Changing the Course of Family Literacy

Policy Paper

January, 2017 Changing the Course of Family Literacy

Carol Clymer, Blaire Willson Toso, Elisabeth Grinder & Ruth Parrish Sauder

Introduction Family literacy programs have existed for discretion regarding how the money is spent for decades. These programs typically provide an programs that are “allowable” rather than array of services and activities to parents and required. Thus, it is difficult to discern how much their children that help them build language and public money is available for or spent on family literacy skills, increase education levels, and literacy and what shape programming takes as a improve their overall economic well-being. result. Given the important role that family Family literacy emerged in the late 1980s and literacy can play, the Goodling Institute for early 1990s with the federally funded Even Start Research in Family Literacy began to explore the Family Literacy Program, which was designed to status of family literacy across the nation through “integrate early childhood education, adult the lens of the Adult Education and Family literacy (adult basic and secondary-level Literacy Act (AEFLA) in July 2015. Since states education and instruction for English language have the authority to spend AEFLA funds on learners), parenting education, and interactive program priorities other than family literacy, the parent and child literacy activities for low- Institute wanted to know which states continued income families”.1 Unfortunately, Even Start to fund family literacy after the loss of Even Start. funding decreased steadily in the new All 50 states and the District of Columbia were millennium and finally ended in FY 2011-2012 contacted about their efforts to fund family after several national research studies reported literacy; 47 states and the District of Columbia mixed results. Due to the cessation of Even Start responded. Individual family literacy programs funding, the number of programs has diminished were also surveyed to find out about their funding considerably. Despite this significant lack of and the kinds of services they provided. In federal and state financial support, a committed addition to reporting the findings from states and family literacy community remains. This local programs, this policy brief establishes the community has been inventive in cobbling together scarce resources to sustain vibrant Contact the author at: [email protected] family literacy initiatives and programs. Goodling Institute for Research in Family Literacy 405 Keller Building, University Park, PA 16802 Today at least 18 federal programs (11 in the Phone: (814) 867-0268 U.S. Department of Education, six in the U.S. You can learn more about Goodling Institute at Department of Health and Human Services, and http://ed.psu.edu/goodling-institute one in the Bureau of Indian Education) include This publication is available in alternative media on family literacy in the legislation as an allowable 2 request. Penn State is committed to affirmative action, expenditure; however, most of the funding is equal opportunity, and the diversity of its workforce. passed through to the states, which have some U.Ed. EDU 09-17

1 importance and traces the history and the current economic inequality between advantaged and landscape of family literacy, and makes the case less advantaged members of our society that has for continued and enhanced funding for family a multiplying effect over time.”6 Other research literacy. also demonstrates the relationship between parental education and children’s school Widening Disparity in readiness and success.7 Furthermore, high- Educational Attainment income families are able to and do invest in Diminished funding for family literacy is both a their child’s development at a much higher rate result of the demise of Even Start and the than low-income families.8 Providing early continued depletion of resources for adult basic childhood education experiences that involve education. This disinvestment could be quite parent learning can help mitigate the disparity of costly for our nation. According to the Program resources available to socio-economically for the International Assessment of Adult disadvantaged families.9 Competencies (PIAAC), the United States is now lagging behind most industrial nations in To diminish the achievement gap we must invest numeracy (16 countries ranked above, two on in the education of all children, particularly those par, and three below) and problem solving in with low literacy and numeracy skills. It is also technology-rich environments (ranked lowest imperative to build parents’ education skills to 3 support their and their children’s literacy and along with one other country). The U.S. fared numeracy development, since educational better in literacy, falling only one point below attainment influences educational outcomes and the international average score (273); seven human and social capital. Moreover, family countries ranked above, nine on par, and six 4 literacy programming that incorporates adult and below the U.S. Further, PIAAC data early childhood education may be the only demonstrates the relationship between parental educational option for many adult learners, given education (a proxy for socio-economic status) the paucity of affordable childcare and preschool and literacy score. The higher the parent’s education. This lack of investment in parents and educational attainment, the higher the their children helps to perpetuate the widening respondent’s literacy and numeracy score is racial and class disparity in educational attainment likely to be; conversely, the parents of in the U.S. respondents with lower numeracy and literacy skills had significantly lower levels of The Rise and Fall of Family Literacy educational attainment. The U.S. is one of two During the 1980s, heightened attention to countries wherein the parents’ educational literacy skill development for adults and attainment has the strongest association on the children progressed along parallel paths. Adult respondent’s literacy score; in other words, in literacy programming was designed to assist the U.S. a parent’s educational attainment adults to develop basic literacy skills and heavily influences the next generation’s literacy increase economic independence. skills. This finding indicates that the U.S. has Simultaneously, for children, the emphasis one of “the most entrenched multigenerational centered on early childhood education and the literacy problem[s] among the countries in the 5 importance of school readiness. In the mid- PIAAC survey;” thus, it is harder for low- 1980s, a shift from family engagement to family socio-economic status children in the U.S. to literacy took place. Driven by the report A overcome education and income inequality. Nation at Risk10 and studies that claimed that Goodman, Sands, and Coley write: “the large the mother’s education was the best predictor of gap in skills between U.S. millennials whose children’s school achievement,11 responsibility parents have the lowest and highest levels of for children’s early literacy learning shifted educational attainment points to social and

