Bilingual parents

Hill West Research Papers

How Can Primary Schools Best Support Emergent Bilingual Parents with the Facilitation of their Children’s English Literacy Development at Home?

By Dr. Beth Clarke June 2003

How Can Primary Schools Best Support Emergent Bilingual Parents with the Facilitation of their Children’s English Literacy Development at Home?

Beth Marie Clarke

M.A. Education 2003 12

How Can Primary Schools Best Support Emergent Bilingual Parents with the Facilitation of their Children’s English Literacy Development at Home?

Beth Marie Clarke

September, 2003.

Dissertation submitted in part fulfilment of the award of MA: Education at the University of Central England.

13

Contents

Page Number

Abstract

……………….

(i)

Introduction

……………….

1 – 11

Literature Review

……………….

12 – 34

Methodology

……………….

35 – 45

Analysis of Data

……………….

46 - 83

Section 1

……………….

46 - 52

(summary of research tools) 14

Section 2

……………….

52 – 72

……………….

72 – 83

(research analysis)

Section 3

(conclusions and recommendations)

References

……………….

84 – 88

Appendix

……………….

89 – 121

15

Abstract

This research project took place in a large three - form entry, multicultural, inner city Primary school. Its aims were to identify the benefits of different types of support a school could offer emergent bi-lingual families with the facilitation of their children’s Literacy development at home. As such it reflected on educational research characterised by four themes; parental involvement; emergent bi-lingual families; school/parent workshops, leaflets; role of the teacher as communicator.

A small-scale case study was carried out in the research establishment with Senior Managers, teachers, classroom assistants and parents forming part of the sample group. Opinions and beliefs were sought via the use of questionnaires, interview schedules and observations, from which data was collected and collated. The findings identified

16

Introduction

This research took place in a large three-form entry, multicultural, multilingual innercity primary school, which will be known for the purposes of this study as Orchid Community School. The school had approximately 720 children on roll. Of those children, over 96% were Muslim, all of whom spoke English as an additional language. Children often joined the school as first generation immigrants whose parents spoke little or no English. Being employed by the school as the English Coordinator I consider the impetus for this research originated from three main sources: first and foremost the firm belief that children’s achievement in literacy can be significantly enhanced with parental support, secondly a commitment to supporting children’s literacy development at home and thirdly, a growing interest in emergent bilingualism. The primary aim of this research was to identify the best way of supporting our emergent bilingual parents (those parents who were at the early stages of English language learning and who did not speak English at home or in the community) with the facilitation of their children’s literacy development at home.

In particular the research aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of a family literacy project within the school.

The ultimate goal of my work as an English Co-ordinator is to raise standards of Speaking and Listening, Reading and Writing for all children. My intention is to equip children with the literacy competencies they need to live, work and succeed in a largely monolingual British economic society.

As argued by Graves et al (1996), 17

‘To be successful in modern society, it is virtually imperative that one be literate’ (p. 189).

In British Society being literate means having the ability to communicate in English.

A school priority during the academic year 2001-2002 had been the promoting and resourcing of home reading, in an attempt not only to foster children’s enthusiasm for books and literature but to also raise standards in reading particularly in terms of comprehension, inference and deduction. Building on the drive for successful home reading, a new research question was formulated. How can Orchid Community school best support emergent bilingual parents to help with their children’s literacy development at home? As stated by Blackledge (2000, p.1) it is essential to discover what can be done to facilitate high levels of literacy for low-income families of diverse backgrounds. In this study, diverse backgrounds included people of Pakistani, Bangladeshi and Indian origin, with a home language other than English.

One of the major tasks for schools in the twenty-first century is to ensure that all pupils acquire the necessary skills to function effectively as adults (Blackledge 2000, p.1). Yet literacy is not only learned in schools but also in children’s homes and communities. This being so, schools need to respond appropriately. It is essential that schools, particularly schools like Orchid Community, consider the importance of literacy in terms of cultural and personal identity and value its significance.

‘It is the obligation of those of us in education to make available all of the linguistic tools and pedagogical procedures that, taken together will be useful for children’ (Graves et al, 1996 p.6).

This includes supporting parents with their own English literacy acquisition.

18

Parental Involvement – A Brief History In recent decades, it has been generally accepted that establishing and fostering strong links between the school and home is of utmost importance (Campbell, 1992). A major influence in the development of more positive home school links was the publication of the Plowden Report (DES, 1967), which emphasised the influence of parental attitudes on educational performance. In the area of literacy development it suggested that parents could help their children by reading to them and hearing them read (DES, 1967). The Bullock Report (DES, 1975) added weight to the Plowden Report (1967) and played a major role in changing the perceptions of parents and educators. It demonstrated that children made more literacy progress when parents were actively involved with, and encouraged their children’s literacy. Similarly, the Warnock Report (1978) argued that the successful education of children with special educational needs was dependent on the full involvement of their parents, suggesting that a strengthening of parental support might serve to produce better educational performance in school.

These reports were supported during the 1980’s in a variety of research findings. The Haringey Project (Hewison and Tizard, 1980), and the Bellfield Reading Project (Jackson and Hannon, 1981), stated that when schools committed time and resources to developing links with the home and encouraged parents to collaborate in children’s literacy development – a higher degree of progress was made by the child.

Legislation, in the form of the Education Acts of 1980, 1981, 1986 and, much more significantly, 1988 all referred to some of the many aspects of home / school 19

relationships, such as choice of school, access to information, involvement in assessment and representation on governing bodies. As such, they had far reaching implications for the role of parents in the education of their children. (Blackledge 2000, p.6)

By 1997 the need to involve parents actively in their children’s education was high on the political agenda of the newly elected Labour Government. Two of the main reasons for this were firstly, that the role of parents as their children’s first and most consistent educators was by now firmly established (Barber 1996, p.224). Secondly the link between parents’ own experiences of the education system, their attitudes and expectations and their children’s achievement was being acknowledged as an important factor (OECD, 1997).

In 1997 the government made recommendations that there should be a fully integrated approach to early years education and care across the public, private and voluntary sector. Family Literacy and Numeracy projects were being trialled in schools across the country and the supporting and training of parents were two of the key tasks identified for school priority (DfEE, 1996;DfEE, 1997).

Parental Involvement – Current Practice The vital role that parents play in the intellectual development of their children has long been acknowledged (Katz, 1982). Tizard and Hughes (1984, p.3) went as far as to argue that not only does ‘the home provide a very powerful learning environment’ but also identified ‘constraints on school staff which made it difficult for them to be as educationally effective as parents’.

20

Vincent arguing in 1996 stated that parental involvement in education appeared to be largely accepted as part of professional good practice. Many initiatives – such as home reading schemes, parent helpers in the classroom, parent – teacher consultations, curriculum evenings, family literacy courses and so on – were becoming increasingly popular. Articles on new projects and initiatives involving parents continued to appear regularly in educational press (TES, Feb, 2000) and there were few schools where parental participation was non-existent. Orchid Community School was no different and had a long established set of well rehearsed practices to engage parents. These included 

Parents evenings



Curriculum evenings



Parent volunteers in the classrooms



Family Literacy or Numeracy courses each term



Strong links with adult education based on school site

However, the same press that celebrates parental participation also features dissenting voices; parents declaring that they need to be informed about their children’s day-today classroom experiences alternating with teachers bemoaning parental apathy (Vincent, 1996).

Lysaght (1993) suggested that parental involvement was not such an established feature of the education system as rhetoric would imply. I would argue that there is still some truth in Lysaght’s (1993) argument. Certainly curriculum evenings, parent helpers in classrooms etc. are all encouraged and are an accepted feature of school life 21

however, the number of schools fully committed to supporting the lifelong learning of their parents, or the number of schools that view their parents as equal partners in the learning process is questionable.

Jowett et al (1991) argued that schools should be committed to engaging parents as decision-makers in the planning and implementation of work. Instead of compensating for disadvantage such work should acknowledge the impact poverty has on the lives of local children and their families, and encourage families to take an equal and active role in the development of a responsive service. Principles that underpin such work are, 

An understanding of an individual’s capacity to be self directing



A commitment to helping individuals gain more control over their lives



A commitment to raising self esteem



A commitment to learning as a lifelong process



An understanding of equal opportunities



A willingness to push boundaries



Encouraging people to feel they have the power to change things



Self-fulfilment (Adapted from Whalley, 1994, p.4).

This research is committed to the above principles with the underlying belief that such partnerships will facilitate home literacy learning and raise levels of English literacy for the parents and in turn the children of Orchid Community School. The question that remains unanswered, however, is what are the most effective ways of ensuring

22

that these principles are put into practice? Does the current practice which relies heavily on family literacy courses, embody such principles?

Emergent Bilinguals With over 96% of the school population being culturally diverse and the majority speaking a home language other than English, it is fair to say that Orchid Community School had a high population of emergent bilingual families. Gregory (1996, p.8) defined emergent bilinguals as children or adults who are the first generation in their family to receive formal schooling in a new country, who do not speak the language of the new country at home and who are consequently at the early stages of second language learning. For the purpose of this study, emergent bilinguals are categorised as those parents who are at the early stages of English language learning and who do not speak English at home or in the community

In a multicultural and multilingual society (such as the one at Orchid Community school) there are many and diverse literacies which have different meanings for different groups of individuals (Blackledge 2000). When schools respond positively to the literacies of their communities, much can be done to reverse the inequalities, which are so often evident in relations between dominant and minority groups.

Literacy cannot be considered to be either psychological or social, but as an integration of processes operating on both of these levels (Scribner, 1987). External social factors affect the internalisation of cognitive gains through literacy. The development of the mental operations involved in reading and writing cannot be fully understood without also understanding the contexts in which literacy is experienced.

23

The cultural practice model, argues Blackledge (2000), assumes that the development of an individual’s literacy is shaped by the structure and organisation of the social situations in which literacy is encountered and practised. Literacy development is driven by the quality of an individual’s engagement in particular literacy practices (Reder, 1994). A critical issue in this model, whether in or out of school, concerns what it is about literacy interaction that produces (or fails to produce) gains in literacy. If collaborative activities are critical contexts for literacy development, then the social structure of those situations is likely to have a substantial influence on the development process.

Characteristically, in a literate community, a set of literacy–related activities would be familiar and well rehearsed within a particular home and in this way become well learned by the children (Gregory 1996). Whereas those children with literacies other than English, argued Graves (1996), find themselves in many school situations at a disadvantage.

‘Often, children of economically disadvantaged and less well- educated parents arrive in school with far fewer experiences with print, stories and books and thus have developed few of the ways of thinking about literature activities so valued in schools’ (Graves et al 1996, p.77).

A dilemma exists in bilingual homes and schools (Gregory, 1996). How can parents who cannot speak English themselves, go about helping their children’s development in English literacy and are schools like Orchid Community doing enough to support such parents?

24

By involving parents and other family and community members in the teaching and learning of literacy, and by building on the existing literacies of the family and the community, schools can act as catalysts in a process of empowerment for children, their families and the community as a whole. That is, collaborative literacy teaching and learning can be a positive force in the redefinition of relations of power, and the enhancement of social equality (Blackledge 2000, p.133). Yet it is not enough to simply involve parents. Jowett et al (1991, p.139) further argued that schools have a responsibility to plan an overall strategy for contact with parents and to introduce innovative practice as necessary. Jowett (1991) makes a vital point. Without a holistic strategy for parental participation that clearly identifies the school aims, underlying philosophy and expected outcomes, the positive force of collaborative literacy teaching is minimised.

Evaluating Practice at Orchid Community School By linking theory to practice, this research was designed to identify the best methods for encouraging and supporting parents with their children’s literacy development at home. It evaluated the effectiveness of a family literacy project as an initiative and sought alternatives. It was designed to assist in the clarification of the overarching school philosophy for parental involvement and to shape future practice. It acknowledged the difficulties faced by the parents of Orchid Community School in terms of their cultural and religious responsibilities, for example, the requirement in many families that adults and children are to speak in their first language at home. In the light of these constraints this research sought to identify the best methods for encouraging parental participation in their children’s learning and lifelong learning.

25

The intention of this research was to: 

develop an effective dialogue with parents about their children’s learning at home.



develop a style of working with parents, that empowered rather than deskilled;



actively encourage lifelong literacy learning through family literacy or other, similar initiatives.



assist parents to get actively involved in their children’s English literacy development at home.

In order to evaluate the effectiveness of school interventions the research explored the beliefs and opinions of 

Class Teachers and Classroom Assistants



Parents



Parent Partnership Workers

This study reflected on the value of a Family Literacy project at Orchid Community School and compared its success with alternative practices. Although there had been much debate and excitement, about the potential gains to be made from developing contact between home and school, innovation in education such as family literacy, needs to be accompanied by evaluation – without it, prejudice and educational fashion takes over (Hannon, 1995).

In order to find approaches which facilitated home literacy learning in the school, systematic research was essential.

26

Brown and Dowling (1998) defined research as: ‘…an enquiry which seeks to make known something about a field of practice or activity which is currently unknown to the researcher’ (p.7).

It would be fair to say that generally little was known about home literacy practices of the diverse families attending Orchid Community School and detailed knowledge of various approaches to facilitating lifelong learning within the community was lacking.

As argued by Pascal, (1996) ‘I would like to see the research world opening its doors much more fully to practice and practitioners, embracing the messy chaotic world of the young child and trying to work with it in order to understand it more fully’ (Pascal 1996, p.5)

My aims during this research project were to do just that, embrace the world of the children and families at Orchid Community School in an attempt to understand their literacies and support them with the acquisition of the dominant literacy – English.

27

Literature Review

This literature review explores relevant published research and establishes a conceptual framework for the study of how best to facilitate parental involvement in children’s literacy development at home. Discussion of the literature will examine four main areas: Firstly parental involvement in children’s literacy development, secondly, emergent bilingualism and its effect on the balance of power within society, thirdly the role of teachers in encouraging and supporting adult lifelong learning and finally curriculum intervention programmes, their strengths and weaknesses. These four interrelated themes will then form the basis from which my research will develop.

Why Should Parents be involved in the Teaching of Literacy?

Imparting literacy to the next generation has historically been seen as the task of schools. However Hannon (1995, p.1) argues that much of children’s literacy learning takes place before school or out of school – mainly in fact, at home. This is a challenge for schools. Instead of relying on in - school learning to promote literacy, schools should perhaps concentrate on building upon or extending home literacy learning provision. The key to successful literacy learners, suggests Hannon, (1995) is to involve parents more in the teaching of literacy.

Until quite recently the dominant practice in literacy teaching in England was one of parental exclusion. Even now, the widely heard rhetoric of ‘home-school cooperation’ and ‘partnership with parents’ is not always matched by real

28

involvement in practice. The deep structure of many schools’ relationship with parents remains closer to exclusion, argued Hannon (1995, p.17).

A turning point for the involvement of parents in primary education in England was the publication of the Plowden Report (CACE, 1967). Outright parental exclusion was no longer respectable. In this climate there was a slow but steady growth of limited involvement of parents in the teaching of literacy.

However in the post-Plowden era, involvement was seen mainly in terms of ‘getting parents into school’. The objectives behind parent participation were not always entirely clear. There was a feeling that if parents were in school more, contributing in some way to the life of the school, they would understand better what the school was trying to do and they would have positive attitudes towards it (Hannon 1995, p.21).

Whalley argued that if work with parents is to be successful it would need to be underpinned by the belief that all parents have a critical role to play as their child’s primary educator (Whalley 2001, p.8).

Research by Hewison and Tizard (1980) showed that an important factor in working – class children’s reading attainment at age 7 was whether their parents had heard them read regularly in the early school years. This led to the enormously influential Haringey Project (Tizard et al, 1982) in which researchers visited a group of parents at home and encouraged all of them to hear their children read books sent home from school. The research showed that, after two years, these children had better reading test scores than comparable children whose parents had not been involved in this way in the teaching of reading.

29

A longitudinal study by Lazar et al (1982) over a period of more than 15 years of young people who took part in pre-school programmes in the USA concluded that the ‘direct involvement of parents in intervention programmes was an important element in the children’s improved functioning later on and that the provision of services for the whole family resulted in even more gains for the children’ (cited in Jowett et al 1991, p.3).

Finding an appropriate form of parental involvement, and sustaining it, requires a clear understanding of why it is worthwhile and the benefits it can have for children and schools. The case for involvement rests partly on there being no justification for exclusion but surely more positive arguments can be demonstrated, based on what is known about what and how children learn at home; how home factors influence cognitive development.

‘Parents and early years practitioners need to work closely together if we are to provide the optimum opportunities for children to learn and develop.

Parents and teachers can help children separately or they can work together to the greater benefit of the children’ (Athey 1990, p.66).

Parents are still viewed by many practitioners as ‘helpers’ rather than as ‘equal and active partners’ engaged in the process of education (Whalley, 1997b). Unless practitioners truly value the contribution made by parents, parents will continue to take on this less powerful role. If parents are listened to, then their children receive the powerful message that their family, its culture and values are worth something within the community and society at large.

Burgess et al (1991) noted that ‘Staff engaged in the education of young children often attempt to change aspects of parents’ behaviour. This devaluation of working class culture 30

through initiatives, which are aimed ‘to teach mothers how to get it right’ (Finch, 1984b, p.15) gives professionals a dominance at odds with shared partnerships between parents and teachers (p.105).

