Review of The Literature Family Literacy Programs

Review of the Literature:
Family Literacy Programs

March 2009
Prepared by:
Associate Professor Kaye Lowe
Debbie Martens
Kelly Hannett
Ros Tunks
Literature Review - Family Literacy Programs Page I
Tis Project is supported by funding from the Australian Government Department
of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations under the National Projects
element of the Literacy, Numeracy and Special Learning Needs Program. Any views
expressed do not necessarily represent the views of the Australian Government De-
partment of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations.
Literature Review - Family Literacy Programs Page II
Contents
Introduction 1
The literacy context 2
Rationale for parent involvement 3
Defning parent education programs and family literacy 6
Essential criteria associated with efective parent education programs 7
Programs delivered to adults in order to beneft children 16
Course components 22
Evaluating parent education programs 25
Implications and recommendations 26
References 28
Literature Review - Family Literacy Programs Page III
Review of the Literature: Family Literacy programs
Project Description
Te aim of this Project is to complete an in-depth literature review of world-wide
family literacy programs that actively and successfully support the development of
childrens literacy skills. Te Project explores the evidence base for successful family
literacy programs; and identies the benets of parental/caregiver involvement in
literacy education programs on educational achievement, reading acquisition, and
attitudes towards education.
Project Objectives
To identify the benets of parental/caregiver involvement in literacy educa-
tion programs on educational achievement, reading acquisition, and attitudes
towards education.
To explore the evidence base for successful family literacy programs and iden-
tify the characteristics that make these programs successful and sustainable
To document commonalities across successful family literacy programs
To compile a set of recommendations for developing family literacy projects
and initiatives for the provision of quality education opportunities for parents
that reduce fragmentation in services for families; improve program account-
ability; raise standards; and expand professional development and technical
resources for programs.
Literature Review - Family Literacy Programs Page 1
Introduction
Te parent [caregiver] is the primary force that propels the child into the world of
discovery, the world of literacy, and the world of success. Gilliam (2004, p.226)
While the intention of this review is to report the research literature on parent in-
volvement in the acquisition of reading from K-10, an intensive search reveals that
evidence-based, prolonged research on the eectiveness of parent education pro-
grams is lacking. It appears that most programs are short-lived, often school based
and predominantly designed for parents of children in the early years of school (P-3).
Few parent programs, according to Wasik (2004), address the needs of children in
the primary grades and beyond. Tere is considerable emphasis on programs con-
ducted for families from low socio-economic backgrounds and/or ESL families.
Indepth descriptions of the components of parent education programs, their specic
content, desired strategies and evaluation processes are often overlooked. An excep-
tion is the Canadian Paired Reading program described in research by Cadieux
and Boudreault (2005). Te research involved assessing the eects of a parent-child
paired reading program on reading abilities, phonological awareness and self-
concept of at-risk students with 54 kindergarten students divided into control and
experimental groups. Training for parents involved using the paired reading method
whereby the parent and child read together until the child signals an intention to
proceed independently. When the child falters for more than four seconds or makes
a mistake, the parent reads with the child again until the next signal. Te results of
the research indicate positive gains for the experimental group.
Research by Senechal et al (2000) conrms the lack of research evidence. One of
the most important ndings here was the dearth of intervention research on par-
ent reading with children in kindergarten to grade 3 (p.20). When it comes to the
involvement of fathers in the learning of children, there are even fewer studies.
While there is a considerable body of research on the eects of literacy interventions
with mothers of young children (Ortiz, 1994, 2004), studies of the impact of literacy
programs with fathers is generally neglected. In general, there is limited research
on fathers contributions to their childrens reading and writing development. As
Ortiz 2004 points out, parent involvement is an important goal of early childhood
education programs, but parents often mean mothers. Bronsteins (1984) study of
parent-child dyads indicated a number of dierences between maternal and paternal
behaviours. Marks and Palkovitz (2004) made a case for families to have a balance
involving fathers.
Nord et al (1997) showed that fathers from two parent families who participated in
school at a moderate or high level had children who usually achieved high marks,
enjoyed school and never repeated a grade. Te same outcomes were achieved by
fathers who had the same level of involvement but lived outside the home. Gadsden
(2003) stresses that Fathersthrough their presence or absence, their involvement
or distanceare a critical subset of adults whose uses of and interactions around
literacy help to frame literacy expectations and goals of both individual family mem-
bers and the entire family unit. (p. 86)
More research is needed to identify parent involvement programs that are eective
for target populations. Cultural and language dierences often preclude parents
from attending parent education programs. Parents who for various reasons feel in-
timated or threatened in a school context are referred to in the literature as invisible
parents. Te eorts of some schools to reach these parents is commendable. Gaug-
ing the depth of information about reading and how best to present it requires a con-
certed research eort by the education community. Long term investigations of the
training requirements of providers are also crucial. As Cassidy & Cassidy (2002-03)
point out family literacy is not receiving current or positive attention even though it
was agreed by participants of their research that it should be.
The literacy context
Cadieux & Boudreault (2003) claim that over the last few years there has been an in-
crease in the number of pupils experiencing diculties in normal classrooms. When
this is combined with budgetary cuts, limited services are available to students. As
a result, policy makers and education specialists are urged to improve cooperation
between schools and parents in order to prevent continued academic failure, particu-
larly in reading.
In 2009, the percentage of children leaving Year 12 having attained inadequate literacy
levels is perplexing. Te Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) reported in July 2008 that
literacy levels among high school students and student leavers has dropped 3.7 percent-
age points in the past ten years. Approximately one in two 15- to 24-year olds is unable
to read to an adequate level to properly function in society. Te report claims that only
one in four people achieved a score of three or above in all test areas. Te results were
ranked one to ve with ve being the highest. Te proportion of teenagers aged between
15 and 19 with literacy skills above three dropped to 9.3 per cent from 14.1 percent in
1996. (www.independentschoolparents.com.au/news/2008/abs_literacy_survey.html)
Te National Assessment Program in Literacy and Numeracy, 2007, reports that one
in ve Indigenous students in Year 3 failed to meet the reading benchmark. In a media
release (19
th
December, 2008) the Hon Julia Gillard MP, stated that the data shows that
Indigenous student achievement is signicantly lower than non Indigenous students in
all areas tested and in all jurisdictions.
Te problem is not conned to Australia. In the US, A long-awaited federal study nds
that an estimated 32 million adults in the US about one in seven- are saddled with such
low literacy levels that it would be tough for them to read anything more challenging
than a childrens picture book or to understand a medications side eects listed on a pill
bottle. (nces.ed.gov/naal/estimates/index.aspx)
Rationale for parent involvement
Parents and caregivers are an under utilised and often undervalued resource. In-
formed parents can make a dierence in reducing the burgeoning literacy problems
evident in todays classrooms. In the majority of cases, they have a vested interest in
their children achieving literacy success and have ready access (and in most cases,
elect to make time) to provide one-on-one assistance to children experiencing litera-
cy diculties. Research ndings from Project ROAR (Reach Out And Read) indicate
that parents are eager to help their children and when instructed in appropriate lit-
eracy activities can positively aect the academic progress of their children (Gilliam
et al, 2004). Research indicates that training of parents done in conjunction with
the provision of a grab-bag of eective strategies to use at home is the most eective
form of parent education.
Newmen et al, (1995) concurs that parents are willing, able, and want to help in
the literacy development of their children. Most, however, are unsure of how to
teach reading or help their children with literacy development. (Cunningham and
Allington, 2003). Te benets of parental involvement in the early years are well
documented. If the only thing a parent did in the name of literacy was to read on a
regular basis to their children, the benets would be undeniable. A child between
ages one and six who shares a book with an adult for 15 minutes a day will have had
455 hours of individual reading instruction before entering school. A child who isnt
read to will have none. (Weigel, Behal & Martin, 2001). Parents during reading time
may be unaware that they are contributing to reading acquisition. In reading to their
children, they model good reading, demonstrate what readers do, and promote a love
of reading. Children who begin school with knowledge of book language, familiarity
with concepts of print and positive attitudes toward reading are privileged.
Sargent, Hill & Morrison (2006) contend that parental involvement, beliefs, and at-
titudes toward reading exert a profound impact on childrens literacy development.
Tis notion of parents promoting a positive attitude is stressed in the research of
Snow, Burns and Grin, (1998) who claim that parents perceptions, values, atti-
tudes, and expectations play an important role in their childrens attitudes toward
reading and subsequent literacy development.
Unfortunately, research ndings highlight the inequities of literacy opportunities in
the early years. Parents who are economically disadvantaged and have limited Eng-
lish prociency rarely read to their preschool children or read themselves. (Gadsden
and Wagner, 1995; Philliber, Spillman & King, 1996). Regretfully, the solid founda-
tion of beginning reading is often absent for children born into these families.
Going beyond reading aloud, parents who read to their children in combination with
literacy strategies contributed the most to positive eects. Senechals (2006) meta-
analytic review of parent programs concluded that fourteen intervention studies
involving 1174 families showed that overall parent involvement had a positive im-
pact on childrens reading acquisition. Parent programs where parents were taught
specic literacy skills to use with their children were twice as eective compared to
those where parents listened to their children read and six times more eective than
those where parents were encouraged to read to their children.
Toomey (1993) reinforces that parents listening to their children read contributed to
reading improvement of their children. Toomey adds that parents who were given
simple but specic strategies on how to read books sent home from school fared better
than students whose parents were given general strategies. In another study conducted
by Topping and Lindsay (1992), paired reading was a strategy seen to benet children.
Investigations by Bus, van Ijzendoorn, & Pellegrini, (1995) of the reading strategy joint
book reading revealed an overall positive association between parents reading to their
children and childrens emergent literacy or reading achievement.
Darling & Westberg (2004) agree that the most eective form of parent involvement, pro-
ducing the best results, is training parents to use a specic reading strategy. Tey argue
that the strategy should be one that children are working on in school. Tey refer to the
Family Fluency Program that combined teacher training and working with children at
school with workshops for parents. Parents were taught a number of dierent reading
strategies such as echo reading, choral reading, partner reading and repeated reading to
help support their children at home. Te children also participated in the parent work-
shops and practiced these strategies together with support from the trainers.
Te Cooperative Extension Children, Youth and Families team in Nevada used storytell-
ing as their strategy. Tey initiated a family program named Family Storyteller in 1997.
Te program held 41 workshops to reach target families and community programs. Te
program aimed to get books into childrens hands and improve their early literacy skills.
Te child and parent participated in activities together during a series of six workshops.
Te children were encouraged to enjoy reading and the parents learned what to do to
help their children. Tere was a positive response from parents and families who partici-
pated in the program with results showing that their children made signicant gains in
their enjoyment of reading with parents and an increased understanding of print con-
cepts.
Darling and Westbergs (2004) investigation of twenty interventions reinforces the posi-
tive eects of parent involvement on childrens reading acquisition.
Training parents to teach their children reading with specic exercises produced
greater results than training parents to listen to children read with or without train-
ing.
Training parents to listen to their children read was two times more eective than
having parents listen to their children without training.
Interventions four months or shorter were more eective than interventions longer
than ve months.
Te amount of training and feedback parents received had no impact on the eec-
tiveness of the intervention.
Parent involvement had a positive eect on all children K-3
Socio economic status of the participating families did not impact on the positive
eect of the interventions
Te Complexity of Community and Family inuences on Childrens Achievement in New
Zealand: Best Evidence Synthesis (2003) concluded that:
Parents and caregivers can have a signicant inuence on childrens achievement
Parents want the best for their children
Many parents are prepared to learn appropriate strategies to help them.
Te New Zealand Quality Teaching for Diverse Students in Schooling: Best Evidence
Synthesis (2003) found that quality teaching eects are enhanced when there are eective
school-home partnership practices which are focused on student learning.
Prevention rather than cure
Research by Snow, Barnes, Chandler, Goodman, and Hemphill (1991) demonstrates that
children from homes where parents model the uses of literacy and engage children in ac-
tivities that promote basic understandings about literacy and its uses are better prepared
for school.
A number of projects focus on supporting parents as the childs rst literacy educator.
For example, the project Support at Home for Early Language and Literacies (SHELLS)
is an early literacy intervention program developed by sta at the University of Newcastle
with an emphasis on rural and remote communities. It is a home-based program for
parents with children aged 0-3. Home visits, group meetings, telephone contact, com-
munity radio, and newsletters are the means of communication. Te program aims to:
Support childrens literacy by empowering their parents and caregivers in their role a.
as their childrens rst literacy educators
Learn more about the foundations of literacy. b.
Among the outcomes observed are positive changes in family literacy experiences and
interactions as well as increased condence among parents and caregivers in their lit-
eracy educator role. Further, the intervention has provided a collaborative model for early
literacy partnerships between researchers and parents. (Eakle & Garber, 2003).
According to Purcell-Gates (2000), the number of children failing is signicantly reduced
when parents co operate actively in their childrens school education right from the start.
In addition, evidence suggests that when teachers and parents partner to support chil-
drens reading and academic achievement, at-risk children exhibit demonstrable gains
(US Dept of Education 2001, Longitudinal Evaluation of School Change and Performance
in Title I Schools).
Defning parent education programs and family literacy
Te nature and composition of Australian families is changing. According to the
Australian Bureau of Statistics, decreases in marriage rates and increases in divorce
rates over the past twenty years have resulted in changing family structures within
Australia. Increases in the proportion of babies being born outside registered mar-
riages and increases in cohabitation provide evidence that registered marriage as the
traditional social institution for family formation is declining.
Te use of words such as parent education and family literacy has taken on dierent
connotations as a result of the changing nature of families. Family members, other
than mothers and fathers, help children at home. Tere is a growing involvement of
grandparents as primary carers and providers of education support. If parent educa-
tion and family literacy initiatives are to be inclusive, the changing nature of families
and the diversity of communities and cultures must be reected in the naming of
such programs. Recognizing and valuing dierent forms of literacy and the many
ways literacy is supported in homes and communities means that parent education
programs must embrace diverse cultural and linguistic contexts.
Mui & Anderson (2008) state that:
Families are sites for myriad forms of literacy, not just storybook reading
Dierent family members, not just parents, play a role
A complex set of interaction patterns, not just parents or other signicant oth-
ers transmit reading and writing skills to children in a unidirectional manner
(p. 240)
Mace (1998) and Anderson, Streelasky & Anderson (2007) reject the stereotypes
often associated with family literacy the mother reading a book with her young
child is all too often the norm and appeared as the dominant image on one hundred
randomly selected family literacy websites.
Te literature classies parent education according to broad categories. Nickse
(1991) identies three types of literacy programs:
Tose delivered directly to adults and children, for example, Project ROAR
(Texas US), REAL Project (Northern England), Fathers Literacy Program (US),
Family Literacy Program (Canada), Paired Reading (Canada), Family Fluency
Program (New Jersey) , Fast Start (US), Bridges to Literacy (Southeastern US),
Project EASE (US), Even Start (US), BLT (US), Family Storyteller (US), PALS
(Canada) and FAB:ulous (US).
Tose delivered to children only with benets for parents, for example, Reading
Clinic (US)
Tose delivered to parents with expected benets for children, for example,
Parents As Teachers Home Visiting Program (Missouri), Reading Together
(New Zealand), Toyota Families in Schools Program (US), Intergenerational
Literacy Project (US)
Another classication of parent involvement involves the location of the program
(Fantuzzo et al 2000; Hill and Craft, 2003):
School-based i.e., activities that occur in school environment - volunteering in
classrooms, fundraising, for example, Intergenerational Literacy project (US)
Home-school-conferencing communicating between school and home e.g.
attending parent teacher interviews, discuss daily routines, for example, Project
Ease
Home based learning that takes place in the home, reviewing homework, for
example, Paired Reading (Canada)
More specic classications refer to the focus of instruction as indicated by Te
Barbara Bush Foundation (2001) as cited in (Lilly & Green, 2004). A four pronged
approach to family literacy programs is identied:
adult literacy instruction
emergent literacy experiences for children
time for parents and children to be together
group discussions for parents.
Family literacy on the other hand is more encompassing and has two broad deni-
tions. Te rst refers to the many ways parents and a child interacts around texts
and usually takes into consideration the day to day interactions that occur in the
home. Understanding the myriad ways dierent households support literacy in a
multicultural and multilingual context is essential to the variety of family literacy
programs created. Clay (1993) claims that the denitions of literacy, the values and
functions ascribed to it, and the ways in which it is taught and learned vary from one
