1. Family Literacy Programs
Tess McNamara
ED410: Social Context of Learning
Professor Cara Candal, Teaching Fellow Debra Woods
18 October 2013

2. I n t e r g e n e r a t i o n a l L i t e r a c y P r o g r a m s | 2
Family Literacy Program – What is it?
Family literacy programs can be broken down into three general categories: home-school
partnership programs, intergenerational literacy programs, and research programs that investigate
the various uses of literacy within families (Morrow and Paratore). Home-school partnership
programs serve to help parents become more involved in literacy activities and events that
support school-based goals. Throughout the programs, schools work to keep parents informed
about the goals, objectives, and strategies used in literacy classes at school, and thus, the parents
are included and feel comfortable as active participants of the school community (Morrow and
Paratore). Intergenerational literacy programs generally involve a caregiver, a child, and an
instructor who work to improve the literacy skills of each family member, along with helping the
parent to learn useful caregiving and parenting skills (Benjamin and Lord). Although structure
and routine vary among intergenerational literacy programs, they all facilitate parenting
education, adult basic education, early childhood education, activities for parents and kids to
complete together and separately, and instructional components that carry on to take place in the
home (Benjamin and Lord). Although research projects which investigate the use of literacy
within families may not always have much interaction with participants, they are imperative for
discovering information such as what areas of family literacy development need the most
support, which types of programs are most effective, which methods are most effective in
implementing a new program, or how the demands of literacy skills evolve over time and
generations.
The remainder of this report will focus on the history, evolution, and known information about
intergenerational literacy programs, as well as the challenges and obstacles that the programs
have faced and are still facing today. As previously stated, program design and instruction
materials vary, but most programs incorporate discussions of children’s literature as the parents
are taught new strategies to develop their own reading and writing skills. Thus, using newly
acquired skill sets, parents transmit their knowledge to the home environment and are able to
help their children’s skills develop (Caspe). In addition, parents are often asked to reflect on their
own experiences as a source of knowledge and through discussion, they are encouraged to
understand how important they are to their children’s development – regardless of their
education level (Caspe). It is absolutely crucial that while programs emphasize the value of
education and literacy competency, that programs also support the confidence, dignity, and
strengths of their learners in order to create an empowering environment (Elish-Piper).
Definitive details of an intergenerational literacy program
Intergenerational literacy programs are founded on the notion that the “roots of lifelong literacy
are planted within the family and cultivated by the child’s early exposure to books and reading
models” (Jongsma). What separates intergenerational literacy programs from other types of
literacy programs is that they aim to explicitly improve the literacy development of both adults
and children. The instruction and curriculum of the classes is planned and usually systematic.
Some programs choose to teach parents and their children together in a collaborative setting,

3. I n t e r g e n e r a t i o n a l L i t e r a c y P r o g r a m s | 3
some programs choose to teach them in separate parallel classrooms, and others incorporate a
combination of both models (Morrow and Paratore).
Overall, the programs offer basic literacy skill development for parents in need, teach parents
how to help their children with literacy skills, and provide school settings for parents to practice
and adequately use these skills. Practitioners intentionally create environments for learners which
naturally turn to support groups for parents to discuss parenting strategies, life coping skills, and
educational goals (Morrow and Paratore).
Factors which are considered for a family’s eligibility for enrollment in an intergenerational
literacy program include low income, low adult literacy, and/or low English language
proficiency (Burch). Many of the adult participants in intergenerational literacy programs are
immigrants with low levels of educational background. Practitioners must acknowledge that
participants are influenced by socio-cultural factors, communities, and extended family, but “the
family itself is, and should be, treated as the basic unit for literacy and learning” (Benjamin and
Lord). Teachers must make instruction explicit about the mainstream culture and values of U.S.
schools, and also remember to build on the existing knowledge of parents and children in the
program (Caspe). While practitioners provide a comfortable learning environment for the
participants of the program, learning communities are created among students and instructors to
teach each other about how to overcome difficult transitional changes (Weinstein).