Pugh and De’ath (1994) support this view stating that ‘programmes that rely on professionalism disempower parents’ (p.88).

Parent partnerships involve removing boundaries, reducing social distance, the creation of a genuine dialogue: all challenging and daunting prospects.

Literacy – A Vehicle for Equality Today, there is widespread anxiety about literacy in almost all countries throughout the world. In those where large sections of the population are illiterate, universal literacy is seen as essential for reaching political, economic and health goals. But even in industrialised countries where there has been compulsory schooling for generations, there is concern about the persistence of a minority of illiterate adults, complaints about the inadequacy of workforce literacy skills needed for competition in international markets, and controversy about how children should be taught literacy (Hannon 1995, p.1).

Despite, the evident importance of literacy, there are wide variations in the literacy abilities of children and adults. Adults with literacy difficulties constitute a small but significant minority in Britain. The fourth National Child Development Study (follow – up study) took a sample of over 12,500 twenty three year olds (ALBSU, 1987).

Around 10% of the adults reported difficulties with reading, writing or spelling. Less than one in ten of those adults had attended any kind of adult literacy course. These findings have been replicated in a British study of a nationally representative sample 31

of 1650 twenty one year olds (Ekinsmyth and Bynner, 1994) but this one also assessed young people’s performance on a set of tasks. It found that 5% could not find a restaurant address from the Yellow Pages, 24% could not locate basic information in a video recorder manual and 48% could not read advice about how to help someone suffering from hypothermia. Literacy scores based on such tasks were strongly related to family background, school attainment and employment history.

The authors concluded, ‘A picture emerges of the person lacking basic skills as being marginalised first in education and then in the peripheral unskilled regions of the labour market, typically with long spells of unemployment’ (Ekinsmyth et al, 1994, p. 55).

For some parents a real difficulty in helping their children is their own illiteracy (Hannon 1995, p.36). In practice, total illiteracy is rare in England and of course it is even rarer for both parents (and all other members of the household) to be totally illiterate. It is more common to find parents who have difficulties with reading and writing. That means they have some literacy and may be able to help their children in the early stages of literacy learning.

Returning to the NCDS sample, a more recent study has shown the relationship between parents’ literacy and children’s literacy (ALBSU, 1993). A reading test was given to 2617 children from 1761 families and their performance was analysed in relation to whether or not their parents reported having literacy difficulties. Some 4% of children had parents reported as having overall literacy difficulties while 11% reported having parents with writing or spelling difficulties. These children were much more likely to have poor reading test scores than were others. For example, 48% of children of parents with reading difficulties were in the lowest quartile 32

(compared to 25% for the sample as a whole). If parents also had a low income the likelihood of children being in the lowest quartile went up to 72%. This correlation suggests that inequalities relate to families rather than just to adults or children.

Much of the current home-school literature acknowledges the imbalance in power which structures relationships between parents, especially working class parents, and education professionals (Vincent, 1996, Dehli and Januario, 1994; David, 1993, Merttens and Vass, 1993, Jowett et al 1991; Tizard et al, 1988). This inequality is seen as stemming from the discrepancy between the professional knowledge of teachers and local government officers, and anyone who does not work in, and has at least limited access to those spheres. For specific groups of parents, such as working class and / or ethnic minority parents, that discrepancy is compounded by the dislocation between the cultural framework of their own lives and that of the school (Hannon, 1995).

Emergent Bilingual Families The difficulties faced by emergent bilingual families are as much social and economic as they are cultural and linguistic. Unfortunately, with the exception of Tomlinson and Hutchinson (1991), Gregory (1996a) and Delgado-Gaitan (1996) little has been documented about the effects of cultural background on parental partnerships with schools. The two main barriers identified by Tizard et al (1983,) are the obvious lack of a common language and the more subtle cultural differences.

Until recently there has often been an assumption among educators and policy-makers that the homes of poor, minority-culture families are less effective language and 33

literacy learning environments than the homes of middle-class, majority-culture families (Blackledge 2000, p.4). Minority groups are massively over-represented among the functionally illiterate in Western developed countries (Cummins, 1994a).

But public discourse often absolves schools and society from responsibility for minority-group underachievement and attributes school failure to the students’ own deficiencies (lack of academic effort) or deficiencies of their families (parental inadequacy).

However, careful observational research indicates that these assumptions are unfounded. Anderson and Stokes (1984), Delgado-Gaitan (1990) and others have studied literacy practices in the homes of families from a range of ethnic and linguistic backgrounds.

The functions, meanings and values, which are attached to literacy by schools may be different from those held by the communities they serve. One explanation for the relative success in school of middle-class, majority-language children is that their home environments provide them with the kind of literacy skills and practices needed to do well in school. The fact that their parents use and transmit literacy in the specific ways that schools expect gives these children an advantage (Heath, 1983; Auerbach, 1989). This is not to imply that the language environments provided by working class and / or minority culture homes is deficient. It suggests rather, that the culture of schools may be favourable to certain groups at the expense of others.

Minority-culture families living in poor socio-economic conditions often face sustained isolation from the school culture, which can lead to miscommunication 34

between parents and school (Delgado-Gaitan, 1991). Schools can facilitate the marginalisation of students and parents by (consciously or unconsciously) establishing activities that require specific majority culturally based knowledge and behaviours. Frequently, the need for this knowledge is not made explicit. The absence of such knowledge precludes acceptable participation in formal school activities, resulting in isolation for many parents, especially those minority culture parents who have not been schooled in the host country. Where socio-cultural congruence exists between home and school settings, states (Blackledge 2000, p.7) children have a greater chance of succeeding in school. Parents who are knowledgeable about the school’s expectations and how the school operates may be better advocates for their children than those who are not.

Blackledge (2000, p.41) identifies literacy and literacies as having different meanings among different cultural groups. School and other institutions often demand that minority language parents adopt the linguistic and cultural roles of the dominant group if they are to support their children’s academic learning effectively, while often doing little to ensure that this can happen. Parent education programmes may actually increase educational inequality if they only reach the most accessible parents.

Parents, who do not speak, read or write the language of the dominant group are often among those who are seen least at school.

Tharp (1989) argued that in order to ensure continuity between school and home, teaching should occur in a context and process that is compatible with the natal culture of the students. That is, the responsibility to change lies with the school rather than the home.

35

Delgado-Gaitan (1990) argued that it is important for schools to consider the need for parents to work collectively with each other and the school so that they learn the meaning of parent involvement by becoming literate about the culture of the school, the classroom curriculum and how resources are accessed. And in addition the school needs to learn about the families it serves. The more the school recognises and values the children’s home culture in its curriculum and its communication with parents, the more effective home-school communications will be.

Simich-Dudgeon (1993) made the point that parents from different ethnic and cultural backgrounds interpret parental involvement differently and some find parental involvement activities a new cultural concept that must be learned. Simich-Dudgeon (1993) suggested that rather than trying to impose school-based activities on families who may need to learn new skills or cannot meet the demands of the school, schools should build on culturally appropriate activities, which are already familiar to the parents. A range of studies (Ghuman and Gallop 1981; Sneddon 1993, 1994, 1997; Karran 1997) indicated that minority language parents were very committed to their children’s education and wanted particularly to contribute to their children’s literacy learning. But unless schools introduce specific, culturally – appropriate interventions, which provide them with strategies for supporting their children’s literacy, they frequently feel disempowered as home literacy tutors.

Delgado-Gaitan (1990, 1994, 1996) demonstrated that there is much that can be done by schools to involve all parents in their children’s education, despite apparent

36

difficulties of communication and access. It is the responsibility of the school however, to ensure that parent participation is successful.

The Role of Teachers The study of parental involvement is complex (Jowett et al 1991, p.4). Some teachers for example, see parental assistance with the children’s activities in their schools as the goal of their work with parents. For others, such contact is only one part of a larger process where parents are building up a deeper understanding of school methods and teachers are developing an understanding about home backgrounds.

The class teacher’s role in implementing parental involvement is decisive (Hannon 1995, p.77). Without his or her commitment there can be very little genuine parental involvement. Those seeking to change things from outside the classroom – all have to reckon with the fact that it is the class teacher who, through daily contact with children and parents, determines whether involvement is experienced by those concerned as exciting and purposeful or as a tedious charade. If teachers are not already convinced of the value of working with parents and if they are not generally open-minded about developing their practice then very careful thought needs to be given to preparing them for a new role. Similarly, teachers need specific and advanced communication skills in order to effectively support parents (Hannon 1995, p.77).

Whalley et al, (2001) stated that although primary practitioners are in the unique position of coming into contact with children and their parents or carers on a daily basis – this does not necessarily equip them with the skills needed to communicate 37

effectively. The daily contact and shared interest in the children make them well placed to work with those adults as well as with their children but initial teacher, classroom assistant training, does not always prepare early educators for working with adults.

Blackledge (2000) suggests that schools in multilingual communities need to make a substantial investment in the involvement of parents. Work with parents is timeconsuming and demanding if it is undertaken to any significant degree, and staff need time and support to carry out the tasks involved. Jowett et al (1991) demonstrated the need for a time allocation for work with parents to be available across the age range, and for practical and motivating support to be available. Work with parents needs to become a key element in the school system, incorporated into the changes brought about by the National Curriculum, acknowledged by senior staff and seen as a worthwhile use of time. Schools are working in a climate of dramatic change and need to respond to a variety of initiatives. Rewarding those teachers who are effective in making links with the community, and employing teachers with a specific remit for involving minority-language parents in their children’s schooling needs to feature largely on school agendas, argued Blackledge (2000, p.105).

The evidence presented by the findings in Jowett et al (1991, p.138) stated that rather than as a peripheral ‘extra’ or optional activity, work with parents should be viewed as an integral part of the way schools and services function. It should be planned and implemented in a coherent way.

38

Teachers and educational policy – makers can create the conditions in which collaboration and participation lead to the empowerment of minority-language parents but first the rules of participation must be changed so that minority groups are no longer required to adopt the cultural and linguistic structures of the majority group (Blackledge 2000, p.133). Many minority parents are not able to meet the demands and expectations of the dominant group and others may recognise that they have to risk aspects of their own cultural identity in order to play by the rules of the majority.

When teachers instead build on the cultural and linguistic patterns of minority groups, identifying strengths rather than assuming that parents are unable to participate, the usual structures of power in society can be reversed. Teachers need to listen to the parents of the children they teach and to develop participation structures, which build on what parents can already do. When this exists teachers are able to meet the preexisting conditions of the school, they can incorporate these strengths into the structures they develop for collaboration (Blackledge 2000, p.135). Asking parents to use their cultural and linguistic resources to support their children’s schooling is more productive than asking them to adopt unfamiliar cultural and linguistic patterns.

Although minority language parents may not be able to carry out the literacy support practices that suit white middle-class parents, they may well be able to support their children’s schooling by using their own language and literacy practices – so teachers will need to find out what these are.

In minority-language settings the dilemma for teachers, suggests Hannon (1995), is whether to insist that minority families adopt the literacy of the dominant culture school or to accept the literacies of the home and make no intervention – obviously a 39

balanced approach is needed. To impose school literacy on minority families is likely to lead to frustration and disempowerment, and adopting a laissez-faire policy may leave parents feeling confused about the expectations of the school. As stated by Blackledge (2000, p.139), a two way process of collaboration is needed. Teachers must ensure that parents understand the school’s explicit expectations of them as home literacy tutors and these expectations should be based on what the parents can already do.

In Vincent’s study of home –school relations in two urban school communities in Britain, where more than half of the families studied were of minority-cultures, parents were often characterised by teachers as uninterested in their children’s education. Some teachers said that they welcomed parents reading at home with their children, but some expressed doubts about whether parents were using the ‘correct’ teaching methods. The teachers were reported to be unaware of many of the educational activities going on in families’ homes (Vincent 1996, p.48-49).

Yet in Dauber and Epstein’s (1993) study of low socio-economic status communities in Baltimore, the strongest and most consistent predictors of parent involvement at school and at home were the specific teacher practices that encouraged and guided parent involvement. Regardless of parent education, family size, student ability or ethnicity, parents were more likely to become partners in their children’s education if they perceived that the schools had clear strategies for involving them at home on homework and reading activities. When parents believed that schools were doing little to involve them, they reported doing little at home. The specific guidance teachers gave parents on how to help at home increased the kinds of help parents said 40

they gave. Chavkin and Williams (1993) supported these findings and found that over ninety percent of the 1,188 African-American and Hispanic parents interviewed considered the role of the parent as home tutor to be important, showing clearly that parents were interested in supporting their children’s education, whatever their ethnicity or status (Blackledge 2000).

Gregory (1996a) presents more detailed interview data from a much smaller group of Bangladeshi parents in London. These parents consistently expressed their commitment to their children’s English literacy learning, while also wanting their children to learn the community language, Bengali. They sent their children to Madressa, or community school, where they learnt to read the Qur’an. A number of parents in Gregory’s (1996a) study commented that they felt unable to help their children with reading school books, so it was best left to the teacher. In another study of Bangladeshi families in London, Tomlinson and Hutchinson (1991) found that less than half of the parents interviewed believed that they were competent to read English books sent home from school with their children. The chief reasons were reported to be (i) their view that it was for teachers to teach their children to read and (ii) their poor proficiency in English.

Home literacy tasks, which are achievable for parents and cognitively demanding for the child will fulfil the dual objective of advancing the child’s learning and developing the parent’s confidence and competence as literacy tutor. Parental involvement should not be concerned simply with getting parents into school. It demands an approach to learning that recognises and draws on the contribution of the home and sees contact with parents on a variety of matters as fundamental. A climate 41

of real approachability and opportunities for dialogue should prevail. On one level Jowett et al (1991) argued that this means routinely considering parental views and seeking parental responses to what is provided. On other levels it is a case of drawing on parents individually and means seeing parents as active collaborators in their own children’s leaning and development, ensuring that they are well informed about their children’s school lives and clear about ways in which they can work with the school.

The goal for practitioners is to plan their overall strategy for contact with parents carefully and systematically.

Curriculum Intervention Projects The assumption of a link between parental involvement and achievement has led to more structured programmes, involving literacy (for example, Jones and Rowley, 1990; Tizard et al, 1982; Hannon and Jackson, 1987; Hewison and Tizard, 1980; Siders and Sledjeski, 1978) and maths (for example, Merttens and Vass, 1987; Loughrey, 1991). These schemes involve direct participation in the education process, as parents supervise their child carrying out a particular task, both at school and at home.

Implicit, argued Hannon (1995, p.103), in everything about children’s literacy in the home and the role of the parents is the family – the social group in which the parents’ and the children’s literacies meet, within which they use literacy, develop their literacy, and interact in literacy activities. Rather than treat children’s literacy as separate from that of parents and other members of the family it may be more fruitful to think about the family’s literacy as a whole.

42

The literacy that parents bring to the family will reflect their own upbringing, their personal interests and inclinations, and – crucially – how they use written language with other people outside the family in the community and workplace. The children’s literacy will reflect their experiences inside and outside the family. The parents and wider family members will obviously influence their children’s literacy development but, because the children have independent experiences e.g. at school, at Mosque etc it is also possible for their literacy to affect their parents and wider family members.

These factors determine to what extent, and in what ways, families value literacy and how they help children to become users of written language. The family’s literacy values and practices will shape the course of the child’s literacy development in terms of the opportunities, recognition, interaction and models available to them (Hannon, 1995).

From this perspective it is clear that all attempts to involve parents in the teaching of literacy are also, to varying extents, attempts to change family literacy (Hannon 1995). Whatever the school seeks to do will be shaped, and perhaps limited by the system of family literacy. Therefore it is the family that is the focus of intervention rather than the child, the parent or even the parent – child dyad. Where involvement depends upon parents being willing and able to change their literacy too, it obviously raises some fundamental moral and political questions about the aims of schools, methods of involvement, and what justification there may be for changing parents’ literacy as well as that of children.

43

One way in which parental involvement programmes have had to recognise family literacy issues is in relation to parents with literacy difficulties. Some critics have used the possibility of parental illiteracy as an argument against involvement but early initiatives found, not only that such parents could help their children, but also that in some cases the parents’ own literacy improved as a result of involvement (Raim, 1980; Jackson and Hannon, 1981). In the past decade the term ‘Family Literacy’ has been used to refer not to a system that might be the focus of analysis or intervention, but to certain kinds of intervention programmes – those that aim to improve parents’ literacy at the same time as improving children’s literacy. Thus family literacy projects have an adult basic education component combined with support for parents to interact differently with their children and perhaps also direct literacy education for the children.

Such projects, suggested McConkey (1985, p.215), offer parents unique learning opportunities, foremost of which is the chance to acquire a higher degree of literacy themselves as well as a broader understanding of how to help their children learn. A valuable spin off is an increase in their morale and feelings of competence, particularly when they experience success.

Hannon (1995) suggests that parental involvement in curriculum intervention programmes can be advantageous in ‘demystifying’ school for parents, although a constant dialogue with teachers is necessary to ensure that this process is happening.