cultural group and social context to another (Clay, 1993). Te second refers to family
literacy as a program or curriculum aligned with parent and carer type programs that
have a focus on preparing children for success in school.
Essential criteria associated with efective parent
education programs
Hands on approach
Te literature accentuates the need for parent education programs to be practical
and comprehensible. Te emphasis is in helping parents understand why particular
practices and strategies are important. Parents benet from opportunities to dis-
cuss and practice literacy routines before implementing them on their own at home
through communication channels that are open, dependable, non intrusive (Shock-
ley, Michalove & Allen 1995, p.94).
A workshop approach to family involvement should be a dynamic, relevant op-
portunity for families Participants should be active, participating in tasks and
activities. Participants should be considered equals and current strategies in the
home should be recognised. Communication with parents is vitally important
for building integrated, collaborative literacy partnerships with families. (Lilly
& Green, 2004).
Parent education must provide ongoing training, communication, and support.
Training includes demonstrations, opportunities for discussion and questions. It is
not uncommon for parents to feel threatened about their own lack of education or
ability to read. Terefore, the course needs to be sensitive to the needs of parents
and meet them where ever they are at, with ongoing support and personal contact.
Provide authentic reading texts
A key to success is parents reading to children. In reading aloud they model eective
reading and point out pertinent text features. Parents who listen to their children
read aloud provide the necessary support for their children to succeed. Texts must
be authentic and interesting. Parent courses that provide a choice of reading materi-
als and resources are most supportive of parents eorts.
Activities are easy, enjoyable and consistent
Time is an important consideration of a home reading program and ten to fteen
minutes ve nights a week is an adequate request. Routines should be simple and
easily established as part of a nightly routine.
Documented home activities
Eective programs encourage parents to document their home involvement. Often
it is suggested that parents maintain a log of activities posted in an obvious place.
Te log serves not only as a reminder, but also documentation of the learners prog-
ress and involvement in the program.
Build parents and child confdence through quality and appropriate literature
Families need to provide children with opportunities to access books that will en-
hance their perception of competence with print (Barnes et al 2000). Often par-
ent education programs are accompanied by a family lending library. Te libraries
provide an ideal way to encourage the families literacy opportunities at home. It
gives parents the chance to continue with literacy strategies in the home. Te lending
library gives children access to texts that they are excited to read.
Accessibility
According to Morrow et al (2006) involving parents as an integral part of literacy
instruction is crucial. Letting parents know how they can help to support the school
program at home is important, but homeschool programs need to be easy to use.
Te timing and availability of courses is important. Most courses were conducted
after school hours. Others oered child care. Te Intergenerational Literacy Project
oered child care to parents below school age whilst parents attended courses run
concurrently with school hours. Follow up included home visits.
In order to strengthen the accessibility of a program, there were a number of parent
programs combined with other services such as health and social services, for ex-
ample, Even Start (US).
Parents involved in the planning
Come and Fredericks (1995) found that the key ingredient to the success of the pro-
gram was the involvement of the parents in the planning. Families engage in widely
dierent literacy experiences and practices in their homes and communities. It is
important to continually recognise and respect the unique and diering ways fami-
lies participate and promote literacy in their homes. An eective parent program
builds upon what is already happening in the home and encourages parents to share
their literacy experiences with their children. A simple, open-ended questionnaire
or interviews are helpful ways to compile this information quickly and easily. (Lilly &
Green, 2004).
According to Strickland (2004), successful parent education programs are sustained
and consistent over time. Tey go well beyond specic program activities to include
strong parent outreach in every aspect of home-school relations. Te FAB:ulous
program goes beyond this brief to endorse the notion of planning as part of a self-
educative function of the program. Te FAB:ulous program recommends that an
inclusive team be indentied to create the program and that the planning function be
self-educative. Longwell-Grice & McIntyre, (2006) claim that through self-educa-
tion, facilitators are empowered and communities grow.
When developing the Family Literacy Program in Rural Atlantic Canada, the follow-
ing characteristics were considered as essential that the program should be:
Meaningful to the participants and situated in the family and community con-
text (Brown, 1998)
Involve parents in the planning
Include activities that are family based
Implement ongoing assessment
Families created social networks among each other in the groups (Newman,
Caperelli & Kee, 1998).
Te Bridges to Literacy project reported by Waldbart , Meyers and Meyers (2006)
conveys the idea of making connections between home and school. Bridges to Liter-
acy aims to enhance the quality of childrens literacy interactions with family mem-
bers and simultaneously increase family involvement at schools. Implications of the
project contradict the characterization of many parents who are marginalized due to
race or class as having low expectations and being unwilling to be involved in their
childrens schools.
Meyers, Dowdy, & Paterson (2000) raise the issue of invisible families those who
are reluctant to participate and rarely seen at school events. Tey point out that the
Majority perspectives of parent involvement make assumptions that may be incom-
patible with the customs and actions concerning the involvement of non majority
families. Tis mismatch between expectations and behaviours contribute to tensions
between caregivers and educators (p.60).
Refect the literacy practices associated with what families already know and do in
their home and community
Students learn to read and write when families provide literacy rich environments,
experiences and interactions. Te most eective literacy practices are those that
reect the literacy practices associated with what families already know and do in
their home and community (Nistler and Maiers, 2000; Saracho, 2002a; Tett 2000).
Mui & Anderson (2008) stress that As teachers work with increasing numbers of
children and families from dierent cultural groups, it is essential that they recognize
and value the dierent ways that literacy is supported in homes and communities
(p.234). Tis notion is well supported in the literature.
Planning literacy strategies in the home after identifying what the focus should
be is a way to ensure a strong literacy environment for children. For example, if
a family has a strong oral tradition the focus may then become involvement with
written text. Planning the writing of a shopping list, scribing a story or research-
ing a topic on the Internet will begin to change the focus to the written text. (Lilly
& Green, 2004).
Reading together research demonstrates that partnerships between home and school
help to raise childrens achievement and to bridge cultures, thereby reducing the neg-
ative eects that can occur when the childs language and culture dier from those of
the school (Biddulph, 1983; Biddulph, 2004a; Biddulph & Tuck, 1983).
In the Clarke Elementary School case study conducted by Graves Smith (2006), one
of the most important ndings was related to the consideration for the needs of
families. It was found that understanding the neighbourhood was critical for suc-
cessful development of the parent/family program. Assessing the community led to
the creation of a program that parents attended and were enthusiastic about. It was
suggested that low socio economic school/communities may have diering concerns
or willingness when compared with middle to upper class schools/communities. Tis
information was essential to consider in guiding the program.
Parent programs must overtly ground their eorts in needs as perceived by the com-
munities they serve. It is recommended that once a potential program is conceived,
specic plans should be outlined to engage the target population in the planning
process. According to Strickland (1996) planning should highlight and build on the
strengths of the community to be served. In addition, Strickland claims that when a
community has limited resources, programs should be targeted to the most needy.
Incentives
A number of programs that oered incentives for parents to attend are identied in
the literature. Single parent families, immigrant and low socio-economic families
were provided with incentives such as child care. Te Family Fluency Program in
New Jersey targeted parents of children in Grade 2 from low-socio-economic areas.
Te program catered for families by running three evening workshops where chil-
dren, parents and siblings attended together. Parents were instructed in a workshop
whilst the children and siblings were cared for in another room. Later in the eve-
ning, parents and children worked together to put the reading activities into practice.
Other incentives oered to help parents attend included the serving of refreshments
and certicates such as VIP Certicates for Very Involved Parents.
A number of programs oered incentives such as book give-aways and family din-
ners (Project FAB:ulous) and meal sharing (PALS Program). In the PALS Program,
parents were identied as working in the program but in reality this term included
caregivers such as grandparents, siblings, aunts and uncles and other caregivers.
REAL Project oered an optional adult education component leading to accredita-
tion of parents learning, which gave the opportunity for parents to continue their
learning in a more formal or structured way.
Project ROAR oered monetary incentives to encourage participation such as pay-
ment of $10 per session attended by parents and a $25 bonus on completion of the
course (Project ROAR) and the Literacy Connection provided gift certicates.
Benefts
Te benets of parent education programs cannot be underestimated. Te outcomes
of such programs are multifaceted and impact not only on the literacy outcomes of
children but often have desirable outcomes for parents in areas of condence build-
ing, improved literacy, and a developing sense of community. Schools benet from
parent education in that parents share the responsibility in an informed way on how
to help children identied as struggling readers and supplement school-based inter-
ventions. Te benets of parent programs identied in the literature are outlined
below.
Added value
Parent education programs can be designed to serve both parents to improve their
literacy skills as well as enhance the learning of their children. According to Paratore
(2005) the outcomes of such programs are:
To teach the codes needed to participate fully in the mainstream of American
life (Delpit, 1995, p.45)
To uncover and build on the household funds of knowledge present in all fami-
lies (Moll & Greenberg, 1991)
Research by Darling & Westberg (2004) reinforced these ndings stating that literacy
development through intentional activities and strategies that engage parents in their
childrens reading acquisition had positive results. As parents learn about the es-
sential skills for reading and practice those skills with their children, they can sup-
port their childrens reading acquisition while improving their own (p.776). Handel
(1999) claims that family literacy programs seek to enhance the literacy of both gen-
erations through participation of family members in a co ordinated literacy program.
Benefts for Fathers
Despite the lack of research around the involvement of fathers in literacy programs,
one particular case study by Lenters (2007) looks closely at the role families and spe-
cically, the roles that fathers play in encouraging young children to become engaged
with literacy. Troughout the case study, a boy aged eight and his father were heavily
involved in the literacy practice of the family. Te boys father shared his favourite
novels with his son, and the boy in turn shared his favourite books with his father.
Te father had a keen interest in cartoons which led to the sharing of his comics and
the development of cartooning skills when illustrating his writing. Te boys father
also had an electric guitar and the boy took an early interest in playing the instru-
ment. Later, this led to song writing and reading musician magazines together.
Both parents played an important role in this young boys literacy world, encouraging
the use of computers and research on the Internet, using genres of interest for per-
sonal writing, reading quality literature, turning plays into book making and writing
play scripts.
Te ndings of this study concluded that fathers play an important role in the lit-
eracy development of their children. Te mothers role in this young boys literacy
development is by no means negligible; however the boys literate practice had been
shaped by his fathers participation in the literacy practice.
In the Fathers Literacy Program, it was apparent that fathers had to see the practical
application and meaningful nature of the content that was presented. It was found
that fathers engaged in literacy practices in the following ways:
1. Stimulated children to explore written language. Fathers demonstrated read-
ing and writing and discussed the importance of reading and writing with their
children and the children tended to imitate their behavior.
2. Built on knowledge from the community. Fathers used their own interests and
this seemed to motivate the children in print. Literacy related to the daily reali-
ties of the children. Fathers selected books that were of interest to the child but
also reinforced the father child relationship.
3. By embedding literacy in community and family life fathers developed a sense
of community and closer relationships with the childs school. Fathers and chil-
dren composed joint texts and experienced many writing genres.
Reassurance for parents
Parent programs provide a venue for parents to share their grievances, celebrate their
successes and realize that they are not alone in their quest to improve their childrens
literacy skills. Newmen, Caperelli, & Kee (1998) found that families created social
networks within the group. Guilt and shame often associated with reading failure
was alleviated because the parent was involved in addressing the issues with the
guidance of trained literacy educators. Tey became familiar with strategies for suc-
cess and a resolution to a lingering problem about which they lacked knowledge and
understanding. Parents enrolled in the PALS program regarded highly the role of
the facilitator, who helped them develop their understanding of the reading process.
Some parents in this program had traditional views of literacy learning, prompted by
memories of their school days. It was found that parents soon became comfortable
with a more expansive and contemporary view. After print walks, they commented
on how unaware they had been regarding the value of the environment in extending
their childrens literacy experience. (Anderson & Morrison, 2007). In addition, ef-
fective courses often give parents the condence and language with which to discuss
their childs learning with the classroom teacher.
A review of a parent literacy initiative, Parents as Literacy Supporters (PALS) in
2007 concluded that the program helped parents gain condence in their own abili-
ties as literacy users. Parents were given an opportunity to address their insecurities
around literacy and working with their children. Te program also promoted com-
munication about literacy with other adults. (Anderson & Morrison, 2007).
Parents of the PALS program also recognized how the program provided an oppor-
tunity to form and maintain social relationships. Parents stated that the program
made them feel a part of something and fostered communication between parents
and school sta which enhanced the childs learning in both settings (Anderson &
Morrison, 2007).
Building and restoring relationships with children
Often the relationship between parent and child is fractured when the child fails to
learn despite the parents best eorts to teach. Parent education programs provide
a means of restoring the bond using strategies geared for success and fun. A num-
ber of programs involved parents working alongside their children as they received
instructions. Spending time with the child as part of the program proved positive,
for example, throughout the PALS program, parents worked one on one with their
children. Many parents reported that they lived increasingly busy lives and they val-
ued the time they shared in the sessions with their children. (Anderson & Morrison,
2007).
Parents who participated in the PALS program observed that the parent/child bond
had formed and strengthened during their time in the program. Parents stated that
they valued their time in the program and participating in literacy activities that
would not have happened if they did not attend the program (Anderson & Morrison,
2007).
Benefts to schools and communities
Darling and Hayes (1996) report that K-12 schools that have high success rates usu-
ally also have high rates of parental involvement.
Schools also benet when university reading services oer reading clinics as a com-
ponent of undergraduate reading-methods courses. Research found that graduates
of the excellent programs were more eective than teachers in comparison groups
in creating and engaging their students with a highquality literacy environment
(Homan et al 2005, p.267). According to Morrow (1999) and Weinberger (1996),
there is a need for researchers and teacher educators to help pre service teachers
understand the multiple literacy environments of the childrens homes and consider
how to use this information to foster eective home and school interactions. Snow,
Burns and Grin (1998) contend that Teacher preparation programs need to do a
better job of building conceptual links between classroom, clinical and eld-based
experiences in ways that will prepare future teachers to apply their course work and
other pre service experiences to their teaching practice (p. 219).
Te university reading clinics have three benets.
1. Provide training for in-service teachers at the university as they tutor students
in reading.
2. Provide experience for pre-service teachers in applying what they had learn in
the university classroom
3. Provide tutoring in reading for students and their families.
Sargent et al (2006) contend that parents perceive university reading clinics as ex-
tremely benecial not only to their children but to the whole community. Parents
believe their children gain a more positive approach to reading as well as improved
prociency in reading, condence and self-esteem.
Te FAB:ulous program in the US focused on community literacy and ways for
parents to discover that literacy is really more than just being able to read a book or
write a story. (Longwell-Grice & McIntyre, 2006).
Benefts to students
Improved student results
Research evidence shows that parent involvement has a positive and strong inuence
on student achievement (Jordon, Snow & Porche, 2000, Westat & Policy Studies As-
sociates, 2001). In addition, evidence suggests that parent involvement at home has
a more signicant impact on children than it does in school activities (Christenson &
Sheridan, 2001).
According to a student performance survey developed by the National Center for
Family Literacy, teachers rated children participating in the Toyota Families in
Schools (TFS) Program higher in nine domains including academic performance,
motivation to learn, support from family and likelihood of future school success.
Te TFS program targets primary school children from low socioeconomic, immi-
grant and Hispanic families and their parents. Te program educates parents in basic
literacy skills such as phonemic awareness, phonics, uency, vocabulary and text
comprehension (Darling & Westberg, 2004).
In a parental involvement program at Clarke Elementary School (US) in 2002, Graves
Smith (2006) reported that teachers and family workers involved in the program be-
lieved that children with engaged parents would be more successful at school, scor-
ing higher on tests and earning higher grades. It was found that children who had
parents participating had improved motivation as a positive outcome stemming from
the parents belief s that literacy education was important. Teachers who participated
in this program also reported that the children had an improved self esteem in the
classroom and were able to complete homework at a higher level.
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
s

