Connections and disconnections between ideals of masculinities and family literacy learning care work are the backbone of this study. At the same time, some of the wider inequalities within which family literacy work is situated, notably those of gender (family literacy work is overwhelmingly women’s work), class (a hierarchy of literacy exists) and educational inequalities (some families and communities have access to more education than others) are also worth consideration. The feminist and egalitarian interest is to look for ways to include men so that they might share the care burdens (and benefits) unequally carried by women.
This chapter begins with an overview of the literature relating to family literacy. The underpinning ideologies, which shape family literacy interventions, are discussed followed by a snapshot of family literacy in Ireland. The focus is on the barriers and benefits for men of participating in this learning care work and learning from family literacy interventions with fathers are outlined in the concluding section.
Family literacy and learning, a contested and classed terrain ‘Family’ is understood in this study as:
A unit of people bound together by special affective relationships; these may be multi- generational, historic and rooted in biological bonds or lifetime commitments of love, care and solidarity. (Hegarty & Feeley, 2010b)
The family, in whatever form, remains the recognised unit for the nurture and development of children and so, consciously or not, is deeply concerned with all aspects of formal and informal learning (Saracho, 2002). Family literacy and learning programmes grew from understandings of the importance of early, pre-school years in a child’s development and a recognition of the diverse language use and literacy practices within families (Taylor, 1983).
It is in the intersection between formal and informal learning that issues arise when discussing the ‘contested terrain’ (Tett & Crowther, 1998, 449) of family literacy. In a landscape populated by questions relating to who defines the very meaning, purpose and value of literacy itself the responses are intricately bound up with issues of power. There is a hierarchy of literacies, where formal, school based and middle-class literacies are valued over and above those that are informal, home based and working-class. Thus leaving the way for dominant forms of literacy to function as culturally normalising tools (Ibid.). Furthermore it leads to the marginalisation of the literacies of working-class and minority communities and the culture from which they emerge (Ibid.). Such relegation of people’s vernacular literacies has a profound affective impact on how they see themselves and their communities. It contributes to people’s internalisation of their own literacy practice as being inferior and deflects attention from an unequal education system which privileges some families and communities over others (Cregan, 2007; Heath, 1983; MacRuairc, 2004; Reay, 2002; Tett & Crowther, 1998).
assumed to be proactive in their children’s literacy development (Baumann & Wassermann, 2010). They are already in possession of the appropriate capitals to do this work or in a position to buy in additional expertise if their children need it (Baker et al 2009; Lareau & Weininger, 2003). Underpinned by a view that working-class and poor parents do not know how to do literacy support, family literacy programmes most usually take place in disadvantaged communities and their very existence highlights inequalities at the heart of the education system.
Deficit views of parents from disadvantaged and poor communities are compounded through essentialising media portrayal of them as uninterested in their children’s education (Baumann & Wasserman, 2010). Discourses about uninvolved and uncaring fathers, lone parent families and out of control and uncared for children all add to the noise of disrespect for individuals and families who are living in areas neglected by the state. Yet research has shown that all parents’ value literacy skills and many believe literacy to be the single most powerful hope for their children (Ortiz, 2004). Regardless of parents’ own literacy levels, they want their children to do well and to support their literacy development in the ways they can, both in the home and in relation to their children’s learning in school (Brooks, Pahl, Pollard, & Rees, 2008; Hegarty & Feeley, 2010; Morgan, Nutbrown, & Hannon, 2009).
Barriers faced by under-resourced parents in an education system constructed around a dominant and for some, alien middle-class culture, are further strengthened by the hierarchical positioning of language registers where the everyday language and literacy practice of the middle-class are most valued (Bourdieu, 1991). This impacts on children and parents from disadvantaged backgrounds who are further stigmatised for their
vernacular language usage. Such rhetoric disregards the learning care work parents are doing to support their children in ways that may differ from the middle-class culture of school and which reflect the rich language and literacy practices of everyday life in diverse families and local communities. (Cregan, 2007; Slaughter & Epps, 1987; Tett, 2000). It is expected that, without guidance, working-class families lay aside their language and literacy usage in order to take on the middle-class literate language of school (Cregan, 2007). Disregarding the diversity of literacy use, schools lose out on important contributions many parents can make as collaborating educational partners (Tett, 2001). Opportunities to promote the status of the complementarity of learning in school and at home are all too often lost and this has negative knock-on consequences for everyone. The gendering of family literacy work Tett (2001) illuminates the gendered Ideologies behind approaches to family literacy and learning interventions.