At their best such programmes can show parents how and why teachers work, rather than concentrating on what parents themselves should not do. Teachers are encouraged to become more open in discussing their pedagogy (Dye, 1989; Loughrey, 44

1991). Curriculum intervention programmes can also establish a more interactive relationship.

‘An interventionist project of this nature is bound to structurally alter the institutional base from which it runs. Until recently parents were generally involved in school if at all, as either fund – raisers or as unpaid primary helpers….[But] children learn first and foremost from their parents….

(Merttens and Vass 1987, p.24)

McIvor (1990) has described several model family literacy programmes across the United States. Nickse (1990) has provided an overview of the research and policy background from which family literacy has emerged and the range of initiatives attempted. By 1993 Family Literacy had reached Britain. In 1993 the government provided modest funds for an initiative managed by ALBSU (Adults Literacy and Basic Skills Unit), who defined family literacy broadly as ‘work with parents and children, separately and together, to improve literacy’ (Hannon ibid, p.105).

Hannon (1995) argued that it was too early to judge the full significance of family literacy for the development of parental involvement in the teaching of literacy. It represents a considerable advance in emphasising the intergenerational character of literacy and the power of the parent’s role. It may turn out to be a more significant innovation for adult education than for early childhood education but if it attracts resources and creativity then it could provide fertile ground for developments in both sectors. However, the family literacy movement also has some worrying features.

First Hannon (1995) is eager to point out, that it is clear that family literacy can be deeply ideological. It has emerged in the US and in Britain that right-wing governments are concerned to place responsibility for social provision, education, health and employment on the individual or the family rather than the state, and to 45

persuade the public that this is desirable. The same governments have expressed concern about workforce literacy as a factor reducing industrial competitiveness.

Family literacy is a solution to two problems – promoting families as the preferred way of meeting social needs, and at the same time promising to raise literacy levels to secure economic benefits. It both reflects and reinforces a certain ideology. The label is persuasive, for no one could possibly be against ‘family’ or ‘literacy’ singly, much less when they are joined together. In this context some extravagant claims have been made: ‘Family literacy can help break the intergenerational cycle of poverty and dependency. Family literacy improves the educational opportunities for children and parents by providing both learning experiences and group support. In the process, family literacy provides parents with skills that will improve their incomes. It provides disadvantaged children with education opportunities that can enable them to lift themselves out of poverty and dependency (Brizius and Foster, 1993, p.11).

A curious feature of family literacy, argued Hannon (1995, p.106), is that when one looks closely at the content of some programmes, it is hard to find as much concern with ‘literacy’ or with ‘family’ as one might expect. Programmes usually concentrate on the mother and child rather than the father, other siblings, grandparents and so on, the term ‘family’ seems over-exclusive. Would a better description be ‘parent and child education’ which is exactly what its forerunner, PACE was called.

In many programmes, argued Hannon (1995), there is no clear rationale for intervention or guide to what should be done. Another concern about family literacy is that there may yet have been a genuine meeting of the two main traditions from which it has sprung – adult education and early childhood education. Each still concentrates on what it knows best but early childhood educators, although they have often neglected parents’ learning, have generally been more concerned with 46

interaction between parents and child than have adult educators. To the extent that programmes are defined and led by adult educators, rather than by a partnership between the two professional groups, a vacuum is likely to develop.

A final worry about family literacy concerns how many families it is appropriate for and how they are to be reached. The basic idea of family literacy – that teaching ‘low-literacy’ adults and ‘at-risk’ children, together is better than trying to teach them separately – is intuitively very appealing. It promises ‘two for the price of one’. It rests on some interlocking assumptions that turn out to be problematic when they are more closely inspected, and assumes that: 

Children from families where parents have literacy difficulties are more likely than others to have such difficulties at school;



Children who have literacy difficulties at school come from families where parents have such difficulties



That by targeting families where parents have literacy difficulties we can reach children who are likely to have literacy difficulties at school;



That parents with literacy difficulties will be prepared to join a programme to help their children’s literacy



That parents with literacy difficulties are prepared to receive literacy education for themselves (as well as their children).

Not all these assumptions are true. To test them out data can be used from the fifth follow-up of the National Child Development Study reported by ALBSU (1993) and Bynner and Fogelman (1993). In these studies parents with literacy difficulties were

47

those who admitted to them to interviewers; children with literacy difficulties were those whose reading test scores were in the lowest quartile.

The first assumption is true. ALBSU (1993) found, e.g. that parental literacy difficulties, coupled with low family income, meant that children had a 72% chance of being in the lowest reading level (compared to 25% for children as a whole).

However, it does not follow that the second assumption is true. In fact it is not – the vast majority of children argues Hannon (1995) in the lowest reading level did not have parents who admitted to literacy difficulties. It follows that the third assumption is false. Parental literacy difficulty cannot be used to identify all the children who are likely to have literacy difficulties in school and who would therefore benefit from early intervention – it misses too many children. The fourth assumption is probably true – studies of parental involvement show that almost all parents, including those with literacy difficulties, are prepared to participate in programmes that they believe will help their children. The fifth assumption is much more questionable. Brynner and Fogelman (1993) found that ‘less than one-fifth of those who reported literacy problems had attended an adult literacy class. It may therefore be an up-hill struggle to persuade parents to attend literacy education for themselves and, if that is made a condition of admission to a programme, family literacy will not reach targeted children.

However, families willing to be involved in parent intervention projects characteristically tend to come from the upper levels of the disadvantaged population.

As stated by McConkey (1985) one ironical truism well known to every helping professional is that the very people generally in need of statutory services are the least 48

likely to avail themselves of them. Blackledge (2000), supported the view that attempts to involve parents in the education of their children may fail to reach the parents who are most in need of the support. Thus parental involvement programmes may increase educational inequality, as precious resources are expended on those who are most accessible to teachers and least need support.

Omitting these from the debate can result in uncritical and superficial discussions, which assume consensus over key issues such as appropriate teacher-pupil relationships, curriculum issues or modes of parental involvement. However, a closer analysis of home-school relations may reveal differences and divisions between different social groups concerning all these issues.

There are two questions to be asked about the effectiveness of family literacy (understood here as combined programmes to raise parents’ and children’s literacy at the same time as getting parents to help their children). First, do children and parents benefit? Second, more importantly, do they benefit more than if they were in other kinds of programmes (Hannon, 1995)? For both questions, research is lacking.

Nickse (1993) has commented, ‘there is but modest evidence to date that family and intergenerational literacy programmes work’ (Nickse 1993, p.34).

The second question is harder to answer but in the long run, more important.

Determining whether family literacy is better than the alternatives depends on identifying the alternatives to which it ought to be compared. It is not really surprising that family literacy is better than nothing at all (although it would be helpful to have proper experimental evidence to indicate how much better). But is a 49

family literacy programme better for parents than, say, any good quality adult literacy and basic education responsive to the needs of learners (who often include undereducated, unemployed, unconfident mothers)? Is it better for children than good quality early education provision that has a concern for children’s literacy development and values the involvement of parents (including those with literacy difficulties)? Answers to these questions are needed to guide future policy for, if family literacy proves to be more effective in cost-benefit terms than other programmes then, depending on how much better it is, there could be far reaching implications for the organisation of both early childhood and adult education.

The alternative to family literacy is good, literacy – orientated early childhood education (including preschool education) for broad groups of families likely to benefit. It should maximise parental involvement and provide opportunities for adults to develop their literacy too if they want to. That is a much more expensive – and therefore at the present time politically less attractive – option than family literacy which claims to achieve the same more cheaply. In the long run, family literacy divorced from early childhood education may be difficult to sustain. Meanwhile, schools have much to learn from the ideas and methods being tried with families (Hannon 1995, p.108).

50

Methodology

In the previous chapter I have explored the theoretical framework that underpins the work upon which my analysis, conclusions and recommendations are based. This chapter concerns itself with the methodological procedures that I used to facilitate the analysis.

The Case Study Case Studies, unlike other forms of research, as stated by Johnson (1994), are particularly suitable for the single – handed project researchers like myself working in the research establishment.

‘A case study is an enquiry which uses multiple sources of evidence. It investigates a contemporary phenomenon within its real – life context...’ (Johnson 1994, p.20).

Criticism has been levelled at the case study approach in terms of it lacking scientific rigour and its focus being a unique situation or phenomenon, which has little relevance to the wider population (Johnson, 1994). The purpose of research by case study however argued Nisbit and Watt (1984) is not merely to portray a specific situation, but to do so in a way that illuminates some more general principles. Such analysis can then be related to existing bodies of knowledge or used to create a grounded theory (Johnson, 1994).

One of the strengths of case study - experimental design is that alternative practices have to be made explicit in the form of control or comparison conditions (Hannon 1995, p.109). For example, it is possible to compare the value of a family literacy project with doing absolutely nothing with parents at all or to putting equal effort into 51

developing, e.g. regular teacher / parent dialogue. Evaluative research in the form of a case study such as this can also concern the costs as well as benefits of innovation.

It is foolish to deny that work with parents costs time and a great deal of teacher energy. One form of involvement may appear more valuable than another in terms of a particular measure of children’s literacy progress but it may be too costly, for example in terms of teacher time or because it has a disabling effect on parents (Hannon 1995). These are issues that this case study has tried to illuminate.

Case Study Design The design for this particular social survey was adapted from Moser and Kalton (1993, see Appendix 1). The views of school based staff (teachers and classroom assistants), parents, and parent partnership workers were collected and analysed

The purpose of this case study was to look closely at how best to support emergent bilingual parents and families to help their children’s literacy development at home.

The research was characterised by four themes, parental involvement in literacy teaching and learning, emergent bilingualism, the role of the teacher and the effectiveness of family literacy projects. The information elicited from the three groups of respondents was comparable as all questions, adhered to these four themes.

Brown and Dowling (1998) cited that, all empirical research involves drawing a sample. As Moser and Kalton (1993) suggested, in the research design, attention to sampling procedures is a necessary prerequisite to establishing or questioning the validity of claims, which generalise beyond the sample.

52

The identified populations in this study included all senior managers and teaching staff at Orchid Community School including classroom assistants who for the most part were members of the local community. All family literacy participants from one project were selected to ensure a fair balance between cultural diversities and experiences. The sample also included three parent partnership workers employed by the local consortium of schools (20 in total) on the premise that data is more likely to be reliable if the opinions and beliefs of more than one respondent are sought. Their knowledge of parent partnership projects in similar schools to ours was thought to be critical to an overall evaluation of Orchid Community School’s existing practice.

Before undertaking this study the approval of the Head Teacher and Chair of Governors at Orchid Community School was formally requested (see Appendix 2).

Similarly pre-research contact was made with the parent - partnership workers employed by the Inner City Association of schools and their permission was requested for involvement in the study. Parents involved in the family literacy project were informed of the proposed research and consent for interviews was sought.

Research Tools ‘To undertake case study work successfully, researchers must be familiar with a range of research skills and tools’ (Jo hnson, 1994, p.20).

Research tools are the means by which different approaches to research are operationalised. When deciding on the appropriate methods for collecting data validity and reliability were carefully considered.

53

Another factor that I considered when deciding on the research tools to be used was, should the data collected be of a qualitative nature or a quantitative nature? There are generally perceived to be two main areas of preference in social research.

Quantitative research, where aggregating data and assigning numerical values to such data is of fundamental importance, and qualitative research, where interest lies in the complexities of human decision-making and behaviour (Johnson 1994).

Hannon (1995, p.111) argued that parental involvement in the teaching of literacy should not be evaluated solely, or even principally, by research tools which rely on quantitative data in the form of test performance. The alternative to test based evaluation Hannon (1995) suggested would be to give more weight to the experiences, activities and views of the main participants – teachers, parents, and parent partnership workers. This required collecting qualitative data in the form of questionnaire responses and direct interviewing.

Questionnaires Teachers’ views about working alongside parents are of fundamental importance if successful interactions are to take place and so it would be a serious mistake to leave this aspect out of any evaluation (Hannon 1995). If teachers find involvement stimulating and rewarding and if they think it benefits children, they will continue it, develop it and share their ideas with colleagues elsewhere. On the other hand, if their experience is disappointing the most highly significant test results are unlikely to convince them of the value of carrying on. Teachers’ views can provide a damning verdict on a programme or type of partnership or a powerful endorsement of it. For the purpose of this study, where it was intended that professional reflection and 54

evaluation would act as a catalyst for change and all concerned with the enquiry would eventually benefit from it, it was essential that teacher attitudes were sought and analysed. There were several ways in which teachers’ views could have been obtained as suggested by Hannon (1995, p.137), one of which was via a questionnaire.

Johnson (1994) stated that the strength of questionnaires as research tools lies in the fact that not only can they reach large numbers of a given population (40 in this study) but that they also empower the respondents, who have complete control over the research encounter. The respondents were able to choose whether to read all of the questions before answering any, could if they so wished complete and return it in a time convenient to themselves or even fail to complete it altogether. Johnson (1994), argued further that all successful questionnaires would need four vital components: 

clarity and comprehension;



effective distribution;



motivation of respondents;



effective administrative arrangements.

Each of these four components was individually considered in the design of the questionnaires for distribution to staff. The length of the questionnaire was initially (pre pilot) purposely kept to two and a half sides and the aesthetic layout was carefully considered (Appendix 3a).

The questions (both closed and open) were precise and clearly legible, designed to elicit the information needed. Johnson (1994) suggested that when choosing the 55

language for a questionnaire the population being studied should be kept in mind. To ensure that the questionnaire design would meet its purpose piloting was essential.

Questionnaires are a research tool, which perhaps more than any other need a pilot run (Johnson 1994). Ideally, argued Bell (1993), it should be tried out on a group similar to the one that will form the population of the study. The questionnaire in this study was piloted with 2 teachers and a classroom assistant working at Orchid Community School with the specific intention of gathering feedback from the respondents concerning their interpretation of the questions.

The responses enabled me to revise the questionnaire ready for main distribution. The aesthetic layout was altered to include extra space to encourage more detailed responses (see Appendix 3b). The last question was reworded specifically to ensure reliability and validity as pilot answers elicited vague responses that were difficult to interpret.

To enhance response rates as suggested by Brown and Dowling (1998), the administration of the questionnaire was closely supervised. I became personally involved in its distribution, giving it to teaching staff at the beginning of an English staff meeting and to classroom assistants at the beginning of a business meeting where the recipients were informed of its purpose and told how the information was to be used. As a motivational tool, time was allocated at the end of both meetings for completion of the questionnaire. Anonymity and confidentiality were guaranteed and all were thanked in advance for their time and co-operation. A benefit of insider research is that there is no need for postal distribution.

56

Interviews ‘There would seem to be few aspects of social research where interviews are an entirel y unsuitable research tool (Johnson 1994, p.50).

Although questionnaires can also be used for non-professional populations, considerable effort is needed to design and test a questionnaire, which is comprehensible to all members of a multi-ethnic group (Johnson 1994). With this in mind it was decided that questionnaires were an inappropriate research tool for gathering data from the emergent bilingual parents’ at Orchid Community School, as literacies within the group were diverse and difficult to measure. Questionnaires were also deemed an unnecessary and an unsuitable method of data collection for use with the three parent partnership workers employed by the Inner City Association of Schools particularly as the sample contained only three respondents. With triangulation also in mind, interviews were chosen as the second research tool.

Brown and Dowling (1998) argued that there is no such thing as the correct method, or even the best method for addressing a particular research interest or question.

A common response to the inevitable shortcomings of any particular approach continued Brown and Dowling (1998) is to employ two or more approaches to the same problem, that is methodological triangulation.

The advantages of interviews to a large extent mirror the limitations of questionnaires: ‘Interviews enable the researcher to explore complex issues in detail, facilitate the personal engagement of the researcher in the collection of data, allow the researcher to provide clarification, to probe and prompt’ (Brown and Dowling 1998, p.72).

57

The importance of parents’ views is obvious. The whole point of a family literacy project is to gain the active, positive involvement of parents in children’s literacy development. An evaluation therefore has to include asking parents whether they have been active, how they have been active and what positive and negative views they have about their experiences (Hannon 1995, p.138). The best method for studying parents’ views is probably through structured or semi structured interviewing argued Hannon (1995). I rejected structured interviews, as a research tool to gather data from parents, as its rigidity and lack of social interaction would have led to a formal and possibly intimidating experience for the respondents. A semi-structured group interview which, was less rigorous and standardised than a structured interview, was the preferred choice (see appendix 4). The use of semi-structured interviews allowed a more flexible style to be used, adapted to the personalities and circumstances of the individuals in each group being interviewed.

‘Semi-structured interviewing is the st yle most likel y to be followed in small scale research, when it is of greater importance to gain the cooperation of a limited number of interviewees than it is to ensure that the information they give is supplied in a standardised and readil y collatable form’ (Johnson 1994, p.51).

Semi-structured individual interviews were administered to the three parent partnership workers in the study (see appendix 5). Individual interviews with a flexible approach enabled me to ensure that the responses gained were reliable and valid, giving me a greater insight into parent partnership initiatives and practices.

Brown and Dowling (1998) suggested that interview questions should, as a rule, move from the general to the particular as interviewees find abstract questions difficult to address, particularly if they concern issues previously not considered by the respondents. This was considered during interview schedule design.

