Family Literacy Programs

This paper focuses on developing a clear concept of "family literacy" and examines the most relevant aspects of family literacy. It begins by looking at how widespread is the problem of illiteracy, who is affected by illiteracy, and what are the consequences. Also, the relationship between illiteracy and poverty is clarified. The legislative history that brought family literacy into contemporary educational policy and theory is explored, as well as what researchers believe are the most effective methods for developing effective family literacy programs. This paper also describes some of the most widespread programs that have evolved from government policy, and examines their strengths and weaknesses. Finally, the potentially central role that community colleges could play by being the focal point and liaison between various stakeholders and agencies that can contribute to a broad and effective family literacy program is presented.

Keywords: Adult Basic Education (ABE); Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA); English as a Second Language (ESL); Even Start Family Literacy Programs; General Educational Development (GED); Head Start; Intergenerational Literacy Project (ILP); National Center for Children in Poverty; No Child Left Behind (NCLB); Title I; Two-Generation Program

Overview

Illiteracy & Poverty in America

To understand the context and need for family literacy programs, we should first consider the educational and social fabric of the United States today, and particularly examine how widespread illiteracy is in America, who is affected, and what are the consequences. One correlation that is by no means surprising, but nevertheless quite important to take into account, is the relationship between illiteracy and poverty. As Darling (2004) observes, one of the fundamental underlying causes of poverty is a low level of literacy. Darling quotes statistics from the National Adult Literacy Survey (NALS) which clearly demonstrate a significant difference in income between people with a high literacy level and people with a low literacy level. According to that study, the difference between earnings of high- and low-level literacy is $23,400 annually. Additionally, the study showed a very clear correlation between illiteracy and poverty since about 44 million adults in the US have literacy skills at the lowest level, and about half of these illiterate adults live in poverty (Darling, 2004, p. 18).

Darling also uses statistics from another report, Poverty in the United States: 2002. That report offers an estimate on the total number of Americans who "wake to a world that brings them too little to eat and too little to wear, housing that is inadequate and unsafe, and minimal health and child care" (2004, p. 18). The report estimates that 34 million Americans lack these basic necessities and live in an abject condition of poverty. The report also demonstrates that this number is increasing rather than decreasing, and that there was an "increase of 7.1 million since 2001." Additionally, Darling uses a report from The National Center for Children in Poverty to give us a picture of the growth of poverty among children: the report found that "5 million American children were living in extreme poverty" (Darling, 2004, p. 18). Illiteracy goes hand in hand with poverty, and increasing literacy is a way to decrease poverty.

Darling argues that parents who are struggling to take care of their families' most basic needs have trouble making their children's language and literacy development a top priority. Additionally, children growing up in poverty experience a lack of language development in the home. One study found an important developmental deficiency and linguistic disadvantage for poor children compared to children being raised by parents who are professionals. According to that study, children in professional families hear around 20 million more words by the time they are three years old compared to children from welfare families. That study also found that "the differences in language interactions between parent and child in the early years were directly reflected in a child's vocabulary growth and use of vocabulary, two measures of an individual's ability to succeed both in school and in the workplace" (Darling, 2004, p. 19). Thus, the earliest years of children in poor families create an inherent disadvantage for the rest of their lives, and this may create a circle of poverty and illiteracy that is intergenerational.

Illiteracy & Minority Cultures

Another important factor when examining illiteracy is the cultural differences that minority families, particularly those of Hispanic origin, experience in the mainstream English environment in which they find themselves struggling to succeed. Sink Parkhill, Marshall and Norwood (2005) point this out while discussing how to effectively create programs for decreasing literacy among the Hispanic population in America. The authors make an important point that there is a "cultural and ethnic shift … occurring in our country today in part because of the influx of Hispanics, who are rapidly becoming the nation's largest minority group" (p. 584). They observe that, while southern states such as Texas, Florida, Arizona, and New Mexico have seen immense growth in their Hispanic speaking populations, educators and legislators may not realize that many other states are also seeing immense growth in their Hispanic populations. In fact, North Carolina has actually seen more population growth than the above-mentioned states. In the decade from 1990 to 2000 the Hispanic population grew about 50% annually, and this enormous growth caused a 394% increase of Hispanic speaking people in North Carolina. Thus, the rapid growth of the Hispanic minority is one more important reason that illiteracy in English must be dealt with. Sink et al. argue that,