2 from the schools to the parents.12 Family Even Start began as a federally administered literacy programming that supported children’s program in 1989 with an appropriation of $14.8 development and literacy skills, while also million.15 In 1992 funding reached $50 million and enhancing parents’ literacy and parenting skills states became responsible for administering Even to fulfill their role as their child’s first teacher, Start programs. Peak funding was reached in 2001 was viewed by policymakers as a solution to and 2002 with total funding at $250 million.16 help children of low-literate adults succeed After 2002, funding steadily decreased and the academically. program was eliminated in 2011. The federal legislation for family literacy, Even Start was defunded largely due to poor championed by former Congressman William F. program outcomes reported in a series of national Goodling, was first authorized in 1988 as a evaluations. In particular, the results of the third small demonstration project under the national evaluation found similar gains for Even Elementary and Secondary Education Act Start participants and those in a control group.17 (ESEA). Even Start’s goal was to “improve the The results led the authors to “question the educational opportunities of the nation’s theoretical model underlying Even Start and most children and adults by integrating early other family literacy programs.”18 However, childhood education and adult education for analyses of the national evaluation indicated that parents into a unified program.”13 In other the evaluation design was flawed. Findings were words, while parents and children engage in based on a convenience sample (programs literacy activities through shared storybook volunteered to participate) of 18 programs that met reading, play, language games, and other a variety of criteria (e.g., met Even Start legislative activities, parents practice their own language, requirements, provided programming for at least writing, and reading skills. The Kenan model, two years, offered services of moderate to high the well-known four-component family literacy intensity).19 About 750 programs were operating intervention, became the foundation for Even during this time; 115 met all the established Start. Family literacy services were defined in evaluation design criteria. The 18 programs studied the ESEA as: represented only 16% of the eligible programs and services provided to participants on a 2% of all programs. Although sampling parameters were set, participating programs were never tested voluntary basis that are of sufficient 20 intensity in terms of hours, and of or evaluated for fidelity to the Even Start model. sufficient duration, to make sustainable In addition, neither the quality of services provided to families nor the level of family engagement changes in a family, and that integrate all 21 of the following instructional activities: were clearly determined, undermining the validity of the evaluators’ rejection of Even Start’s • Interactive literacy activities between theoretical model. Furthermore, the final number parents and their children. of families on which data was reported is small and • Training for parents regarding how to be therefore questionable as an accurate the primary teacher for their children and representation of the Even Start population: Even full partners in the education of their Start children, n=97; Even Start adults n=149; children. Control Group children n=44; Control Group • Parent literacy training that leads to adults n=65. economic self-sufficiency. Data collection was also suspect. General • An age-appropriate education to prepare outcomes were reported using Even Start children for success in school and life 14 Performance Information and Reporting experiences. System (ESPIRS) data; however, this was a non-representative data sample. Few programs

reported parent and child outcomes in ESPIRS reflect shifts in the emphasis of family literacy. because they were not required to do so. AEFLA continues to refer to family literacy Moreover, programs were unable to review the programming and the four-component model; data for accuracy.22 In addition, language and program requirements remain relatively similar reading gains were reported only for parents to the earlier Workforce Investment Act (WIA) and children who were assessed in English, AEFLA, Title II regulations. However, following thereby omitting 25% of the Even Start the policy emphasis on career pathways and population from the data sample. It is possible employment, family literacy has shifted to that the results were further compromised as intentionally and explicitly include programming the authors do not explain how participants that can lead to jobs and/or postsecondary were presented with the choice of testing education. This is reflected in the subtle but language; researchers stated that “the English important additions to AEFLA HR 803—186, version of each measure was administered Sec 203 (9): “Parent or family adult education whenever possible.”23 Literacy and academic and literacy activities that lead to readiness for gains could be disputed given that gains, or postsecondary education or training, career lack of gains, represent the participant’s advancement, and economic self-sufficiency” English fluency rather than literacy or (emphasis added). Similarly, new performance academic ability.24 measures heighten the focus on employment outcomes or transition to postsecondary training The flawed evaluation study results unraveled and education.27 support for Even Start, even though over the program’s 20-year span, it served more than Although these are important goals for families, 40,000 economically vulnerable families.25 After the foregrounding of employability goals (e.g., 2010, many family literacy programs were obtaining employment, increasing wages, eliminated. Those that continued have been participating in education that leads to employment sustained through a variety of funding sources or recognized certificate) subjugates other such as foundations, state governments, school important, non-economic goals, including building districts, and community action agencies. adult and child literacy, parenting, and advocacy skills. This shift is shortsighted, given the Current Family Literacy Programming: prevalence of failing schools and working-poor Legislation and Philosophies families who have little time to support parents’ or Despite the elimination of Even Start funding, children’s schooling. the idea of family literacy remains strong; In a different vein, the Every Student Succeeds however, the concept has expanded in terms of Act (ESSA) supports family engagement via a nomenclature, definition, and implementation. minimum set-aside of funds in Title I, known as Legislation for family literacy continues to exist the Statewide Family Engagement in Education within a disconnected and fragmented framework 26 Programs, and an emphasis on family literacy in of various acts and bills, including Indian migrant education. This law gives importance to Education, Education of Migratory Children, family engagement by using funding “to engage Ready to Learn Television, Head Start, and [parents] in activities that will improve student Community Services Block Grant. Two major academic achievement, including understanding federal family literacy funding sources, Title II of how parents can support learning in the the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act classroom with activities at home.”28 (WIOA)—the Adult Education and Family Although Literacy Act (AEFLA)—and Every Student schools may indicate that they offer family Succeeds Act (ESSA)—the reauthorized version literacy, programming often focuses on early of Elementary and Secondary Education Act— childhood education, K-6 curricula, and parenting, with little emphasis on adult literacy.29

