Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
International Journal about Parents in Education Copyright 2012 by European Research Network about Parents in Education
2012, Vol. 6, No. 1, 28 - 41 ISSN: 1973 - 3518
28
Issues that impact on effective family literacy provision in
England
Jon Swain
University of London,
London, United Kingdom
Greg Brooks
University of Sheffield,
Sheffield, United Kingdom
This paper raises and discusses a series of key issues that arose during a 20-month evaluation
project concerning the impact of family literacy programmes on the skills of parents and their
children. Using a range of mixed methods, the research was based on 74 family literacy
programmes in England and involved 583 parents and their children. The majority of previous
evaluations of family learning have been quantitative and concentrated on children’s literacy
outcomes; they have tended to ignore issues from qualitative research (which can both enable
and constrain effective provision), many of which are of great interest to policy-makers. The
specific issues raised in this paper coalesce around themes of recruitment; accreditation; the
educational profile of parents (including the scarcity of men); the physical teaching and
learning environment; the competing agendas between local authorities and schools; and
planning opportunities between adult family literacy tutors and early years teachers.
Keywords: Family literacy, family learning, parents, children, family, policy.
Introduction
This paper is based on a project about family
literacy (FL) programmes in England: it identifies
and discusses a number of issues that arose in the
course of the research, and also analyses key
features that both enable and constrain effective
provision. The discussions form part of a 20-
month research project, which took place from
November 2007 to July 2009, and whose main
aim was to evaluate the impact of FL on the skills
of parents (the term ‘parents’ is used throughout
the report to mean mothers, fathers and carers)
and their children, family relationships,
progression and social mobility. The project found
considerable benefits for parents, children and
schools, and confirmed that FL programmes
continue to be effective and bring benefits to
parents and children that include, and go beyond,
improvements in their literacy skills.
The specific issues raised coalesce around
recruitment; accreditation; the educational profile
of parents (including the scarcity of men); the
physical environment for teaching and learning
Correspondence concerning this article should
be addressed to Jon Swain, e-mail:
J.Swain@ioe.ac.uk
(including accommodation); competing agendas
between local authorities (LAs) and schools; and
opportunities for planning between adult FL tutors
and early years teachers.
Background information
FL programmes aim to raise standards of
literacy for both parents and children, and to
extend parents’ knowledge and skills in supporting
their children’s developing literacy. They are
specifically designed to enable adults and young
children (usually aged three to six) to learn
together, and generally offer discrete sessions for
parents and children to develop their own literacy
skills, and joint sessions where parents work
alongside and support their children with literacy
activities. Provision is free, with crèche (childcare)
support (where feasible), and is targeted at
disadvantaged parents in areas of low socio-
economic status (SES), who hold relatively low-
level qualifications, that is, no higher than Level 1
(which equates to a poor pass at GCSE of grades
D-G in British terms, or to Level 2 of the scale
used internationally, e.g. in the International Adult
EFFECTIVE FAMILY LITERACY PROVISION IN ENGLAND
29
Literacy Survey of 1994-98). The courses are run
in partnership with schools and Children’s Centres
and are planned and taught by staff from
providers of adult learning and early years
teachers. Courses tend to be either short (30-49
hours within one school term) or standard (60-72
hours over two school terms)
1
, and a typical FL
class will last between two-three hours, once a
week.
Anderson, Anderson, Friedrich & Kim (2010)
have pointed out that there is a tendency for FL to
be conceptualised quite conservatively by policy-
makers, programme providers, and the main
constituents themselves. Technological advances
(e.g. mobile phones and the internet) which have
changed previous conceptions of what it means to
be illiterate (Koh, 2004) have not been
incorporated into FL programmes perhaps as
much as they could be, and this was also one of
the findings in our research.
Previous Evaluations
Research shows that socio-economic
disadvantage is a key predictor of poor literacy
development in children. It is also known that
poor literacy is an intergenerational phenomenon
(De Coulon, & Cara, 2008)
2
, and that having poor
literacy skills impacts not only on adults’ life
chances but also on those of their children
(Parsons & Bynner, 2007). There is a significant
body of literature showing the vital role of the
family dimension in the literacy learning of young
children and parents (see, for example, Hannon,
1986, 1999; Hannon & Jackson, 1987; Hannon,
Weinberger & Nutbrown, 1991; Hannon, Morgan &
Nutbrown,2006; Whitehurst, Epstein, Angell,
Payne, Crone & Fischel, 1994; Brooks, Gorman,
Harman, Hutchison & Wilkin,1996; Brooks,
Gorman, Harman, Hutchison, Kinder & Moor,
1997; Brooks, Harman, Hutchison, Kendall &
Wilkin, 1999; Brooks, Pahl, Pollard & Rees, 2008;
Hirst, 1998; Ofsted, 2000, 2009; Brooks, 2002;
Wagner, Spiker & Linn, 2002; Desforges &
Abouchaar, 2003; Feinstein, Duckworth &
Sabates, 2004; Horne & Haggart, 2004;
Kirkpatrick, 2004; Hodge, 2006; Anderson &
1
In the LSC Guidance (2009/10), Standard
courses are categorised as running for 60-72
hours.
2
Coulon et al. (2008) also concluded that
improving parents' literacy skills can lead directly
to improvements in their young children's
cognitive abilities.
Morrison, 2007; Carpentieri, Fairfax-Cholmeley,
Litster & Vorhaus, 2011).
