, K. and Rowsell, J. (2006) Travel Notes from the New Literacy Studies: Instances of practice, Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Kenner, C. (2004) Becoming Biliterate: Young Children Learning Different Writing Systems, Stoke-on-Trent: Trentham Books.

Knobel, D. and Lankshear, D. (2003) Researching young children’s out-of-school literacy practices, in Hall, N., Larson, J. and Marsh, J. (eds) Handbook of Early Childhood Literacy, London: Sage Publications, 51–65.

Koçak, A.A. (2004) Evaluation Report of the Father-Child Support Program, İstanbul: Mother-Child Education Foundation Publications.

Kress, G. (2003) Literacy in the New Media Age, London: Routledge.

Kress, G. and Street, B (2006) Foreword, in Pahl, K. and Rowsell, J. (eds) Travel Notes from the New Literacy Studies: Instances of practice, Clevedon: Multilingual Matters

Kvalsvig, J.D., Qotyana, P. and McLennan-Smith, G. (2003) Bringing literacy skills to young children: a qualitative evaluation. Child, Youth and Family Development, Human Sciences Research Council of South Africa.

Literacy Changes Lives Rochdale Borough Literacy Policy (Rochdale 2006)

Mandandhar, H., Leslie, K. and Shrestha, B.M. (1994) Family Literacy in Nepal: A Case Study from Save the Children/US Field Office. Paper presented to UNESCO World Congress on Family Literacy, Paris.

Marsh, J. (2005) Media, popular culture and young children, in: Weinberger, J., Pickstone, C. and Hannon, P. (eds) Learning from Sure Start, Berkshire: Open University Press, 166–76.

Marsh, J. (2006) Global, Local/Public, Private: Young Children’s Engagement in Digital Literacy Practices in the Home. In Pahl, K. and Rowsell, J. (eds) Travel Notes from the New Literacy Studies: Instances of Practice, Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd.

Marsh, J. (in press) Popular culture in the language arts curriculum. In Flood, J., Heath, S.B. and Lapp, D. (eds) Handbook of Research on Teaching Through the Communicative and Visual Arts, Volume 2, New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Martin-Jones, M. and Jones, K. (2000) (eds) Multilingual Literacies: Reading and Writing Different Worlds, Amsterdam: John Benjamins.


www.cfbt.com 68

Merttens, R. and Vass, J. (eds) (1993) Partnership in Maths: Parents and Schools: The Impact Project, London: The Falmer Press.

Milloy, J. (1994) Numeracy in parent literacy sessions. RaPAL Bulletin, no. 24, 6–15.

Moore, M. and Wade, B. (2003) Bookstart. A qualitative evaluation. Educational Review, 55, 1, 3–13.

Morgan, A. (2005) A dialogic reading intervention programme for parents and preschoolers, in Weinberger, J., Pickstone, C. and Hannon, P. (eds) Learning from Sure Start, Berkshire: Open University Press, 177–87.

Morrow, L. M., Tracey, D. H. and Maxwell, C. M. (eds) (1995) A survey of Family Literacy in the United States, Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

National Centre for Research in Children’s Literature (2001) Evaluation of the Bookstart Programme administered by Booktrust and funded by Sainsbury’s from 1999–2001. Report by the National Centre for Research in Children’s Literature University of Surrey, Roehampton, London: Booktrust.

National evaluation summary: Towards understanding Sure Start local programmes: Summary of findings from the National Evaluation (June 2004), Sure Start.

New London Group (1996) A pedagogy of Multiliteracies: designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66, 60–92.

Nickse, R. (1993) A typology of family and intergenerational literacy programmes: implications for evaluation. Viewpoints 15: Family Literacy, London: ALBSU.

Nutbrown, C., Hannon, P. and Morgan, A. (2005) Early Literacy Work with Families: Research, policy and practice, London: Sage Publications.

Pahl, K. (2000) Course Evaluation: London Language and Literacy Unit, South Bank University, Parental involvement in Education.

Pahl, K. (2002a) Ephemera, mess and miscellaneous piles: texts and practices in families. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 2, 2, 145–65.

Pahl, K. (2002b) Habitus and the home: texts and practices in families. Ways of Knowing Journal, 2, 1, 45–53.

Pahl, K. (2004a) Making Space for Learning (University of Sheffield, Croydon CETS).

Pahl, K. (2004b) Narratives, artifacts and cultural identities: an ethnographic study of communicative practices in homes, Linguistics and Education, 15, 4, 339–58.

Pahl, K. (2006) Afterword, in Rowsell, J. Family Literacy: Bridging Home and School, Markham: Pembroke Publishers.

Pahl, K. (2006, in press) Literacy and ecology, in Hornberger, N. (ed.) Encyclopaedia of Language and Education Second Revised Edition. Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Pahl, K. and Kelly, S. (2005) Family literacy as a third space between home and school: some case studies of practice. Literacy, 39, 2, 91–96.

Pahl, K., and Pollard, A. (2006) Narratives of migration and artefacts of identity: new imaginings and new generations. Paper presented at the BERA conference, Warwick, September, now available online as an AHRC working paper on: www.diasporas.ac.uk/assets/pahl%20event.pdf

Palmer, J. and Rhodes, K. (1994) Measuring success in family literacy: seeing the wood and the trees. RaPAL Bulletin, no. 24, 24–29.

Parajuli, P. and Enslin, E. (1990) ‘From learning literacy to regenerating women’s space: a story of women’s empowerment in Nepal’. Convergence, 33, no.1.

Pitt, C. (2000) Family literacy: a pedagogy for the future? in Barton, D. and Hamilton, M. Situated Literacies: Reading and Writing in Context, London: Routledge

Poulson, L., Macleod, F., Bennett, N. and Wray, D. (1997) Family literacy: Practice in local programmes, London: Basic Skills Agency.

Pretorius, E.J. (2003) The child-to-child programme on the Family Literacy Project: KwaZulu-Natal 2002. Durban, South Africa: Unisa (University of South Africa) Academic Literacy Research Unit. (mimeograph)

Purcell-Gates, V. (2000) Family literacy, in Kamil, M.K., Mosenthal, P.B., Pearson, P.D. and Barr, R. (eds) Handbook of Reading Research. Vol. III. Mahwah: New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 853–70.

Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (2000) Foundation Stage Profile, London: QCA/DfEE.


www.cfbt.com 69

Reay, D. (1998) Class Work: Mothers’ Involvement in their Children’s Primary Schooling, London: UCL Press.

Robinson-Pant, A. (1995) Literacy in Nepal: Looking through the literature. Education for Development Occasional Papers, Series 1, Number 1.

Robinson-Pant, A. (2001) Why Eat Green Cucumber at the Time of Dying? Exploring the link between women’s literacy and development: A Nepal Perspective, Hamburg: UNESCO Institute for Education.

Rodríguez-Brown, F.V. (2003) Family literacy in English language learning communities: issues related to program development, implementation, and practice. In DeBruin-Parecki, A. and Krol-Sinclair, B. (eds) Family Literacy: from theory to practice. Newark DE: International Reading Association, pp.126–46.

Rodríguez-Brown, F.V. (2004) ‘Project FLAME: a parent support family literacy model’, in Wasik, B.H. (ed.) Handbook of Family Literacy, Mahwah NJ and London: Lawrence Erlbaum, 213–32.

Rogers, A. with Uddin, M.A. (2005) Adults learning literacy, in Street, B. (ed.) Literacies Across Educational Contexts: mediated teaching and learning, Philadelphia: Caslon Publishing Ltd, 235–60

Rogers, R. (2003) A Critical Discourse Analysis of Family Literacy Practices: power in and out of print, Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Rogoff, B. (2003) The Cultural Nature of Human Development, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Schultz, K. (2006) The role of listening in teaching. Symposium on Listening at AERA, San Francisco.

Skills for Families: Working together to extend and embed family literacy, language and numeracy. Strengthening family literacy, language and numeracy: Planning for quality. (Crown Copyright 2004)

Spiteri, S. (2004) Summary of Ħilti primary prevention family literacy results. Malta: Education Department. (mimeograph)

St. Pierre, R.G., Swartz, J.P., Gamse, B., Murray, S., Deck, D. and Nickel, P. (1995) National Evaluation of the Even Start Family Literacy Program: final report, Cambridge MA: Abt Associates Inc.

St. Pierre, R.G., Swartz, J.P., Murray, S. and Deck, D. (1996) Improving Family Literacy: findings from the national Even Start evaluation, Cambridge MA: Abt Associates Inc.

Street, B. (ed.) (2005) Literacies Across Educational Contexts: mediated teaching and learning, Philadelphia: Caslon Publishing Ltd.

Street, B. and Baker, D. (2006) So what about multimodal numeracies? In Pahl, K. and Rowsell, J. (eds) Travel Notes from the New Literacy Studies: Instances of practice, Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 219–33.

Street, B., Baker, D. and Tomlin, A. (2005) Navigating Numeracies, Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Street, B., Rogers, A. and Baker, D. Adult teachers as researchers: ethnographic approaches to numeracy and literacy as social practices in South Asia. Work in progress; ms available from authors.

Sylva, K., Evangelou, M., Taylor, R., Rothwell, A. and Brooks, G. (2006, forthcoming) Enabling Parents: the role of PEEP in supporting parents as adult learners, Oxford: Oxford University Department of Educational Studies.

Taylor, D. (1983) Family Literacy: Young Children Learning to Read and Write, Exeter NH: Heinemann.

Tett, L. and St Clair, R. (1996) Family literacy, the home and the school: a cultural perspective. Journal of Education Policy, 11, 3, 363–75.

The Reading Agency (2003) The Big Book Share: Libraries and Family Reading in Prisons: A Handbook, St. Albans: The Reading Agency.

Tizard, J., Schofield, W.N. and Hewison, J. (1982) Collaboration between teachers and parents in assisting children’s reading. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 52, 1–15.

Torgerson, C.J. (2003) Systematic Reviews, London: Continuum.


www.cfbt.com 70

Torgerson, C.J. (2005) Systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials in literacy research: methodological challenges. Ed.D. dissertation by portfolio; one part published as Torgerson (2003), rest unpublished. Sheffield: University of Sheffield School of Education.

Torgerson, C., Brooks, G., Porthouse, J., Burton, M., Wright, K. and Watt, I. (2004) Adult literacy and numeracy interventions and outcomes: a review of controlled trials (research report), London: National Research and Development Centre for Adult Literacy and Numeracy. www.nrdc.org.uk/uploads/documents/doc_2850.pdf

Tuladhar, S. (1994) ‘Participatory video as a post literacy activity for women in rural Nepal’, Convergence, 37, 2/3.

Wade, B. and Moore, M. (1996) Children’s early book behaviour. Educational Review, 48, 3, 283–8.

Wade, B. and Moore, M. (1998a) A Gift for Life, Bookstart: The First Five Years. A description and Evaluation of an exploratory British Project to Encourage Sharing Books with Babies. The second Bookstart Report, London: Booktrust.

Wade, B. and Moore, M. (1998b) An early start with books: literacy and mathematical evidence from a longitudinal study. Educational Review, 50, 2, 135–45.

Wade, B. and Moore, M. (2000) A sure start with books. Early Years, 20, 2, 39–46.

Wasik, B.H. (ed.) (2004) Handbook of Family Literacy. Mahwah NJ and London: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Wasik, B.H., Dobbins, D.R. and Hermann, S. (2001) Intergenerational family literacy: concepts, research and practice, in Neuman, S.B. and Dickinson, D.K. (eds) Handbook of Early Literacy Research, New York: Guileford, 444–58.

Weinberger, J., Pickstone, C. and Hannon, P. (eds) (2005) Learning from Sure Start, Berkshire: Open University Press.

Whitehurst, G.J., Falcom, F., Lonigan, C.J., Fischel, J.E., Valdez-Mechaca, M.C. and Caulfield, M. (1988) Accelerating language development through picture-book reading, Developmental Psychology, 24, 552–8.

Williams, F. (2004) Rethinking Families, London: Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation.

Wolfendale, S. and Topping, K. (eds) (1996) Family involvement in literacy: effective partnerships in education, London: Cassell.

Zentella, A.C. (ed.) (2005) Building on Strength: Language and Literacy in Latino Families and Communities (Language & Literacy S.), New York: Teachers’ College Press.


www.cfbt.com 71

Appendices

Appendix A: The detailed quantitative analyses

Appendix B: Outline details of the programmes analysed qualitatively in chapter 4

Appendix C: Continuing debates and some emerging principles


www.cfbt.com 72

1. Bookstart

Bookstart began in Birmingham in 1992:

‘The national pilot of Bookstart provided a free pack for… 300 families who had babies approximately 9 months old. As well as a children’s book, the pack contained a bookmark, poster and poem card, together with information about library facilities [and] the value of book sharing and book purchase.’

(Wade and Moore 1998a, p.136)

And that was it – the intervention consisted solely of that gift; there was no further contact with most of the families. In 1994 Wade and Moore (1996a, b; Moore and Wade 1997) carried out an in-depth follow-up study of 28 randomly selected Bookstart families (the children then being aged 2½ to 3), and of a comparison group of 29 families. They interviewed parents, and observed parents’ and children’s behaviour while sharing a book. These observations are the basis for the data on the parents’ ability to help their children and on the children’s behaviours while sharing a book analysed below. A group of 41 Bookstart children chosen from those who could be traced were followed up at age 5 in 1997, together with a comparison group of 41 children, and a further group of 41 at age 7 in 1999, together with a new comparison group of 41. As far as can be ascertained from the published reports, the Bookstart and comparison groups on the three follow-up occasions contained entirely different samples of children each time. At ages 5 and 7 the children’s Baseline (school entry) assessments and Key Stage 1 (teacher assessment and national test) data respectively, were gathered, and form the basis for further analyses below.

After its launch in Birmingham, Bookstart spread rapidly to other areas and then went national, and was the subject of both a national evaluation and several local ones. Unfortunately, the national evaluation by the National Centre for Research in Children’s Literature (2001) was almost entirely qualitative and therefore could not be analysed for the quantitative section of this study. Of various local evaluations, that conducted in Sheffield (Hines and Brooks 2005) is analysed here, after the original Birmingham project.

Appendix A: The detailed quantitative analyses


www.cfbt.com 73

1A. Bookstart in Birmingham

Basic information

1 Serial number of study analysed 1A

2 Name of study Bookstart in Birmingham

3 References

Booktrust (2003); Moore and Wade (2003); Wade and Moore (1996, 1998a, b, 2000)

4 Study design

Matched-groups post-test-only study (but since the initiative began at age 7 to 9 months, all ‘pre-test scores’ can be assumed to be zero)

5 Focus of study Literacy, language, numeracy

6 What impact data are reported?

Direct evidence of benefits to parents’ ability to help their children (observation data)

Direct evidence of benefits to children’s skills at ages 2½–3 (observation data) and 5 and 7 (test data)

7 What data, if any, are reported on wider benefits of learning?

Some unanalysable data on changes in parents’ attitudes

8 What follow-up data, if any, are reported? Since the intervention occurred when the children were babies, all the data are follow-up data

9 What data, if any, are reported on comparison groups?

See Tables (1) to (4), pp.74–77

10 What impact measures, if any, can be calculated?

Some effect sizes – see Tables (3) and (4), pp.76–77

11 If the programme appears to have been effective, what insights into why it was effective can be derived from the report?

The gift seems to have stimulated parents into thinking reading is important, sharing books with their children from an earlier age than they might otherwise have done, and buying more books for their children.

12 Any other comments

However, the sample sizes were small and the setting up of the comparison groups was post hoc. Despite this, this study provides indicative evidence of the long-term benefits of the central Bookstart activity, the gift of the pack in the first year of life.


www.cfbt.com 74

Analysis of quantitative data (1): Changes in parents’ ability to help their children



3 Date when programme implemented 1992; this stage of the evaluation conducted in 1994

4 What data are analysed in this table? Changes in parents’ ability to help their children

5 Age range of participants Not stated

6 Type of participants Parents of 2½- to 3-year-old children

7 N of experimental group 28

8 N of comparison group 29

9 Equivalence of groups Matched on distribution of ages, family socioeconomic status (SES) and children’s month of birth

10 Length of intervention in weeks 0

11 Instrument used Observation schedule

12 Ratio gains n/a

13 Effect sizes Were not stated and could not be calculated

14 Statistical significances See below

Analysis of quantitative data on changes in parents’ ability to help their children

Behaviour

N of Bookstart parents showing the behaviour (N = 28)

N of comparison group parents showing the behaviour (N = 29)

Statistical significance

Read whole text 23 10 p<0.001

Encouraged child to predict 19 8 p<0.001

Traced direction of print 19 3 (not stated)

Talked about story more 18 7 p<0.01

Related story to child’s experience

12 6 p<0.001

Encouraged child to join in 12 5 (not stated)

Source: Wade and Moore (1996a, 1997), Moore and Wade (2003)

Overall, these results suggest benefits to parents’ ability to help their children.


www.cfbt.com 75

Analysis of quantitative data (2): Children’s behaviour while sharing book at age 2–3




4 What data are analysed in this table? Benefits to children’s skills at ages 2½–3

5 Age range of participants 2½–3

6 Type of participants Children



9 Equivalence of groups Matched on month of birth, family SES and distribution of parents’ ages


11 Instrument used Observation schedule

12 Ratio gains n/a



Analysis of quantitative data on children’s behaviour while sharing book

Behaviour

N of Bookstart children showing the behaviour (N = 28)

N of comparison group children showing the behaviour (N = 29)

Statistical significance

Showed keen interest in text 28 15 p<0.001

Frequently focused on book 27 15 p<0.001

Frequently answered questions 21 9 p<0.01

Pointed frequently to text 19 6 p<0.01

Frequently tried to turn pages 15 3 p<0.01

Joined in frequently with story 15 5 p<0.05

Frequently asked questions 14 1 p<0.001

Frequently predicted 4 p<0.05

Sources: Wade and Moore (1996b), Moore and Wade (2003)

All differences were significant and in favour of the Bookstart group.


www.cfbt.com 76

Analysis of quantitative data (3): Children’s attainment in Baseline assessment at age 5




4 What data are analysed in this table? Benefits to children’s skills at age 5

5 Age range of participants 5




9 Equivalence of groups Matched on date of birth, gender, home language, ethnicity, and nursery experience


11 Instrument used Baseline (school entry) assessments

12 Ratio gains n/a

13 Effect sizes See below


Analysis of quantitative data on children’s Baseline assessments at age 5

Test Maximum score

Bookstart group (N = 41)

Comparison group (N = 41)

Difference Statistical Significance

Effect size

average (s.d.) average (s.d.)

Speaking and listening 3 1.8 (0.8) 1.5 (0.9) 0.3 ns 0.3

Reading 3 1.5 (0.7) 0.9 (0.5) 0.6 <0.001 1.2

Writing 3 1.3 (0.7) 1.1 (0.5) 0.2 ns 0.4

English total 9 4.6 (1.8) 3.5 (1.6) 1.1 <0.01 0.7

Using and applying mathematics 3 1.5 (0.9) 1.3 (0.9) 0.2 ns 0.2

Number 3 1.5 (0.7) 1.1 (0.6) 0.4 <0.01 0.7

Shape, space and measurement 3 1.4 (0.7) 1.1 (0.7) 0.3 ns 0.4

Mathematics total 9 4.4 (1.9) 3.5 (2.0) 0.9 <0.05 0.5

Baseline total 18 9.0 (3.5) 7.1 (3.4) 1.9 <0.05 0.6

Source: Wade and Moore (1998b) Key: ns = statistically non-significant; s.d. = standard deviationEffect sizes were calculated using the comparison group’s s.d’s as the divisors

The significant findings for English total, mathematics total and Baseline total are almost certainly due to the significant results for Reading and Number. Even so, the results seem to show evidence of impact.


www.cfbt.com 77

Analysis of quantitative data (4): Children’s attainment in Key Stage 1 assessments at age 7




4 What data are analysed in this table? Benefits to children’s skills at age 7

5 Age range of participants 7




9 Equivalence of groups Matched on date of birth, gender, home language, ethnicity, and nursery experience


11 Instrument used Key Stage 1 (age 7) assessments

12 Ratio gains n/a


14 Statistical significancesSee below; the values tabulated are those reported by the authors.

Analysis of quantitative data on children’s Key Stage 1 assessments at age 7

Assessment/test Bookstart group (N = 41)

Comparison group (N = 41)

Difference Statistical significance

average NC level average NC level

TA English 2.2 1.8 0.4 <0.01

TA mathematics 2.2 1.9 0.3 <0.05

Reading task 2.6 2.1 0.5 <0.01

Reading comprehension test 2.5 1.8 0.7 <0.01

Writing test 2.5 2.0 0.5 <0.01

Spelling test 2.3 1.6 0.7 <0.01

Mathematics test 2.5 2.1 0.4 <0.01

Source: Wade and Moore (2000)Key: TA = teacher assessmentN.B. The scores shown are average National Curriculum (NC) levels. They have been deduced from

Table 5.3 in Wade and Moore (2000, p.43), where no actual figures are given.

All differences were significant and in favour of the Bookstart group, and the findings seem stronger than at age 5.