Definition development of the term “family literacy”
To understand the intent of an intergenerational literacy program, one must grasp the evolving
concept of “family literacy.” There has never been a fully agreed upon, concrete definition of
family literacy, yet there are aspects of family literacy which have been agreed upon through
various research studies. Among the different descriptions, family literacy may be divided into
three categorical definitions: the study of literacy in the family, a set of interventions related to
literacy development of young children, and a set of programs designed to enhance the literacy
skills of more than one family member (Caspe). More specifically, the term “family literacy”
envelopes the set of oral, graphic, and symbolic means by which family members exchange and
retain information and meaning, as well as the general level at which family members use their
writing, reading, computing, communication, and problem-solving skills to accomplish the
various tasks of their daily lives (Benjamin and Lord).
As generations pass, the general meaning of the term family literacy remains consistent, but there
are significant differences between the applications of family literacy skills as society evolves.
For example, with the development of new technology, the use of literacy itself has surpassed
beyond the acquisition of reading and writing skills (Caspe). A literate person in the current year
must understand how to use literacy skills in a socially appropriate context in order to function
adequately in modern society. Literacy now applies to a more expansive domain of activities
which span across media literacy, computer literacy, or citizenship literacy (Caspe).

4. I n t e r g e n e r a t i o n a l L i t e r a c y P r o g r a m s | 4
In the context of family literacy programs, Even Start and Head Start use a definition which
includes interactive activities between parents and their children, training for parents on how to
be their children’s primary teacher and to be full partners in the education of their children,
parent literacy training, and early childhood training (Benjamin and Lord). Moreover, family
literacy is the ways in which parents, children, and extended family members use literacy at
home and in the community (Sapin). Family literacy involves the essential role of the family in
the development of literacy, the benefits gained by both parents and children who participate in
literacy activities together, and the attention to home literacy activities that vary across cultures
and may be different from school literacy activities (Sapin).
Goals and intentions of intergenerational literacy programs
Similar to the (undefined) definition of family literacy, the goals and missions of different
intergenerational literacy programs vary between programs. Because participants’ community
needs and values are different from neighborhood to neighborhood, programs’ target goals must
fluctuate in order to be most useful and relevant to the community in which they serve. No
matter the location of the program, all intergenerational and family literacy programs serve to
improve skills, attitudes, values, and behaviors linked to reading and pertinent literacy abilities
(Weinstein). Through literacy-related activities, practitioners encourage or teach parents to create
a home environment conducive to supporting their children’s learning needs, to volunteer in their
children’s schools as aides or other active members, to monitor their children’s progress and
communicate effectively with school personnel, and to tutor their children at home and reinforce
the work done at school (Weinstein).
Not only does an intergenerational program serve to better the literacy and communication
abilities of its learners, but also to create confidence and positive attitudes toward education
(Krohl-Sinclair and Paratore). By improving the literacy knowledge of adults and their preschool
and school-aged children, programs encourage participants to overcome their potential feelings
of discomfort or anxiety toward their literacy education level and capabilities (Krohl-Sinclair and
Paratore).
Because many of the participants are immigrants, many learners cope with the enormous stresses
of voluntary or involuntary resettlement. During the process of settling in a new country,
multilingual families often express that their transitional stress becomes intensified by the
differences among generations in the place of language acquisition. In order to minimize such
stresses, intergenerational literacy programs also make great efforts to reconnect the generations
in positive ways (Weinstein). Most programs treat literacy as a social activity in order to create a
shared experience in which both younger and older learners benefit and appreciate learning
(Jongsma).