d
e
l
i
v
e
r
e
d

t
o

a
d
u
l
t
s

i
n

o
r
d
e
r

t
o

b
e
n
e
f
t

c
h
i
l
d
r
e
n
T
i
t
l
e
A
u
d
i
e
n
c
e
L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
D
u
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
c
u
s
D
e
l
i
v
e
r
y

M
o
d
e
C
o
n
t
e
n
t
L
i
t
e
r
a
c
y
C
o
n
n
e
c
-
t
i
o
n
P
a
r
e
n
t
s
T
e
x
a
s

U
S
1
5

w
e
e
k
s
B
a
s
i
c

l
i
t
e
r
a
c
y

s
k
i
l
l
s
,

r
e
a
d
i
n
g

t
o

t
h
e
i
r

c
h
i
l
-
d
r
e
n
,

s
e
l
f
-
i
d
e
n
t
i
e
d

l
i
t
e
r
a
c
y

n
e
e
d
s
O
n
e

o
n

o
n
e

d
i
r
e
c
t

t
r
a
i
n
-
i
n
g
P
a
r
e
n
t

m
o
d
e
l
e
d

:

h
o
l
d
i
n
g

a

b
o
o
k
,
P
r
e
v
i
e
w
i
n
g

a

b
o
o
k
,

r
e
a
d
i
n
g

a
l
o
u
d
C
u
l
t
u
r
e
-
v
a
l
u
e
d
L
e
a
r
n
e
r

g
o
a
l

d
r
i
v
e
n
M
a
k
e

r
e
a
d
i
n
g

f
u
n
G
i
f
t

C
e
r
t
i
c
a
t
e

i
n
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
s

f
o
r

p
a
r
e
n
t
s
P
r
o
j
e
c
t

R
O
A
R
P
a
r
e
n
t
s

a
n
d

K
i
n
d
e
r
g
a
r
t
e
n

c
h
i
l
d
r
e
n

T
e
x
a
s

U
S
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y

S
c
h
o
o
l

l
o
w

s
o
c
i
o
-
e
c
o
n
o
m
i
c

a
r
e
a
1
0

s
e
s
s
i
o
n
s
O
n
c
e

a

m
o
n
t
h

2
h
o
u
r
s

5
.
3
0
-
7
.
3
0
p
m
K
i
n
d
e
r
g
a
r
t
e
n

s
t
o
r
y

t
e
l
l
i
n
g
,

p
u
b
l
i
c

l
i
b
r
a
r
y

c
h
o
o
s
i
n
g

b
o
o
k
s
,

p
u
p
p
e
t
r
y
,

p
o
e
t
r
y
G
r
o
u
p

s
e
s
s
i
o
n
s

f
o
r

p
a
r
-
e
n
t
s

I
n
t
r
o
d
u
c
e

l
i
b
r
a
r
y

p
r
o
c
e
d
u
r
e
s
,

s
t
o
r
y
t
e
l
l
i
n
g
,

r
e
a
d
i
n
g

t
o

c
h
i
l
d
r
e
n
,

p
u
p
p
e
t
s

a
n
d

l
i
t
e
r
a
c
y

g
a
m
e
s
,

r
e
a
d
i
n
g

a
n
d

w
r
i
t
i
n
g

p
o
e
t
r
y
$
1
0

p
a
i
d

p
e
r

s
e
s
s
i
o
n

t
o

p
a
r
e
n
t
s

a
t
t
e
n
d
i
n
g
,

$
2
5

b
o
n
u
s

a
t

n
a
l

s
e
s
s
i
o
n
R
E
A
L

P
r
o
j
e
c
t
3

y
e
a
r

o
l
d
s

a
n
d

t
h
e
i
r

p
a
r
e
n
t
s

f
r
o
m

s
o
c
i
o
-
e
c
o
n
o
m
-
i
c
a
l
l
y

d
i
s
a
d
v
a
n
-
t
a
g
e
d

c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
R
a
n
d
o
m
l
y

s
e
l
e
c
t
e
d

f
r
o
m

d
i
e
r
e
n
t

s
c
h
o
o
l

w
a
i
t
i
n
g

l
i
s
t
s
N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

E
n
g
l
a
n
d
1
8

m
o
n
t
h
s
H
o
m
e

v
i
s
i
t
s
,

p
r
o
-
v
i
s
i
o
n

o
f

l
i
t
e
r
a
c
y

r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
,

c
e
n
t
r
e
-
b
a
s
e
d

g
r
o
u
p

a
c
t
i
v
i
-
t
i
e
s
,

s
p
e
c
i
a
l

e
v
e
n
t
s
,

p
o
s
t
a
l

c
o
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
-
t
i
o
n
,

o
p
t
i
o
n
a
l

a
d
u
l
t

e
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n

c
o
m
-
p
o
n
e
n
t

l
e
a
d
i
n
g

t
o

a
c
c
r
e
d
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l

p
r
o
g
r
a
m

b
a
s
e
d

o
n

f
a
m
i
l
i
e
s

e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g

l
i
t
-
e
r
a
c
y

p
r
a
c
t
i
c
e
s
S
u
p
p
o
r
t

f
o
r

p
a
r
e
n
t
s

t
o

d
e
v
e
l
o
p

l
i
t
e
r
a
c
y

s
k
i
l
l
s
O
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
i
e
s

f
o
r

l
e
a
r
n
i
n
g
,

r
e
c
o
g
n
i
t
i
o
n

o
f

t
h
e

c
h
i
l
d
s

a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
,

i
n
t
e
r
a
c
t
i
o
n

w
i
t
h

t
h
e

c
h
i
l
d

o
n

l
i
t
e
r
a
c
y

a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
,

m
o
d
e
l

o
f

a

l
i
t
e
r
a
c
y

u
s
e
r
,

O
R
I
M

F
r
a
m
e
w
o
r
k

i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g

f
o
u
r

s
t
r
a
n
d
s

o
f

l
i
t
e
r
a
c
y

e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l

p
r
i
n
t
,

b
o
o
k
s
,

w
r
i
t
i
n
g
,

o
r
a
l

l
a
n
g
u
a
g
e
F
a
t
h
e
r
s

L
i
t
e
r
a
c
y

P
r
o
g
r
a
m
F
a
t
h
e
r
s

a
n
d

t
h
e
i
r

K
i
n
d
e
r
g
a
r
t
e
n

c
h
i
l
d
r
e
n
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

M
a
r
y
l
a
n
d

M
D
5

m
o
n
t
h
s
F
a
t
h
e
r
s

a
n
d

t
h
e
i
r

e
e
c
t

o
n

t
h
e
i
r

c
h
i
l
-
d
r
e
n
s

l
i
t
e
r
a
c
y
3

h
o
u
r

l
i
t
e
r
a
c
y

w
o
r
k
-
s
h
o
p
s
,

t
w
i
c
e

a

w
e
e
k

o
v
e
r

5

m
o
n
t
h
s
P
r
o
v
i
s
i
o
n

o
f

o
b
j
e
c
t
s

a
n
d

m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s

i
n

t
h
e

h
o
m
e

e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
,

d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t

o
f

s
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
e
s

t
o

e
n
h
a
n
c
e

c
o
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

e
x
t
e
n
d

t
h
e

c
h
i
l
-
d
r
e
n
s

u
n
d
e
r
s
t
a
n
d
i
n
g

o
f

n
e
w

i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

P
r
o
c
e
s
s
:

f
a
t
h
e
r
s

s
e
l
e
c
t

a

b
o
o
k
,

r
e
a
d

i
t

t
o

t
h
e

c
h
i
l
d
,

i
n
t
e
r
a
c
t

w
i
t
h

t
h
e

c
h
i
l
d
,

c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e

a
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
,

w
r
i
t
e
T
i
t
l
e
A
u
d
i
e
n
c
e
L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
D
u
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
c
u
s
D
e
l
i
v
e
r
y

M
o
d
e
C
o
n
t
e
n
t
R
e
a
d
i
n
g

C
l
i
n
i
c
G
r
a
d
e
s

1
-
8
U
S
1
2

s
e
s
s
i
o
n
s

f
o
r

1

h
o
u
r
P
r
e
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

U
n
-
d
e
r
g
r
a
d
u
a
t
e

t
e
a
c
h
e
r
s

t
o

t
e
a
c
h

l
i
t
e
r
a
c
y

s
k
i
l
l
s
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
d

r
e
a
d
i
n
g

s
k
i
l
l
s

f
o
r

c
h
i
l
d
r
e
n
O
n
e

o
n

o
n
e

t
e
a
c
h
i
n
g
P
a
r
e
n
t

c
o
n
t
a
c
t

b
e
f
o
r
e

a
n
d

p
a
r
e
n
t
/
c
h
i
l
d
/
t
u
t
o
r

c
o
n
f
e
r
-
e
n
c
e

a
t

t
h
e

e
n
d
R
e
a
d

f
a
m
i
l
i
a
r

t
e
x
t
,

g
u
i
d
e
d

c
o
n
t
e
x
t
u
a
l

r
e
a
d
i
n
g
,

s
k
i
l
l
s

a
n
d

s
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
e
s
,

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

r
e
a
d
i
n
g

a
n
d

w
r
i
t
-
i
n
g

(
W
a
l
k
e
r

M
o
d
e
l
)
F
a
m
i
l
y

L
i
t
e
r
a
c
y

P
r
o
g
r
a
m
1
0

f
a
m
i
l
i
e
s

i
d
e
n
t
i
-
e
d

o
n

a

n
e
e
d
s

b
a
s
i
s
-

l
o
w

l
i
t
e
r
a
c
y

l
e
v
e
l
s

C
a
n
a
d
a
1
0

w
e
e
k
s
1
.
5

h
o
u
r
s

p
e
r

w
e
e
k
L
i
t
e
r
a
c
y

s
k
i
l
l
s

a
s

i
d
e
n
t
i
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

p
a
r
e
n
t
s
1
0

p
a
r
e
n
t

m
o
d
u
l
e
s

a
n
d

1
0

c
h
i
l
d

m
o
d
u
l
e
s
H
o
m
e
w
o
r
k
,

p
a
r
e
n
t
i
n
g

a
n
d

d
i
s
c
i
p
l
i
n
e
,

d
e
c
o
d
i
n
g

a
n
d

p
h
o
n
i
c
s
,

l
i
t
e
r
a
c
y

i
n

a
n
d

a
r
o
u
n
d

t
h
e

h
o
m
e
,

u
e
n
c
y
,

g
u
i
d
e
d

r
e
a
d
i
n
g
,

c
o
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
s
i
o
n
,

l
a
n
-
g
u
a
g
e

e
x
p
e
r
i
e
n
c
e
,

w
o
r
d

r
e
c
o
g
n
i
t
i
o
n
,

w
o
r
k
i
n
g

w
i
t
h

s
c
h
o
o
l
s
P
a
i
r
e
d

R
e
a
d
i
n
g

P
a
r
e
n
t
s

w
i
t
h

K
i
n
d
e
r
g
a
r
t
e
n

c
h
i
l
d
r
e
n

r
e
c
o
g
n
-
i
s
e
d

a
s

a
t
-
r
i
s
k
Q
u
e
b
e
c

C
a
n
a
d
a
6

t
r
a
i
n
i
n
g

s
e
s
s
i
o
n
s
H
o
m
e

v
i
s
i
t
s
E
x
p
e
r
t

t
u
t
o
r
s

t
r
a
i
n

p
a
r
e
n
t
s

a
n
d

t
h
e
n

s
u
p
e
r
v
i
s
e

t
h
e
m

t
h
r
o
u
g
h

h
o
m
e

v
i
s
i
t
s
P
a
i
r
e
d

R
e
a
d
i
n
g

S
t
r
a
t
e
g
y

t
a
u
g
h
t

t
o

p
a
r
e
n
t
s
F
l
a
s
h

c
a
r
d
s

l
e
t
t
e
r
s

a
n
d

s
y
l
l
a
b
l
e
-
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s

s
u
c
h

a
s

h
i
g
h

i
n
t
e
r
e
s
t

b
o
o
k
s

s
u
p
p
l
i
e
d
C
h
i
l
d

c
h
o
o
s
e
s

a

b
o
o
k
S
i
m
u
l
t
a
n
e
o
u
s

r
e
a
d
i
n
g

(
p
a
r
e
n
t

a
n
d

c
h
i
l
d

r
e
a
d

a
l
o
n
g

t
o
g
e
t
h
e
r

w
i
t
h

p
a
r
e
n
t

m
o
d
e
l
i
n
g
,

i
n
d
e
-
p
e
n
d
e
n
t

r
e
a
d
i
n
g

(
c
h
i
l
d

s
i
g
n
a
l
s

w
h
e
n

t
h
e
y

w
a
n
t

t
o

t
a
k
e

o
v
e
r

a
n
d

c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e

u
n
t
i
l

c
o
m
i
n
g

t
o

a

m
i
s
t
a
k
e

o
r

f
a
l
t
e
r
i
n
g

f
o
r

l
o
n
g
e
r

t
h
a
n

4

s
e
c
o
n
d
s
)
.

T
e

p
a
r
e
n
t

r
e
s
u
m
e
s

r
e
a
d
i
n
g

u
n
t
i
l

t
h
e

n
e
x
t

c
h
i
l
d

s
i
g
n
a
l
.
P
a
r
-
e
n
t
s

a
s

T
e
a
c
h
e
r
s

H
o
m
e

V
i
s
i
t
i
n
g

P
r
o
g
r
a
m
P
r
e
-
n
a
t
a
l

t
o

K
i
n
d
e
r
g
a
r
t
e
n

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
C
h
i
l
d
r
e
n

t
e
s
t
e
d

a
s

t
o

s
c
h
o
o
l

r
e
a
d
i
-
n
e
s
s
M
i
s
s
o
u
r
i
N
o
t

s
t
a
t
e
d
C
h
i
l
d

d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
,
S
c
h
o
o
l

r
e
a
d
i
n
e
s
s
,
E
n
c
o
u
r
a
g
i
n
g

s
c
h
o
o
l

e
n
r
o
l
m
e
n
t
E
a
r
l
y

l
i
t
e
r
a
c
y
H
o
m
e

v
i
s
i
t
s
P
a
r
e
n
t

g
r
o
u
p

m
e
e
t
i
n
g
s
K
i
n
d
e
r
g
a
r
t
e
n

t
e
a
c
h
e
r

t
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
P
r
i
n
c
i
p
l
e
s

o
f

c
h
i
l
d

d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
M
o
d
e
l

a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
,

R
e
a
d
i
n
g

t
o

c
h
i
l
d
r
e
n
,
E
n
r
o
l
l
i
n
g

t
h
e
m

i
n

p
r
e
s
c
h
o
o
l
,

f
a
c
i
l
i
t
a
t
e

a
c
c
e
s
s

t
o

s
o
c
i
a
l

a
n
d

s
u
p
p
o
r
t
i
v
e

s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
R
e
a
d
i
n
g

T
o
g
e
t
h
e
r
P
a
r
e
n
t
s

o
f

C
h
i
l
-
d
r
e
n

5
-
1
5

y
e
a
r
s

o
l
d
(
R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h

P
r
o
j
e
c
t

o
r
i
g
i
n
a
l
l
y

i
n
-
v
o
l
v
e
d

9
-
1
0

y
e
a
r

o
l
d

c
h
i
l
d
r
e
n

a
n
d

t
h
e
i
r

p
a
r
e
n
t
s
)
N
e
w

Z
e
a
l
a
n
d
7

w
e
e
k
s
7
5

m
i
n
u
t
e

s
e
s
s
i
o
n
s

f
o
r

p
a
r
e
n
t
s
E
n
a
b
l
e

p
a
r
e
n
t
s

t
o

s
u
p
p
o
r
t

t
h
e
i
r

c
h
i
l
-
d
r
e
n

w
i
t
h

r
e
a
d
i
n
g

a
t

h
o
m
e
-

o
r
i
g
i
n
a
l
l
y

d
e
s
i
g
n
e
d

f
o
r

s
t
r
u
g
g
l
i
n
g

r
e
a
d
e
r
s

b
u
t

c
l
a
i
m
s

i
t

c
a
n

b
e

u
s
e
d

w
i
t
h

c
o
m
p
e
t
e
n
t

r
e
a
d
e
r
s

a
s

w
e
l
l
P
a
r
e
n
t

w
o
r
k
s
h
o
p
s
R
e
a
d
i
n
g

p
r
o
c
e
s
s
,

l
e
a
r
n

t
o

r
e
a
d
,

s
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
e
s
,

c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
v
e

s
u
p
p
o
r
t
,

s
e
l
e
c
t
i
n
g

m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
,

r
e
e
c
t

a
n
d

d
i
s
c
u
s
s

e
x
p
e
r
i
e
n
c
e
s
T
i
t
l
e
A
u
d
i
e
n
c
e
L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
D
u
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
c
u
s
D
e
l
i
v
e
r
y