Six major studies from Sénéchal & Young
(2008), Mol, Bus, De Jong & Smeets (2008), Erion
(2006), Nye, Turner & Schwartz (2006), Manz,
Hughes, Barnaba, Bracaliello & Ginsburg-Block
(2010) and van Steensel, McElvany, Kurvers &
Herppich (2011) indicate that FL programmes
have a greater impact than most educational
interventions on child literacy acquisition (see
Carpentieri, Fairfax-Cholmeley, Litster & Vorhaus,
2011). Five of the six meta-analyses found effect
sizes greater than 0.3, and in three, the effect size
is greater than 0.5. However the meta-analytic
evidence indicates that the majority of these
evaluations have concentrated on children’s
literacy outcomes
3
and when Brooks et al. (2008)
reviewed 29 programmes of family literacy,
language and numeracy provision (FLLN) they
concluded that research has been unable to
provide a definitive answer to whether two-
generation FLLN programme benefit parents as
much as children
4
.
Methodology and the sample
The FL project we were involved in employed
both quantitative and qualitative methods. We
used established instruments
5
to assess progress
3
Due to the constraints of space, we are unable to
report on parents’ progress in reading or writing,
although these data are available elsewhere (see
Swain et al, 2009).
4
Brooks et al. (2008) also found that very few
studies used a controlled trial; most had used
matched-group and one-group pre-and post-test
designs, which means that much evidence needs
to be treated with caution.
5
The instruments used to assess the parents’
reading and writing are known as the Go! tests.
These were developed in 2003 for the National
Research and Development Centre for Adult
Literacy and Numeracy (based at the Institute of
Education, University of London) by the National
Foundation for Educational Research in England
and Wales (based in Slough, England). The tests
cover Entry level and Levels 1 and 2 of the UK
Qualifications Framework, which correspond
roughly to ISCED Levels 0-2 and (somewhat
confusingly) to Levels 1-3 of the scale used in, for
example, the International Adult :Literacy Survey
of 1994-98. The Go! tests are research
instruments with two parallel (statistically
equated) forms for both reading and writing, and
are also secure instruments in the sense that they
EFFECTIVE FAMILY LITERACY PROVISION IN ENGLAND
30
in reading and writing, and carried out classroom
observations, semi-structured questionnaires and
in-depth qualitative interviews. Data also came
from email exchanges and from comments at 12
whole-day training events that were used to
introduce the project to FL managers and
practitioners, and train them in methods of
gathering data. These were attended by a total of
133 Local Authority (LA) managers and FL
practitioners.
A total of 42 LAs were involved in the research,
from across all nine government office regions in
England, representing 28% of the 152 English
LAs. Of the total of 74 courses that were
evaluated, 44 (59%) were short courses and 30
(41%) were standard courses. The vast majority
of short courses were around 31 hours of teacher
contact time, and most of the standard courses
were around 53 hours of teacher contact time in
duration
6
. Almost all of the FL programmes took
place in schools, and only three Children’s Centres
featured in the research. In all, 583 parents and
527 children took part in the evaluation and were
assessed on a range of areas, including their
progress in reading and writing. In addition, the
project interviewed 101 of the 583 parents, plus
62 adult literacy tutors, 62 early years teachers,
33 LA managers and nine headteachers.
94% of the parents involved were women and
78% of parents had English as their first language.
The children were aged between three and seven
years old at the beginning of the course. The
average number of learners per course was
around nine parents and children on both short
and standard courses; the average attendance for
parents and children was around 79%, and the
average retention rate was around 84%. The
research was unable to track parents who had left
but it needs to be highlighted that, whilst many
parents dropped out for legitimate reasons, some
might actually have found employment, which can
cause a tension when figures appear to dent
retention but are actually the result of progression
(Lamb, Fairfax-Cholmeley & Thomas, 2008).
Although research has been able to
demonstrate the profound effects of FL in a
are not publicly available, in order that they do not
influence the adult literacy sector in the UK. For
details of the projects in which they have been
used see Brooks and Hannon (2012, in press).
6
Calculated by adding the contact hours of the
parents-only session to those of the joint session.
It does not include the contact hours of the
children-only sessions.
number of areas, there is a lack of information
about what actually happens inside FL classrooms,
and so the classroom setting where the crucial
interactions between teaching and learning take
place still generally remains a black box. One of
the objectives of the project was to take the
reader inside a FL classroom and delineate
common forms of practice. Although there is no
space in this paper to report on the pedagogical
approaches, these findings are available in Swain,
Welby, Brooks, Bosley, Frumkin, Fairfax-
Cholmeley (2009).
Researchers made 14 visits to 12 FL classes in
10 LAs. They formally interviewed adult tutors,
early years teachers and headteachers, but they
also spoke informally to parents, children, crèche
workers, parent mentors/liaison officers and
teaching assistants. During the teaching sessions
researchers wrote a detailed descriptive
commentary with the prime foci concentrating on
teaching approaches, teacher-learner relations,
activities introduced and learner responses to
these. It was not the primary intention to
comment on the effectiveness of the various
approaches, and researchers tried to describe
events, rather than make value judgements.
Extracts from interviews and observational
fieldnotes are used to illustrate particular points
and opinions.
Themes and issues
During the research a number of themes and
recurring issues began to emerge, which both
enabled but also acted as constraints for effective
provision: these are grouped under four headings
of FL programmes, parents, schools, and FL tutors
and early years teachers, although these are used
primarily for organisational purposes and some
themes/issues overlap. This section is followed by
a summary of the key features that the
researchers concluded enable effective FL
provision.
A. Family literacy programmes
Recruitment
Issues around recruitment are particularly
important because if a programme does not
attract sufficient numbers it will not be viable to
run. The LSC explain guidance (2009/10) states
that a minimum number of nine parents are
needed for a course to start, although this was
subject to different perceptions from different LA
EFFECTIVE FAMILY LITERACY PROVISION IN ENGLAND
31
managers, and some were more flexible than
others in their interpretation of the nine-learner
rule.