More specifically, intergenerational literacy programs help families to acquire needed
information from printed, verbal, symbolic, and graphic materials. Learners should not only be
able to acquire the information, but they should then be able to communicate their intent or ideas

5. I n t e r g e n e r a t i o n a l L i t e r a c y P r o g r a m s | 5
to others in written, oral, graphic, or symbolic forms as well. Additionally, the participants
should be able to set short-term and long-term goals for themselves and for their families, and
then implement action plans for the accomplishment of personal or family goals. Furthermore,
the families will be able to make valid predictions of the effects of their actions or of their family
conditions. If participants learn to identify necessary information, communicate effectively in
daily life, set goals, evaluate the effects of their actions, and make predictions about their future
circumstances, then they will be able to properly support and help other family members in their
development (Benjamin and Lord). Throughout this process, the programs will also enable adults
to develop a necessary understanding of schooling and academic settings so that they may
evaluate and rehearse appropriate responses and develop networks for individual or group
advocacy (Weinstein).
Necessary factors of an effective intergenerational literacy program
Most program activities can be categorized into five groups; each activity type aims to attain a
specific goal. The activities include: parents and children interact in direct literacy activities,
parents improve their own literacy objectives separately from their children, parents use literacy
skills to solve problems at home and in their communities and to participate in their children’s
schooling, parents voice their concerns about parenting and receive constructive advice, and
parents develop and convey pride in their home language and culture (Sapin).
A successful program provides all five kinds of activities listed above. There are also explicit
factors which must be incorporated into an effective program by the practitioners and
participants. For example, instructors must try their best to understand the strengths of each of
their students and then build upon and reinforce their knowledge skills. Instructors must also be
familiar with the literacy history of each family and know that all parents enter with some
memories of literacy. Practitioners and participants must believe that literacy is gained through
shared dialogue and work to break down patterns of social isolation by adopting an
empowerment philosophy. In order to make content useful, it must be relevant to the learner’s
daily lives. Therefore, teachers must examine available resources in a sociocultural context,
respond to interests of adults and children, and provide opportunities for the learners to reflect on
their own literacy practices in their daily lives. Most of all, learners and practitioners must
document their experiences and progress and learn from it, which simultaneously contributes to
constructing a research bank for family literacy (Caspe).
Although programs aim to help parents help their children in school, practitioners and program
directors must work to understand how families’ literacy experiences outside school can help
them in their learning of academic literacy (Caspe). The programs need to establish an emphasis
on teaching literacy in the context of real-life applications, rather than on the creation of school-
like contexts in the home setting (Caspe). In order to do so, it is imperative that teachers and
program directors make every effort to know their learners; only then can they plan instruction
accordingly (Weinstein). Learning cannot occur in a socially relevant and transformative

6. I n t e r g e n e r a t i o n a l L i t e r a c y P r o g r a m s | 6
environment unless everybody in the classroom is able to interact as both learner and teacher
(Caspe).
As a teacher becomes familiar with the literacy history of each family, s/he must note the way
cultural assumptions and past experiences influence a family member’s interpretation of events
and information. The teacher must be aware of and respect the beliefs, values, opinions,
lifestyles, and childrearing practices of all families (International Reading Association). In
addition, the teachers must acknowledge the aims and benefits of various types of family
involvement, and be particularly attentive to the barriers family members face in properly
implementing literacy involvement (International Reading Association). The program should
encourage participants of different generations to share their knowledge and experiences to learn
from each other (Weinstein). Teachers should also use as many possible opportunities to convey
to the children a sense of respect for their parents, especially if the parents are less educated or
culturally different than the teacher (Glenn).
Aside from the crucial activities, values, and attitudes that must be incorporated into a successful
intergenerational literacy program, the last factor which must be included is staff development.
Teachers and support staff are the core element of a successful program, so it is absolutely
imperative that staff receives ongoing training and up-to-date information about family literacy
instruction and practices (Benjamin and Lord).
