View Article - COMET Auckland

An evaluation of the ManukauFamily Literacy Programme (MFLP)“I’m a different person now.”

Most of this report is taken from two evaluation reportswritten by John Benseman (Benseman, 2002, 2003), whichare available on the COMET web site http://www.comet.org.nzThe background and explanation of the project, organisationalstructures and development of the model have been writtenby Robin Houlker, Moana Whaanga and Bernardine Vester of COMET.

Published by:Tertiary Education Learning Outcomes PolicyThe Ministry of EducationCrown Copyright.All rights reserved. Enquiries should be made to the publisher.July 2004

ISBN: 0478131585ISBN Web: 0478131593

Design and Production: FitzBeck Creative

John Benseman PhDThe University of Auckland

“I’m a different person now. ”July 2004

An evaluation of the Manukau Family Literacy Programme (MFLP)

2

“Ko koe ki tena, ko ahau ki teneiKakau o te keteHei whakarereke nga whanaume nga whanau katoa”

“You at that, and I at this handle of the kete together families and their schools canbring about change in their communities”

As the weaver of kete, the Kairaranga mustfollow a sequence of steps to achieve asuccessful outcome. Gathering freshharakeke (flax), then choosing andpreparing the raranga (strips) to be usedfor weaving. During weaving thekairaranga skilfully uses prior knowledgeand experience to develop new techniquesthat will ensure the weave is even and ofequal strength. The different textures ineach raranga also help to create newpatterns, making each kete unique. Oncompletion of each kete, the Kairarangawill give them to the new owners who willplace their prior knowledge andexperiences into their kete and prepare toreceive the new knowledge.

COMET and MFLP are the Kairarangaweaving the sector partnerships that arenecessary to create each of the kete intowhich each whanau have placed their priorknowledge and experiences and into whichthey will place their new literacy skills and knowledge.

The sector partnerships are required asboth the adult and the child’s learningneeds must be addressed. Therefore thekete must be strong enough to carrywhanau aspirations.

Like the kete, to achieve a successfuloutcome for the whanau, each of the sectorstrands must be of equal weight, andequally valued. They need to be shapedand structured to meet the vision of thecommunity that they will serve. While thesectors can envision the rich pattern of thecommunity, COMET and MFLP enable themto become part of that pattern byfacilitating the establishment of newpartner relationships.

The strength of the kete lies in the qualityof the materials that are being used andwhich also give texture and balance. Theseelements are critically important for thewhanau and the partners as they develop aclear purpose for working together andplan the integrated programme.

The MFLP partners have atransformational role as weavers workingin partnership with whanau and thecommunity, enabling each to identifystrongly with one another.

Whakatauki

“I’m a different person now

.” An evaluation ofthe M

anukau Family Literacy Program

me

3

Having the range of language, literacy andnumeracy skills to fully participate in workand everyday life is an important goal ofthe Tertiary Education Strategy. A strongfocus of the Government’s goals is toreduce systematic underachievement ineducation and equip New Zealanders with21st century skills.

The Ministry of Education contributes tothese goals through three vital outcomes:effective teaching, family and communityengagement and quality providers.Combined, these outcomes will help toraise achievement and reduce disparity –both of which are essential for the future ofNew Zealand and New Zealanders.

This publication is an evaluation of the first year of operation of an urban familyliteracy model in Manukau City thatincludes four component parts that aim to foster intergenerational growth and development.

An adult education component designed toextend language, literacy and numeracyskills plus key competencies; children’seducation to promote the growth anddevelopment of young children and toengage parents in their child’s education inorder to foster meaningful involvement thatwill be maintained throughout the child’seducational career; and parent educationplus time for parents and children tointeract and learn together.

In 2002, The City of Manukau EducationTrust (COMET) began the development of afamily literacy model of sufficient intensityof hours and of sufficient duration to makesustainable changes in a family at no costto the learners.

In 2002 the two pilot sites startedoperation at Baird’s Mainfreight PrimarySchool and Baird’s Kindergarten, Otaraand at Rowandale School and ManurewaWest Independent Kindergarten,Manurewa. For the first time earlychildhood centres, schools and tertiary

providers (Manukau Institute of Technology

at Otara and Auckland University of

Technology at Manurewa) were delivering

programmes together simultaneously for

the same families, with full time provision

for the adults.

All adult participants reported changes in

parenting skills and relationships with their

children. The kindergartens reported

improved attendance and better

communication between parents and staff.

The schools reported a range of changes

some of which were a “feeling of becoming

a learning community” and parents being

seen as “heroes” for their learning

endeavours.

Of the thirty-seven adults who participated

at the two sites, twenty-seven of whom

had no previous school qualifications,

thirty-three graduated from the

programme. Of these, twenty-three moved

onto further tertiary study including three

enrolling in degree courses and four in

teaching diplomas.

The pilot sites are continuing in 2004 with

current full rolls, plus two new pilot sites

are under development.

For New Zealand to develop and prosper

socially and economically it is essential that

all adults are able to meet the language,

literacy and numeracy demands that are

inherent in all aspects of life for themselves

and their families and that we continue to

provide opportunities in a range of settings

– academic, vocational, formal or informal,

in workplaces and in the community.

For all of those who have participated in

these first pilots, thank you for your

support, willingness and hard work in

helping to meet these challenges.

Howard Fancy

Secretary for Education

Preface

4

The MFLP grew out of an initiativedeveloped in partnership between theMinistry of Education, the Ministry ofSocial Development and the LiteracyTaskforce of the City of Manukau EducationTrust (COMET).

The Adult Literacy Strategy 2001 promptedan extensive programme of initiativesincluding the development of innovativeapproaches to the delivery of literacythrough the Adult Literacy Innovations Pool.

The Tertiary Education Strategy2002–2007 detailed a priority goal ofraising foundation learning skills so that allpeople can participate in our knowledgesociety.

It was in the context of these twostrategies that work progressed in thedevelopment of an innovative familyliteracy model. Initial planning for theprogrammes was undertaken in 2002,culminating in two pilot sites starting in2003 at Bairds Mainfreight Primary Schoolin Otara and Rowandale Schools inManurewa. The Ministry of Education andthe Tertiary Education Commission havecontinued funding for COMET’s co-ordination and the programmes with foursites planned for 2004.

Choice of pilot sitesPilot sites were selected on the basis ofinterest from the community and initiativesfrom the partners themselves to worktogether. At both sites, the energy andcommitment of the partners has been

important in creating a successfulprogramme. The criteria for selectionincluded being Manukau-based, havinghealthy management and governancestructures, and clear commitment from partners.

Bairds Otara Bairds Mainfreight Primary School showedan early interest in taking part in a pilotfor family literacy because they identifiedthe importance of supporting parents’literacy in order to achieve greaterachievement with children’s literacy.Following a community seminar forprospective participant organisations runby COMET in September 2002, the schoolinitiated a partnership with ManukauInstitute of Technology’s School ofFoundation Studies and the AucklandKindergarten Association.

The Bairds Otara programme was the firstfamily literacy programme to getunderway. A classroom was made availableat the school and furnished by the tertiarypartner. The curriculum for the children isdelivered through their normal earlychildhood Te Whaariki, or schoolprogramme. The curriculum for adults isthe Foundation Studies programme at MIT.The 2003 pilots ran for half a year each,but the 2004 programme will run fromApril to December.

The curriculum for the adults’ Baird Otaraprogramme included Future Focus (careerplanning), Communication, Study Skills,

Introduction




me

5

Foundation Education Computing,Parenting in Aotearoa and IntroductoryMathematics.

The adult educator based at the site hastaught most of the programme, althoughother Manukau Institute of Technology staffhave taught some components such asmathematics and computing (often on-siteat the nearby polytechnic campus).

The Bairds Otara site has employed ateacher aide (as has Rowandale) from11.15 am to 2.15 pm daily to helpprimarily with supporting the kindergartenchildren, some administrative tasksinvolved in running the programme andthe transitional period between school andkindergarten. British research has shownthat employing such a staff member is one of three key features of achievingimpact in adult literacy programmes (Brooks et al., 2001).

RowandaleFollowing the September 2002 communityseminar, Rowandale School and theManurewa West Independent Kindergarten(a community kindergarten) togetherdeveloped a proposal to take part inpiloting family literacy in their community.They began working with a communitypartner during the establishment phase:the Church of Jesus Christ of the LatterDay Saints Manurewa Stake. This churchcommunity is located very close to theschool, and has a very large congregationfrom the area. They invited a number oftertiary institutions in Auckland to partnerwith them at the site. The AucklandUniversity of Technology agreed toparticipate in the programme andappointed a lecturer to work off campus atthe Rowandale School, where a classroomhad been made available for theprogramme. Desks, computers and kitchenfacilities were installed for the adultlearners by AUT.