The Mosaic of Family Literacy: “Two-generation” programming has gained Innovations and Changes momentum as another approach to address the needs of vulnerable families. Leaders in this arena The change in funding has prompted a retooling are the Aspen Institute’s Ascend initiative and the of family literacy, creating an assortment of Annie E. Casey Foundation. These organizations programming designs. Many providers now highlight strategies that “give families more collaborate with other organizations or cobble opportunities to succeed” through “an intentional, together multiple funding streams to support coordinated approach.”30 variations of the four-component model. For Although these strategies example, a community-based organization may do not exclude parents and children learning offer adult ESL classes, while a Head Start together, programming tends to focus on program provides early childhood education. supporting children and parents independently Depending on which agency is the lead, rather than as a family unit. In addition, “two-gen” programming can favor one component over strategies primarily center on post-secondary another, or lose the integrated nature of family educational opportunities, which often overlooks literacy activities. In other words, a provider the adult basic education learner for whom these may choose to focus on early childhood opportunities may be out of reach. Parents who education and hold adult education classes in a already have a high school or GED diploma are in separate building, with few activities connected a much more advantaged position than those who to supporting children’s learning. Alternatively, lack one. As such, the exclusion of non-high a school district might run a family literacy school graduates from most two-gen initiatives program that targets a particular initiative, such could limit these parents’ access to career as parent engagement or leadership, as opposed pathways or sectoral employment training. to an emphasis on interactive literacy activities Furthermore, two-gen programming does not or adult education classes. However, a more typically include intergenerational learning using common format is to offer family literacy the family as the central context. programming as a stand-alone family event, The Current Status of Family Literacy such as a family reading night, instead of a From spring 2015 to spring 2016, the Goodling longer-term, sustained learning experience for Institute contacted all fifty states and families. Washington D.C. to determine how, if at all, A few key organizations, such as The National Adult Education and Family Literacy Act Center for Families Learning (NCFL) and the (AEFLA) funds were used to continue family Barbara Bush Foundation, continue to promote literacy programming after Even Start funding and support four-component programming with was discontinued.31 Information was gathered an updated emphasis on employability skills, from state directors or their representatives via technology, and transitions to college, training, email and/or phone calls. We gathered or employment. New initiatives have brought a information from 47 states and found that 11 different perspective on family literacy. Library states and the District of Colombia were funding initiatives, such as The Family Literacy Focus, family literacy programs in 2015-16. Seventeen Complementary Learning (e.g., Children’s Zone, states were aware that some of their local Beacon Schools), and Intergenerational Family programs were using AEFLA funding for Learning (e.g., Museums as 21st Century portions of family literacy programing and 19 Partners) are some examples of programming states were not aware of AEFLA funds being that reflects family literacy principles. However, used to support family literacy programs. The these programs primarily offer child-centered states that made specific efforts to keep family programming with peripheral inclusion of adults. literacy programs operating—Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland,

Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode literacy funding was eliminated by the Island, South Carolina, Wyoming and the legislature in 2016 due to a shortfall in the state District of Columbia—had varying funding budget. levels and strategies and used different Connecticut and Delaware also use general state approaches to programming, and most were funding to supplement their AEFLA resources passionate about the need to sustain family for family literacy programming. As in literacy. Wyoming, Even Start advocates in Connecticut Most States Use Braided Funding Strategies appealed to their legislature to maintain funding to Support Family Literacy for family literacy. Connecticut was able to obtain a state award that supplements AEFLA Although Illinois, Pennsylvania, and Wyoming funds to fund family literacy programs. used specially legislated state funding rather than Programs that partner with community agencies AEFLA resources to support family literacy to provide services are given funding preference programs, most of the other states blended state in Connecticut. and federal dollars to provide family literacy Delaware continues to secure services. In 2015-16, these 11 states and the general funding for family literacy from the District of Columbia each funded two to 49 Lieutenant Governor’s Office to supplement programs. Table 1 (see page 8) highlights their AEFLA funds. efforts to fund family literacy programs in 2015- In South Carolina, school districts may use 16 and 2016-17. revenue from the Early Childhood Development Illinois and Pennsylvania have state allocations and Academic Assistance Act of 1993 (Act 135) to fund family literacy. Illinois began funding and Education Accountability Act of 1998 in family literacy in 1989 through the Office of the addition to AEFLA funds to support family Secretary of State, which was a strong supporter literacy programs. of literacy. Pennsylvania has had an annual Although funding practices and sources vary in appropriation of at least 25% since 1998, when DC, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, New the state legislature began earmarking funds for York, and Rhode Island, the adult education and family literacy education services through Act parenting components are often funded through 143 of 1986, Title 24, Chapter 31, the Adult and AEFLA, and the children’s education and Family Literacy Education Act.32 interactive literacy components through arrangements with partners such as school After the demise of Even Start, advocates in districts, private foundations, workforce Wyoming approached the state legislature to agencies, and community action programs. For seek alternative funding for four programs. The example, AEFLA funding may be used primarily state continued to fund these programs in part for the adult education component or it may fund because proponents were able to provide both adult education and parenting activities with longitudinal data indicating that high school partners funding the other components. graduation rates for students involved in family Nevertheless, it is common practice across all literacy programs were higher than for students states and DC for local programs to partner with with no family literacy engagement. In addition other agencies to offer the range of services to funding the original four programs, the needed to provide family literacy programs. legislature increased funding for four more family literacy programs. State leaders hoped to States Use Varied Approaches to increase that number; however, despite efforts Programming from providers to offer data reflecting the Although most of the states that still fund family efficacy of programs and support for literacy use some variation of the four- continuation from the governor, this family