58

Johnson (1994) argued that a pilot study of interview schedules is desirable and it is one way in which a research instrument can be honed to its particular task. Moser and Kalton (1993) agreed, stating that a pilot interview can identify reasons for non – response and highlight appropriate timings for administration etc. At the end of the pilot interview (with a small group of parents from my own class) the interviewees were asked to reflect on the experience. This provided invaluable feedback, helping to develop both the interview schedule and my experience as an interviewer.

Parents were guaranteed anonymity but not confidentiality, that is, they were informed that their views would be passed on but not their identity, except in so far as it could be inferred from their opinions (Hannon 1995).

Ensuring that parents were willing to take part in the research, however, was not enough – it was essential that access to the parents’ views and beliefs had been planned for in advance through the use of interpreters. This meant that the cultural diversity and home languages of parents had to be assessed at the beginning of the research. For interviews the parents were grouped according to their home language.

Two carefully selected interpreters, both of who were female (due to cultural necessity) and familiar with the parents were chosen for the group interviews. The Urdu speaker attended the first group interview and the Bengali speaker attended the second group interview. For the third group session an interpreter was not needed. It is important to acknowledge, however, the various implications associated with using interpreters. For example difficulties could possibly have arisen in making an accurate and precise translation of what was said. Alternatively, the interpreters may 59

have unintentionally led the group in their style of questioning. Similarly, the translators may have brought their own opinions and views into the process when interpreting individual or group answers. Every care was taken to try and minimise such effects in this study. Both interpreters were given a copy of the interview schedule in advance and a meeting was held to discuss the aims and ethics of the research prior to it being carried out.

Recording Interview Data Johnson (1994) pointed out that, open questions are difficult to record in all interview scenarios. A tape recorder seemed the obvious answer. All respondents in this research were made aware from the outset that the interview would be recorded for the purpose of recalling important facts that had been said. It was also acknowledged that the researcher would be note taking. ‘Even when a tape recorder is available and accepted some notes will be needed’ (Johnson 1994, p.50).

Limitations of the Study This research was limited in its methodology by the lack of opportunity to carry out observations. Cohen et al (2001), stated that observations enable researchers to see things that they might have missed in interview situations, to move beyond perception based data, to discover things that participants might not freely talk about.

Semi-structured observations, which would have recorded the behaviour of the group, were impossible to carry out within the confines of this study. Being a full time class teacher at Orchid Community School I had little opportunity for first hand 60

observation. This is regrettable as families who took the opportunity for involvement, and who did not drop out, would still have varied in the degree to which they participated in the programme. Video recording the sessions, which was initially considered, was soon found to be an impossibility due to the cultural and religious consistency of the group (all of the veiled Muslim ladies and many of the unveiled ladies objected to having their images taken in any form). Observing over a period of time – perhaps over the entire period of a programme – would have lead to a greater insight into the programme from the participants’ different, and possibly conflicting viewpoints.

A further limitation of the research was the decision made (because of the small scale of the study) not to contact or interview the 20 parents / families who had declined the offer of participation in the project. Such investigation could have led to a more balanced analysis of the value of family literacy projects. It would have given greater insight into whether or not such a project could fulfil the needs of all or most of the parents at Orchid Community School or whether a modified project would need developing.

Ethical Considerations Building on previous experiences and work undertaken by Whalley (2001) I felt that it was important that my research was not about doing things to people. I wanted to adopt a research methodology where the forms of investigation were enabling and participative. Throughout the life of the research I was concerned with involving teachers, classroom assistants and parents as equal and active partners in the research process. The ultimate aim of the research was to reflect upon the practices that 61

Orchid Community School were implementing to encourage parental participation in children’s literacy development at home and hopefully improve or refine the school’s procedures so that its hard to reach parents (those with little or no English) were supported and empowered.

62

Findings and Analysis

This chapter has been sub-divided into three clear sections. In section 1, I have began by discussing the three research tools employed in the study and I summarise the samples of respondents selected in terms of ethnicity, home language, roles and key responsibilities. Then, in Section 2, as this research has been characterised by four themes, parental involvement, emergent bilingualism, the role of the teacher and intervention programmes such as family literacy, in depth analysis follows under each of the four headings. The views of Teachers / classroom assistants, parents and parent partnership workers on each of the above four themes has been analysed and compared relating my findings where relevant to issues discussed in the literature review. In Section 3 I elicit conclusions under the four broad headings above and make recommendations for my school and for similar schools.

Section 1 – Summary of Research tools and Respondent Samples 1.1 Analysis of School Staff Questionnaires Forty questionnaires were distributed to the teaching staff at Orchid Community School, and all were returned - a response rate of 100%. This was largely due to the administrative procedure employed whereby staff were given time in a staff meeting to complete the task. Only a small percentage of staff took the questionnaire away with them to complete in their own time and return at a later date. Of the forty staff questioned, twenty-four respondents were teachers and 16 were classroom assistants.

63

The questionnaires were prepared and distributed in order to elicit the views of the culturally diverse teachers and classroom assistants in the school. The break down of the ethnicity of respondents can be seen in table (i) below.

Figure (i) Ethnicity

Number of Staff

Percentage of Staff

White

16

40%

Black Caribbean

3

7.5%

Black Other

1

2.5%

Indian

11

27.5%

Pakistani

4

10%

Bangladeshi

1

2.5%

Other

2

5%

Un-identified

2

5%

Ethnic Diversity of Questionnaire Respondents (shown as percentages)

White - 40% Indian - 27.5% Pakistani - 10% Black - 10% Other - 5% Bangladeshi 2.5%

The sample reflected the diverse cultural heritage of the school with 27.5% of respondents identifying themselves as Indian and 10% of respondents identifying 64

themselves as Pakistani. Bangladeshi respondents were in the minority with a mere 2.5% representation. This is significant as it mirrors a trend throughout the school, where the majority of families were Indian or Pakistani and the minority were Bangladeshi – finding themselves at a heightened risk of marginalisation.

1.2 Analysis of Semi-structured Parental Group Interviews Ten parents, all mothers, attended the family literacy course involved in this study.

At the beginning of the course a father enrolled, however, due to the cultural / religious makeup of the group it became necessary for him to withdraw (many of the veiled Muslim ladies attending stated that his presence put their continuation with the course in jeopardy). Fortunately, being a local Imam (Mosque teacher) he was very understanding and his wife replaced him on the course. This has obvious implications, which need consideration when designing workshops and family projects in the future. If we are striving to increase the involvement of families in children’s learning, yet face, cultural barriers which suggest that mothers and fathers have to be involved separately, then much thought will have to be given to the best ways of ensuring that this happens.

Nine out of the ten parents attending the family literacy course were interviewed (one parent was absent on the day of interviews). For ease of administration groups were established according to ethnicity and home language. This meant that only one interpreter was needed during each interview. The break down of the ethnicity of respondents can be seen in table (ii) below.

Figure (ii)

65

Groups

Ethnicity / Religion

Home Language

Ethnicity %

Indian – Muslim Indian - Muslim Pakistani - Muslim Indian – Muslim

Gujerati and Urdu Urdu Urdu Punjabi and Urdu

Indian – 44.4%

Two (3 parents)

Bangladeshi – Muslim Bangladeshi - Muslim Pakistani – Muslim

Bengali Bengali Urdu and Bengali

Pakistani – 33.3%

Three (2 parents)

Indian – Muslim Pakistani – Muslim

Gujerati and English English and Urdu

Bangladeshi – 22.2%

One (4 parents)

Indian and Pakistani parents formed the largest percentage (78%) of respondents.

Once again Bangladeshi participants were in the minority with the lowest proportion of representation - 22.2%. Reassuring, however, was the fact that Bangladeshi parents were participating in the project and had been actively recruited.

Of the parents attending, two spoke Gujerati, one spoke Punjabi, three spoke Bengali and six spoke Urdu at home. Only two of the parents interviewed (22%) stated that they spoke English at home. Of those two, when asked if they were comfortable reading and writing English, one of the respondents stated that, ‘I wasn’t at first coming from another country and we were not taught English at school at all. I mainl y learned and picked it up by watching the T.V…. I put it on the text as well so I can see how it is written as well so to learn m yself. I’ve taught m yself to read and write’.

This demonstrates the fact that some parents had a strong desire to become literate in English. This parent went on to explain that she had felt frustrated when meeting people that she couldn’t communicate effectively with in English. She explained that she had wanted to become literate in order to make herself understood and to seek employment so that she could fully integrate into British society. This supports the 66

findings by Simich-Dudgeon (1993), Ghuman and Gallop (1981), Sneddon (1993, 1994, 1997), Karran (1997) (see above, p.25) and suggests that there were parents at Orchid Community School who wished to develop their English literacy skills. As a community school therefore, Orchid School has a responsibility to try and facilitate their learning.

1.3 Analysis of Semi-structured Parent Partnership Worker Interviews For the purpose of this study a parent partnership worker encompasses anyone who is specifically employed to strengthen relations between schools, homes and communities. Three parent partnership workers were interviewed as part of this research; all were women, and all were employed by or for an Inner City Association of Schools. The Inner City Association of Schools had been formed four years before this study took place, and it had two main aims, as explained by the Community Education Coordinator during the interview, ‘The first was to develop a communit y education ethos of involving parents and the communit y in the schools and the second was to raise the attainment and achievement of children’.

As this research was aimed at eliciting information, opinions and beliefs from as many different sources as possible I felt that it would be beneficial to interview employees with different parent partnership roles. The three parent partnership workers interviewed therefore had different job descriptions, but all were interlinked in a hierarchical structure as can be seen from table (iii) below.

Figure (iii)

67

Job Title

Funded by

Home / Parent Link An Inner City Association Worker based in Orchid of Schools Community School for 7 hours per week Parent Partnership An Inner City Association Parent Partnership Coordinator and an Inner of Schools Worker Two City Association of Schools Projects Officer Community Education 50% by the Department of Parent Partnership Coordinator for an Inner Education and 50% by the Worker Three City Association of schools within the Schools and Education Association Officer for three inner city wards As the above job titles suggest the roles of each parent partnership worker Parent Partnership Worker One

interviewed, although interrelated, were unique to each employee. Their key responsibilities are outlined below in Table (iv) Figure (iv) Key Responsibilities Parent Partnership Worker One

  

Parent Partnership Worker Two

  

Parent Partnership Worker Three

   

Foster links with parents and the local community Find out the needs and wants of parents in the local community with respect to education and training Set up courses with adult education providers to enable parents to access education To coordinate 18 parent partnership link workers who are employed in primary and secondary schools throughout the Association of schools To set targets in terms of the number of courses that should be run and to ensure that those targets are met.

To report back to the Community Education Coordinator for the Association To work with the network of schools to help them develop partnerships with parents To enable the network of schools to access funding to facilitate parent partnership initiatives To develop partnerships between the schools themselves To access a variety of opportunities and funding to develop any shared activity for curriculum or parent partnership developments 68

The simple fact that an Inner City Association of Schools had been running for four years to develop a community education ethos of involving parents and the community in school life suggested that parental involvement and home school partnerships were not only valued by the 20 schools within the Association and the parent partnership workers employed by the Association, but also by the Local Education Authority who had partly funded the Association for the last four years.

When asked about the provision the Association made for parents, the Community Education Officer identified the training that they were aiming to deliver in four strands: 1. Leisure and recreational courses 2. Confidence and skill building courses 3. Employment gaining courses 4. Home / School partnership courses.

For the purposes of this study I was interested to find out more about strand four in particular. I wanted to explore parent partnership workers’ beliefs and opinions around the whole issue of parents as partners in the learning process and how they felt Orchid Community School could best facilitate this.

Section 2 – In-depth discussion and analysis of the four themes characterised by this study.

2.1 Parental Involvement

69

Two ‘Likert’ scales were designed for the teacher questionnaire, which asked respondents to identify strength of agreement or disagreement with a given statement on a 1 – 5 point range. The results of the first scale can be seen in tabular form (see Appendix 6).

From the analysis of teacher/classroom assistants’ responses at Orchid Community School it was clear to see that an overwhelming majority of staff placed a great deal of emphasis on the importance of parental involvement in children’s English literacy development at home. This was predominantly the case in the Foundation Stage and at Key Stage One, where 82.5% of respondents cited it as significantly important.

The response to this question I felt should not be taken for granted, particularly as one of the basic intentions of the research was to ascertain a base line from which parent partnerships could be developed and strengthened.

The strength of feeling surrounding the value of parental involvement in children’s English literacy learning at Key Stage Two by contrast, dipped with only 52.5% of teachers citing it as very important. This is a significant finding, particularly as all of the family literacy projects that have taken place in our school have been initiated in Key Stage Two - following guidance linked to the funding.

Research analysis discovered that the general consensus amongst the staff in the school towards the degree of parental participation demonstrated in their children’s English literacy development was one of parental apathy. 70% of respondents scored the degree of parental involvement evident in the school at the lower end of the Likert scale (1 - 3).

70

Already the findings were beginning to highlight a dilemma for the school. The majority of teaching staff agreed that parental involvement in children’s English literacy development was of fundamental importance and yet the general perception was that little involvement was demonstrated in Orchid Community School.

It should be acknowledged, however, that 25% of the staff questioned said that they believed that there was a high degree of parental participation in children’s English literacy learning at home. Such a conflict of opinion suggests that there must be a degree of parental participation in children’s English literacy learning taking place at home but that this involvement is not perceived to be consistent.

When parents were asked about the sorts of literacy activities their children did at home their responses were limited as can be seen in table (vi) below.

Figure (vi) Group Group 1

Group 2

Group 3

Home literacy activities Reading Work on the computer Watching learning programmes on T.V. Reading

Homework Reading Children’s programmes on T.V. Watching Asian Films

Who helps at home Older brothers They work on their own

Brothers and sisters Mum (‘I little bit help).

‘I don’t know English myself so how can I help him’?

Mum ‘I think that they should try to do it themselves really’.

The majority of parents quoted reading as the main literacy activity undertaken by children at home, closely followed by homework sent from school. It became evident that the majority of children in the family literacy group completed homework and 71

English literacy activities on their own – with only two parents stating that they tried to help their children (22%).

When the parent partnership workers were asked about why they believed parental partnerships and parental involvement was so important in school life, their focus was primarily on achievement and attainment for parents – redistributing the balance of power in communities by providing lifelong learning and education for all. In fact it became clear during the course of the interviews that the funding available to the Inner City Association of Schools for parental partnerships relied heavily on parents seeking accreditation and gaining employment. As the Community Education Coordinator for the Inner City Association explained during the interview, ‘When we applied for the parent partnership grant we may have looked down the model of parent workshops to enhance the curriculum but actuall y you had to go for where the funding was… We accessed funding for a pot which said how to enable more local people to gain employment and access training. So although I had been a home school liaison teacher where very much m y role had been to develop parents as partners in the curriculum with the child our funding had to be wider than that because it was at the end of the day for training and employabilit y….’

When asked about why they were committed to their role as a parent partnership workers one respondent said, ‘Seeing parents get awards in ceremonies and seeing parents get certificates is fant astic. A lot of parents have nothing behind them and then to come out and get a certificate for accreditation is fantastic – it is such an achievement. It is all about achievement and seeing other people gain something out of it is a good feeling’ (Parent Partnership Coordinator, during interview)

Although accreditation and employability were the main focus for the parent partnership workers, all three when questioned stated that by facilitating education for 72

parents it is possible to raise attainment and achievement for children too. One respondent when describing her role said she enjoyed it because it gave parents the opportunity to improve their overall education and thereby help their children to succeed. The Community Education Coordinator when explaining about the funding during the interview said that ‘in our bid for parent partnership not once did it say that it was enhancing the curriculum or even helping the schools, in fact we are saying as schools that we are helping local people and in fac t that would be an absolute lie because for me if parents are involved in schools and we are offering all manner of training we are building on the partnership and thereby helping the children.

The main factor identified as hindering parental involvement in children’s English literacy learning at home however by the three sets of respondents (teachers, parents and parent partnership workers) was the inability of many parents to speak, read or write English themselves. This will be discussed in greater detail below.

2.2 Emergent Bilingualism In an attempt to elicit the effects of home learning on children’s English literacy development, teaching staff, parents and parent partnership workers were asked wide ranging questions. Teachers were asked to comment on the extent to which parents positively influenced children’s English literacy development at home and their responses were varied. 45% of staff scored the positive effects of parental influence on children’s English literacy learning high, between 4 and 5 on the Likert scale.

Alarmingly however, this identified that 65% of the teaching staff at Orchid Community School believed that parents provided minimal help with English literacy learning at home and so the effects on the overall English literacy development of the child were limited as evident in the schools SATs result see (Appendix 7). This would support the research of Tizard et al (1982, see above, p.15), which identified 73

that children whose parents were not involved in their education often had lower levels of academic achievement.

A comment cited on a teacher questionnaire illustrates the perceived degree of parental apathy: ‘Sometimes parents themselves don’t seem to be too concerned (sic) perhaps they don’t know the importance and signi ficance of achievement in literacy on their child’s education!!!’

Analysis suggests that staff acknowledged that children’s literacies are significantly influenced by their cultural identity and ethnicity but believe that the dominant literacy – English, has little value in the home.