M
o
d
e
C
o
n
t
e
n
t
T
F
S

T
o
y
o
t
a

F
a
m
i
-
l
i
e
s

i
n

S
c
h
o
o
l
s

P
r
o
g
r
a
m
P
a
r
e
n
t
s

o
f

c
h
i
l
-
d
r
e
n

K
-
3

g
r
a
d
e

w
h
o

a
r
e

i
d
e
n
t
i
e
d

a
s

a
t
-
r
i
s
k
,

H
i
s
-
p
a
n
i
c
/
i
m
m
i
g
r
a
n
t

f
a
m
i
l
i
e
s
U
S

m
a
n
y

l
o
c
a
-
t
i
o
n
s
V
a
r
i
o
u
s

d
e
-
p
e
n
d
i
n
g

o
n

t
h
e

p
r
o
j
e
c
t

g
r
o
u
p
P
a
r
e
n
t

e
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n

t
o

h
e
l
p

s
u
p
p
o
r
t

t
h
e
i
r

c
h
i
l
d
r
e
n

i
n

e
a
r
l
y

l
i
t
e
r
a
c
y
E
S
L

c
o
u
r
s
e
s
,

c
h
i
l
d
r
e
n
s

e
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
,

p
a
r
e
n
t
i
n
g

e
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
,

P
a
r
e
n
t

a
n
d

C
h
i
l
d

T
o
g
e
t
h
e
r

(
P
A
C
T
)

a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
,

a
n
d

c
o
m
p
u
t
e
r
-
l
i
t
e
r
a
c
y

i
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
.
P
h
o
n
i
c
s
,

p
h
o
n
e
m
i
c

a
w
a
r
e
n
e
s
s
,

u
e
n
c
y
,

v
o
-
c
a
b
u
l
a
r
y
,

t
e
x
t

c
o
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
s
i
o
n
,

p
r
i
n
t

c
o
n
c
e
p
t
s
,

w
r
i
t
i
n
g

F
a
m
i
l
y

F
l
u
e
n
c
y

P
r
o
g
r
a
m
P
a
r
e
n
t
s

a
n
d

s
t
u
d
e
n
t
s

f
r
o
m

l
o
w

s
o
c
i
o
-
e
c
o
n
o
m
i
c

a
r
e
a
s
C
h
i
l
d
r
e
n

i
n

s
e
c
o
n
d
-
g
r
a
d
e

a
n
d

t
h
e
i
r

p
a
r
e
n
t
s
N
e
w

J
e
r
s
e
y
,

U
S
O
n
e

y
e
a
r
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
d

u
e
n
c
y

i
n

R
e
a
d
i
n
g
T
e
a
c
h
e
r
s

w
e
r
e

t
r
a
i
n
e
d

a
n
d

d
e
l
i
v
e
r
e
d

a

9
0
-
m
i
n
-
u
t
e

p
r
o
g
r
a
m

t
o

s
t
u
d
e
n
t
s

e
v
e
r
y

d
a
y
R
e
a
d
i
n
g

b
o
o
k
s

w
e
r
e

s
e
n
t

h
o
m
e

t
w
i
c
e

a

w
e
e
k

b
a
s
e
d

o
n

t
h
e

l
e
s
s
o
n
s

i
n

c
l
a
s
s
3

E
v
e
n
i
n
g

P
a
r
e
n
t

w
o
r
k
-
s
h
o
p
s

C
h
i
l
d
r
e
n

a
n
d

s
i
b
-
l
i
n
g
s

a
t
t
e
n
d
e
d

a
s

w
e
l
l

b
u
t

w
e
n
t

t
o

a
n
o
t
h
e
r

r
o
o
m

w
i
t
h

t
e
a
c
h
e
r

s
u
p
e
r
v
i
s
i
o
n

a
n
d

t
h
e
n

w
o
r
k
e
d

w
i
t
h

t
h
e
i
r

p
a
r
e
n
t
s

a
t

t
h
e

e
n
d

o
f

t
h
e

e
v
e
n
i
n
g
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
i
n
g

u
e
n
c
y

t
h
r
o
u
g
h

r
e
a
d
i
n
g

a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s

s
u
c
h

a
s
:
E
c
h
o

r
e
a
d
i
n
g
-

w
h
e
r
e

t
h
e

p
a
r
e
n
t

r
e
a
d
s

a

l
i
n
e

a
n
d

t
h
e

c
h
i
l
d

r
e
a
d
s

t
h
e

s
a
m
e

l
i
n
e

a
f
t
e
r
,

g
r
a
d
u
-
a
l
l
y

i
n
c
r
e
a
s
i
n
g

t
h
e

n
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

l
i
n
e
s

r
e
a
d

a
n
d

e
c
h
o
e
d

a
s

t
h
e

c
h
i
l
d
s

r
e
a
d
i
n
g

i
m
p
r
o
v
e
s

(
o
n
e

s
t
o
r
y

p
e
r

w
e
e
k
)
C
h
o
r
a
l

r
e
a
d
i
n
g

C
h
i
l
d

a
n
d

p
a
r
e
n
t

r
e
a
d

t
h
e

s
a
m
e

t
e
x
t

a
l
o
u
d

t
o
g
e
t
h
e
r

(
t
w
i
c
e

a

w
e
e
k
)
P
a
r
t
n
e
r

R
e
a
d
i
n
g

C
h
i
l
d

a
n
d

p
a
r
e
n
t

t
a
k
e

t
u
r
n
s

r
e
a
d
i
n
g
.

B
e
g
i
n

b
y

r
e
a
d
i
n
g

o
n
e

s
e
n
t
e
n
c
e

e
a
c
h

a
n
d

a
s

u
e
n
c
y

i
m
p
r
o
v
e
s
,

r
e
a
d

l
o
n
g
e
r

p
a
s
s
a
g
e
s

(
o
n
c
e

a

w
e
e
k
)
R
e
p
e
a
t
e
d

R
e
a
d
i
n
g

R
e
a
d

t
h
e

s
a
m
e

b
o
o
k

o
r

s
t
o
r
y

m
o
r
e

t
h
a
n

o
n
c
e

a

w
e
e
k
I
n
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
s

t
o

h
e
l
p

g
e
t

p
a
r
e
n
t
s

t
o

c
o
m
e

a
l
o
n
g

i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d

s
e
r
v
i
n
g

r
e
f
r
e
s
h
m
e
n
t
s

a
n
d

c
e
r
t
i
c
a
t
e
s

V
I
P

V
e
r
y

I
n
v
o
l
v
e
d

P
a
r
e
n
t
s
F
a
s
t

S
t
a
r
t
P
r
i
m
a
r
y

g
r
a
d
e

s
t
u
d
e
n
t
s

a
n
d

p
a
r
e
n
t
s
U
S
V
a
r
i
o
u
s

l
e
n
g
t
h
s

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s

f
r
o
m

5

t
o

1
1

w
e
e
k
s
I
m
p
r
o
v
e

r
e
a
d
i
n
g

s
k
i
l
l
s

o
f

c
h
i
l
d
r
e
n

t
h
r
o
u
g
h

h
o
m
e

i
n
-
v
o
l
v
e
m
e
n
t
1
0
-
1
5

m
i
n
u
t
e

d
a
i
l
y

s
e
s
-
s
i
o
n

w
i
t
h

p
a
r
e
n
t

a
n
d

c
h
i
l
d
P
r
o
v
i
s
i
o
n

o
f

a
u
t
h
e
n
t
i
c

r
e
a
d
i
n
g

t
e
x
t
s
,

p
a
r
e
n
t

t
r
a
i
n
i
n
g

i
n

p
r
o
v
e
n

a
n
d

e
e
c
t
i
v
e

s
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
e
s
,

o
n
-
g
o
i
n
g

t
r
a
i
n
i
n
g

a
n
d

c
o
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
,

m
a
k
e

a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s

e
n
j
o
y
a
b
l
e
,

s
i
m
p
l
e

a
n
d

b
r
i
e
f
(
1
0
-
1
5

m
i
n
u
t
e
s
)
,

d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t

h
o
m
e

a
c
t
i
v
i
-
t
i
e
s

T
i
t
l
e
A
u
d
i
e
n
c
e
L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
D
u
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
c
u
s
D
e
l
i
v
e
r
y

M
o
d
e
C
o
n
t
e
n
t
B
r
i
d
g
e
s

t
o

L
i
t
-
e
r
a
c
y
K
i
n
d
e
r
g
a
r
t
e
n

s
t
u
-
d
e
n
t
s

a
n
d

p
a
r
e
n
t
s

a
t

a

f
e
d
e
r
a
l
l
y

f
u
n
d
e
d

p
r
o
g
r
a
m

f
o
r

d
i
s
a
d
v
a
n
t
a
g
e
d

c
h
i
l
d
r
e
n

s
c
h
o
o
l
S
o
u
t
h
e
a
s
t
e
r
n

U
S
Y
e
a
r

l
o
n
g
C
r
e
a
t
i
n
g

s
t
r
o
n
g

c
o
m
-
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

b
e
t
w
e
e
n

s
c
h
o
o
l

a
n
d

h
o
m
e
T
e
a
c
h
i
n
g

p
a
r
e
n
t
s

l
i
t
e
r
a
c
y

p
r
a
c
t
i
c
e
s

t
o

s
u
p
p
o
r
t

t
h
e
i
r

c
h
i
l
-
d
r
e
n

a
t

h
o
m
e
I
n
-
c
l
a
s
s

a
n
d

m
o
d
e
l
e
d

a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s

a
f
t
e
r

s
c
h
o
o
l
H
o
m
e

v
i
s
i
t
s
N
e
w
s
l
e
t
t
e
r
s
L
e
n
d
i
n
g

l
i
b
r
a
r
y
I
n
-
c
l
a
s
s

m
o
d
e
l
i
n
g

t
o

p
a
r
e
n
t
s

o
f

b
a
l
a
n
c
e
d

l
i
t
e
r
a
c
y

b
a
s
e
d

o
n

F
o
u
n
t
a
s

a
n
d

P
i
n
n
e
l
l

(
1
9
9
8
)

f
r
a
m
e
w
o
r
k
Q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

A
n
s
w
e
r

s
e
s
s
i
o
n

w
i
t
h

t
e
a
c
h
e
r
s

a
n
d

p
a
r
e
n
t
s
L
e
n
d
i
n
g

l
i
b
r
a
r
y
A
f
t
e
r

s
c
h
o
o
l

m
o
d
e
l
i
n
g

o
f

s
m
a
l
l

g
r
o
u
p

g
u
i
d
e
d

r
e
a
d
i
n
g

f
o
r

p
a
r
e
n
t
s
T
i
p
-
S
h
e
e
t

s
e
n
t

h
o
m
e

a
b
o
u
t

P
a
i
r
e
d

R
e
a
d
i
n
g
H
o
m
e

v
i
s
i
t
s

i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g

d
e
m
o
n
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
s

o
f

P
a
i
r
e
d
-
r
e
a
d
i
n
g
S
e
m
i
-
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
d

i
n
t
e
r
v
i
e
w
s
I
n
t
e
r
g
e
n
-
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