The assumption that pervades many parent education programmes is that it is not the fault of schools if they fail to educate disadvantaged children rather it is mothers who are blamed, and they in turn blame themselves, for the institutional failure of schools. (Ibid. 193)
The role mothers are ascribed in nurturing the language and literacy development of children is reflected and reinforced in the saying ‘Educate a woman and you educate a nation’6. This phrase encapsulates the gendered imperative that mothers hold primary responsibility for the learning support work involved in child rearing, including their children’s language and literacy development (Nichols, 2000). Smythe and Isserlis, (2004)
...employ ‘parents’ in their advice, the texts themselves appear to be written for mothers, and more specifically ‘ideal’ mothers who carry out appropriate literacy pedagogy in the home as part of their ‘natural’ roles as nurturers and teachers. (Ibid. 4) In this way, the location of the ‘problem’ with literacy inequality is placed in the ‘private’ rather than the ‘public’ sphere. This gendered arrangement focuses attention away from an unequal education system towards the qualities of the caregivers (Luttrell, 1997). Mothers are made culpable rather than the wider social structures. Responsibility for fixing the literacy ‘problem’ lies with individual mothers who are often already overburdened, under-resourced, frequently working in low-paid employment, sometimes holding down a number of part-time jobs to make ends meet and are themselves educationally disadvantaged (Luttrell, 1997; O’Brien, 2005; Reay, 1998, 2000). At the same time, the relentless focus on mothers leaves fathers’ potential contribution untapped and invisible to teachers and school staff (Goldman, 2005).
Embedded within wider disparaging discourses about working-class parents, fathers are depicted as uncaring and absent (Dowd, 2010; Goldman, 2005; Gregory & Milner, 2011; Lupton & Barclay, 1997). This in turn impacts on how they are viewed by teachers, school staff and administrators. Fathers’ involvement in their children’s education is often overlooked (Green, 2003; Morgan, Nutbrown & Hannon, 2009; Schwartz, 2004) resulting in communication about children being directed at mothers and leaving men out of the loop. Yet, the increased numbers of women in the workforce and a rise in men’s unemployment brought about by the economic crisis means that more men are visible in local communities (Allagretto & Lynch, 2010; Barry & Conroy 2012). Signifying one of a number of recent disruptions to gender performances in families, fathers are dropping off their children at the school gates, they are pushing buggies in playgrounds, they are doing
the family shopping with their children. Fathers looking after their children have become an increasingly common, visible feature of much of the community landscape (McLeod, 2008).
Family literacy programmes
Family literacy programmes most often follow one of two approaches. The school centred and culturally reproductive approach, delivers pre-defined programmes to support the development of what is deemed to be desirable in terms of school literacy. These colonising programmes seek to replace home-based literacy usage with the privileged form of literacy favoured by a meritocratic education system (Heath, 1983). In so doing, I suggest, the home-based, real life language and literacy use of families and communities is misrecognised and disrespected, as are the families who are fluent in their own native tongue.
The second approach to literacy programmes, and the one in which this research is located, uses a learner-centred and culturally productive approach. This is congruent with the adult education philosophy of Freire (1972) and the work of NLS outlined in the previous chapter. Parents, that is, both mothers and fathers, are recognised as experts who engage in a wide range of literacy activities in their everyday lives. The diversity of language and literacy is often far greater than is assumed by narrowly defined school centred approaches (Barton, 1994). In her research in Scotland, Tett (2000) found that the everyday literacy practices of parents from a disadvantaged community in Edinburgh included for example, scanning the TV pages to find out what was on television, writing
symbols, making shopping lists, keeping a record of family birthdays and anniversaries and sending greeting cards. The school centred and culturally reproductive approach seeks to build on real life literacy activities that families are already finding really useful, rather than emphasising what they are not doing in relation to, often alien, school-based literacy usage. Importantly, it recognises that home and community-based literacy contains within it the experience and history of families, communities and cultures. Here, families’ literacy practices are viewed as a respected contribution to the development of both the family literacy programme and the school. Tett and St Clair (1997) suggest that this approach sees families as a rich source of authentic influences on the educational process. They inform and create educational values rather than being treated as empty vessels to be filled with remote values that are derived elsewhere.