6 component Even Start model—adult education, family engagement) do not have a required early childhood education, parent-child minimum of hours or duration. interactive literacy activities (ILA), and parent Since 1989, Illinois has funded family literacy education—states’ programming structures programming through the Secretary of State (also differ somewhat, with two states, New York and the Secretary of Libraries.) Programs use the Massachusetts, departing considerably from the Even Start model with the addition of a fifth four-component model. New York funds library component, through which programs Literacy Zones that provide “a continuum of introduce families to the library, help them literacy from early childhood through adulthood, become familiar with library services, and including strong support for parents’ provide specific programming for families such involvement in their children’s literacy as story time. Programs are required to have a development at home and engagement with the 33 library partner, adult literacy provider, and a school system.” Literacy Zones provide a “child at risk” agency, but the state is not range of supports, from family literacy to prescriptive about who delivers the components. services for out-of-school youth; grant recipients However, they do encourage integrated delivery must demonstrate that they are serving of all of the components. individuals “characterized by significant poverty and deficits in literacy and English language Pennsylvania implements a family literacy proficiency.”34 Literacy Zones must also partner initiative to support the four-component model. with a Family Welcome Center that offers Agencies use the Family Risk Index (based on assistance with family needs such as the Annie E. Casey Foundation’s KIDS COUNT employment services, transportation, school- Data Book) to determine if they are serving home connections, and case management. families most in need. As in Even Start, home visits are allowed, but not required. Programs In Massachusetts, family literacy services are can use state-approved distance learning options provided by a range of grantees, including for instructional activities to support the ILA municipalities, local school systems, component. In addition to program funding, the community-based agencies, faith-based state also funds a leadership project that organizations, community colleges, libraries, provides technical support and professional volunteer organizations, correctional facilities, development for family literacy programs. labor organizations and foundations. Many grantees provide services at Community Adult In 2015-16, the Community College Learning Centers (CALCs). Four options for Commission administered Wyoming’s family providing services based on community needs Literacy programs. They used the four- are in place: (1) dedicated ABE and/or ESL component model and offered career pathways classes for parents; (2) curriculum services. Local programs had the autonomy to contextualized to parents’ needs and interests; make decisions about policies and practices. For (3) family action plans (i.e., individual plans, example, in one area the family literacy program developed jointly with staff, that include family served newborn to 12-year-olds, allowing after- goals for students who are parents); and (4) school programming as part of the program. A family and community engagement as a focus of focus on evidence-based practice centered local collaborations and partnerships. Programs Wyoming’s work; the state built a participant are allowed to provide intensive and/or short- database to collect information on student term services to families. Intensive services attendance, hours, duration, and case notes to require a minimum of five hours per week, 32 help inform what might influence student weeks per year; short-term activities (i.e., ILA,

Table 1: Overview of State Efforts to Fund Family Literacy (FL) Programs in 2015-16 & 2016-2017 FAMILY LITERACY FUNDING* STATE 4 (# Programs) Components Other Funding Information 2016- 2015-2016 Required 2017 Yes No • $1,287,713 • AEFLA funds the AE o $437,713 Specially legislated component state funds for 3 ES Programs Connecticut o Total of $850,000 AEFLA (17) funds Same as X . $700,000 ($50,000 per 2015-16 program) in AEFLA funds to supplement 14 providers with FL programs; $50,000 for 3 ES Programs • $293,300 Lieutenant Governor’s • AEFLA funds the AE Same as Delaware Office General State Funds component 2015-16 X (2) • State funds child services and intergenerational work • $538,383.95 • AEFLA funds the AE and PE Office of State Superintendent component District of o of Education(OSSE): Adult • DC Department of Employment Columbia Same as X and Family Education & Services (DC DOES) (2) 2015-16 OSSE: ECE • DC Office on Latino Affairs

