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

Full text

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 Rees
University of Sheffield, NRDC
RESEARCH
PAPER

Welcome to CfBT Education Trust
www.cfbt.com 2
Effective and inclusive practices in family literacy, language and numeracy:
a review of programmes and practice in the UK and internationally
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
Effective and inclusive practices in family literacy, language and numeracy:
a review of programmes and practice in the UK and internationally
• 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
Effective and inclusive practices in family literacy, language and numeracy:
a review of programmes and practice in the UK and internationally
This review is dedicated to the memor y of Sheila Wolfendale.
Rosa
Why I didn’t do the homework
Because the phone is ringing
The door is noking
The kid is yumping
The food is burning
Time runs fast.
Rosa (Auerbach 1989)
Lem
Way far
Now
It a Church bell
Ringin’
Dey singin’
You hear it?
I hear it
Far
Now
(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
Effective and inclusive practices in family literacy, language and numeracy:
a review of programmes and practice in the UK and internationally

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

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

Effective and inclusive practices in family literacy, language and numeracy:
a review of programmes and practice in the UK and internationally
www.cfbt.com 8
Project team for this meta-study
Acknowledgements
Independent peer review
Prof. Greg Brooks, project director
Dr 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 Croydon
Beryl Bateson, Birmingham LA
Dave Baker, Institute of Education, University
of London
Viv Bird, National Literacy Trust
Snoeks Desmond, Family Literacy Project,
KwaZulu-Natal
Peter Hannon, University of Sheffield
Rachel Hodge, Lancaster University
Nan Jackson, Rochdale LA
Wendy Leak, Rotherham Central Sure Start
Desiree Lopez, NRDC, Institute of Education,
University of London
Yvonne Spare, University of Sheffield
Carol 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 Lawlor
Jeanne Haggart
Jeff Evans
John Vorhaus
Andrea Mearing
Cathie Clarke
Morwenna Vernon
Beryl Bateson
Carol Taylor
Desiree Lopez
Amy Butler

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

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

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

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

Effective and inclusive practices in family literacy, language and numeracy:
a review of programmes and practice in the UK and internationally
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
1980s
Increasing central control
1990s
Family Literacy
Practice
2000s
Increasing 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).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Effective and inclusive practices in family literacy, language and numeracy:
a review of programmes and practice in the UK and internationally
www.cfbt.com 22
Reference number
and name
1. Bookstart – 2 studies
2. Boots Books for Babies
3. Child-to-child programme
4. Dialogic reading
5. Early Start (Basic Skills Agency)
6. Even Start – 2 studies
7. Family literacy demonstration
programmes (Basic Skills
Agency)
8. Family literacy for new groups
(Basic Skills Agency)
9. Family literacy and numeracy
in prisons (Basic Skills Agency)
literacy, with some
language and
numeracy data
literacy
literacy, language and
numeracy
literacy and language
language
literacy and language
literacy
literacy and language
literacy and numeracy
England
(1A Birmingham)
England
(1B Sheffield)
England (Nottingham
City and County)
South Africa
(Mpumalanga district,
KwaZulu-Natal)
England (Sheffield)
England
USA (6A – In-Depth
Study)
USA (6B – National
Study)
England and Wales
(Cardiff, Liverpool,
Norfolk, North Tyneside)
England and Wales
England
Age 2-3: 28 + 29
Ages 5 and 7: n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
2001/02: 592
2003: 435, of whom 213
returned qres
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
(2001/02: n/a)
2003: not stated but
presumably 435
101 + 98 reducing to
84 + 75
?
392
316
44
Matched groups,
post-test only
Matched groups,
post-test only
Unmatched groups,
‘post-test’ only
One group pre/post
study, with opportunistic
comparison group at
post-test
Matched groups RCT
One group pre/post
study
RCT
One group pre/post
study
One group pre/post
study, with comparison
group only at 3-year
follow-up
One group pre/post
study
One group pre/post
study
Table 1: The projects analysed quantitatively, and basic information about them 1 of 2
Literacy, language
or numeracy
Country
(and area*)
Numbers ** of Research design
parents children
* Areas are named only when very specific.
** Where two numbers are shown, the second is for the control/comparison group.
RCT = randomised controlled trial
n/a = not available

Effective and inclusive practices in family literacy, language and numeracy:
a review of programmes and practice in the UK and internationally
www.cfbt.com 23
Reference number
and name
10. Family numeracy pilot
programmes (Basic Skills
Agency)
11. FLAME – Family Literacy –
Aprendiendo, Mejorando,
Educando (Learning, Improving,
Educating)
12.
Ħ
ilti clubs
13. MOCEP (Mother-Child
Education Program)
14. PEEP (Peers Early Education
Partnership) – 2 studies
15. PEFaL (Parent Empowerment
through Family Literacy)
16. REAL (Raising Early
Achievement in Literacy)
numeracy
literacy and language
literacy and language
literacy, language and
numeracy
literacy, language and
numeracy
literacy
literacy, language
England
USA
(Chicago)
Malta
Turkey
England (Oxford) (14A –
Foundation PEEP)
England (Oxford) (14B –
Birth To School Study)
Malta
England (Sheffield)
517
189
257
102 + 115
n/a
294 +297 reducing to
210 + 225
46 + 21
88 + 88
215 overall; 148 + 144
in matched groups
120
365
102 + 115
64 + 83
301 + 303 reducing to
215 + 230
54 + 40
88 + 88
Mainly one group
pre/post study, with
matched group sub-
samples of children
One group pre/post
study
One group, post-test-
only study
Matched-groups
pre-test/post-test
quasi-experimental
studies
Matched-groups,
pre-test/post-test
quasi-experimental
studies
Quasi-RCT
RCT
Table 1: The projects analysed quantitatively, and basic information about them 2 of 2
Literacy, language
or numeracy
Country
(and area*)
Numbers ** of Research design
parents children
* Areas are named only when very specific.
** Where two numbers are shown, the second is for the control/comparison group.
RCT = randomised controlled trial

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

Effective and inclusive practices in family literacy, language and numeracy:
a review of programmes and practice in the UK and internationally
www.cfbt.com 25
Reference number
and name
16. REAL
4. Dialogic reading
6. Even Start –
In-Depth Study
114B. PEEP (BTSS)
13. MOCEP
14A. PEEP
(Foundation)
10. Family numeracy
pilot programmes
Matched pairs RCT
Matched pairs RCT
RCT
Matched-groups,
pre-test/post-test
quasi-experimental
study
Matched-groups
pre-test/post-test
quasi-experimental
study
Matched-groups,
pre-test/post-test
quasi-experimental
study
Matched-groups,
pre/post
n/a
n/a
Benefit to general educational
qualifications but not to literacy
Some benefit to mothers’ caregiving
Age 6: Benefits to mothers’ child-
rearing practices and self-esteem
Age 7 follow-up: Benefit to mothers’
child-rearing practices maintained,
and mothers reported as more
involved with their children’s schools
n/a
Age 5: Benefits to mothers’ self-
confidence and involvement with their
children’s schools; also, tutors reported
benefits to mothers’ numeracy and
ability to help their children
3-year follow-up: Parents rated by
their children’s teachers as more
involved than comparison group with
their children’s schools
Age 5: Benefit to literacy but not
vocabulary
Age 7: Benefit to literacy of children
whose mothers had no educational
qualifications, but not overall
Probably no benefit, and very small if
it existed
No advantage over controls
Mixed results, no overall benefit
Ages 3, 4 and 5: Benefits for literacy
and language, but possibly negative
for numeracy
Age 6: Benefits for literacy, language
and numeracy
Age 7 follow-up: Benefits for literacy
and numeracy maintained
End of schooling: higher average grade
University: higher proportion attending
Ages 4 and 5: Benefits for literacy,
language and numeracy
Age 5: Benefit to early numeracy
3-year follow-up: Participating children
rated by their teachers somewhat
better in school than comparison
group
Table 2: Summar y of findings from the quantitative analyses 1 of 3
Research design
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. PEFaL Quasi-RCT Mixed results, no overall benefit46 + 21 54 + 40
301 + 303 reducing
to 215 + 230
102 + 115
64 + 83
215 overall; 148
+ 144 in matched
groups
Numbers of
parents children
Benefits for
parents children