This is partly why the concept of family literacy has become increasingly important and, as Holloway (2004) observes, the reason that many of the most recent family literacy programs have put an emphasis on considering the cultural background of the family. New programs also try to "encompass all literacy activities that occur in the home, and involve the family's adults as well as the children" (Holloway, 2004, p. 88).

Another reason family literacy is an increasingly important idea is the intergenerational cycle of poverty; illiteracy or very low literacy skills tend to pass from parent to child, keeping generations of families in illiteracy and consequent poverty. Darling asks the question "How can we help families — not just adults, not just children, but families — to break this cycle?" (Darling, 2004, p. 19). Since parents are the earliest influence on a child's intellect and linguistic skills, and since many of the parents living in poverty have not developed their own literacy skills, a good way of dealing with their illiteracy is to approach it as a family unit, so that children and parents learn together. That idea basically defines the concept of family literacy.

The Family Literacy Concept

Paratore (2006) notes that, in 1983, Taylor first used the term family literacy, and the term has been used differently over the years, depending on what educators have emphasized as most important within that concept. As Paratore observes, family literacy has been "a way to describe how parents and children read and write together and alone during everyday activities" and it has also been a "construct for teaching parents how to prepare their children for success in school" (Paratore, 2006, p. 394). There have also been other features of family literacy that legislation or government programs have outlined as important components to the concept.

Holloway (2004) observes that family literacy programs vary in their design, but all programs share the central objective of strengthening intergenerational literacy so as to "help parents or caregivers learn that they are their children's first teachers and that they can be successful in this role" (Holloway, 2004, p. 89). While giving advice to those educators who may be interested in getting involved in family literacy programs, Paratore reveals a fundamental principle behind family literacy programs, a principle that complements Holloway's pedagogical point of view. She writes, "as you consider how to shape your own efforts, be aware that programs intended to influence the practice of family literacy are, at their core, parent-teacher partnerships" (p. 396). Holloway and Paratore emphasize the child's education; at the center of family literacy is the child who needs educational development. Paratore then tells educators that two directives flow from that fundamental principle. First, that an "open, dependable [and] non-intrusive" channel of communication must be opened between the teacher and the parent; second, the methods and curriculum must be effective in helping the parent to competently help the child (Paratore, 2006, p. 396).

However, this approach does not clarify, or at least does not seem to focus on, the parents' needs for enhancing their own literacy — unless it is a byproduct of instructing the child. While heeding Paratore's advice, other educators working within family literacy programs aim to work with parents as individuals who have their own particular educational or training needs, and that idea has become a more central part of today's family literacy programs. It is more specifically referred to as a "two-generation program," and government legislation and policy has actively supported this type of approach. Duch (2005) observes that two-generation programs differ in their "duration and intensity of services, as well as programmatic focus" but asserts that all two-generation programs have some characteristics that remain constant:

• A developmentally appropriate early-childhood program.
• A parenting education component.
• An adult education, literacy or job skills and training component (Duch, 2005, p. 26).

Although Holloway emphasizes the child-centered approach to family literacy, he is well aware of the adult literacy component, as we can see from his description of what comprises a "comprehensive family literacy program":

• Basic skills education for adult family members to help them learn skills for the workplace.
• Early childhood education for the children to bolster the skills they will need to succeed in school
• Parent education that enables adult family members to discuss parenting practices, nutrition, and the importance of literacy learning for their children.
• Time for the adults and children to participate together in literacy activities that they can also do at home (Holloway, 2004, p. 89).