Despite the small samples and the ad hoc method of recruiting comparison groups, Bookstart shows promising evidence of benefits for children at all three ages studied, and for parents’ ability to help them.


www.cfbt.com 78

Basic information

1 Serial number of study analysed 1B

2 Name of study Bookstart in Sheffield

3 Reference Hines and Brooks (2005)

4 Study design Matched-groups post-test-only study

5 Focus of study Literacy and language

6 What impact data are reported? Direct evidence of benefits to children’s skills (i.e. test data)


None

8 What follow-up data, if any, are reported? None


Direct evidence of benefits to children’s skills (i.e. test data)


None


See report

12 Any other comments Very small sample

1B. Bookstart in Sheffield

The general description of Bookstart above applies also in Sheffield. The scheme began there in 1999 and was evaluated by a researcher associated with the University of Sheffield in 2004–05.


www.cfbt.com 79

Analysis of quantitative data (5): Benefits to children’s language and literacy


2 Name of study Bookstart in Sheffield

3 Date when programme implemented 1999; evaluation 2004

4 What data are analysed in this table? Children’s post-test language and literacy data

5 Age range of participants 4–5

6 Type of participants Children living in deprived areas of Sheffield



9 Equivalence of groups

For each Bookstart child, a comparison child was selected who was of the same sex and in the same class and had the nearest date of birth to the Bookstart child, but who had not received the Bookstart pack in infancy.

10 Length of intervention in weeks 0 – the intervention was the one-off giving of a Bookstart pack when the child was 6–13 months old

11 Instruments used

Questionnaires adapted from the language and literacy section of the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority’s Foundation Stage Profile (QCA/DfEE 2000)

12 Ratio gains n/a


14 Statistical significances Were not stated and could not be calculated

Analysis of quantitative data: Benefits to children’s language and literacy

Skill area Bookstart children Non-Bookstart children Difference

total average total average

Listening and speaking 108 4.7 88 3.8 0.9

Linking sounds and words 57 2.5 45 2.0 0.5

Reading 62 2.7 51 2.2 0.5

Writing 60 2.6 52 2.3 0.3

Though both the samples and the differences in scores were small, this study adds to the evidence of Bookstart’s effectiveness for children.


www.cfbt.com 80

2. Boots Books for Babies

This project was very similar to Bookstart. It was a partnership between The Boots (pharmaceutical) Company (which has its headquarters in Nottingham), Nottingham City Council, Nottinghamshire County Council and Nottinghamshire health visitors. The project’s stated aims were to deliver book packs to the parents or carers of babies attending hearing checks at local health centres, via the health visitor, usually at around nine months old, in order to increase awareness among parents and carers of the importance of sharing books with babies, and to increase the registration of babies with local libraries and use of the library service.

Basic information

1 Serial number of study analysed 2

2 Name of study Boots Books for Babies

3 References Bailey et al. (2000, 2002)

4 Study design

Unmatched-groups ‘before and after’ (historical comparison) study: data were collected at 21 project libraries and 7 non-project libraries for 9 months before and 15 months after launch of project

5 Focus of study Literacy


Change in rates of new baby (age under 2) registrations and in rates of book-borrowing on Boots Books for Babies babies’ library cards pre- and post-project launch


None



Baby registrations in seven ‘unseen comparison group’ non-Boots Books for Babies libraries.

Rates of borrowing in non-project libraries could not be gathered.


None


The responsive and developing evaluation strategy reported, involving consultation with key participants and end-users – health visitors, library personnel, parents/carers – suggests that local contexts were considered from earliest stages.


The evaluation team is reported to consider this project very successful in meeting its goals of significantly increasing new baby registrations and loans to babies. Case study and interview data support this. So does the fact that it ‘received significant funding from a number of sources for continuation and extension work’.


www.cfbt.com 81

Analysis of quantitative data (6): Impact on registrations and book-borrowing


2 Name of study Boots Books for Babies

3 Date when programme implemented October 1998

4 What data are analysed in this table? Data for new baby registrations and babies’ book-borrowing

5 Age range of participants All under 2

6 Type of participants Families with a baby under 2

7 N of experimental group Not stated but based on 21 libraries (c.1700)

8 N of comparison group Not stated but based on 7 libraries (c.600)


Not equivalent – comparison group were libraries in which project happened not to have been adopted

10 Length of intervention in weeks n/a – it was essentially a one-off event

11 Instruments used Library service data

12 Ratio gains n/a

13 Effect sizes n/a


Impact on registrations and book-borrowing

Indicator Group Number of libraries

Number of occurrences % increase

1998 1999

Baby registrations Project libraries 21 1122 * 1726 54%

Comparison 7 not stated not stated 6%

Babies’ book-borrowing

Project libraries 1998: 61999: 19

10 per month per library

28 per month per library

180%

Comparison n/a not known not known n/a

* N.B. Figure includes October–December 1998, when the project was already running.

The fact that the comparison group was not well-defined is a limitation, but the difference in registrations between groups was large, and the ‘historical control’ pre-project data in project libraries provide better evidence that the project actually had an impact.


www.cfbt.com 82

3. Child-to-child programme in South Africa

Some background, from Pretorius (2003, pp.2–3):

The Family Literacy Project (FLP) started operating in south-western KwaZulu-Natal in 2000… It has developed an approach to family literacy that integrates formal adult literacy, early literacy development and participatory tools. There are several components that make up the FLP; for example, it encourages family literacy through its literacy to adult groups, it trains and develops literacy facilitators, it promotes literacy through child-to-child groups, it makes books for babies available, and it puts out a community newsletter…

The communities in which the FLP operates are poor rural areas with high levels of illiteracy, poverty and unemployment. Many of the households are female dominant because the men leave to find work in the nearer towns and more distant cities, and usually only come home for weekends once a month. Although Aids is not a topic that is openly discussed in the communities, the local clinics and hospital are dealing with increasing numbers of cases of Aids-related diseases and deaths, and many of the children are Aids orphans.

One of the components of the FLP is the child-to-child programme, which was started in 2002. The aim of this programme is to engage children in literacy activities outside the formal school context in order to help promote their literacy development. Two lecturers from the University of South Africa were involved in assessing the literacy achievements of these learners in order to appraise the efficacy of the child-to-child programme.

…one of the main reasons for starting the FLP was that the results from three years of research into the Early Child Development Pilot Project showed little improvement in the literacy skills of young children, despite the training and support offered to their teachers. In an attempt to explore new ways of promoting literacy in children, an additional component was included in the FLP, namely the child-to-child programme. This was an afternoon ‘enrichment’ programme run by the literacy facilitators (these are the women who also supervise the adult literacy groups in the mornings). Although the groups met on the premises of the local primary school, the child-to-child groups operated outside the formal schooling curriculum.

The child-to-child groups met twice a week for 1½–2 hours after school under the supervision of a literacy facilitator. Entry into the programme was voluntary, but once the child was in the programme, he or she was expected to attend the weekly sessions on a regular basis. During this period the facilitators had units of 8–10 sessions that they prepared on topics that were relevant to the children’s daily lives. Such topics included Special days, Animals in our environment, Getting to know ourselves, People in our community, Communication, and so on. The children were encouraged to discuss the topics and they were also given magazines and books to look through and encouraged to cut out pictures from magazines pertinent to the topic under discussion. Other activities included the singing of songs, completing worksheets provided by the facilitators, doing role plays, and listening to stories read to them by the facilitator. The learners were also expected to take a storybook home each week; the younger children were expected to look at the book and talk about the pictures with a family member, while the older children were expected to read the book themselves at home to a caregiver or an older sibling. The facilitator provided paper and crayons, and all drawings or tasks completed by the learners were kept in a portfolio for each child. Records were also kept of the books borrowed each week. As can be seen from the above overview, the aim of the programme is to encourage discussion, promote self-expression, increase vocabulary, and to provide the learners with opportunities for exposure to magazines and storybooks.


www.cfbt.com 83

The five facilitators are young Zulu-speaking women from the areas who have a matric and are presently obtaining further training and qualifications in early child development, both formally and informally. They are each assigned to a site and they conduct literacy classes twice a week for the adult literacy groups and then facilitate the child-to-child groups in the afternoons.

The programme was run at various Grade levels, and the evaluators decided to concentrate on Grades 1 (age 6 to 7) and 4 (age 9 to 10). The teachers administered a large battery of tests in Grade 1 and a smaller one in Grade 4. Twenty-five programme children were pre- and post-tested at each Grade level, five in each of 5 schools. In four schools (Grade 1) and three schools (Grade 4), three children in each class were chosen to take the post-tests (only) as a comparison group. This yielded comparison groups of 12 and 9 children respectively. Because the Grade 4 comparison group was so small, only Grade 1 results are analysed here; and even within those, various data were missing. In the end, what has been analysed is the only four subtests at Grade 1 where data were available for an intervention group of 20 and a comparison group of 12 children. Despite these lacunae, the programme staff and evaluators deserve praise for carrying out such an in-depth study in difficult circumstances.

Basic information


2 Name of study Child-to-child programme in South Africa

3 Reference Pretorius (2003)

4 Study design Unmatched-groups pre-test/post-test study

5 Focus of study Literacy, language and numeracy

6 What impact data are reported? Direct evidence of benefits to children’s skills (test data)


None



Post-test data only


None


Dedication of staff


Very valuable report from a completely different set of circumstances from most of the programmes analysed in this study


www.cfbt.com 84

Analysis of quantitative data: Benefits to children’s literacy, language and numeracy


2 Name of study Child-to-child programme in South Africa

3 Date when programme implemented 2002

4 What data are analysed in this table? Children’s pre- and post-test literacy, language and numeracy data


6 Type of participants Children living in ‘deeply rural and mountainous areas of south-western KwaZulu-Natal’


8 N of control group 12


3 children from each of the 4 classes who were not participating in the programme were randomly assigned at the end of the year to serve as a comparison.

10 Length of intervention in weeks Not stated, but inferred to be about 20

11 Instruments used Writing, spatial-length measures, sorting frames, Zulu word recognition

12 Ratio gains n/a



Analysis of quantitative data: Benefits to children’s literacy, language and numeracy

Test Programme group (N = 20)

Control group (N = 12)

Difference between groups, postAverage,

preAverage, post

Difference Average, post

Writing (maximum = 5) 2.9 4.3 +1.4 3.9 +0.4

Spatial-length measures (maximum = 9)

3.3 4.5 +1.2 4.1 +0.4

Sorting frames (%) 59 55 –4 21 +34

Zulu word recognition (%) 22 74 +52 45 +29

‘Sorting frames’ refers to an activity in which children sorted four pictures into the correct sequence and explained the story that the pictures told.

Despite the small sample sizes and absence of statistical tests, the data suggest that the programme was having a real impact, except on the picture-sequencing and story telling task.


www.cfbt.com 85

4. Dialogic reading

Dialogic reading is

a short intensive programme designed to enhance children’s vocabulary and descriptive language skills by introducing parents to specific techniques for reading with their young children… [It] was originally developed in the United States (Whitehurst et al. 1988)… There were three general principles:

• Evocative techniques… that encourage the child to take an active role; for example, ‘what’ questions are encouraged…

• Feedback. This should be informative and where possible include corrective modelling…

• Progressive change… adjusting questions to the child’s developing abilities.

The programme relies on training parents to adopt this approach when sharing books with their children. Morgan (2005) carried out a pilot experiment on the programme within the Foxhill Parson Cross Sure Start area in Sheffield. This is an area of multiple disadvantage; Sure Start is a UK government initiative intended to improve the educational and life chances of children living in such areas. The project was hampered by low take-up by families, low rates of sharing books with children (intended to be daily, but only 3 families out of 20 achieved this), and reluctance of some children to undergo the tests.

Basic information


2 Name of study Dialogic reading

3 Reference Morgan (2005)

4 Study design Randomised matched-pairs controlled trial (RCT)




None


9 What data are reported on the control group? Direct evidence of benefits to children’s skills (test data)


One effect size


Not particularly effective

12 Any other comments The small samples are a severe limitation and may have contributed to the lack of significant findings.


www.cfbt.com 86

Analysis of quantitative data: Benefits to children’s literacy development


2 Name of study Dialogic reading

3 Date when programme implemented Not stated but about 2002

4 What data are analysed in this table? Children’s pre- and post-test language and literacy data

5 Age range of participants 2½–3

6 Type of participants Young children in a deprived area of Sheffield

7 N of experimental group 20 at pre-test; at post-test, between 14 and 17 on different measures

8 N of control group 20 at pre-test; at post-test, between 14 and 17 on different measures


Children were matched in pairs on age, gender and language assessment scores, then one of each pair was assigned randomly to intervention, the other to control.


11 Instruments used

Pre-test: Preschool Language Scale-3 (PSL-3) (Psychological Corporation 1997) and ‘books’ section of Sheffield Early Literacy Development Profile (SELDP) (Nutbrown 1997)

Post-test: ‘books’ section of SELDP, British Picture Vocabulary Scale (BPVS) (Dunn et al. 1997), Expressive One Word Vocabulary Test (EOWPVT) (Gardner 2000), ‘My Word’ (non-standardised vocabulary assessment devised by experimenter)

12 Ratio gains n/a

13 Effect sizes

For intervention group’s gain on SELDP books vs control group: 0.40.

Other effect sizes were not stated and could not be calculated.

14 Statistical significances

There was no statistically significant difference between groups on any measure at pre- or post-test. However, on SELDP books, the intervention group’s pre/post gain was significant (p=0.004) whereas the control group’s was not.


www.cfbt.com 87

Analysis of quantitative data: Children’s language and literacy

N.B. Most pre-test data are not given in Morgan (2005).

Test Stage N (both groups)

Intervention group Control group


EOWPVT post 17 90.9 (11.5) 87.7 (9.5)

‘My Word’ post 16 8.0 (7.4) 4.8 (3.7)

BPVS post 14 27.4 (8.7) 25.9 (11.8)

SELDP books pre 14 2.9

post 14 4.6 (2.5) 3.6 (2.2)

The only significant effect was that the intervention group made a significant gain on SELDP books and the control group did not, even though two groups’ average scores did not differ significantly at either pre- or post-test. At most, this suggests a possible modest benefit for the intervention group children’s early knowledge about books.

5. Early Start (Basic Skills Agency)

Early Start is an initiative for children under four and their parents. It was established by the Basic Skills Agency in 2001, and is designed to enhance the parents’ skills and various aspects of young children’s development. Where parents are concerned, it forms part of the British Government’s Skills for Life strategy for adult literacy, language and numeracy in England. It is delivered as programmes of 30–40 hours’ duration, comprising sessions for parents and children separately, joint time, and ‘home time’ activities for parents to carry out with their children at home, building on ideas suggested in the settings.

Basic information


2 Name of study Early Start

3 Reference Brooks et al. (2004)

4 Study design

2001–02: one-group post-test-only study (data provided by Basic Skills Agency from local programmes’ returns)

2003: one-group pre-test/post-test study (data gathered directly from programmes)

5 Focus of study Language (mainly English as first language)


Direct evidence of changes in parents’ attitudes/behaviour (questionnaire)

Indirect evidence of benefits to parents’ ability to help their children (questionnaire)

Indirect evidence of benefits to children’s skills (questionnaire to parents)


Numbers of parents who

– achieved accreditation– were interested in further study– were interested in employment

Continued…


www.cfbt.com 88

Basic information continued

8 What follow-up data are reported? None

9 What data, if any, are reported on control/comparison groups?

None


Effect sizes


Reasons for the success of the Early Start Initiative listed in the report as:

• clear aims and objectives• calibre and experience of staff• improvement of links between home and school or centre• recruitment of parents and taster sessions• importance of crèche facilities• opportunities for parents to improve their own skills• meeting parents’ needs and flexibility• correct teaching level and non-threatening learning

environment for parents• building confidence in parents as educators• quality time spent with children• more time spent enjoying books with children

Closeness of programmes to the Agency’s Early Start model is reported to have rendered them more effective; excellence depended on adherence to a strong model, whether the Agency’s or another.

12 Any other comments Although the above are listed in the report as reasons for success, perhaps an underlying principle could be extracted: the feelings of the participants are taken fully into account in the construction of the programmes:

‘Early Start’s multigenerational approach assumes that parents and children will learn best where they learn together and where the focus for learning is broadly the same for adults and children.’

(Brooks et al. 2004, p.95)

Parents’ lack of self-confidence, multi-factorial in origin but often focused on perceived failure in the formal education system, is allowed for and addressed, tangentially and directly, via those parents’ desire to help their children, the most positive of motives. Building in parents’ sessions, and then providing progression for them, externalises development in confidence into objectively measurable achievement. A cycle of disempowerment and disaffection could be broken by respecting individuals. Provision of high-quality staff, time and resources springs from honouring the fundamental importance of the exercise for the individuals concerned.

As with other related studies, a new and developing method of researching and evaluating impact could be required to avoid missing the point.


www.cfbt.com 89

Analysis of quantitative data: Benefits to children’s literacy development



3 Date when programme implemented 2001–03

4 What data are analysed in this table? Changes in parents’ attitudes/behaviour

Benefits to parents’ ability to help their children


6 Type of participants Parents of children under four

7 N of experimental group 2001/02: 592 (for numbers on whom data were returned see below)

2003: 435, but only 213 returned both pre and post questionnaires

8 N of comparison group (no comparison group)

9 Equivalence of groups n/a

10 Length of intervention 30–40 hours

11 Instruments used 2001/02: Summary Data Forms returned by programmes to Basic Skills Agency

2003: questionnaire to parents

12 Ratio gains n/a



Benefits to parents on 2001/02 programmes

Number of parents who reported that they had:

Not at all A little Significantly A great deal

N % N % N % N % Total

– increased their confidence 20 4 131 27 222 45 120 24 493

– improved their speaking and listening

31 7 119 25 203 43 116 25 469

– increased interaction with child 9 2 70 14 231 45 202 39 512

– increased home activities with child

5 1 113 22 210 41 183 36 511


www.cfbt.com 90

Changes in parents’ confidence, 2003

Ratings were on a four-point scale: 1 Not at all confident; 2 Not very confident; 3 Quite confident; 4 Very confidentMid-point was 2.5. Average ratings below this are less confident; above this, more confident.

Beginning of course End of course Gain Effect size

t

N ave (s.d.) ave (s.d.)

‘When I think about myself as a learner, I feel…’ 204 2.8 (0.7) 3.1 (0.7) 0.3 0.4 5.3

‘When I think about saying nursery rhymes with my child, I feel…’

204 3.2 (0.8) 3.5 (0.6) 0.3 0.4 6.1

‘When I think about singing with my child, I feel…’ 204 3.2 (0.8) 3.5 (0.6) 0.3 0.4 5.7

‘When I think about reading a story with my child, I feel…’ 203 3.4 (0.8) 3.6 (0.6) 0.2 0.3 3.9

‘When I use(d) baby talk with my child, I feel/felt…’ 197 3.2 (0.7) 3.3 (0.7) 0.1 0.1 1.6 ns

‘When I think about going on another course, I feel…’ 203 2.9 (0.8) 3.5 (0.7) 0.6 0.8 7.0

Key: N = number of responses; ave = average rating; s.d. = standard deviation; ns = statistically non-significant All other t-values are significant at p<0.001. Effect sizes were calculated using the pre-test s.d.’s as the divisors.

Wider benefits for parents in 2001/02

Number of parents who achieved accreditation 145 24% (of 592 participating)

Number of parents interested in further study 366 62% (of 592 participating)

Number of parents interested in employment 234 40% (of 592 participating)

Analysis of quantitative data (2): Children




4 What data are analysed in this table? Parents’ ratings of their children’s abilities

5 Age range of participants All under 4

6 Type of participants Children under 4

7 N of experimental group (2001/02: n/a)

2003: not stated but presumably same as N of parents (435)

8 N of comparison group (No comparison group)


10 Length of intervention 30–40 hours

11 Instrument used (2001/02: n/a)

2003: questionnaire to parents

12 Ratio gains n/a




www.cfbt.com 91

Parents’ ratings of their children’s communicative abilities, 2003

(1) Ratings were on a five-point scale: 1 Well below average; 2 Below average; 3 About average; 4 Above average; 5 Well above average


t


‘I think my child’s ability to listen is...’ 210 3.2 (0.6) 3.4 (0.7) 0.2 0.3 2.8

‘I think my child’s speech development is…’ 209 3.3 (0.9) 3.6 (0.9) 0.3 0.3 4.3

‘My child’s use of speech to attract my attention is…’ 210 3.6 (0.9) 3.8 (0.8) 0.2 0.2 3.2

‘My child’s use of non-verbal communication (sounds, eye-contact, gestures, turn-taking, body language) is…’

208 3.5 (0.7) 3.7 (0.7) 0.2 0.3 3.8

Key: N = number of responses; ave = average rating; s.d. = standard deviation All t-values are significant at p<0.001. Effect sizes were calculated using the pre-test s.d.’s as the divisors.