• Other foundation and private funding • • Other public, foundation and X $772,769 $567,000 Illinois & • private funding Secretary of State/Secretary of 17 (24) Library • Programs required to have 3 Libraries programs partners: AE, ECE and library • $150,000 AEFLA • AEFLA funds AE component • Work with various partners such Louisiana X as local workforce development $47,317 (4) boards, agencies, and/or schools for PE, ECE & ILA components • $465,000 AEFLA • AEFLA used for AE and PE components Maryland Same as X • Programs must partner with (13) 2015-16 organizations for ECE and ILA, must have MOU with partners • $358,180 AEFLA • AEFLA funds AE and PE • $68,592 in local matching funds components Massachusetts • Encourage school districts to Same as X (22) provide the ECE component 2015-16 • Level of funding based on family service hours

FAMILY LITERACY FUNDING* STATE 4 (# Programs) Components Other Funding Information 2016- 2015-2016 Required 2017 Yes No • Over $35 million in AEFLA and • AEFLA funds AE and ILA state funds component • $5 million Literacy Zone • Literacy Zone funding is in (approximately $100,000 per addition to AEFLA funding zone) • Core literacy instruction is New York funded out of WIOA AEFLA, 49 Literacy Same as X which providers must have to get Zones 2015-16 Literacy Zone funding

• Literacy Zone funding cannot be used for ECE, it is used for case management and community outreach and partnerships • Not all Zones provide FL • $4,202,497 • No AEFLA funding used for Pennsylvania • 36% of state funds (Legislative adult education (20 + 1 TA Mandate Act 143 requires at • Act 143 money used for AE first, Same as X project least 25%) then PE, ILA, and ECE 2015-16 • Most programs partner for some PE, ILA and ECE • $312,998 AEFLA and state • AEFLA funds AE component funding and programs partner with Rhode Island X Same as school district (4) 2015-16 • Community Action Program (CAP) funds PE, ILA & ECE. • $465,000 of AEFLA funds are • AEFLA funds support the AE set aside for FL activities. and PE components. • $5,000 - $10,000 awarded per • Programs must partner for funds program by an application to support ECE and ILA. Funds South process, (funds can be more or count in the one-to-one match Same as Carolina X** less depending on program needs that is required by the initiative. 2015-16 (37) or if the FL activities are a pilot). • Funding priority for programs that have a high number of low- income, and/or low literacy students. Wyoming • $3,271,157 (biannually) • General state fund Program (8) X • $150,000 set aside to pilot new • Administered by Community eliminated programs College Commission * KEY: ES = Even Start; AE = Adult Education; ECE = Early Childhood Education; ILA = Interactive Literacy; PE = Parenting Education ** If an AE program would like to offer FL and does not have the infrastructure to offer the required four components, special consideration may be given.

9 outcomes. As stated above, due to a state believe family literacy is effective in terms of budget crisis in 2016, this funding was increasing both academic skills and opportunity eliminated. for children and parents, especially those who live in poverty or have low levels of literacy, In South Carolina, the four components are limited English proficiency, or barriers to required. However, if the program does not learning. In Louisiana, New York, and South have the infrastructure to support the four Carolina family literacy is viewed as a strategy components, the state works with the to help boost the economic prospects of low- organization to develop a plan that will lead income families. These states are not alone in toward implementing a four component this thinking: The Center for Law and Social program. Policy lists family literacy programming as a In sum, the four-component Even Start model is strategy to reduce child poverty.35 still required in Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Colombia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, States Have Mixed Capacity to and South Carolina, while Illinois requires five Collect Outcome Data components. The challenge of collecting data was mentioned by some state officials. One official noted that States Believe in the Importance of Teaching they collect data on six measures for adult Children and Parents Together education under AEFLA Title II, yet there are Several state representatives indicated that no specific metrics for family literacy. Although family literacy programs continued to be there is a table to report family literacy funded after Even Start ended because of a information in the National Reporting System belief in the importance of literacy (NRS), data collection is not required and programming that engages children and their therefore the extent to which this data reflect parents in shared, interwoven instructional family literacy programming is unclear. A few activities. Several state administrators states also cited structural challenges in commented that family literacy adds value to separating data for family literacy versus other their adult education offerings because it adult education participants in their reporting allows parents to spend time on their own systems. For example, some states may not be learning while their children are participating able to determine which adults attended family in activities that enrich their lives. As one literacy programs. administrator indicated: Delaware, Louisiana, Massachusetts, New York, We continued to fund family literacy Pennsylvania, and South Carolina collect and programs because we recognized that manage family literacy-specific data, though in often times there are barriers to parents’ varying forms. New York reports extensive data participation in education activities and collection in connection with its Literacy Zone that the ability to provide early programming. A New York administrator childhood services or after-school indicated that data from the Literacy Zones literacy tutoring program or any type of programs show educational gains for adult programming to children while parents students, higher attendance and reduced are also engaged in instructional discipline issues for school-age students, and activities is a blessing. increased parental ability to support their Helping parents to help their children with children in school. South Carolina reported that school and homework was also seen as a critical parent-child interactions have increased based benefit by several state administrators. A on state-gathered data. number of state officials reported that they