One LA manager was prepared to take the
wider picture. For instance, he recognised that
some small schools (with, say, 20 on roll in
reception) find it difficult to recruit the minimum
number of nine parents per course, against larger
schools, perhaps with a three-form entry with,
say, 90 on roll. He therefore took the overall
average numbers from courses across the whole
LA to bring the average up to around nine parents
per programme. Although he would not allow
courses to start if there were under six parents, he
believed that if a small school had a particular
need, the overall benefits were worth it, and so, in
effect, he was prepared to subsidise the smaller
settings. He also recognised that the partnership
with schools was key, and was also prepared to
maintain programmes in a school year when
numbers of adults were lower than usual so that
the school would stay on board for future years.
It was the schools themselves that were
identified as being the key partners within the LAs
in the recruitment and delivery of FL, and this
needed a high level of commitment from
headteachers and teaching staff. The two
strategies that proved to be particularly effective
were employing parent support (or liaison) officers
or pastoral coordinators/ child protection officers
(who understand parental local concerns and
issues) within the school, and using past and
present parents from FL courses to act as ‘learning
champions’ to attract other parents. In the latter
case, it was felt that parents often understood
many of the local concerns and issues, and the
fact that they could see things from their peers’
point of view gave them more credibility than
staff, who tended to be associated with the
‘official’ culture of the school. Successful methods
of advertising mentioned were using flyers and
letters, which were translated into first languages
if needed.
Recruiting is about building relationships, as
the following headteacher explained:
As well as advertising FL in our school
newsletter, we target specific year groups
and send individual letters to parents. We
started doing this about three or four years
ago and it has had a tremendous impact on
recruitment.
The adult tutor in the same school commented:
It has got to the stage with
recruitment now where she [the early
years teacher] doesn’t have to do
anything; they [the parents] approach
her at school, and say ‘when is this next
course coming up, and can I come?’
National Tests
Another factor that may have an impact on
recruiting parents is the need for participants to
take national literacy tests at Level 1 and 2, which
may exclude less qualified and less confident
parents, many of whom have bad memories of
their time at school, and some may think they are
not clever (or intellectually capable) enough to
join.
Around the time the research project began, in
2007, there was a drive by the then Labour
government to get more parents to take
accredited literacy tests in order to meet national
targets, and which was also seen as a way of
helping parents find employment (see, for
example, the two policy documents, Every Parent
Matters (2007) and Skills for Life: Changing Lives
(2009)). Although a desire to gain a qualification
was a relatively low priority for most parents,
almost all of them reported their willingness and
desire to take tests. They felt a genuine sense of
achievement when they gained an accreditation,
and that this contributed towards a gain in
confidence and an aspiration to progress onto
further courses, sometimes at a higher level, as
well as, potentially, making them more
employable.
I wasn’t fazed by it, and was glad I was
given the opportunity to gain an updated
qualification
It was nice to put yourself through an
exam at the end, to test yourself.
Some identified conditions that made them feel
more comfortable about doing tests such as not
being pressured, taking practice tests and being
tested in small groups.
We did a few mock exams. They [The
teacher] give [sic] us a few, because they
said – with you not being at school, it
makes you prepared, because lots of us
haven’t had any exams since we’ve been at
school. I quite enjoyed it.
EFFECTIVE FAMILY LITERACY PROVISION IN ENGLAND
32
However, although the research concluded that
the accreditation built into FL courses has been
generally regarded as a positive policy by the vast
majority of FL’s constituents, it needs to be
pointed out that the parents we spoke to were
those who had enrolled on the programme and we
are not able to know how many potential parents
were put off by the need to take a test. Thus, we
are unable to conclude whether national tests
have a positive or negative effect on recruitment.
Findings showed that 56% of the parents
reported gaining a formal qualification on short
courses and 71% on standard courses, which
suggests that longer programmes were able to
devote more course time to practising for, and
sitting, tests. The authors of this paper argue that
the introduction of national tests has changed the
culture of FL and moved away from its original
core purpose, i.e., improving children’s literacy
outcomes by giving parents strategies to support
their children’s literacy. This could mean that, out
of a 30 hour course, comprising of 10 one-hour
adult sessions
7
, two sessions were taken up with
parents practising past test papers, and one would
be put aside to sit the test itself. However, there is
always a trade-off, and the research project
recommended that consideration should be given
by policy-makers as to whether learners should
only take national tests on longer, standard,
courses, where time taken up with testing has less
of an impact on the time available to parents’
learning about ways to support their children and
improving their own literacy knowledge and skills.
After all, it can be argued that, in the majority of
cases, testing was only measuring what learners
already knew.
B. Parents
The main issues concerning parents were
around some of them being over-qualified to
attend; a lack of learners with relatively low, or
without, qualifications; and the general absence of
men.
Over-qualified learners
Only around a fifth of the parents in the project
reported that they had no qualifications or
qualifications at Entry level, and so were
underrepresented, in the sense that they are a
7
From a course of 30 hours, 10 hours were
designated as parents-only; 10 hours were
children-only and 10 hours were joint sessions.
primary target group for FL courses. At least 23%
of parents (N=114) reported having qualifications
in English at Level 2 (IALS Level 3) or above,
including 15 at Level 3 (A-Level or equivalent;
IALS Level 4), and four at Level 4 or above
(higher education)
8
. Although researchers were
unable to draw firm conclusions about the levels
at which parents were assessed in initial
diagnostic tests at the beginning of their courses
(not least because different examinations test
different areas of literacy), it is likely that many of
these parents would have been assessed at a
lower level. It seems important, though, that FL
programmes collect additional data on parents’
English and literacy levels at the start of courses,
in order to confirm that FL is reaching its target
groups of Level 1 or below. It needs to be pointed
out, though, that some of the qualifications were
taken a long time ago in the form of O Levels or
other qualifications equivalent to L2, and there
was undoubtedly some skills fade.