When parents were asked if they had shared a book recently with their child their answers were interesting. 33% of parents categorically stated that they did not share books at home with their children (11% of which, 1 parent, cited their own lack of English literacy as the reason why). Approximately 56% of parents stated that they did share books with their children. However I got the distinct impression that the parents felt obliged in some ways to tell me what they thought I wanted to hear. The frequency with which the sharing of books occurred seemed to be mostly on a weekly basis and perhaps even less frequently and none of the parents could remember the title of the book their child was currently reading. This in some ways supported the views of the teachers reinforcing the fact the parental involvement although existing to some extend was rather limited and hence had only a partial impact on children’s English literacy development at home.

74

When the parents were questioned about who helped their children at home with their English literacy some of the responses can be seen as quotations below.      

‘I think that they change their book every week so I read with them every week really’.

‘My son asks for help and then I send him back to his room and sometimes I go up and check on him’.

‘I think that they should try and do their homework themselves really’.

‘Me and my husband are struggling with the language so older brother helps her with her homework whenever she needs it’.

‘I don’t know English myself so how can I help him?’

‘I don’t have much time to help her’.

Only two (22%) of the nine parents, identified their own lack of English literacy skills as a factor impacting on the amount of home help given to children, yet eight respondents stated that little (in the form of younger or older siblings) or no help was given at home.

When respondents of the questionnaire (teachers and classroom assistants) were asked to make explicit the obstacles obstructing the active involvement of parents in their children’s English literacy development at home in Orchid Community School the responses could generally be sub-divided into three clear categories.

1. Time management – due to religious and cultural responsibilities (nightly attendance at Mosque for example).

2. Parents’ levels of English literacy including parental confidence, and 3. Other factors, which included poor parenting skills, lack of communication between the school, teachers and the parents and finally the large size of families.

75

Figure (viii) Obstacles Hindering Parental Involvement in Children’s Home Literacy Learning at Orchid Community School as Perceived by Staff

35 30 25 20 No.

15 10 5 0 Time

English

Other

From the above graph (Figure viii) it is possible to see that the questionnaire respondents acknowledged that parents’ lack of English literacy skills obstructed the promotion of home English literacy learning for their children as identified by Hannon 1995 (see above, p.19). This is supported by evidence gained from the parental interviews where only 2 parents (22%) spoke English and were confident in its use.

Similarly the three parent partnership workers interviewed stated that the major obstacle facing a school like Orchid Community when promoting home English literacy learning would be the lack of English spoken at home. Children in families where parents’ English literacy levels are low, they suggested, are at a disadvantage as they often have to complete homework and literacy set activities independently or with siblings.

76

This evidence suggests that perhaps the best way of actively involving parents in their children’s literacy learning would be to involve them in school workshops and projects - encouraging them to work alongside their children in an ethos of partnership and lifelong learning.

The second major obstacle in the way of children’s home literacy development as suggested by the teacher questionnaires was parents’ availability of time. 47.5% of respondents made reference to children’s religious responsibilities in terms of their nightly attendance at Mosque and the expectation that children will attend Madrassa classes which inevitably leaves them considerably less time for English literacy homework than children in families without such obligations. It is important to remember that over 96% of the school population were Muslim with stringent religious responsibilities and demands on their out of school time. This view was supported by one of the parent partnership workers who said that she found it very difficult to support and build relationships with parents after school because parents were so anxious about getting their children home, washed, changed and fed before four o’clock when they had to attend Mosque.

In addition to the effects of the emergent bilingualism of some parents, cultural factors and responsibilities also featured heavily in the parents’ interview responses.

Some of the parents during the interview stated that because of their cultural responsibilities – they often did not have the time to help their children. They also described how relatives and friends would often just arrive at their homes and expect them to be in and to be welcoming which made attendance at school difficult. They

77

felt that some members of their community did not understand the significance of why they were committing so much time to learning.

If lack of time is a critical factor influencing children’s home literacy learning, however, this would have to be considered in relation to intervention programmes and workshops. Length and duration of projects would have to be carefully considered to ensure success and accessibility.

When the parents were asked what they felt the school should do to support parents with English as a second language one respondent answered, ‘ I don’t know…You know that the home comes first, you know you don’t go out on courses… Also it comes down to the fact that the husbands aren’t happy. So it’s getting the whole family involved is something that you need to do. You’ve got to get into the communit y and its got to come from within’.

Another parent commented, ‘I think that the school can onl y do so much. Cos some families I’ve come across the women aren’t even allowed to communicate. I have come from a similar famil y. When we lived in m y in -laws we weren’t allowed to communicate in English at all. These women don’t feel they can learn…Its the courage you have’.

Cultural factors obviously play a significant part in the success of the school’s recruitment processes for courses, and in the strategies it employs to encourage parental help in the home.

2.3 The Role of the Teacher Teacher – parent dialogue was a theme in the Literature review given much debate. If successful learning partnerships based on equality and a shared vision are to be 78

developed then it is essential that teachers and parents value opportunities for discussion. 90% of the teaching staff at Orchid Community School placed a great deal of emphasis on the importance and significance of informal chats with parents.

This was encouraging, until 67% of staff cited that opportunities for such discussions were generally limited. This has implications for the school as a whole. If dialogue is so important then ways of encouraging and facilitating it must be identified. Similarly if parent partnerships are to be successful and built on equality of opportunity every member of the school team has to embody their importance.

When parents were asked how often they talked to their children’s class teachers, responses were varied. Some parents stated everyday, whereas others replied that they only spoke to the teacher if there was a specific problem. One parent admitted that she hadn’t actually been to the school for approximately 3 years prior to the family literacy course. A more detailed breakdown of responses can been seen in Appendix 8.

A theme running through parent / teacher dialogue as identified by the parents in the family literacy group was that generally discussions only took place if there was a problem. This in itself suggests that informal chats were not taking place regularly.

One of the parents during the interview stated that the opportunities that did arise for teacher / parent dialogue were often instigated by the parents themselves and not by the teachers. This is contrary to the argument presented by Delgado-Gaitan (1990, 1994, 1996, see above, p. 25), who stated that successful parental participation is the responsibility of the school. It is essential that future research at Orchid Community School attempts to find out the regularity of teacher / parent dialogue, the instigating 79

force behind the communication and what can be done to exploit all the opportunities for teacher / parent discussion. As identified by Dauber and Epstein (1993, see above, p.31) it is the parents who have advice from teachers who are more likely to support their children’s school – work at home and this is clearly not happening consistently at Orchid Community School.

Some of the parents questioned identified the language barrier as a difficulty with parent teacher dialogue. Supporting the argument of Hannon (1995, see above, p.20) and Delgado-Gaitan (1991, see above, p.22) that ethnic minority parents experience a dislocation between the cultural framework of their own lives and that of the school, it became apparent that parents felt more comfortable approaching those teachers who not only shared a common language with themselves but also the same religious / cultural beliefs. This would suggest that there may be a need for Orchid Community School to consider ways in which those staff who are neither Asian nor Muslim (approximately 60%) can build stronger relationships with the parent population.

Careful consideration needs to be paid to the structure of the school day – procedures for collecting and dismissing children and the availability and placement of bilingual staff at key times during the day in order to capitalise on opportunities for constructive dialogue.

When the teaching staff were asked whose responsibility they thought it was to develop parental involvement in children’s home English literacy learning responses were varied. Out of the 40 respondents over half (55%) stated that the responsibility for promoting parental involvement in children’s literacy development at home in Orchid Community School lay with the class teacher, 25% of respondents believed 80

that the responsibility lay with the Literacy coordinator as opposed to12.5% who stated that the responsibility lay with everyone working in the school. This suggests that there appears to be a lack of clear consensus as to whose responsibility it is to promote home literacy learning in the School. Notably 35% of respondents stated that the responsibility for the promotion of home literacy learning in the future should lie with the senior managers of the school. If teachers believe that it is not their responsibility to develop literacy learning at home then this may support the parents’ view that teacher parent dialogue is limited and often parent instigated.

The opinions of the teaching staff at Orchid Community School contrasts dramatically with the opinions of the parents partnership workers who acknowledged that the responsibility for encouraging and fostering parental participation in children’s English literacy learning and the life of the school lies with everyone in the organisation. This is evident from the summary of interview quotations (see Appendix 9).

It is clear from the questionnaire responses that there is uncertainty amongst the staff at Orchid Community School surrounding whose responsibility it is to promote parental involvement in home literacy learning. It is also clear from both the teacher questionnaires and the parent interviews that teacher / parent dialogue is not happening as frequently as both sets of respondents would like. As argued by Hannon (1995, see above, p.26) without a clear understanding and shared vision of parent partnerships between teachers, parents and parent partnership workers then the success of parent partnership initiatives are in jeopardy.

81

2.4 Intervention programmes The second Likert scale, asked staff to consider statements that principally form the ideological framework upon which intervention programmes such as family literacy were based (ALBSU, 1993). Staff responses unveiled some interesting assumptions and beliefs. The following tables (which can be seen in full in Appendix 10a and 10b) summarise the responses received from; 

Figure (viii.i) the 40 teachers / classroom assistants and



Figure (viii.ii) the parent partnership workers.

Figure (viii.i) Teacher / Classroom Assistant Analysis No.

Q2a. families where parents have literacy difficulties are more likely to have children with literacy difficulties.

Total

158

Q2b. By targeting families where parents have literacy difficulties we can reach children who are likely to have literacy difficulties in school.

165

%

79%

82.5%

Q2c. Parents with literacy difficulties are prepared to receive literacy education for themselves as well as their children.

Q2e. For some parents a real difficulty in helping their children will be their own limited English literacy

125

Q2d. Schools facilitate the marginalisation of children and parents by establishing activities that require specific majority culture based knowledge and behaviours.

116

62.5%

58%

86.5%

173

Figure (viii.ii) Parent Partnership Worker Analysis No.

No Yes

Q2a. families where parents have literacy difficulties are more likely to have children with literacy difficulties.

2 (67%) 1 (33%)

Q2b. By targeting families where parents have literacy difficulties we can reach children who are likely to have literacy difficulties in school.

Q2c. Parents with literacy difficulties are prepared to receive literacy education for themselves as well as their children.

Q2d. Schools facilitate the marginalisation of children and parents by establishing activities that require specific majority culture based knowledge and behaviours.

Q2e. For some parents a real difficulty in helping their children will be their own limited English literacy

0 3 (100%)

1(33%) 2 (67%)

3 (100%) 0

0 3(100%)

82

Although family literacy as an intervention programme is based on the research principles above it would be unrealistic to assume that any or all of the above statements are true in all schools and communities. I would argue that it is not only essential for each school to consider these statements in relation to its own parents and families but also in terms of staff perceptions. The majority of teaching staff (over 50%) at Orchid Community School agreed with all of the statements, in stark contrast to arguments presented by Hannon (1995, see above, p.39). However the parent partnership workers perceptions were quite different.

It is possible to see from the above data that the majority of those completing the questionnaire and all of those interviewed believed that many of the parents at Orchid Community School had a real difficulty helping their children’s English literacy development at home because of their own emergent bilingualism. This supports the findings cited earlier where 65% of respondents felt that the degree of English literacy learning taking place in the home was minimal. The view that family - learning needs to be given a high priority in Orchid School so that more parents can not only actively assist their children’s English literacy development at home but also develop their own use of English, which in turn, argued Blackledge (2000, see above, p.29), redistributes the balance of power in society, is becoming ever more credible.

When asked about how the school could actively encourage parental participation in children’s literacy development teaching staff responses could generally be subdivided into three overarching strands, school environment including teacher 83

parent dialogue, workshops and homework. A breakdown of answers in the form of quotations can be seen in Appendix 11.

It became evident that the majority of teaching staff believed that the key to increasing parental involvement in children’s English literacy learning at home was for the school to hold parental workshops in a variety of forms. 54% of staff suggested that parental workshops should be the schools first priority when considering the facilitation of parental involvement in children’s literacy development at home.

This was closely followed by the opinion that homework should be carefully structured, regularly sent and where and when appropriate fully explained to parents in their home language. 30% of teaching staff argued that sending homework and requesting parental participation e.g. listening to children read etc. should be the school’s first priority for increasing parental participation. From the parental interviews however it was apparent that the sending of regular homework would not necessarily encourage parental involvement in children’s literacy learning at home – as the majority of parents on the family literacy course stated that for the most part, children completed homework on their own. Bearing in mind that 32 out of the 40 teacher respondents (80%) cited that the parents lack of English literacy skills was a major factor affecting the home literacy learning of our children, the degree to which structured homework would facilitate parent participation is questionable. Surely, if parents have difficulty accessing English then their ability to assist their children with homework activities, including listening to their children read in English, would be severely hindered?

84

The third factor cited by the teaching staff as a way in which Orchid Community School could actively encourage parental involvement in children’s English literacy development at home was the school environment and ethos. Although this was given less importance with only one respondent (3%) suggesting that it should be the school’s first priority, it was a recurring theme with approximately 20% of all staff identifying its importance. This was supported during the parental interviews with one of the parents stating that ‘the important thing is that teachers should be approachable’.

When the parent partnership workers were asked what they felt Orchid Community School should do to actively encourage parental participation in children’s literacy development their responses fell into 2 categories. Their first suggestion was that the school should continue to run parental workshops, in the form of family literacy but also to introduce various other models, and their second suggestion was to develop an overall strategic plan for parental involvement in children’s English literacy learning throughout the school.

Inspire workshops were being strongly advocated. They are workshops that are led by the class teacher and are delivered to all of the parents and all of the children in one class collaboratively. They last for approximately a morning session and therefore are usually accessible to all. The parent partnership coordinator during interview suggested that Orchid Community School should, ‘Run more workshops, it’s just got to be workshops. Ins pire is a key thing. It works a treat. Have Inspire workshops, a lot of them [parents] don’t have time for their children and if you set the example and start off the first session for them and give them 85

that boost that they need then they’ll do it at ho me. They’ll take the ideas home and inspire them to work with the child’.

Similarly the Community Education Coordinator for the Inner City Association of Schools said, ‘I think that Inspire, the model whereby every class does one session a year that is n’t too onerous and you can get that partnership with your families and get to know them I think that that is a very good model.

The parent partnership workers were also advocating a systematic and planned approach to parental involvement in family learning linked closely to the school development plan. This supports the argument made by Jowett et al (1991, see above, p.27 and p.33) and Dauber and Epstein’s (1993, see above, p.31). The parent partnership workers said that Orchid Community School should consider what is happening in each year group and ensure that an even distribution of courses and involvement is planned for and delivered across the school consistently.

‘You need a programme across your school showing different ways that you will be working with different classes and different year groups…’

(Community Education Officer for Inner City Association of Schools, during interview).

Although all parent partnership workers advocated the continuation of family literacy projects, some criticism was levied at the model. The main criticisms fell into three broad themes 

The initial suggestion attached to the funding that family literacy should only be carried out with children and parents in years three and four



The amount of time parents have to commit to the project and 86



The expense of the project offset by the number of parents benefiting each term (or year).

The Community Education Officer during interview said, ‘Family literacy is for years three and four but the problem is if you have ignored parents in early years and key stage one and then suddenly you expect them to become highly involved in years three and four it is a nonsense…’

The parent partnership workers interviewed in this study were advocating a more flexible approach to family literacy, where parents from any year group in the school could be targeted and where the commitment of hours could be adjusted. Their justification for this opinion was inclusive practice – where all parents had the same opportunity of entitlement.

‘Personally I think that the commitment is an awful lot… both in terms of time and money…. there are parents that cannot give up the amount of hours that family literacy asks’ (Community Education Officer for an Inner City Association of Schools, in interview).

However, when the parents themselves were asked about what they thought of the family literacy project their responses were all very positive and can be seen in detail in appendix 12. They said that the course had given them a greater insight into what their children were learning and experiencing in school which if we are to believe Blackledge (2000, see above, p.22) means that their children stand a greater chance of succeeding as a result. Parents also said that the family literacy course had enabled them to join in activities with their children both in school and at home that they

87

wouldn’t have thought of doing before. Many said that it had improved their own English language and that they had learnt many new words.

However a limitation of this research that must be remembered here is the fact that I was unable, due to the constraints of time, to interview those parents (20) who were not involved in the project and ask them to comment on what they thought about family literacy as a project and why they had chosen to decline the opportunity for involvement. Answers from these parents would probably have had a significant impact on the overall findings and conclusions of this study and this must be borne in mind. As argued by Brynner and Fogelman (1993, see above, p.30) and Blackledge (2000, see above, p.40) many parents who report literacy problems do not attend adult literacy classes and therefore attempts to involve parents in the education of their children may fail to reach the parents who are most in need of the support – therefore increasing educational inequality.

The only criticism levied at the course by the parents involved, supported the views of the parent partnership workers and was the amount of time they were expected to commit to the project (six hours per week, for twelve weeks). One group explained that because they are culturally expected to be at home, it was difficult for them to explain to friends and relatives that they had commitments at school. Also those parents with younger children at home found the length of the course very difficult to maintain.

When the parents were asked how the family literacy course had impacted on them personally or how it would impact on their home lives one of the parents answered, 88

‘I think that I’ll probably try to help her more now and spend more time with her’.