The lack of systematic data on family literacy Aggregator to learn more about local family programs and outcomes minimizes the ability to literacy programming and funding. make informed decisions and measure the Eighty-seven programs across 28 states effectiveness of programming. One official responded to the survey, representing a range of commented that the lack of common outcomes providers such as school districts, community- for family literacy is critical because programs based organizations, libraries, Head Start, are unable to demonstrate their worth. FACE, migrant programs, literacy councils, charter schools, adult learning centers, and States Experience Challenges Implementing community and technical colleges. Over half Family Literacy Programs (54%) of the programs had operated for 11 years Although 10 states and the District of Colombia or more. Programs size varied considerably, continued to fund family literacy programs with 15% serving 20 or fewer families and 34% (Wyoming lost funding in 2016-17), a few state serving more than 100. Two-thirds (67%) of officials commented on the challenges they have programs had never received Even Start funding faced. In addition to data collection, mentioned and drew on multiple funding streams to support above, insufficient resources were a common family literacy programming. challenge both because of reduced funding with Over half of the programs (56%) offered the loss of Even Start and because the four- services or partnered with another agency to component model can be costly to implement. help parents find a job; however, only about As noted, some states have required programs to one-third of programs included employability partner with other agencies to provide the early skill development or other opportunities to childhood and interactive literacy components transition to employment or postsecondary as a cost-sharing measure. Although this education. Programs varied in the kinds of strategy may alleviate strained budgets, a few outcomes they tracked; there was only one state representatives noted differing reporting common outcome (literacy and numeracy gains) requirements for partner agencies, resulting in that was reported by more than 50% of individual organizations being more concerned programs. By contrast, there were two common about their own numbers. For example, one measures for adults (educational functioning official mentioned that the varied accountability levels and English language gains). requirements can lead to situations in which participants, particularly parents, who are seen Policy Recommendations as “high-risk” are not as desirable to partner During the 2015-16 fiscal year, 11 states and programs because they may take longer to meet Washington DC continued to emphasize family required outcomes. State officials also indicated literacy through AEFLA after the demise of that enrollment and consistent participation were 36 Even Start. Although this is not a large challenging because of parents’ conflicting work number, it is notable given decades of decreased schedules, family responsibilities, children’s AEFLA funding and additional requirements for busy school calendars, and lack of services such as transition to employment or transportation. postsecondary education and training. The Many Family Literacy Programs Workforce Innovation and Opportunities Act Operate Independently (WIOA) prioritizes serving low-income individuals and adults with barriers to After gaining this state-level perspective, we employment—the population targeted by family surveyed targeted programs identified by state literacy programs. WIOA also emphasizes officials and the constituents of the National greater involvement by adult education Center for Families Learning via their providers with workforce partners,

11 programming focused on career pathways and education has decreased 17%37, requiring states Integrated Education and Training (IET), and to do more with less. Furthermore, according to heightened performance measures related to our analysis, the reduction of adult education employment retention and median wages. These funding and the elimination of Even Start increased expectations are important to adult funding influenced some states’ decisions not to learners, including those who are parents. use resources for family literacy programming. However, for many of these parents, family This decision is shortsighted given the literacy programs are the only viable educational importance of parent’s educational attainment as opportunity that addresses their multiple goals demonstrated by the PIAAC results. Reinvesting and needs, which may include immediate in adult basic education and family literacy is employment or postsecondary education. For more important now than ever. example, parents can attend class while their • Re-establish dedicated funding to provide a young children receive early childhood four-component family literacy model that education, mitigating the childcare barrier. enables parents to increase educational Parenting classes encompass multiple strategies attainment, employability and occupational such as building positive education trajectories, skills, parenting skills, community enhancing community engagement and engagement, and social capital, along with advocacy skills, fostering academic success, and children’s academic development. planning for postsecondary education for both • Increase AEFLA funds so that family parents and their children. Furthermore, when literacy is a targeted program that includes parents and children learn together in interactive the four components and require states to literacy activities, a cohesive family learning use a percentage of AEFLA funds for environment is modeled and supported. family literacy—federal, state match, or Although it may seem costly to fund this both. multifaceted model, the reality is that the • Require a percentage of ESSA funding to components are often funded and delivered as be earmarked and combined with AEFLA standalone programs because they each have to help fund a four-component family value. However, this practice of separating the literacy model. four components undermines a coherent strategy • Provide planning grants to help local to support low-income and marginalized areas—particularly where there are high families and reduces efficiency and concentrations of low-income and effectiveness. Funders should revisit offering immigrant families—braid funding so that and integrating the four components to reduce resources can be strategically used to offer duplication of effort and maximize resources as integrated family literacy services. well as help parents realize the • Increase support for family literacy services interconnectedness of their and their children’s in Head Start as defined by the Improving education. These findings have important School Readiness for Head Start Act of implications for policy, outlined below. 2007 (Sec.637(4)(A)(B)(C) & (D) [42 U.S. 38 Increase Funding C 9801]), which follows a similar four- component family literacy model, to It is critical to invest in the education of children require parent literacy training. and adults learning together, particularly those with low literacy and numeracy skills, to Build Evidence and Document diminish the K-12 achievement gap and Accountability improve the economic prospects of low-income Family literacy programs have not received families. Since 2010, federal funding for adult adequate guidance and opportunity to establish