Sometimes an LA manager/coordinator would
accept a parent with higher qualifications if that
extra body prevented the class from starting by
not achieving the minimum number. As one LA
Manager also pointed out, ‘It’s a very small
percentage’ and he used his discretion on a case-
by-case basis:
If we excluded all those parents it might
have a knock on effect, a detrimental effect
on your relationships with the school, and
also with the parent body, because, you
know, it is going to be somebody’s friend –
how come she can do it and I can’t? You
know? But, having said all that we are able
to do that only because we get such a big
percentage of parents with low levels of
skills, few qualifications, from areas of high
socio economic deprivation, in other words,
that tick all the boxes. So we get very high
percentages of those, I think that gives us,
as a manager, then, I think it’s sensible to
take that decision to be inclusive, to use
your discretion on a case by case basis.
Another LA manager pointed out that these
parents and their children still benefited, and as
the main conclusion of the research was that the
8
However, it is important to point out that this
information was collected through a self-report
questionnaire and 48% of the sample were either
not sure or provided no response.
EFFECTIVE FAMILY LITERACY PROVISION IN ENGLAND
33
key benefit of attending FL courses for parents
was to find out how their children are taught at
school in order to better support them at home,
then the authors suggest that policy-makers may
wish to be a little more flexible.
One tutor also explained the rationale for
including parents who had qualifications in literacy
at Level 2 or above: for her, it was an issue of
inclusion.
We don’t select parents, we don’t
advertise to particular parents, we’ve
always advertised to everybody otherwise
they feel picked on and identified, ….most
of the parents that we get, if not all, will be
people who need the programme. On that
last course I had a couple of Level 2
parents, but even they, if you did a spiky
profile of their literacy skills, would have
significant gaps in some areas
Moreover, although recruitment practices may
run counter to policy, classroom observations
indicated that better educated parents helped and
encouraged their less well educated peers, rather
than caused any divisions. Furthermore, they were
equally willing to work on the same activities.
A lack of Entry Level learners
In some ways, an equally pressing concern was
the relatively low numbers of Entry Level learners,
or learners who held no formal qualifications.
Although there is no suggestion that the relatively
high proportion of learners who held qualifications
above Level 1 squeezed out these learners, the
fact remains is that these are the very parents
that FL programmes should be targeting, and yet
they only represented 19% of the total numbers
across the 74 programmes. The project did not
have the time or resources to pursue this matter
further, but breaking down barriers and widening
participation are clearly themes that need to be at
the forefront of the FL agenda. Certainly the LA
managers, tutors, headteachers and early years
teachers knew that they had to do better,
although few had any solutions. The authors
speculate that it is likely to be a mixture of
reasons but may be, at least partly, connected to
issues around people who have had poor
educational experiences which have resulted in
the development of negative attitudes to
schooling, and which are further complicated by
them viewing schools as essentially middle class
institutions. However, this is an area that requires
further research.
Too few men
Research consistently shows that FL classes are
predominantly female spaces (Brooks et al, 1996;
Ofsted, 2000, 2009; Borg & Mayo, 2001;
Goldman, 2005; Hannon et al, 2006; Anderson et
al, 2010), and the need to engage fathers still
represents a major challenge across all FL
programmes. Indeed, Anderson et al. (2010) point
out that FL should, perhaps, be referred to as
‘woman’s literacy’ as they make up the vast
majority of the participants. It is therefore not
surprising that improving engagement with fathers
represents a major challenge across all FL
programmes. The findings in this project show
that male participation was low, at 6% on average
across all courses, which corresponds exactly to
the figure Rose & Atkin (2007) found when they
interviewed 48 learners in programme across
England, Ireland and Malta. Three barriers to
engaging with fathers in FL emerged during
interviews with LA managers, including limited
access to provision, traditional roles and
responsibilities and female environments.
Some interviewees discussed the difficulties
that working fathers and non-resident fathers may
have in accessing FL provision as most
programmes run during school hours. A number
also said that some of their family groups see the
mother as the primary carer and father as the
main breadwinner. One LA manager told us:
It’s a cultural thing as well, because the
kind of groups we’ve got … the men are
quite happy to go out and work, and they
want their wives or partners to be totally
dedicated to bringing up the children…
Most interviewees mentioned that the vast
majority of tutors, teachers and practitioners in
early years settings and FL are female, which
might lead some fathers to think that learning is a
female activity.
To use the words of two of LA managers:
I just think if you go on the playground,
quite often most of the people in the
morning, dropping kids off, would be
mums. Most of the teachers in the school
will be women, most of the classroom
assistants will be women. So, in terms of
the staff and the people who turn up, they
EFFECTIVE FAMILY LITERACY PROVISION IN ENGLAND
34
are quite sort of female orientated. I don’t
think they try and exclude men; it is just
the actual presence, the numbers.
I think there is a danger that some of
the school venues and Children’s Centres
can appear a bit feminised. I think that’s
particularly so of Children’s Centres
actually, even though Children’s Centres
are actually doing a lot of work around
things like Dads groups, when you actually
walk into a children’s centre you’ve got
posters about breastfeeding…
These findings further confirm the work of
Macleod (2008) who interviewed fathers who had
begun and then discontinued attending FL
programmes, and also linked their reasons to
gender issues: that is, they felt the intimidated by
what they regarded as a feminised environment,
which, they perceived, threatened their masculine
identities
9
.