Fourteen adult students began on 12 May,2003 with eight of their children enrolledat the kindergarten and six at the school.The 2004 programme began in March with13 families, and will run until December.This site’s adult programme has been builtaround AUT’s Certificate in Introduction toEarly Childhood Education. TheCertificate‘s curriculum covers “childdevelopment, observations and play withyoung children, tikanga Maori,communication studies, personal andcareer development and practicalexperience in a range of early childhoodcentres” (AUT brochure). The Certificate isintended to staircase on to a Certificate inEarly Childhood Education and then otherAUT bachelor degrees such as EarlyChildhood Teaching or Montessori EarlyChildhood Teaching, as well as other socialservice qualifications. Like Bairds Otara,the Rowandale programme is offered at nocost to the participants.

Recruitment of participantsStarting a pilot programme from scratch isnot altogether easy, especially when itcomes to recruitment of learners in theearly stages. The MFLP has used a range ofrecruitment strategies includingpreparation of brochures, radio interviewson community radio stations, and displaysat parent-teacher meetings at the schools.Of these strategies, the most successful wasactive recruitment (‘shoulder tapping’) byteachers. It is also clear that as theprogramme gains momentum, current andpast students of the programme becomeimportant recruitment agents. Forexample, one person in the second intakeat Bairds Otara said, “I could see theperson she (student in first intake) wasbecoming, she showed me what I could do.I thought you had to be brainy.”

Manukau Family Literacy Programmes (MFLP)The MFLP development has been broadly based on the four components of the MFLPKenan model (see Appendix 2) and developed by The City of Manukau Education Trust as follows:

6

Adult Education • Provided by a tertiary institution.

• The programme receives governmentfunding.

• The programme is an existing accreditedprogramme at Level 3 or 4.

• The programme is delivered at the school or early childhood site.

• The lecturer is employed by the tertiaryprovider.

Parent Education • Provided by a tertiary lecturer/s alongsidethe early childhood and school teachers, aspart of, or in addition to, the accreditedprogramme.

• This component feeds into the PACTTactivities, and feedback from PACTTsessions is incorporated into programme design.

Child Education • Provided by the school (using the NationalCurriculum) or by the early childhood centre(using Te Whaariki).

• The child’s learning is based on existingcurriculum.

• Normal assessment frameworks in theschool or centre are used for assessing thechild’s needs or progress.

Parent and Child Time • Supported by the tertiary lecturer, Together (PACTT) developed and managed by the operational

team working with the management team.

• Parents spend time most days in theclassroom or the centre with theirnominated child.

In addition there are three cornerstonesthat underpin the MFLP:

• Intensity: The programme runs for

approximately 20 hours per week

(variations to accommodate frameworks

of the partners have been negotiated).

• Duration: Experiments on duration for

effectiveness have led to pilots in 2004

being for a full academic year.

• Integration: No one component is more

important than another. Parent and Child

Time Together is as important as the

Adult Education session in the computer

suite. Integration cannot be achieved

without the support of a Co-ordinator

and an independent Lead Agency.

Management teamEach site has a management team thatmeets monthly or fortnightly, comprisingthe school principal, the early childhoodcentre leader, and the tertiary Head ofDepartment or liaison person. The work ofthis team is supported by the COMET Co-ordinator. Issues discussed includepersonnel management, programmedevelopment and planning, budgeting, etc.Many issues surrounding cross-sectoralwork are addressed at this level.

Operational teamThe operational team consists of theteachers and adult educators who plan anddeliver the programme to the families. Theadult educator, the school liaison teacher,and the kindergarten/early childhoodteacher meet weekly. The team issupported by the COMET co-ordinator,which helps to generate an overview ofhow policy settings impact on operationalframeworks. This team develops anintimate knowledge of the families involvedin the programme, since the informationflows around the parents and theirchildren are rich at this level. All decisionsat meetings are minuted, and minutesrecord issues and their resolutions.




me

7

PACTT:(Parent and Child Together Time)Quality one-on-one time between a parent andchild at the centre or school is a significantfeature of the Manukau Family LiteracyProgrammes (MFLP). Adults often comment onthis component as being the most enjoyabletime of day for them. PACTT is designed tobuild parent participation and skill by having aspecially designated time for positiveinteraction in literacy-focused activities.Piloting MFLP in New Zealand requiredadaptation of the US model because thechildren of the parents were enrolled in bothearly childhood centres and schools. Therewere also issues around the parents wantingto have PACTT with other children (from theirfamily) who may not have been the enrolledchild, and the fact that many families couldinclude up to five children. The collective ofthe whanau is a particularly strong culturalstrand in New Zealand. For these reasons,three types of PACTT were developed by thepartners at the Bairds Otara site:

• Tahi PACTT – one-on-one time for the

enrolled parent to spend approximately ten

minutes each day in the centre or classroom

of their enrolled child. The parent fits into

whatever activity or experience is

happening for the child with an emphasis on

being close to the child and following the

child’s interests and conversations.

• Class PACTT – Every month the whole

group of enrolled adults spend an hour in a

literacy-focused activity with their enrolled

child. Class PACTT has usually involved

shared lunch in the MFLP classroom and

visits to the school or local library.

• Whanau PACTT – Each term the adult

students plan an event for their whanau

(extended family). PACTT may be on site or

away from the school and has included

barbeques at local parks, visits to the

Children’s Literature Storylines Festival,

class concerts and visiting storytellers.

This model of thinking about PACTT has been

very successfully adopted by the Rowandale

site, demonstrating that it is appropriate for

other communities.

8

1 Both tertiary providers and some of the other participating agencies have developed Memoranda of Understanding with COMET.

Development phaseReference GroupIn addition to the management andoperational level meetings, during 2003COMET convened and hosted monthlymeetings of the MFLP Reference Group, amixed team of internal and external people(all Manukau-based) who discussed,supported and provided valuable feedbackon the wider implications of thedevelopment process. The Reference Group process has been adjusted for 2004to include a wider constituency and aseminar approach.

Professional developmentCOMET has led programme-specificprofessional development sessions for all ofthose working with / alongside theprogramme. The purpose of these sessions is:

• To build a shared understanding of the

model, its philosophies and goals

• To share perspectives on teaching and

learning from different sectoral

viewpoints

• To support the diversity of purposes

by clearly understanding the aims of

each partner

• To build leadership and management

capability around the pilot process

• To plan together.

Additional professional developmentexpertise was called in to support the use of new assessment techniques in theearly childhood sector. These techniqueswere shared with other professionals and parents.

EvaluationCOMET’s co-ordination contract in 2003included a formative and processevaluation of the programme by Dr JohnBenseman of The University of Auckland.

FundingThe programmes in 2003 were fundedthrough:

• the Adult Literacy Innovations Funding

Pool (a contestable pool for adult literacy

provision) of the Ministry of Education

for site support

• the Ministry of Education for

co-ordination services and model

research and development

• the Ministry of Social Development

through Work and Income support for

student fees

• tertiary providers also received EFTS.

The programmes in 2004 are being fundedthrough:

• the Adult Literacy Learning Pool of the

Tertiary Education Commission (for

each site)

• the Ministry of Education (for research

and development through co-ordination

services)

• evaluation services will be funded by a

joint approach between the TEC, the

Ministry of Education, and the Ministry of

Social Development.

Manukau Family Literacy SitePartnershipsEach MFLP site currently involves threepartner institutions – an early childhoodcentre, a primary school and a tertiaryprovider.1 The kindergartens and theprimary schools work with the childparticipants (one per parent) enrolled inthe programme and link with the adultcomponents for key parts of theprogramme such as Parent and ChildTogether Time (PACTT). The tertiaryproviders employ the adult educator who isresponsible for teaching the adultparticipants, as well as some involvement

in other components of the programme.Teachers at the early childhood centre andthe school are involved in the programmethrough their normal teachingresponsibilities. Both the MFLP trialprogrammes are located on primary schoolpremises – Bairds Mainfreight Primary andRowandale Primary.

Overall Management StructureThe overall management structure of theMFLP is summarised in the followingdiagram provided by COMET.




me

9

Funding Agencies

Lead Agency (COMET)$

SITE(families)

MFLP Reference Group

Partner 1

Partner 2

Partner 3

Manukau Community

Funding Partners Delivery Partners

Figure 2 – Manukau Family Programme Management Structure

Project Evaluator

Professional Support

Regional Co-ordinator

$

$

Facilitation Partners

Data summary Over the course of 2003, a total of 37adults and 37 children participated at theBairds Otara (two intakes) and Rowandale(one intake) sites.