L
i
t
e
r
a
c
y

P
r
o
j
e
c
t
N
e
w

i
m
m
i
-
g
r
a
n
t

f
a
m
i
l
i
e
s

t
o

A
m
e
r
i
c
a
w
i
t
h

p
r
e
s
c
h
o
o
l

a
n
d

e
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y

s
c
h
o
o
l

c
h
i
l
d
r
e
n
C
h
e
l
s
e
a

M
a
s
s
a
-
c
h
u
s
e
t
t
s

U
S
3

w
o
r
k
s
h
o
p
s
P
a
r
e
n
t
s

d
e
v
e
l
o
p

a
n
d

e
x
t
e
n
d

t
h
e
i
r

o
w
n

E
n
g
l
i
s
h

l
i
t
e
r
a
c
y

a
n
d

s
u
p
p
o
r
t

t
h
e
i
r

c
h
i
l
d
r
e
n
s

l
i
t
e
r
a
c
y

d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
2

h
o
u
r

p
a
r
e
n
t

c
l
a
s
s
e
s

r
u
n

c
o
n
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
l
y

w
i
t
h

c
h
i
l
-
d
r
e
n
s

s
c
h
o
o
l

c
l
a
s
s
e
s
C
h
i
l
d
c
a
r
e

i
s

p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d

f
o
r

c
h
i
l
d
r
e
n

b
e
l
o
w

s
c
h
o
o
l

a
g
e

R
e
a
d
i
n
g

a
n
d

w
r
i
t
i
n
g

f
o
c
u
s
e
d

o
n

c
o
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
-
s
i
o
n
I
d
e
a
s

f
o
r

h
e
l
p
i
n
g

t
o

s
u
p
p
o
r
t

t
h
e
i
r

c
h
i
l
d
r
e
n
s

l
i
t
e
r
a
c
y

a
t

h
o
m
e
P
r
o
j
e
c
t

E
A
S
E
(
E
a
r
l
y

A
c
c
e
s
s

t
o

S
u
c
c
e
s
s

i
n

E
d
u
-
c
a
t
i
o
n
)
K
i
n
d
e
r
g
a
r
t
e
n

C
h
i
l
d
r
e
n

a
n
d

t
h
e
i
r

P
a
r
e
n
t
s
U
S
O
n
e

y
e
a
r
I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e

f
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

a
n
d

q
u
a
l
i
t
y

o
f

l
a
n
g
u
a
g
e

i
n
t
e
r
a
c
-
t
i
o
n
s

t
h
r
o
u
g
h

b
o
o
k

c
e
n
t
r
e
d

a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
,

s
h
a
r
e

i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

f
o
r

e
n
g
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
P
a
r
e
n
t

e
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
,

a
t
-
s
c
h
o
o
l

p
a
r
e
n
t
/
c
h
i
l
d

a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
,

a
t
-
h
o
m
e

m
e
d
i
-
a
t
e
d

a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
S
t
r
e
n
g
t
h
e
n

v
o
c
a
b
u
l
a
r
y
,

e
x
t
e
n
d

n
a
r
r
a
t
i
v
e

u
n
d
e
r
-
s
t
a
n
d
i
n
g
,

l
e
t
t
e
r

r
e
c
o
g
n
i
t
i
o
n
,

s
o
u
n
d

a
w
a
r
e
n
e
s
s
,

n
a
r
r
a
t
i
v
e

r
e
t
e
l
l
i
n
g
s
,

u
n
d
e
r
s
t
a
n
d

e
x
p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n
s
T
i
t
l
e
A
u
d
i
e
n
c
e
L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
D
u
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
c
u
s
D
e
l
i
v
e
r
y

M
o
d
e
C
o
n
t
e
n
t
E
v
e
n

S
t
a
r
t
P
a
r
e
n
t
s

a
n
d

C
h
i
l
-
d
r
e
n
U
S
Y
e
a
r
l
y
D
i
r
e
c
t

S
e
r
v
i
c
e
H
o
m
e

v
i
s
i
t
s
L
i
n
k
s

w
i
t
h

o
t
h
e
r

a
g
e
n
c
i
e
s
T
e
m
e
d

u
n
i
t
s

b
u
i
l
t

a
r
o
u
n
d

c
h
i
l
d
r
e
n
s

b
o
o
k
s
E
a
r
l
y

c
h
i
l
d
h
o
o
d

e
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
A
d
u
l
t

l
i
t
e
r
a
c
y
P
a
r
e
n
t
i
n
g

E
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
I
n
t
e
r
a
c
t
i
v
e

L
i
t
e
r
a
c
y

a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s

f
o
r

p
a
r
e
n
t
s

a
n
d

c
h
i
l
d
r
e
n
F
o
c
u
s

i
s

o
n

f
a
m
i
l
y

r
e
a
d
i
n
g

i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g

c
h
o
o
s
i
n
g

l
i
t
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
,

r
e
a
d
i
n
g

a
l
o
u
d

t
o
g
e
t
h
e
r
,

a
n
d

a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s

b
a
s
e
d

o
n

r
e
a
d
i
n
g
,

p
r
o
m
o
t
i
n
g

p
o
s
i
t
i
v
e

a
t
t
i
t
u
d
e
s

a
n
d

s
e
l
f

e
s
t
e
e
m
.
B
L
T

B
u
i
l
d
-
i
n
g

L
a
n
-
g
u
a
g
e

T
o
g
e
t
h
e
r
P
a
r
e
n
t
s

a
n
d

t
h
e
i
r

p
r
e
-
s
c
h
o
o
l

c
h
i
l
-
d
r
e
n
U
S
4

w
o
r
k

s
h
o
p
s

a
n
d

f
o
l
l
o
w

u
p

a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s

a
t

h
o
m
e
F
o
c
u
s

o
n

l
i
t
e
r
a
c
y

l
e
a
r
n
i
n
g

o
f

c
h
i
l
d

w
h
i
l
e

p
a
r
e
n
t

a
c
t
s

a
s

f
a
c
i
l
i
t
a
t
o
r
F
o
u
r

P
a
r
e
n
t

w
o
r
k
s
h
o
p
s

w
h
i
c
h

i
n
c
l
u
d
e

p
a
r
e
n
t

c
h
i
l
d

i
n
t
e
r
a
c
t
i
o
n

t
i
m
e

i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g

m
a
n
y

h
a
n
d
s
-
o
n

a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
L
a
n
g
u
a
g
e

b
a
s
e
d

a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
,

b
o
o
k

c
e
n
t
r
e
d
,

v
a
r
i
-
e
t
y

t
o

c
h
o
o
s
e

f
r
o
m
,

f
o
l
l
o
w

u
p

a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s

t
o

d
o

a
t

h
o
m
e
V
o
c
a
b
u
l
a
r
y
,

n
a
r
r
a
t
i
v
e

u
n
d
e
r
s
t
a
n
d
i
n
g
,

n
o
n
c
-
t
i
o
n

t
e
x
t
,

p
h
o
n
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l

a
w
a
r
e
n
e
s
s
,

l
e
t
t
e
r

r
e
c
o
g
-
n
i
t
i
o
n
,

p
a
r
e
n
t

i
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
F
a
m
i
l
y

S
t
o
r
y
-
t
e
l
l
e
r
P
a
r
e
n
t
s

a
n
d

t
h
e
i
r

p
r
e
s
c
h
o
o
l

c
h
i
l
-
d
r
e
n
U
S

-

N
e
v
a
d
a
S
i
x

w
o
r
k
-
s
h
o
p
s

a
n
d

a
t

h
o
m
e

a
c
t
i
v
i
-
t
i
e
s
F
o
c
u
s

i
s

t
o

e
n
c
o
u
r
-
a
g
e

f
a
m
i
l
i
e
s

t
o

r
e
a
d

a
n
d

t
o

g
i
v
e

p
a
r
e
n
t
s

s
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
e
s

f
o
r

h
e
l
p
i
n
g

b
e
g
i
n
n
i
n
g

r
e
a
d
e
r
s
.

G
r
o
u
p

s
e
s
s
i
o
n
s

w
i
t
h

p
a
r
e
n
t
s

a
n
d

c
h
i
l
d
r
e
n

p
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
i
n
g

i
n

a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s

i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g

v
i
d
e
o
,

r
o
l
e

p
l
a
y

a
n
d

m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
B
o
o
k

o
r
i
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
,

r
e
a
d
i
n
g

s
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
e
s
,

m
o
d
e
l
i
n
g

a
n
d

v
i
e
w
i
n
g

q
u
a
l
i
t
y

m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s

a
n
d

l
i
t
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
.

P
a
r
-
e
n
t
s

a
s

L
i
t
e
r
a
c
y

S
u
p
p
o
r
t
-
e
r
s

(
P
A
L
S
)
P
a
r
e
n
t
s

a
n
d

3
-
5

y
e
a
r

o
l
d

c
h
i
l
d
r
e
n
C
a
n
a
d
a
A
c
r
o
s
s

v
e

s
c
h
o
o
l
s
,

1
0

-
1
5

w
o
r
k
-
s
h
o
p
s

e
v
e
r
y

f
o
r
t
n
i
g
h
t

w
e
r
e

h
e
l
d
,

i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g

r
e
e
c
t
i
o
n

s
e
s
s
i
o
n

a
t

t
h
e

e
n
d
K
i
n
d
e
r
g
a
r
t
e
n

t
e
a
c
h
e
r

r
u
n
s

t
h
e

p
r
o
g
r
a
m

f
o
c
u
s
i
n
g

o
n

e
a
r
l
y

l
i
t
e
r
a
c
y
,

l
a
n
g
u
a
g
e

a
n
d

m
a
t
h
e
m
a
t
i
c
s

s
k
i
l
l
s
.

E
n
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
,

p
r
o
m
o
t
e

a
n
d

v
a
l
u
e

l
i
t
e
r
a
c
y

a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s

t
h
a
t

e
n
g
a
g
e

f
a
m
i
l
i
e
s

i
n

t
h
e

h
o
m
e
.
T
e

g
r
o
u
p

s
a
t

a
n
d

a
t
e

d
i
n
n
e
r

w
i
t
h

t
h
e

c
h
i
l
d
r
e
n

r
s
t
,

d
i
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n

a
r
o
u
n
d

t
h
e

t
o
p
i
c

w
a
s

i
n
t
r
o
d
u
c
e
d
,

o
n
e

o
n

o
n
e

a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s

w
i
t
h

p
a
r
e
n
t
s

a
n
d

c
h
i
l
d
r
e
n
,

l
i
t
-
e
r
a
c
y

c
e
n
t
r
e
s

w
e
r
e

s
e
t

u
p

s
o

t
h
a
t

p
a
r
e
n
t
s

a
n
d

c
h
i
l
-
d
r
e
n

c
o
u
l
d

l
e
a
r
n

t
o
g
e
t
h
e
r
,

r
e
e
c
t
i
o
n

w
a
s

a
t

t
h
e

e
n
d

o
f

e
a
c
h

s
e
s
s
i
o
n
A
l
p
h
a
b
e
t
,

e
a
r
l
y

m
a
t
h
e
m
a
t
i
c
s

d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
,

c
o
m
p
u
t
e
r
s
/

t
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y
,

l
e
a
r
n
i
n
g

t
o

w
r
i
t
e
,

e
n
-
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l

p
r
i
n
t
,

a
n
d

r
e
a
d
i
n
g

w
i
t
h

c
h
i
l
d
r
e
n
.

T
e
r
e

w
e
r
e

s
e
s
s
i
o
n
s

l
e
f
t

f
r
e
e

f
o
r

r
e
q
u
e
s
t
s

f
r
o
m

t
h
e

p
a
r
e
n
t
s
T
i
t
l
e
A
u
d
i
e
n
c
e
L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
D
u
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
o
c
u
s
D
e
l
i
v
e
r
y

M
o
d
e
C
o
n
t
e
n
t
F
A
B
:

u
l
o
u
s
P
a
r
e
n
t
s

a
n
d

p
r
i
m
a
r
y

s
c
h
o
o
l

c
h
i
l
d
r
e
n
U
S
F
a
m
i
l
y

N
i
g
h
t

f
o
u
r

m
o
n
t
h

p
e
r
i
o
d
F
a
m
i
l
y

l
i
t
e
r
a
c
y

p
r
o
j
e
c
t

a
r
o
u
n
d

b
o
o
k
s

a
n
d

l
i
t
e
r
a
c
y
.