Thus, when we speak of family literacy programs we are generally referring to the same thing as a "two-generation program", wherein children's educational needs are at the center, while adults' educational needs are also addressed.

Further Insights

Legislative History

Lanaan and Cox (2006) observe that the origins of family literacy programs date back nearly half a century, to the social revolution of the 1960s. The civil rights movement caused society and legislators to begin considering education not just for the middle or upper classes, but for minorities and those living in poverty. They also note that the 1960s was the time that educators began promoting the idea that parents are "the first educators of children," and that "parents should be encouraged to read with their children and take an active role in their education and intellectual development" (p. 361).

President Lyndon Johnson enacted what was clearly the first "family-literacy" legislation with his Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA). ESEA established two basic programs, Head Start and Title I, that evolved into today's concept of family-literacy. Head Start and Title I were designed from the outset to help the poor reach a better level of education with the intention to break the cycle of illiteracy and poverty. The two programs were aimed at the education of children during their first years before entering the public school system, but also aimed at helping parents in their educational or training needs.

Congress re-authorized the ESEA in 1988, and also laid the legislative foundation for the William F. Goodling Even Start Family Literacy Programs. Even Start was the true formulation of family literacy, as its funding very specifically included aiding parents in strengthening their literacy level. According to Lanaan and Cox, the Even Start family-literacy programs stated three primary goals:

• To help parents improve their literacy or basic educational skills;
• To help parents become full partners in educating their children; and
• To assist children in reaching their full potential as learners (Laanan & Cox, 2006, p. 361).

This legislation also stated that Even Start programs "shall be implemented through cooperative projects that build on existing community resources to create a new range of services" (Laanan and Cox, 2006, p. 361). In 1994, legislation was added on to the previous legislation, creating the Improving America's Schools Act of 1994, which was President Clinton's effort to reform education. Clinton also addressed the problem of illiteracy through the concept of family literacy, as can be seen from the wording of Title I part B:

In 2001 under President George W. Bush, the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act was passed, and NCLB had sections that continued to promote family literacy as a government program. NCLB listed the four basic components that define family literacy programs, and these components emphasize both children's education as well as parents' education, meaning a two-generation approach:

• Early childhood education.
• Adult literacy (adult basic and secondary-level education and/ or instruction for English-language learners).
• Parenting education.
• Interactive literacy activities between parents and their children.

NCLB also sets some guidelines on how federal funds should be combined with other funding sources so as to, "coordinate and, where appropriate, integrate existing federal, state and local literacy resources" (Laanan & Cox, 2006, p. 363).

Applications

Developing Effective Family Literacy Programs

The integration of funding, institutions and resources is the most critical part of creating effective family literacy programs. As Cox and Lanaan point out, there is much more potential to decrease intergenerational illiteracy and poverty if various relevant agencies and services work together so as to create a unified program. They point out that the very concept of family literacy "demands collaboration", yet cooperation between agencies and services has also been one of the biggest barriers to creating successful programs. They also list several reasons why some family literacy programs have been failing in recent years, i.e. constriction of annual budgets, changes in the national demographics, and declining resources (Laanan & Cox, 2006, p. 369).

When considering obstacles, Duch (2005) gives us another view, from the side of the families. According to Duch, "several issues have been identified as hampering parents' participation in two-generation programs, such as problems with transportation, domestic violence and homelessness" (2005, p. 32). Thus, there are obstacles on the side of educators and agencies as well as on the side of the families, and all of these barriers need to be addressed in order to create a successful family literacy program. There have been a lot of private and public programs that have failed, and others that have succeeded, but herein we should simply examine the most fundamental programs that operate nation wide.