Another commented, ‘I couldn’t do the project from the beginning as I wasn’t available but m y sister was coming but she was from abroad and she couldn’t speak English but she reall y e njoyed it, it gave her a real pleasure to come here and made her feel that she was learning something, not just coming there for m y daughter but also for herself. And I’ve noticed as I’ve onl y been coming for the last few sessions that the parents who did not speak English were reall y quiet in the beginning but today they were all laughing and trying to say what, not afraid of saying of interrupting the conversation anymore. It ’s encouraging. We were all speaking and all taking part in the conversation, which was good’.

As a result of an observation by chance I was fortunate enough to overhear a conversation between one of the family literacy parents and another teacher in Orchid Community School. The parent was explaining how they were going to enrol on an ESOL course (English as a Second Language) because they wanted to better themselves and give their children better opportunities in life that they had had.

When the teacher congratulated the parent and asked what had made her decide on this course of action, she replied ‘I have just finished the family literacy course with my son and want to carry on learning’. I would argue that if a school can make this sort of difference to families in 12 weeks then surely all the time, effort, organisation and hard work is worthwhile.

Section 3 – Conclusions and Recommendations 3.1 Parental Involvement As Orchid Community School had been part of an Inner City Association of School for four years which was developed to foster a community education ethos and was dedicated to the lifelong learning and achievement of parents it would be fair to 89

assume that parental partnerships were widely accepted as an integral part of school life. However when the views of teachers, classroom assistants, parents and parent partnership workers were analysed in depth, a picture emerged of a school striving to involve the culturally diverse community in the education of their children in a way that was not always systematically planned for or consistently delivered.

The findings discussed above (see p.62) identify that the majority of teaching staff at Orchid Community School valued the importance of parental involvement in children’s learning, particularly in the Foundation Stage and at Key Stage One. This supports the well – documented, long established arguments presented by (Katz, 1982, Tizard and Hughes 1984, see above, p.5). Although teaching - staff were strong advocators of parent partnerships, there seemed to be a consensus at Orchid Community School that the involvement of parents at the school in their children’s home literacy learning was minimal. This supports the arguments presented by Hannon (1995, see above, p.12-13) who urged that although parental involvement evokes positive discussion and a strong vocal commitment, in practice it is not always an established feature of education.

Evidence emerged during the research, which reinforced the arguments presented by Simich-Dudgeon 1993, Ghuman and Gallop 1981, Sneddon 1993, 1994, 1997, Karran 1997, (see above, p.25). At least some of the parents at Orchid Community School were not only eager to become involved in the life of the school (full take up on the family literacy course) but were also eager to develop their own English literacy skills (see above, p.57). One quarter of the teaching staff, disagreeing with the majority, stated that they felt that there was a great deal of parental participation in children’s 90

English literacy learning taking place in the home which had positive gains for the children. The obvious discrepancy in the perceptions of the teaching staff at the school raises obvious questions and leads me to conclude that there were inconsistencies in the practice of involving parents in their children’s home learning throughout the school.

3.2 Emergent Bilingualism When the teaching staff at Orchid Community School were asked about the benefits that children received as a result of parental involvement in English literacy learning at home (see above p.66) a clear majority of staff (66%, 65%) indicated not only that they acknowledged that children’s literacy is shaped by out of school factors but that the children at Orchid Community School are disadvantaged because of their out of school English literacy influences (see above, p.67). This perhaps reinforces the point made by Blackledge (2000, see above, p. 20) who says that there has long been an assumption that the homes of minority culture families are less effective as language and literacy learning environments than the homes of majority culture families. This assumption Blackledge (2000, see above, p.20) argued often absolves schools and society from the responsibility of the underachievement of minority groups. Yet this led me to question why approximately 35% of the staff did not believe that children’s literacy was shaped by out of school factors and did not believe that children were disadvantaged as a result. The only conclusion that it is possible to make with the limited evidence available in this study is that once again there have been inconsistencies in the practices and experiences of staff, children and parents at the school. It would be interesting to analyse the questionnaire responses in this study in term of ethnicity, gender and job description to establish whether a pattern emerges in 91

responses. However the time constraints of this small – scale research would not allow for such an investigation.

Overwhelmingly, the majority of teaching – staff at Orchid Community School (see above, p.69) and all the parent partnership workers (see above, p.70) agreeing with Tizard et al (1983, see above, p.20) stated that the two major obstacles obstructing the involvement of parents’ in their children’s English literacy learning at home were 1. The parents own lack of English literacy and 2. The cultural and religious demands on their time.

The above constraints on the parents’ ability to assist their children with English literacy learning at home were also acknowledged by the parents themselves.

Although only 22% of the parents specifically identified their own lack of English literacy skills as a factor impacting on the amount of home help given to their children, 78% of parents did not speak English at home and had not been educated in Britain and so were by definition emergent bilinguals. Parents discussed more readily the important cultural and religious factors around which their community functions that made it difficult for them to find the time to help their children’s English literacy at home (see above, p.70-71).

In support of Hannon (1995, see above, p.20) the study reinforced the fact that for ethnic minority parents a discrepancy exists between the dislocation of the cultural framework of their own lives and that of the school. What Orchid Community School needs to do now is seek ways in which it can lessen the dislocation between home and school without changing the culture of its parents to fit in with the school. As stated

by Blackledge (2000, see above, p.22) if there is socio – cultural congruence between 92

Orchid Community School and the homes of its families, then the children will have a greater chance of succeeding in school. Parents need to be knowledgeable about the school’s expectations and how the school works and Orchid Community School as suggested by Delgado-Gaitan (1990, see above, p.24) needs to be aware of the families it serves. Once this is achieved the children and the parents will stand a greater chance of success.

3.3 The Role of the Teacher An undisputed fact as portrayed by Hannon (1995, see above, p. 26) is that the role of the teacher in building home school relations and partnerships is of paramount importance. This was acknowledged to a certain extent by the staff at Orchid Community School (90% valued the importance of informal chats with parents), the parents themselves and the parent partnership workers. However, the evidence showed that both parents and teachers felt that there were few opportunities available for informal chats and discussions. In fact a theme running through the parents responses indicated that teacher – parent dialogue usually took place only if there was a problem and then the parents themselves were often the instigators. This suggests that a climate of real approachability where opportunities for dialogue prevail (Jowett et al, 1991, see above p.33) would be a situation valued by teachers but that they were finding difficult to establish or maintain. Whalley et al (2001, see above, p. 26) stated that teachers need advanced communication skills in order to effectively support parents. This is certainly true of Orchid Community School as many of parents were emergent bilinguals, who felt most at ease communicating not only with someone who shared a common language as themselves but also a common culture and religion.

93

Further analysis of the questionnaires identified the fact that there seemed to be little consensus amongst the teaching staff at Orchid Community School as to whose responsibility it was to engage parents in their children’s English literacy development at home (see above, p.86). Some of the teaching staff (approx.25% stated that the responsibility for promoting parental involvement in children’s English literacy learning at home should lie with the literacy coordinator) seemed unaware of the crucial role that they could play in developing parent partnerships and empowering minority language parents. They did not see it as an integral part of their role. Therefore if Orchid Community School is to develop further its commitment to parent partnerships not only does it need the dedication of the whole staff along with the good will of individuals but also the allocation of time, support and financial commitment from the senior managers of the school.

3.4 Intervention Programmes The majority of teaching staff in this study (54%) took the view that parental workshops should be Orchid Community School’s first priority in the facilitation of parental involvement in children’s English literacy development at home. The parent partnership workers supported this view arguing that the development of a systematic and planned approach to parental involvement in children’s English literacy learning should be of paramount importance. In addition to family literacy they suggested that the school should formulate a systematic plan to introduce intervention programmes in a variety of forms, including a model called ‘INSPIRE’. The benefit of an INSPIRE workshop they argued, was that it necessitates a commitment of time from parents of approximately one morning and therefore can be run with every class in a 94

school, providing a more inclusive practice of collaborate English literacy teaching and learning. This supports the arguments presented by Blackledge (2000, see above, p.40) who stated that some parental involvement programmes actually increase educational inequality as precious resources are expended unequally on those who are the most accessible. Perhaps this suggests that an initiative such as a family literacy project that benefits approximately 10 parents and 10 children a term at a cost of approximately six thousand pounds has serious flaws.

Flaws are evident too in the principles underpinning family learning projects.

Although the majority of teaching staff at Orchid Community School, agreed with all of the assumptions that principally form the ideological framework upon which intervention programmes such as family literacy are based (see above, p. 74-76) this is in contrast to the findings of ALBSU (1993) and Bynner and Fogelman (1993, see above, p.39). ALBSU (1993) put the theoretical principles into practice and found that the vast majority of children with low reading level scores did not have parents who admitted to having literacy difficulties themselves. This is supported in the findings of this study where of the parents interviewed, 78% of them were emergent bilinguals and yet only 22% of the 78% reported having literacy difficulties themselves. ALBSU (1993) also argued that targeting parents with literacy difficulties would not necessarily guarantee that children with literacy difficulties would benefit. This has far reaching implications, as all family literacy courses embarked upon in schools have to follow the strict guidelines that accompany the funding. Guidelines that rely heavily on the above key principles being true stipulate that parents and children should only be offered a place on a family literacy project if both are experiencing difficulties with literacy.

95

The parent partnership workers interviewed, unlike the teaching staff at Orchid Community School, were in agreement with ALBSU (1993) and disputed the fact that by targeting families where parents have literacy difficulties schools are more likely to help children with literacy difficulties. The parent partnership workers were advocating a far more flexible approach to family literacy projects, arguing that the time commitment of both parents and staff involved in the projects was far too demanding. The expense of the project offset by the number of parents and children benefiting each term, was cited as one of the disadvantages of the project.

However the parents in this study who had been involved in the family literacy project were all very positive about its benefits, not only for their children, but for themselves too. The only negative comments that were made related to the amount of time that they needed to commit each week. Positively they cited an improvement in their own and others English literacy skills as an encouraging outcome of the course and they all advocated the continuation of such courses in future (see above, p.82-83). From the evidence it was clear that parents and children alike benefited from their involvement in the family literacy project, through increased confidence, through an increased knowledge of the spoken and written English language, through an increased knowledge of school based activities and learning – yet the degree to which such knowledge would influence their lives is questionable. More importantly, a question that remains unanswered and was posed by Hannon (1995, see above, p. 41) is whether or not family literacy is more beneficial than other programmes. In answer to this question, a conclusion that can be drawn from this study is that this family literacy project encouraged parents to participate in a way that no other initiative 96

could – parents embarked upon an action of lifelong learning because they were committed to the development of their children’s English literacy. The majority of the parents on the course said that they had decided to join either to support the development of their children or because their child had continually harassed them until they had accepted the invitation. Would these parents have joined another English literacy course lasting six hours a week for twelve weeks for their own gains?

I think not.

3.5 Recommendations It is evident from the above research that Orchid Community School is striving to involve its parents in lifelong learning in an attempt to encourage parental participation in children’s English literacy development at home. In my capacity as the English Co-ordinator at Orchid Community School the central aim of my role is to raise standards of Speaking and Listening, Reading and Writing in English for all children. In this research, driven by the belief that children’s achievement in literacy can be significantly enhanced with parental support, I attempted to explore ways in which emergent bilingual parents could be encouraged to play a greater role in their children’s English literacy learning at home and hence their overall educational achievement. In order to sustain and develop parental involvement in children’s home English literacy learning I unearthed a number of findings. The inter-related recommendations below have been drawn from the evidence collected in this study and will help Orchid Community School and schools like it to facilitate the involvement of emergent bilingual parents in the English literacy development of their children at home.

97



Staff training – all staff, through in-service training need to be made aware of the school’s overarching philosophy and drive for parental participation. Explicit reference needs to be made to the fact that work with parents is not a peripheral extra or optional activity, but an integral part of the way Orchid Community School functions. Training should specifically focus on the decisive role that teachers and classroom assistants play in ensuring parental involvement in children’s learning, at home. Key communication skills, which would enable teachers to communicate more effectively with parents should feature on schools inservice training agenda’s so that teachers can capitalise on opportunities for informal chats with parents as well as deliver workshops and parent sessions. This obviously requires the school to make a substantial investment both in terms of time and money.



Systematic approach – the development of a systematic and planned strategy for parental involvement linked to the schools development plan is essential in order to ensure equality and accessibility for all parents. This strategy should also include structures which reward teachers not only for making effective links with the community but also for involving emergent bilingual parents in their children’s schooling (Blackledge, 2000, see above, p.27).



Family literacy projects – because a real difficulty for some parents when helping their children’s English literacy development at home is their own emergent bilingualism it is essential that Orchid Community School continues to run family literacy projects. Such projects invite parents to

98

enrol on a course that facilitates their own English literacy development – at the same time as helping their children’s academic development.

Yet the evidence gained in this study points to the need for a flexible approach to family literacy. Schools, including Orchid Community School, need to make each course appropriate to the circumstances of the children and parents at that school. This will require a change in the guidelines that accompany the funding for each course. For example, in a three - form entry school like Orchid Community School an alternative model (based on the same amount of funding), which could lead to greater benefits, may be the facilitation of three courses a term - each course lasting approximately four weeks. This would allow all of the parents in a year group to receive an invitation to attend, resulting in a more inclusive practice. Also the amount of time each parent would need to commit would be considerably less. The frequency of the courses and the accessibility of courses for parents would be far greater and the school could perhaps begin to involve its ‘hard to reach’ parents. 

Workshops – the introduction of a variety of different workshops is essential if Orchid Community School is to ensure an equality of provision for all parents. Lifelong learning needs to be made accessible for all and therefore consideration should also be given to the feasibility of single sex workshops and projects that last for varying degrees of time. Primarily INSPIRE workshops should be integrated into Orchid Community School’s strategy for parental involvement, because in the same way as

99

family literacy, INSPIRE encourages parental participation by making explicit the benefits that are likely to be received by the child. 

Socio-cultural congruence – perhaps the most difficult and ambitious thing that Orchid Community School must strive to achieve! The research respondents acknowledged the lack of an obvious common language and the cultural / religious constraints of the community as the two barriers obstructing successful parent partnerships. To overcome these barriers the school will need to introduce specific culturally appropriate interventions, which provide the parents with strategies to support their children’s literacy in a way that empowers them as home literacy tutors.

These intervention, as suggested by the evidence of this study should consist of systematic and planned workshops in a variety of forms which will aim at lessening the dislocation between home and school without changing the culture of its parents and children.

In order to redistribute the balance of power in society, it is essential that the lifelong learning of parents features on school development plans. There is much that can be done by schools to involve parents in the education of their children, despite the apparent difficulties in communication and access (Delgade-Gaitan, 1990, 1994, 1996, see above, p.25). Orchid Community School has a responsibility to try and create the conditions in which collaborative and participative workshops lead to the empowerment of minority language parents. This in turn will facilitate parental participation in children’s English literacy development at home and ultimately raise standards for all.

100

References

ALBSU, (1987) Literacy, Numeracy and Adults: Evidence from the National Child Development Stud London: Adult Literacy and basic skills Unit.

ALBSU, (1993) Parents and Their Children: The Intergenerational Effect of Poor Basic Skills, London: Adult Literacy and Basic Skills Unit.

Anderson, A. and Stokes S. (1984) Social and Institutional Influences on the Development and Practice of Literacy, in Goelman, H., Oberg, A and Smith F. (eds) Awakening to Literacy, London: Heinemann.

Athey C. (1990) Extending Thought in Young Children: A Parent Teacher Partnership, London: Paul Chapman.

Blackledge A. (2000) Literacy, Power and Social Justice, Stoke on Trent: Trentham Books Ltd. Becker H. and Epstein J.L. (1982) Parent involvement: A survey of teacher practices The Elementary School Journal 83, 2, pp.165-181.

Bell J. (1999) Doing Your Research Project. A Guide for First – Time Researchers in Education and Social Science, Third Edition, Philadelphia: Open Universit y Press.

Brown A. and Dowling P. (1998) Doing Research / Reading Research.

A Modeof Interrogation for Education, London: Falmer Press Bynner J. and Fogelman K. (1993) Making the Grade: Education and Training Experiences’ in Ferri E. (ed) Life at 33: The Fifth Follow-up of the National Child Development Study, London: National Children’s Bureau.

Brizius J.A. and Foster S.A. (1993) Generation to Generation: Realizing the Promise of Family Literacy, Ypsilanti, MI, High/Scope Press.

Chavkin N.F. and Williams D.L. (1993) Minority Parents and the Elementary School, in Chavkin N.F. (eds) Families and Schools in a Pluralistic Society, New York: SUNY Press.

Cohen L. Manion L. and Morrison K. (2001) Research Methods in Education, London: Falmer Press Cummins, J. (1994a) From Coercive to Collaborative Relations of Power, in Ferdman B.M. Weber R.M. and Ramirez A.G. (eds) Literacy Across Languages and Cultures , New York: SUNY Press.

Dauber, S. and Dye J. (1989) Parents’ Attitudes and Practices of Involvement in 101

Parental Involvement in Curriculum Matters. Parents, Teachers and Children working together, Educational Research, 31, 1, pp20-33 Epstein, J. (1993) Iinner-city Elementary and Middle Schools, in Chavkin, N.F. (ed) Families and Schools in a Pluralistic Society, New York: SUNY Press.