Effective and inclusive practices in family literacy, language and numeracy:
a review of programmes and practice in the UK and internationally
www.cfbt.com 26
Reference number
and name
1A. Bookstart –
Birmingham
1B. Bookstart –
Sheffield
2. Boots Books for
Babies
3. Child-to-child
programme
5. Early Start
6. Even Start – NEIS
Matched groups, post-
test only
Matched groups,
post-test only
Unmatched groups,
‘post-test’ only
One group
pre/post study,
with opportunistic
comparison group at
post-test
One group pre/post
study
One group pre/post
study
Age 2½–3: Benefit to ability to help
their children
n/a
n/a
n/a
Self-reported benefits to self-
confidence, language, ability to
help their children, education and
employment
No benefit
Age 2½–3: Benefit to engagement
with books
Ages 5 and 7: Benefits to literacy
and numeracy
Benefits to literacy and numeracy
Benefit to use of libraries
Benefits for literacy, language and
numeracy, but very small
Benefits for children’s language
reported by the parents
(evidence not accessed)
Table 2: Summar y of findings from the quantitative analyses 2 of 3
Research design
Age 2–3: 28 + 29
Ages 5 and 7: n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
2001/02: 592
2003: 435, of
whom 213 returned
qres
?
Age 2–3: 28 + 29
Ages 5 and 7:
41 + 41
23 + 23
c.1700 + c.600
20 + 12
7. Family literacy
demonstration
programmes
One group pre/post
study, with comparison
group only at 2½-year
follow-up
Benefits to literacy and ability to
help their children
3- and 9-month follow-ups:
Continuing improvement in above
benefits
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 3–6: Benefits to literacy and
language
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
361 392
2001/02: n/a
2003: not stated
but presumably
435
?
Numbers of
parents children
Benefits for
parents children

Effective and inclusive practices in family literacy, language and numeracy:
a review of programmes and practice in the UK and internationally
www.cfbt.com 27
Reference number
and name
8. Family literacy for
new groups
9. Family literacy
and numeracy in
prisons
11. FLAME
12.
Ħ
ilti clubs
One group pre/post
study
One group pre/post
study
One group pre/post
study
One group post-test-
only study
Linguistic minorities and Year 4:
Benefits to literacy and ability to help
their children
(Year 7: Not enough evidence)
Benefits to literacy, numeracy and
ability to help their children
Benefits to language, ability to help
their children, and involvement with
their children’s schools
Benefits to self-confidence, ability to
help their children, and involvement
with their children’s schools
Linguistic minorities and Year 4:
Benefits to literacy and language
(Year 7: Not enough evidence)
Benefits to literacy and language
Benefits to literacy
Questionnaire evidence of benefits
to literacy and positive attitudes to
school
Table 2: Summar y of findings from the quantitative analyses 3 of 3
Research design
349
43
189
257
316
44
120
365
Numbers of
parents children
Benefits for
parents children

Effective and inclusive practices in family literacy, language and numeracy:
a review of programmes and practice in the UK and internationally
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,
Ħ
ilti 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,
Ħ
ilti clubs)
• parents being more involved with their
children’s schools (MOCEP, Family
numeracy pilot programmes, Family literacy
demonstration programmes, FLAME,
Ħ
ilti
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
(
Ħ
ilti 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 repor ted benefits,
all from test data (MOCEP, Foundation
PEEP, the PEEP Birth To School Study,
Child-to-Child programme, Family literacy
demonstration programmes, Family literacy

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

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

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

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

Effective and inclusive practices in family literacy, language and numeracy:
a review of programmes and practice in the UK and internationally
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
Context
This 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 provision
The ‘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 outputs
The 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.

Effective and inclusive practices in family literacy, language and numeracy:
a review of programmes and practice in the UK and internationally
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.
References
Camilleri, 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
İ
stanbul 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/
Qual i F LY/
Hamburg (part of QualiFLY)
Type of programme: literacy and
language
Context
In 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.

Effective and inclusive practices in family literacy, language and numeracy:
a review of programmes and practice in the UK and internationally
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 context
This 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 project
The 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.
Evaluation
The 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 project
The programme has since continued, and
grown to include fathers. A pilot fathers
programme was developed in 1996 at a public

Effective and inclusive practices in family literacy, language and numeracy:
a review of programmes and practice in the UK and internationally
www.cfbt.com 36
education centre in
İ
stanbul. 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
İ
stanbul
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.
References
Bekman, S. (1998) A Fair Chance: An
Evaluation of the Mother-Child Education
Program,
İ
stanbul: Mother-Child Education
Foundation Publications.
Koçak, A.A. (2004) Evaluation Report of the
Father-Child Suppor t Program.
İ
stanbul:
Mother-Child Education Foundation
Publications.
Ka ˘gıtçıba ¸s ı, Ç., Bekman, S., Özkök, Ü.S. and
Ku ¸s çul, Ö.H. (1995) Anne Destek Programı
el kitabı (Handbook of Mother Support
Program). Anne Çocuk E ˘gitim Vakfi Yayınları
No.1 (Mother-Child Education Foundation
publication No.1).
İ
stanbul: 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

Effective and inclusive practices in family literacy, language and numeracy:
a review of programmes and practice in the UK and internationally
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/
se ti_ ov er. html
References
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.
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
Context
The 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.
Settings
The project was set in two schools, Bairds
Mainfreight Primary School on Otara and

Effective and inclusive practices in family literacy, language and numeracy:
a review of programmes and practice in the UK and internationally
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.
Evaluation
The 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).
Reference
Benseman, 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
Context
This 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 Africa
There 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 epistemologies
This project takes as its starting point the
concept, from Morrow (1995:5), that we should
be providing ‘environments which enable adult

Effective and inclusive practices in family literacy, language and numeracy:
a review of programmes and practice in the UK and internationally
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 project
The 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 2003
The 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.

Effective and inclusive practices in family literacy, language and numeracy:
a review of programmes and practice in the UK and internationally
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 20 04–05
The 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.
References
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 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.

Effective and inclusive practices in family literacy, language and numeracy:
a review of programmes and practice in the UK and internationally
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
Context
In 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 project
The 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.
Evaluation
Evaluations 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
Context
The 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

Effective and inclusive practices in family literacy, language and numeracy:
a review of programmes and practice in the UK and internationally
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.
Project
The 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.
Evaluation
The 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: vishna@education.ucsb.edu.
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.
Reference
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.

Effective and inclusive practices in family literacy, language and numeracy:
a review of programmes and practice in the UK and internationally
www.cfbt.com 43
4.8. 2 Project FLAME, Chicago
Type of programme: family literacy
and language
Context
Project 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.
Project
The 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.
Evaluation
Evaluations 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).
Reference
Rodríguez-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

Effective and inclusive practices in family literacy, language and numeracy:
a review of programmes and practice in the UK and internationally
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)
History
A 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).
Project
In 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 workshops
Seventeen 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-courses
There 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 development
It 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.
Evaluation
In 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

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

Effective and inclusive practices in family literacy, language and numeracy:
a review of programmes and practice in the UK and internationally
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 par t 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-repor ted 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.

Effective and inclusive practices in family literacy, language and numeracy:
a review of programmes and practice in the UK and internationally
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 Families
Keeping Up with the Children
Early Start *
Family literacy programmes within Sure Start
Family numeracy *
IMPACT
Bookstart * 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.
‘‘
‘‘

Effective and inclusive practices in family literacy, language and numeracy:
a review of programmes and practice in the UK and internationally
www.cfbt.com 48
* Can be extended. See Family Programmes: Guidance for Local Learning and Skills Councils and Local Authorities 2005/06.
Source: Heathcote and Brooks (2005), p.8, updated from information kindly supplied by Penny Lamb
Table 4: Overview of approved FLLN courses in England, 2005/06
Name of
programme
Children’s age
range covered
Parent/carer and
child, or parent/
carer only?
Taster/Workshop
Usually 2–4 hours*
Introductory
Usually 9–13 hours*
Short
Usually 30–49 hours*
Intensive
Usually 72–96 hour*
(but can be from
60 hours)
Play and Language 0–3 years Parent/carer
and child
3 3
Early Start:
Baby Talk 0–1 year;
Small Talk 1–2 years;
Talk Together 2–3
years
0–3 years
Parent/carer
and child
3
Playing with Language 3–5 years Parent/carer
and child
3 3
Family Literacy 3 years + Parent/carer
and child
3 3 3
Family Numeracy 3 years + Parent/carer
and child
3 3 3
Combined Family
Literacy and/or
Language and/or
Numeracy
5 years +
Parent/carer
and child
3
3
Keeping Up with the
Children
School age Parent/carer only 3 3 3
Skills for Families
Springboard
School age Parent/carer only 3
Family Finance School age Parent/carer
and child
3
3

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

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

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

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

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

Effective and inclusive practices in family literacy, language and numeracy:
a review of programmes and practice in the UK and internationally
www.cfbt.com 54
References
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.
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.
References
Bailey, 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.

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

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

Effective and inclusive practices in family literacy, language and numeracy:
a review of programmes and practice in the UK and internationally
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.
References
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)
1998–200 5. (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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Effective and inclusive practices in family literacy, language and numeracy:
a review of programmes and practice in the UK and internationally
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)
1998–200 5. (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)
1998–200 5. (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.