Parents’ ratings of their children’s communicative abilities, 2003

(2) Ratings were on a five-point scale: 1 Very late; 2 Late; 3 About the average age; 4 Early; 5 Very early


t


‘I think my child began to babble…’ 206 3.5 (0.7) 3.5 (0.9) 0 0 1.4 ns

‘I think my child began to say words…’ 190 3.3 (0.9) 3.5 (1.0) 0.2 0.2 3.6

‘I think my child began to say sentences…’ 154 3.2 (1.0) 3.4 (1.1) 0.2 0.2 2.8

Though the average gains reported by parents for themselves and their children were small in absolute terms, the effect sizes and statistically significant t-values show that the programme had a definite impact.

Key: N = number of responses; ave = average rating; s.d. = standard deviation; ns = statistically non-significant All other t-values are significant at p<0.001. Effect sizes were calculated using the pre-test s.d.’s as the divisors.


www.cfbt.com 92

6. Even Start

Even Start is one of the most widespread early childhood interventions in the United States. Its intention, stated in the relevant congressional law, is to

...improve the educational opportunities of the Nation’s children and adults by integrating early childhood education and adult education for parents into a unified program.... The program shall be implemented through cooperative projects that build on existing community resources to create a new range of services.

(P.L. 100–297, Sec. 1051)

St. Pierre et al. (1996, pp.2–3) provided the following description of the programme and its evaluation, which also serves as a justification for preferring data from randomised controlled trials (the In-Depth Study) over pre-test/post-test designs (the National Evaluation Information System), but also as a reminder of the limitations of small-scale RCTs:

To participate in Even Start, a family must include an adult who is eligible for adult education programs under the Adult Education Act and who is a parent of a child less than eight years of age who lives in a Chapter 1 elementary school attendance area (the Improving America’s Schools Act of 1994 eliminated the requirement that the family live in a Title 1 attendance area). Even Start projects must provide participating families with an integrated three-part program of early childhood education, adult literacy or basic skills training, and parenting education. The program’s design is based on the notion that these components interact and that families need to receive all three services, not just one or two, in order to effect lasting change and improve children’s school success.

The U.S. Department of Education began administering Even Start in 1989 as a demonstration program that provided 76 school districts with $14.8 million in discretionary grants for family literacy projects, generally for four years. In 1992, responsibility for the program was transferred to the States, which hold grant competitions and make subgrant awards of a minimum of $75 000 per project annually. By 1994, Even Start provided more than $91 million in funds to almost 500 local grantees.

The Even Start legislation required an independent national evaluation…

The effectiveness of Even Start was assessed by analyzing data from a subset of five Even Start projects (the In-Depth Study) where about 200 families were randomly assigned to be in Even Start or in a control group, and from an annual survey (the National Evaluation Information System or NEIS) of all Even Start projects and participating families…

Outcome data for the In-Depth Study were collected on program and control group children and adults prior to entering Even Start (when children were about four years of age), and twice again about nine months and about 18 months after entering Even Start. Families in the In-Depth Study were assessed at each measurement point, even if the program families were no longer participating in Even Start or if control group families participated in similar services through other sources. This longitudinal design provides an unbiased, if conservative, estimate of program impacts by allowing comparisons of gains for randomly assigned Even Start and control group families.

Outcome data from the NEIS survey of all Even Start projects were collected on program families at entry to Even Start and at the end of each program year. Thus, the NEIS outcome data are restricted to the subset of families who remained in the program between pre-testing and post-testing. Any families that did not participate long enough to be post-tested were excluded from the analysis. Since the evaluation team expected length of participation to be


www.cfbt.com 93

related to positive program effects, families measured in the NEIS were also expected to show larger gains than program families measured in the In-Depth Study.

Findings from the NEIS can be used to generalise only to the population of families that remain in the program for several months (long enough to be post tested), while findings from the In-Depth study can be generalised to all Even Start families in the selected projects, including those that drop out early. Because no control group families were included in the NEIS, data from this part of the study can only tell us how much was gained by Even Start families – not whether those gains are larger or smaller than what would have occurred in the absence of Even Start. On the other hand, the In-Depth Study was conducted in five projects, limiting its generalisability.

The data analysed here are mostly from the RCT (the In-Depth Study), with just a few figures from the NEIS.

Basic information


2 Name of study Even Start

3 Reference St. Pierre et al. (1995, 1996); Gamse et al. (1997)

4 Study design Small randomised controlled trial (RCT), plus large one-group pre-test/post-test study

5 Focus of study Parents: literacy and educational qualifications

Children: literacy

6 What impact data are reported? Direct evidence of effect on parents’ and children’s skills (test data)


None

8 What follow-up data, if any, are reported?

Data on children’s skills 9 months and 2–3 years after end of programme; no follow-up data on parents

9 What data, if any, are reported on the control group?

As for the intervention group


One effect size


Not effective

12 Any other comments None


www.cfbt.com 94

Analysis of quantitative data (1): Effect on parents’ attainment



3 Date when programme implemented 1989; evaluation conducted 1991–93

4 What data are analysed in this table? Parents’ attainment of the General Educational Development (GED) examination


6 Type of participants Parents living in five Even Start areas; by definition, all were areas of multiple deprivation



9 Equivalence of groups Fully equivalent because of random assignment

10 Length of intervention in weeks 39 (9 months between pre- and post-test)

11 Instrument used CASAS (Comprehensive Adult Student Assessment System); also data on parents’ attainment of GED if did not already possess one

12 Ratio gains n/a

13 Effect sizes

For CASAS:– as stated by the authors: 0.7– as recalculated by Torgerson et al. (2004, p.80):

0.29

For GED: not available


For CASAS:– as stated by the authors: p<0.05– as recalculated by Torgerson et al. (2004, p.80):

statistically non-significant

For GED: not available

Effect on parents’ literacy and educational qualifications

Group of parents Post-test CASAS reading survey % who achieved GED

average score (s.d.)

In all Even Start programmes n/a n/a 8.3

Intervention group in In-Depth Study 229.3 (13.0) 22.4

Control group in In-Depth Study 224.9 (16.7) 5.7

The CASAS data also showed that parents in the NEIS national study made literacy gains no greater than those in general adult literacy programmes. No statistical tests of the GED data were available, but the difference between the two groups in the In-Depth Study looks significant.


www.cfbt.com 95

Analysis of quantitative data (2): Effect on children’s literacy



3 Date when programme implemented 1989; evaluation conducted 1991–93

4 What data are analysed in this table? Children’s pre- and post-test literacy data


6 Type of participants Children living in five Even Start areas; by definition, all were areas of multiple deprivation



9 Equivalence of groups Fully equivalent because of random assignment

10 Length of intervention in weeks 39 (9 months between pre- and post-test)

11 Instrument used Child’s Emergent Literacy Test

12 Ratio gains n/a



Effect on children’s emerging literacy

Intervention group Control group


Pre-test 4.3 (2.8) 4.5 (3.0)

Post-test 5.3 (2.9) 5.1 (3.0)

Gain 1.0 0.6

Stat. sig. p<0.05 ns

Effect size 0.13

s.d. = standard deviation; stat.sig. = statistical significance; ns = statistically non-significant

The effect size was modest, but might have been worthwhile – however, read on.

Follow-ups

The two groups of children were tested again nine months after the end of the programme. In that time, the intervention group had made less progress than the control group, who had caught up with the intervention group, so that their average scores no longer differed significantly. In other words, the effect of the programme had washed out. From the report, the reason appears to have been that at least some of the control group families went out and got good preschool provision for their children – an object lesson in not assuming that people will necessarily remain an inert, passive control group for the convenience of programme evaluators.

A further follow-up in 1994–95, two to three years after the end of the programmes, traced 65 children from the intervention group and 63 controls; this also showed no discernible difference in attainment between the two groups of children.

The benefit to parents’ general education was the only positive finding, and for children and for parents’ literacy Even Start seems not to have fulfilled its promise.


www.cfbt.com 96

7. Family literacy demonstration programmes (Basic Skills Agency)

The Basic Skills Agency planned these programmes in 1993, and they came into operation in early 1994. There were originally five – one in Wales (Cardiff) and the rest in England: Liverpool, London Borough of Newham, Norfolk, and North Tyneside. The Newham programme, the only one based in an area with a significant linguistic minority population, ceased after a few months, for reasons beyond the Agency’s control. The others were evaluated (including some follow-ups) in 1994–95 by a team from the National Foundation for Educational Research (Brooks et al. 1996), with a further follow-up in 1997 (Brooks et al. 1997). Except for a comparison group of children in the 1997 follow-up, the evaluation had a one-group pre-test/post-test design.

The programmes were mainly based in primary schools, but were jointly staffed by early years teachers and adult literacy tutors. Families were eligible to attend if they had at least one child aged between 3 and 6 at the start of the course, and provided parent and child attended together. In addition, a crèche was provided for any other children in the family aged under 3 who accompanied the family. The programmes ran for 12 weeks, and provided three sessions a week: two of roughly three hours, with parents and children in separate rooms, plus one joint session of about two hours. In their separate sessions, the parents worked on their own literacy, as well as learning more about how to help their children’s language and literacy development, and preparing an activity to undertake with them in the joint session. Meanwhile, the children received high-quality early years provision appropriate to their ages and stages of development: they always had a wide range of activities to choose from.

Basic information


2 Name of study Family literacy demonstration programmes (Basic Skills Agency)

3 References

Brooks et al. (1996, 1997); Gorman and Brooks (1996)

4 Study design One-group pre-test/post-test study

5 Focus of study Literacy (parents and children)Language (children)


Direct evidence of benefits to parents’ skills (test data)

Direct evidence of benefits to children’s skills (test data)

Indirect evidence of benefits to parents’ ability to help their children (written accounts, interviews, questionnaires)


Parents’ intentions to go on to further study, get work, maintain the group; achievement of other qualifications, especially First Aid

8 What follow-up data, if any, are reported? Parents’ skills continuing to improveChildren’s skills at least maintainedParents having gone on to further studyParents having gained new or better jobParents more involved with children’s schools

Continued…


www.cfbt.com 97



Only some statistical comparisons with unseen control groups during the programmes, and teachers’ reports on some family literacy and comparison children at 1997 follow-up


(Some) effect sizes


A range of factors is identified in Brooks et al. (1996), including joint staffing, detailed planning, responsiveness to parents’ needs and wishes, and, above all, the joint sessions.

12 Any other comments The absence of an explicit control group is a limitation.

Analysis of quantitative data (1): Benefits to parents’ literacy




4 What data are analysed in this table? Parents’ pre- and post-test literacy data

5 Age range of participants 17–45+

6 Type of participants

Parents in disadvantaged areas in Cardiff, Liverpool, Norfolk and North Tyneside, mainly with low literacy themselves; half had no educational qualifications; 96% female; 92% white; 98% monolingual English-speaking

7 N of experimental group 361 at pre-test; for post-test Ns see below




11 Instruments used (Reading) cloze tests devised by the programme tutors; (writing) prompts devised by research team

12 Ratio gains Were not stated and could not be calculated


14 Statistical significances p<0.05 for all three reading subtests and for writing


www.cfbt.com 98

Benefits to parents’ ability to help their children

Brooks et al. (1996, pp.61–68, 153–9) devoted a whole chapter and appendix to this. Their findings can be summarised as follows:

• on a 34-item questionnaire to parents about language- and literacy-related home activities that they carried out with their children, every item showed a significant increase (p<0.05) during the courses

• in writing and interviews, parents reported substantial increases in their ability to help their children with language and literacy and in their confidence in doing so

• also frequently cited was parents’ feeling that their relationship with their child had greatly improved.

Wider benefits for parents

The number of parents involved in their children’s schools increased significantly, and parents reported considerable improvements in their ability to talk to their children’s teachers. Almost all parents had achieved an extra qualification (about half in First Aid, a quarter in ‘Understanding How Children Learn’, and a quarter in word-processing). At the end of the courses, over 80% of parents planned to go on studying.

Analysis of quantitative data on benefits to parents’ literacy

Skill Subtest N Maximum score

Pre-test Post-test Gain Effect size


Reading 1 142 11 8.9 (1.7) 9.5 (1.3) 0.6 0.35

2 170 17 12.8 (2.5) 13.9 (1.9) 1.1 0.44

3 282 34 22.9 (4.6) 24.6 (3.4) 1.7 0.37

Writing n/a 251 7 4.6 (1.3) 5.1 (1.3) 0.5 0.38

Parents were allocated to levels of the reading test according to the tutors’ judgements; most parents attempted more than one level.Reading scores represent number of correct answers.Writing was impression-marked on a scale of 1 (low) to 7 (high).S.d.’s of gains were not stated.Effect sizes were calculated by dividing the gains by the pre-test s.d.


www.cfbt.com 99






5 Age range of participants 3:00–6:11 (at beginning of course)


Children in disadvantaged areas in Cardiff, Liverpool, Norfolk and North Tyneside; 50% female; 92% white; 97% monolingual English-speaking





11 Instruments used (Language) Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (British standardisation)

(Reading) Peabody Individual Achievement Tests, reading subtest (British standardisation)

(Writing) prompts devised by research team



14 Statistical significances p<0.05 for all three measures

Analysis of quantitative data on benefits to children’s language and literacy

Skill N Pre-test Post-test Gain Effect size


Vocabulary 273 85.0 (13.1) 89.8 (13.7) 4.8 0.32

Reading 147 84.1 (17.0) 88.5 (17.9) 4.4 0.29

Writing 279 3.5 (1.6) 4.1 (1.7) 0.6 0.38

All children were assessed for emerging writing, using the 7-point criterion-referenced scale devised by Tom Gorman and illustrated in Gorman and Brooks (1996).

Only children aged 4:00+ at the beginning of the course were tested for vocabulary, and only those aged 5:00+ at the beginning of the course for reading.

Vocabulary and reading scores are standardised; national average = 100, s.d. = 15.

S.d.’s of gains were not stated.

Effect sizes for vocabulary and reading were calculated by dividing the gains by the national s.d.; the effect size for writing by dividing the gain by the pre-test s.d.


www.cfbt.com 100

Follow-ups

Data were gathered at the beginning and end of the courses from four cohorts of families: those which participated in the summer and autumn terms of 1994, and the spring and summer terms of 1995. Follow-up data were gathered on the first three cohorts 12 weeks after the end of the courses, on the first two cohorts nine months after the end of the courses, and in early 1997 on all the parents and children from all four cohorts who could be traced. Also in 1997, interviews were carried out with the teachers of a sub-sample of the children who were traced.

The findings from the first two follow-ups can be summarised as follows:

• 12 weeks after the end of the courses, 70% of parents were doing a further course; because 96% of participating parents were mothers, this meant that the courses had in effect acted as access courses for women

• the parents had maintained the gains in reading and writing made during the courses

• at the 12-week follow-up the children had made further gains in vocabulary and reading

• at the 9-month follow-up the children had maintained those gains

• in writing, they continued to make gains on each occasion.

The 1997 findings can be summarised as follows:

Of the 154 parents recontacted:

• 92 (60%) had taken at least one further course of study, whereas none were studying in 1994/95

• 78 (51%) had achieved a further qualification

• 76 (49%) intended to continue studying

• 133 (86%) thought their own reading and writing was continuing to benefit

• 146 (95%) thought their ability to help their children was continuing to benefit

• 66 (43%) were in work, up from 29 (19%) in 1994/95

• 87 (56%) said they were more involved with their children’s schools, and of these 42 had become literacy helpers in the classroom

• 141 (92%) thought they were continuing to benefit in other ways, especially in confidence and in communication skills.

The 237 children recontacted had on average maintained the gains in vocabulary, reading and writing made during the courses.

Interviews were carried out with the class teachers of 99 former family literacy children. The teachers were asked to give ratings of these children and of a comparison child for each of them. The comparison child was the child of the same sex from the same class who had the nearest date of birth to the family literacy child. The ratings were on eight indicators of educational performance and inclination. On five items there was no significant difference on average between the two groups, but on three items the family literacy children were rated significantly higher: support from family, classroom behaviour, and probable success in school. The teachers were also asked about the involvement with school of the parents of both groups of children: the family literacy parents were rated twice as likely to be involved with the school.


www.cfbt.com 101

8. Family literacy for new groups (Basic Skills Agency)

As noted in the entry for the Agency’s original Family literacy demonstration programmes, the only one based in an area with a significant linguistic minority population, the London Borough of Newham, collapsed after a few months, and no data were gathered from it. The Agency therefore decided to mount further pilots in a number of such areas in 1997, and in addition to pilot family literacy with families with a child in Year 4 (age 8 to 9) or Year 7 (age 11 to 12). These programmes were evaluated in 1997–98, again by a team from the National Foundation for Educational Research (Brooks et al. 1999), using a one-group pre-test/post-test design.

These programmes were run along essentially along the same lines as the demonstration programmes, except that the Year 7 programmes were based in secondary schools and did not require crèches.

The Year 7 programmes were largely unsuccessful. Only a minority of the relevant parents actually attended, and most of the adults working with the children were community volunteers. Only nine parents and 27 children provided pre- and post-test data, and there was no evidence of gain.

However, as shown below, the Year 4 programmes and those for linguistic minority families with a child aged 3 to 6 were at least as successful as the demonstration programmes had been.

Basic information


2 Name of study Family literacy for new groups (Basic Skills Agency)

3 Reference Brooks et al. (1999)


5 Focus of study Literacy (parents and children)


Direct evidence of benefits to parents’ skills (test data)



Parents’ intentions to go on to further study, involvement with children’s schools


9 What data, if any, are reported on control groups?

Only some statistical comparisons with unseen control groups during the programmes


(Some) effect sizes and ratio gains


A range of factors is identified in Brooks et al. (1999), including good relations with host schools, joint staffing, quality teaching, responsiveness to parents’ needs and wishes, and, above all, the joint sessions.

12 Any other comments The absence of explicit control groups is a limitation.


www.cfbt.com 102





4 What data are analysed in this table? Parents’ pre- and post-test literacy data

5 Age range of participants 17–45+


Parents in disadvantaged areas in 14 local authority areas in England and Wales, mainly with low literacy themselves.

Linguistic minorities: 99% were female, all but one family were of non-white ethnicity, and all had English as an additional language; most were native speakers of Urdu and Mirpuri Punjabi; 61% had no educational qualifications; 90% were looking after home and family.

Y4: 94% female, 90% white, 86% monolingual English-speaking; 52% had no educational qualifications; 50% looking after home and family

7 N of experimental group

Linguistic minorities: 166 at pre-test

Y4: 142 at pre-test

For post-test Ns see below



10 Length of intervention in weeks 10–12

11 Instrument used Assessing Progress in Basic Skills: Literacy (Basic Skills Agency 1997)



14 Statistical significances p<0.05 for both groups

Analysis of quantitative data on benefits to parents’ literacy

Parent Group N Maximum Score

Pre-test Post-test Gain Effect size


Linguistic minorities 163 5 2.0 (1.4) 2.2 (1.5) 0.2 0.14

Y4 115 5 3.3 (0.8) 3.5 (0.7) 0.2 0.25

S.d.’s of gains were not stated.Effect sizes were calculated by dividing the gains by the pre-test s.d.


www.cfbt.com 103





4 What data are analysed in this table? Children’s pre- and post-test literacy data

5 Age ranges of participants (at beginning of course)

Linguistic minorities: 3–8

Y4: 8–9


Children in disadvantaged areas in 14 local authority areas in England and Wales.

Linguistic minorities: 79 girls, 72 boys; all but one family were of non-white ethnicity, and all had English as an additional language; many were native speakers of Urdu and Mirpuri Punjabi.

Y4: 65 girls, 61 boys; 89% white, 96% monolingual English-speaking


Linguistic minorities: 160 at pre-test

Y4: 126 at pre-test

For post-test Ns see below




11 Instrument used Linguistic minorities:

(Reading) Hodder & Stoughton Literacy Baseline (Vincent et al. 1996)

(Writing) same scale as in evaluation of demonstration programmes

Year 4 (reading and writing): NFER-Nelson Progress in English 9 (Kispal et al. 1994)

12 Ratio gains See below


14 Statistical significances p<0.05 for all measures


www.cfbt.com 104

Despite the absence of explicit control or comparison groups, the data show substantial gains for the children, and good gains for the parents.

9. Family Literacy and Numeracy in Prisons (Basic Skills Agency)

In 1998–99 the Basic Skills Agency funded a number of family literacy and numeracy projects in prisons. A document on the Agency’s website (www.basic-skills.co.uk/) appears to show that originally eight prisons were involved, but that data were gathered in only three. The projects were for prisoners with basic skills below level 1, provided separate and joint sessions for parents and children, and suggested practical ways for parents to support the language, literacy and numeracy development of their children at home and during visits. The activities included writing stories, making books, taping stories and making storysacks to send their children; and having fun with mathematics, for example weighing and measuring cake ingredients. The approach required the full cooperation of prison management and staff, and extra security.