B
u
i
l
d

o
n

f
a
m
i
l
i
e
s

k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e

a
n
d

i
n
t
e
r
e
s
t
s
,

t
e
a
c
h

s
p
e
c
i
c

w
a
y
s

f
a
m
i
l
i
e
s

c
a
n

a
s
s
i
s
t

t
h
e
i
r

c
h
i
l
-
d
r
e
n

w
i
t
h

l
i
t
e
r
a
c
y
.
D
i
n
n
e
r

w
a
s

o
e
r
e
d

r
s
t

t
h
e
n

a

s
k
i
l
l

w
a
s

t
a
u
g
h
t

a
n
d

t
h
e

p
a
r
e
n
t
s

w
o
u
l
d

t
r
y

w
i
t
h

t
h
e
i
r

c
h
i
l
d
r
e
n
.
S
p
e
l
l
i
n
g
,

g
r
a
m
m
a
r
,

p
h
o
n
i
c
s

a
n
d

a

f
o
u
r

b
l
o
c
k

r
e
a
d
i
n
g

a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
.

T
e

s
e
s
s
i
o
n
s

i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d

m
e
d
i
a

a
n
d

c
r
i
t
i
c
a
l

l
i
t
e
r
a
c
y

a
s

w
e
l
l

a
s

s
p
e
a
k
i
n
g
.