Development of intergenerational literacy program design
Instruction varies immensely among programs because design, curricula, and materials are set
forth by the goals of the program (Elish-Piper, Weinstein). According to the International
Reading Association, there “are no formulas for creating effective programs; rather, educators
must be prepared to ask questions about the particular situation and build family-school
partnerships based on the answers they receive.” Learners should have a great input in
identifying their strengths and needs, creating the content of the curriculum, and applying
literacy past the confinements of the classroom through activities that are relevant to their lives
and families (Hvitfeldt). In a report published by the United States Department of Education
Office of Educational Research and Improvement in 1996, a researcher claims that when it
comes to designing program curriculum, “the participants are the real experts […] research will
never tell you what participants can” (Benjamin and Lord). Although it is wise to include the
learners’ input in the development of program content, it is also wise to make it the practitioner’s
responsibility to ensure that participants receive services and education they most need, and not
merely those they think they need (Benjamin and Lord). It is the role of the program directors to
take final responsibility for defining success, setting standards and developing appropriate
evaluation techniques (Hvitfeldt).
Programs with effective short and long-term results focus on practical literacy by teaching
content such as how to appropriately complete job application, read newspaper articles,
understand citizenship materials, or comprehend financial forms (Cornuelle). Incorporation of

7. I n t e r g e n e r a t i o n a l L i t e r a c y P r o g r a m s | 7
activities such as producing books, videos, websites, quilts, murals, or other products establishes
a context for learners to develop a wide range of literacy skills while transmitting knowledge
from one generation to another in an entertaining manner (Weinstein). Program design should
involve frequent classroom discussion which covers day-to-day living issues such as fire safety,
crime prevention, lead paint, or trash day (Cornuelle). When literacy skills can be developed in a
context that is useful beyond the walls of the classroom, then the skills can be practiced and
applied more often, thus creating more opportunities to practice literacy skills which are also
useful in academic contexts.
It is important that staff does not tell parents how to be parents, or what is the one correct way to
work with their kids and family members (Cornuelle). Rather, it is important that staff provides
opportunities for parents to voice their concerns about parenting methods, and then provide
potential suggestions or allow the other learners to contribute useful parenting strategies. Some
programs teach adults and children together in highly structured interventions. Other programs
create a rich atmosphere for literacy advancement for parents and children separately (Jongsma).
Research has gathered that program results are best when they are provided through community-
based organizations. Examples of locations include schools, colleges, centers, churches, prisons,
adult basic education programs, libraries, or work place sites (Jongsma). If participants feel that
the community values and respects the program, it is more likely that they will feel more
confident about the value of their education and more motivated to perform well. Community-
based organizations should be well informed about the demands of local residents, and therefore
they can appropriately tailor services to available resources and particular populations
(Jongsma).
Evaluation of intergenerational literacy programs should incorporate qualitative measures, such
as interviews and case studies focused on the participating families (Hvitfeldt). Although
methods of instruction and results for various intergenerational literacy programs have proved to
have positive outcomes, evaluation of programs has remained generally inconsistent. Evaluation
practices are usually one of the largest struggles of these programs, so it is important that
organizations and practitioners of different programs collaborate with each other and with other
community services to discover the best methods of assessment (Jongsma). In an effort to help
practitioners gather more information about defining the term family literacy and to help
directors develop effective program design, the International Reading Association publishes
editions of The Reading Teacher which share solutions, strategies, and suggestions for program
managers (Morrow and Paratore).
Program design catered for immigrant and English language learners
A survey taken from an article published in 2007 states that more than twenty percent of the
youth living in the United States have at least one parent who is non-native born (Ying).
Children of immigrant families often develop English acquisition quickly because they have
more structured language interaction at school. Moreover, it can become increasingly difficult

8. I n t e r g e n e r a t i o n a l L i t e r a c y P r o g r a m s | 8
and emotionally frustrating for parents when their children learnt the new language faster than
they do, which prevents the parents from being capable of helping their children with homework
or adapting to new social interactions (Cornuelle).
Intergenerational literacy classes are offered to immigrant parents so that they have the resources
and support needed to improve the outlook of their available opportunities. In addition, program
is designed so that parents can help their children’ education in American schools with
confidence. The programs inform parents and give them the tools needed to be successful in
American culture, while also maintaining their existing rich literacy history and language
practices within the family (Krohl-Sinclair and Paratore). Once again, the importance of
designing instruction which builds upon the learners’ existing prior knowledge and skills is
crucial for the success of any program (Hvitfeldt). For example, programs should expose
children to a range of literature in both their first language and in English, so that they continue
to develop and value their first language while they learn English and so that they understand
content in both languages (Krohl-Sinclair and Paratore).