While some LA managers said they were
running ‘fathers-only’ courses, and these had been
successful in attracting men, others felt that this
was a form of segregation and did not seem
appropriate to the ethos of FL.
And what I would say is, when you do
get fellas taking part, quite often it’s very
positive, not only for the fella, but for the
other members of the group.
C. Schools
The main issues and themes that arose under
the headings of ‘school’ (where almost all the
programmes took place) were around poor
accommodation (including noise and space);
pressures on schools to release children (resulting
in children’s session being too short, and
sometimes not matching up with the adult
provision); and the competing agendas between
schools and LAs. Some programmes also suffered
from poor quality resources and limited access to
ICT.
9
The only country to have tackled this issue
systematically is Turkey, where mixed-gender FL
classes would be culturally unacceptable anyway.
Instead, the Mother-Child Education Foundation
has developed separate programmes for fathers;
these are less numerous to date than mothers’
programmes but, where they exist, are well
attended (Koçak, 2004).
Poor accommodation
The physical and cultural environment where
FL classes are held is of crucial importance to the
success and effectiveness of the provision, a point
that was forcefully made by tutors, LA managers
and headteachers. Out of the 12 settings visited,
researchers rated adult accommodation as being
‘good’ eight times (or two-thirds), ‘adequate’
once, and ‘poor’ three times. The children-only
sessions were not visited on a sufficient number of
occasions to make a meaningful judgement.
An example of ‘good’ accommodation is given
in the text below:
The classroom is very well resourced. It
is a dedicated room for family literacy and
numeracy and there is a sink and tea and
coffee making facilities. The parents are
able to come here before and after
sessions and most of them have their lunch
together here. This all helps to create a
relaxed, informal atmosphere. The chairs
are ‘upper junior’ size (for 9- to 11-year-
olds), which are not too small and
uncomfortable. There is a portable
whiteboard and a selection of about 50
children’s and 50 adults’ books on two
shelves, which parents are allowed to sign
for and take home each week.
(field notes 1: An example of a well
resourced family literacy classroom)
However, on other occasions, there were
difficulties or challenges associated with (1)
excessive noise, caused by a number of reasons
such as parents accompanied by noisy babies, and
(2) teaching and learning occurring in generally
unsuitable spaces such as school staffrooms and
canteens/dining halls.
Excessive noise
In one class the crèche was situated within a
small classroom, which was about 12 square
metres (4m x 3m). At one stage, there were 14
people in this space: three crèche workers, three
babies, three parent learners (including one with a
baby on her lap), a teacher, a support teacher,
the researcher and a family literacy manager. The
noise of the crèche was very loud and made
teaching extremely difficult. The teacher coped
brilliantly and told the researcher, ‘You just have
to get on with it’. Nevertheless, the noise was a
persistent and obvious barrier to good teaching
and learning (see field note 2).
EFFECTIVE FAMILY LITERACY PROVISION IN ENGLAND
35
The noise level is still high and now
Parent 2 is bottle-feeding her child, which
she has on her lap, in order to try and keep
him quiet. Parent 1 perseveres and carries
on reading. The story is about her
childhood, and, in particular, her school
days. Parent 2’s baby is crying loudly.
(Field notes 2: An example of a noisy
family literacy class.)
Teaching in unsuitable spaces
Not only did researchers see classes taught in
classrooms that included a crèche, some found
schools were not always able to provide dedicated
rooms, and so teachers and learners had to adapt
to different spaces on different occasions such as
canteens/dining halls, which became particularly
noisy as lunchtime approached. In one of the
sessions observed, the parents-only session was
taught in the staffroom, which was not an
appropriate or acceptable space, and which
became so noisy when a group of midday
assistants held a meeting before lunch that the FL
session had to be abandoned.
In some settings, parents were also often required
to sit on very small chairs, which were used by
reception-age or Year 1 pupils. These were
obviously very uncomfortable for adults, and this
could become particularly acute when they were
engaged in writing activities, including taking
national tests.
An important point to make is that space was
more likely to be at a premium in successful
schools where rolls are rising, and researchers
only saw dedicated rooms for FL in schools with
falling rolls. The situation posed a dilemma for LA
managers and tutors: did the LA have a ‘bottom
line’ and refuse to run a course where
accommodation was deemed as being
‘inappropriate’, or did the LA attempt to do all it
could to get the course up and running because it
was better to have some FL provision rather than
nothing? One tutor told researchers that she
would do her very best to hold the course, as long
as the room was safe. However, an LA manager
said that, although he recognised that schools
could find the physical accommodation difficult, he
had a bottom line of not sanctioning a course if
the school was unable to provide dedicated
teaching rooms for both parents and children.
Schools being reluctant to release children,
particularly for standard courses
Another theme that emerged came from
conversations and e-mail communications, with
and from LA managers/coordinators, which alerted
researchers to the fact that some headteachers
were becoming increasingly unwilling to release
children for longer programmes because they
worried that they would miss out on too much
learning. Schools were caught up in and subject to
the contemporary neoliberal policy agenda that
prioritises the performance indicators of ‘higher
standards’ and ‘rates of achievement’, and, feeling
accountable to parents, governors, LAs and
governments (Ball, 2003), so they felt the need to
ensure that children did not miss out on class
lessons that could, potentially, impact on and
compromise SATs results. Another related issue
that emerged was that some schools were also
reluctant to release children, particularly when FL
provision clashed with literacy and/or numeracy
hours, or when they did so, the session was
shorter that the time scheduled in the FL
programme
10
.
Adult and children session not always matching
up
The fact that some sessions did not always
match for the joint meeting of the parents with
their children is connected to the issues
immediately above. However, another reason was
linked to when adults were working, or practising
for their end-of-course national tests.