Basic Information


2 Name of study Family Literacy and Numeracy in Prisons

3 Reference Basic Skills Agency (undated)


5 Focus of study Literacy, numeracy

6 What impact data are reported? Direct evidence of benefits to parents’ skills (test data)

Direct evidence of benefits to parents’ literacy-related attitudes (questionnaire)

Indirect evidence of benefits to parents literacy-related behaviours (questionnaire)

Indirect evidence of parents’ increased contact with their children (questionnaire)

Indirect evidence of benefits to children’s skills (pre/post parent questionnaires)

Analysis of quantitative data on benefits to children’s language and literacy

Group Skill N Pre-test Post-test Gain Effect size

Ratio gain


Linguistic minorities

Reading, raw scores (maximum = 40) 153 15.5 (9.6) 24.0 (10.9) 8.5 0.89

Reading, standardised scores 65* 93.5 (16.9) 104.3 (14.8) 10.8 0.72 2.3

Writing (maximum = 7) 170 3.5 (1.7) 4.7 (1.6) 1.1 0.65

Y4 Reading, standardised scores 144 87.1 (14.5) 95.8 (16.4) 8.7 0.58 4.7

Writing (maximum = 7) 147 3.2 (1.6) 3.6 (16.4) 0.4 0.25

* Standardised scores could be calculated only for children who were over 5:00 at the beginning of the course.For standardised scores, national average = 100, s.d. = 15.S.d.’s of gains were not stated.Effect sizes for standardised reading scores were calculated by dividing the gains by the national s.d.; other effect sizes by dividing the gain by the pre-test s.d.Ratio gains are based on reading age-equivalent statements in Brooks et al. (1999, pp.24, 45).

Continued…


www.cfbt.com 105



None


None

9 What data, if any, are reported on control groups?

None


None


The three prisons set their own individual targets. Effectiveness is described in relation to these.

Benefits to literacy, numeracy and parenting are reported, suggesting some effectiveness in terms of those areas.

However, the pilot also highlights difficulties (and solutions to some of them, partly listed as Lessons from the projects), in the institutional procedure for getting, and then retaining, access to those who need help. This procedural aspect of developing family numeracy and literacy seems more marked here than in some other studies and the true value of the pilot may lie there. Some institutional changes are reported to have been implemented as a result of the study.

12 Any other comments The report as published leaves gaps in the information.

Questionnaires are not included, so the exact nature of evidence available is not clear. Detailed data for individual participants, and for their children, are not included. Mention of numeracy is sparse.

For purposes of completing this frame, direct and indirect evidence changes in attitudes and skills in parents and in children are sometimes not easily separable. Modes of reporting research might need modification to do justice to the holistic nature of the aims and achievements of such a study. The Evaluation section of the report perhaps reflects this requirement in its necessary inclusion of what might be termed ‘anecdotes’ but which are essential to accurate reporting of the human value of the activities.

Problems of reference/definition – reference in the report to the participants includes the use of the terms ‘students’, ‘offenders’, ‘prisoners’, ‘young men’, ‘parents’. The parental role in one programme was extended to siblings of children involved, where relationships between father and mother were not stable. The term ‘family’ may require qualification for comparability between research studies.

Perhaps the true focus of this and similar projects might be the education which takes place in how to ‘do “traditional” family behaviour’, in terms at least of mutual support towards literacy, numeracy and other educational values and objectives. Perhaps such benefits can best be achieved by not making them a primary and explicit objective.


www.cfbt.com 106

Analysis of quantitative data (1): Parents


2 Name of study Family literacy and numeracy in prisons


4 What data are analysed in this table? Parents’ pre- and post-test literacy and numeracy data

5 Age range of participants All between 15 and 24

6 Type of participants Prisoners who were parents of young children; all had served time of between three months and five years; 38 had no educational qualifications


43 (27 male, 16 female) in 3 prisons (2 male, 1 female); 36 provided both pre- and post-test data on literacy, and 27 on numeracy

8 N of control group (No control group)



11 Instrument used Not stated

12 Ratio gainsWere not stated and could not be calculated because data not reported in sufficient detail



Benefits to parents’ skills

Skill tested Number assessed

Number with increased score

Reading and spelling 36 21

Punctuation 36 18

Numeracy 27 12

Changes in parents’ literacy-related contact with their children (self-report questionnaire)

Indicator Percentage of parents reporting it

Pre-test Post-test

Never shared books or comics with their children 72 20

Never sent their child a card or letter 56 4

Never spoke to their child by phone 44 28


www.cfbt.com 107

Improvements in parents’ literacy-related activities and attitudes (self-report questionnaire)

Indicator Percentage of parents reporting it (post only)

Said they were better at reading 60

Said they enjoyed reading more 67

Used the library more 53

Could concentrate for longer, work in a group, and were better at listening to instructions

67

Found it easier to write letters 70

Found it easier to fill in prison forms 57

Enjoyed writing more 53

Noticed improvement in their spelling 57

Showed greater understanding of how children learn 89

Showed improved cooperation and group-work skills 80



2 Name of study Family literacy and numeracy in prisons


4 What data are analysed in this table? Children’s pre- and post-test emergent literacy data

5 Age range of participants 35 were aged 3 or under; 9 were aged 4 or over

6 Type of participants Children of prisoners

7 N of experimental group 44 (19 boys, 25 girls)




11 Instrument used Parent questionnaire

12 Ratio gains Were not stated and could not be calculated because data not reported in sufficient detail




www.cfbt.com 108

Indicator Number of children showing it *

pre post

Interested in books 19 25

Borrowed books from libraries 4 11

Could write name with help 18 23

Could write name without help 9 16

Could listen to instructions, stories, rhymes and poems 23 26

Could take a message 12 18

N.B. * All these numbers have been back-calculated from the published percentages.

As shown above, this pilot project was very small, and rather inadequately reported. The indications of impact appear reasonable. There appears to have been no roll-out of the programme, but in 2005 there was another such pilot project.

10. Family numeracy pilot programmes (Basic Skills Agency)

The Basic Skills Agency piloted its family numeracy programmes in 1997–98. In many ways they followed the model of the family literacy programmes the Agency had piloted in 1994–95 and which had then been rolled out nationally. The numeracy pilots too were all based in disadvantaged areas, and offered intensive provision to parents who had few, if any, qualifications, and to their children aged 3 to 5. There were separate sessions for parents and children, and joint sessions. The joint sessions focused on practical ways parents could support early numeracy development at home. The teaching was delivered collaboratively by early years teachers and adult numeracy tutors. The courses lasted no longer than 12 weeks, but the providers were encouraged to experiment with different patterns, so that the number of hours offered varied between 20 and 75. The Agency conducted the evaluation of the pilots in-house, but with a statistical element commissioned from the National Foundation for Educational Research (see Appendix 1 in Basic Skills Agency 1998).

Basic Information


2 Name of study Family numeracy pilot programmes (Basic Skills Agency)

3 References Basic Skills Agency (1998); Brooks and Hutchison (2002)

4 Study design Partly-matched-groups pre-test/post-test study

5 Focus of study Numeracy

6 What impact data are reported? Direct evidence of benefit to children’s numeracy (test data)

Indirect evidence of benefits to parents’ skills (information from tutors on accreditations achieved)

Indirect evidence of benefits to parents’ ability to support their children’s numeracy (pre and post parent questionnaires; tutor questionnaire)

Continued…


www.cfbt.com 109



Parents being more involved with their children’s schools


Teacher-rated comparisons of family literacy children with non-project children (different from original comparison group), and of the two groups’ parents’ involvement with the schools, one to two years after the programmes ended (Brooks and Hutchison 2002)


None for parents

In some of the areas where the pilots operated, data were gathered on comparison groups of children in schools which were not involved in the pilots.


Parents: none

Children: effect size for numeracy gain


From the parents’ point of view, confidence – a key area in developing aspiration – seems to have been boosted. This depended on many factors – good initial approaches with proper consideration of individual local circumstances, consultation, clear objectives, connection between parental numeracy development and capacity to help their children’s numeracy. In other words, parents’ desire to help their children was harnessed as a prime mover in the process of enabling both parent and child.

The report lists core features which characterise a successful programme; these include:

• three strands of provision with joint and separate sessions for both adults and children – the report itemises good practice within each of the strands

• a firmly structured numeracy curriculum as the focus of the sessions

• challenging pace • locally decided supplementary features.

12 Any other comments Like the Boots Books for Babies project, in a different area, this project seemed to start from ‘where the learners are at’, taking into account extensive contextual considerations, and seeing learning holistically. It implied a high level of professional expertise, planning, organisation and commitment. It tapped into the desire of the vast majority of parents to do the best for their children – once they know what ‘the best’ is.


www.cfbt.com 110





4 What data are analysed in this table?

Parents’ progress in numeracy

Parents’ progress in supporting their children’s numeracy development

5 Age range of participants Between 16 and 44+

6 Type of participants Parents of children aged 3–5, with few qualifications, living in disadvantaged areas

7 N of experimental group 517 (18 fathers, 499 mothers)



10 Length of intervention in weeks Up to 12

11 Instruments used Home numeracy-related activities questionnaire to parents

Tutor questionnaire

12 Ratio gains n/a

13 Effect sizes n/a


Tutors reported that the rate of accreditation in programmes in which it was a feature was 84% of parents gaining at least one unit of accreditation in Numberpower or similar. Tutors also reported that most parents had improved their numeracy skills.

The parent questionnaire on home numeracy-related activities had 17 items; all but one showed a statistically significant increase during the course. Also, tutors reported that parents’ confidence in supporting their children’s numeracy had increased.


In the same questionnaire parents were asked three questions about contact with their child’s school (attending school activities, helping with school activities, contact with their child’s class teacher); all three showed a statistically significant increase during the course. Tutors also reported that parents’ contact with their children’s schools had increased.


www.cfbt.com 111





4 What data are analysed in this table? Children’s pre- and post-programme numeracy skills


6 Type of participants Children of parents with few qualifications, living in disadvantaged areas


Overall: 515 (299 boys, 216 girls), but assessment data were gathered only on those of the right age (4–5), and some children were tested on only one occasion. The final number tested both pre and post was 215, of whom 148 were in areas where there were comparison groups, and 67 elsewhere.



Comparison groups were ‘children in each Local Education Authority with the closest match [to the participating children] for age, experience and background possible’ (Basic Skills Agency 1998, p.16).

10 Length of intervention in weeks Up to 12

11 Instrument used Baseline (school entry) numeracy test

12 Ratio gains n/a

13 Effect sizes 0.36 (Basic Skills Agency 1998, p.79)

14 Statistical significances p<0.05

Children’s numeracy test data

Group N Beginning of course End of course Gain


Family numeracy children 148 3.89 (1.93) 5.59 (2.12) 1.70

Comparison group 144 3.63 (2.17) 4.55 (2.16) 0.92

s.d. = standard deviation

Both groups made statistically significant gains, but the family numeracy children’s gain was nearly twice that of the comparison group, and the difference in gain was itself statistically significant. The effect size given in the evaluation report was calculated as the difference in gain divided by the comparison group’s pre-test s.d.


www.cfbt.com 112

Follow-up study

Reference: Brooks and Hutchison (2002)

Children

In 1999–2000 an attempt was made to follow up the children who had taken part in the pilots. Tracing them proved very difficult, and in some areas impossible. Eventually 62 children (38 boys, 24 girls; 29% of the 215 who were pre- and post-tested in the original evaluation) were traced. Their teachers were asked to complete a questionnaire about them, and about a newly recruited comparison group. For each family numeracy child, his/her class teacher selected the child of the same sex in the same class with the nearest date of birth to the family numeracy child; 62 comparison children were recruited (26 boys, 36 girls). The 11 questionnaire items covered achievement-related characteristics, e.g. motivation, classroom behaviour. Average ratings for eight items did not differ significantly between the groups, but the family numeracy children were rated significantly higher on average on three items:

• support from family (p<0.001)

• attendance (p<0.001)

• competence with mental calculation (p<0.05).

Parents

No data were collected directly from parents at the follow-up, but the teachers were asked to rate the parents’ involvement with their child’s school; family numeracy children’s parents were twice as likely as those of comparison children to be involved with their child’s school.

11. FLAME (Family Literacy: Aprendiendo, Mejorando, Educando) (Learning, Improving, Educating)

‘FLAME… was created to support Hispanic parents’ [in Illinois] learning about the relevance of their role as teachers and to show them different ways to share literacy with their young children at home… The original program design included two activity components: parents as teachers and parents as learners. The parents as teachers component included activities leading toward the enhancement of ways and opportunities to provide literacy opportunities at home, to model literacy at home and within the community, to interact with children while pursuing early literacy activities, and to enhance the home–school connection. The parents as learners component included instruction on English as a second language (ESL), the General Educational Development (GED) exam, and basic skills to enhance parents’ literacy skills.’

(Rodríguez-Brown 2003, p.129)

There are two ‘parents as teachers’ sessions a month, and two ‘parents as learners’ sessions a week. There appear to be no sessions for children; nevertheless, some impact data for children are reported. Like other FLLN programmes, FLAME is based in a poor area, in this case a poor Latino suburb of Chicago.


www.cfbt.com 113

Basic information


2 Name of study FLAME

3 References Rodríguez-Brown (2003, 2004)

4 Study design One-group pre-test/post-test study (pre-test in September/October, post-test in May)

5 Focus of study Literacy, language


Direct evidence of benefits to parents’ spoken English (test data)


Indirect evidence of benefits to parents’ ability to help their children (questionnaires)





None


None


The programme was long-term and moderately intensive; very carefully planned and delivered over a long period; and responsive to parents’ needs and views.



www.cfbt.com 114




3 Date when programme implemented 1989; impact data are from 1999–2001

4 What data are analysed in this table? Parents’ pre and post ESL test data and questionnaire responses

5 Age range of participants 1998/99 cohort: most in their 30s

6 Type of participants Spanish-speaking parents in Illinois

7 N of experimental group 172 for ESL; 189 for questionnaire

8 N of comparison group (No control/comparison group)


10 Length of intervention Indefinite; many attend for two years, impact data are from those who attended for one year

11 Instruments used ESL: Adult-Language Assessment Scales (De Avila and Duncan 1993)

Literacy-related behaviours at home, ability to help their children, and wider benefits: questionnaire

12 Ratio gains n/a


14 Statistical significances p<0.01 for ESL; not stated for questionnaire, but all t-values said to be significant

Item (all showed an increase) N t-value

Adult ESL 172 2.94

Using environmental print in the community to teach children 189 9.21

Borrowing children’s books from library 189 9.79

Reading for pleasure at home in children’s presence 189 8.53

Writing in children’s presence 189 7.59

Reading to children 189 3.16

Talking with children about books 189 3.69

Knowledge about teaching alphabet 189 8.83

Knowledge about choosing books for their children 189 10.31


Item (all showed an increase) N t-value

Knowledge about what their children were learning at school 189 4.77

Talking with their children’s teacher 189 8.09

Participation in children’s school activities 189 7.89


www.cfbt.com 115




3 Date when programme implemented 1989; impact data are from 1999–2001

4 What data are analysed in this table? Children’s pre- and post-test emergent literacy data


6 Type of participants Children of parents attending FLAME


8 N of control/comparison group (No control/comparison group)


10 Length of intervention in weeks n/a – no sessions for children

11 Instruments used Letter recognition; Concepts about Print (in Spanish or English) (Clay 1975); cognitive concepts (in Spanish or English) (Boehm 1986)

12 Ratio gains n/a


14 Statistical significances All p<0.001

Test Age level Language t-value

Letter recognition – upper case 3–6 n/a 11.75

Letter recognition – lower case 3–6 n/a 11.27

Concepts about Print 3–6 n/a 12.73

Cognitive concepts 3–4 Spanish 9.81

English 7.84

Cognitive concepts 5–6 Spanish 9.37

English 12.90

Because of the absence of a control group, the improvements cannot be attributed wholly and unambiguously to the programme. This is especially so for the children, who at this age would be expected to make substantial progress anyway. If the tests used were standardised, and if standardised scores had been reported, it would have been easier to determine whether the parents had made educationally significant progress, and whether the children had made greater progress than would have been expected. Despite this, the gains do seem substantial and probably enough to show that the programme had a clear impact on both parents and children. The programme is unusual in attempting (like REAL) to deliver gains for children and parents while working only with the parents; but unlike REAL, which was delivered exclusively in family homes, FLAME is delivered entirely in community settings.


www.cfbt.com 116

12. Ħilti clubs

The Maltese word Ħilti means ‘my ability’, and the clubs so named were started in Malta in 2001. These were after-school family literacy support initiatives that made use of differentiated teaching methodologies within a mixed-ability and family literacy context. Creative arts activities were specially designed with in-built literacy and/or numeracy, as well as parent capacity-building, components. Parent participation was deemed central to the ethos of the programme, and their participation on the programme, though voluntary, was conditional on the child’s participation. Parent-focused sessions during Ħilti programmes engaged parents in lively discussions on strategies and methodologies related to their children’s educational development and encouraged parents to learn and practise tools that stimulate their children to learn more effectively. Parents also joined their children during each Ħilti club session in order to practise these educational tools. While focusing on their own experiences, parents gained competences that strengthen the curriculum of the home and promote lifelong learning. Each site had at least two 100-minute sessions a week; each contained simultaneous separate sessions for parents and children and a joint session.

Data were gathered on parents and children who participated in school year 2002/03.

For the international roll-out of Ħilti see the entry for PEFaL.

Basic information


2 Name of study Ħilti clubs in Malta

3 Reference Spiteri (2004)

4 Study design Single group, post-test only


6 What impact data are reported? Direct evidence of changes in parents’ attitudes (post questionnaire)

Indirect evidence of benefits to parents’ ability to help their children (questionnaire)

Indirect evidence of benefits to parents’ skills (questionnaire)

Indirect evidence of benefits to children’s skills (child questionnaire)

Direct evidence of benefits to children’s attitudes (child questionnaire)





None


Effect sizes


Report is very short and gives no reason.

12 Any other comments Substantial contrast to results of PEFaL


www.cfbt.com 117





Research conducted in June 2003

4 What data are analysed in this table? Parents’ mean post questionnaire responses


6 Type of participants Parents in poorer areas of Malta




10 Length of intervention in weeks Not stated, but probably 10 (cf. PEFaL)

11 Instruments used Post parent questionnaire

12 Ratio gains n/a

13 Effect sizes Cannot be calculated


Questionnaire item Parents agreeing

N %

Learned new skills 248 96

Understand own educational needs better 228 89

Learned how to support children’s learning 252 98

Understand educational needs of their children 238 93

Learned to communicate better with children 250 97

Acquired new ideas to use with their children at home 250 97

Gained confidence to talk about their children’s education 231 90

Wider benefits

77% (197) of the parents said they were more involved in their children’s schools.


www.cfbt.com 118





Research conducted in June 2003

4 What data are analysed in this table? Children’s mean post questionnaire responses


6 Type of participants Children in poorer areas of Malta




10 Length of intervention in weeks Not stated, but probably 10 (cf. PEFaL)

11 Instrument used Post child questionnaire

12 Ratio gains n/a

13 Effect sizes Cannot be calculated


Questionnaire item Children agreeing

N %

Learned to read better 335 92

Learned to write better 329 90

Reading more books 241 66

Wider benefits

93% (340) of the children said they were relating better to their peers.

95% (345) said they were trying harder at school.

The attempt to gain evidence of wider benefits from the children is interesting and perhaps unique in this meta-study, but they may well have been giving ‘acceptable’ answers both here and to other questions. The impact data from parents and children are impressive as far as they go, given the very weak design.


www.cfbt.com 119

13. Mother-Child Education Program, Turkey

This programme was based on the ‘Turkish Early Enrichment Project’, which began in 1982 and was a longitudinal project which set out to compare the impact on children’s development of existing centre-based education (of two kinds, ‘educational’ and ‘custodial’) with that of an innovative home intervention. The project used existing programmes for the centre-based conditions, and there appears to have been (although the report is not clear on this point) a further condition, ‘home care’, that is, families where the children received neither centre-based education nor the home intervention. The home intervention programme had two main elements: a programme to foster the overall development of participating children, and a programme to foster their cognitive development. Both involved the mothers of the participating children. The children involved were four years old at the outset, and the intervention ran for two periods of 30 weeks. The project, however, lasted ten years: the children’s progress was measured after four years (in 1986), and again six years later (in 1991–92).

In 1986, the main findings for children were that those in the intervention group had higher average measures of cognitive, social and emotional development than those in the control (‘home care’) group, and that educational daycare centres were superior both to custodial daycare centres and to home care, on all three sets of indicators. (Again, the report does not explicitly state any comparison between the intervention group and either type of daycare centre.) Also, mothers in the intervention group were observed to be more responsive, to use higher levels of verbalisation, and to have higher aspirations and expectations for their children. Direct effects on the mothers included higher status within the family, and greater optimism for the future.

In 1991–92, the intervention children (at age 14) had better cognitive functioning, higher school grades and better attitudes towards school; moreover, a higher proportion were still in school. They also showed better family relationships. The mothers were observed to have closer relationships with their children and to provide them with a more stimulating environment, and they had the last word in making decisions at home.