Head Start

Head Start was designed mainly with children in mind, and did not originally have much of an adult literacy component in it. As Duch points out, there are several disadvantages to the Head Start program. Duch's criticism of the Head Start programs should be considered:

• Head Start programs vary greatly in their implementation, and parent involvement is one of the most frequently neglected components
• Staff lack guidance and training in how to establish self-sufficiency goals for families;
• Resources for programs to be able to respond to the self-sufficiency needs of families are scarce;
• A majority of Head Start programs run on half-day schedules, limiting their ability to work intensely with families; and
• Head Start accepts children aged three and four years, limiting the time some families are in the program to a maximum of two years (Duch, 2005, p. 31).

Head Start Family Service Centers (FSC)

The FSC program began in 1990, and was developed to compensate for some of Duch's criticism above; i.e. that parent involvement was neglected, and also to offer a component specifically responding to parents' needs, such as "inadequate literacy, low employability and substance abuse". The primary system for the Family Service Centers was that of personal case management, so that case managers could assess a particular family's needs and then cooperate with the various relevant agencies in the community to help the family (Duch, 2005, p. 28).

Even Start Family Literacy Program

Even Start is the program that is truly based on family literacy and the concept of a two-generation program. The program is family-focused, and attempts to incorporate three basic elements: "early childhood education, adult education (adult basic education, adult secondary education, English as a Second Language) and parenting training." (Duch, 2005, p. 27).

The Intergenerational Literacy Project (ILP)

This project should be included to remind educators of the growing need for addressing illiteracy that is grounded in being an immigrant. The ILP program was aimed at teaching English literacy skills to immigrants. The program was designed to help immigrants learn to function effectively in mainstream American society, and to use the particular culture that a family comes from to find effective ways to increase literacy. Thus, the ILP was designed "to help parents develop their own literacy and to support the practice of family literacy in the home", but particularly with the problems and issues of immigrants taken into account (Paratore, 2006, p. 394).

Viewpoints

Community Colleges & Family Literacy Programs

Many researchers, including Lanaan and Cox, assert that one of the best institutions to coordinate and lead the efforts of family literacy programs is the community college. There are over 1,200 community colleges throughout America, and community colleges often work in the area of adult literacy, remedial courses, and training courses. Community colleges offer Adult Basic Education (ABE), English as a Second Language (ESL), and General Educational Development (GED) programming. Further, "the location of community colleges across urban and rural areas of states, pooled with their current ABE, ESL and GED programming, make them the ideal agency for coordinating family literacy initiatives" (Laanan & Cox, 2006, p. 360).

Community colleges already hold key positions in their local communities, so that they generally have a rich network of partnerships with many relevant agencies and institutions such as school districts, businesses, civic organizations and volunteer groups, as well as contacts with government agencies. Additionally, community colleges are a rich source of information about careers and job opportunities (Laanan & Cox, 2006, p. 370). Thus, community colleges may be the most effective structures for serving as developers of programs, and as the primary liaison among all the stakeholders. Innovative community colleges that are sensitive to the changing local community, and to the growth of immigrant needs in particular, could design the programs that address not only the literacy needs of impovershed white families, but also the unique needs of immigrant families (Sink et al., 2005, p. 584).

Sink et al. demonstrate one such pilot program developed by Blue Ridge Community College in North Carolina, where there is an enormous increase in Hispanic immigrant families. They point out that in Hispanic immigrant families, the Hispanic students

The Blue Ridge Community College pragmatically and systematically designed its family literacy program through six basic activities:

• Identifying and recruiting partners,
• Assessing the need,
• Establishing project goals,
• Designing a program,
• Acquiring resources, and
• Starting a pilot site (Sink et al., 2005, p. 585).

Through the new program, parents attend ESL classes to build their basic and conversational English skills, and also receive GED preparation. Their school-age children get tutoring and schoolwork help, and the preschool children attend classes where they perform "fluency-building games and activities". At the same time, because bridging cultures is essential for the program, the community college gives Spanish courses and instruction for the school personnel who are shown how to better communicate with Hispanic students and their parents. Additionally, the school sponsors cultural exchanges among the participants (Sink et al., 2005, p. 586).