Dehli K. and Januario I. (1994) Parent Activism and School Reform in Toronto, Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.

Delgado-Gaitan, C. (1990) Literacy for Empowerment, London: Falmer.

Delgado-Gaitan, C. (1991) Involving Parents in the Schools: A Process of Empowerment, American Journal of Education, 100, 1, pp20-46.

Delgado-Gaitan C. (1994) Socio-Cultural Change Through Literacy: Towards the Empowerment of Families, in Ferdman B.M. Weber R.M. and Ramier A.G. (eds) Literacy Across Languages and Cultures, New York: SUNY Press.

Delgado-Gaitan C. (1996) Protean Literacy: Extending the Discourse on Empowerment, London: Falmer.

DES 1967 Children and Their Primary Schools (The Plowden Report), London:HMSO DfEE 1996 Early Excellence – a Head Start for Every Child, London: Labour Party.

DfEE 1997 Excellence in Schools, DfEE in 3681, London: HMSO. Edwards V. and Redfern A. (1988) At Home In School, London: Routledge.

Ekinsmyth C. and Bynner J. (1994) The Basic Skills of Young Adults: Some Findings From the 1970 British Cohort Study, London: Adult Literacy and Basic Skills Unit.

Elton Report (1989) Discipline in Schools , London: HMSO Ferdman B.M. Weber R.M. and Ramierz A.G. ( eds) Literacy Across Languages and Cultures. New York: SUNY Press.

Finch J. 1984b ‘A first Class Environment? Working Class Playgroups as Preschool Experience’, British Educational Research Journal, 10, 1, pp.3-17.

Graves M. Van den Brook P. and Taylor B. (eds) 1996 The First R – Every Child’s Right to read, London: Teachers College Press.

Gregory, E. (1996) Making Sense of a New World. Learning to Read in a Second Language, London: Paul Chapman.

Hannon P. (1987) A Study of the Effects of Parental Involvement in the Teaching of Reading, Cambridge Journal of Education, 16, 1, pp.28-37.

102

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

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

Hewison J. and Tizard J. (1980) Parental Involvement and Reading Attainment, British Journal of Educational Psychology, 50, pp209-15 Hewison J. (1985) The Evidence of Case Studies of Parents’ Involvement in Schools’ in Cullingford C. (Eds) Parents, Teachers and Schools, London: Robert Royce.

HMSO (1975) A Language for Life (The Bullock Report), Report of the Committee of Inquiry appointed by the Secretary of St ate for Education and Science, London: HMSO. Jackson A. and Hannon P. (1981) The Bellfield Reading Project, Rochdale: Bellfield Community Council.

Johnson D. (1994) Research Methods in Educational Management, Essex: Longman.

Jones M. and Rowley G. (1990) What Does Research Say About Parental Participation in Children’s Reading Development?’ Evaluation and Research in Education, 4, 1, pp.21-36.

Jowett S and Baginsky M with MacNeil M. (1991) Building Bridges: Parental Involvement in Schools, Berkshire: NFER – NELSON Katz, L (1982) Contemporary Perspectives on the Roles of Mothers and Teachers, Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 7, 1, 4-15 Lazar I., Darlington R., Murray H. Royce J. and Snipper A. (1982) Lasting Effects of Early Education. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 47, (2-3, Serial No. 195).

Loughrey D. (1991) Time For Me: Involving Parents in their Children’s Education, Primary Teaching Studies, 6, 1, pp114-123.

Lysaght Z. (1993) Partnership with Parents in Primary Education, Irish Educational Studies, 12, pp.196-205 McConkey R (1985) Working with Parents: A Practical Guide for Teachers and Therapists, London: Croom Helm.

McIvor M.C. (1990) Family Literacy in Action: A Survey of Successful Programmes.

New York: New Readers Press.

103

Mercer N. and Swann J. (1996) Learning English Development and Diversity, Glasgow: Routledge.

Merttens R. and Vass J. (1987) ‘Parents in schools: Raising money or raising standards? Education 3, 13, 15, 2, pp.23-7.

Merttens R. and Vass J. (1993) Partnerships in Maths, London: Falmer Press.

Mortimer P. and Sammons P. in Stroll L. Lewis D. and Ecob R. (1988) School Matters: the Junior Years , London: Open Books.

Moser C.A. and Kalton G. (1993) Survey Methods in Social Investigation, Hants: Dartmouth Publishing.

Nickse R.S. (1990) Family and Intergenerational Literacy Programs: An Update of ‘Noises of Literacy’, Columbus: OH, ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult, Career and Vocational Education, Ohio State University.

Nickse R.S. (1993) A Typology of Family and Intergenerational Literacy Programmes: Implications for Evaluation, Viewpoints, 15, pp.34-40.

Nisbit J.D. and Watt J. (1980) Case Study, Rediguide 26, Universit y of Nottingham School of Education.

Nutbrown C. Hannon P. and Weinberger J. (1991) Training Teachers to Work with Parents to Promote Early Literacy Development, International Journal of Early Childhood, 23, 2, pp.1-10 OECD (1997) Parents as Partners in Schools, Paris: OECD (Organisation for European Co-operation).

Pugh G. De’Ath E. and Smith C. (1994) Confident Parents, Confident Children, London, National Children’s Bureau.

Raim J. (1980) Who Learns When Parents Teach Children? The Reading Teacher, 33, pp.152-5 Reder S. (1994) Practice-Engagement Theory: A Socio-Cultural Approach to Literacy Across Languages and Cultures, in Ferdman B.M. and Ramierz A.G. (eds) Literacy Across Languages and Cultures, New York: SUNY Press.

Rogers J. (1977) Adults Learning, 2nd Edn, Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

Scribner S. (1987) Introduction in Wagner D. (eds) The Future of Literacy in a Changing World, Oxford: Pergamon.

Simich-Dudgeon, C. (1993) Increasing Student Achievement Through Teacher Knowledge About Parent Involvement, in Chavkin, N.F. (ed) Families and Schools in a Pluralistic Society, New York: SUNY Press.

104

TES (2000) Early Years Shops Save Money. Times Educational Supplement, 25 February, p.11 Tharp, R. (1989) Culturally Compatible Education: A Formula for Designing Effective Classrooms, in Trueba, H., Spindler G. and Spindler L. (eds) What do Anthropologtists Have to Say About Dropouts? Bristol: PA, Falmer.

Tomlinson, S. and Hutchinson S. (1991) Bangladeshi Parents and Education in Tower Hamlets, London: Advisory Centre for Education.

Tizard B. Mortimore J. and Burchell B. (1981) Involving Parents in Nursery and Infant School, London: Grant McIntyre.

Tizard J., Schofield W.N. and Hewison J. (1982) Collaboration Between Teachers and Parents in Assisting Children’s Reading, British Journal of Educational Psychology, 52, pp.1-15 Tizard B. and Hughes M. (1984) Young Children Learning, London: Fontana Tizard B., Mortimore J., Bastiani J. and Burchell B. (1988) Involving Parents from Minority Groups, in Bastiani J.(eds) Parents and Teachers 2. Windsor: NFERNelson.

Vincent C. (1996) Parents and Teachers: Power and Participation, London: Falmer Press.

Warnock Report (1978) Committee of Enquiry into the Education of Handicapped Children and Young People, Special Educational Needs, London: HMSO Whalley M. (ed) (1997) Working with Parents, London: Hodder and Stoughton Whalley M. and the Pen Green Centre Team (2001) Involving Parents in their Children’s Learning, London: Paul Chapman Publishing

105

Appendices Page Number Appendix 1 -

Case study design (adapted from Moser and Kalton, 1993)

90 - 91

Appendix 2 -

Formal letter requesting permission to carry out research

92

Appendix 3a -

Pilot teacher / classroom assistant questionnaire

93 - 95

Appendix 3b -

Revised teacher / classroom assistant questionnaire used in research

96 - 99

Appendix 4 -

Semi-structured group parental interview schedule

100 - 103

Appendix 5 -

Parent partnership worker semi-structured interview schedule

104 - 106

Appendix 6 -

Teacher / classroom assistant responses to questions about parental involvement

107 - 108

Appendix 7 -

Orchid Community School’s SATs results for 2002 and 2003

109

Appendix 8 -

Parents responses regarding home reading

110

Appendix 9 -

Parents responses regarding opportunities for teacher / parent dialogue

111

Appendix 10 -

Parent partnership workers responses regarding the role of the teacher in encouraging parental participation

112

Appendix 11a -

Teacher / classroom assistant responses to the statements that form the ideological framework upon which intervention programmes are based.

113 -114

Appendix 11b -

Parent partnership responses to the statements that form the ideological framework upon which intervention programmes are based.

115 - 116

Appendix 12 -

Orchid Community School staff responses regarding how schools can actively encourage parental involvement in children’s English literacy development at home

117 - 118

Appendix 13 -

Parent partnership responses regarding how Orchid Community School could best develop it’s current provision for parental involvement in children’s English literacy learning at home

119

Appendix 14 -

Parents responses to family literacy

120 - 121

106

Appendix 1 Case Study Design Adapted from Moser and Kalton (1993).

Objectives and Resources  

Precise objectives How are they made achievable?

Coverage  

Define the population Identify sample

Questionnaires/Interviews  

Framing / arrangement of questions Distribution

Errors  

Expect / anticipate errors Take precautions to minimise

Fieldwork  

Build in time Pilot 107

Processing and Analysing  

Scrutiny / analysis Tabulation

108

Appendix 2 March 2003 Dear Ms __________ As you know, I am currently undertaking the final year of my MA in Education at the University of Central England. As such I will be working on a 20,000 word dissertation, which will include school - based research.

My research will focus on ‘how best to support English as an Additional Language parents with the facilitation of their children’s English literacy development at home’.

As part on this research I aim to;  Circulate questionnaires to all senior managers, teaching staff and classroom assistants at Orchid Community School.  Hold semi-structured interviews with sample groups of parents attending the family literacy project.  Interview three parent partnership workers employed to develop a community education ethos.

My goal is to have completed these tasks by May 2003 and to have finished the research by August 2003. I assure you that confidentiality will be maintained throughout the research. The school and participants in the project will remain anonymous. Upon completion of the project a précis of the research findings will be made available to you, if you so wish.

If you agree to the research being carried out, subject to the above criteria, please complete the reply slip on one of the letters enclosed. Return this copy to me as soon as possible keeping the second copy for your reference.

Yours sincerely, ______________ _______________________________________________________________ I …………………………………….(name), on behalf of the governors at Orchid Community School, hereby authorise __________ to carry out a research project subject to the criteria on the letter of proposal dated March 2003.

Signed ________________________

109

Appendix 3a Staff Questionnaire Role

Teacher

Classroom / Integration Assistant

Ethnicity

White

Black African

Black Caribbean

Black other

Indian

Pakistani

Bangladeshi

Other

1. For each question please tick on a scale of 1 – 5, where 1 is of least importance and 5 is of most importance a) The value you place on parental involvement 1 2 3 4 5 in children’s English literacy development at home in (i) Early Years and Key Stage One (ii) Key Stage Two b) The degree of parental participation demonstrated in our school with children’s English literacy development at home. c) The benefits evident in children’s literacy progress as a result of parental participation in the context of our school. d) The value you place on informal chats with parents. e) The opportunities available for informal chats with parents.

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 f) The value you place on family literacy projects.

110

4 5

4 5

g) The extent to which you feel that children’s 1 2 3 4 5 literacy is shaped by out of school factors, particularly learning in the home?

2. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements where 1 demonstrates strong disagreement and 5 demonstrates strong agreement? a) Children from families where parents have 1 2 3 4 5 literacy difficulties are more likely than others to have such difficulties at school. b) By targeting families where parents have literacy 1 2 3 4 5 difficulties we can reach children who are likely to have literacy difficulties at school. c) Parents with literacy difficulties are prepared to 1 2 3 4 5 receive literacy education for themselves as well as their children. d) Schools facilitate the marginalisation of children 1 2 3 4 5 and parents by (consciously or unconsciously) establishing activities that require specific majority culture based knowledge and behaviours. e) For some parents a real difficulty in helping 1 2 3 4 5 their children will be their own limited English literacy.

3. Please list ways in which schools generally, can actively encourage parental involvement in children’s English literacy development at home. ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ 4. From the above, please list in order of significance how our school can best support its parents to help their children with home literacy? ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ _______________________________________ ____________________ 5. When encouraging parental involvement with children’s English literacy development at home what do you perceive to be the greatest obstacles?

111

___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ 6. Who do you believe (a) is and (b) should be responsible in our school for the involvement of parents in their children’s literacy development? (a)________________________________________________________ (b)________________________________________________________

7. How can the school management support the people you have identified in 6(a) and (b) to actively encourage parental participation? ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ 8. If you were a Literacy Coordinator at the school summarise your policy for parental involvement in children’s home English literacy learning. _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________

Thank you for your time, thoughts and cooperation.

112

Appendix 3b

Staff Questionnaire

Role

Teacher

Classroom / Integration Assistant

Ethnicity

White

Indian

Black African

Black Caribbean

Black other

Bangladeshi

Other

Pakistani

1. For each question please tick on a scale of 1 – 5, where 1 is of least importance and 5 is of most importance

a) The value you place on parental involvement in children’s English literacy development at home in (i) Early Years and Key Stage One

1 2 3 4 5

(ii) Key Stage Two

b) The degree of parental participation demonstrated in our school with children’s English literacy development at home.

1 2 3 4 5

c) The benefits evident in children’s literacy progress as a result of parental participation

1 2 3 4 5

113

in the context of our school.

d) The value you place on informal chats with parents.

1 2 3 4 5

e) The opportunities available for informal chats with parents.

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 f) The value you place on family literacy projects.

g) The extent to which you feel that children’s literacy is shaped by out of school factors, particularly learning in the home?

1 2 3 4 5

2. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements where 1 demonstrates strong disagreement and 5 demonstrates strong agreement?

a) Children from families where parents have literacy difficulties are more likely than others to have such difficulties at school.

1 2 3 4 5

b) By targeting families where parents have literacy difficulties we can reach children who are likely to have literacy difficulties at school.

1 2 3 4 5

c) Parents with literacy difficulties are prepared to receive literacy education for themselves as well as their children.

1 2 3 4 5

114

d) Schools facilitate the marginalisation of children and parents by (consciously or unconsciously) establishing activities that require specific majority culture based knowledge and behaviours.

1 2 3 4 5

e) For some parents a real difficulty in helping their children will be their own limited English literacy.

1 2 3 4 5

3. Please list ways in which schools generally, can actively encourage parental involvement in children’s English literacy development at home. ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________

4. From the above, please list in order of significance how our school can best support its parents to help their children with home literacy? ___________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________ ________________________________ 5. When encouraging parental involvement with children’s English literacy development at home what do you perceive to be the greatest obstacles? ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ 115

___________________________________________________________

6. Who do you believe (a) is and (b) should be responsible in our school for the involvement of parents in their children’s literacy development? (a)________________________________________________________ (b)________________________________________________________

7. How can the school management support the people you have identified in 6(a) and (b) to actively encourage parental participation? ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ 8. What resources and support does the Literacy Coordinator in our school need to promote parental participation in children’s literacy development? _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________

Thank you for your time, thoughts and cooperation.

116

Appendix 4

Semi-structured Group Parental Interview Schedule

I would like to thank you all in advance for taking part in this research.

The main aim of the research is to find out how schools like ours can best support parents to help their children’s English literacy development at home.

Today I would like to ask you about the kinds of activities you and your children do together at home. I would like to find out how you feel about the family literacy project and how it has affected you and your children.

I am also interested to find out how you feel about reading and writing yourselves both in your first language and in English.

I would like to record our conversation so that I can listen to you properly without taking notes. No-one except me will listen to the tape. I will play it back tonight at home to make sure that I don’t miss any of the important information you give me. I will write about what you say in my report but I will not use any of your names. Please tell me if you would like to see what I write.

Are you happy for me to tape our conversation?

Would you mind introducing yourself by saying your child’s name and age?

The first few questions are about what your child does at home?

1. What sorts of literacy activities does your child do at home in English and in your home language?  Read newspapers and magazines, TV listings  Listen to stories  Write shopping lists or messages  Use a computer  Talk about T.V.  Make up and write stories for you or with you  Play school  Help younger brothers/sisters/cousins to read or write.  Pretend to read to toys 2. Does your child enjoy reading?

117

3. Has your child shared a book with you or another member of the family recently? When? Is this a regular request?

4. Does your child enjoy writing?

5. Has your child asked you or another member of your family to write with him/her recently? When? Is this a regular request? What was being written?

6. In the last week, have you helped your child with his or her homework? Has someone else in the family helped?

7. Do you enjoy helping your child with homework? Why?

8. Do you and your child ever visit the community library? What do you do there?

9. Are you or your child members of the after school library club?

10. How often do you talk to your child’s class teacher? Are you satisfied with these opportunities?

11. Does your child go to Mosque school? What do they learn there?

12. Do you think that the Mosque teachers teach in the same way or differently from our school? In what ways?

The next set of questions, are about the family literacy project

13. Tell me about the family literacy project?

14. What made you decide to take part in the family literacy project?

118

15. Which part of the project did you enjoy most? Why?

16. Which parts of the project did you least enjoy? Why?

17. Do you think we should run more courses in the future? Why?

18. Has the family literacy course given you more information about the literacy learning, taking place in school? What do you know now that you didn’t know before?