Competing agendas between schools and LAs
One of the difficulties of FL programmes that
the research uncovered (Swain et al, 2009) was
the competing and conflicting demands, or
agendas, between the FL programme policy-
makers (in the form of government and local
authorities and the Learning and Skills Councils
(LSCs), which have to meet national and local
priorities, and the schools, where the majority of
the programme are set. This can be seen in the
kind of parents each area of the provision is
attempting to attract. The former are interested in
particular parents with low SES, with qualifications
below Level 1, not only because they are part of
the inclusion agenda, but also because they can
10
One way around this is to schedule family
literacy courses in the afternoon (most literacy
hours take place in the mornings), although this
will often reduce the potential time from three to
two hours.
EFFECTIVE FAMILY LITERACY PROVISION IN ENGLAND
36
contribute to national targets by gaining
accredited national tests. In addition, adult
literacy teachers are working to build on parents’
motivation to help their children as a springboard
from which to develop adult skills. However, as we
have seen, the schools’ agenda is largely shaped
by the twin discourses of ‘higher standards’ and
‘rates of achievement’, and they therefore want
benefits that will enhance the school’s
effectiveness. Schools want any parent
(irrespective or not whether they have a
qualification in literacy at Level 1 or above) who
has a child in the school who is struggling with
literacy, and they see FL programmes as an
effective way of raising pupil attainment, as well
as a way of building stronger links between home
and school by bringing the more disaffected
parents into the school culture and improving
parent-teacher relations.
D. Family literacy tutors and early years
teachers
Insufficient time for planning
The main issue surrounding the literacy tutors
and the early years teachers was around planning.
The research found that the level of information
sharing, including planning, could present
problems, and this was likely to be more of an
issue in some rural areas. Planning between tutors
and teachers is key to successful practice, but only
some of the practitioners reported that this time
was built into the overall programme and funded
for.
Tutors and early years practitioners required
time for both medium- and short-term planning.
This necessitated meeting before the course
started to joint plan a scheme of work for the
whole programme, and, ideally, they should also
be meeting before the session to check what each
other was doing so that it matched up in the joint
or combined session. If a physical meeting was
not possible, tutors and teachers needed to at
least be in contact by telephone and/or e-mail. In
practice, researchers found that some meetings
for medium and short term planning were not
always happening.
Factors that enable successful family literacy
provision
Many of the issues discussed above can be
seen as either barriers, or constraining factors,
which
militate against effective FL provision, or at
least make it more difficult to achieve. However,
the research team also delineated a number of
key factors or features of provision, which
researchers concluded enable successful or
effective FL provision to take place, or at least
make it more likely. They are organised under the
same four headings of FL programmes/courses;
parents; schools, and FL tutors and teachers.
Effective FL provision is likely to occur when
there is/are:
FL programmes/courses
- strong leadership, with LA managers who have a
strong educational background and are able to
understand school structures, and headteachers
who support FL and recognised its benefits and
the role of parents in children’s learning;
- the use of parent support or liaison officers who
understand local parental concerns and issues to
recruit parents. Also, where there is the
involvement of past and present parents from FL
courses who act as ‘learning champions’ to attract
other parents, and who can interpret flyers and
leaflets into first languages if needed;
- the embedding of provision as part of a wider
family and adult learning programme, including a
mixture of short, ‘taster’ courses for parents who
may be daunted by the commitment required to
attend longer courses, which have a greater
chance of maximising change and progression;
- a flexible approach taken by LAs to FL, including
a willingness to maintain programmes when adult
enrolments are low in order to keep schools
engaged and allow interest in provision to grow;
- provision by LAs that shows clear routes of
progression which are signposted towards further
educational courses (e.g. family numeracy) and
training;
- a strong relationships between LAs and schools
and where LAs employ staff who are patient,
persistent and flexible in building relationships
with schools; and also where LAs develop
partnerships with colleges that enable access to
good quality adult literacy tutors;
Parents
- a commitment and regular attendance from
parents who form good relationships and support
each other. Where there are adult literacy tutors
who are encouraged to set up learner peer
support groups, which continue working together
once the course has finished;
- parents who use the class activities with their
children at home each week to support their
children’s learning;
EFFECTIVE FAMILY LITERACY PROVISION IN ENGLAND
37
Schools
- celebration assemblies are held by schools so
that children can see their parents gaining
qualifications;
- funds for schools to buy supply cover so that
school staff can be involved in FL recruitment,
planning and delivery;
- the provision of crèches during FL sessions,
which have a significant impact on parents’ ability
to successfully complete their course. Further, not
having to incur any cost for FL courses is a major
factor in parents’ enrolment;
- the use of local, convenient and familiar venues
for courses, appropriately furnished for FL
sessions, and with high quality resources and
materials (e.g. laminating machines and access to
ICT);
- schools which have a specially designated space
for FL in the main school building, and parents are
able to continue their studies in the same building
or in premises which are nearby;
Tutors and teachers
- the involvement of adult literacy tutors and early
years teaching staff who are well-qualified and
committed to FL, who have a good working
partnership, and who are able to form positive
relationships with learners;
- paid time is built into the programme for
planning between adult literacy tutors and early
years teachers, both for medium-term and short-
term objectives, so that they can work together in
the joint session;
- practitioners recognise that parents and children
were likely to have many different understandings
and cultural norms. They need to start from where
the parents and children are in terms of their
understandings of literacy and their literacy skills;
-parents-only sessions are linked directly to the
school curriculum and include information for
parents on how, as well as what, children are
taught in school.