This particular Family-Centered Literacy program has done an excellent job of generating and managing the necessary resources. In fact, the college cooperates with the county public school system to create locations for the program, and those sites have, in the course of a few years, grown to include five locations. Through the public school system, the program receives federal funding (Title I funding) to employ a tutorial staff. Additionally, the Henderson County Family and Children Resource Center "assists with Smart Start funding for childcare," and the program includes other important partners or agencies. For example, the Blue Ridge Literacy Council provides volunteers for conversational English classes, and the local parent-teacher organizations also contribute to the program. As Sink et al observe, "the key to having well-managed and productive classes has been to carefully integrate partner agency resources and volunteers" (Sink et al, 2005, p. 587), which many other community colleges across the country may also be able to achieve.

Terms & Concepts

Adult Basic Education (ABE): A set of programs or courses that are designed to increase the employability of adults who have a reading level that is below the ninth grade level. ABE courses are concentrated in mathematics, reading, language, and workforce readiness skills.

Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA): The first major U.S. federal program that was designed specifically to improve elementary and secondary education. The United States Congress passed the act in 1965 to support the Johnson administration's "war on poverty" program. Originally, the program was also closely connected to the 1960's civil rights movement, and Under the 1964 Civil Rights Act, ESEA funds could go only to schools complying with federal desegregation orders.

English as a Second Language (ESL): Generally refers to the study and practice of English by speakers who are born with a native language other than English. ESL is most commonly used in relation to teaching and learning English, but the term is also used sometimes when using or discussing demographic data.

Even Start Family Literacy Program: A federal program that issues grants to local family literacy projects that focus on four basic objectives: 1) early childhood education, 2) adult literacy (adult basic and secondary-level education and instruction for English language learners), 3) parenting education, and 4) interactive parent and child literacy activities. The program is for low-income parents and their children (up to age 7) who are eligible for services under the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act.

General Educational Development (GED): Refers to training and education in order to pass five subject tests that certifies that the taker has high-school level academic skills; the GED certificate is equivalent to a high school diploma.

Head Start: A federal educational program preschool children, and is operated through the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Head Start was initiated in 1965 as part of the Johnson administration's "War on Poverty" program. The program is designed to give low-income children more equal opportunities to receive education, health, and nutrition. Also, parent involvement services have become part of the Head Start program. Head Start is the longest-running federal program intended to alleviate poverty in the United States.

Intergenerational Literacy Project (ILP): The ILP is a two-generation family literacy project in Massachusetts that consists of 17 community organizations, and is guided by a Board of Collaborators that represent parents, the Chelsea Public Schools, Boston University, and various community organizations. The fundamental aim of the program is to support low-income families in helping their children to master public school classroom objectives and to build a positive attitude toward education. The two primary objectives are to increase the literacy skills of participating adults, and to improve literacy knowledge among pre-school and school-aged children.

National Center for Children in Poverty (NCCP): A leading research and public policy center concentrated on promoting the economic security, health, and well-being of low-income families and children in the United States. NCCP was founded in 1989 and is affiliated with Columbia University in New York.

No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB): A United States federal educational reform law enacted under President George W. Bush. The NCLB Act has provisions that specifically address the funding and development of family literacy projects.

Title I: An original part of President Johnson's Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). Title I was created to provide financial assistance to local educational agencies serving areas with concentrations of educationally disadvantaged children from low-income families. Title I has been modified and expanded over the years during various presidential administrations, including the administrations of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. The fundamental purpose of Title I is to give all children a fair, equal, and significant opportunity to obtain a high-quality education.

Two-Generation Program: An educational program aimed at helping both parents and children in improving their literacy and educational levels. Two-generation programs generally offer early childhood educational programs while also offering the parents training to help enhance their parenting skills, education, literacy, or job training.