This summary shows that the recruitmentof participants for the MFLP has been verysuccessful in attracting predominantlylearners who have been historically under-represented in New Zealand tertiaryeducation and are the focus of currenttertiary education policy (Ministry ofEducation, 2002).

Case studies of learnersCase studies of individual students are auseful way of illustrating the types oflearners involved in a programme and anindication of what happens to them as aresult of their involvement. Because theMFLP has a relatively small number ofproject participants, the following casestudies have been ‘semi-fictionalised’ inorder to preserve individual anonymity.While each of the case studies stillaccurately reflects the characteristics and

actions of MFLP participants, none of the

case studies is a single individual from the

programme. Some of the detail is based on

actual occurrences; some is similar to what

has occurred.

Three case studies are presented to

illustrate three broad types of adult

participants in the two MFLP sites. Each of

the case studies represents an ‘outlier’ of

people who represent either extreme

results (both positive and negative) or

particular issues (in this case, withdrawal

from the programme). This approach is

based on success case study evaluation

methodology developed by Robert

Brinkerhoff (2003), who argues that such

case studies are a powerful and valid

mechanism for drawing out the key

features of a programme that either make

it successful, or conversely, unsuccessful.

The lessons learnt from these case studies

can be used as a basis for maximising the

positive aspects of the programme and

minimising the less successful aspects.

10

Bairds Bairds Rowandale MFLP totalOtara OtaraIntake 1 Intake 2

Initial intake 11/11 12/12 14/14 37/37Adults/children

No. withdrew 1 3 3 7

% attendance of adults* 92% 82% 90% 88%

Men 1 2 1 4

Maori 7 5 1 13

Pasifika 4 7 11 22

No qualification 9 6 12 27

*Does not include attendance data from those who withdrew

MFLP Participants




me

11

Mele is a 29 year old single mother2 offour children. Born in the Pacific, sheattended school until she was 18, but didnot gain any qualifications. Afterworking part-time in some manual jobsfor several years, she migrated to NewZealand, where she met her partner andhave raised their four children. Sinceher arrival in New Zealand she hasworked from time to time on a part-timebasis, but has spent most of her timeraising her children. Since her partnerleft her to go to Australia, she has beenon a benefit, although her mother isnearby and offers support and childcarewhen needed.

Mele was approached by one of herteachers at primary school aboutenrolling in the MFLP. Initially she wasvery reluctant to enrol, but wasconvinced because she was keen to beable to help her children with theirhomework, especially her youngest childwho had just started school. The MFLPwas the first educational programmeMele had done since leaving school, soshe was very nervous at the beginning ofthe programme. Her English fluency wasnot great and she had difficulties withwriting and spelling. She had never useda computer prior to joining theprogramme.

At the beginning of the programme,Mele had difficulties with the payment ofher benefit, which was only resolvedafter many phone calls and a caseworker visiting the programme. Then,during the programme, one of Mele’schildren developed a serious healthproblem that necessitated her notattending for several weeks while she

managed her health care. Although hermother was able to help with many ofthe on-going absences of her child, Melecontinued to miss occasional sessionsand needed additional help in order tocomplete the course requirements.

At the completion of the programme,Mele felt a lot more confident aboutspeaking English, especially withstrangers. Although she was extremelynervous about making a presentation tothe class, she was able to achieve thismilestone and sees this as one of hergreatest achievements. One of her olderchildren had experienced bullying andshe was thrilled that she was able toapproach this child’s teacher to raise theissue – something she felt she wouldnever have been able to do before. Meleis now able to perform basic functionson a computer, but does not feel that herwriting or spelling have changed much.Mele’s nominated child in theprogramme, Sam, has been very excitedto have his mother at school in theprogramme. He has looked forward toher PACTT visits, much to the envy ofhis classmates, and has taken on a newinterest in reading since Mele startedPACTT. He now has several favouritebooks and his teachers have commentedon his improved attention span in class.

Mele completed the course successfully,but has no plans to do any more tertiarystudy. She thinks she will “probably lookfor some sort of job,” but is unsureabout anything beyond this. She saysthat her most important priority is“helping her kids with their homework”.She is also thinking about coaching aschool sports team next year.

2 Because the great majority of participants are female, all the case studies are female.

Miriama was born in a small countrytown in Northland. She is in her early40s and has four children with herhusband. As the oldest daughter,Miriama left school in the Third Form tolook after her sick mother. When hermother died, she felt it was too late toreturn to school, so drifted through aseries of seasonal jobs before moving toAuckland, where she met her husband.As a mother of four children she hasbeen active in many community andschool activities, as well as occasionalpart-time jobs working in supermarketsand fruit-picking. With her youngestchild, Ben, now at primary school,Miriama has felt that “my time has comenow” to make up for what she missed asa child. She was not clear about whatshe wanted to do, or even how to goabout finding out what her options are,although her family’s very limitedresources were a very real constraint toher options. A leaflet that Ben broughthome from the school about MFLPseemed to be an interesting option,especially as it coincided with her desireto “do something different” and the zeroenrolment fees were an added incentivein making the decision to enrol.

Like most of her classmates, Miriamafound the beginning of the course anuphill struggle as she came to grips withorganising new routines at home to fither studies into the family routines(including some re-allocation of familyjobs to free her time up) and doingthings she hadn’t done “since I was atschool – and that was some time ago!”Within a short time however, Miriamaquickly established herself as a hard-working, able adult student who wasintent on making up for lost ground. Shere-discovered her love of books andenjoyed making time to read to Ben athome – something she wishes she haddone more of for her other childrenwhen they were young.

Miriama completed the MFLPprogramme in her stride and hasenrolled in a business qualification atthe local polytechnic – “I want to carry asuitcase, not a shovel.” From beingbehind his peers, Ben has made steadyprogress and is now “up to scratch”according to his teacher. Asked what thebest thing he does with his mother, Benreplies, “going to the library with her onFriday night”.

12

Mary was born in New Zealand, is in hermid-30s and has been living on and offwith a partner for the past five years.They have two children together and shealso has a child from a previousrelationship. There has been a history ofviolence in her present relationship,which has been fuelled by her partner’sserious substance addictions. Mary wasexpelled from school when she was 14and recalls her schooling as a time of“extreme frustration” apart from sportand “hanging out with my mates”. Sinceleaving school she has worked in aseries of jobs, but most of them were“dead-ends” and low paid.

She joined the MFLP because she saw itas a “second chance to get aneducation” and “get a better job a bitfurther down the track”. She also saw itas her best chance of escaping herrelationship in the long term. Hernominated child, Tanya, has not been toany early childhood programme and shehas enrolled her as part of enrolling inMFLP. Tanya is a very quiet, ‘clingy’child who stays very close to her motherwhenever possible.

Tanya’s enrolment at the kindergartenhas not been easy, but she has reallyenjoyed her mother visiting duringPACTT. She has been growing steadily inconfidence, especially in speaking. Maryhas been very energized by her progress

in the programme. She has nowformulated a long-term plan to become“either a teacher or a social worker”and has been particularly excited byseveral tertiary study options. Althoughshe says that her “brain was pretty rustyto begin with,” she is now making steadyprogress in her academic skills. She hasparticularly enjoyed her re-discovery ofmaths – a subject she loathed at school,but now finds challenging and satisfying,“because how they teach it here”. Maryhas made strong friends among herfellow students, with whom she readilyshares her dreams and concerns. Sheespecially likes the discussions abouttheir children and what they do to helpthem with their learning. She also saysthat she now enjoys “sitting round thetable doing our homework together”with her other children.

Half-way through the course, Marydisappeared from the course withoutany explanation. The adult educatorfound out through a friend that financialissues had prompted a series of beatingsby Mary’s partner and she had gone intohiding in another town. Mary’s childrenwere being looked after by an aunty andTanya had been withdrawn from thekindergarten. Mary had asked her friendto pass on to the MFLP staff that she stillhoped to go on to polytech, but that “itmay take a while to sort things out”.




me

13

The following section summarises the findings of the programme evaluation (Benseman,2002, 2003) on the participants. Full details of the findings can be found on the COMETweb site (http://www.comet.org.nz).

14

Programme impacton participantsAlthough the main purpose of theevaluation was to monitor the planning anddevelopment of the MFLP programme,some impact data was also collected aspart of this process. The data reportedbelow came from interviews with all of theadult participants (at the beginning of theprogramme, at its completion and alsoseveral months later in the case of the firstBairds Otara intake), project staff, stafffrom participating institutions and otherkey informants linked to the programme.

Initial motivations and expectationsAsked what had motivated them to enrol in the programme, the adult participantsfrom the three intakes identified a range of factors:

Personal motivations

• A ‘second-chance’ – “I hate sitting

at home and wanted to get out of

the house”

• Academic – “To improve my English”

• Self development – “I want to try things

out for myself” and “I want to know

where I am”

• Vocational – “to get a better job”

• Life transition – “It’s the right time in my

life to get back into my schooling”

• Personal ambition – “It’s for me – and for

my kids”

• Dissatisfaction with present situation –

“It’s boring at home”.