Intergenerational gaps in literacy between immigrant adults and their American-born children are
likely to be prominent among the increasing number of Asian and Latino families due to the
significant variation of traditional values maintained by parents and the newly developed
American values gained by children (Ying). Programs are designed to help parents learn about
American values and culture so that they may better empathize with youth and reduce conflict in
their own homes. As parents learn and understand American traditions and norms, they are better
prepared to cope with the stresses of parenting and migration (Ying).
Research-based proof of demand for intergenerational literacy programs
“Research aids in identifying the most effective means of helping family members to help one
another by nourishing the potential of every family member – and fostering the conditions that
promote both intellectual and emotional growth” (Benjamin and Lord). It has proven that when a
family is commits to long-term, intensive programs, marginable progress is made in literacy,
parenting behavior, and family dynamics (Benjamin and Lord). If both the home and school
environments of a child send messages that reading and education are valuable and enjoyable,
then children are much more likely to become active readers (Jongsma). Furthermore, if teachers
and program directors do not pay attention to a child’s family literacy background, then any
strategies that are practiced in school will never be entirely successful (Morrow and Paratore).
Families who participate in intergenerational literacy programs show increased skill
development, as well as noticeable increase in their children’s school attendance and
improvement in their children’s school learning behaviors (Jongsma). Although parents with
low-literacy levels often distrust schools, they tend to have positive views toward other literate
adults. Most low-literate parents believe that there is a direct correlation between high literacy
and sense of status and purpose, employment, contribution of money and knowledge to the
family, proper communication abilities, and adequate use of community resources (Sapin). Even

9. I n t e r g e n e r a t i o n a l L i t e r a c y P r o g r a m s | 9
though parents are aware of the importance of reading to their children, they often do not read to
their children because of their own inadequate reading skills (Jongsma). On average, parents rate
the importance of their involvement in their child’s reading higher when their child’s teacher
provides suggestions for how to develop literacy in the home. In fact, eighty percent of parents
stated that they would do more for literacy development in the home environment if shown how
to conduct effective learning activities (Drummond and Stiptek).
Another reason why low-literate parents shy from literacy intervention is because they lack
available free time and the luxury of childcare (Jongsma). Intergenerational literacy programs
which offer an array of convenient class times would give low-income parents with less
flexibility the opportunity to develop their literacy skills in a classroom with their children, or
with their children receiving support in a nearby classroom. If they are able to improve their own
literacy skills, then they may feel more confident in their capabilities to manage their work and
help their children develop literacy skills. Because studies show that low-literate and low-income
parents believe they should be involved in their children’s learning, the findings suggest that
parents would also be receptive to efforts of intergenerational literacy programs (Drummond and
Stiptek).
Unfortunately, many public schools located in urban areas tend to be visibly poor at engaging
parent involvement. Although it is not always the case or the cause, the academic disengagement
of students in schools relates frequently to their parents’ academic disengagement (Glenn).
Inversely, shared reading, reading aloud, providing a variety of available materials, and
promoting positive attitudes toward literacy in the home have all been proven to advance
children’s literacy learning (Morrow and Paratore). Intergenerational literacy programs which
create parent involvement intervention have all caused an increase in at-home reading, home-
school communication, and parents’ knowledge about reading practices (International Reading
Association). Collaborative partnerships between schools and families through intergenerational
literacy programs benefit students, families, teachers, and schools. Furthermore, the
incorporation of family literacy programs at schools have increased parents’ rating of teachers,
teacher morale, and the reputations of schools’ linages to resources in communities (International
Reading Association).