Meanwhile, the Mother-Child Education Program (MOCEP) developed out of the original project. The duration was reduced to 25 weeks, and it was targeted only at five-year-olds and their mothers, in order to reach children in the year before they started school. The programme was delivered via four or five home visits and weekly group meetings lasting three hours for mothers, who then implemented pre-literacy and pre-numeracy activities at home with their children by means of worksheets intended to be used every day for 30 minutes; the mothers also received information about child development, and about reproductive health and family planning. The families targeted were those where the children were thought to be at risk of educational failure because of their environment. The programme also expanded hugely in scale: between 1991 and 1998 it reached just over 21 000 families (in 1996 the population of Turkey was 62 million), and by 2004 had reached over 180 000 mothers and children, at an average cost of US$30 per family. In the early 2000s the yearly intake was 30 000 families.

Evaluation of the MOCEP began in 1986, using a pre-test/post-test matched-groups quasi-experimental design.


www.cfbt.com 120

Basic information


2 Name of study Mother-Child Education Program, Turkey

3 References Bekman (1998); Goksel Gocer (2005)

4 Study design Matched-groups pre-test/post-test quasi-experiment

5 Focus of study Literacy, language and numeracy



Indirect evidence of benefits to mothers’ child-rearing practices and self-esteem (interviews)

8 What follow-up data, if any, are reported? Children’s attainments after one year of school

9 What data, if any, are reported on the comparison group?

As for intervention group


None – but see below


Given that there was no direct input to the children, the significant factors must have been within the provision for mothers, and appear to have been the integration for them of ideas on how children develop, how to help their children, and how to modify their child-rearing practices to best effect.


This was an excellently designed and implemented and highly effective programme. Both the programme and its evaluation predate much of the parallel work in the West, and the presence of a comparison group puts it ahead of many others in research design terms. The whole project deserves to be much better known.


www.cfbt.com 121

Analysis of quantitative data: Effects on children’s pre-literacy and pre-numeracy skills


2 Name of study Mother-Child Education Program, Turkey

3 Date when programme implemented Program began 1982; evaluation began 1986

4 What data are analysed in this table? Children’s pre- and post-test literacy and language and numeracy data

5 Age range of participants All aged 5 at outset

6 Type of participants Poor families at 16 sites in four diverse provinces of Turkey



9 Equivalence of groups Families were matched on the educational and occupational levels of both parents, and on housing conditions; 73% of mothers were aged between 27 and 34 (rest not stated); two thirds of mothers and half of fathers had only primary school education; 60% of families lived in apartment blocks; only 8% of mothers worked outside the home; 55% of the fathers were in manual occupations (rest not stated).

10 Length of intervention in weeks 25, but 32 between pre- and post-test

11 Instruments used Locally developed instruments covering a range of literacy, language and numeracy topics

12 Ratio gains n/a



Wider benefits

N.B. The original report does not give pre- or post-test scores, only the mean change scores, without standard deviations but with some t-tests of significance of differences between groups. Therefore no impact measures could be calculated, and impact has to be judged ‘by eye’ from the change scores and p-values.

Mean change scores, overall p

Experimental group Comparison group

Literacy and language 33.4 15.6 <0.001

Numeracy 47.2 16.9 <0.001

p = statistical significance

Both differences were highly significant. Thus the intervention group were better prepared for starting school.


www.cfbt.com 122

It would have been useful to know if these advantages were true of both girls and boys, but the relevant p-values were not reported, though the relevant differences in change scores (reading horizontally in the table below) are large and were probably significant.

Mean change scores, by gender

Experimental group Comparison group

Literacy and language Girls 38.8 14.7

Boys 29.2 16.3

p 0.017 ns

Numeracy Girls 54.9 19.6

Boys 41.3 14.8

p 0.023 ns

p = statistical significance; ns = statistically non-significant

Instead, statistical tests were reported for girls vs boys within groups and for the two skill areas. Reading the table above vertically, these show that girls in the experimental group made significantly more progress than boys in the experimental group in both areas, whereas in the comparison group the progress of the two sexes did not differ significantly in either area. Thus the intervention had been particularly beneficial for girls. However, in the absence of the pre- and post-test scores it is not possible to tell if this was because the girls were starting from a lower base.

Wider benefits

By analysing mothers’ self-reports during interviews and calculating pre-/post-test change scores, mothers in the intervention group were found to have significantly decreased negative child-rearing practices (beating, shouting at and not attending to their children) and to have significantly increased positive practices (explaining why some behaviours are wrong, setting up rules of behaviour, distracting the child’s attention, answering questions, explaining why a promise could not be kept, allowing messy play); mothers in the comparison group had hardly changed their practices in any of these respects. The self-esteem of mothers in the programme had improved significantly, while that of mothers in the comparison had deteriorated significantly.

Follow-ups

(1) One year after the end of the programme, and therefore at the end of the children’s first year in school, 92 experimental group and 85 comparison group families were reassessed. (Thirteen families could not be recontacted, 25 children had not started school, and three had dropped out – already. These numbers add up to one more family than in the original study but the discrepancy cannot be resolved from the information available.) Children were again tested on literacy and numeracy using experimenter-devised instruments, and the end-of-year scores awarded by their teachers were gathered.

The intervention group children had a higher average score than the comparison group for literacy (84.7 vs 73.7, p=0.003), for numeracy (94.9 vs 82.8, p=0.002), and for end-of-year grades (4.8 vs 4.6, p=0.023), and their mothers reported them as having started reading earlier on average. Every mother in the intervention group described her child as having been ready for school, whereas only 28% of comparison group mothers (N=24) did so.


www.cfbt.com 123

The teachers rated the intervention group children more favourably than the comparison group on several aspects of readiness for school, and reported the intervention group mothers as more interested in their children’s schooling and as attending more school meetings. Intervention group mothers continued to be less likely to beat or shout at their children, and more likely to explain, divert attention, and allow messy play.

(2) Both participating children and members of the comparison group were followed up at the end of their schooling. The MOCEP participants’ average grade was 11.21, while that of the comparison group was 10.26. No statistical test of this difference was reported, but it was claimed to be significant.

(3) Participants and controls were again followed up at age 24: 44.7% of participants were attending university, whereas only 30.6% of controls were. The participants had an average vocabulary test score of 14.11; the controls’ average score was 12.22. As with the previous data, no statistical tests were reported, but the differences were claimed to be significant.

Overall, the data support the interpretation that this was a highly effective and well-designed programme. It is also very impressive that this longitudinal study kept track of the students for 19 years.

14. PEEP (Peers Early Education Partnership)

The Peers Early Education Partnership (PEEP) is a birth-to-school-entry intervention programme which is based on four housing estates in the south of Oxford, England, and has been operating there since the autumn term 1995. Its aim is to boost the early learning of preschool children, especially in language and literacy, through provision initially aimed mostly at their mothers.Over the years it has developed an expanding focus on numeracy, self-esteem and positive dispositions to learn. The area is one of severe material deprivation, and it was chosen by the developers of PEEP as their target area because of the low literacy levels of pupils entering the local comprehensive upper school at age 13. Its short-term aim has always been to foster reading readiness, thus allowing each child to maximise their potential within an education system that requires (and often assumes) a certain level of literacy skill.

Basic information


2 Name of study PEEP (Peers Early Education Partnership)

There have been two relevant studies of PEEP:

– (14A) Maria Evangelou’s DPhil looking at three- to four-year-olds, extended with a DfES grant to follow the same children to age five (‘Foundation PEEP’). Reported in Evangelou and Sylva (2003a, b).

– (14B) The ‘Birth To School Study’ (BTSS) which followed a cohort of children from birth to school entry. Reported in Evangelou et al. (2005a, b).

3 References

Evangelou and Sylva (2003a, b); Evangelou et al. (2005a, b); www.peep.org.uk

Continued…


www.cfbt.com 124


4 Study design Both studies were matched-groups pre-test/post-test quasi-experiments. Each had a comparison group who were not receiving PEEP, but

– Foundation PEEP took a treatment vs control approach, using, in Oxford, only children actually attending PEEP

– the BTSS took an epistemological approach, using in both areas all the families who agreed to participate; in Oxford, therefore, the sample included both families who attended PEEP and families who did not.

5 Focus of study Foundation PEEP and BTSS: children’s literacy, language, numeracy

BTSS: also, benefits for parents

6 What impact data are reported? Foundation PEEP and BTSS: direct evidence of benefits to children’s skills (test data)

BTSS only: direct and indirect evidence of benefits to parents’ caregiving skills (observations, questionnaires and interviews)


None

8 What follow-up data, if any, are reported? None, but all the data on children are longitudinal

9 What data, if any, are reported on the comparison group?

Parallel data to those on participants


Some effect sizes


Structured programme developed and delivered by early years professionals

Influence on children mediated through earlier impact on mothers



www.cfbt.com 125

Analysis of quantitative data (1): Foundation PEEP, children aged 3–5


2 Name of study Foundation PEEP


4 What data are analysed in this table? Children’s post-test 1 and 2 data on language development and emergent literacy and numeracy


6 Type of participants Children in a deprived area of Oxford and a comparison area elsewhere in Oxfordshire



9 Equivalence of groups Matched at pre-test (at age 3) on BAS verbal comprehension, naming vocabulary, block building and non-verbal reasoning (picture similarities) (Elliott et al. 1996), and on emergent writing (Gorman and Brooks 1996)

10 Length of intervention in weeks 52 to post-test 1 (at age 4); further 52 to post-test 2 (at age 5)

11 Instruments used Pre-test: see above

Post-test 1: BAS verbal comprehension; BPVS 2 (Dunn et al. 1997); phonological awareness (Bryant and Bradley 1985); Concepts about Print (Clay 1975); BAS early number concepts

Post-test 2: as post-test 1 plus letter identification; writing (both from Clay 1972)

12 Ratio gains n/a



Children’s average performance at post-test 1 (age 4)

Test PEEP group Comparison group Statistical significance

Effect size


Verbal comprehension 18.29 (1.97) 16.78 (2.52) p<0.01 0.23

Phonological awareness 10.12 (4.96) 8.08 (4.30) p<0.05 0.16

Vocabulary 38.61 (9.86) 33.99 (9.12) p<0.01 0.14

Concepts about Print 6.97 (3.39) 4.55 (2.20) p<0.01 0.36

Early number concepts 18.05 (5.0) 13.57 (5.14) p<0.01 0.35

s.d. = standard deviationEffect sizes were calculated by multiple regressions controlling for children’s abilities before the intervention.


www.cfbt.com 126

Children’s average performance at post-test 2 (age 5), controlling for pre-test at age 3

Test PEEP group Comparison group Statistical significance

Effect size


Verbal comprehension 21.16 (3.43) 19.68 (2.20) p<0.01 0.26

Phonological awareness 15.65 (4.93) 13.57 (5.74) ns

Vocabulary 49.80 (10.48) 44.10 (8.84) p<0.05 0.16

Concepts about Print 13.69 (3.69) 10.45 (4.61) p<0.01 0.22

Early number concepts 24.64 (3.44) 21.47 (4.55) p<0.01 0.26

Small letters 19.52 (7.35) 17.71 (7.97) ns

Capital letters 19.41 (7.97) 16.36 (8.77) ns

Writing sample 4.39 (0.77) 4.18 (0.65) ns

s.d. = standard deviation; ns = statistically non-significantEffect sizes were calculated by multiple regressions controlling for children’s abilities before the intervention.

Analysis of quantitative data (2): Birth To School Study, children aged 2–5


2 Name of study Birth To School Study


4 What data are analysed in this table? Children’s data on

– language development at ages 2, 3, 4 and 5– emergent numeracy at ages 3, 4 and 5– emergent literacy at ages 4 and 5

5 Age range of participants 0–5, but data were collected from the children at ages 2, 3, 4 and 5

6 Type of participants Children in a deprived area of Oxford and a comparison area elsewhere in Oxfordshire

7 N of experimental group 301 when recruited at a few weeks old, diminishing to 215 at age 5 (retention rate 71%)

8 N of comparison group 303 when recruited at a few weeks old, diminishing to 230 at age 5 (retention rate 76%)

9 Equivalence of groups The comparison area was initially chosen because it was the part of Oxfordshire most like the PEEP area in demographic terms (indices of poverty, etc.). Then data collected from the mothers in interviews when the children were a few weeks old and around their first birthday were used to check the equivalence of groups; the differences at these stages in the background data collected were slight. Despite this, the first data collected from the children (at age 2) showed that the PEEP area children were, on average, already significantly behind the comparison group in cognitive development and grammatical competence. Because of this, all further analyses in effect corrected for differences at ‘pre-test’.

Continued…


www.cfbt.com 127

Analysis of quantitative data (2): Birth To School Study, children aged 2–5 continued

Also, because the Oxford sample included families who attended PEEP and families who did not, analyses were carried out both on the full samples from both areas and on families in the Oxford group who had attended at least one PEEP session compared with a subset of families in the comparison area. The comparison families for the latter analyses were selected using a technique known as Propensity Score Matching (PSM). This is a statistical technique developed specifically for studies where random assignment to experimental and control groups is not possible, as in this case. It involves finding, for each member of the experimental group, the most similar individual in the comparison group, using data collected at the beginning of the study, and then using only those subsets of the samples in statistical analyses. Evangelou et al. (2005a) give details of how PSM identified subgroups that were better matched than the full samples.

10 Length of intervention

Potentially up to five years, though no children attended PEEP groups for all that time, and some did not attend at all. At age 4 to 5, most children in the PEEP area group were attending PEEP-influenced nurseries, etc.

11 Instruments used See separate table below

12 Ratio gains n/a


14 Statistical significances All differences reported as statistically significant were so at the 95% level (p<0.05).

Instruments used

2nd birthday 3rd birthday 4th birthday 5th birthday

Mental Bayley Development Index (BSID-II)

BAS subscales:

• Verbal Comprehension• Block Building• Picture Similarities

BAS subscales:

• Verbal Comprehension

BAS subscales:

• Picture Similarities

Vocabulary (MCDI) Vocabulary (BAS) Vocabulary (BPVS) Vocabulary (BPVS)

Early Number Concepts (BAS)



Decontextualised language (MCDI)

Phonological Awareness: rhyme

Phonological Awareness: rhyme

Morphology (MCDI) Phonological Awareness: alliteration

Phonological Awareness: alliteration

Sentence complexity (MCDI)

Concepts about Print Concepts about Print

Writing sample Writing sample

Letter identification

Source: Evangelou et al. (2005a), p.33


www.cfbt.com 128

As the list of tests implies, Evangelou et al. (2005a) gathered a very large quantity of data. Moreover, there are six sets of possible cross-age comparisons (age 2 to ages 3, 4 and 5; age 3 to ages 4 and 5; age 4 to age 5), and each of those was calculated at both full sample and subgroup levels. They therefore do not give all the mean scores for every instrument for every age. Instead, they report just those where there was a significant difference between the PEEP and comparison groups at a particular age, together with effect sizes for significant changes over time. The following tables therefore list only the statistically significant changes over time.

Significant changes at full sample level

Ages Test N Gains Effect size

Oxford Comparison Difference

2–3 Numeracy 311 0.12 –0.19 0.31

2–5 Vocabulary 332 0.19 –0.28 0.48

2–5 Phonological awareness: rhyme

325 0.08 –0.21 0.29

2–5 Writing 315 0.02 –0.34 0.36

2–5 Letter identification 327 0.09 –0.38 0.47

3–4 Numeracy 399 6.25* 7.42* –1.17* –0.11

4–5 Vocabulary 388 13.09* 11.13* 1.96* 0.22

4–5 Writing 347 7.47* 5.63* 1.84* 0.34

4–5 Letter identification 383 –0.01 –0.23 0.21

Source: Evangelou et al. (2005a)* These gains are raw scores because the same instrument was used at both ages. All other gains are z-scores because different instruments were used. The negative difference was in favour of the comparison group.

The effect sizes are those stated by the authors. Other effect sizes were not stated and could not be calculated.

Significant changes at subgroup level

Ages Test N Gains Effect size


2–4 Vocabulary 304 0.34 –0.07 0.41

2–4 Phonological awareness: rhyme

298 0.23 –0.12 0.35

2–4 Phonological awareness: alliteration

274 0.23 –0.15 0.37

2–5 Vocabulary 279 0.38 –0.23 0.61

2–5 Concepts about Print 274 0.20 –0.30 0.50

2–5 Letter identification 276 0.24 –0.40 0.65

4–5 Vocabulary 319 13.30* 11.06* 2.24* 0.25

4–5 Writing 284 7.30* 5.78* 1.52* 0.29

4–5 Letter identification 315 –0.08 –0.27 0.19

Source: Evangelou et al. (2005a)* These gains are raw scores because the same instrument was used at both ages.

All other gains are z-scores because different instruments were used.The effect sizes are those stated by the authors. Other effect sizes were not stated and could not be calculated.

The results can by summed up by saying that the PEEP area children, though they had been behind at age 2, had caught up a lot by age 5.


www.cfbt.com 129

Analysis of quantitative data (1): Foundation PEEP, children aged 3–5


2 Name of study Birth To School Study


4 What data are analysed in this table? Parents’ data on aspects of caregiving gathered around their children’s 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th birthdays

5 Age range of participants

Under 16 to over 40, but 82% were between 20 and 34.Average ages at first interview (1998–99): Oxford group 28.0, Comparison 27.7.

6 Type of participants Parents in a deprived area of Oxford and a comparison area elsewhere in Oxfordshire

7 N of experimental group 294 when recruited a few weeks after birth of child in study, diminishing to about 210 four years later

8 N of comparison group 297 when recruited a few weeks after birth of child in study, diminishing to about 225 four years later

9 Equivalence of groups See above under BTSS child data

10 Length of intervention Potentially up to five years, though no parent attended PEEP groups for all that time, and some did not attend at all

11 Instruments used See separate table below

12 Ratio gains n/a

13 Effect sizes None were stated; none could be calculated.

14 Statistical significances All differences reported as statistically significant were so at the 95% level (p<0.05).

Instruments used

At child’s 1st birthday

At child’s 2nd birthday

At child’s 3rd birthday

At child’s 4th birthday

Parenting Stress Index Edinburgh Post-natal Depression Scale

ORIM questionnaire

Observation Record of the Care giving Environment (ORCE)

Parent-child Joint Activity Scale

Questionnaire on range and frequency of parent-child activities

Pleasure in Parenting Scale

Source: Evangelou et al. (2005a)

As with the child data, Evangelou et al. (2005a) do not give all the mean scores for every instrument for every age. Instead, they report just those where there was a significant difference between the PEEP and comparison groups at a particular stage; no results are given for changes over time because the instruments were not sufficiently alike. The following tables therefore list only the statistically significant differences at each stage.


www.cfbt.com 130

Significant difference at full sample level

When children were aged

Instrument N of parents

Gains


2 ORCE 390 27.4 26.1 1.3

Source: Evangelou et al. (2005a)The gains shown are raw scores.

Significant difference at full sample level

When children were aged

Instrument N of parents

Gains


1

Parent-child interaction (subscale of Parenting Stress Index)

393

46.8

45.5

1.3

2 ORCE 327 27.9 26.6 1.3

Source: Evangelou et al. (2005a)The gains shown are raw scores.

The results can by summed up by saying that PEEP appeared to have had a significant impact on some aspects of the quality of the parents’ interaction with their children when the children were aged 1 and 2.

15. PEFaL (Parent Empowerment through Family Literacy)

This project was built on a pre-existing family literacy initiative in Malta, the Ħilti (‘my ability’) clubs – see separate entry. In 2003–04, thanks to a European Union Socrates grant, it was possible to develop Ħilti club-type programmes in small areas in five other countries (England, Flemish-speaking Belgium, Italy, Lithuania and Romania) and to conduct focus groups of parents there and in two areas in Malta under the general title of PEFaL. Unfortunately for this part of the meta-study, none of the outcomes from the focus groups were quantified, and therefore no results from them are analysed here.

However, between January and April 2004 Camilleri also carried out quantitative research with both parents and children attending PEFaL groups in Malta, at four sites, all different from those where the focus groups took place.

Basic information


2 Name of study PEFaL (Parent Empowerment through Family Literacy)

3 References Camilleri (2004; Camilleri, Spiteri and Wolfendale (2005)

4 Study design Quasi- (‘naturally occurring’) RCT. Controls were families waiting to join the programme, and allocation was by lot.


Continued…


www.cfbt.com 131


6 What impact data are reported? Direct evidence of changes in parents’ attitudes (pre and post questionnaires)

Indirect evidence of benefits to parents’ ability to help their children (questionnaires)

Indirect evidence of benefits to parents’ skills (questionnaires)

Direct evidence of benefits to children’s attitudes (questionnaires)


Parents’ intentions to go on to further study



None

9 What data, if any, are reported on control group?

Data on parents and children waiting to join programme


Effect sizes


Evidence of effectiveness did not emerge, probably mainly because the sample sizes were small and the control group families appear to have begun adopting the practices that their neighbours were learning.

12 Any other comments Disappointing outcome compared with the Ħilti clubs themselves





Research conducted January–April 2004

4 What data are analysed in this table? Parents’ mean pre and post questionnaire responses


6 Type of participants Mothers, one father, one grandparent




Drawn from same community; controls were on waiting list to join programme; allocation to experimental or control groups was determined by lot


11 Instruments used Pre and post parent questionnaires

12 Ratio gains n/a

13 Effect sizes See below for effect sizes of differences in changes in experimental and control groups’ average ratings.