Family/children motivations

• Keeping in touch with what’s going on

in schools

• To be able to help their kids (in some

cases due to specific behaviour problems

or subjects such as maths and reading)

• Wanting greater involvement with

their child

• “I want to model education things for

my kids”.

Characteristics of the course

• “It’s free”

• in the local school.

Learner assessments of the course The adult students’ evaluations of theprogrammes at both sites wereoverwhelmingly positive and more thanmatched their initial expectations.

I’ve enjoyed it very well. What I’velearnt, it’s eye-opening for people likeme who didn’t have a good education. Irecommend it for anyone, no matterwhat age you are.

I never thought I’d come back to school,but now I’ve got the confidence to gofurther, it’s brought me closer to mychildren and I’m a better person allround. I’m doing something for me –and my children, a role model.

I had high expectations, but it’s beeneven better. I have a future now. I’mtotally different and I’m very proud.

I love the course, it’s just awesome.Before this, I never knew what I wantedto do.

A common comment was how different theprogramme had been from their schoolingexperiences.

I thought it would be more like school, Icertainly didn’t think I’d enjoy maths,but I have.

What I’m getting here, I didn’t get at school.

I love it. I never liked school. You don’thave the teacher down your throat allthe time. It’s changed me.

Most commented how difficult they foundthe course at the beginning, but how thesedifficulties steadily decreased because ofthe skills of the adult educator in helpingthem build a belief in their abilities,offering support in their various crises andteaching the various academic skills.

It was good, but hard work.

(Following a major domestic issue) Iwas going to quit because of it, but Iwent home and thought about thecourse, (adult educator) and the class,and I told my Mum, ‘I’ll go back’ and I have.

Maths is a bit hard, but it’s cool!

The only concerns expressed about theprogrammes were that they were “not longenough” (both in terms of overall durationand per week), the non-involvement ofchildren not enrolled in the MFLP andinadequate time for some assessments.

Overall impact on learnersThe participants also talked about ways inwhich they felt the course had changedthem as individuals. For some thesechanges had come about through academicachievement, both in skills and positiveattitudes towards learning.

I read the dictionary now, I know howto put them (words) in sentences and it’s all helped my reo. I certainlyspeak better.

Before I was at home, watching TV. NowI can see that education is the numberone thing, especially for my kids. I havea totally different insight into life itself– beside the education, it opened upthings I never knew existed. I’m notgoing to do what I was, that’s for sure.I’m doing things different with my kids,I’m getting a lot of praise from myfamily – they think it’s great, they cansee it’s changing me.

Before I couldn’t write properly or addand do all that, but now I see myselfmoving on.

I’ve learnt how to do a CV, write anessay even. Getting somewhere, gettingthe certificates. Just achieving – betterthan sitting at home.

In some cases the programmes havechallenged long-held beliefs andperspectives on issues.

It’s very exciting. I’ve learnt a lot aboutmyself, the things I’m capable of, myqualities. There are things I’ve neverthought about before.

It’s making me think about things I’vetaken for granted.

Gains in general self-confidence werecommonly reported.

It’s given me a lot of self-confidence andlearnt how to deal with things. I sit and do my homework now, so I don’t get much time for my partner – he says ‘it gets a bit lonely’. So now we maketimes to go out for a meal or things and then Saturday and Sunday isfamily time!




me

15

16

Confidence in myself, self-esteem andjust how to understand my childrenmore.

Most reported now seeing education, bothfor themselves and their children, in adifferent light.

I understand how valuable education isfor myself and others.

One thing I’ve learnt is, ‘if anyone canhelp me, then why not?’

I’ve achieved and found what my careerI was after and looking for. I’veconquered what I’ve always dreaded atschool (maths) and I feel I’ve achieved.

And for others it has been their changedrelationship with the school.

I never used to have anything to dowith the school, I just used to beabusive to the teachers, never used takethe time to talk to them (this studentplans to do voluntary work at thekindergarten).

I think I’m quite neat now, I’m quiteproud, like being able to walk into thestaff room and talk to staff. Stuff like that.

Self-ratings of literacy skills In interviews at the beginning of theprogramme, each adult participant wasasked whether they “had difficulties withany of the following – maths, reading,spelling, English or writing?” If theyresponded ‘yes’ they were then asked torate their level of difficulty on a 1(considerable difficulty) to 10 (no/fewdifficulties) scale. Their initial responseswere as follows:

• maths – 16 participants

• spelling – 7 participants

• reading – 7 participants

• English and spelling – 7 participants

• Writing – 5 participants

• Reading, spelling and writing – 3

participants.

They were also asked to rate their self-confidence on the same scale. At theconclusion of the programmes, these self-assessments were repeated. The tablebelow summarises their ratings at thebeginning of the course and at the end,showing a clear gain in the students’ areasof difficulties and their self-confidence.

Average self-rating

A – Literacy skill 4.6rating at start

B – Literacy skill 7.9 (+3.3)rating at end

C – Self-confidence 5.7rating at start

D – Self-confidence 9.6 (+3.9)rating at end

Broader impact on parenting andparticipants’ families

Because the MFLP has a parentingcomponent, participants were asked about what the courses had meant to them as parents. A common theme reported by participants was how they have re-valued their relationships with theirchildren and now use a broader range of parenting strategies.

I was a sux parent. I was neverinterested in helping them, but now I goand ask them what they’re doing. It’sjust great.

I’m more observant and take time tolook at the overall picture – you don’tassume, jump to conclusions. I push mykids harder, I don’t want them leavingearly like I did.

I’ve been pretty hard on them, alwayssaying ‘no’ and disciplining them. Butnow we do other things.

There are some things in the coursethat if I had known ten years ago, she(older daughter) wouldn’t have got intotrouble.

I like it ‘cos sometimes I yell andsmack, ‘cos I talk to them over and over.It’s a big change for me. My four-year-old never used to listen to me, but I’mmaking progress now.

For some, the changes in how they nowdiscipline their children has been profound.

I used to beat the living daylight out ofher, but we’ve learnt other ways ofdoing things. I still find it hard not tolose my temper, but I’ve got threepictures on the wall that help me. Oneis of a cross, one is a man looking at agirl and another one (not explained).When I get angry I go and look at thepictures and they help me. The cross is‘cos I don’t want her to end up dead,the man is ‘cos I don’t want to have togo back to her father and the other is‘cos I don’t want them to take her offme. It works.

I used to smack my kids, now I orderthem. They (older children) wereshocked when I said I wasn’t going to(smack) any more. Now I tend to listenand not get angry.

I used to think you did it the way wedid it back in the islands. Now I stopand listen to what they want to tell me.I’ve stopped yelling and listen. I have afeeling I can move on and set a betterexample for my kids.

Many recounted specific examples of thingsthat they do differently now.

I’ve learnt to put things down – they(things) can wait, but she (daughter)can’t. I don’t yell at her so much. I usedto just plonk her in front of TV, but now we read and so on. We’ve grown so close.

Our routines have changed. The twoolder kids are eager to do theirhomework, they do it together. They’refull of questions, spend a lot more timetogether.

I get them into bed early now.

Most also reported that they now felt betterable to help their children with theirschoolwork.

I really enjoy it – (we’re) friends and(I’m) a good teacher. It’s really helpedme and my family with their homeworkand how to cope with them. No moreyelling and that.

Enlightening. It’s opened my mind up tohow they (kids) learn. Now I watchwhat they do now, rather than yell atthem to clean it (painting) up.

Especially my son doing Intermediatemaths. Sometimes my kids think I can’tdo it, but I look at it and work it outand they come back next day and sayI’m right – “Wow Mum, you can do that!”

(Name) is getting on really well with herschooling. I was quite pleased with thecomments from her teacher too. She(daughter) was pleased and said ‘Andyou too, Mum!’ It’s changed her a lot,knowing she can come to me for herhomework.

Often these changes have occurred becauseof new understandings of their child’seducational processes and what thekindergartens and schools are doing.




me

17

Reading was a problem, but this termPACTT in reading time I was able to seewhat the teacher does – he’s reallyjumped ahead. He loves being the onewhose mum comes in, he doesn’t want itto stop. We went on a camp together –we could never have done that before.

I didn’t know why they (children) didn’tknow before. I didn’t realise it wasbecause of what I was doing. It’s up tome is what I realise now.

I always wanted to know how to helphis development, I read to him andthings, but I was never quite sure. But Iknow now.

