‘Effective and inclusive practices in
family literacy, language and
numeracy’
Professor Greg Brooks and
Dr Kate Pahl
University of Sheffield, England
Context and aims
Context
• Commissioned by CfBT Education Trust
• Funded by CfBT Education Trust &
National Research and Development
Centre for adult literacy and numeracy
Origins of project
• Ran from April 2005 to December 2006.
• Delivered as a collaboration between
researchers at the Institute of Education,
University of London, at Lancaster
University and at the University of
Sheffield
Qualitative and quantitative review
= meta-study
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 review was carried out entirely by
researchers at the University of Sheffield
(Brooks and Pahl)
Meta-study
Aims
• conduct UK-wide & international review of
family literacy, language and numeracy
(FLLN) programmes and practice
• develop international perspective on
effective practices in FLLN
• identify criteria for promising practice and
models of inclusive and diverse FLLN
delivery for wide dissemination
Meta-study
Scope
• used evidence from Britain, Canada,
Germany, Nepal, New Zealand, South
Africa, Turkey, Uganda, the USA, and
PEFaL initiative led by Malta which also
involved Belgium, England, Italy, Lithuania
and Romania
Meta-study
• Inclusive definition of ‘family’
• Inclusive definitions of literacy, oracy and
numeracy
• Holistic & community approaches
• Formal & informal learning
• Respect for learners’ first languages
Values, Beliefs, Epistemologies
Research questions
• How can we define FLLN programmes?
• What are the key debates within the field?
• What values and body of knowledge
under-pin family literacy, numeracy and
language?
• Whose voices do we hear?
• How effective are FLLN programmes?
Definitions of FLLN programmes
• Distinction between FLLN programmes
and literacy, numeracy and language
practices
• 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
Key debates
• The ‘cycle’ of intergenerational underachievement
• Whose version of literacy/numeracy?
‘School’ literacy/numeracy versus home
literacies/numeracies
• Whose languages are drawn upon in
FLLN?
• Whose version of ‘the family’ is salient?
The intergenerational cycle
• The rationale for family literacy in Britain started
by drawing on longitudinal data sets
• In 1993, ALBSU 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’s critique
Hannon, however, urged caution in overreadily drawing conclusions about a direct
correlation between an increase in literacy
levels in parents’ skills and a consequent
increase in children’s literacy.
Also …
• The context provided by parents and their
consistent support may be more important
than any transfer of skills (Auerbach)
And yet …
• It is probably safe to conclude that the
parental involvement form of family literacy
benefits children’s literacy (Hannon)
Literacy practices within families
• Literacy as a social practice; literacy
practices within families
• Funds of knowledge in families
• Communicative practices in families
Values and epistemologies
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)
Values and epistemologies
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.
Values and epistemologies
• By building on families’ strengths, as
Zentella has suggested, families’ cultural
resources can grow
• Many practitioners already do this, and
this should be celebrated
Quantitative findings
Benefits for parents’ skills reported from
test data
• literacy: 3 one-group studies (Family
literacy demonstration programmes,
Family literacy for new groups, Family
literacy and numeracy in prisons)
• but 2 others reported no benefit over
control groups (Even Start, PeFAL)
Quantitative findings, cont.
Benefits for parents’ skills reported from
test data
• language: 2 studies (Early Start, FLAME)
• numeracy: 2 studies (Family numeracy
pilot programmes, Family literacy and
numeracy in prisons)
Parents’ ability to help their
children’s education
Benefits reported by eight studies:
• Bookstart in Birmingham
• Early Start (BSA)
• Family literacy demonstration programmes
(BSA)
• Family literacy for new groups (BSA)
• Family literacy and numeracy in prisons (BSA)
• Family numeracy pilot programmes (BSA)
• FLAME in Chicago
• Ħilti clubs in Malta
Wider benefits for parents
• Mothers’ child-rearing practices (AÇEV,
PEEP)
• Parents’ employment (Family literacy
demonstration programmes, Early Start)
• Parents’ self-confidence (AÇEV, Family
numeracy pilot programmes, Early Start,
Ħilti clubs)
Wider benefits for parents,
cont.
• Parents being more involved with their
children’s schools (AÇEV, Family
numeracy pilot programmes, Family
literacy demonstration programmes,
FLAME, Ħilti clubs)
• Further study (Family literacy
demonstration programmes, Early Start)
Benefits for children’s skills
reported from test data
•
•
•
•
literacy: 12 studies
language: 8 studies
numeracy: 6 studies
7 studies gathered follow-up data; almost
all showed benefits had been sustained
Caveats
Evidence of benefits to parents’ skills is very
thin
No quantitative studies have yet been
carried out into whether:
• 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
The qualitative study:
international evidence
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
The qualitative study:
international evidence, cont.
• Programmes which had a high impact on
participants, recorded either qualitatively
or quantitatively
• Programmes that were clearly described
and well defined and had undertaken
some evaluative strategies
Some threads and themes
• Multimodal forms of delivery and
evaluation evident, drawing on a multiple
range of modes to deliver programmes,
e.g. digital storytelling in Hamburg
• Evaluation through visual methods and
oral storytelling in some contexts, e.g. S.
Africa
Threads and themes, cont.
• Link between indigenous practices and
provision common across many
programmes, e.g. Uganda, Chicago
• Home language practices. In some
contexts, e.g. Southern States of US,
Nepal, this was contentious in relation to
community languages, e.g. Spanish
Threads and themes, cont.
• School readiness. Some programmes, e.g.
AÇEV in Turkey and Verizon in California,
oriented parents towards preparing their
children for school
• Community empowerment model common
- parents supported to deliver training (e.g.
FLAME, Chicago), link to wider benefits
such as health in Nepal and Canada
• Link to support for parenting in Turkey and
Canada
Future directions
• Programmes are moving towards a more
holistic view of family literacy, language
and numeracy that acknowledges the way
in which women are positioned within
families, and many of the programmes
focus on women’s goals in changing their
lives
• Fathers in family literacy were still
relatively absent. One notable exception is
the father education programme in Turkey
Conclusions
• 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
Some concerns
• 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 its role has now diminished and not
been taken up in full by any other organisation
• Leadership for the field remains a pressing issue
• Funding for children’s participation remains a
hazy area
Current practice
• 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 local authorities can lead the way in
listening to families, taking account of their
linguistic and cultural resources, and developing
a framework for delivery
Community-focused provision
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
Where next?
• Need to include a research-led focus to
programmes
• Visibility of epistemological stance was
found in programmes such as AÇEV in
Turkey and FLAME in Chicago, where
university researchers were closely
involved with the projects
• Policy development and leadership
needed in UK