See below for significances of changes in experimental and control groups’ average ratings; significances of differences between the groups were not stated and could not be calculated.


www.cfbt.com 132

Benefits to parents’ confidence and ability to help their children

Category N of items

PEFaL group (N=46) Control group (N=21) Difference in gain

Effect size

Mean (s.d.) pre

Mean (s.d.) post

Mean difference

p Mean (s.d.) pre

Mean (s.d.) post

Mean difference

p

Parents’ self-confidence in relation to literacy practices

6 2.72(0.46)

2.87(0.47)

0.15 0.015 2.75(0.55)

2.91(0.53)

0.16 ns –0.01 –0.02

Parents’ literacy practices at home

5 2.16(0.57)

2.26(0.45)

0.10 ns 2.37(0.61)

2.46(0.60)

0.08 0.035 0.02 0.01

Parents’ attitudes towards literacy activities

5 2.77(0.54)

2.52(0.29)

–0.25 0.002 2.71(0.74)

2.55(0.40)

–0.16 ns –0.09 –0.12

Parents’ confidence in supporting child in literacy/school activities

4 3.49(0.59)

3.48(0.54)

–0.01 ns 3.60(0.46)

3.54(0.52)

–0.06 ns 0.05 0.11

Parent–child shared literacy experiences at home

6 3.25(0.37)

3.19(0.40)

–0.06 ns 3.21(0.61)

3.23(0.33)

0.02 ns –0.08 –0.13

ns = statistically non-significantEffect sizes were calculated by dividing the differences in gains by the control group’s pre-test s.d.’s.* Means, s.d.’s, differences and gains are averaged across the items in each category.

Wider benefits

96% (44) of the parents stated the programme had given them the opportunity to follow other courses.

28% (13) said they were involved in their children’s schools; most of the rest said they were not because of time, work, family, distance from the school, or lack of opportunity offered by the school itself.


www.cfbt.com 133





Research conducted January–April 2004

4 What data are analysed in this table? Children’s mean pre and post questionnaire responses


6 Type of participants Children in families in poorer areas of Malta

7 N of experimental group 54 (29 boys, 25 girls)

8 N of control group 40 (19 boys, 21 girls)


Drawn from same community; controls were on waiting list to join programme; allocation to experimental or control groups was determined by lot


11 Instruments used Pre and post child questionnaires

12 Ratio gains n/a

13 Effect sizes See below for effect sizes of differences in changes in experimental and control groups’ average ratings.


See below for significances of changes in experimental and control groups’ average ratings; significances of differences between the groups were not stated and could not be calculated.

Benefits to children

Category N of items

PEFaL group (N=46) Control group (N=21) Difference in gain

Effect size

Mean (s.d.) pre

Mean (s.d.) post

Mean difference

p Mean (s.d.) pre

Mean (s.d.) post

Mean difference

p

Children’s attitudes towards literacy practices/activities

8 3.48(0.41)

3.37(0.49)

–0.11 0.080 3.48(0.39)

3.51(0.37)

0.03 0.652 –0.14 –0.36

Children’s shared literacy home practices with adult

3 0.83(0.22)

0.88(0.18)

0.05 0.160 0.85(0.27)

0.85(0.26)

0.00 0.841 0.05 0.19

Effect sizes were calculated by dividing the differences in gains by the control group’s pre-test s.d’s.* Means, s.d.’s, differences and gains are averaged across the items in each category.

The programmes seem well designed, appropriate and enjoyable, and the lack of evidence of impact is odd. However, the sample sizes were small, and some control group families appear to have begun doing on their own initiative the activities they heard about from their neighbours. The investigator also suspected that at pre-test some parents gave him the answers they thought he wanted to hear and/or which would put them in a good light, and were less likely to do so at post-test. However, this factor would have been less likely to affect the children’s responses.


www.cfbt.com 134

16. REAL (Raising Early Achievement in Literacy)

The REAL project was developed and implemented by teachers at 11 schools in Sheffield. It was of long duration (12–18 months) and low intensity (mainly one home visit per month). It adopted a broad concept of literacy involving not only books but environmental print, writing and aspects of oral language. It was designed to build on families’ existing practices, using the ORIM conceptual framework (Hannon & Nutbrown 1997): in this, parents are seen as providing their children with literacy Opportunities, Recognition of their achievements, Interaction with them around literacy activities, and a Model of literacy. Teachers at the 11 schools were funded for release for half a day a week to work with eight families each, and given professional training. Besides the monthly home visit, the programme provided: literacy resources, especially books but also writing materials, scrapbooks, games, etc.; centre-based activities, where groups of parents met their teacher; special events, e.g. group visits, including to libraries; and postal communication, including birthday cards, postcards and reminder notes. There was also an optional adult education component for the parents, involving provision of information about local adult education opportunities, and an accredited course about learning to support children’s literacy; rather few parents took up this option and the data are not analysed here.

The programme was offered to 176 families, all of whom agreed to be randomly allocated to receive it or not. Thus there were (initially, and retention was very high) 88 families in the intervention group and 88 in the control group. All lived in areas of multiple deprivation.

Basic information


2 Name of study REAL (Raising Early Achievement in Literacy)

3 Reference Hannon et al. (2005)

4 Study design Randomised controlled trial (RCT)




None quantified

8 What follow-up data, if any, are reported? Data on children’s attainment at age 7

9 What data, if any, are reported on control group?



Effect sizes


Principally the dedication of the teachers, the long duration, and the ability to overcome disadvantage for children whose mothers had no educational qualifications

12 Any other comments Definitely the most rigorous study in the entire field


www.cfbt.com 135

Analysis of quantitative data: Benefits to children’s language and literacy


2 Name of study REAL (Raising Early Achievement in Literacy)



5 Age range of participants 2½–3 at the beginning

6 Type of participants Children living in areas of multiple deprivation in Sheffield


8 N of control group 88 at pre-test; for post-test Ns see below

9 Equivalence of groups Allocated at random; no differences on pre-test

10 Length of intervention in weeks 52–78 (12–18 months)

11 Instruments used Pre-test: Sheffield Early Literacy Development Profile (SELDP) (Nutbrown 1997); British Picture Vocabulary Scale – revised (BPVS-II) (Dunn et al. 1997)

Post-test: as pre-test, plus letter recognition test (Clay 1985)

12 Ratio gains n/a



Analysis of quantitative data: Effects on children’s language and literacy

Test Intervention group Control group Difference Stat. sig. Effect size

N average (s.d.) N average (s.d.)

SELDP 85 33.6 (7.5) 80 30.2 (8.6) 3.5 p<0.005 0.41

BPVS-II 85 97.4 (11.2) 79 95.6 (12.6) 1.8 ns

Letter recognition

85 18.1 (17.3) 79 13.4 (15.9) 4.7 p<0.05 0.30

N = sample size; s.d. = standard deviation; stat.sig. = level of statistical significance; ns = statistically non-significantFor names of tests see above.The effect sizes are those given by the authors.

Follow-up

When the children were aged 7 they took the national tests then applied to all children of that age in England. The results for the literacy test were as shown below.


www.cfbt.com 136

Sample Intervention group Control group Difference Stat. sig. Effect size

N average (s.d.) N average (s.d.)

Whole sample 78 38.9 (14.6) 78 37.7 (15.0) 1.2 ns

Mother reporting no educational qualifications

32 38.3 (13.5) 37 31.4 (16.6) 6.9 p<0.05 0.42

N = sample size; s.d. = standard deviation; stat.sig. = level of statistical significance; ns = statistically non-significantFor names of tests see above.The effect size is that given by the authors.

The authors also carried out analyses for several other sub-samples: mother of lower socio-economic status; father of lower socio-economic status; boys; children receiving free school meals. None of these revealed a significant effect.

What this pattern of results appears to show is that the programme had a strong impact while it was running, that is until the children entered school at 5, even though it was of low intensity, presumably because of its long duration; but that the main effect had washed out by the time the children were 7 – except for the particular subgroup of children whose mothers had no educational qualifications. For that group the programme appeared to have had a countervailing effect to their mothers’ lack of qualifications.


www.cfbt.com 137

Appendix B: Outline details of the programmes analysed qualitatively in Chapter 4

Na

me

of

pro

jec

t;

cou

ntr

ya

nd

are

a

Lit

era

cy,

lan

gu

age

or

nu

me

racy

Dat

e,

tim

esc

ale

Pa

rtn

ers

Nu

mb

er

of

pa

ren

ts,

pro

jec

ts

Typ

e o

f p

rog

ram

me

(mo

del

): se

e se

cti

on

2.3

.5

Va

lues

of

pro

gra

mm

e:

see

sec

tio

n 2

.3.5

Imp

act

on

kn

ow

led

ge

an

d s

kill

s

Imp

act

on

com

mu

nit

y

Can

ada

LA

PS

, C

alga

ry,

Alb

erta

, C

anad

a, p

lus

prog

ram

me

is o

ffere

d th

roug

hout

C

anad

a in

a

num

ber

of

loca

tions

, e.

g. w

omen

’s

shel

ters

, fa

mily

dro

p-in

ce

ntre

s, ja

ils,

and

com

mun

ity

cent

res

Lite

racy

and

pa

rent

ing

skill

s, E

SL

prog

ram

me

1996

mat

eria

ls

pub

lishe

dB

ow V

alle

y C

olle

ge,

Furt

her

Edu

catio

n S

ocie

ty o

f A

lber

ta, p

lus

the

Furt

her

Edu

catio

n S

ocie

ty o

f A

lber

ta

Trai

ning

pa

ckag

es

have

ena

bled

pr

ogra

mm

e to

spr

ead

into

ot

her

loca

tions

; ov

er 1

000

trai

ned

Com

bine

s pa

rent

ing

sess

ions

to

geth

er w

ith

liter

acy

and

lang

uage

Focu

sed

on

cros

s-cu

ltura

l se

ssio

ns, i

n pa

rtic

ular

:

Pas

sing

on

Our

Val

ues

and

Dea

ling

with

S

choo

l

Pro

ject

gr

ound

ed

in n

eeds

of

part

icip

ants

A tr

aini

ng

pack

age

is

used

to tr

ain

liter

acy

co

ordi

nato

rs,

ES

L in

stru

ctor

s an

d co

mm

unity

w

orke

rs to

fa

cilit

ate

a L

AP

S

prog

ram

me

in th

eir

com

mun

ity

Impa

ct

asse

ssed

in

rel

atio

n to

trai

ning

pa

ckag

e w

hich

ha

s b

een

dev

elop

ed.

Ove

r 10

00

trai

ners

trai

ned

PE

FaL

(Par

ent

Em

pow

erm

ent

thro

ugh

Fam

ily

Lite

racy

); M

alta

(le

ad c

ount

ry),

Bel

gium

, E

ngla

nd, I

taly

, Li

thua

nia,

R

oman

ia

Lite

racy

and

la

ngua

geO

ctob

er 2

001

to O

ctob

er

2004

Mal

ta, B

elgi

um,

Eng

land

, Ita

ly,

Lith

uani

a,

Rom

ania

6 co

untr

ies

The

H m

odel

, w

hich

ass

igns

jo

int t

ime

to

pare

nts

and

child

ren

whi

le

givi

ng s

uppo

rt

to p

aren

ts

and

child

ren

indi

vidu

ally

as

wel

l

Focu

s on

ad

ults

-as-

pare

nts

and

an

empo

wer

men

t m

odel

dr

awin

g on

ho

me

liter

acy

prac

tices

Mul

ticul

tura

l an

d m

ultil

ingu

al

grou

ps

419

fam

ilies

part

icip

ated

30 fa

mily

lit

erac

y pr

ogra

mm

es

36 p

oten

tial

pare

nt le

ader

s id

entif

ied

A c

onfe

renc

e of

the

proj

ect

held

in J

uly

2004

, and

its

proc

eedi

ngs,

ha

d tw

o co

mpo

nent

s:

the

‘aca

dem

ic’

one

with

d

eliv

ery

of

pap

ers

and

wor

ksho

ps fo

r ed

ucat

iona

lists

, an

d th

e ‘e

xper

ient

ial’

one

for

key

pare

nt le

ader

s fr

om a

ll th

e pa

rtic

ipat

ing

coun

trie

s


www.cfbt.com 138

Na

me

of

pro

jec

t;

cou

ntr

ya

nd

are

a

Lit

era

cy,

lan

gu

age

or

nu

me

racy

Da

te,

tim

esc

ale

Pa

rtn

ers

Nu

mb

er

of

pa

ren

ts,

pro

jec

ts

Typ

e o

f p

rog

ram

me

(mo

del

): se

e se

cti

on

2.3

.5

Va

lues

of

pro

gra

mm

e:

see

sec

tio

n 2

.3.5

Imp

act

on

kn

ow

led

ge

a

nd

sk

ills

Imp

act

on

com

mu

nit

y

Qua

liFLY

: E

urop

ean

Pro

ject

on

Fam

ily L

itera

cy;

Bul

garia

, Ire

land

, Ita

ly,

Mal

ta, T

urke

y,

Ham

burg

, G

erm

any

Lite

racy

and

la

ngua

ge

pro

ject

aim

ing

to p

rom

ote

good

qua

lity

in

fam

ily li

tera

cy

pro

gram

mes

by

obse

rvin

g an

d m

onito

ring

bes

t p

ract

ice

in a

ra

nge

of c

ultu

ral

sett

ings

2005

to 2

007

Foun

dat

ion

ethn

ocul

tura

l di

alog

ue,

Bul

garia

; N

AL

A, I

rela

nd;

Uni

vers

ità

Pop

olar

e di

R

oma,

Ital

y;

Foun

dat

ion

for

Ed

ucat

iona

l S

ervi

ces,

Mal

ta;

Mot

her-

child

E

duc

atio

n Fo

und

atio

n,

Turk

ey; I

nstit

ute

for

Teac

her

Trai

ning

an

d S

choo

l D

evel

opm

ent o

f th

e C

ity S

tate

of

Ham

burg

7 in

stitu

tions

fr

om 6

cou

ntrie

sN

ot o

ne m

odel

, bu

t aim

s to

di

ssem

inat

e b

est

pra

ctic

e

Qua

liFLY

pro

ject

ai

ms

to p

rom

ote

good

qua

lity

fam

ily li

tera

cy

pro

gram

mes

, tr

aini

ng a

nd

mat

eria

ls in

a

rang

e of

cul

tura

l se

ttin

gs

Focu

ses

on

inte

rgen

erat

iona

l in

tera

ctio

ns

with

in th

e fa

mily

an

d co

mm

unity

w

hich

pro

mot

e th

e de

velo

pmen

t of

lite

racy

and

re

late

d lif

e sk

ills

No

dat

a ye

tN

o d

ata

yet

Fam

ily L

itera

cy

(Qua

liFLY

); H

ambu

rg,

Ger

man

y

Lite

racy

and

la

ngua

ge,

inte

nsify

ing

coop

erat

ion

bet

wee

n ho

me

and

scho

ol,

enha

ncin

g te

ache

r ed

ucat

ion

2004

to p

rese

ntIn

stitu

te fo

r Te

ache

r Tr

aini

ng

and

Sch

ool

Dev

elop

men

t of

the

City

Sta

te o

f H

ambu

rg

9 lo

catio

ns,

7 sc

hool

s an

d

2 ki

nder

gart

ens

in H

ambu

rg

Bui

lds

on th

e un

der

stan

ding

th

at m

ulti-

lingu

alis

m a

nd

inte

rcul

tura

l co

mp

eten

ce

are

imp

orta

nt

asp

ects

of f

amily

lit

erac

y. F

ocus

es

on m

akin

g of

p

ictu

re b

ooks

, us

ing

child

ren’

s d

raw

ings

. Fo

cuse

s on

cr

eativ

ity a

nd

fam

ily v

isits

Focu

s on

cr

eativ

ity, g

ames

, vi

sits

, mul

ti-se

nsor

y an

d m

ultim

odal

wor

k w

ith c

hild

ren,

st

oryt

ellin

g an

d us

e of

p

hoto

grap

hs a

nd

visu

al im

ages

No

dat

a ye

tN

o d

ata

yet


www.cfbt.com 139

Na

me

of

pro

jec

t;

co

un

try

an

d a

rea

Lit

era

cy,

lan

gu

age

or

nu

me

racy

Da

te,

tim

esc

ale

Pa

rtn

ers

Nu

mb

er

of

pa

ren

ts,

pro

jec

ts

Typ

e o

f p

rog

ram

me

(mo

de

l): s

ee

sec

tio

n 2

.3.5

Va

lues

of

pro

gra

mm

e:

see

sec

tio

n 2

.3.5

Imp

act

on

kn

ow

led

ge

an

d

skill

s

Imp

act

on

co

mm

un

ity

Mo

ther

-Chi

ld

Ed

ucat

ion

Foun

dat

ion

(Qua

liFLY

p

artn

er);

Turk

ey

Lite

racy

and

la

ngua

ge, h

ealth

ed

ucat

ion,

co

gniti

ve tr

aini

ng

to d

evel

op

scho

ol r

ead

ines

s,

pare

nt–c

hild

in

tera

ctio

n,

pare

ntin

g, s

elf-

este

em. F

athe

rs’

pro

gram

me

1993

to p

rese

ntM

inis

try

of

Nat

iona

l E

duc

atio

n, a

nd

the

Gen

eral

D

irect

orat

e of

S

ocia

l Wel

fare

an

d C

hild

P

rote

ctio

n A

genc

y

150

emp

loye

es;

10 lo

cal o

ffic

es a

ll ov

er T

urke

y

Dra

ws

on

a co

gniti

ve

mod

el o

f chi

ld

dev

elop

men

t, p

lace

s m

othe

r at

cen

tre

of

encu

ltura

tion

pro

cess

, foc

uses

on

‘at r

isk’

ch

ildre

n, a

nd

aim

s to

inte

rven

e in

inte

ract

ions

b

etw

een

mot

her

and

child

Str

ongl

y fo

cuse

d on

inte

rven

tion,

ha

s a

wom

en’s

em

pow

erm

ent

dim

ensi

on, v

iew

s fa

mili

es in

low

so

cio-

econ

omic

gr

oups

as

‘at r

isk’

an

d in

nee

d of

su

pp

ort

In 1

998,

730

5 m

othe

r–ch

ild

pairs

in 5

2 p

rovi

nces

re

ache

d, th

roug

h th

e M

inis

try

of N

atio

nal

Ed

ucat

ion

Impa

ct h

as le

d to

invo

lvem

ent

in Q

ualiF

LY a

s te

ache

r tr

aini

ng

elem

ent g

oes

outs

ide

Turk

ey.

Impa

ct w

ithin

Tu

rkey

incl

uded

ne

w fa

ther

s’

com

pon

ent a

nd

new

focu

s on

re

pro

duc

tive

heal

th a

nd fa

mily

p

lann

ing

(a) F

amily

lite

racy

in

Nep

al: A

Cas

e S

tud

y fr

om S

ave

the

Chi

ldre

n.

Invo

lved

Kum

ai

com

mun

ity in

the

pilo

t vill

age

of

Ad

ai G

aon

(b) S

eti p

roje

ct

oper

ates

in fa

r w

est o

f Nep

al

(a) L

itera

cy

and

heal

th.

Com

mun

icat

ion

with

sch

ool.

Hom

ewor

k cl

ub

and

baby

boo

k

(b) W

omen

’s a

nd

girls

’ lite

racy

(a) 1

994

eval

uatio

n of

Fa

mily

Lite

racy

p

rogr

amm

e fo

cuse

d on

bab

y b

ook

pub

lishe

d

(b) D

escr

iptio

n of

pro

ject

in

Rob

inso

n-P

ant

(200

1)

(a) S

ave

the

Chi

ldre

n U

S N

epal

Fi

eld

Offi

ce ‘b

aby

book

pro

ject

’

(b) S

eti p

roje

ct,

wom

en’s

and

gi

rls’ l

itera

cy

educ

atio

n

(a) 1

vill

age

as

pilo

t pro

ject

for

the

baby

boo

k p

roje

ct

(b) T

he S

eti

proj

ect o

pera

tes

in th

e fa

r w

est o

f N

epal

(a) L

itera

cy a

nd

heal

th p

ersp

ectiv

e

(b) G

irls’

and

w

omen

’s li

tera

cy

as fo

cus

for

pro

ject

(a) F

ocus

ed o

n ba

by b

ook

and

dev

elop

men

t of

hom

e/sc

hool

re

latio

ns

(b) F

ocus

ed

on im

pro

ved

heal

th fo

r th

e co

mm

uniti

es

(a) E

valu

ated

in

1994

, acc

ordi

ng

to a

utho

rs

of re

port

, pr

ogra

mm

e ha

s al

read

y pr

oved

‘muc

h m

ore

than

the

inte

rgen

erat

iona

l tr

ansf

er o

f lite

rate

be

havi

our’

(b) S

eti P

roje

ct:

Mor

e th

an 8

000

out-

of-s

choo

l girl

s at

tend

ed c

lass

es.