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

Effective and inclusive practices in family literacy, language and numeracy:
a review of programmes and practice in the UK and internationally
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 Programı
el kitabı (Handbook of Mother Support
Program). Anne Çocuk E ˘gitim Vakfi Yayınları
No.1 (Mother-Child Education Foundation
publication No.1).
İ
stanbul: 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 Suppor t Program,
İ
stanbul:
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.

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

Effective and inclusive practices in family literacy, language and numeracy:
a review of programmes and practice in the UK and internationally
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,
p p.1 26 – 4 6 .
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
Ħ
ilti 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.

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

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

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

Effective and inclusive practices in family literacy, language and numeracy:
a review of programmes and practice in the UK and internationally
www.cfbt.com 73
1A. Bookstar t 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.

Effective and inclusive practices in family literacy, language and numeracy:
a review of programmes and practice in the UK and internationally
www.cfbt.com 74
Analysis of quantitative data (1): Changes in parents’ ability to help their children
1 Serial number of study analysed 1A
2 Name of study Bookstart in Birmingham
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)
Sourc e: Wade and Moor e (1996a, 1997 ), Moore an d Wade (2003 )
Overall, these results suggest benefits to parents’ ability to help their children.

Effective and inclusive practices in family literacy, language and numeracy:
a review of programmes and practice in the UK and internationally
www.cfbt.com 75
Analysis of quantitative data (2): Children’s behaviour while sharing book at age 2–3
1 Serial number of study analysed 1A
2 Name of study Bookstart in Birmingham
3 Date when programme implemented 1992; this stage of the evaluation conducted in 1994
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
7 N of experimental group 28
8 N of comparison group 29
9 Equivalence of groups Matched on month of birth, family SES and
distribution of parents’ ages
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 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
Sourc es: Wade and Moo re (1996b), Mo ore and Wade ( 2003)
All differences were significant and in favour of the Bookstart group.

Effective and inclusive practices in family literacy, language and numeracy:
a review of programmes and practice in the UK and internationally
www.cfbt.com 76
Analysis of quantitative data (3): Children’s attainment in Baseline
assessment at age 5
1 Serial number of study analysed 1A
2 Name of study Bookstart in Birmingham
3 Date when programme implemented 1992; this stage of the evaluation conducted in 1997
4 What data are analysed in this table? Benefits to children’s skills at age 5
5 Age range of participants 5
6 Type of participants Children
7 N of experimental group 41
8 N of comparison group 41
9 Equivalence of groups Matched on date of birth, gender, home language,
ethnicity, and nursery experience
10 Length of intervention in weeks 0
11 Instrument used Baseline (school entry) assessments
12 Ratio gains n/a
13 Effect sizes See below
14 Statistical significances 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
S
ignificance
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
Sourc e: Wade and Moor e (1998b)
Key: ns = statistically non-signif icant; s.d. = sta ndard deviation
Effect sizes were ca lculated u sing the comparison g roup’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.

Effective and inclusive practices in family literacy, language and numeracy:
a review of programmes and practice in the UK and internationally
www.cfbt.com 77
Analysis of quantitative data (4): Children’s attainment in Key Stage 1
assessments at age 7
1 Serial number of study analysed 1A
2 Name of study Bookstart in Birmingham
3 Date when programme implemented 1992; this stage of the evaluation conducted in 1999
4 What data are analysed in this table? Benefits to children’s skills at age 7
5 Age range of participants 7
6 Type of participants Children
7 N of experimental group 41
8 N of comparison group 41
9 Equivalence of groups Matched on date of birth, gender, home language,
ethnicity, and nursery experience
10 Length of intervention in weeks 0
11 Instrument used Key Stage 1 (age 7) assessments
12 Ratio gains n/a
13 Effect sizes Were not stated and could not be calculated
14 Statistical significances See 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
Sourc e: Wade and Moor e (2000)
Key: TA = teacher assessment
N.B. The scores shown a re average Na tional Cur riculum (NC) levels. T hey have bee n deduced from
Table 5.3 in Wade an d Moore (200 0, p.43), where no ac tual figu res are give n.
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.

Effective and inclusive practices in family literacy, language and numeracy:
a review of programmes and practice in the UK and internationally
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)
7 What data, if any, are reported on wider benefits
of learning?
None
8 What follow-up data, if any, are reported? None
9 What data, if any, are reported on comparison
groups?
Direct evidence of benefits to children’s skills (i.e.
test data)
10
What impact measures, if any, can be
calculated?
None
11 If the programme appears to have been
effective, what insights into why it was effective
can be derived from the report?
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.

Effective and inclusive practices in family literacy, language and numeracy:
a review of programmes and practice in the UK and internationally
www.cfbt.com 79
Analysis of quantitative data (5): Benefits to children’s language and literacy
1 Serial number of study analysed 1B
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
7 N of experimental group 23
8 N of comparison group 23
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
13 Effect sizes Were not stated and could not be calculated
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.

Effective and inclusive practices in family literacy, language and numeracy:
a review of programmes and practice in the UK and internationally
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
6 What impact data are reported?
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
7 What data, if any, are reported on wider benefits
of learning?
None
8 What follow-up data, if any, are reported? None
9 What data, if any, are reported on comparison
groups?
Baby registrations in seven ‘unseen comparison
group’ non-Boots Books for Babies libraries.
Rates of borrowing in non-project libraries could not
be gathered.
10
What impact measures, if any, can be
calculated?
None
11 If the programme appears to have been
effective, what insights into why it was effective
can be derived from the report?
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.
12 Any other comments
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’.

Effective and inclusive practices in family literacy, language and numeracy:
a review of programmes and practice in the UK and internationally
www.cfbt.com 81
Analysis of quantitative data (6): Impact on registrations and book-borrowing
1 Serial number of study analysed 2
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)
9 Equivalence of groups
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
14 Statistical significances Were not stated and could not be calculated
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: 6
1999: 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.

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

Effective and inclusive practices in family literacy, language and numeracy:
a review of programmes and practice in the UK and internationally
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
1 Serial number of study analysed 3
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)
7 What data, if any, are reported on wider benefits
of learning?
None
8 What follow-up data, if any, are reported? None
9 What data, if any, are reported on comparison
groups?
Post-test data only
10
What impact measures, if any, can be
calculated?
None
11 If the programme appears to have been
effective, what insights into why it was effective
can be derived from the report?
Dedication of staff
12 Any other comments
Very valuable report from a completely different set
of circumstances from most of the programmes
analysed in this study

Effective and inclusive practices in family literacy, language and numeracy:
a review of programmes and practice in the UK and internationally
www.cfbt.com 84
Analysis of quantitative data: Benefits to children’s literacy, language and numeracy
1 Serial number of study analysed 3
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
5 Age range of participants 6–7
6 Type of participants Children living in ‘deeply rural and mountainous
areas of south-western KwaZulu-Natal’
7 N of experimental group 20
8 N of control group 12
9 Equivalence of groups
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
13 Effect sizes Were not stated and could not be calculated
14 Statistical significances Were not stated and could not be calculated
Analysis of quantitative data: Benefits to children’s literacy, language and numeracy
Test Programme group
(N = 20)
Control group
(N = 12)
Difference
between
groups,
post
Average,
pre
Average,
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’ re fers to an acti vity in which ch ildren sorted four pi ctures into the correct sequence and exp lained 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.

Effective and inclusive practices in family literacy, language and numeracy:
a review of programmes and practice in the UK and internationally
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
1 Serial number of study analysed 4
2 Name of study Dialogic reading
3 Reference Morgan (2005)
4 Study design Randomised matched-pairs controlled trial (RCT)
5 Focus of study Literacy and language
6 What impact data are reported? Direct evidence of benefits to children’s skills
(test data)
7 What data, if any, are reported on wider benefits
of learning?
None
8 What follow-up data, if any, are reported? None
9 What data are reported on the control group? Direct evidence of benefits to children’s skills (test
data)
10
What impact measures, if any, can be
calculated?
One effect size
11 If the programme appears to have been
effective, what insights into why it was effective
can be derived from the report?
Not particularly effective
12 Any other comments The small samples are a severe limitation and may
have contributed to the lack of significant findings.

Effective and inclusive practices in family literacy, language and numeracy:
a review of programmes and practice in the UK and internationally
www.cfbt.com 86
Analysis of quantitative data: Benefits to children’s literacy development
1 Serial number of study analysed 4
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
9 Equivalence of groups
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.
10 Length of intervention in weeks 6
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.

Effective and inclusive practices in family literacy, language and numeracy:
a review of programmes and practice in the UK and internationally
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
average (s.d.) average (s.d.)
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
1 Serial number of study analysed 5
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)
6 What impact data are reported?
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)
7 What data, if any, are reported on wider
benefits of learning?
Numbers of parents who
– achieved accreditation
– were interested in further study
– were interested in employment
Continued…

Effective and inclusive practices in family literacy, language and numeracy:
a review of programmes and practice in the UK and internationally
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
10
What impact measures, if any, can be
calculated?
Effect sizes
11 If the programme appears to have
been effective, what insights into why
it was effective can be derived from
the report?
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 bet ween home and school or centre
• recruitment of parents and taster sessions
• impor tance of crèche facilities
• oppor tunities 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 Star t’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.