Impact on childrenAll of the participants also felt that theirenrolled children had benefited from beingpart of the programme. Specific(unprompted) changes they mentionedincluded improved completion ofhomework, greater motivation to go toschool, becoming more out-going and lessshy, better concentration, improvedreading skills, improved listening, moreasking of questions, better communicationswith parent (“we click now”) and greaterinteraction (“she’s no longer a loner, shewants to do things with me”). Oneparticipant who also has older childrensaid that she now knows how to interactbetter with her grandchildren.

Cool. I like it when we go home now. Heused to take off to the park until 10(o’clock) or so, but now he reads a bookand works on his homework. He lovesreading books, he reads different now,more confident. I really like going intohis classroom.

It’s been really helpful. Before hecouldn’t read, do his colours, count. Butnow he’s amazing. When I read themout, he knows all of them now. Theolder ones, they feel good when I’m

doing my homework. They come andwatch and we ask each other. We shareover talking every night.

They’ve improved with me here, comingto school. I’m not allowed to wag a day!

She’s come out of her shell. She’s settledbecause of PACTT (kindergarten child).She’s speaking clearly about herfeelings – she used to cry, but doesn’tnow. She’s made a lot of friends, openedup, she’s not shy.

Even in cases where the improvement withtheir children had not been profound,parents still felt optimistic about theirprospects in the longer term.

There’s been a little bit of change,especially in maths – but we’re both excited!

He even sits still now when I tell him.

Future ambitions and subsequentoutcomes One outcome that clearly emerged from allthree intakes of adult participants was howquickly they identified future options andplans. For most, this was the first time thatthey had done so in their lives.

I should be…... where I want to be!

It’s put me back on track to tertiarystudies. It’s re-ignited the flame that Ihad before having children.

I’ve always been interested in earlychildhood education, but I didn’t knowhow to get there.

It’s given me a pathway for my future –I don’t know what I would be doingotherwise, but now I know I can doother courses.

Not sure yet (about two part-timetertiary courses), but I tell you what, Ihave no intention of staying at homelike I was before.

18

By early 2004, the following outcomesare known about the 2003 participants.Of the first cohort:

• Eight went on to further study at MIT.

Three did not proceed due to family

responsibilities, but one of these

successfully completed her course after

her new baby arrived in July.

• Two completed six further credits in

Foundation Studies, and of these two,

one has been admitted to the

Management Diploma course in 2004,

and the other has been accepted for the

Diploma of Teaching at MIT. Another

went into fulltime work in the second

half of last year, and is re-entering MIT

this year.

• One has made a positive move away from

a violent relationship, another has moved

out of the area, and two have re-entered

fulltime work in better jobs than

previously.

Of the second cohort:

• Three have been accepted into the

Auckland College of Education for

teaching, youth work and social work

qualifications

• One is in fulltime work, one in part time

work, two are employed as teacher aides

at the school

• Four awaiting the July 2004 intake for

AUT Dip Tchg Pasifika in Manukau.

(two are working regularly as untrained

relievers in childcare centres in

the interim)

• Four are standing for the Board of

Trustees elections.

Of the third cohort:

• Seven entered MIT courses (including

enrolment in Certificates in Automotive

Technology; Computing, Business

Management, and Advanced

Communication)

• Two are at home with children or ill

family members

• The destinations of two others are

currently unknown, but one of these

is pregnant.

Feedback from project partnersFeedback on the project was also recordedfrom other sources, including the tertiarypartners and a number of people who havea professional involvement with thepartner institutions and their staff. Againthe feedback was very positive, despite thedifficulties in developing a pilotprogramme. Some of the benefits identifiedincluded:

• increased enrolments in early childhood

centres and tertiary institutions

• improved attendance of the nominated

children

• better communication between parents

and the early childhood staff – “they

(parents) are more articulate and

involved in talking to the teachers”

• greater awareness and understanding of

what the kindergartens are trying to

achieve – “it’s opened their eyes that we

are more than just about playing”

• greater self-confidence of individuals in

dealing with teachers; “they (parents) are

more confident in expressing themselves

(to us)”

• better relationships generally with parents

• parents being seen by children as

‘heroes’ for their learning endeavours




me

19

• increased physical presence of

participants, their partners and relatives

around the school (including school

assemblies and in the staff-room)

• a feeling of becoming a “learning

community” and a “sense of

achievement” with the participants

• increased knowledge about the enrolled

children and their siblings because of the

parents’ close involvement – “we know so

much more about the kids”

• closer links between the early childhood

centre and new entrant classes.

All of the participating early childhoodcentres and schools have commentedpositively on the relationships that havedeveloped with each other as a result ofMFLP – “we now know their staff first handand the sorts of things they are trying to doin their programmes.” Although thecentres and schools are physically close onboth sites, all the feedback indicated thatthey had never had as close a relationshipas they now do. Early childhood teacherssaid they felt that primary teachers hadgreater respect for what they were doing;the primary teachers also reported that thereverse was true for them. Although thiseffect mainly concerned the primaryschools and the early childhood centres,some also commented that they also feltthey were in much closer contact with thetertiary institutions – something that hadbeen non-existent previously.

This evaluation did not set out to gatherdata about changes in the nominatedchildren’s school performances.Nonetheless, many of the teachers alsocommented about the MFLP’s effect on thenominated children. The feedback wasgenerally positive, although there were also

some conditional statements made aboutsome of the children’s progress. Teachersidentified a number of children who hadclearly made significant progress in theirfoundation skills, self-esteem and generalattitudes towards learning. Even in caseswhere teachers felt there had not beensignificant change, they usually added that“it is too early to tell at this stage, given thetime they’ve been in it” and were stilloptimistic about long-term improvement.Several teachers reported noticeablechanges in the relationships between someparents and their children – “they’re moreintimate, it’s like they share a secret now.”

20

One occasion that epitomised the impact of

the MFLP was the assembly in the Bairds

Mainfreight Primary School Hall on April

9th to award the first certificates achieved

by the adult participants. On hearing that

Manukau Institute of Technology was about

to award the certificates, a Bairds

Mainfreight staff member suggested that the

event be held in front of all the primary

school and kindergarten pupils and staff.

The event became a full-scale graduation

ceremony, with the adult participants as the

centre of attention (comments after the

event indicated that most had never

experienced anything comparable ever in

their lives). Children of the participants

were clearly delighted to see their parents

graduating as shown by one class sending

their own certificate to the Family Literacy

room after the ceremony expressing how

proud they felt of their achievements. A

morning tea for the participants and their

guests completed the morning’s

celebrations.

In the course of developing the MFLP, arange of issues have arisen requiringclarification, modification of theprogramme or resolution among theprogramme partners. Some of these issues(such as workload in the beginning stages,co-ordinating timetables andcommunication difficulties) have beenminor and have simply arisen from theplanning and running of the programme.

Other issues have been more substantialand required on-going consideration. Someof these issues are probably unique to theManukau project, but others are likely toarise in other family literacy programmes;these latter issues are therefore reportedhere. For a full description of all the issues,readers are directed tohttp://www.comet.org.nz

Working across conventionaleducational boundaries – wheredoes family literacy ‘fit’?Family literacy does not sit readily withinconventional educational structures, andthis is true overseas (Padak, Sapin &Baycich, 2002) and in New Zealand. Thisdifficulty is largely because traditionaleducational systems are very age-boundand family literacy transcends thesetraditional boundaries. This lack of ‘fit’ canbe seen in problems of accessing funding,finding appropriate staff and co-ordination

between the different educational playersinvolved. Family literacy cuts across thesestratifications, which generates challengesin various ways.

Firstly, it requires early childhood, schooland adult educators to work together inways that few have done previously. Itrequires them to understand each other’sterminology, ways of working, bureaucraticstructures and philosophies. While this hasnot led to any real conflict ormisunderstandings, it has taken time foreach of the parties to get to know eachother and work things through in ways thatare different from what they have donepreviously. Collaboration among thevarious stakeholders is certainly a strengthof family literacy, but requires consciouseffort to establish and maintain in theprogramme. The independence of the co-ordinator has been an importantmechanism for balancing the needs of eachof the partners.

Secondly, funding sources do not always‘fit’ readily into family literacy. Because ofthe mixture of ages, no one agency orfunding source can cover all of theprogramme needs, which necessitatessome degree of ‘shopping round’ and‘mixing and matching’ of different fundingsources. COMET’s co-ordinating role hasbeen central in identifying and co-ordinating funding for the project.

21




me

Issues that have arisen in MFLP

Programme aimsBecause family literacy involves a widerange of stakeholders (both funders andprogramme participants), it is inevitablethat each group comes into the programmewith a matching array of agendas andaims. While it is a strength of familyliteracy that programmes can achieve arange of different impacts, it is also truethat this diversity of interests needs to bewatched. Probably the most importantstrategy in this respect is to constantlyclarify and specify what each stakeholder’saims are for the programme so that theoverall agenda is on the table for all to seeand debate. The identification of theprogramme aims will vary from site to siteaccording to the needs and interests of thevarious bodies, but should be made explicitearly on and be revised throughout theplanning process.