12 their value and effectiveness. The Even Start • Establish models and best practices that program was dismantled based on limited and combine family literacy programming questionable research. Furthermore, outcomes with employability programming such as for family literacy programs have never been service learning, sectoral employment clearly defined, nor have data been collected to training, and/or career pathways. Ensure help programs demonstrate their worth. WIOA that such programming leads to industry provides a starting point for identifying viable recognized credentials and/or licenses measures for family literacy participants through and family-sustaining wages. interim progress measures, known as the • Provide supportive services (e.g., child Measurable Skills Gains. The following care) that address barriers to participating recommendations will help determine program in family programming and also enable outcomes and inform systematic data collection parents to build employability skills. that relates to the multi-dimensional goals of the • Explore instructional strategies that help four-component family literacy model: parents and their children to learn about • Establish a federal discretionary grant and plan for educational opportunities program that funds research related to that lead to family-sustaining careers. effective practice, long-term results and Conclusion impacts, and the return on investment of Although funding for adult education and family family literacy programming. literacy has decreased substantially over the • Identify shared performance measures and years, a small, yet dedicated, group of states and outcomes to adequately document the local programs continues to offer family literacy results and benefits of family literacy services to adults and their children. These states programming to inform local, state, and and local programs have fostered partnerships national program improvement and policy. and braided funding to preserve and support • Provide technical assistance to family family literacy programs and services. For many literacy providers to collect and use data for adults, family literacy programming is an continuous program improvement. important educational opportunity to develop Support Economic and Family their own skills and to help their children Prosperity progress in key academic skills. From a broader perspective, family literacy offers a program Over ten million families make up the working model that can enhance parents’ literacy and poor in the U.S., relegating 24 million children 39 employability skills as well as lead to to living in poverty or near-poverty. Parents in postsecondary opportunities and family these families, in addition to non-working and sustaining employment. The PIAAC data underemployed parents, would benefit from demonstrate the widening achievement gap and family literacy programs that incorporate an assert the crucial relationship between parental intentional focus on employability skills, education and the survey respondent’s literacy occupational skills training, transitions to ability in the U.S. Education for parents and postsecondary education, and English language their children is vital for the success of families development. Each of these strategies is key to and the nation. This paper poses a rationale and helping adults to access better and more stable recommendations to support family literacy jobs, which in turn can offer a more secure life programs as an essential strategy for assisting for children. low-income families to improve their education and employment prospects.

1 U.S. Department of Education (2014), Even achievement gap. Educational Leadership, Start Purpose [Webpage]. Retrieved from: 70(8), 10-16. http://www2.ed.gov/programs/evenstartformul 8 Kornrich, S., & Furstenberg, F. (2013). a/index.html, para 1. Investing in children: Changes in parental 2 Tavalin, K. Washington Partners, LLC spending on children, 1972- (2016). 2007. Demography, 50(1), 1-23. 3 PIAAC is a large-scale, international doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13524-012- assessment of literacy, numeracy and problem 0146-4 solving in technology-rich environments 9 Reardon, S. F. (2013). The widening income administered in 2011-12 in 23 countries with a achievement gap. Educational Leadership, population of 16- to 65-year-olds who were 70(8), 10-16. non-institutionalized, residing in the 10 US Department of Education. (1983). A country—irrespective of nationality, Nation at Risk. Author: Washington, DC. citizenship, or language status, Retrieved from 4 The "Skills of U.S. Unemployed, Young, https://www2.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/risk.htm and Older Adults in Sharper Focus" report, l available on the NCES website, provides 11 Sticht, T. G. (1988). Adult Literacy many more details. For more information on Education. Review of Research in Education, PIAAC and the 2012/2014 U.S. results, please 15, 59–96; Sticht, T. G., & McDonald, B. A. visit the PIAAC website at (1990). Teach the Mother and Reach the http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/piaac/. Child: Literacy Across Generations. Literacy 5 Lunze, K. & Paasche-Orlow, M. (2014). Lessons. Geneva. Limited literacy and poor health: The role of 12 Gadsden, V. (2008). Family Literacy. In B. social mobility in Germany and the United V. Street & N. H. Hornberger (Eds.), States. Journal of Health Communication, 19, Encyclopedia of Language and Education (pp. 15-18. doi: 10.1080/10810730.2014.946115, 163–177). Springer Science and Business p. 17. Media LLC. 6 Goodman, Sands & Coley (2016). 13 Augustus F. Hawkins - Robert T. Stafford America’s skills challenge: Millennials and Elementary and Secondary School the future. Educational Testing Service: Improvement Amendments of 1988, Pub. L. Princeton, NJ. Retrieved from 101-297, 102 Stat. 130, 20 USC 2701, § 1051. https://www.ets.org/s/research/30079/asc- 14 No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 1 millennials-and-the-future.pdf p. 28. C.F.R., pt. 34 (2002). 7 Chevalier, A., Harmon, C., O’ Sullivan, V., 15 US Department of Education. (2014). Even & Walker, I. (2013). The impact of parental Start (Archived Information). Retrieved April income and education on the schooling of 1, 2016, from their children. IZA Journal of Labor http://www2.ed.gov/programs/evenstartformul Economics, 2(1), 1-22. doi: 10.1186/2193- a/index.html 8997-2-8; Hartas, D. (2011). Families’ social 16 Sapin, C., Padak, N. D., & Baycich, D. backgrounds matter: socio-economic factors, (2008). Family Literacy Resource Notebook. home learning and young children’s language, Retrieved from literacy and social outcomes. British http://literacy.kent.edu/Oasis/famlitnotebook/ Educational Research Journal, 37(6), 893- 17 St. Pierre, R., Ricciuti, A., Tao, F., Creps, 914. doi: 10.1080/01411926.2010.506945; C., Swartz, J., Lee, W., & Parsad, A. (2003). Reardon, S. F. (2013). The widening income Third national Even Start evaluation: Program