Effective and inclusive practices in family literacy, language and numeracy:
a review of programmes and practice in the UK and internationally
www.cfbt.com 89
Analysis of quantitative data: Benefits to children’s literacy development
1 Serial number of study analysed 5
2 Name of study Early Start
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
5 Age range of participants Not stated
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
13 Effect sizes See below
14 Statistical significances See below
Benefits to parents on 2001/02 programmes
Number of parents who
repor ted that they had:
Not at all A little Significantly A great deal
N % N % N % N % Tot al
– 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

Effective and inclusive practices in family literacy, language and numeracy:
a review of programmes and practice in the UK and internationally
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 confident
Mid-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 = n umber of responses; ave = average rati ng; s.d. = standa rd deviation; ns = statisti cally non -signif icant
All other t-values are significa nt at p<0.001.
Effect sizes were ca lculated u sing the pre -test s.d.’s as the diviso rs.
Wider benefits for parents in 20 01/02
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
1 Serial number of study analysed 5
2 Name of study Early Start
3 Date when programme implemented 2001–03
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)
9 Equivalence of groups n/a
10 Length of intervention 30–40 hours
11 Instrument used (2001/02: n/a)
2003: questionnaire to parents
12 Ratio gains n/a
13 Effect sizes See below
14 Statistical significances See below

Effective and inclusive practices in family literacy, language and numeracy:
a review of programmes and practice in the UK and internationally
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
Beginning of course End of course Gain
Effect
size
t
N ave (s.d.) ave (s.d.)
‘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 = n umber of responses; ave = average rati ng; s.d. = standa rd deviation
All t-value s are significant at p< 0.001.
Effect sizes were ca lculated u sing the pre -test s.d.’s as the diviso rs.
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
Beginning of course End of course Gain
Effect
size
t
N ave (s.d.) ave (s.d.)
‘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 res ponses; ave = average ratin g; s.d. = standar d deviation; ns = statistically non-signifi cant
All other t-values are significa nt at p<0.001.
Effect sizes were ca lculated u sing the pre -test s.d.’s as the diviso rs.

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

Effective and inclusive practices in family literacy, language and numeracy:
a review of programmes and practice in the UK and internationally
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
1 Serial number of study analysed 6
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)
7 What data, if any, are reported on wider benefits
of learning?
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
10
What impact measures, if any, can be
calculated?
One effect size
11 If the programme appears to have been
effective, what insights into why it was effective
can be derived from the report?
Not effective
12 Any other comments None

Effective and inclusive practices in family literacy, language and numeracy:
a review of programmes and practice in the UK and internationally
www.cfbt.com 94
Analysis of quantitative data (1): Effect on parents’ attainment
1 Serial number of study analysed 6
2 Name of study Even Start
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
5 Age range of participants Not stated
6 Type of participants Parents living in five Even Start areas; by definition,
all were areas of multiple deprivation
7 N of experimental group 84
8 N of comparison group 75
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
14 Statistical significances
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.

Effective and inclusive practices in family literacy, language and numeracy:
a review of programmes and practice in the UK and internationally
www.cfbt.com 95
Analysis of quantitative data (2): Effect on children’s literacy
1 Serial number of study analysed 6
2 Name of study Even Start
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
5 Age range of participants 4–5
6 Type of participants Children living in five Even Start areas; by definition,
all were areas of multiple deprivation
7 N of experimental group 84
8 N of control group 75
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
13 Effect sizes See below
14 Statistical significances Were not stated and could not be calculated
Effect on children’s emerging literacy
Intervention group Control group
average (s.d.) average (s.d.)
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.

Effective and inclusive practices in family literacy, language and numeracy:
a review of programmes and practice in the UK and internationally
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
1 Serial number of study analysed 7
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)
6 What impact data are reported?
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)
7 What data, if any, are reported on wider benefits
of learning?
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 improve
Children’s skills at least maintained
Parents having gone on to further study
Parents having gained new or better job
Parents more involved with children’s schools
Continued…

Effective and inclusive practices in family literacy, language and numeracy:
a review of programmes and practice in the UK and internationally
www.cfbt.com 97
Basic information continued
9 What data, if any, are reported on
control/comparison groups?
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
10
What impact measures, if any, can
be calculated?
(Some) effect sizes
11 If the programme appears to have been
effective, what insights into why it was effective
can be derived from the report?
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
1 Serial number of study analysed 7
2 Name of study Family literacy demonstration programmes (Basic
Skills Agency)
3 Date when programme implemented 1994–95
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
8 N of comparison group (No comparison group)
9 Equivalence of groups n/a
10 Length of intervention in weeks 12
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
13 Effect sizes See below
14 Statistical significances p<0.05 for all three reading subtests and for writing

Effective and inclusive practices in family literacy, language and numeracy:
a review of programmes and practice in the UK and internationally
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
average (s.d.) average (s.d.)
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 we re allocated to levels of the reading test according to the tutors’ ju dgement s; most paren ts attempted more than one level.
Reading scores rep resent number of correct answers.
Writing wa s impress ion-mar ked on a scale of 1 (low) to 7 (high).
S.d.’s of gains were not st ated.
Effect sizes were ca lculated by d ividing the gains by the pre-test s.d.

Effective and inclusive practices in family literacy, language and numeracy:
a review of programmes and practice in the UK and internationally
www.cfbt.com 99
Analysis of quantitative data (2): Benefits to children’s language and literacy
1 Serial number of study analysed 7
2 Name of study Family literacy demonstration programmes (Basic
Skills Agency)
3 Date when programme implemented 1994–95
4 What data are analysed in this table? Children’s pre- and post-test language and literacy
data
5 Age range of participants 3:00–6:11 (at beginning of course)
6 Type of participants
Children in disadvantaged areas in Cardiff,
Liverpool, Norfolk and North Tyneside; 50% female;
92% white; 97% monolingual English-speaking
7 N of experimental group 392 at pre-test; for post-test Ns see below
8 N of comparison group (No comparison group)
9 Equivalence of groups n/a
10 Length of intervention in weeks 12
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
12 Ratio gains Were not stated and could not be calculated
13 Effect sizes See below
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
average (s.d.) average (s.d.)
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 chil dren were as sessed fo r emergin g writing, using the 7-point criterion-referenc ed scale devised by Tom Gorman and illustrated in
Gorman and Brooks (1996).
Only ch ildren age d 4:00+ at the beg inning of th e course we re tested for voc abular y, and only tho se aged 5:00+ at t he beginn ing of the
course for reading.
Vocabulary and reading scor es are standardised; n ational ave rage = 100, s.d. = 15.
S.d.’s of gains were not st ated.
Effect s izes for voc abular y and reading were calc ulated by div iding the gains by the national s.d.; the ef fect size for writing by dividing th e
gain by the p re-test s.d.

Effective and inclusive practices in family literacy, language and numeracy:
a review of programmes and practice in the UK and internationally
www.cfbt.com 10 0
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.

Effective and inclusive practices in family literacy, language and numeracy:
a review of programmes and practice in the UK and internationally
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
1 Serial number of study analysed 8
2 Name of study Family literacy for new groups (Basic Skills Agency)
3 Reference Brooks et al. (1999)
4 Study design One-group pre-test/post-test study
5 Focus of study Literacy (parents and children)
6 What impact data are reported?
Direct evidence of benefits to parents’ skills
(test data)
Direct evidence of benefits to children’s skills
(test data)
7 What data, if any, are reported on wider benefits
of learning?
Parents’ intentions to go on to further study,
involvement with children’s schools
8 What follow-up data, if any, are reported? None
9 What data, if any, are reported on control
groups?
Only some statistical comparisons with unseen
control groups during the programmes
10
What impact measures, if any, can be
calculated?
(Some) effect sizes and ratio gains
11 If the programme appears to have been
effective, what insights into why it was effective
can be derived from the report?
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.

Effective and inclusive practices in family literacy, language and numeracy:
a review of programmes and practice in the UK and internationally
www.cfbt.com 10 2
Analysis of quantitative data (1): Benefits to parents’ literacy
1 Serial number of study analysed 8
2 Name of study Family literacy for new groups (Basic Skills Agency)
3 Date when programme implemented 1997–98
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 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
8 N of comparison group (No comparison group)
9 Equivalence of groups n/a
10 Length of intervention in weeks 10–12
11 Instrument used Assessing Progress in Basic Skills: Literacy
(Basic Skills Agency 1997)
12 Ratio gains Were not stated and could not be calculated
13 Effect sizes See below
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
average (s.d.) average (s.d.)
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 st ated.
Effect sizes were ca lculated by d ividing the gains by the pre-test s.d.