Conclusions
The project on which this paper is based
evaluated the impact of FL in England and found
considerable benefits for parents, children and
schools. The paper has delineated and discussed a
number of key issues that recurred throughout the
research. These were around recruitment, national
tests, the educational profile of the parents,
accommodation, the tension between the agendas
of schools and LAs and lack of opportunities for
planning, and the authors argue that these need
to be taken seriously by future policy makers who
are interested in designing new FL programmes.
The hook that is used to enrol many parents
was their children but, once they had overcome
their initial anxieties, many parents began to
enjoy learning and wanted to improve their own
skills. Parents learned about how their children
were taught and become better able to support
their child’s learning at home. Parents became
more closely involved with the school and
relations with staff improved. Parents and children
enjoyed their experience of learning together, and
many of the gains lasted well beyond the date the
course finishes.
In many ways FL is a win-win situation, and
throughout the project researchers either heard
about, or observed, many examples from the list
above that enabled good and effective FL practice.
And yet things can always be better, and much of
the success is often achieved despite quite
challenging circumstances. Funding is not always
sufficient and from 2011 is no longer ring-fenced
specifically for family learning
11
. The expansion of
the LSC menu of family programmes over recent
years has not been matched by an equivalent
increase in overall funding. This necessarily means
that funding for each type of programme,
including FL, is spread thinner. Moreover, as we
have seen, accommodation is often still poor.
FL was particularly effective where it was
embedded in a school’s core offer of family and
adult learning to parents. In some cases this was
accompanied by a specially designated family
room, which allowed for good quality resources
including ICT and permanent displays of families’
work. The present funding arrangements work
against permanent rolling programmes of FL in
schools as providers strive to cover high demand
on limited budgets, and these problems were
often particularly acute in smaller schools.
At its inception in the mid 1990’s, FL was seen
as a soft tool to engage parents with no formal
qualifications in learning while supporting their
children. Over the years, its emphasis has shifted,
and it is now seen as an important factor in
delivering targets, i.e. national qualifications at
Entry level 3 and Levels 1 and 2. It is important to
11
Funding for family learning currently comes
from within the Adult Safeguard, although, from
2011, the elements of the Safeguard were no
longer ring-fenced. The present government is
undertaking a review of ‘Informal Adult and
Community Learning’, and this opens things up for
how the Safeguard will be spent from 2012/13.
EFFECTIVE FAMILY LITERACY PROVISION IN ENGLAND
38
ensure that, as well as continuing to do this, FL is
also able to attract learners at Entry levels 1 and 2
and continues to offer learning in relaxed and
innovative ways to an often totally turned-off
group of non-learners, but out of which comes
huge enjoyment, great camaraderie, some literacy
improvement and often the confidence and
interest to carry on learning.
Most importantly, FL should not be seen as a
quick fix. Although FL may help to break the
generational cycle of deprivation this may take
much longer than policy makers would like, and as
Rose & Atkin (2005) point out, it may be not until
the current generation of children become parents
and educators themselves that the real benefits of
these programmes will be seen.
Acknowledgments
The research was undertaken by the National Research and Development Centre for Adult Literacy and
Numeracy (NRDC) with the National Institute of Adult Continuing Education (NIACE) on behalf of the
Learning and Skills Improvement Service (LSIS). See Swain et al. (2009).
EFFECTIVE FAMILY LITERACY PROVISION IN ENGLAND
39
References
Anderson, J, & Morrison, F. (2007) ‘A great program…for me as a grandma’: Caregivers evaluate a family
literacy initiative. Canadian Journal of Education, 30, 68-89.
Anderson, J., Anderson, A., Friedrich, N. & Kim, Ji Eun (2010) Taking stock of family literacy: Some
contemporary perspectives. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 10(1), (33-53)
Atkin, C., Rose, A, & Shier, R. (2005) Provision of, and learner engagement with, adult literacy, numeracy
and ESOL support in rural England: a comparative case study, London: NRDC, Institute of Education,
University of London.
Ball, S. (2003) Class struggles and the education market: the middle class and social advantage. London:
RoutledgeFalmer.
Borg, C. & Mayo, P. (2001) From ‘adjuncts’ to ‘subjects’: parental involvement in a working-class community.
British Journal of Sociology of Education, 22(2), 245-266.
Brooks, G. (2002) What Works for Children with Literacy Difficulties? The Effectiveness of Intervention
Schemes. London: DfES, Research Report RR380.
Brooks, G., Gorman, T., Harman, J., Hutchison, D. & Wilkin, A. (1996) Family literacy works. London: Basic
Skills Agency.
Brooks, G., Gorman, T., Harman, J., Hutchison, D., Kinder, K., Moor, H. & Wilkin, A. (1997) Family literacy
lasts. London: Basic Skills Agency.
Brooks, G., Harman, J., Hutchison, D., Kendall, S. & Wilkin, A. (1999) Family literacy for new groups.
London: Basic Skills Agency.
Brooks, G., Pahl, K., Pollard, A. & Rees, F. (2008) Effective and inclusive practices in family literacy,
language and numeracy: a review of programme and practice in the UK and internationally. Reading:
CfBT.
Brooks, G. and Hannon, P. (2012, in press). ‘Research issues in family literacy.’ In Larson, J., and Marsh, J.
(eds.) Handbook of Early Childhood Literacy Research, 2
nd
edition. London: Sage.
Carpentieri, J., Fairfax - Cholmeley, K., Litster, J. & Vorhaus, J. (2011) Family literacy in Europe: using
parental support initiatives to enhance early literacy development. London: NRDC, Institute of
Education.
De Coulon, A. & Cara, O. (2008) Skills for Life teachers' qualifications and their learners' progress in adult
numeracy. London: National Research and Development Centre for Adult Literacy and Numeracy.
Department for Education and Skills (DfES) (2007) Every Parent Matters: Helping you help your child.