Course components
Te content covered in most programs is not described in detail. Te components
listed below were extracted from across all programs researched and exist to varying
degrees. In some cases, the focus was on one reading area such as uency and the
strategies selected reinforce that one area. In what follows are the types of activities,
strategies and content associated with the diverse array of programs available. Te
lack of in-depth descriptions make it only possible to provide a general overview of
what these programs entail.
Strategies for prompting
In many cases, parents were taught strategies for helping children identify unfamiliar
words. Parents were encouraged to use context clues, meaning, and phonic clues.
Parents were discouraged from giving direct prompts. Tey were encouraged to
praise their child and delay intervention when the child struggled with a word.
Modeling
Many programs advocated for parents to demonstrate reading aloud. Modeling also
involved the use of specic strategies such as paired reading, simultaneous reading,
choral reading, and shared reading.
Vocabulary
In some programs, parents were instructed on the importance of vocabulary and
how vocabulary impacts on reading. Examples of strategies include: how to use
extended conversations, book reading, dramatic play, outside activities, sorting and
classifying objects, brainstorming words around a topic chosen by the child and be-
ing a scribe for dictated stories.
Te literature supports the inclusion of vocabulary especially with parents with
ESL backgrounds. As Gadsden (2000) points out a child from economically disad-
vantaged homes or homes where English is a second language often has diculty
learning to read. However it is vital that parent education programs cover a range
of literacy components and not just reading. Studies by Hart & Risley (2003) found
a stunning dierence in childrens access to language. In their study of 42 families,
children from the wealthiest families heard over more than 1500 words each hour on
average, than children from the poorest families (616 vs. 2153). Over four years this
amounts to a 32 million word dierence. In addition, they went on to show that the
childrens rate of vocabulary growth and vocabulary use at age 3 was closely associ-
ated with their grade three standardized test scores (Hart and Risley, 2003).
Wordless picture books and print walks were used in the Parents as Literacy Sup-
porters (PALS) program to help families from cultural backgrounds continue their
tradition and passion for story telling. It also gave families who could not read or
speak English well the opportunity to participate in the activity (Anderson & Mor-
rison, 2007).
Story reading at home
Some programs instructed parents on how to read stories at home. Stories were seen
to oer unique language opportunities, present rare words, broaden childs horizons,
instill condence, and support the development of comprehension skills through
retelling, dramatic play, and story extensions.
Print related concepts
Parents were taught about concepts of print, phonological awareness and alphabeti-
cal principles. In some cases, the following ideas were shared: sorting food according
to beginning sound, using alphabet books, reading and learning nursery rhymes, and
playing with alliteration.
Variety of text types
Parents were instructed in the use of many texts types. Some programs had a par-
ticular preference for one text type such as nonction texts that was introduced as a
means of capitalizing on the curiosity of the child. Other programs recommended
the use of environmental print, expository texts, factual texts, and the use of scribed
texts dictated by the child.
Choosing a book
Methods of book selection were often considered in parent programs, for example,
the ve nger rule was given as a guide to choosing books. Book orientations were
used in many programs to introduce the child to a book and scaold their success.
Behaviour management and discipline
Some programs included a component that examined ways to manage the childs
behaviour and improve parent-child relationships. Ways to establish and maintain
eective parent-child communication was also a feature of some programs.
Additional areas covered
A number of programs included a component on spelling and writing. A few pro-
grams integrated mathematics activities and strategies to assist children at home.
Evaluating parent education programs
Te research reveals that the most common evaluation practices were interviews,
observations and questionnaires/surveys. In most programs, these evaluations were
conducted prior to the commencement of the program and then again at the conclu-
sion of the program. Other factors considered in evaluations included:
levels of family participation (Wagner et al, 2002)
frequency of reading sessions (Hannon and Jackson, 1987, Whitehurst et al
1994)
number of books shared with children (Whitehurst et al, 1994)
extent of their involvement as reported by parent (Hebbeler and Gerlach-
Downie 2002)
Analysis of reports and records of those delivering the programs (Pfannenstiel
and Seltzer, 1989)
Dropout rate (Wagner et al, 2002)
Parent reports in combination with outcome measures for children (Kirkpat-
rick, 2004)
One program which focused on fathers and their children (Saracho, 2007) used
observations; samples of childrens work; photographs; in-depth periodic interviews
with children, fathers and teachers; video of fathers working with their children and
eld notes written in a notebook. Tese evaluations provided a description of the
learning process.
Te results of this program were fathers focused on the family and community envi-
ronments; they chose activities and strategies they most felt comfortable with; and
were engaged in formal and informal literacy activities involving both the parent and
child.
For this particular program to be successful, fathers needed to be actively involved
and interested and engaged in the literacy activity and willing to share their interests
with their child. Tey were asked to select a book with their child, read the book to
the child, follow with an activity and to write a story together. Results showed that
fathers used their own personal style and interests to carry out the strategies they
learned in the literacy program. (Saracho, 2007).
Family literacy programs are evaluated based on student outcomes, (Wagner, Spiker
& Linn, 2002)
Evaluations of the programs researched showed that the programs were most eec-
tive when:
parents as well as teachers were trained (Whitehurst et al, 1994)
parent involvement was crucial to the success of the program [as opposed to
dropping their children o for tutoring] (Wagner, Spiker & Linn, 2002)
Implications and recommendations
Parents are an over-looked resource, readily available, and keen to assist in the
education of struggling readers. However, the constraint of not being able to access
quality education programs that support childrens learning restricts their eorts.
Parents are often left feeling bewildered, frustrated and inadequate and children not
only continue to struggle, but often suer the consequences of their parents guilt.
Te name parent education is misleading and restrictive. Most programs cater for
a diverse range of carers mothers, fathers, step parents, aunties, uncles, grandpar-
ents, siblings all participating with the hope of improving literacy outcomes for
children in their care. Research in parent education is limited. Few programs were
found to address the needs of children beyond the early years. Rightfully, the em-
phasis has been on prevention (ages 0-5) and supporting success for young children.
However, many children continue to fail beyond grade 2 and the chances of parents
receiving assistance appears to diminish. Assisting parents to support their children
at any stage of reading development is crucial if the concerns of illiteracy are to be
addressed.
Te following recommendations are made on the basis of the research ndings.
Te gaps in the research literature highlight the need to examine the role of fathers,
school involvement in parent education, evaluation of programs and sustainability
and quality of eective programs.
Quality strategies
Eective programs combine parent education (such as an understanding of the read-
ing process) with the provision of a range of researched strategies to implement at
home. Prior to undertaking a parent program, parents usually draw on their memo-
ries of schooling and what they recall of their own literacy experiences when working
with their children. Providing a repertoire of strategies and an understanding of why
they are important is empowering to the parent and benecial to struggling readers.
Ease of access
Eective programs oer:
A broad range of times, for example, during school time, afterschool, weekends
Multiple modes of delivery, for example, online, hotline, home visits
Incentives such as child care, links to other service providers, certicates of
achievement
Resources
Eective programs make available resources to complement the education program.
A range of quality literature including many text types is on hand for children to
borrow. Authentic and high interest literature and student choice are factors to be
considered in the selection of resources.
Research
Parent education is under researched. Te role of fathers and the growing involve-
ment of grandparents in childrens education are just two areas where the literature
is lacking. If funding bodies, education departments and researchers are committed
to improving education for parents and ultimately literacy outcomes for children, the
following pertinent questions require further investigation:
What sustains an eective program?
What are the essential components of programs that produce results and im-
prove learning outcomes for children?
What do parents really need to know about literacy to better prepare them to
help their children at home?
How do communities assist in the planning and presentation of workshops in
order to address the specic needs of cultural groups, invisible families and
families in need?
What can schools do to enroll parents in supporting quality learning outcomes
for their children?
What is being done to improve literacy outcomes for students beyond Year 2?
Why are boys failing and how can fathers be supported to play more active
roles in literacy learning?
Technology
Parent education courses provide an opportunity to show case best practice and
demonstrate technology as the medium of todays education. For struggling read-
ers, it can be an incentive to explore new ways of engaging with texts, provide fun
and entertainment while reading, and give readers access to information about topics
of interest. It is the ideal resource to supplement ongoing literacy practices in the
home. No program mentioned the use of technology to assist parents nor the use of
software programs designed to support struggling readers.
Accountability and evaluation
From the research, it is apparent that parent programs use a variety of evaluative
measures to assess the eectiveness of programs. Te benets of programs are mul-
tifaceted and research that accounts for improvements in student literacy outcomes,
attitudinal changes, outcomes for parents, benets to schools and communities, and
the long term impact on childrens literacy achievement must be considered. Te use
of evaluative information to inform and improve programs in the future is essential.
References
Anderson, J. & Morrison, F. (2007) A Great program for me as a Gramma: Caregiv-
ers Evaluate a Family Literacy initiative. Canadian Journal of Education 30, 1: 68-89.
Anderson, Streelasky & Anderson (2007). Representing and promoting family
literacy on the World Wide Web: A critical analysis. Te Alberta Journal of Educa-
tional Research, 53(2), 143-156.
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (July 2008). Adult Literacy and Life Skills Survey,
Summary Results, Australia.
Retrieved on 25
th
February, 2009 from: www.independentschoolparents.com.au/
news/2008/abs_literacy_survey.html
Barnes, W. S., Snow, C. E., Hemphill, L., Chandler, J., & Goodman, I. F. (2000). Un-
fullled expectations: Home and school inuences on literacy. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press.
Biddulph, J. (1983). A group program to train parents of children with reading di-
culties to tutor their children at home. Unpublished MA Research Report, University
of Canterbury, Christchurch.
Biddulph, J. (2004). Reading Together: Suggestions for helping children with reading
at home. Hamilton, NZ: Te Biddulph Group.
Biddulph, J. & Tuck, B. (1983). Assisting parents to help their children with reading
at home. Paper presented to the Annual New Zealand Association for Research in
Education Conference, Wellington.
Biddulph, F., Biddulph, J. and Biddulph, C. (2003). Te Complexity of Community
and Family Inuences on Childrens Achievement in New Zealand: Best Evidence
Synthesis Iteration (BES). New Zealand Ministry of Education
Bronsteins, P. (1984) Dierences in mothers and fathers behaviour towards children:
A cross-cultural comparison. Developmental Psychology, 20(6), 995-1003.