Low-income, minority, and immigrant families do cultivate contexts for literacy development in
their homes, yet most of the literacy contexts created are not pertinent to the skills their children
need to use in school (Morrow and Paratore). For example, some family patterns of daily
interaction stress giving directions and commands to children, but do not engage the children in
conversation (Rouse and Winter). Conversely, there are also parents who use imagination and
efforts to enhance their children’s literacy, yet they use practices which transfer little meaning
for their children outside classroom walls (Morrow and Paratore). Parents who attend
intergenerational literacy programs are provided with the most effective literacy skills needed for
the success of their children in school and in extended communities.

10. I n t e r g e n e r a t i o n a l L i t e r a c y P r o g r a m s | 10
Schools that offer effective comprehensive family involvement programs with strong ties to local
communities are more likely to produce students who perform at higher levels than students at
similar schools that do not engage families (International Reading Association). Home
environments and parents’ literacy practices influence the cognitive development of children
(Caspe). The International Reading Association even claims that “family involvement in a
child’s education is a more important factor in student success than income or education.” When
parents are educated and involved, their children are better prepared to concentrate, to be
curious, to enjoy the exchange of ideas, to maintain high academic goals, and to admire outgoing
and confident people (Glenn).
Chronological history of major family literacy programs and initiatives
In 1965, Head Start was founded under the Johnson administration. It was controlled by the
Office of Economic Opportunity and was meant to assist children who were between the ages of
three and five through the means of an eight week summer program. The participants were
children who had experienced setbacks or obstacles caused by poverty, and the goal of the
program was to help them become more successful in the upcoming school year by providing
them with preschool classes, medical care, dental care, and mental health services (Head Start).
In 1974, a group of Head Start program directors met in Kansas City and after discussing the
threats they felt from about government budget cuts, they decided to form the National Directors
Association, under which they finalized the formation of their private institution, National Head
Start Program (Head Start). In 1977, the federal-run Head Start began bilingual and bicultural
programs under the Carter administration to address the struggles that increasing amount of
immigrant families faced in the United States (Head Start).
In 1981, the state of Missouri mandated that all school districts provide parent education services
to families beginning at child’s birth, thus, the state developed their pilot program Parents As
Teachers (PAT) (Rouse and Winter). Five years later, in 1986, Kentucky Legislature established
the Parent and Child Education (PACE) program. PACE began with establishments in six rural
counties, then eighteen in the next legislative session, and then thirty six in the following
legislative session (West Virginia Family Literacy Initiative). After researching and analyzing
the Kentucky PACE programs, the Kenan Family Literacy Project was formulated in 1988,
which used gathered data to try and form a more effective program than existing programs. It
began with three establishments at inner city sites in Louisville, Kentucky and four
establishments in North Carolina cities (West Virginia Family Literacy Initiative). Through
observation of the PACE program, the Kenan Family Literacy Project directors learned that their
program must incorporate more training and staff development for their teachers.
Under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965, Even Start was first
authorized in 1988. Even Start was funded federally under the United States Department of
Education with $14.8 million dollars which were allocated to seventy six programs across the
country (Even Start Family Literacy). A year later, in 1989, the National Center for Family
Literacy (NCFL) was founded as a private, nonprofit organization. It was funded by a grant from

11. I n t e r g e n e r a t i o n a l L i t e r a c y P r o g r a m s | 11
the William R. Kenan, Jr. Charitable Trust and its headquarters were located in Louisville
Kentucky. The center was inspired by the Kenan Family Literacy Project and its mission was to
conduct and deliver research-based training and technical assistance to educators and
administrators in order to develop new family literacy programs that could better address the
demands of families “in a changing social and economic landscape” (West Virginia Family
Literacy Initiative).
