Chapter One

Introduction

Project Origination and Purpose

I simply think like a teacher. Whether it’s due to my background in Elementary Education and Early Childhood Education, or just because I have always wanted to be one—I am not sure. And although I would not claim to be the most experienced teacher at this point in my life, I recognize that I have already formed that mindset—a mindset that will only expand with more experience. As I considered topics for my master’s project, I knew I wouldn’t feel fulfilled unless I used this as an opportunity to somehow involve this passion I have for teaching. I decided to combine what I had been learning in the field of Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL), with my undergraduate interests in elementary education—a combination that allowed me to see two very separate adult and childhood worlds colliding. But this unique combination is what fueled my interest in creating a curriculum for elementary schools to use with interested English as Second Language (ESL), specifically Latino, parents, using children’s literature as the core component of this course. 

What resulted was a very intense, extensive exercise in learning the ins and outs of creating and implementing a program. Driven by my teacher mindset, this project did not remain unchanged. I monitored, modified, adapted, and adjusted the initial project so much that it evolved into a website of practical ideas and lessons learned while going through this experience. Because teachers and administrators interested in beginning programs in their schools and/or communities have little time, and high expectations, I wanted to share my insights in a succinct, accessible manner—allowing them to use these ideas as a springboard for their own research rather than embarking on such a project by themselves.

The central purpose of this project is to share what I have learned relative to program implementation in a clear and interesting manner. Simply explained, I developed a parent-training course to use with interested ESL parents to encourage reading children’s literature in English in the home. While implementing the course on two separate occasions, I kept detailed reflective journals that captured many ideas and essential lessons. From those journals, I have created a website which highlights thirteen of the most salient and worthwhile lessons learned to share with those interested in embarking on a similar path of curriculum development and implementation in family literacy circles.

Family Literacy and ESL Teaching

This project and research can best be understood by first considering the question, How does family literacy relate to ESL teaching? Though seemingly obvious at first, the answer to this question is rarely directly addressed in the available literature on family literacy, or in university TESOL training curricula. Despite a severe lack of training in most university TESOL programs relative to family literacy, the two fields are in fact interdependent due to the international nature of many of the students involved in both programs. Indiana University’s School of Language Education is one of the few programs offering a graduate course in developing family literacy programs (see Lloyd, 1996). Lloyd teaches this particularly unique graduate course via distance learning to students all around the world. Although this program’s efforts are encouraging, the general lack of university training increases the need for classroom teachers to have a source they can turn to when faced with questions on developing and implementing family literacy programs.

Because many of the students who participate in family literacy programs are immigrants and refugees, low English proficiency is one of their concerns. They seek out, or decide to participate in, family literacy programs, in part, because of their desires to learn and improve their English skills (Paratore, 2001; Handel, 1999; Weinstein-Shr, 1995; Auerbach, 1990). Some experts go as far as to declare that schools should consider family literacy part of their permanent curriculum, with separate employees and program coordinators of their own (Morrow, 1995b). This requirement would demand more specific, practical university preparation than most programs currently offer. Training specific to family literacy concerns, techniques, and research, is therefore vital to ESL teachers who feel drawn to teach in family literacy settings.

Yet, the family literacy field is complex and seemingly difficult to enter into alone. “There is wide disagreement about the goals, purposes, and potential effects on the lives of those the programs are intended to serve” (Paratore, 2001, p. 100). Well-intentioned teachers nationwide are teaching family literacy programs, and the English components within them. Yet these programs may not be in the hands of those most knowledgeable or able in the field. What kind of help is there for classroom teachers who notice a need for family literacy support for students in their classroom, specifically any limited English proficiency (LEP) students—but are dissatisfied with the mediocre programs that exist around them? And if they decide to initiate a program, or apply for a grant to initiate a nationally sponsored family literacy program in their school/classroom, where can they turn for guidance, taking into account their already overcrowded schedule and demands on their time? Family literacy is not yet a central topic in teacher education programs on either the undergraduate or the graduate level (Handel, 1999). Therefore, how are teachers able to most effectively create and run family literacy programs, and where are they receiving their training?

Focusing on the ESL component within the family literacy field makes it an even

more complex endeavor. Yet, this part of family literacy is perhaps one of the most crucial when considering the international make-up of family literacy classes. Realistically, one cannot ignore the desires that most immigrants and refugees (who become the family literacy class members) have to improve their English within a safe environment. One of the best ways to approach this vast field is to establish a mindset within the teachers that accepts the idea that family literacy will be achieved by “family members and children as well as [by] scholarly publications, agencies, and professionals” (Morrow, 1995b, p. 7). Taking into account all the variations in demand, program sizes, and student populations, there needs to be a greater proliferation of resources that family literacy practitioners (or classroom teachers self-converted into family literacy practitioners) can use to develop curriculum to fit the specific needs of families in their communities. Small school programs cannot do everything that perhaps larger programs can; yet, small school programs also have advantages over large, nationally sponsored programs. Handel (1999) learned from her smaller Family Reading program that the small program could not “address the larger social issues that impacted on the women’s lives. For that, a comprehensive, integrated set of services [was] needed… What this program did was validate [students’] home literacy practices by providing a social structure and recognition” (p. 105). Clearly, no single approach will successfully meet all family literacy needs. I am hoping that I have gathered information to help smaller programs in determining where to begin and what to avoid.

The objectives and results of my ESL parent/adult class offered at the elementary school were not as extensive as the National Center for Family Literacy (NCFL) would require in order to officially support it. Due to its specific content and time-allowance, the curriculum implemented contained only a part of what this organization expects out of a family literacy program. The four-component model (see details in Chapter Two) that the NCFL holds up as the way for implementing family literacy requires extensive support services and funding. Yet, what about the individual school teacher in X city, USA, who decides there is a need to help the parents of her students? Realistically, how is that one teacher, or that faculty-lounge-coalition of teachers who are not capable of meeting this extensive criteria, going to bring family literacy and parent support programs to their school in the meantime? 

In addition to not being ideal, in many cases the comprehensive model may not be

realistic. For many low-budget, small-scale community initiatives (in churches, adult education centers, preschools, etc.), a four-component program is financially and logistically impossible. Nevertheless, it is often precisely in these programs that are struggling to survive where innovative and effective family literacy practices originate (Auerbach, 1997, pp. 78–79). 

Practitioners can begin small, and work their way up to meet certain criteria, learning through study as well as their own experience. 

As a researcher in this field, I lean toward the anti-deficit approach to family literacy—one that approaches family literacy asking what a family or individual does have to offer as part of their literacy knowledge, not just wondering what they lack (see more details in Chapter Two). Therefore, I cannot feel confident promoting a prepackaged curriculum that would be useful to all who come across it. Instead, the research I am contributing is aimed at assisting those who want to develop more individualized programs for language learning and family literacy efforts based on participants’ expressed needs. These thirteen useful suggestions, found on the aforementioned website I have posted, will facilitate others’ quest in creating and implementing their own curricula and programs. Researchers and practitioners can use these ideas as a starting point for beginning their own personalized research, and to also help avoid some pitfalls that I discovered through my own experience.