impacts and implications for improvement. Retrieved from Cambridge, MA. http://literacy.kent.edu/Oasis/famlitnotebook/, 18 St. Pierre, R. G., Ricciuti, A. E., & p. 3-5. Rimdzius, T. A. (2005). Effects of a family 27National Skills Coalition. (2014, October). literacy program on low-literate children and Side-by-side comparison of Occupational their parents: Findings from an evaluation of Training and Adult Education & Family the even start family literacy program. Literacy Provisions in the Workforce Developmental Psychology, 41(6), 953–970, Innovation Act (WIA) and the Workforce and p. 965 Innovation Opportunity Act (WIOA). 19 St. Pierre, R.; Ricciuti, A.; Tao, F.; Creps, Washington, DC: Author. C.; Swartz, J.; Lee, W.; Parsad, A.; & 28 Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015, Pub. Rimdzius, T. (2003). Third National Even L. No. 114-95 § 114 Stat. 1177 (2015-2016). Start Evaluation: Program impacts and https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS- implications for improvement. U.S. 114s1177enr/pdf/BILLS-114s1177enr.pdf, Department of Education: Washington, DC. Sec. 4504. 20Goodling Institute for Research in Family 29 Toso, B. W., & Grinder, E. L. (2016). Literacy. (2004). Critique of the Third Parent engagement and leadership National Evaluation of Family Literacy. opportunities: The benefits for parents, University Park, PA. children, and educators. [Online]: Goodling 21St. Pierre, R. G., et al. (2005). Institute for Research in Family Literacy. 22Goodling Institute for Research in Family Accessed at http://ed.psu.edu/goodling- Literacy. (2004). Critique of the Third institute/professional- National Evaluation of Family Literacy. development/practitioners-guide-6 University Park, PA. 30 The Annie E. Casey Foundation. (2014). 23 Ricciuti, A. E., St. Pierre, R., Lee, W., & Creating opportunity for families: A two- Parsad, A. (2004). Third National Even Start generation approach. Baltimore, MD: Author. Evaluation: Follow-up findings from the Retrieved from experimental design study. U.S. Department http://www.aecf.org/m/resourcedoc/aecf- of Education / Institute of Education Sciences CreatingOpportunityforFamilies-2014.pdf, p. National Center for Education Evaluation and 8. Regional Assistance (NCEE): Washington, 31 To collect information about states’ family DC, p. 14. literacy efforts we sent emails to all state 24 National Council of La Raza. (2007). directors via the National Council of State William F. Goodling Even Start Family Directors of Adult Education’s listserv. Most Literacy Program: Effective, yet state directors responded to the email inquiry; misunderstood. Retrieved from those who indicated that the state still http://publications.nclr.org/bitstream/handle/1 provided funding for family literacy were 23456789/1003/EvenStartFamLitProgrm_FN contacted by phone to learn more about their L_1.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y efforts. We also reviewed states’ websites to 25 Paratore, J., & Yaden, D. B. (2010). Family amplify our understanding of state family literacy on the defensive. In Handbook of literacy efforts and programming Research on Teaching the English Language 32 Peyton, Tony. Family Literacy in Adult Arts (3rd ed.). NJ: Routledge Press. Education: The Federal and State Support 26Sapin, C., Padak, N. D., & Baycich, D. Role, National Commission on Adult Literacy, (2008). Family Literacy Resource Notebook. 2007.

33 New York State Education Department. (n.d.). Literacy Zone: Helping you towards a better future. Retrieved December 11, 2016, from http://www.nys-education-literacy- zones.org/ 34 L, p. 8 New York State Education Department. (2012). Announcement of Funding Opportunity: 2013-2018 Workforce Investment Act Title II and Welfare Education Program. New York, p. 8. 35 Center for Law and Social Policy. (2014, March). Results-based public policy strategies for reducing child poverty. Washington, DC: Author. 36 In 2016-17, that number dropped to 10 states and Washington DC. 37 National Skills Coalition. (nd). Congress should invest in adult basic education. Author. [Online] Accessed at http://www.nationalskillscoalition.org/resourc es/publications/file/Why-Congress-should- invest-in-adult-basic-education.pdf 38 Improving School Readiness for Head Start Act of 2007. U.S. Congress. 42 USC 9801 et seq. HHS/ACF/OHS. 2007. English 39Povich, D., Roberts, B., & Mather, M. (2014-2015, Winter). Low-income working families: The racial/ethnic divide. [online] Accessed at http://www.workingpoorfamilies.org/wp- content/uploads/2015/03/WPFP-2015- Report_Racial-Ethnic-Divide.pdf