As we have argued, the prevailing culture is not monolithic and there are opportunities for resistance and contestation which can lead to families writing their own stories rather than simply reading books at bedtime. (Tett & St Clair, 1997, 119) A reciprocal and non-hierarchical process is at the heart of this model. Schools gain from a patchwork of influences located in surrounding cultures and in turn feedback into those cultures (Ibid.). Unsurprisingly, children who feel that their home use of literacy is recognised and valued within school walls are more likely to engage confidently with school learning. Irish Studies, with primary school children, have shown they are consciously aware of denigrating attitudes and responses to their vernacular language use making school an alien place to be for children and parents (MacRuairc, 2004).
Literacy relationships, home and school
Whichever approach is taken to family literacy support much depends on the quality of the relationship between home and school (Hegarty & Feeley, 2010b; Reay, 1998; Tett, 2001; Tett & Crowther, 1998). Wider structural inequalities come into focus at this relational level. As the more powerful and privileged actors, it is generally teachers and schools who define the boundaries of relationship with parents. Teachers most often come from middle-class backgrounds with the attendant ‘othering’ of those from working- class and resource poor communities (Cregan, 2007). Hannafin and Lynch (2002) suggest that working-class parents are less included, both formally and informally, in school structures than are middle-class parents whose values, language and behaviours fit more closely with the institutionalised ethos of the school and those who work there.
The ‘fit’ of parents with educational institutions is further clarified by Tett (2001) who suggests that there is an expectation amongst ‘professionals’ that ‘good’ parents; have a positive attitude towards the school; that they encourage the same in their children; that they will work with their children to prepare them for school and that they will behave in a certain way in school spaces so that they do not interrupt the smooth business of educating the child. These expectations indicate the gap in understanding, and therefore the relationship, that exists between mostly middle-class teachers and working-class parents (Luttrell, 2012).
Such perspectives feed into a view that parents are problems and they need to adopt to the school’s way of seeing things rather than assume they are people with valuable
evidence that parental involvement in a child’s learning has more of an impact on their educational outcomes than any other demographic measure including social class or level of parental income (Desforges & Abouchaar, 2003; Feinstein, Galindo-Rueda & Vignoles 2004; NESF, 2009). Schools expect changes in the attitudes and behaviours of parents and children whilst themselves avoiding the critical reflection needed to bring about change. Family literacy in Ireland
The UN Special Rapporteur on Extreme Poverty and Human Rights commented that equipping a child with adequate literacy and numeracy skills is central to their progression from a life of poverty, disadvantage and marginalisation and increases their ability to participate in society and in democracy (Sepúlveda-Carmona, 2013). Whilst this view of literacy and numeracy as ‘things’ with which children should be ‘adequately’ equipped is rooted in the functional view of literacy outlined in the previous chapter, it also acknowledges the importance of the inclusive and enriching power of literacies for individuals and communities. The principle of family literacy as learning that begins with the lived reality of parents underlies the National Adult Literacy Agency’s approach to family literacy (NALA, 2004).
Nested in a view of literacy as socially situated, the relevance of literacy in children’s lives and in their flourishing is clearly outlined by youngballymun’s7 submission to the Department of Education and Skills (DES) in response to the Better literacy and numeracy for Children and Young People: A Draft National Plan to Improve Literacy and Numeracy in Schools (2011). Here literacies are conceived as existential and relational matters. 7 youngballymun is a ten-year strategy to improve mental well-being and learning outcomes for children and young people in Ballymun, Dublin.