By the year 1990, PAT had been established in over fifty school districts across the United States
(Rouse and Winter). 1991 was the year which captured the formation of the International
Reading Association’s Commission on Family Literacy (Morrow and Paratore). In the next year,
federal funding for Even Start surpassed $50 million, so administration of the program was given
to the states (Even Start Family Literacy). The Head Start Act by Congress was then reauthorized
in 1998 under the Clinton administration. The amendments in its reauthorization made the
program full day and yearlong (Head Start). Furthermore, Even Start was reauthorized by the
Bush administration in 2000, under the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2001 through No
Child Left Behind (NCLB) and was funded by Title I, Part B of NCLB (Paige). Federal Even
Start funding reached its peak in 2001 at $250 million, and its funding has decreased every year
since 2001 (Even Start Family Literacy). The effectiveness of Even Start has been increasingly
challenged to the present year and has faced stricter regulations, less available resources and
materials, and less funding. Therefore, many Even Start program have lost all funding and shut
down (Even Start Family Literacy). Through the years since the development of the first family
literacy programs, many privately run intergenerational family literacy programs have sprung
across the country, yet effective programming, management, and funding have remained areas in
need of more research and funding.
Problems and unanswered questions pertaining to intergenerational literacy
programs
One of the most pressing issues for intergenerational literacy programs is the lack of proper staff
development and training. Most educators in the United States have received little to no training
in working appropriately and effectively with students’ families. University programs for
students preparing to become teachers do not stress the importance, nor provide opportunities for
student teachers to experience working with families in a supervised, yet authentic manner.
Certification does not require a component of working with family literacy. All teacher
preparation programs must require a focus on a broader definition of literacy and family
involvement in order to view family literacy as a collaboration between educators and families
(International Reading Association).
Additionally, programs lack up-to-date information about what strategies and instruction
methods work best for learners to demonstrate long-term effects (Benjamin and Lord). The lack
of current available information on effective intergenerational literacy programs is largely due to
the lack of proper documentation and evaluation of existing programs (Caspe). Currently, the
majority of initiatives are targeted toward direct service programs, but more emphasis needs to

12. I n t e r g e n e r a t i o n a l L i t e r a c y P r o g r a m s | 12
be transferred to the evaluation of those initiatives (Morrow and Paratore). Although the
programs have improved over the years, evaluation is still their weakest factor because there is a
lack of adequate instruments that are specifically designed to measure adult improvement in
family literacy settings (Sapin).
Not only can more useful information be gathered through better evaluation, but also through
delving into the research databases of other education fields. For example, the learning
disabilities field has gathered various different strategies for teach reading which could be
extremely useful in strengthening family literacy, but the information needs to be circulated more
effectively to put to use in the family literacy field (Benjamin and Lord).
Lastly, a large issue that intergenerational literacy programs face is limited funding. Often times,
low budgets for program funding are the root of limited staff development or lack of resources
(Elish-Piper). Because there are varied ranges of cognitive abilities among students in a
classroom, it is imperative that there are enough materials, resources, and teachers to tend to the
needs of all students. Without proper funding, evaluation, and staff development,
intergenerational literacy programs cannot function successfully.

13. I n t e r g e n e r a t i o n a l L i t e r a c y P r o g r a m s | 13
Works Cited
Anderson, Jim & Kendrick, Maureen & Rogers, Theresa & Smythe, Suzanne. Portraits of
Literacy Across Families, Communities, and Schools: Intersections and Tensions. New
Jersey. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., 2009. Print.
Benjamin, L. Ann & Lord, Jerome. Family Literacy: Directions in Research & Implications for
Practice. United States Department of Education Office of Educational Research and
Improvement. 1996. Web. 10/10/13. <http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=
XxMMVpyimgkC&oi=fnd&pg=PA73&dq=intergenerational+literacy+programs&ots=Z
hJW06eJ3H&sig=KEFmaWzwoNRXyf4Z1-g-2CsEFWs#v=onepage&q=intergeneration
al%20literacy%20programs&f=false>
Burch, Clayton. Even Start. 2009. Microsoft Power Point file. <https://docs.google.com/a/bu.edu
/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=d3ZkZS5rMTIud3YudXN8d2VzdC12aXJnaW5pYS1ldm
VuLXN0YXJ0fGd4OmNkYjE4ZDZhZTA2NDQzYw>
Caspe, Margaret. Family Literacy: A Review of Programs and Critical Perspectives. Harvard
Family Research Project. 2003. Web. 10/10/13 <http://www.hfrp.org/publications-
resources/browse-our-publications/family-literacy-a-review-of-programs-and-critical-
perspectives>
Cassell, Bernadine. Tutor’s Handbook: Collaborations for Literacy. Washington, D.C.: Eric
Reports, 1985. Print.