Recruiting staffAs the research literature review shows(Benseman, 2002, p. 7), the adult educatoris a key component in making familyliteracy programmes work successfully. Asuccessful adult educator needs a widerange of skills to fit the multi-facetedrequirements that are involved in a familyliteracy programme. Fortunately, thetertiary partners have been successful inlocating very skilled practitioners for MFLPdelivery who have considerable experiencein such areas as special education, earlychildhood education and parent education.

Locating and securing the adult educatorswas not straightforward however for anumber of reasons. Because ‘familyliteracy educator’ is an unknownoccupation in New Zealand, it is not readilyrecognised by people who may haveappropriate skills. Secondly, the short-termnature of the contracts offered to teach thecourses mean that potential people withappropriate skills in permanent positions

are reluctant to take on short-termemployment with no future guarantee ofemployment. Thirdly, because theemployers for the positions are apolytechnic and a university, they alsobring their own requirements into the mixof issues – for example in the case of AUT,the requirement of a bachelor degree, ifnot a masters, excludes many people in afield where many experienced practitionersdo not have this level of qualification.

Although the adult educators areemployees of the tertiary partners, therecan be some degree of confusion over ‘splitloyalties’ to their employing body versusthe family literacy organisation. Thisdifficulty has been resolved by developingMemoranda of Understanding between theorganisations involved and COMET.

Funding of the tertiary educationcomponentFrom the outset, the MFLP was planned tofit as much as possible within existingfunding structures so that future familyliteracy development would not bedependent on one-off grants. The mostdifficult element of the programme in thisregard has been the funding of the adulteducator position. It has required a tertiaryprovider to fund a full-time teacher(approx. 25 hours contact time) off-site fora minimum of 20 weeks in the firstinstance, and later extending to 40 weeksover the full year.

The tertiary education component for bothMFLP sites to date has come from largetertiary institutions. In order to accessexisting mainstream funding sourceshowever, both institutions were invited tolocate the MFLP within the parameters ofan existing, pre-planned course. In thecase of Manukau Institute of Technology,this has been a bridging education courseand with AUT, it has been an introductionto early childhood certificate.

22

In both cases, these courses were used asthe best options available within thetimeframe, as the tertiary providers wouldhave had to design specific programmesfrom scratch. In both cases, the content ofthe course structures that have been usedhas certainly matched the intent of thefamily literacy philosophy reasonably well,not least because of the willingness of theteachers to adapt and modify theirteaching to the needs of the students.

It is interesting to speculate the degree towhich using existing Early Childhood andBridging course structures has influencedthe two MFLPs and how they haveoperated. For example, to what extenthave the students applied for theprogrammes because they anticipatedbridging/early childhood outcomes? Giventhe ‘dual’ themes of Family Literacy andEarly Childhood/Bridging in the publicitymaterial, which did the participantsactually respond to? In other words, towhat degree has the need to access fundingin the form of existing courses shaped oreven diverted the ideals originallyenvisaged for MFLP?

The answer to this speculation at this pointis probably, “to some degree,” but not tothe overall detriment of the programme.For example, one teacher noted that whenshe moved on to course content that wasnot directly linked to the participants shedetected a fall-off in their degree ofinterest and motivation. Certainly, it wouldbe interesting to have at least one futuresite where the funding was not tied to aspecific course and monitor what effectsuch a ‘clean slate’ had on the content andtenor of the course. Another alternativewould involve the planning of a specificfamily literacy course that was then putthrough formal programme approvalprocedures in its own right.

The recruitment processStarting a new type of educationalprogramme almost invariably means someteething problems in areas such asrecruitment of learners. The shorttimeframe to start the Bairds site in lateJanuary in particular did not make theprocess of participant recruitment andselection easy. Subsequent intakes havebeen somewhat easier, helped by thegrowing recruitment skills of key schooland early childhood staff and increasingmomentum through greater awareness ofthe programme in the community.Experience to date shows proactiverecruitment by ‘shoulder-tapping to be themost effective strategy. This matches USexperience (Padak, Sapin & Baycich, 2002),but is different from Britain (Brooks, 1996,p. 102) where publicity letters were themost successful recruitment strategy.

Selection of appropriate adultstudentsA fundamental question for anyeducational programme evaluation iswhether the recruited participants matchthe intended, or target, population. Theoriginal intention of the MFLP was torecruit adults with no or low schoolqualifications, poor literacy skills and theirchildren. Initial interviews with the adultparticipants showed that while all of themhave had fairly limited and/or negativeschooling experiences and no or lowqualifications, at least a third appear tohave quite reasonable levels of literacy skilland probably only about half wouldapproximate the types of learners found inconventional adult literacy programmes inNew Zealand. However, there is no doubtthat the participants were appropriatecandidates for the course in terms of otherfactors such as having children who arestruggling with their schoolwork, not




me

23

accessing early childhood education,difficult home situations, poor self-images,health issues, employment difficulties andso forth. Certainly none would have fittedreadily into any conventional tertiaryprogramme before attending MFLP.

In the process of getting the programmeunderway, a number of other influenceshave come into play that have probablyinfluenced the nature of the student groupto some degree. The first influence hascome from the need to locate the MFLPwithin an existing tertiary course. Thisrequirement has meant that while thepartner tertiary providers have opted intoMFLP as a family literacy programme byagreeing to participate as programmepartners, they still need to satisfy thevarious requisites and agendas associatedwith the course being used. For example,there have been concerns that potentialstudents will cope with the academic levelof the courses which are offered at Levels 3and 4 (with a possible pressure thereforeto not accept applicants with low or verylow literacy skills).

A second influence has been the variousfunding sources. While the Ministry ofEducation has the most obvious literacyagenda in funding the MFLP, Work andIncome New Zealand’s intentions are morediverse. Firstly, they have a greaterconcern supporting people who areregistered with them for a benefit and haveless interest for example in potentialparticipants where a partner may beworking, but the household still has a verylow income. Their interest is also primarilyabout work outcomes rather than literacyper se. Gains in literacy skill may bevalued, but probably don’t count as much ifthey are not accompanied at some point bywork outcomes. On the other hand, it ispossible to have positive work outcomesafter the programme with minimal or noliteracy gains, which is likely to be anacceptable outcome for WINZ.

These competing agendas are a simple factof life for the MFLP because of the diversityof agencies involved and do not necessarilydetract from the original intentions of theprogramme. It is important, however, tohave each of these agendas transparent toall of the partner organisations, ratherthan assumed or implicit. The debate overwhat the programme goals are is a relatedissue and needs to be complemented by anagreement over the criteria for selectingstudents. While some eligibility criteria areeasily made explicit (e.g. having a childenrolled at the kindergarten or school) andare reasonably straightforward, others areless so. It is useful for these other criteriato be made explicit and transparent so thatthere is a common understanding acrossall the programme partners. The criteriacan cover a range of elements (which isappropriate given the broad dimensions offamily literacy) and applicants would notnecessarily need to meet all criteria. It isprobable that applicants will not meet all ofthe various criteria, but they should atleast meet a reasonable number of them.

It is important to realise that familyliteracy is a multi-faceted programme thatseeks to address a range of issues rangingfrom poor literacy skills to various social skills.

It is interesting to note that all of the adultswith reasonable literacy skills in the MFLPwere challenged considerably by otherelements of the programme. In some casesthere was a clear impact in terms ofparenting issues and in other cases, on thenominated child. Overall therefore, it isreasonable to state that the MFLP has beensuccessful in recruiting a group of adultswith high needs, although these have notalways been in terms of high needs literacy skills.

The criteria for selecting participantsshould therefore also be reasonably openacross a range of variables and not tied tooreadily to any single criterion.

24

PACTTOverall, all three types of PACTT at bothsites have worked well. Despite initialdifficulties sorting timetabling issues, Tahiand Classroom PACTT ran smoothly formost of the project.

Exploring appropriate ways of recordingand evaluating PACTT experiences hasbeen part of the piloting process andmethods developed have included keepinga daily PACTT journal, photographicdiaries, learning stories and visual displaysfor the early childhood centre, schoolclassroom and family literacy classroom.

The PACTT interactions also encouragedialogue with teachers. Teachers enjoy thevisits to classrooms, and parents gain newconfidence in working with their childrenin the classroom and new understanding ofclassroom practice.

It is so rewarding for the parents to seewhat is going on in the class. It has somany positive effects – knowledge of thecurriculum, PACTT parent expertise onthe topics we are doing, PACTT parentscan have better knowledge of how tohelp their child (in class and withhomework etc.)