Brown, D. J. 1998. Schools with heart: Voluntarism and public education. Boulder,
Colo.: Westview Press.
Bus, A.G., van Ijzendorn, M.H., & Pellegrini, A.D. (1995). Joint book reading makes
for success in learning to read: A meta-analysis on intergenerational transmission of
literacy, Review of Educational Research, 65(1), 1-21.
Cadieux, A., & Boudreault, P. (2003). Eects of a reading intervention on parental
knowledge of names and letter sounds and phonological awareness of students at
risk. Revue des sciences de leducation, 29, 545-563.
Cadieux, A., & Boudreault, P. (2005). Te Eects of a Parent-Child Paired Reading
Program on Reading Abilities, Phonological Awareness and elf-Concept of At-Risk
Pupils. Reading Improvement, 42(4), 224-237. Retrieved from http://search.ebsco-
host.com/login.aspx?
Cassidy, J. & Cassidy, D. (2002-03). Whats hot, whats not for 2003. Reading Today,
20(3), 1, 18.
Christenson, S. L., & Sheridan, S. M. (2001). School and families: Creating essential
connections for learning. New York: Guilford Press.
Clay, M. ( 1993). Always a learner: A fable. Reading Today, 3(5), 10.
Come, B., & Fredericks, A. (1995). Family literacy in urban schools: Meeting the
needs of at risk children, Te Reading Teacher, 48 (5), 392-403
Come, B. & Fredericks, A. D. (1995). Family Literacy in Urban Schools: Meeting the
needs of at-risk students. Te Reading Teacher. 48, p566-70.
Cunningham, P.M., & Allington, R.L. (2003). Classrooms that work: Tey can all
read and write. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Darling, S., and Hayes, A.E. (1996). Te Power of Family Literacy. Louiseville, KY:
National Center for Family Literacy.
Darling, S., & Westbury, I. (2004). Parent involvement in childrens acquisition of
reading. Te Reading Teacher, 57, 774-776
Delpit, L. (1995) Other peoples children: Cultural conict in the classroom. NY: Te
New Press
Eakle, A.J. & Garber, A.M. (2003). International Reports on Literacy Research. Read-
ing Research Quarterly Vol. 38, No.1 pp. 142-144 For the National Centre
Fantuzzo, J. Mcwayne, C. Perry, M. A. Childs, S. (2000) Multiple Dimensions of Fam-
ily Involvement and Teir Relations to Behavioural and Learning Competencies for
Urban, Low-Income Children. School Psychology Review, Vol. 33, 2004.
Fantuzzo, J. McWayne, C. Perry, M. A. Childs, S. (2000) Multiple Dimensions of
Family Involvement and Teir Relations to Behavioural and Learning Competencies
for Urban, Low-Income Children. School Psychology Review, Vol. 33, 2004.
Fantuzzo et al. 2000 Fantuzzo, J.L. Davis, G., & Ginsburg, M.D. (1995). Eects of
parent involvement in isolation or in combination with peer tutoring on student
self-concept and mathematics achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87,
272-281.
Gadsden, V.L. (2003). Expanding the Concept of Family in Family Literacy: Inte-
grating a Focus on Fathers. In A. DeBruin-Parecki, & B. Krol-Sinclair (Eds.), Family
Literacy (pp. 86-125). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Gadsden, V. L., & Wagner, D. A. (1995). Literacy among African-American youth: Is-
sues in learning, teaching, and schooling. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Gadsden, V. L. (2000). Current areas of interesting family literacy. National Center
for the Study of Adult Learning and Literacy. Vol 3, 2002.
Gilliam, B., Gerla, J.P., & Wright, G. (2004). Providing Minority Parents with Relevant
Literacy Activities For Teir Children. Reading Improvement, 4194), 226-234.
Graves Smith, J. (2006) Parental Involvement in Education Among Low-Income
Families: A Case Study. Te School Community Journal, Volume 16, Number 1.
Handel, R. (1999). Te multiple meanings of family literacy. Education & Urban Soci-
ety, 32 (1), 127-144.
Hannon, P., Morgan, A. & Nutbrown, C. (2006). Parents Experiences of a Family
Literacy Program. Journal of Early Childhood research
Hannon, P. & Jackson, A. (1987) Te Beleld Reading Project Final Report. Lon-
don, Rochdale: National Childrens Bureau/Beleld Community Council.
Hart, B. & Risley, T.R. (2003) Te early catastrophe: Te 30 million word gap by age
3. American Educator, 27 (1), -9.
Hart, B. & Risley, T. R. Baltimore: Paul H. Brooks, (1995). Meaningful Dierences in
the Everyday Experience of Young American Children.
Hebbler, K. M., Gerlach-Downie, S. G. (2002). Inside the black box of home visiting:
A qualitative analysis of why intended outcomes were not achieved. Early Childhood
Research Quarterly, 17, 28-51.
Hill, N.E., & Craft, S.A. (2003). Parent-school involvement and school performance:
Mediated pathways among socioeconomically comparable African-American and
Euro-American families. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 7483.
Homan, J., Roller, C., Maloch, B., Sailors, M., Duy, G., Beretvas, S. N. (2005).
Teachers preparation to teach reading and their experiences and practices in the rst
three years of teaching. Te Elementary School Journal, 105(3), 267-287.
Jordan, G.E., Snow, C.E. and Porsche, M.V. (2000). Project EASE: Te eect of a fam-
ily literacy project on kindergarten students early literacy skills. Reading Research
Quarterly, 35, 524-546.
Kirkpatrick, A. (2004). Shared reading interactions: Identifying and developing be-
haviours between parents and preschool children. Unpublished PhD Tesis, Univer-
sity of Sheeld.
Lenters, K. (2007) From Storybooks to Games, Comics, Bands and Chapter Books: A
Young Boys Appropriation of Literacy Practices. Canadian Journal of Education 30,
1: 113-136
Lilly, E. Green, C. (2004) Developing Partnerships With families Trough Childrens
Literature. Pearson Education, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.
Longwell-Grice, H. & McIntrye, E. (2006) Addressing Goals of School and Com-
munity: Lessons from a Family Literacy Program. Te School Community Journal,
Volume 16, Number 2.
Mace, J. (1998). Playing with time: Mothers and the meaning of literacy. London:
UCI, Press.
Marks, L., & Palkovitz, M. R. (2004). American fatherhood types: Te good, the bad,
and the uninterested. Fathering, 2(2), 113129.
Meyers, B., Dowdy, J., & Paterson, T. (2000). Finding the missing voices: Perspectives
of the least visible families and their willingness and capacity for school involvement.
Journal of Middle Level Education, 28, 59-67.
Moll, L. & Greenberg, J.B. (1991). Creating zones of possibilities: Combining social
contexts for instruction. In L.C. Moll (Ed.), Vygotsky in education (pp. 319-348) NY:
Cambridge.
Morrow, L.M. (1999). Family literacy connections at school and home. Newark, DE:
International Reading Association.
Morrow, L., Kuhn, M.R., & Schwanenugel, P.J. (2006, December). Te Family Flu-
ency Program. Te Reading Teacher, 60(4), 322333. doi: 10.1598/RT.60.4.2
Mui, S. & Anderson, J. (2008) At home with the Johars: Another look at family lit-
eracy. Te Reading Teacher, 62 (3). Pp 234-243
National Centre for Education Statistics (US) nces.ed.gov/naal/estimates/index.aspx
Neuman, S.B., Hagerdorn, T., Celano, D., & Daly, P. (1995). Toward a collaborative
approach to parent involvement in early education: A study of teenage mothers in an
African American community. American Educational Research Journal, 30, 95-122.
Neuman, S. Caperelli, B. J. & Kee, C. (1998). Literacy learning, a family matter. Te
Reading teacher, 52(3), 244 252
Nickse, R. S. (1991)Family and Intergenerational Literacy Programs. Information
Series No. 342. Columbus: ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult, Career, and Vocational
Education. (ED 327 736).
Nistler, R. J. & Maiers, A. (2000). Stopping the silence: Hearing parents voices in an
urban rst-grade family literacy program. Reading Teacher, 53(8), 670-680.
Nord, C. W., Brimhall, D., & West, J. (1997). Fathers involvement in their childrens
schools. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. (nces.ed.gov/naal/esti-
mates/index.aspx)
Ortiz, R. W. (2004). Hispanic/Latino fathers and children literacy development ex-
amining involvement practices from a socio cultural context. Journal of Latinos and
Education, 3(3), 165180.
Ortiz, R. W. (1994). Fathers and children explore literacy. Te Kamehameha Journal
of Education, 5, 131134.
Padak, N., & Rasiniski, T. 92006). Home-school Partnerships in literacy education:
From rhetoric to reality. Reading Teacher, 60(3), 292-296. doi:10.1598/RT.60.3.11
Paratore, J.R. (2001). Opening doors, opening opportunities: Family literacy in the
urban community. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon
Paratore, J.R. (2005) Approaches to Family Literacy: Exploring the possibilities. IRA
Pfannenstiel, J., and Seltzer, D. Evaluation Report: New Parents as Teachers Project
Overland Park, KS: Research & Training Associates, 1985; Pfannenstiel, J., and Selt-
zer, D. New Parents as Teachers: Evaluation of an Early Parent Education Program.
Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 4, 1-18, 1989.
Phillerber, W. W., Spillman, R. E. and King, R. (1996) Consequences of family literacy
for adults and children: Some preliminary ndings. Journal of Adolescent and Adult
Literacy 39(7): 558-65
Purcell-Gates, V. (2000). Family literacy: A research review. Handbook of Reading
Research, vol. 3. New York: NY: Erlbaum.
Rasinski, T.V. & Padak, N. (2004). Eective reading strategies: Teaching children who
nd reading dicult (3
rd
Ed.). Upper saddle river, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Saracho, O. N. (2002a). Family literacy: exploring family practices. Early Child Devel-
opment and Care, 172(2), 113122.
Saracho, O. N. (2007). A Literacy Program for fathers: A Case Study. Early Childhood
Education 35 p 351-356.
Sargent, S.E. ,Hill, N & Morrison, S. (2006) Te Impact of University Reading Clin-
ics: Parental Perceptions. Reading Research and Instruction Vol.6 No. 1 Supp. Pages
184-197
Snchal, M., LeFevre, J., Smith-Chant, B. L., & Colton, K. (2000). On rening theo-
retical models of emergent literacy: Te role of empirical evidence. Journal of School
Psychology. 39, 439460.
Senechal, M., & National Institute for Literacy. (2006). Te eect of family literacy
interventions on childrens acquisition of reading: From kindergarten to Grade 3. A
meta-analytic review. Portsmouth, New Hampshire: RMC Research Corporation
Shockley, B. Michalove, B, & Aleen, J. (1995). Engaging families: Connecting home
and school literacy communities. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann
Snow, C., Burns, S. & Grin, P. (1998). Preventing Reading Diculties in Young
Children. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
Snow, C. E. Barnes, W. Chandler, J. Goodman, I. F. & Hemphill, L. (1991) Unfullled
Expectations: Home and school inuences on literacy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Strickland, D. S. (2004). Working with families as partners in early literacy. Reading
Teacher, 5891), 86-88.doi:10.1598/RT.58.1.9
Strickland, D. (1996). Meeting the needs of families in family literacy programs. In
L.A. Benjamin & J. Lords (eds.), Family literacy: directions in research and implica-
tions for practice. Washington, D.C: Pelavin Research Institute. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 391-945).
Tett, L. (2000). Excluded voices: Class, culture, and family literacy in Scotland. Jour-
nal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 44(2), 122128.
Toomey, D. (1993). Parents hearing their children read: a review. Rethinking the les-
sons of the Haringey Project. Educational Research, 35, 223 236.
Topping, K. J. Lindsay, G. A. (1992) Paired Reading: A Review of the Literature. Re-
search Papers in Education, Vol 7(3), p199-246.
US Department of Education (2001). Te longitudinal evaluation of school changes
and performance in Title I schools, Volume 1: Executive Summary. Washington
DC:Author
Wagner, M., Spiker, D., & Linn, M. (2002). Te eectiveness of the Parents as Teach-
ers program with low-income parents and children. Topics in Early Childhood Spe-
cial Education, 22(2), 67-81.
Waldbert, A., Meyers, B., & Meyers, J. (2006). Invitations to families in an early
literacy support program. Retrieved from http://nd.galegroup.com/ips/infomark.
do?&contentSet+IAC-
Wasik, B.H. (2004). Handbook of family literacy. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Weigal, D. , Behal, P. & Martin, S. (2001) Te Family Storyteller: A Collaborative
Family Literacy Program. Journal of Extension 39, 4.
Weinberger, J. (1996). A Longitudinal study of childrens early literacy experiences
at home and later literacy development at home and school. Journal of Research in
Reading, 19(1), 14-24
Westat and Policy Studies Associates. (2001). Te longitudinal evaluation of school
change and performance (LESCP) in Title I schools. Rockville, MD and Washington,
DC: Author.
Whitehurst, G. J., Arnold, D. S., Epstein, J. N., Angell, A. N., Smith, M., & Fischel, J.
E. (1994). A picture book reading intervention day care and home for children from
low-income families. Developmental Psychology, 30(5), 679-689.

Review of The Literature Family Literacy Programs

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Review of The Literature Family Literacy Programs

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Review of the Literature:

Family Literacy Programs

You might also like