19. Have you personally benefited from the family literacy course? If so, how?

20. Do you think that school activities generally are designed for children who’s first language is English and who are culturally British? If so how can you give an example of how your child’s learning has been affected?

Finally I would like to ask you five questions of a personal nature about your own reading and writing. If you do not wish to answer please feel free to remain quiet.

21. What language or languages do you speak at home?

22. Do you read and write in any of your home languages?

23. How do you feel about reading in English?

24. How do you feel about writing in English?

25. What would you like to see the school doing to support parents with English as a second language?

And finally is there anything I haven’t asked you which you would like to tell me about?

119

Thank you, that’s the end of the interview and I greatly appreciated all of your comments.

Appendix 5 Parent Partnership Worker Semi-structured Interview Schedule

I would like to thank you in advance for taking part in this research. The main aim of the research is to find out how schools like ours can best support parents to help their children’s English literacy development at home.

Today I would like to ask you about the kind of work that you do and why you are committed to it. I would like to find out how you feel about a variety of parent partnership initiatives and particularly how you feel about family literacy projects. I am also interested to hear how you feel we could improve existing provision.

120

I would like to record our conversation so that I can listen to you properly without taking notes. No-one except me will listen to the tape. I will play it back tonight at home to make sure that I don’t miss any of the important information you give me. I will write about what you say in my report but I will not use your name. Please tell me if you would like to see what I write.

Are you happy for me to tape our conversation?

Would you mind introducing yourself by saying your job title and the length of time you have spent in your current position?

1. Will you tell me about your post as a parent partnership worker/coordinator?  Who employs you / funding?  Consortium functions  School functions

2. Can you tell me about the courses and parent partnership initiatives offered to parents at our school?

3. Why is the role of a parent partnership worker so important for our school?

4. Can you tell me about the parent partnership initiatives on offer to parents throughout the consortium?

5. Of the partnerships you have described which have been most successful and why?

6. Can you explain your recruitment processes?

7. Can you tell me all you know about family literacy courses?

8. What do you perceive to be the benefits of family literacy courses?

121

9. Can you think of any ways in which family literacy courses could be improved in future?

10. What can we do as a school to encourage parental participation in children’s English literacy development at home?

11. Whose responsibility is it to foster parental participation in children’s English literacy development in our school?

12. What is the role of the teacher in the process of involving parents in their children’s home literacy learning?

13. When encouraging parental involvement with children’s English literacy development at home in our school, what do you perceive to be the greatest obstacles?

I would now like to ask your views on children whose parents have literacy problems.

14. Some children are from families where parents have literacy difficulties. Do you think that these children are more likely than others to have difficulties at school? Why?

15. Do you think that targeting families where parents have literacy difficulties will help children who have literacy difficulties at school? Why?

16. Do you think that parents with literacy difficulties are prepared to receive literacy education for themselves as well as their children. Why?

Now I would like to ask you some questions about children from minority cultures.

17. Do you think that it is difficult for children from minority cultures to take a full part in school activities?

122

18.Is it hard for their parents to help them if they don’t read or write English well?

19.How can we, at our school, develop the current provision to help these parents, more than we do already, to support their child’s reading and writing at home?

20.Finally I would like to ask you, why are you committed to your role as a parent partnership worker / coordinator?

Is there anything that I haven’t asked you which is really important?

Thank you, that’s the end of the interview and I greatly appreciated your participation and comments.

Appendix 6 Teacher’s questionnaire responses identifying strength of agreement or disagreement in a given statement on a 1 – 5 point range.

Number Responses 11 2 3 4 5 Least important

5

Most important

of non – responses

Statements Value placed on parental involvement in early years / Key Stage 1

1

0

3

2

33

1

%

2.5%

0%

7.5%

5%

82.5%

2.5%

Value placed on parental involvement in Key Stage 2

0

0

4

6

21

9

123

%

0%

0%

10%

15%

52.5%

22.5%

Degree of parental participation demonstrated in our school

1

10

17

5

5

2

%

2.5%

25%

42.5%

12.5%

12.5%

5%

Benefits in children’s literacy progress evident as a result of above participation

0

9

12

10

8

1

%

0%

22.5%

30%

25%

20%

2.5%

Value placed on informal chats with parents

1

0

2

13

23

1

%

2.5%

0%

5%

32.5%

57.5%

2.5%

Opportunities available for informal chats in context or our school.

3

14

10

8

5

0

%

7.5%

35%

25%

20%

12.5%

0%

Value placed on Family Literacy projects.

1

3

4

10

19

3

%

2.5%

7.5%

10%

25%

47.5%

7.5%

Extent that children’s literacy is shaped by out of school factors.

0

4

10

14

11

1

%

0%

10%

25%

35%

27.5%

2.5%

124

Appendix 7

Orchid Community Schools SATs results for 2002 and 2003

Key Stage One SAT’s Results

KS1 2002

125

KS1 2003

Reading

Writing

Level W – 1%

Level W – 1%

Level 1 – 30%

Level 1 – 26%

Level 2 – 50%

Level 2 – 40% Level 3 – 33% Level 2 or above – 73%

Level 3 – 13% Level 2 or above – 63% Level W – 2% Level 1 – 13% Level 2 – 83% Level 3 – 0% Level 2 or above – 83%

Level W – 3% Level 1 – 17% Level 2 – 69% Level 3 – 10% Level 2 or above – 79%

Key Stage Two SAT’s Results

KS2 2002

126

KS2 2003

Reading

Below Level 3 – 26% Level 3 – 11% Level 4 – 38% Level 5 – 25% Level 4 or above –

Below Level 3 – 23% Level 3 – 13% Level 4 – 45% Level 5 – 20% Level 4 or above – 65%

Writing

63% Below Level 3– 23% Level 3 – 31% Level 4 – 30% Level 5 – 16% Level 4 or above – 46%

Appendix 8

Parents responses about home reading

127

Below Level 3 – 27% Level 3 – 45% Level 4 – 22% Level 5 – 7% Level 4 or above – 29%

Question Has your child shared a book with you or another member of your family recently?

Group 1 * ‘She shares with me but not her younger sister’. *‘I don’t often have time but will share one if I have time’. *‘She reads by herself. If she finds a book that interests her she will talk about it with me as I don’t understand English.’ *‘She tries it by herself.’

Group 2 *‘They read with their older brothers and sisters. Help each other.’ *‘I read last week with my son. He doesn’t like very much to read books, he likes story, film. *‘He doesn’t much like books’.

Group 3 *‘The books that they bring home from school they get out and wants me to see if he’s reading it correctly’. *‘Yesterday we read cos I went to the library’.

Appendix 9

Parents responses about opportunities for teacher / parent dialogue Questions How often do you

Group 1

Group 2

* We used to go in

* I speak once or

128

Group 3 * Everyday

speak to your class teacher?

to ask about homework. * I speak whenever a problem arose. * I have never felt the need to come in as dad is always there. Last parents evening it was dad that came but I am going to come to this one. * I feel confident speaking to this years class teacher (Urdu speaker) but there are some other English teachers I am not sure of. I can’t put my view across.

Are you happy with Yes we will come these in if there is a opportunities? problem. But the opportunity we make for ourselves.

twice, sometimes. * When there are problems I speak. *I am shy. I’d like to. I’d like to find out more, how they are doing at their work, I don’t know about homework.

* I go to work so I only ever speak to the teacher if there is a problem.

Usually at parents evenings if there is a major concern.

We would come in if there was a problem.

* Yes I think so, sometimes parents evening can be a bit rushed but I think so. I don’t see how it can be any different. * I think that it is o.k.

P.P.W. 2

P.P.W. 3

Appendix 10 Parent partnership workers responses.

P.P.W. 1

129

Whose responsibility is it to foster parental participation in children’s English literacy development at home in our school?

Well I would say the teacher and the parents to an extent. There again I would say that it is everyone’s.

What is the role of the teacher in the process of involving parents in their children’s home literacy learning?

Teachers are the first port of call.

They have to develop a good, open relationship with parents.

It would be the parent partnership link worker. It’s got to be a joint thing as well the head teacher and senior managers. I think everybody really. It’s got to be the teachers too.

It’s not just one person doing it, it has got to be a whole school issue.

It’s a big role because the teacher spends a lot of time with a child and knows that child.

They have to communicate with parents.

It’s got to be the class teacher obviously supported by the literacy coordinator who is supported by the head.

Everyone really.

Teachers must be approachable and make it a priority to build positive relationships with parents.

Appendix 11a Teacher / Classroom Assistant responses to the statements that form the ideological framework upon which intervention programmes are based.

No.

Q2a. families where parents

Q2b. By targeting

Q2c. Parents with literacy

130

Q2d. Schools facilitate the

Q2e. For some parents

have literacy difficulties are more likely to have children with literacy difficulties.

families where parents have literacy difficulties we can reach children who are likely to have literacy difficulties in school.

difficulties are prepared to receive literacy education for themselves as well as their children.

marginalisation of children and parents by establishing activities that require specific majority culture based knowledge and behaviours.

a real difficulty in helping their children will be their own limited English literacy

1

5

5

1

3

5

2

4

3

4

3

5

3

2

3

3

4

5

4

5

5

3

2

4

5

3

4

3

2

4

6

3

5

3

3

5

7

5

5

3

0

5

8

5

5

3

5

4

9

3

3

4

1

3

10

1

5

3

3

3

11

4

4

5

4

5

12

3

3

3

4

5

13

2

2

3

3

5

14

4

4

5

5

5

15

5

5

4

4

5

16

4

3

3

3

4

17

4

4

2

4

5

18

5

3

3

0

1

19

4

5

2

2

3

20

4

4

0

3

5

21

4

4

3

3

5

22

4

5

3

2

4

23

3

3

2

2

3

24

5

3

3

3

5

25

4

4

1

4

5

26

5

4

3

0

5

27

4

2

2

4

4

28

5

5

3

3

4

29

5

5

5

4

3

30

5

5

5

0

5

31

5

4

3

5

5

32

5

5

3

4

5

33

2

4

2

4

4

34

3

4

3

4

3

35

4

5

4

0

5

36

4

5

5

3

2

37

3

4

3

3

5

38

4

4

3

3

5

39

5

5

4

3

5

40

4

5

5

4

5

Total

158

165

125

116

173

%

79%

82.5%

62.5%

58%

86.5%

131

Appendix 11b Parent Partnership Workers responses to the statements that form the ideological framework upon which intervention programmes are based.

No.

Q2a. families where parents have literacy difficulties are more likely to

Q2b. By targeting families where parents have literacy

Q2c. Parents with literacy difficulties are prepared to receive literacy

132

Q2d. Schools facilitate the marginalisation of children and parents by

Q2e. For some parents a real difficulty in helping their

have children with literacy difficulties.

difficulties we can reach children who are likely to have literacy difficulties in school.

education for themselves as well as their children.

establishing activities that require specific majority culture based knowledge and behaviours.

children will be their own limited English literacy

Yes because children can approach their mums and dads for help more frequently.

P.P.W. No, no. For Yes because example in a once you 2 previous target parents school I had with literacy parents who difficulties it couldn’t read enables you or write but to break their children other were very hurdles. clever.

Yes I think they are if its to help their children.

No I don’t think we do.

Yes some of our parents can’t even use a dictionary.

Only if they felt confident with the school and providers.

Its that relationship again and building their confidence.

I don’t think that there is apart from the language barriers. I hope all schools treat children the same.

P.P.W. Yes often special needs 3 children have parents with special needs but saying that parents often have special needs and the children are as bright as a button.

I’d say you can’t generalise.

Not necessarily, some parents want to hide that they have got these difficulties and they are often the hardest to reach parents.

No, I don’t think so.

Yes. Learning comes from home as well as school. It’s a lot harder to help your children if you don’t speak, read or write English.

Yes definatley that is why community education has to be a priority

P.P.W. No, it depends on 1 the family.

Well yes, this is family literacy. It is actually aimed at parents with literacy difficulutes and the answer is that it has to support those children.

Family literacy says that there is evidence that children’s literacy achievement is increased by working with their families.

133

No Yes

2 (67%) 1 (33%)

0 3 (100%)

1(33%) 2 (67%)

3 (100%) 0

0 3(100%)

Appendix 12 Orchid Community School Staff Responses Ways in which schools can actively encourage parental involvement in children’s English Literacy Development at home as identified in staff questionnaires.

134

School Environment (including teacher parent dialogue)  Sending letters every week  Staff should try to be friendly.  Teachers being available to give advice  Improving bilingual / multilingual support to the parents  Making school environment welcoming and comfortable  Making parents feel that they are partners in education  Make the setting accessible for parents with babies or toddlers who wish to support children’s learning in school  Make school welcoming so that parents are empowered  Home visits

Ways in which schools can actively encourage parental involvement in children’s English Literacy Development at home as identified in staff questionnaires.

Workshops / Open days  Parent meetings on help and advice.  Invite parents to workshops (multilingual)  Demonstrations of how to help with reading and spelling  Set up courses  Literacy classes  Giving talks to parents when their children start school  Have special lessons in school hours  Parent workshops  Children parent workshops  Involve parents during literacy hours to support a group  Involve parents with literacy projects  More open meetings to discuss school policies and promote good practice  Family literacy  Literacy meetings once a term  Inviting parents into school to help their own child  Informal prompting  Early Years workshops on Communication, Language and Literacy  Open evenings so that issues can be discussed on how to help at home.  Parents invited into school as often as possible to witness activities taking place.  Assisting parents in understanding the curriculum  Develop family literacy groups outside school hours  Homework clubs which parents can attend  Adult literacy classes  Teachers being available to give advice  Invite parents into school for book week to share activities with their children  Set up basic skills groups – parent study groups Ways in which schools can actively encourage parental involvement in children’s English Literacy Development at home as identified in staff questionnaires.

Homework 135

                   

Informal reminders of homework when children are collected Explain adequate timing for completion of homework Give parents results e.g. spellings Informal chats with parents explaining work Identifying games to make and play at home.

Encourage parents to read to children before bed.

Encouraging children to talk in English more at home Encourage children to read more Parents should help children with homework Encouraging children to use school and public libraries Promoting reading schemes Setting up a target for children with the help of their parents Theatre trips and activities which stimulate thoughtful discussions Ensuring literacy homework is taken home and can be understood by child and parent Literacy packs which include games with dual language instructions for parents Telling parents about the resources they can use to improve their children’s English.

Encouraging children to seek parental help Encourage reading diaries with parental comments List ways of sharing books and send home inside reading diaries Send termly targets home to parents so that they can actively participate

Appendix 13

Parent partnership responses

How can we

P.P.W. 1

P.P.W. 2

P.P.W. 3







Continue

136

Continue what

Continue good

develop our current provision to help our parents facilitate their children’s reading and writing at home?

  

family literacy Monthly meetings  Workshops Get parents into  school more often.

you are already doing More workshops Run Inspire workshops throughout the school.

  

practice, including family literacy Inspire workshops Keeping up With the Children Develop a systematic approach to parent partnerships throughout the school.

Appendix 14

Parents responses to family literacy Questions

Group 1

Group 2 137

Group 3

Tell me something about the family literacy project.

It is good because we can join in with our children.

What made you decide to take part?

If the teacher is prepared to help our children in this way then so should we.

We like the writing bit and the pictures to go with the writing. The pictures help.

Which part have you enjoyed the most?

Which part have you enjoyed the least?

Do you think we should run more courses in the future?

Have you personally benefited from involvement?

It is interesting, we have learnt a lot of words that we didn’t know before. We have learnt about stories, poems, spellings. We would like more English classes.

Our children persuaded us.

It’s a concept where you basically try to influence parents to spend more time with what the children are learning in school and basically help the child. Even if you can’t speak English….because you cannot speak the language do not shut them out..

We liked the work on spellings. We liked it when we learnt new words and worked on pronounciation.

Before we didn’t know any English, now we feel happy.

Everything. I love writing.

I’ve enjoyed meeting all the other parents here. Learning how things are going on with all of the other parents and children. Because you think this is only happening to me…

I’ve enjoyed most of it because you do basically learn something new everyday don’t you? And it sorts of encourages my daughter as well, she’s more together.

I didn’t like the drawing.

I feel quite embarrassed sometimes because you are doing all this for me and I don’t understand it. I feel guilty because I bother you too much.

Yes because children who do need the help can get it.

Giving up all the time, especially as we have babies and worry about leaving them for so long.

We now know more about books and how they are made.

Yes. We know more English.

Yes, yes, yes.

138

My daughter forced me.

I was told that it would benefit my son so I decided to give him extra help.

Yes definitely. I think that they are definitely beneficial if you can get over the barrier.

Lots of parents didn’t have the English.

Oh yes, I’ve write my first book.

For me it’s been something totally different, especially as I didn’t go to school in this

country. It’s given me more knowledge about what our children are actually going through, in school. I’ve basically learnt hot the child is thinking and what they do in the classroom and how they are feeling.

139