My children loved having their mumscome in. I really enjoyed having themcome in so bright, bubbly and eager. Therest of the class also anticipated theirarrival and them being in the room. Wemissed them when they didn’t come.

Feedback from both teachers and theadults indicated that they would like TahiPACTT to be a bit longer as it oftenreduced to approximately 10 minutes bythe time the parents arrived and fitted inwith the educational routines. Parentsreported that they valued Tahi PACTT forthe way that it made their children “feel

special” – usually to the envy of the otherchildren in the centre or classroom. Themost frequent feedback on these sessionswas around the positive value of workingintensively with their children and/orgetting to know what was going on in theirchild’s current schoolwork. Severalcommented that they especially liked beingable to watch how the teachers taughttheir pupils. “I always knew that I wantedto show my daughter how to read and soon, but I never actually knew how you doit. Now I do.”

A second suggestion was that the time bevaried occasionally in order to exposeparents to how primary teachers teachsubjects such as science and art. Severalteachers also suggested that more co-ordinated planning could allow forshared programme topics and emphasesacross the early childhood, primary schooland the adult programmes.

As with most American family literacyprogrammes, the MFLP has required thateach participating parent officiallynominate one child to be the focus of thevarious family literacy activities such asPACTT. The reasons for nominating asingle child in the programme are notreadily available in the literature, butappear to be done for a number of reasons.These reasons include the minimising ofadministrative arrangements (changing thechildren in the programme wouldnecessitate constant re-arrangingtimetables etc.) and the assumption thatinvolving multiple siblings would ‘dilute’the impact of the programme. Theassumption is that the impact of theprogramme on the parent and thenominated child will inevitably filter acrossto other siblings, largely due to changes inthe adult’s parenting perspectives.




me

25

Some parents initially reported someunease about being able to only have onechild nominated for the MFLP who takespart in the Tahi PACTT activities. Thisissue mainly concerned parents with morethan one child at the same school orkindergarten. Parents with one child at theschool and one at the early childhoodcentre for example still reported the non-PACTT child feeling left out and/or enviousof the nominated child. This issue was animportant factor in creating different typesof PACTT and whanau PACTT experienceshave been one way of addressing thebalance. Another solution saw the adulteducator alternate non-PACTT childrenfrom the school in activities that were notpart of the on-going literacy programme(e.g. art). This variation has been ratedpositively by those involved and does notdetract from the overall functioning of Tahi PACTT.

It should be noted that the development ofthe other forms of PACTT (and especiallyWhanau PACTT) has been much moresuccessful because it involves the widerfamily members.

Length of programmeIt is clear that the fixed length of theprogramme does not always fully matchthe participants’ learning needs. For asmall number, the present programmes arenot long enough; students would benefitfrom a longer period of involvement (this isparticularly true for people with English asan additional language requirements andfor high need literacy students). Foranother group, consideration could begiven to moving them more quickly, forexample, on to some form of tertiaryeducation (such as a couple of foundationcourses). This change would notnecessarily mean a total withdrawal fromMFLP, but would recognise quick gains inconfidence and self-efficacy (i.e. belief intheir abilities as learners).

Participants’ on-going personalcrises and their impact on MFLPThroughout this pilot project, one of thedistinguishing features has been the extentand intrusive nature of the crises in someof the participants’ daily lives. The criseshave included physical assault, custodyissues, accommodation problems, majorhealth trauma, police-related incidents,benefit difficulties, family disputes, andunderpinning or alongside many of theseproblems, money issues. Talking about herhome situation, one participant whosehusband had recently been arrested, said,“we live in an unsafe environment. We’rebeing harassed by Police and theneighbours, we’ve been robbed five times,the front fence crashed into three times, soI’ve put my kids with my mother”.

This situation is certainly not true of all theparticipants, but a significant number havehad considerable issues and crises thathave resulted in on-going absences,difficulties completing course requirementsand withdrawal from the programme. Inmany cases, the crises have not directlyconcerned the learners themselves, butpeople (almost always family members) forwhom they have responsibility. Thesevarious crises have placed considerablepressure on the project staff and especiallythe adult educators at both sites. Theseadult educators have demonstrated realcommitment to the programme by theirefforts to help resolve the issues, which arewell beyond the normal expectations ofstaff roles. Nonetheless, they see thesedemands as ‘part and parcel’ of familyliteracy and as one adult educator said, “Iwould not expect it to be any other way”.

These crises are an indicator that MFLPproject staff require considerable energyand time to address the social needs oftheir students and this may detract fromthe time they have for educationalactivities. The present model of MFLP does

26

not include provision at the school for sucha support social worker, but futuredevelopments could consider thispossibility. One adult educator commented,however, that she considered that herinvolvement in working these crisesthrough with her students helped give herprogramme its distinctive flavour, and wasintegral to her credibility with the studentsand an important reason behind the overallimpact of the programme.

‘Ownership’ of the MFLPThe issue of ‘ownership’ is probablyinevitable in a programme involving anumber of institutions with various roles.Each institution has its own legalrequirements, administrative proceduresand need to promote its work, some ofwhich mesh readily and some that don’t.For example, it is important that anypromotional material or publicpresentations gives due recognition to allparticipating institutions (includingCOMET) and not convey the impressionthat the programme is confined to onlysome of the partner institutions.

This issue has been consciously debatedand discussed within the MFLP. The issuehas eased somewhat over the duration ofthe programme as mutual understandingdevelops and common procedures haveevolved. The development of Memoranda ofUnderstandings between COMET andpartner institutions has been an importantstep in this respect. However, theindependence of co-ordination is significantas these situations will reoccur at all sites.

General principles of the MFLPAs a result of its development to date, anumber of key principles have beenadopted by the MFLP:

• tuition is free to participants

• recruitment of adult participants will be

aimed at the greatest need

• participants need to commit their

involvement to the duration of the

programme

• high levels of attendance will be

encouraged

• facilities will be comfortable and

appropriate for adults, as well

as children

• child participants will be between two

and seven years of age

• the programme integrates the Kenan

Model of Family Literacy’s four

components, including various types

of PACTT

• programme planning will be given high

priority and carefully co-ordinated across

all four components

• professional development for staff

(tertiary, primary and early childhood)

will be integral to the programme

• all participating institutions will be fully

informed of programme developments

• each site recognises the contribution of

each participating institution, but none is

seen as dominant

• the programme needs to be adapted to

the unique circumstances and needs of

each individual site

• technology and Internet will be

incorporated wherever possible

• in order to ensure that the programmes

are sustainable over the longer term,

existing funding sources and structures

are used wherever possible

• research and evaluation are integral to

the programme’s development.




me

27

In addition to these policy components, anumber of key operational and educationalfeatures of a successful family literacyprogramme have emerged, based on MFLPexperiences to date:

• a lead agency to plan and co-ordinate the

overall project

• a skilled adult educator who understands

and copes with the multi-faceted

demands of family literacy

• a programme of reasonable duration and

intensity built around the four

components of family literacy – parent

education, child education, adult

education and parent and child time

together (PACTT)

• regular professional development that

involves staff at all levels of involvement

• sustained commitment from all of the

partner institutions

• clear understanding between all

participating institutions of their

respective obligations and responsibilities

• adequate funding to ensure all

components of the programme

are available

• regular and on-going

management/operational meetings and

communications to ensure smooth

functioning of the daily routines

• an adult-appropriate teaching space in a

central location

• physical proximity for early childhood

and primary school partner institutions3

• public celebration of key events and

achievements (e.g. graduations)

• a ‘Second Step’ programme for the adult

learners as they move on from the

programme to maintain the “community

of learning” built through their

participation in MFLP.

28

Key features of the MFLP

3 The proximity of the tertiary partner is probably less important; for Rowandale the isolation of the adult educator fromAUT was seen as both a plus and a minus and the closeness of Manukau Institute of Technology at Bairds Otara wasevaluated similarly.

The Basis of Family LiteracyFamily literacy programmes began inIsrael, the United States and England in the1970s and 1980s (Thomas, 1998). Theterm ‘family literacy’ has been incirculation in many overseas countries forsome time now, but is a relative newcomerin New Zealand. There have been someprogrammes in New Zealand using thisterm, but few have been constructedaround the four key elements or theinstructional intensity of overseasprogrammes. A number of local readingprogrammes have involved parents, but theadults’ involvement in these programmeshas been largely built on the assumptionthat the parents themselves already havegood literacy skills.

The concept of family literacy is builtaround a series of assumptions andarguments peculiar to the situation ofcombining the teaching of adults andchildren in one programme. Some of theseassumptions and arguments are backed by research findings; others are yet to be proven.