Effective and inclusive practices in family literacy, language and numeracy:
a review of programmes and practice in the UK and internationally
www.cfbt.com 10 3
Analysis of quantitative data (2): Benefits to children’s language and literacy
1 Serial number of study analysed 8
2 Name of study Family literacy for new groups (Basic Skills Agency)
3 Date when programme implemented 1997–98
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
6 Type of participants
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
7 N of experimental group
Linguistic minorities: 160 at pre-test
Y4: 126 at pre-test
For post-test Ns see below
8 N of comparison group (No comparison group)
9 Equivalence of groups n/a
10 Length of intervention in weeks 12
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
13 Effect sizes See below
14 Statistical significances p<0.05 for all measures

Effective and inclusive practices in family literacy, language and numeracy:
a review of programmes and practice in the UK and internationally
www.cfbt.com 10 4
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
1 Serial number of study analysed 9
2 Name of study Family Literacy and Numeracy in Prisons
3 Reference Basic Skills Agency (undated)
4 Study design One-group pre-test/post-test study
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
average (s.d.) average (s.d.)
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
* Standa rdised scores could b e calculated only for children who were over 5:00 at t he beginn ing of the cou rse.
For stand ardised scores, nati onal average = 100, s.d. = 15.
S.d.’s of gains were not st ated.
Effect sizes for sta ndardised reading s cores were c alculated by dividin g the gains by the national s.d.; other effect sizes by dividing the g ain by the pre-test s.d.
Ratio gai ns are based on reading a ge-equi valent statements in B rooks et al. (1999, pp.24, 45).
Continued…

Effective and inclusive practices in family literacy, language and numeracy:
a review of programmes and practice in the UK and internationally
www.cfbt.com 10 5
Basic information continued
7 What data, if any, are reported on
wider benefits of learning?
None
8 What follow-up data, if any, are
reported?
None
9 What data, if any, are reported on
control groups?
None
10
What impact measures, if any, can be
calculated?
None
11 If the programme appears to have
been effective, what insights into why
it was effective can be derived from
the report?
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 dif ficulties (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 primar y and explicit objective.

Effective and inclusive practices in family literacy, language and numeracy:
a review of programmes and practice in the UK and internationally
www.cfbt.com 10 6
Analysis of quantitative data (1): Parents
1 Serial number of study analysed 9
2 Name of study Family literacy and numeracy in prisons
3 Date when programme implemented 1998–99
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
7 N of experimental group
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)
9 Equivalence of groups n/a
10 Length of intervention in weeks 10–12
11 Instrument used Not stated
12 Ratio gains Were not stated and could not be calculated because
data not reported in sufficient detail
13 Effect sizes Were not stated and could not be calculated
14 Statistical significances Were not stated and could not be calculated
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

Effective and inclusive practices in family literacy, language and numeracy:
a review of programmes and practice in the UK and internationally
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
Analysis of quantitative data (2): Children
1 Serial number of study analysed 9
2 Name of study Family literacy and numeracy in prisons
3 Date when programme implemented 1998–99
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)
8 N of comparison group (No comparison group)
9 Equivalence of groups n/a
10 Length of intervention in weeks 10–12
11 Instrument used Parent questionnaire
12 Ratio gains Were not stated and could not be calculated
because data not reported in sufficient detail
13 Effect sizes Were not stated and could not be calculated
14 Statistical significances Were not stated and could not be calculated

Effective and inclusive practices in family literacy, language and numeracy:
a review of programmes and practice in the UK and internationally
www.cfbt.com 10 8
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 num bers have be en back-calculated from the publi shed perc entages.
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
1 Serial number of study analysed 10
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…

Effective and inclusive practices in family literacy, language and numeracy:
a review of programmes and practice in the UK and internationally
www.cfbt.com 10 9
Basic information continued
7 What data, if any, are reported on
wider benefits of learning?
Parents being more involved with their children’s schools
8 What follow-up data, if any, are
reported?
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)
9 What data, if any, are reported on
control/comparison groups?
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.
10
What impact measures, if any, can be
calculated?
Parents: none
Children: effect size for numeracy gain
11 If the programme appears to have
been effective, what insights into why
it was effective can be derived from
the report?
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.

Effective and inclusive practices in family literacy, language and numeracy:
a review of programmes and practice in the UK and internationally
www.cfbt.com 110
Analysis of quantitative data (1): Benefits to parents’ literacy
1 Serial number of study analysed 10
2 Name of study Family numeracy pilot programmes (Basic Skills Agency)
3 Date when programme implemented 1997–98
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)
8 N of comparison group (No comparison group)
9 Equivalence of groups n/a
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
14 Statistical significances See below
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.
Wider benefits for parents
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.

Effective and inclusive practices in family literacy, language and numeracy:
a review of programmes and practice in the UK and internationally
www.cfbt.com 111
Analysis of quantitative data (2): Children
1 Serial number of study analysed 10
2 Name of study Family numeracy pilot programmes (Basic Skills Agency)
3 Date when programme implemented 1997–98
4 What data are analysed in this table? Children’s pre- and post-programme numeracy skills
5 Age range of participants 3–5
6 Type of participants Children of parents with few qualifications, living in
disadvantaged areas
7 N of experimental group
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.
8 N of comparison group 144
9 Equivalence of groups
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
average (s.d.) average (s.d.)
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. = standa rd 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.

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

Effective and inclusive practices in family literacy, language and numeracy:
a review of programmes and practice in the UK and internationally
www.cfbt.com 113
Basic information
1 Serial number of study analysed 11
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
6 What impact data are reported?
Direct evidence of benefits to parents’ spoken
English (test data)
Direct evidence of benefits to children’s skills
(test data)
Indirect evidence of benefits to parents’ ability to
help their children (questionnaires)
7 What data, if any, are reported on wider benefits
of learning?
Parents being more involved with their children’s
schools
8 What follow-up data, if any, are reported? None
9 What data, if any, are reported on control/
comparison groups? None
10
What impact measures, if any, can be
calculated? None
11 If the programme appears to have been
effective, what insights into why it was effective
can be derived from the report?
The programme was long-term and moderately
intensive; very carefully planned and delivered over
a long period; and responsive to parents’ needs
and views.
12 Any other comments None

Effective and inclusive practices in family literacy, language and numeracy:
a review of programmes and practice in the UK and internationally
www.cfbt.com 114
Analysis of quantitative data (1): Benefits to parents’ literacy
1 Serial number of study analysed 11
2 Name of study FLAME
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)
9 Equivalence of groups n/a
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
13 Effect sizes Were not stated and could not be calculated
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) Nt-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
Wider benefits for parents
Item (all showed an increase) Nt-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

Effective and inclusive practices in family literacy, language and numeracy:
a review of programmes and practice in the UK and internationally
www.cfbt.com 115
Analysis of quantitative data (2): Children
1 Serial number of study analysed 11
2 Name of study FLAME
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
5 Age range of participants 3–6
6 Type of participants Children of parents attending FLAME
7 N of experimental group 120
8 N of control/comparison group (No control/comparison group)
9 Equivalence of groups n/a
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
13 Effect sizes Were not stated and could not be calculated
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.

Effective and inclusive practices in family literacy, language and numeracy:
a review of programmes and practice in the UK and internationally
www.cfbt.com 116
12. Ħilti clubs
The Maltese word
Ħ
ilti 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
Ħ
ilti 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
Ħ
ilti 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
Ħ
ilti see the entry for PEFaL.
Basic information
1 Serial number of study analysed 12
2 Name of study
Ħ
ilti clubs in Malta
3 Reference Spiteri (2004)
4 Study design Single group, post-test only
5 Focus of study Literacy, language
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)
7 What data, if any, are reported on wider benefits
of learning?
Parents being more involved with their children’s
schools
8 What follow-up data, if any, are reported? None
9 What data, if any, are reported on control/
comparison groups? None
10
What impact measures, if any, can be
calculated?
Effect sizes
11 If the programme appears to have been
effective, what insights into why it was effective
can be derived from the report?
Report is very short and gives no reason.
12 Any other comments Substantial contrast to results of PEFaL

Effective and inclusive practices in family literacy, language and numeracy:
a review of programmes and practice in the UK and internationally
www.cfbt.com 117
Analysis of quantitative data (1): Parents
1 Serial number of study analysed 12
2 Name of study
Ħ
ilti clubs in Malta
3 Date when programme implemented 2002–03
Research conducted in June 2003
4 What data are analysed in this table? Parents’ mean post questionnaire responses
5 Age range of participants Not stated
6 Type of participants Parents in poorer areas of Malta
7 N of experimental group 257
8 N of comparison group (No comparison group)
9 Equivalence of groups n/a
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
14 Statistical significances Were not stated and could not 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.