Language and literacy are the fundamental foundation to our children’s expression of themselves, their ability to communicate and central to building relationships with others. As children grow up, literacy becomes the key to unlocking their potential as learners, their doorway to active and meaningful contribution to their community and country. Literacy is a fundamental child rights issue and without good literacy levels, every dimension of life possibility is curtailed. (youngballymun, 2011)
Despite the evidence available and indeed common sense intuition that literacies are indeed bound up with existence, relationships and opportunity, far too many children and young people in Ireland are left with their literacy needs unmet (youngballymun, 2011). The Programme for International Assessment 2012 (PISA) (OECD, 2012) results showed that students attending schools in the Delivering Equality of Opportunity in Schools Programme (DEIS) performed significantly less well than their contemporaries in other schools. DEIS was introduced in 2005 and aimed to address the educational needs of children from marginalised communities. Such schools are predominantly located in areas that experience high levels of social harm and highlight the deep inequalities that exist in the Irish education system. Whilst the eight hundred and forty nine DEIS schools have shown steady progress in their literacy targets it is notable that the average scores in DEIS schools remain below average when compared to the general population at both primary and post-primary levels (Ward, 2015). Furthermore only twelve per cent of children from DEIS schools progress to third level education (Humphreys, 2014).
In 2011 the Department of Education and Skills published Literacy and Numeracy for Learning and Life: the National Skills Strategy (NSS) to Improve Literacy and Numeracy among Children and Young People 2011-2020 (DES, 2011). The strategy set out clear targets for children’s literacy performance at primary and post-primary levels with a view
Irish Constitution where ‘the State acknowledges that the primary and natural educator of the child is the family’ (Constitution of Ireland, 1945, Article 42), NSS recognised the critically important role of parents and families in supporting children’s literacy and language development. Despite this constitutional acknowledgement, disproportionate levels of state funding continue to be directed at supporting learning in schools, rather than in the home (NALA, 2009, 5). Furthermore, a plan to improve literacy, language and numeracy, which does not address the causal socio-economic inequalities, provides only a temporary sticking plaster rather than sustainable change towards a more just and equal society where literacy capitals are distributed equally amongst citizens. Hegemonic patriarchal masculinity and fathers’ family literacy learning care work As discussed in the previous chapter, literacy and literate activities have traditionally been construed by ideals of hegemonic patriarchal masculinity as passive and belonging in the domain of the feminine (Martino & Berrill, 2003; Watson et al, 2010). Consequently they are of lesser value, to be shunned by ‘real boys’ and ‘real men’ (Francis & Skelton, 2001; Renold, 2001). The legacy of such a gendered learning identity deeply impacts and limits the relationship some boys, young and adult men have with literacy and this in turn effects fathers’ attitudes to, and involvement in, supporting family literacy learning care work (Karther, 2002; Nichols 2002).
The patriarchal ideals about ‘proper’ masculinity discussed in Chapter 2 fuelled men’s exclusion from care work, strengthening rigidly defined binary parental models which became embedded into family literacy practice. Mothers were positioned as the ‘natural’
experts in this area (Karther, 2002), and as the primary parent responsible for the success of children’s education (Lareau, 1989; McLeod, 2008; Reay, 1998).
Gender, power and family literacy learning care work
Uncritically reflecting the reality of who does learning caregiving, much of the research on parenting and education has focused on the role of mothers (Nichols, 2000; Ortiz, 2004; Reay, 1998, Schwartz, 2004). This leaves the role of fathers’ involvement in children’s literacy development largely unseen and unproblematised (Clark, 2009; Ortiz, 2004). My study with men from Dublin’s inner city redresses this imbalance and contributes to greater insights into fathers’ relationship with this family literacy learning care work. Issues of gender power and powerlessness are core to this debate. We have seen that men and fathers are already imbued with more authority in the public and private space than women. Fathers and their actions are allocated patriarchal status and privilege (Connell, 1995; Reay, 1998). Corroborating this, evidence suggests that fathers have more effect on their sons’ reading achievement than does mothers work in this regard (Clark, 2009; Laosa, 1982; Trent & Slade, 2001). An inflation of men’s parental work can overshadow the parenting work that mothers do as a matter of course and these power dynamics are not invisible to children (hooks, 2004). Furthermore, whilst mothers’ educational work can be taken for granted, fathers’ involvement is not to be expected and frequently valourised. As such, it is viewed as a gift, something to be grateful for (Coleman, 1989; Hochschild, 1989; Reay, 1998).
her study with mothers, this parental engagement was construed as women’s work where mothers were viewed as naturally talented. Fathers did not concern themselves in any