The first assumption behind family literacyas a form of educational provision is that“greater benefits to both adult and childlearners will be attained by taking anintegrated family literacy approach than byindependently addressing adult and childneeds through separate, high quality adultliteracy and child interventionprogrammes” (Padak, Sapin & Baycich,2002). The authors of this statement point

out that this assumption is still largelyuntested4, although it is testable using alarge-scale, interdisciplinary effortinvolving adult literacy, family literacy andearly childhood professionals. In the US,family literacy has been advocated as amore effective form of provision thanconventional adults-only programmes(Seaman, 1992).

A second argument is that many childrenwho are struggling with literacy come fromhomes where the parents themselves alsohave literacy difficulties and thereforeprovide a significant ‘two-tier catchmentarea’ for literacy programmes, because “…however high the aspirations of a parentmight be, illiterate adults5 cannot modelwhat they do not know” (Mikulecky &Lloyd, 1993, p. 36). While this assumptionis sometimes criticised for its deficitconnotations, there is ample researchevidence to show that there is a highcorrelation of literacy skills betweengenerations of families (Sticht &Armstrong, 1994). For example, data froma national longitudinal study in Britainshowed that 72% of children whose parentshad reading difficulties and low incomeswere in the lowest score reading group(ALBSU, 1993). The report concluded (pp. 18-19),

The results suggest that children fromfamilies where parents have basicliteracy problems are likely to sufferfrom a diminished opportunity toacquire literacy and numeracy skills.

29




me

Appendix 1

4 One US study has shown family literacy to produce demonstrably better results than stand-alone programmes (Philliber,Spillman, & King, 1996).

5 American literature often uses the term ‘illiterate’, whereas it is both more acceptable and more accurate to refer toadults with reading difficulties, as few adults are totally illiterate.

The disadvantage is compounded infamilies with a low income or where theparents achieved very low levels ofeducational attainment. Parentswithout these basic skills are less ableto help their children learn literacy andnumeracy skills during their earlyformative years. The group who aremost at risk of growing up with thelowest levels of basic skills are childrenfrom low-income families where theparents have poor reading abilities.

A third argument behind family literacy isthat parents, and especially mothers (Sticht& McDonald, 1990), are not only influentialin their children’s literacy development, butare more likely to exert an even morepositive influence when they are able toenhance their own literacy skills(Benjamin, 1993; Henderson & Berla,1994; Mansbach, 1993). The desire foradults who have been unsuccessful in theirown schooling to ensure that their children

don’t have the same experience isunderstandable and reasonably welldocumented (Benseman, 1989). In adiscussion about the development oflearning motivation in families, Smith andSpurling (2001, p. 54) argue that thebiology-led phase of life that occurs withparenthood “remoulds the parents’ ownawareness in such ways that their wholeapproach to motivational assessment canbe altered” and that parenthood is “ofcentral importance in the whole motivationstory, and has profound effects on widersocial realities”. In other words, adults whomay not be motivated to learn forthemselves, find that the experience ofbeing a parent not only increases theirlearning aspirations for their children, butthrough active involvement their ownlearning motivation increases, which inturn helps their children’s motivation –thereby stimulating a positive learningspiral for both generations.

30

The Kenan Model of Family Literacy

1. An adult education component designed

to extend basic education skills,

including teaching adult participants

to: think critically and creatively, solve

problems, set goals and achieve

them and acquire successful

interpersonal skills.

2. Children’s education to promote the

growth and development of young

children and to engage parents in their

child’s educational programme in order

to foster meaningful involvement that

will be maintained throughout the child’s

educational career.

3. Parent and child together time (PACTT).

4. Parent time to provide instruction on

how children grow, develop and learn to

read and write, address issues critical to

family well-being and success, connect

parents with a wide array of community

resources and provide parents with

opportunities to network and develop

mutual support systems with others in

the programme.

These four elements are shown in thediagram below. Figure 1 also illustrateswhat is sometimes referred to as the fifthelement of family literacy programmes –integration. As Potts (No date, p. 4) says

Integration has become a critical,defining characteristic of family literacyservices, working to create a system fordelivery of curriculum, instruction andassessment. Rather than providingstand-alone, isolated services such asearly childhood education or adultbasic skills education, family literacyprogrammes bring parents and childrentogether to learn, weaving keystrategies and message throughout thefour primary components…. Integrationof these components is usedintentionally as a cohesive system topromote learning within the family unit.

31




me

Appendix 2

Figure 1 – Kenan Model of Family Literacy

Adult literacy Child literacy

PACTT

Parent & Childtogether

Parent Education

ALBSU. (1993). Parents and their children. The intergenerational effect of poor basicskills. London: ALBSU.

Benjamin, L. (1993). Parents' literacy and their children's success in school: recentresearch, promising practices and research implications (ERIC document ED 363 441).Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement.

Benseman, J. (1989). The view from the other side of the educational door : adulteducation from the perspective of people with low levels of schooling. (Wellington, Dept. ofEducation.)

Benseman, J. (2002). Phase 1 Family Literacy in Manukau: Infrastructure development.Commissioned by the City of Manukau Education Trust (COMET). Auckland: TheUniversity of Auckland and UniServices Ltd.

Benseman, J. (2003). Phase 2 of the Manukau Family Literacy Programmes pilotimplementation. Interim (2nd) formative and process evaluation report for the City ofManukau Education Trust (COMET). Auckland: UniServices Ltd & The University ofAuckland.

Brinkerhoff, R. (2003). The success case method. San Francisco: Berrett-KoehlerPublishers.

Brooks, G., Harman, J., Hutchison, D., Kendall, S., & Wilkin, A. (1996). Family literacyworks. Key findings from the NFER Evaluation of the Basic Skills Agency's DemonstrationProgrammes. London: Basic Skills Agency.

Brooks, G., Giles, K., Harman, J., Kendall, S., Rees, F., & Whittaker, S. (2001). Assemblingthe fragments: a review of research on adult basic skills (Research Report 220). Norwich:DfEE/Her Majesty's Stationery Office.

Henderson, A., & Berla, N. (1994). A new generation of evidence: the family is critical tostudent achievement (ERIC document ED 375 968). Washington DC: National Committeefor Citizens in Education.

Mansbach, S. (1993). Family literacy's approach to dropout prevention (ERIC documentED 358 284). Clemson, SC: Clemson University, National Dropout Center.

Mikulecky, L., & Lloyd, P. (1993). The impact of workplace literacy programmes: a newmodel for evaluating the impact of workplace literacy programmes (Technical ReportTR93-2). Philadelphia, PA: National Center on Adult Literacy, University of Pennsylvania.

Ministry of Education. (2002). Tertiary education strategy 2002 – 2007. Wellington:Ministry of Education.

32

References




me

33

Padak, N., Sapin, C., & Baycich, D. (2002). A decade of family literacy: programmes,outcomes and future prospects (Information Series No. 389). Columbus, OH: ERICClearinghouse on Adult, Career and Vocational Education.

Philliber, W., Spillman, R., & King, R. (1996). Consequences of family literacy for adultsand children: some preliminary findings. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy,39(April), 558-565.

Potts, M. (No date). Integration of the components in family literacy services. Louisville:National Center for Family Literacy.

Seaman, D. (1992). Follow-up study of the impact of the Kenan Trust model of familyliteracy. Adult Basic Education, 2(2), 71-83.

Smith, J., & Spurling, A. (2001). Understanding motivation for lifelong learning. Leicester:NIACE.

Sticht, T., & Armstrong, W. (1994). Adult literacy in the United States: a compendium ofquantitative data and interpretive comments (ERIC document ED 371 241). WashingtonDC: National Institute for Literacy.

Sticht, T., & McDonald, B. (1990). Teach the mother and reach the child: literacy acrossthe generations. Geneva: UNESCO International Bureau of Education.

Thomas, A. (Ed.). (1998). Family literacy in Canada: profiles of effective practices.Welland, Ontario: Editions Soleil Publishing (also available at www.nald.ca).

Several papers have also been written by project members about specific aspects of the MFLP:

Benseman, J., Houlker, R., & Vester, B. (2003, November 29 – December 3). Breaking themould: developing the Manukau Family Literacy Programme (MFLP). Paper presented atthe NZARE/AARE Joint Conference, Auckland.

Vester, B., Benseman, J., & Houlker, R. (2003, 26 – 26 June). Partnership and ownership:perspectives from the Manukau Family Literacy Programmes. Paper presented at theJoined up services: linking together for children and families, Fifth Child and FamilyPolicy Conference, Dunedin.

An evaluation of the ManukauFamily Literacy Programme (MFLP)“I’m a different person now.”

View Article - COMET Auckland

Documents

Transcript of View Article - COMET Auckland