Bibliography

Baker, C.E. (2013). Fathers' and mothers' home literacy involvement and children's cognitive and social emotional development: Implications for family literacy programs. Applied Developmental Science, 17, 184-197. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=91667907&site=ehost-live

Compton-Lilly, C., Rogers, R., & Lewis, T.Y. (2012). Analyzing epistemological considerations related to diversity: An integrative critical literature review of family literacy scholarship. Reading Research Quarterly, 47, 33-60. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=70165179&site=ehost-live

Darling, S. (2004). Family Literacy: Meeting the needs of at-risk families. Phi Kappa Phi Forum, 84: 18-21. Retrieved June 23, 2009 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=13362239&site=ehost-live

Duch, H. (2005). Redefining parent involvement in Head Start: A two-generation approach. Early Child Development & Care, 175: 23-35. Retrieved June 25, 2009 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=15508525&site=ehost-live

Hill, S., & Diamond, A. (2013). Family literacy in response to local contexts. Australian Journal of Language & Literacy, 36, 48-55. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=85182538&site=ehost-live

Holloway, J. (2004). Family literacy. Educational Leadership, 61: 88-89. Retrieved June 25, 2009 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=12472274&site=ehost-live

Laanan, S. & Cox, E. (2006). Political and structural divide: An holistic approach to family literacy programs at community colleges. Community College Journal of Research & Practice, 30: 359-372. Retrieved June 23, 2009 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=19906553&site=ehost-live

Morrell, J., & Bennett-Armistead, S. (2013). Preparing preservice teachers to develop productive and positive relationships with families through family literacy nights. New England Reading Association Journal, 48, 10-20. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=86427451&site=ehost-live

Paratore, J. (2006). Approaches to family literacy: Exploring the possibilities. Reading Teacher, 59: 394-396. Retrieved June 25, 2009 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=19025783&site=ehost-live

Sink D., Parkhill, M., Marshall, R. & Norwood, S. (2005). Learning together: A family-centered literacy program. Community College Journal of Research & Practice, 29: 583-590. Retrieved June 25, 2009 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=18288707&site=ehost-live

Suggested Reading

Crawford, P. & Zygouris-Coe, V. (2006) All in the family: Connecting home and school with family literacy. Early Childhood Education Journal, 33: 261-267. Retrieved June 23, 2009 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=21139546&site=ehost-live

Lynch, J. (2009). Print literacy engagement of parents from low-income backgrounds: Implications for adult and family literacy programs. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52: 509-521. Retrieved June 25, 2009 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=37012196&site=ehost-live

Padak, N. & Rasinski, T. (2007). Is being wild about Harry enough? Encouraging independent reading at home. Reading Teacher, 61: 350-353. Retrieved June 25, 2009 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=27773292&site=ehost-live

Reta, C. (2006). Families are ready for prime time. American Libraries, 37: 52-55. Retrieved June 23, 2009 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=21076378&site=ehost-live

Saracho, O. (2008). A literacy program for fathers: A case study. Early Childhood Education Journal, 35: 351-356. Retrieved June 25, 2009 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=29410896&site=ehost-live

Schafft, K. & Prins, E. (2009). Poverty, residential mobility, and persistence across urban and rural family literacy programs in Pennsylvania. Adult Basic Education & Literacy Journal, 3: 3-12. Retrieved June 23, 2009 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=38216953&site=ehost-live

Sokolinski, S. (2008). LIFE support: A family literacy program for struggling first-grade readers and their families. Illinois Reading Council Journal, 36: 3-12. Retrieved June 25, 2009 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=31625958&site=ehost-live

St. Clair, R. (2008). Reading, writing, and relationships: Human and social capital in family literacy programs. Adult Basic Education & Literacy Journal, 2: 84-93. Retrieved June 23, 2009 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=33995218&site=ehost-live

Taylor, D. (1983). Family literacy: Young children learning to read and write. Exeter, NH: Heinemann.

Timmons, V. (2008). Challenges in researching family literacy programs. Canadian Psychology, 49: 96-102. Retrieved June 23, 2009 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=32921274&site=ehost-live