Effective and inclusive practices in family literacy, language and numeracy:
a review of programmes and practice in the UK and internationally
www.cfbt.com 118
Analysis of quantitative data (2): Children
1 Serial number of study analysed 12
2 Name of study
Ħ
ilti clubs in Malta
3 Date when programme implemented 2002–03
Research conducted in June 2003
4 What data are analysed in this table? Children’s mean post questionnaire responses
5 Age range of participants Not stated
6 Type of participants Children in poorer areas of Malta
7 N of experimental group 365
8 N of comparison group (No comparison group)
9 Equivalence of groups n/a
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
14 Statistical significances Were not stated and could not 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.

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

Effective and inclusive practices in family literacy, language and numeracy:
a review of programmes and practice in the UK and internationally
www.cfbt.com 12 0
Basic information
1 Serial number of study analysed 13
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
6 What impact data are reported? Direct evidence of benefits to children’s skills
(test data)
7 What data, if any, are reported on wider benefits
of learning?
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
10
What impact measures, if any, can be
calculated?
None – but see below
11 If the programme appears to have been
effective, what insights into why it was effective
can be derived from the report?
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.
12 Any other comments
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.

Effective and inclusive practices in family literacy, language and numeracy:
a review of programmes and practice in the UK and internationally
www.cfbt.com 12 1
Analysis of quantitative data: Effects on children’s pre-literacy and pre-numeracy skills
1 Serial number of study analysed 13
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
7 N of experimental group 102
8 N of comparison group 115
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
13 Effect sizes Were not stated and could not be calculated
14 Statistical significances See below
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 = statisti cal significanc e
Both differences were highly significant. Thus the intervention group were better prepared for
starting school.

Effective and inclusive practices in family literacy, language and numeracy:
a review of programmes and practice in the UK and internationally
www.cfbt.com 12 2
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 = statisti cal significanc e; 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.

Effective and inclusive practices in family literacy, language and numeracy:
a review of programmes and practice in the UK and internationally
www.cfbt.com 12 3
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
1 Serial number of study analysed 14
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…

Effective and inclusive practices in family literacy, language and numeracy:
a review of programmes and practice in the UK and internationally
www.cfbt.com 12 4
Basic information continued
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)
7 What data, if any, are reported on wider benefits
of learning?
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
10
What impact measures, if any, can be
calculated?
Some effect sizes
11 If the programme appears to have been
effective, what insights into why it was effective
can be derived from the report?
Structured programme developed and delivered by
early years professionals
Influence on children mediated through earlier
impact on mothers
12 Any other comments None

Effective and inclusive practices in family literacy, language and numeracy:
a review of programmes and practice in the UK and internationally
www.cfbt.com 12 5
Analysis of quantitative data (1): Foundation PEEP, children aged 3–5
1 Serial number of study analysed 14A
2 Name of study Foundation PEEP
3 Date when programme implemented 199 8–2001
4 What data are analysed in this table? Children’s post-test 1 and 2 data on language
development and emergent literacy and numeracy
5 Age range of participants 3–5
6 Type of participants Children in a deprived area of Oxford and a comparison
area elsewhere in Oxfordshire
7 N of experimental group 64
8 N of comparison group 83
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
13 Effect sizes See below
14 Statistical significances See below
Children’s average performance at post-test 1 (age 4)
Test PEEP group Comparison group Statistical
significance
Effect
size
average (s.d.) average (s.d.)
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. = standa rd deviation
Effect s izes were ca lculated by m ultiple re gressio ns controlling for chi ldren’s abilities before the interve ntion.

Effective and inclusive practices in family literacy, language and numeracy:
a review of programmes and practice in the UK and internationally
www.cfbt.com 12 6
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
average (s.d.) average (s.d.)
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. = standa rd deviation; ns = statistically non-signif icant
Effect s izes were ca lculated by m ultiple re gressio ns controlling for chi ldren’s abilities before the interve ntion.
Analysis of quantitative data (2): Birth To School Study, children aged 2–5
1 Serial number of study analysed 14B
2 Name of study Birth To School Study
3 Date when programme implemented 1998– 20 04
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…

Effective and inclusive practices in family literacy, language and numeracy:
a review of programmes and practice in the UK and internationally
www.cfbt.com 12 7
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
13 Effect sizes See below
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)
Early Number Concepts
(BAS)
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
Sourc e: Evangel ou et al. (200 5a), p.33

Effective and inclusive practices in family literacy, language and numeracy:
a review of programmes and practice in the UK and internationally
www.cfbt.com 12 8
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
Sourc e: Evangel ou et al. (200 5a)
* These gains are r aw scores be cause the s ame instrument was us ed at both age s. All other gains are z-sco res
because differ ent instru ments were u sed. The negative dif ference was in favour of the compa rison group.
The eff ect sizes are those state d by the authors. Other ef fect sizes were not s tated and could not be cal culated.
Significant changes at subgroup level
Ages Test N Gains Effect
size
Oxford Comparison Difference
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
Sourc e: Evangel ou et al. (200 5a)
* These gains are raw scores because the sam e instrument was used a t both ages.
All other gains are z-sc ores beca use different instruments were used.
The eff ect sizes are those state d by the authors. Other ef fect sizes were not s tated and could not be cal culated.
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.

Effective and inclusive practices in family literacy, language and numeracy:
a review of programmes and practice in the UK and internationally
www.cfbt.com 12 9
Analysis of quantitative data (1): Foundation PEEP, children aged 3–5
1 Serial number of study analysed 14B
2 Name of study Birth To School Study
3 Date when programme implemented 1998– 20 04
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 bir thday
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
Sourc e: Evangel ou et al. (200 5a)
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.

Effective and inclusive practices in family literacy, language and numeracy:
a review of programmes and practice in the UK and internationally
www.cfbt.com 13 0
Significant difference at full sample level
When children
were aged
Instrument N of
parents
Gains
Oxford Comparison Difference
2 ORCE 390 27.4 26.1 1.3
Sourc e: Evangel ou et al. (20 05a)
The gains shown are raw scores.
Significant difference at full sample level
When children
were aged
Instrument N of
parents
Gains
Oxford Comparison Difference
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
Sourc e: Evangel ou et al. (20 05a)
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
Ħ
ilti (‘my ability’) clubs
– see separate entry. In 2003–04, thanks to a European Union Socrates grant, it was possible
to develop
Ħ
ilti 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
1 Serial number of study analysed 15
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.
5 Focus of study Literacy, language
Continued…

Effective and inclusive practices in family literacy, language and numeracy:
a review of programmes and practice in the UK and internationally
www.cfbt.com 131
Basic information continued
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)
7 What data, if any, are reported on
wider benefits of learning?
Parents’ intentions to go on to further study
Parents being more involved with their children’s schools
8 What follow-up data, if any, are
reported?
None
9 What data, if any, are reported on
control group?
Data on parents and children waiting to join programme
10
What impact measures, if any, can be
calculated?
Effect sizes
11 If the programme appears to have
been effective, what insights into why
it was effective can be derived from
the report?
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
Ħ
ilti clubs themselves
Analysis of quantitative data (1): Parents
1 Serial number of study analysed 15
2 Name of study PEFaL (Parent Empowerment through Family Literacy)
3 Date when programme implemented 2003–04
Research conducted January–April 2004
4 What data are analysed in this table? Parents’ mean pre and post questionnaire responses
5 Age range of participants 20–59
6 Type of participants Mothers, one father, one grandparent
7 N of experimental group 46
8 N of control group 21
9 Equivalence of groups
Drawn from same community; controls were on waiting list
to join programme; allocation to experimental or control
groups was determined by lot
10 Length of intervention in weeks 10
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.
14 Statistical significances
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.

Effective and inclusive practices in family literacy, language and numeracy:
a review of programmes and practice in the UK and internationally
www.cfbt.com 13 2
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 no n-significant
Effect sizes were ca lculated by d ividing 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 ite ms 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.

Effective and inclusive practices in family literacy, language and numeracy:
a review of programmes and practice in the UK and internationally
www.cfbt.com 13 3
Analysis of quantitative data (2): Children
1 Serial number of study analysed 15
2 Name of study PEFaL (Parent Empowerment through Family Literacy)
3 Date when programme implemented 2003–04
Research conducted January–April 2004
4 What data are analysed in this table? Children’s mean pre and post questionnaire responses
5 Age range of participants 6–8
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)
9 Equivalence of groups
Drawn from same community; controls were on waiting list
to join programme; allocation to experimental or control
groups was determined by lot
10 Length of intervention in weeks 10
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.
14 Statistical significances
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 ca lculated by d ividing 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 ite ms 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.