London: DfES.
Desforges, C. & Abouchaar, A. (2003) The impact of parental involvement, parental support and family
education on pupil achievements and adjustments: a literature review. London, DfES
Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills (DIUS) (2009) Skills for Life: Changing Lives. London:
DIUS.
Erion, J. (2006). Parent Tutoring: A Meta-Analysis. Education and Treatment of Children, 29(1), 79-106.
Feinstein, L., Duckworth, K. & Sabates, R. (2004) A model of the Intergenerational Effects of Parental
Education. London: Centre for Research on the Wider Benefits of Learning. Department of Education
and Skills Research Brief.
Hannon, P. (1999) Rhetoric and research in family literacy. British Educational Research Journal, 26(1), 121-
138.
Hannon, P. (1986) Teachers and parents’ experiences of parental involvement in the teaching of reading.
Cambridge Journal of Education, 16(1), 28-37.
Hannon, P. and Jackson, A. (1987) The Belfield Reading Project – Final Report. London/Rochdale. National
Children’s Bureau/Belfield Community Council.
EFFECTIVE FAMILY LITERACY PROVISION IN ENGLAND
40
Hannon, P., Morgan, A. & Nutbrown, C. (2006) Parents’ experiences of a family literacy programme. Journal
of Early Childhood Research, 4(1), 19-44.
Hannon, P., Weinberger, J. & Nutbrown, C. (1991) A study of work with parents to promote early literacy
development. Research Papers in Education, 6(2), 77-97.
Hirst, K. (1998) Pre-school literacy experiences of children in Punjabi, Urdu and Gujerati speaking families in
England. British Educational Research Journal, 24(4), 415-429.
Hodge, R. (2006) Effective practices in family literacy language and numeracy project: Report of Phase 2
Case Study: Inspiration and aspiration: exploring the nature and success of FLLN provision in a
multilingual context. Lancaster Literacy Research Centre: NRDC/CfBT Trust.
Horne, J. & Haggart, J. (2004) The impact of adults’ participation in family learning – a study based in
Lancashire. Leicester: NIACE
Koh, A. (2004) Singapore Education in “New Times”: Local/Global Imperatives. Discourse, 25(3), 335–49.
Koçak, A. A. (2004). Evaluation Report of the Father-Child Support Programme. İstanbul: Mother-Child
Education Foundation Publications.
Lamb, P., Fairfax-Cholmeley, K. Thomas, M. (2008) Families, learning and progression: a resource pack for
practitioners and managers. Leicester: NIACE
LSC Funding Guidance (LSC) (2009/10) Coventry: Learning and Skills Council.
Macleod, F. (2008) Why Fathers are not Attracted to Family Learning Groups. Early Child Development and
Care, 178(7–8), 773–83.
Manz, P., Hughes, C. Barnaba, E., Bracaliello, C. &Ginsburg-Block.M. (2010) A descriptive review and meta-
analysis of family-based emergent literacy interventions: To what extent is the research applicable to
low-income, ethnic-minority or linguistically-diverse young children? Early Childhood Research
Quarterly, 409-431.
Mol, S.E., Bus, A.G., De Jong, M.T. & Smeets, D.J.H. (2008) Added value of dialogic parent-child book
readings: A meta-analysis. Early Education and Development, 19, 7–26.
Nutbrown. C. & Hannon, P. (2003) Children’s Perspectives on Family Literacy: Methodological Issues,
Findings and Implications for Practice. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 3(2), 115-145.
Nye, C., Turner, H. & Schwartz, J. (2006) Approaches to parent involvement for improving the academic
performance of elementary school age children. Accessed at http://campbellcollaboration. org/doc-
pdf/Nye_PI_Review. pdf, 14(11), 06.
OFSTED (2000) Family learning: A survey of current practice. London: Ofsted
OFSTED (2009) Family learning: An evaluation of the benefits of family learning for participants, their
families and the wider community.
Parsons, S. & Bynner, J. (2007) Illuminating disadvantage: Profiling the experiences of adults with Entry
level literacy or numeracy over the lifecourse. London: National Research and Development Centre
for Adult Literacy and Numeracy.
Rose, A. & Atkin, C. (2007) Family literacy in Europe: separate agendas? Compare, 37(5), 601-615.
Schuller, T., Brassett-Grundy, A., Green, A., Hammond, C. & Preston, J. (2002) Learning, Continuity and
change in Adult Life. London: The Centre for Research on the Wider Benefits of Learning, Institute of
Education, University of London
Senechal, M. & Young, L. (2008) The effects of family literacy interventions on children’s acquisition of
reading from kindergarten to Grade 3: a meta-analytic review. Review of Educational Research,
78(4), 880-907.
Swain, J., Welby, S., Brooks, G., Bosley, S, Frumkin, L., Fairfax-Cholmeley, K., Pérez, A. & Cara, O. (2009)
Learning literacy together: the impact and effectiveness of family literacy on parents, children,
families and schools. Executive summary - October 2009. Coventry: Learning and Skills
Improvement Service.
EFFECTIVE FAMILY LITERACY PROVISION IN ENGLAND
41
van Steensel, R., McElvany, N., Kurvers, J. & Herppich, S. (2011) How Effective Are Family Literacy
Programs? Results of a Meta-Analysis. Review of Educational Research, 81[1], 69-96.
Wagner, M., Spiker, D. & Linn, M. (2002) The effectiveness of the Parents as Teachers program with low-
income parents and children. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 22(2), 67-81.
Whitehurst, G.J., Epstein, J.N., Angell, A.L., Payne, A.C., Crone, D.A. & Fischel, J.E. (1994) Outcomes of an
emergent literacy intervention in Head Start. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(4), 542-555.