Ove

r 150

000

ch

ildre

n w

ere

reac

hed

by

regu

lar e

duca

tion

initi

ativ

es, a

nd

incr

easi

ng

num

bers

of t

hem

w

ere

girls

.30

000

ad

ults

pa

rtic

ipat

ed in

ad

ult e

veni

ng

clas

ses,

of w

hom

m

any

wer

e w

omen

(a) B

aby

boo

k w

as g

ood

in

heal

th c

onte

xt

(b) T

he S

eti

pro

ject

led

to

imp

rove

d he

alth

in

the

com

mun

ity,

imp

rove

d nu

triti

on a

nd

bet

ter

pre

vent

ion

of d

isea

se


www.cfbt.com 140

Na

me

of

pro

jec

t;

co

un

try

an

d a

rea

Lit

era

cy,

lan

gu

age

or

nu

me

racy

Da

te,

tim

esc

ale

Pa

rtn

ers

Nu

mb

er

of

pa

ren

ts,

pro

jec

ts

Typ

e o

f p

rog

ram

me

(mo

de

l): s

ee

sec

tio

n 2

.3.5

Va

lues

of

pro

gra

mm

e:

see

sec

tio

n 2

.3.5

Imp

act

on

kn

ow

led

ge

an

d

skill

s

Imp

act

on

co

mm

un

ity

Man

ukau

Fa

mily

Lite

racy

P

rog

ram

me;

M

anuk

au C

ity,

New

Zea

land

Lite

racy

, la

ngua

ge,

mat

hem

atic

s

2002

to 2

004

Eva

luat

ion

took

p

lace

200

2 an

d 20

03

Eac

h si

te h

as:

an e

arly

ch

ildho

od c

entr

e

a p

rimar

y sc

hool

a te

rtia

ry

pro

vid

er.

2 p

ilot s

ites,

37

ad

ults

Ken

an m

odel

: ad

ult e

duc

ator

p

lus

teac

her

to s

upp

ort

child

ren.

Offe

red

a C

ertif

icat

e in

In

trod

uctio

n to

E

arly

Chi

ldho

od

Cur

ricul

um

Qua

lity

one-

to-

one

time

with

pa

rent

and

chi

ld

valu

ed in

this

p

rogr

amm

e.

Focu

s on

en

cour

agin

g fu

rthe

r ed

ucat

ion

for

pare

nts

23 s

tud

ents

m

oved

ont

o fu

rthe

r te

rtia

ry

stud

y

Pro

ject

par

tner

s re

por

ted

incr

ease

d en

rolm

ents

in

early

chi

ldho

od

cent

res

and

tert

iary

in

stitu

tions

, bet

ter

hom

e/sc

hool

re

latio

ns, a

nd

imp

rove

d lin

ks

acro

ss p

artn

er

orga

nisa

tions

. G

rad

uatio

n ce

rem

ony

for

who

le

com

mun

ity.

Fam

ily L

itera

cy

Pro

ject

(FLP

); K

waZ

ulu-

Nat

al

(KZN

), S

outh

A

fric

a

Lite

racy

and

la

ngua

ge (Z

ulu

and

Eng

lish)

as

wel

l as

heal

th

educ

atio

n, c

raft

an

d co

mm

unity

d

evel

opm

ent

2000

to p

rese

nt

Eva

luat

ion

took

p

lace

200

4

7 fa

mily

lite

racy

gr

oups

(200

0)P

aren

t and

chi

ld

(ear

ly y

ears

) plu

s pa

rent

s’ li

tera

cy

skill

s

Com

mun

ity

libra

ry

pro

gram

me

for

al

l com

mun

ity

Loca

l wom

en a

re

grou

p fa

cilit

ator

s

Sub

ject

s ch

osen

by

gro

ups

Valu

ing

exis

ting

liter

acie

s

Par

ticip

ants

of

2 y

ears

had

hi

gher

leve

ls o

f in

tera

ctio

n w

ith

thei

r ch

ildre

n an

d en

able

d co

oper

ativ

e b

ook

shar

ing,

and

thei

r ch

ildre

n d

rew

m

ore

com

ple

x p

ictu

res

Two

of th

e co

mm

uniti

es

give

n co

mm

unity

lib

rary

as

resu

lt of

FLP

One

of t

he

lear

ners

ch

osen

as

mos

t ou

tsta

ndin

g le

arne

r in

KZN

, an

d a

faci

litat

or

as m

ost

outs

tand

ing

educ

ator

in th

e w

hole

of S

outh

A

fric

a


www.cfbt.com 141

Na

me

of

pro

jec

t;

co

un

try

an

d a

rea

Lit

era

cy,

lan

gu

age

or

nu

me

racy

Da

te,

tim

esc

ale

Pa

rtn

ers

Nu

mb

er

of

pa

ren

ts,

pro

jec

ts

Typ

e o

f p

rog

ram

me

(mo

de

l): s

ee

sec

tio

n 2

.3.5

Va

lues

of

pro

gra

mm

e:

see

sec

tio

n 2

.3.5

Imp

act

on

kn

ow

led

ge

an

d

skill

s

Imp

act

on

co

mm

un

ity

Fam

ily B

asic

E

duc

atio

n (F

AB

E);

Bug

iri d

istr

ict,

Uga

nda

Lite

racy

, la

ngua

ge,

num

erac

y an

d ra

isin

g aw

aren

ess

abou

t the

val

ue o

f ed

ucat

ion

Sep

tem

ber

200

1 to

pre

sent

FAB

E, L

AB

E

Uga

nda,

and

18

sch

ool P

TAs,

B

ugiri

dis

tric

t sc

hool

s

Targ

ets

72

teac

hers

, 36

adul

t lite

racy

in

stru

ctor

s,

18 s

choo

l PTA

s as

wel

l as

1080

pa

rent

s an

d 28

80

child

ren

Rur

al li

tera

cy

inst

ruct

ors

have

id

entif

ied

a ta

ilore

d lit

erac

y co

nten

t to

enab

le p

aren

ts

to s

upp

ort

thei

r ch

ildre

n’s

lear

ning

act

ivity

in

the

low

er p

rimar

y gr

ade

clas

ses.

Fo

cus

also

on

incr

easi

ng

awar

enes

s of

val

ue o

f ed

ucat

ion

Focu

s on

ed

ucat

iona

l p

ract

ices

that

en

cour

aged

a

link

bet

wee

n sc

hool

lear

ning

an

d co

mm

unity

in

dig

enou

s lit

erac

y p

ract

ices

Impa

ct is

m

easu

red

by

the

num

ber a

nd

frequ

ency

of

pare

nts

visi

ting

scho

ol, n

umbe

r of

join

t sch

ool–

com

mun

ity

educ

atio

n pl

ans,

nu

mbe

r of

child

ren

atte

ndin

g sc

hool

on

a da

ily

basi

s, a

nd th

e fre

quen

cy o

f fa

mily

dia

logu

e on

ed

ucat

ion

issu

es

Rur

al R

apid

A

pp

rais

al (R

RA

) un

der

take

n w

hich

p

oint

ed to

war

ds

bro

ader

ad

ult

liter

acy

need

s,

and

new

sup

por

t fo

r aw

aren

ess-

rais

ing

initi

ativ

es

Uni

ted

Sta

tes

of A

mer

ica:

S

anta

Bar

bara

C

alifo

rnia

: Ve

rizon

OP

TIO

NS

in

itiat

ive:

S

upp

ortin

g Fa

mili

es’ M

ultip

le

Lite

raci

es

Eng

lish

liter

acy

and

lang

uage

, co

mp

uter

tr

aini

ng,

men

torin

g

2003

to p

rese

ntIs

la V

ista

E

lem

enta

ry

scho

ol; G

evirt

z re

sear

ch c

entr

e,

Uni

vers

ity o

f S

anta

Bar

bara

; C

omm

unity

A

ctio

n B

oard

’s

liter

acy

pro

gram

me;

Isla

V

ista

’s Y

outh

P

roje

ct’s

Sch

ool

Rea

din

ess

Pro

gram

me;

E

nlac

e y

Ava

nce

Opt

ion

(com

mun

ity

men

torin

g p

rogr

amm

e)

1 sc

hool

, 1

men

torin

g

pro

gram

me,

1

univ

ersi

ty

Som

e fa

mily

lit

erac

y cl

asse

s fo

r pa

rent

s an

d ch

ildre

n in

Eng

lish,

w

ith c

hild

ren

lear

ning

sch

ool-

read

ines

s sk

ills,

jo

int s

essi

ons

with

chi

ldre

n on

a

Com

put

ers

pro

ject

, ho

me

liter

acy

sup

por

t fro

m

und

ergr

adua

te

stud

ents

, m

ento

ring

pare

nts

to

part

icip

ate

in

scho

olin

g

Rec

ogni

tion

of

fam

ilies

’ mul

tiple

lit

erac

ies,

focu

s on

giv

ing

fam

ilies

to

ols

and

sup

por

t ne

eded

to

part

icip

ate

fully

in

thei

r ch

ildre

n’s

scho

olin

g

475

part

icip

ants

(1

90 fa

mili

es);

185

Uni

vers

ity o

f S

anta

Bar

bara

un

der

grad

uate

s pa

rtic

ipat

ing

Ass

essm

ent o

f E

nglis

h lit

erac

y sk

ills

show

ed

part

icip

ants

in

the

pro

gram

me

imp

rovi

ng

sign

ifica

ntly

fr

om p

re-t

est

to p

ost-

test

on

ever

y q

uant

itativ

e m

easu

re

30 fa

mili

es

part

icip

ated

in

one

or t

wo

of th

e p

roje

ct o

ptio

ns

The

com

mun

ity

men

torin

g p

rogr

amm

e re

por

ted

that

160

pa

rent

s at

tend

ed

mee

tings

and

75

% r

epor

ted

grea

ter

invo

lvem

ent i

n th

eir

child

ren’

s ed

ucat

ion

and

incr

ease

d kn

owle

dge

of

res

ourc

es

avai

lab

le to

fa

mili

es


www.cfbt.com 142

Na

me

of

pro

jec

t;

co

un

try

an

d a

rea

Lit

era

cy,

lan

gu

age

or

nu

me

racy

Da

te,

tim

esc

ale

Pa

rtn

ers

Nu

mb

er

of

pa

ren

ts,

pro

jec

ts

Typ

e o

f p

rog

ram

me

(mo

de

l): s

ee

sec

tio

n 2

.3.5

Va

lues

of

pro

gra

mm

e:

see

sec

tio

n 2

.3.5

Imp

act

on

kn

ow

led

ge

an

d

skill

s

Imp

act

on

co

mm

un

ity

FLA

ME

(Fam

ily

Lite

racy

: A

pre

ndie

ndo,

M

ejor

and

o,

Ed

ucan

do)

; Pils

en

and

Wic

ker

Par

k,

Chi

cago

, US

A;

spre

ad to

five

d

emon

stra

tion

cent

res

Lite

racy

, la

ngua

ge a

nd

hom

e/sc

hool

in

tera

ctio

n,

mat

hem

atic

s

1989

to p

rese

ntU

nive

rsity

of

Illin

ois

at

Chi

cago

Col

lege

of

Ed

ucat

ion

plu

s fiv

e sc

hool

d

istr

icts

in

Chi

cago

whi

ch

serv

e 12

sch

ools

5 d

emon

stra

tion

cent

res,

ser

ving

12

sch

ool

dis

tric

ts

Dra

ws

on O

RIM

m

odel

but

re

def

ined

as:

Li

tera

cy

Op

por

tuni

ty,

Lite

racy

M

odel

ling,

Li

tera

cy

Inte

ract

ion,

H

ome/

scho

ol

rela

tions

Enc

oura

ges

com

mun

ity in

put

in

to p

lann

ing

of

sess

ions

. Use

s a

theo

ry-b

ased

so

cio-

cultu

ral

app

roac

h w

hich

ta

kes

into

ac

coun

t mul

tiple

cu

ltura

l way

s of

le

arni

ng

Ann

ual e

valu

atio

n re

sults

sho

w

that

chi

ldre

n of

pa

rtic

ipat

ing

fam

ilies

sho

w

sign

ifica

nt g

ains

in

cog

nitiv

e d

evel

opm

ent a

nd

pre

-lite

racy

and

lit

erac

y sk

ills

in

bot

h S

pani

sh a

nd

Eng

lish.

Par

ents

ha

ve a

lso

mad

e si

gnifi

cant

gai

ns

in E

nglis

h an

d ha

ve in

crea

sed

thei

r ch

ildre

n’s

liter

acy

activ

ities

in

the

hom

e

The

pro

ject

’s

mod

el h

as s

pre

ad

to o

ther

par

ts o

f th

e U

SA

incl

udin

g C

alifo

rnia

, Flo

rida,

Ill

inoi

s, K

ansa

s,

Neb

rask

a, N

ew

Mex

ico,

Sou

th

Car

olin

a an

d Te

xas.

A ‘t

rain

ing

the

trai

ners

’ p

rogr

amm

e en

cour

ages

the

spre

ad o

f the

p

rogr

amm

e an

d th

e p

rogr

amm

e en

cour

ages

co

mm

unity

inp

ut

into

the

pla

nnin

g of

ses

sion

s

MA

PP

S M

ath

And

Par

ent

Par

tner

ship

s:

Invo

lvin

g P

aren

ts in

the

Mat

hem

atic

s of

the

Sch

ools

, C

hang

ing

Att

itud

es a

bou

t M

athe

mat

ics,

an

d R

aisi

ng

Sch

ool-A

ge

Com

pet

enci

es

in M

athe

mat

ics;

H

ispa

nic

area

s in

Sou

th W

est o

f U

SA

incl

udin

g Tu

cson

and

C

hand

ler

(Ariz

ona)

, Las

Ve

gas

(New

M

exic

o), S

an

Jose

(Cal

iforn

ia)

Mat

hem

atic

s20

02 to

pre

sent

Pro

gram

mes

are

no

w in

pla

ce in

12

dis

tric

ts in

9

stat

es a

roun

d th

e co

untr

y

Take

s a

Fund

s of

Kno

wle

dge

ap

pro

ach

to

fam

ilies

; als

o ta

kes

from

a

Frei

rean

p

ersp

ectiv

e on

ad

ult e

duc

atio

n,

part

icul

arly

w

ork

on c

ritic

al

ped

agog

y

Fund

s of

K

now

led

ge

per

spec

tive.

(G

onza

lez,

Mol

l &

Am

anti,

200

5)

In 2

002–

3, 5

03

Dis

tric

t par

ents

an

d 65

5 of

thei

r sc

hool

-age

ch

ildre

n at

tend

ed

wor

ksho

ps a

s pa

rtic

ipan

ts;

2309

par

ent

hour

s in

all

wer

e sp

ent o

n M

AP

PS

ac

tiviti

es

Par

ents

att

end

ed

com

mun

ity

even

ts, a

nd

spok

e to

larg

e au

die

nces

. Key

is

par

ent t

rain

ing

and

dev

elop

ing

pow

er-s

harin

g w

ith p

aren

ts


www.cfbt.com 143

Appendix C: Continuing debates and emerging principles

This appendix first reminds the reader of several discussions that are ongoing in the area of FLLN about the nature of the programmes. We do not attempt to report on all the important debates, or on all of what is argued in the context of those we do report on. But the selection is intended to give the reader an impression of several significant areas of controversy, and of some of the views commonly heard within each. The debates should be read alongside recognition that for many parents and children, family literacy, language and numeracy programmes provide a positive space, where their diverse and multiple literacies and numeracies are recognised and heard and where practitioners continue to be innovative in their work. Evaluation studies such as Davies et al. (2002) and Pahl (2004a) have consistently shown the value of FLLN programmes. Then in the last section an attempt is made to outline some principles which seem to be widely valued and which may help to underpin further development.

Debate number 1: Family literacy: rhetoric or research?

As described in section 2.3.4, a key debate has been the discussion of ways in which family literacy programmes operate within a ‘rhetoric’, which stops a considered analysis of the field. This argument was developed by Hannon (1999). He argued that the term ‘family literacy’ needs to be clarified. It can be used to describe sets of practices within families and/or a research focus on them, but instead, he argued, it tends to be applied to educational programmes (Hannon 1999:122).

By contrast, many researchers describe the nature of literacy practices within families. For Denny Taylor (1983), literacy is a part of the very fabric of family life, and her work describes the ebb and flow of literacy events and practices in low-income households, focusing on and their strengths in supporting their children’s literacies. Many others have worked within a similar paradigm. Heath (1983) also took a socio-cultural approach to literacy practices in homes and communities.

Debate number 2: The causal possibilities of FLLN programmes

Hannon argued that:

Practice and policy need to be informed by research into the broad category of family literacy programmes and whether any educational programme is more effective than another.

(1999:135)

But, as pointed out in chapter 3, there does not appear to have been a single FLLN study in which two programmes were compared to determine their relative effectiveness. Half of the quantitatively analysed studies had no comparison group, and those which did had only ‘no treatment’ groups. So far, therefore, there is no research basis for claiming that any programme is more effective (in the sense of causing more learning) than another.

Likewise, Auerbach (1989) argued that suggesting that enhanced family literacy interactions will break the cycle of poverty to compensate for problems facing families which are based on structural inequality was deeply problematic (Auerbach 1989). Her voice has been joined by those such as Gonzalez, Moll and Amanti (2005) who have encouraged research by teachers into low-income neighbourhoods which uncovered the huge difficulties that families face when struggling to survive in the increasingly segregated racial ghettos of the USA. Zentella’s (2005) study echoes this approach, and researchers have begun to acknowledge the importance of focusing on local contexts in order to understand the literacy practices of the less powerful. For


www.cfbt.com 144

example, Kell’s (2006) study of women’s literacy practices in a house-building project in South Africa alerts researchers to the problematic relationships between local and global literacies. She argues that inequality constrains many communities within wholly local contexts.

Drawing on sociological theory to explain and describe structural inequality could be the way forward here. Work by Reay (1998), Brooker (2002) and Blackledge (2000), who all studied parents in relation to homes from the perspective of low-income, working class and Asian parents, have highlighted the way in which inequalities were perpetuated within educational systems.

Debate number 3: Do family literacy programmes perpetuate a normative, middle-class version of schooling?

Auerbach is a trenchant critic of the way family literacy programmes can underpin normative models of schooling:

I have found that the way family literacy is defined has critical implications for addressing Rosa’s dilemma. If it is defined narrowly to mean performing school-like literacy activities within the family setting, the socio-contextual demands on family life become obstacles that must be overcome so that learning can take place.

(Auerbach 1989:166)

She echoes Heath (1983) in her question about what family literacy programmes are doing within schools:

But what about those children from homes that do not promote middle-class ‘ways with words’ whose parents are not involved with their children’s schooling or do not speak English?

(Auerbach 1989:168)

Auerbach asks us to question these assumptions:

• language-minority students come from literacy-impoverished homes

• family literacy involves a one-way transfer of skills from parents to children

• success is determined by the parents’ ability to support and extend school-like activities

• school practices are adequate and it is home factors that will determine who succeeds.

These assumptions contribute to discussions about where family literacy is placed on the home/school continuum and how much it is a product of school literacy practices. Much research on home literacy practices reveals a plethora of complex literacies, embedded within a wider web of communicative practices (Heath 1983; Barton and Hamilton 1998; Pahl 2002a). Study after study (Rogers 2003; Gonzalez et al. 2005; Zentella 2005) has refuted the notion that poor, minority and immigrant families don’t value or support literacy development.

Hannon (1999) has referred to the BSA model as a ‘restricted’ form of family literacy programme (the term ‘restricted’ is defined above in 2.3.6). What this thinking revealed is that family literacy is epistemologically and ontologically grounded in a series of assumptions around education, e.g.:

• written language skills are confirmed as the key to power

• families play their part as perpetrators of cultural society values

• education is seen as an economic investment – a tool for economic growth rather than person development.

(Palmer and Rhodes 1994)


www.cfbt.com 145

More recent studies have begun to unpack these ontological and epistemological assumptions and reveal more nuanced accounts of FLLN practices, which put what families actually do in homes at the heart of curriculum and pedagogy. In their work describing a family literacy programme with Somali women in the North of England, Gilbert and Appleby explicitly ask:

What is the relationship between everyday home literacy and communication practices and those pedagogical practices used at the Centre to support the women to learn English?

(Gilbert and Appleby 2005:5)

Concern about the deficit model structuring FLLN and positioning low-income families in certain ways has been critiqued by many researchers (Auerbach 1989, Tett and St Clair 1996, Barton 1994, Pitt 2000). Equally, it has been argued that family literacy pedagogy becomes a form of control – both of mothering in relation to teaching and also of what counts as literacy at home. Whose literacies count, and in what ways, become urgent questions in family literacy pedagogy (Gilbert and Appleby 2005:6–7). This debate has shaped and structured programmes. Hannon argued that:

Auerbach (1995) has gone on to suggest that there is a continuum of programmes from those which ignore pre-existing family literacy to those which see the social context as a rich resource that can inform rather than impede learning.