Effective and inclusive practices in family literacy, language and numeracy:
a review of programmes and practice in the UK and internationally
www.cfbt.com 13 4
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
1 Serial number of study analysed 16
2 Name of study REAL (Raising Early Achievement in Literacy)
3 Reference Hannon et al. (2005)
4 Study design Randomised controlled trial (RCT)
5 Focus of study Literacy and language
6 What impact data are reported? Direct evidence of benefits to children’s skills (test
data)
7 What data, if any, are reported on wider benefits
of learning?
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?
Direct evidence of benefits to children’s skills (test
data)
10
What impact measures, if any, can be
calculated?
Effect sizes
11 If the programme appears to have been
effective, what insights into why it was effective
can be derived from the report?
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

Effective and inclusive practices in family literacy, language and numeracy:
a review of programmes and practice in the UK and internationally
www.cfbt.com 13 5
Analysis of quantitative data: Benefits to children’s language and literacy
1 Serial number of study analysed 16
2 Name of study REAL (Raising Early Achievement in Literacy)
3 Date when programme implemented 199 5–9 8
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 at the beginning
6 Type of participants Children living in areas of multiple deprivation in
Sheffield
7 N of experimental group 88 at pre-test; for post-test Ns see below
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
13 Effect sizes See below
14 Statistical significances See below
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 s ize; s.d. = standard deviati on; stat.sig. = level of statistical significan ce; ns = statist ically no n-signif icant
For name s of tests see ab ove.
The eff ect sizes are those give n 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.

Effective and inclusive practices in family literacy, language and numeracy:
a review of programmes and practice in the UK and internationally
www.cfbt.com 13 6
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 s ize; s.d. = standard deviati on; stat.sig. = level of statistical significan ce; ns = statist ically no n-signif icant
For name s of tests see ab ove.
The eff ect size is that given by the a uthors.
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.

Effective and inclusive practices in family literacy, language and numeracy:
a review of programmes and practice in the UK and internationally
www.cfbt.com 137
Appendix B: Outline details of the programmes analysed qualitatively in Chapter 4
Name of
project;
country
and area
Literacy,
language or
numeracy
Date,
timescale
Partners
Number of
parents,
projects
Type of
progr amme
(model): see
section 2.3 .5
Values of
progr amme:
see section
2.3.5
Impact on
knowledge
and skills
Impact on
community
Canada
LAPS,
Calgary,
Alberta,
Canada, plus
programme
is offered
throughout
Canada in a
number of
locations,
e.g. women’s
shelters,
family drop-in
centres, jails,
and community
centres
Literacy and
parenting
skills, ESL
programme
1996 materials
published
Bow Valley
College,
Further
Education
Society of
Alberta, plus
the Further
Education
Society of
Alberta
Training
packages
have enabled
programme
to spread into
other locations;
over 1000
trained
Combines
parenting
sessions
together with
literacy and
language
Focused on
cross-cultural
sessions, in
particular:
Passing on
Our Values and
Dealing with
School
Project
grounded
in needs of
participants
A training
package is
used to train
literacy
coordinators,
ESL instructors
and community
workers to
facilitate
a LAPS
programme
in their
community
Impact
assessed
in relation
to training
package which
has been
developed.
Over 1000
trainers trained
PEFaL
(Parent
Empowerment
through Family
Literacy); Malta
(lead country),
Belgium,
England, Italy,
Lithuania,
Romania
Literacy and
language
October 2001
to October
2004
Malta, Belgium,
England, Italy,
Lithuania,
Romania
6 countries The H model,
which assigns
joint time to
parents and
children while
giving support
to parents
and children
individually as
well
Focus on
adults-as-
parents and an
empowerment
model
drawing on
home literacy
practices
Multicultural
and multilingual
groups
419 families
participated
30 family
literacy
programmes
36 potential
parent leaders
identified
A conference
of the project
held in July
2004, and its
proceedings,
had two
components:
the ‘academic’
one with
delivery of
papers and
workshops for
educationalists,
and the
‘experiential’
one for key
parent leaders
from all the
participating
countries

Effective and inclusive practices in family literacy, language and numeracy:
a review of programmes and practice in the UK and internationally
www.cfbt.com 13 8
Name of
project;
country
and area
Lit era cy,
langu age or
numeracy
Date,
timescale
Partners
Number of
parents,
projects
Type of
programme
(model): see
section 2.3.5
Values of
programme:
see sec tion
2.3.5
Impac t on
knowledge
and skills
Impac t on
community
Qua l iF LY:
European
Project on
Family Literacy;
Bulgaria,
Ireland, Italy,
Malta, Turkey,
Hamburg,
Germany
Literacy and
language
project aiming
to promote
good quality in
family literacy
programmes by
observing and
monitoring best
practice in a
range of cultural
settings
2005 to 2007 Foundation
ethnocultural
dialogue,
Bulgaria;
NALA, Ireland;
Università
Popolare di
Roma, Italy;
Foundation for
Educational
Services, Malta;
Mother-child
Education
Foundation,
Turkey; Institute
for Teacher
Training
and School
Development of
the City State
of Hamburg
7 institutions
from 6 countries
Not one model,
but aims to
disseminate best
practice
QualiFLY project
aims to promote
good quality
family literacy
programmes,
training and
materials in a
range of cultural
settings
Focuses on
intergenerational
interactions
within the family
and community
which promote
the development
of literacy and
related life skills
No data yet No data yet
Family Literacy
(Q u a li F LY );
Hamburg,
Germany
Literacy and
language,
intensifying
cooperation
between home
and school,
enhancing
teacher
education
2004 to present Institute for
Teacher Training
and School
Development of
the City State of
Hamburg
9 locations,
7 schools and
2 kindergartens
in Hamburg
Builds on the
understanding
that multi-
lingualism and
intercultural
competence
are important
aspects of family
literacy. Focuses
on making of
picture books,
using children’s
drawings.
Focuses on
creativity and
family visits
Focus on
creativity, games,
visits, multi-
sensory and
multimodal work
with children,
storytelling
and use of
photographs and
visual images
No data yet No data yet

Effective and inclusive practices in family literacy, language and numeracy:
a review of programmes and practice in the UK and internationally
www.cfbt.com 13 9
Name of
project;
country
and area
Literacy,
langu age or
numeracy
Date,
timescale
Partners
Number of
parents,
projects
Type of
programme
(model): see
section 2.3.5
Values of
programme:
see sec tion
2.3.5
Impac t on
knowledge and
skills
Impac t on
community
Mother-Child
Education
Foundation
(Q ua li FLY
partner); Turkey
Literacy and
language, health
education,
cognitive training
to develop
school readiness,
parent–child
interaction,
parenting, self-
esteem. Fathers’
programme
1993 to present Ministry of
National
Education, and
the General
Directorate of
Social Welfare
and Child
Protection
Agency
150 employees;
10 local offices all
over Turkey
Draws on
a cognitive
model of child
development,
places mother
at centre of
enculturation
process, focuses
on ‘at risk’
children, and
aims to intervene
in interactions
between mother
and child
Strongly focused
on intervention,
has a women’s
empowerment
dimension, views
families in low
socio-economic
groups as ‘at risk’
and in need of
support
In 1998, 7305
mother–child
pairs in 52
provinces
reached, through
the Ministry
of National
Education
Impact has led
to involvement
in QualiFLY as
teacher training
element goes
outside Turkey.
Impact within
Turkey included
new fathers’
component and
new focus on
reproductive
health and family
planning
(a) Family literacy
in Nepal: A Case
Study from Save
the Children.
Involved Kumai
community in the
pilot village of
Adai Gaon
(b) Seti project
operates in far
west of Nepal
(a) Literacy
and health.
Communication
with school.
Homework club
and baby book
(b) Women’s and
girls’ literacy
(a) 1994
evaluation of
Family Literacy
programme
focused on baby
book published
(b) Description
of project in
Robinson-Pant
(2001)
(a) Save the
Children US Nepal
Field Office ‘baby
book project’
(b) Seti project,
women’s and
girls’ literacy
education
(a) 1 village as
pilot project for
the baby book
project
(b) The Seti
project operates
in the far west of
Nepal
(a) Literacy and
health perspective
(b) Girls’ and
women’s literacy
as focus for
project
(a) Focused on
baby book and
development of
home/school
relations
(b) Focused
on improved
health for the
communities
(a) Evaluated in
1994, according
to authors
of report,
programme
has already
proved ‘much
more than the
intergenerational
transfer of literate
behaviour’
(b) Seti Project:
More than 8000
out-of-school girls
attended classes.
Over 150 000
children were
reached by
regular education
initiatives, and
increasing
numbers of them
were girls.
30 000 adults
participated in
adult evening
classes, of whom
many were
women
(a) Baby book
was good in
health context
(b) The Seti
project led to
improved health
in the community,
improved
nutrition and
better prevention
of disease