(Hannon 1999:125)

However, it must be also stated that for many who attend the programmes, positive life changes do occur, as has been raised in a number of evaluations of family literacy programmes (e.g. Davies et al. 2002; Pahl 2004a). The academic concerns below must be placed within this context. There is a difference between the discourses and epistemologies associated with FLLN, with the subsequent academic debates, and the actual practice which is mediated by skilled practitioners in positive and empowering contexts. These debates and discussions, however, might inform and support such empowering models of practice.

Debate number 4: Whose literacies are being supported by family literacy programmes?

In this section, the family literacy conundrum is further unpacked. The review asks whose literacies are being promoted within family literacy programmes. In order to address this question, we consider what we know about families’ FLLN practices in homes, drawing on ethnographic accounts of practice, taken from studies that have considered this in detail.

Knobel and Lankshear (2003) identified four research positions within out-of-school literacy studies:

1. any literacy practice engaged in by a preschool age individual in a setting outside school

2. any literacy practice engaged in by persons of any age within non-school settings

3. any literacy practice engaged in by pre- and school-age individuals in settings outside the school that is not a formally recognised literacy practice within school pedagogy and curriculum

4. any literacy practice engaged in by persons of any age within non-school (formal education) settings that is not a recognised literacy practice belonging to a formal education curriculum or pedagogy.

(Knobel and Lankshear 2004)


www.cfbt.com 146

They identified a study by Pahl (2002a) as belonging in the fourth category. Pahl (2002a, 2004b) described the home literacy practices of three North London families who drew on everyday identities and practices, in order to make meaning. For example, one child, Fatih, made a bead map out of his mother’s prayer beads to represent Turkey, and then played with the map to make the shapes of the UK and Saudi Arabia, countries which were important to him – his uncle was then working in Saudi Arabia, and his mother had migrated to the UK from Turkey (Pahl 2002a). These kinds of practices are often invisible in ‘schooled’ contexts, and also are not recognised as ‘literacy’, yet they are connected to meaning-making.

Other kinds of unrecognised family literacy practices include the use of MSM, email and on-line gaming by young people in homes, in ways that are either not recognised in school literacy programmes or are frowned upon by educators (Marsh 2006). These new, hybrid literacy practices are sometimes linked to digital cultures, which young adults and children use outside school; they are often engaged in by very young children, as shown by Marsh, where she described children as young as three or four using MSM and text messaging in home settings.

In this review, literacy will be seen as a social practice which is situated within the family (Barton and Hamilton 1998). Studies have shown that literacy within families is driven by the families’ ‘ruling passions’ (Barton and Hamilton 1998) and drive for meaning and identity. In homes, meaning tugs learning along. Families make meaning in relation to their ‘habitus’, their ordinary dispositions and practices built up over generations (Pahl 2002b). Studies of home literacy practices have also observed that literacy can only be seen as nested within a wider web of multimodal communicative practices, which themselves are linked to complex social practices.

There have been different ways of conceptualising this:

• literacy as a social practice; literacy practices within families (Barton and Hamilton 1998; Heath 1983; Rogers 2003)

• funds of knowledge in families (Gonzalez et al. 2005)

• communicative practices in families; habitus in texts; multiple literacies (Pahl 2002a, 2004b; Kenner 2004; Knobel and Lankshear 2003).

There have been critiques of the ‘funds of knowledge’ and ‘asset’ metaphors of literacy and numeracy practices within families as informing schooled practice. It has been argued that these metaphors rely too heavily on an economic concept of learning. The assumption is made that these are simply akin to monetary assets which can be carried over into schools. There is also the possibility that families might actually welcome intervention in their literacy practices to support further learning (Hannon 2003). The problematics of home literacy, language and numeracy practices are not sufficiently explored. The role of learning in homes is as yet relatively under-theorised and conceptualised. Apart from the ORIM framework and the work of Rogoff and activity theorists, much home learning can be described, drawing on Bernstein’s typologies, as ‘invisible’ (Hannon and Nutbrown 1997; Rogoff 2003; Bernstein 1996).

Gregory et al. (2004) have argued that it is important to identify literacy practices within families as being intergenerational, linked to sibling support and relationships across generations. Marsh (2006) likewise identified how parents supported children as young as four to access MSM and practices such as text messaging.

A social practice view of literacy is less visible within the adult literacy core curriculum. This can sometimes lead adult literacy students to place themselves in a ‘deficit’ space regarding their literacy practices (Burgess 2002). By focusing on a skills model of literacy in a curriculum, adult literacy students are then placed in a deficit space. Rogers cites an informant on her study, June, who ‘believed that reading and writing was mastery of a set of skills rather than


www.cfbt.com 147

a sociocultural tool’ (Rogers 2003:41). It can therefore be argued that ways of conceptualising literacy matter when looking at family literacy. A model of family literacy needs to find different ways of describing family literacy practices, and to relate these practices to wider communicative practices. This point is made by Gonzalez et al., who point to the funds of knowledge that Latino families hold being embedded within a wider network of family relations:

The person from whom the child learns carpentry, for example, may also be the uncle with whom the child’s family regularly celebrates birthdays or organizes barbecues.

(Gonzalez et al. 2005:214)

In looking at different families, it is clear that the phrase ‘There are different literacies associated with different domains of life’ (Barton and Hamilton 1998:7) needs to be unpacked and infused with the meanings families create and weave as they journey through their lives. Barton and Hamilton’s point that the different languages and literacies are associated with different practices, domains and different contexts of use needs unpacking. While form-filling might be important for one family member, another might need to write her life story before writing her formal letter complaining about damp in her flat.

Part of the challenge in analysing family literacies is to consider what families might have experienced. A focus on narratives of migration and ways in which families adapt to new circumstances is critical when considering family language programmes. Gilbert and Appleby (2005) describe this in their study of Somali women’s experiences in a family literacy programme. Pahl (2004b) looked at the relationship between artefacts in the home, often much treasured and placed in special places, and narratives of migration. A project in Rotherham, on narratives of migration, and artefacts, seeks to understand how Asian families conceptualise changing identities in relation to family narratives, through a family learning project involving the development of a museum exhibition in a Sure Start centre (Pahl and Pollard 2006).

Debate number 5: Whose numeracies are being supported by family numeracy programmes?

The work of family numeracy practice is linked very much to concepts of everyday mathematics and ways of understanding mathematics as a social practice (Street, Baker and Tomlin 2005; Gonzalez et al. 2005). In the research literature and in practitioner accounts, an important aspect of family numeracy was a recognition of different conceptions of notation in mathematics, for example, the western use of the decimal point and the Arabic use of the comma (Milloy 1994). Street, Baker and Tomlin (2005:131) describe the case study of Aaysha, who was observed aged 5 in her home context. Aaysha was observed at school silently counting in threes using her fingers. At home, it became apparent that this was the way she had learned to count. Aaysha’s home cultural resources contributed to her understanding of mathematics at school.

Gonzalez et al. (2005) described a project which involved finding out about home numeracy practices and translating them into mathematical concepts. In order to find out about everyday mathematics, a teacher-researcher formed a mothers’ literature circle in which a sewing lesson was given. When watching the lesson given by the sewing instructor, Marta Civil, the mathematics educator watching the group, realised that, while the mathematics she had learned was connected to an ideological support system that constructed the hegemony of a particular type of mathematics, the mathematics presented there

…goes beyond facile constructs of social context and must take into account the deeply felt relationships of co-participants, the social relationships involved in understanding the practices, as well as the deep engagement of connection with a product and not just a process.



www.cfbt.com 148

Likewise, Colwell (2006:157–161) researched the everyday numeracy practices of women who, while they did not relate to the subject of mathematics, were able to make complex calculations of time and relate these to their lives in a similarly embedded way. Colwell (2006:193-195) also studied upholsterers’ practices and noticed how these were embedded with social relationships and everyday situations.

Johnston similarly observed how women used time in particular ways, in relation to memory and identity, and these practices could be also understood as everyday numeracies (Johnston 2002). Johnston carried out research on measurement with young unemployed people in Australia. She argued that it enriches our understanding of measurement to understand it as a process grown out of the complexities of social conditions (Johnston 1999). She considered that:

In our irredeemably quantified society, a lack of facility with numbers puts us at the mercy of those who are at home with numbers and use them to describe and prescribe our world. One use of numeracy is to be able to engage with such arguments in their own terms. To remain within the discourse of number, however, is to risk blindness to the limits of its use. Learning a craft involves not only skill with the tools, but knowledge of when to use them. Yes, let’s teach people how to measure (and to count and to calculate), but let us ask also about the appropriateness of the measure, let us ask why, who and what we are measuring.

(Johnston 1999:118)

Much of the literature on home numeracies focuses on the issue of different epistemological accounts of what numeracy is in relation to the everyday. Studies by Street, Baker and Tomlin (2005), Colwell (2006), Gonzalez et al. (2005) and Johnston (2002) have begun to address this epistemological and ontological dilemma, and the challenge is to consider how non-school conceptions of numeracy can be translated into useful concepts within a schooled construct. Part of the difficulty lies in debates about whether mathematics can be seen as a social practice, and the work of such researchers as those just mentioned has begun to investigate these possibilities.

Debate number 6: Whose languages are being supported by family language programmes?

Practitioners working with families who speak diverse languages have described needing a pedagogy which allows them to value students’ multilingual resources and focus on these in the classroom (Pahl 2004a). Hornberger’s (2003) ‘Continua of biliteracy’ model describes complex and intersecting relationships across the fields of development, content, media and contexts. The model sets up a continuum within classrooms by which students’ home languages and cultural resources are drawn upon in curriculum and pedagogy. However, this continuum needs to account for those who are less powerful and whose voices hold less sway in institutional settings. Hornberger argued that practitioners need to open up ideological spaces for multiple languages and literacies in the classroom, community and society.

One way forward when working with families who draw on multiple languages is to use an ecological model of language (Pahl in press). One of the challenges for researchers who draw on the ecology metaphor is that this approach to language learning not only asks for attention to identity and learning, but also requires an understanding of the relationship between language, literacy and social environments.

Keating (2005), in her study of Portuguese women who have migrated to London, looked at the role of language and literacy in their lives. She argued that, by focusing on practice as a helpful analytic tool to establish the link between individual doings and understandings and cultural/social ways of using literacy, a way of understanding literacy in everyday life emerged which was dynamic and constantly reconfigured. By drawing on practice theory but, through her


www.cfbt.com 149

ethnographic work, combining this with an understanding of literacy practices as focused on change and transformation, Keating could understand the role of literacy in these women’s lives more precisely. She identified how their values and identifications were present in their literacy practices and yet also how their literacy practices transformed these values and identifications. By focusing on life as lived, and on practices, the role of literacy in everyday life was re-configured as something dynamic and subject to transformation. Keating identified how the women in her study seemed:

…to repeat, to recognise, to reflect upon and to recombine ways with literacy, and in this process, reinvent these practices for themselves.

(Keating 2005:114)

Keating argued that the experience of migration shaped the literacy practices of the women she studied:

Social transition opened space for conflicting, ambiguous and hybrid ways of doing that overlapped the old and the new.

(Keating 2005:106)

Kenner (2004), Brooker (2002), Martin-Jones and Jones (2000) and Blackledge (2000) all researched home multilingual literacy practices. The disjuncture between school and home was particularly evident when schools were unaware of home linguistic competences and did not draw on families’ languages when developing curricular materials or sending letters home (Blackledge 2000).

Debate number 7: What kinds of families are being supported by FLLN programmes?

The discussions by Keating (2005) and others also open up the question of whose view of families is taken by family literacy programme providers. Experiences of migration shape family literacy and language practices. Keating and others have identified how women are often placed in the role of navigating new identities (Martin-Jones and Jones 2000). Gilbert and Appleby observed that:

The way that literacy was used and learned at home was complex, intergenerational and multidirectional. Being a learner was not a fixed identity, but it crossed age, gender and language use with parents, children and siblings simultaneously being learners, interpreters and teachers.

(Gilbert and Appleby 2005:17)

A different view of families would include an analysis which looked at the role of siblings and grandparents (Gregory et al. 2004), and at the role of children in brokering for their parents who may have limited English (Hall 2004), and may include a focus on men and fathers in FLLN programmes (Karther 2002). Feminist thinking, such as that used by Reay and David in their work on education and mothering, has analysed the way in which women are seen as responsible for children’s literacy and positioned as ‘blame worthy’ if they do not adequately support their children (Reay 1998; David et al. 1993). Women tend to be positioned as requiring FLLN programmes, and the role of men in supporting FLLN practices is often neglected.

Current studies of changing families in the UK (Williams 2004) reveal that family lives are changing, with a great diversity of living arrangements and family forms. People continue, however, to be dependent on parents and grandparents, and children are raised in a plethora of more complex arrangements. Household composition has changed. In 1971 there were 6% lone parent families, whereas in 2001 there were 10% lone parent families and more families living in


www.cfbt.com 150

shared arrangements, which might include other members of a family (Williams 2004). Divorce rates have doubled and cohabitation has trebled over 30 years, and the proportion of children living with a lone parent or with cohabiting parents has doubled. The average family size has decreased, and the proportion of the population aged under 16 has decreased. The proportion of women with dependent children who work part-time has trebled, and that of those who work full-time has doubled.

Williams argues that it is important to distinguish between the normative family (what the family should look like) and the lived experience of individuals. When looking at FLLN programmes through this perspective it becomes important to acknowledge the complexity of the lived experience of families today, the role of siblings and grandparents in shaping literacies, etc., and the role of economic migration in shaping everyday lives and identities.

Debate number 8: Whose cultures are being supported by FLLN programmes?

At the heart of this discussion is a consideration of whose cultures are being valued within FLLN programmes. Gonzalez et al. are clear that their work is to redress a balance that had gone out of kilter within education:

A critical assumption in our work is that educational institutions have stripped away the view of working-class minority students as emerging from households rich in social and intellectual resources. Rather than focusing on the knowledge these students bring to school and using it as a foundation for learning, the emphasis has been on what these students lack in terms of the forms of language and knowledge sanctioned by the schools.


Tett and St Clair argued that ‘an individual’s culture is composed of the discourses in which the individual engages’ (Tett and St Clair 1996:369). They also argued that perhaps we need to consider that it is schools that need to change, rather than homes. Pahl and Kelly (2005; Pahl 2004a) described a space opened up by Kelly, a teacher on a family learning programme in Croydon, where students’ home literacy practices, languages and cultures were valued in the classroom, and suggested this was the way to develop family learning programmes. Auerbach suggested drawing on home literacies to shape family literacy programmes:

As these issues emerge, they are explored and transformed into content-based literacy work, so that literacy can in turn become a tool for shaping this social context.

(Auerbach 1989:177)

Likewise, Tett and St Clair voice this view:

We believe that programmes should accommodate and value home-based and community literacies in ways which genuinely engage with the lived experience of children and their families rather than only supporting school-based literacies.

(Tett and St Clair 1996:363)

These analyses have their roots in an epistemology which values what families bring to literacy, language and numeracy classes in school settings. FLLN practices weave in and out of school, home and community settings, crossed by intergenerational practices and voices. Literacy as produced within families is intergenerational and is created with siblings, parents, grandparents and relatives (Gregory, Long and Volk 2004). Many families speak more than one language, and these ‘home’ languages are vital in keeping family relationships alive, often across diasporas, as children write letters to aunts and uncles in different parts of the globe (Kenner 2004). Each


www.cfbt.com 151

family carries with it its own ways of doing and being in the world, and these practices and ways of being all form the ‘habitus’ that informs family practices (Pahl 2002b). In the process of understanding that traces of the habitus can be found sedimented in children’s texts, the enormously important role of families and the cultural resources they bring to schooling can be grasped (Pahl 2006).

Productive pedagogies and principles of family literacy, language and numeracy programmes

In this section, a number of sources are used to provide an indicative set of pedagogies and principles of FLLN programmes. They are not intended to be definitive, but to provide some useful ways of conceptualising good practice, drawn on experience in the field. The key sources for these pedagogies and principles are:

• Tett and St Clair (1996)

• Palmer and Rhodes (1994)

• Rochdale Literacy Policy (2006)

• Barton in the RaPAL Bulletin (1994), updated by Pahl (2006).

There is no one way forward; rather there are some sets of principles which it would be worth considering before embarking on developing an FLLN programme. A principle that may be supplementary to those listed below is to not throw the baby out with the bathwater: it is not compulsory to develop entirely new programmes if existing ones will fill the local bill.

‘Listening to teach’: Tett and St Clair

Tett and St Clair suggest an alternative pedagogy for family literacy programmes:

We would like to propose an alternative approach to literacy. Rather than viewing the home as a site of educationally constructed failure it should rather be seen as a source of diverse influences upon the educational process. … From this perspective the emphasis would be on the recognition of the actual lives and experiences of children, mothers, families and community members rather than a reproduction of a constructed ideal. The voice of parents, significant adults and the children should be given weight in the formation of educational aims.

(Tett and St Clair 1996:372)

This develops the concept of ‘listening to teach’, in which tutors navigate literacy, language and numeracy practices in order to support families’ existing cultural resources (Schultz 2006; Pahl and Kelly 2005). Many tutors already practise this, but more work needs to be done on how and in what way this is achieved (Pahl 2004a).

The tree model: Palmer and Rhodes

Palmer and Rhodes identified how family literacy programmes were linked to the educational aims of society at large through their image of a tree:

If you consider the roots as the accepted cultural and social values underpinning our society’s structures and practices, the trunk as those practices and structures though which our society operates, and the leaves and fruit as the outcomes or applications of those values and practices, it is possible to see very clearly how the hoped-for outcomes of different partners in the family literacy context are linked.



www.cfbt.com 152

Palmer and Rhodes suggested that the following constitute good practice in an FLLN programme.

• Programmes need to build on the strengths of families and the funds of knowledge – the languages, the literacies and complex problem-solving capabilities that family members bring to any learning situation.

• The concepts of literacy and family need problematising prior to the setting up of programmes.

• Research into the actual literacy practices of family members is a necessary component of any family literacy policy and programme.

• Sex, race, economic status and family setting do not necessarily correlate significantly with a generalised competency of ‘Literacy’.


Family learning as inclusive: Rochdale Local Authority’s literacy policy

Rochdale’s literacy policy, Literacy Changes Lives, written by Nan Jackson (Rochdale 2006), offers the following values and principles for Family Learning work. FLLN provision can be seen within the context of these principles.

• Family learning is inclusive and offered as a universal provision with open access. Extra efforts are made to reach families who may be excluded.

• Family learning recognises and values diversity of culture, gender, race and relationships.

• Equal partnership is the basis for all developments in family learning; all learners and educators recognise that they can frequently exchange roles.

• Family learning recognises that it is acceptable to make mistakes, which are part of the process of reflective learning.

• Achievements within family learning benefit the wider learning community through promoting change and empowering individuals and communities.

• Family learning raises aspirations and all outcomes of the process, including those that may not be easily measured, are of equal importance.

Rochdale’s policy and practice is a positive example of a model of family learning which is challenging deficit models, listening to families and incorporates new models, such as creativity, into its provision.

Changing families, changing literacies: Barton updated by Pahl

The following six points have been drawn from David Barton’s introduction to the RaPAL Bulletin special issue on family literacies (Barton 1994). They have been updated to take into account recent reading and sources that develop his arguments further.

1. Literacy is more than book reading. See Pahl (2002a) on ephemeral literacies and family narratives, and Marsh (2006) on communicative practices in homes and digital literacies. Literacy practices in families often sit at the intersection with multimodal texts and are placed within a wider web of communicative practices (Pahl 2002a).

2. Family is more than Mum. Research has looked at the role of siblings, grandparents and others in developing literacies within families. See notion of intergenerational literacies, also siblings and family literacy, and Karther on fathers with low literacy and their young children (Gregory et al. 2004; Karther 2002).


www.cfbt.com 153

3. Schooled literacy practices/home literacy practices operate on a continuum. Family literacy operates at the intersection between home and school, and Pahl and Kelly (2005) have offered the idea of ‘third space theory’ to describe the space of family learning. Marsh (in press) talks of ‘seepage’ between home and school as being a way of conceptualising the way literacies flow across the domains of home and school.

4. Family literacy is lifelong. See Rogers (2003) on ways in which families navigate literacies across generations. Literacies are linked to ruling passions (Barton and Hamilton 1998) and sedimented ways of doing things (Pahl 2002b).

5. Everyone participates in literacy activities. See Gonzalez et al. (2005) on literacy being just one of the things people do in households.

These ways of conceptualising FLLN programmes can be understood as being embedded in both practical experience and epistemological positions. The link between research and practice in FLLN is vital in order to understand that epistemologies are shaping FLLN policy and practice. While many practitioners are already putting these principles into practice, it is hoped that debate and discussion will continue in order to further the pedagogies underpinning FLLN.


www.cfbt.com


www.cfbt.com

PM

S 3

484

01/0

8

IS

BN

978

-0-8

6160

-037

-3

CfBT Education Trust60 Queens RoadReadingBerkshireRG1 4BS

0118 902 1000www.cfbt.com

Documents

RESEARCH PAPER Effective and inclusive practices in family ... - Review of FLLN.pdf · Effective and inclusive practices in family literacy, language and numeracy: a review of programmes