Effective and inclusive practices in family literacy, language and numeracy:
a review of programmes and practice in the UK and internationally
www.cfbt.com 14 0
Name of
project;
country
and area
Literacy,
langu age or
numeracy
Date,
timescale
Partners
Number of
parents,
projects
Type of
programme
(model): see
section 2.3.5
Values of
programme:
see sec tion
2.3.5
Impac t on
knowledge and
skills
Impac t on
community
Manukau
Family Literacy
Programme;
Manukau City,
New Zealand
Literacy,
language,
mathematics
2002 to 2004
Evaluation took
place 2002 and
2003
Each site has:
an early
childhood centre
a primar y school
a tertiary
pr ov ide r.
2 pilot sites,
37 adults
Kenan model:
adult educator
plus teacher
to support
children. Offered
a Certificate in
Introduction to
Early Childhood
Curriculum
Quality one-to-
one time with
parent and child
valued in this
programme.
Focus on
encouraging
further education
for parents
23 students
moved onto
further tertiary
study
Project partners
reported
increased
enrolments in
early childhood
centres
and tertiary
institutions, better
home/school
relations, and
improved links
across partner
organisations.
Graduation
ceremony
for whole
community.
Family Literacy
Project (FLP);
KwaZulu-Natal
(KZN), South
Africa
Literacy and
language (Zulu
and English) as
well as health
education, craft
and community
development
2000 to present
Evaluation took
place 2004
7 family literacy
groups (2000)
Parent and child
(early years) plus
parents’ literacy
skills
Community
library
programme for
all community
Local women are
group facilitators
Subjects chosen
by groups
Valuing existing
literacies
Participants
of 2 years had
higher levels of
interaction with
their children
and enabled
cooperative book
sharing, and their
children drew
more complex
pictures
Two of the
communities
given community
library as result
of FLP
One of the
learners
chosen as most
outstanding
learner in KZN,
and a facilitator
as most
outstanding
educator in the
whole of South
Africa

Effective and inclusive practices in family literacy, language and numeracy:
a review of programmes and practice in the UK and internationally
www.cfbt.com 141
Name of
project;
country
and area
Literacy,
langu age or
numeracy
Date,
timescale
Partners
Number of
parents,
projects
Type of
programme
(model): see
section 2.3.5
Values of
programme:
see sec tion
2.3.5
Impac t on
knowledge and
skills
Impac t on
community
Family Basic
Education
(FABE);
Bugiri district,
Uganda
Literacy,
language,
numeracy and
raising awareness
about the value of
education
September 2001
to present
FABE, LABE
Uganda, and
18 school PTAs,
Bugiri district
schools
Targets 72
teachers, 36
adult literacy
instructors,
18 school PTAs
as well as 1080
parents and 2880
children
Rural literacy
instructors have
identified a
tailored literacy
content to
enable parents
to support
their children’s
learning activity in
the lower primary
grade classes.
Focus also
on increasing
awareness
of value of
education
Focus on
educational
practices that
encouraged a
link between
school learning
and community
indigenous
literacy practices
Impact is
measured by
the number and
frequency of
parents visiting
school, number
of joint school–
community
education plans,
number of
children attending
school on a daily
basis, and the
frequency of
family dialogue on
education issues
Rural Rapid
Appraisal (RRA)
undertaken which
pointed towards
broader adult
literacy needs,
and new support
for awareness-
raising initiatives
United States
of America:
Santa Barbara
California:
Verizon OPTIONS
initiative:
Supporting
Families’ Multiple
Literacies
English literacy
and language,
computer
training,
mentoring
2003 to present Isla Vista
Elementary
school; Gevirtz
research centre,
University of
Santa Barbara;
Community
Action Board’s
literacy
programme; Isla
Vista’s Youth
Project’s School
Readiness
Programme;
Enlace y
Avance Option
(community
mentoring
programme)
1 school,
1 mentoring
programme,
1 university
Some family
literacy classes
for parents
and children
in English,
with children
learning school-
readiness skills,
joint sessions
with children on
a Computers
project,
home literacy
support from
undergraduate
students,
mentoring
parents to
participate in
schooling
Recognition of
families’ multiple
literacies, focus
on giving families
tools and support
needed to
participate fully
in their children’s
schooling
475 participants
(190 families);
185 University of
Santa Barbara
undergraduates
participating
Assessment of
English literacy
skills showed
participants in
the programme
improving
significantly
from pre-test
to post-test on
every quantitative
measure
30 families
participated in
one or two of the
project options
The community
mentoring
programme
reported that 160
parents attended
meetings and
75% reported
greater
involvement in
their children’s
education
and increased
knowledge
of resources
available to
families

Effective and inclusive practices in family literacy, language and numeracy:
a review of programmes and practice in the UK and internationally
www.cfbt.com 14 2
Name of
project;
country
and area
Literacy,
langu age or
numeracy
Date,
timescale
Partners
Number of
parents,
projects
Type of
programme
(model): see
section 2.3.5
Values of
programme:
see sec tion
2.3.5
Impac t on
knowledge and
skills
Impac t on
community
FLAME (Family
Literacy:
Aprendiendo,
Mejorando,
Educando); Pilsen
and Wicker Park,
Chicago, USA;
spread to five
demonstration
centres
Literacy,
language and
home/school
interaction,
mathematics
1989 to present University
of Illinois at
Chicago College
of Education
plus five school
districts in
Chicago which
serve 12 schools
5 demonstration
centres, serving
12 school
districts
Draws on ORIM
model but
redefined as:
Literacy
Opportunity,
Literacy
Modelling,
Literacy
Interaction,
Home/school
relations
Encourages
community input
into planning of
sessions. Uses
a theory-based
socio-cultural
approach which
takes into
account multiple
cultural ways of
learning
Annual evaluation
results show
that children of
participating
families show
significant gains
in cognitive
development and
pre-literacy and
literacy skills in
both Spanish and
English. Parents
have also made
significant gains
in English and
have increased
their children’s
literacy activities
in the home
The project’s
model has spread
to other parts of
the USA including
California, Florida,
Illinois, Kansas,
Nebraska, New
Mexico, South
Carolina and
Texas. A ‘training
the trainers’
programme
encourages the
spread of the
programme and
the programme
encourages
community input
into the planning
of sessions
MAPPS Math
And Parent
Partnerships:
Involving
Parents in the
Mathematics
of the Schools,
Changing
Attitudes about
Mathematics,
and Raising
School-Age
Competencies
in Mathematics;
Hispanic areas
in South West of
USA including
Tucson and
Chandler
(Arizona), Las
Vegas (New
Mexico), San
Jose (California)
Mathematics 2002 to present Programmes are
now in place in
12 districts in 9
states around the
country
Takes a Funds
of Knowledge
approach to
families; also
takes from
a Freirean
perspective on
adult education,
particularly
work on critical
pedagogy
Funds of
Knowledge
perspective.
(Gonzalez, Moll &
Amanti, 2005)
In 2002–3, 503
District parents
and 655 of their
school-age
children attended
workshops as
participants;
2309 parent
hours in all were
spent on MAPPS
activities
Parents attended
community
events, and
spoke to large
audiences. Key
is parent training
and developing
power-sharing
with parents

Effective and inclusive practices in family literacy, language and numeracy:
a review of programmes and practice in the UK and internationally
www.cfbt.com 14 3
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

Effective and inclusive practices in family literacy, language and numeracy:
a review of programmes and practice in the UK and internationally
www.cfbt.com 14 4
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)

Effective and inclusive practices in family literacy, language and numeracy:
a review of programmes and practice in the UK and internationally
www.cfbt.com 14 5
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)

Effective and inclusive practices in family literacy, language and numeracy:
a review of programmes and practice in the UK and internationally
www.cfbt.com 14 6
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

Effective and inclusive practices in family literacy, language and numeracy:
a review of programmes and practice in the UK and internationally
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.
(Gonzalez et al. 2005:264)

Effective and inclusive practices in family literacy, language and numeracy:
a review of programmes and practice in the UK and internationally
www.cfbt.com 14 8
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

Effective and inclusive practices in family literacy, language and numeracy:
a review of programmes and practice in the UK and internationally
www.cfbt.com 14 9
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

Effective and inclusive practices in family literacy, language and numeracy:
a review of programmes and practice in the UK and internationally
www.cfbt.com 15 0
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.
(Gonzalez et al. 2005:90)
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

Effective and inclusive practices in family literacy, language and numeracy:
a review of programmes and practice in the UK and internationally
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.
(Palmer and Rhodes 1994)

Effective and inclusive practices in family literacy, language and numeracy:
a review of programmes and practice in the UK and internationally
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’.
(Palmer and Rhodes 1994)
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).

Effective and inclusive practices in family literacy, language and numeracy:
a review of programmes and practice in the UK and internationally
www.cfbt.com 15 3
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.

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

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

PMS 3484 01/08 ISBN 978-0-86160-037-3
CfBT Education Trust
60 Queens Road
Reading
Berkshire
RG1 4BS
0118 902 1000
www.cfbt.com