Compton-Lilly, Catherine & Greene, Stuart. Bedtime Stories and Book Reports: Connecting
Parent Involvement and Family Literacy. New York: Teachers College Press, 2011.
Print.
Cornuelle, Kimberly. Families That Learn Together. BU Today. 2011. Web. 10/9/13.
<http://www.bu.edu/today/2011/families-that-learn-together/>
Dickinson, David K. & Neuman, Susan B. Handbook of Early Literacy Research. New York:
The Guilford Press, 2002. Print.
Drummond, Kathryn V., and Stiptek, Deborah. “Low-Income Parents’ Beliefs about Their Role
in Children’s Academic Learning.” The Elementary School Journal Vol. 104. No. 3
(2004): pp. 197 – 213. Print.
Elish-Piper, Laurie. An analysis of the social‐contextual responsiveness of adult education in
urban family literacy programs: Trends, obstacles, and solutions. Illinois: Routledge,
2000. Print.
Even Start Family Literacy. History and Brief Description of the William F. Goodling Even Start Family
Literacy Program. 2007. PDF.

14. I n t e r g e n e r a t i o n a l L i t e r a c y P r o g r a m s | 14
<http://www.opsb.net/downloads/family_literacy/Family_Literacy_Fact_Sheet.pdf>
Family-School Partnerships: Essential Elements of Literacy Instruction in the United States.
Newark: Delaware. International Reading Association, 2002. Print.
Glenn, Charles. “Families and Schools.” Print.
Handel, Ruth D. Building Family Literacy in an Urban Community. New York: Teachers
College Press, 1999. Print.
Head Start. University of Michigan. Web. 2013.
<http://sitemaker.umich.edu/356.bell/background_history>
Hvitfeldt, Christina. Immigrant Learners And Their Families. Center for Applied Linguistics &
Delta Systems Co., Inc. 1996. Web. 10/10/13. < http://tesl-ej.org/ej06/r5.html>
Jongsma, Kathleen Stumpf. “Questions and Answers: Intergenerational Literacy.” The Reading
Teacher. International Reading Association. Vol. 43, No. 7. (1990): pp. 426 – 427, 522.
Print.
Krohl-Sinclair, Barbara & Paratore, Jeanne. Intergenerational Literacy. Boston University
School of Education. 2013. Web. 10/10/13. <http://www.bu.edu/sed/community-
outreach/programs/intergenerational-literacy/>
Maxwell, Caterina Marcone & Morrow, Lesley Mandel & Tracey, Diane H. A Survey of Family
Literacy in the United States. Delaware: International Reading Association, 1995. Print.
Morrow, Leslie Mandel & Paratore, Jeanne R. “Family literacy: Perspectives and practices.” The
Reading Teacher. International Reading Association. Vol. 64, No. 3. (2011): pp. 194 –
200. Print.
Paige, Rod. No Child Left Behind: A Desktop Reference. United States Department of Education,
2002. Web. 2013.
<http://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/nclbreference/reference.pdf>
Paratore, Jeanne R. What should we expect of family literacy? : Experiences of Latino children
whose parents participate in an intergenerational literacy project. Chicago: National
Reading Conference, 1999. Print.
Rouse, Joy and Winter, Mildred. “Fostering intergenerational literacy: The Missouri Parents as
Teachers program.” The Reading Teacher. International Reading Association. Vol. 47.
(1990): 383 – 383. Print.
Sapin, Connie. “A Survey of Family Literacy in the United States Book Review.” Ohio Literacy

15. I n t e r g e n e r a t i o n a l L i t e r a c y P r o g r a m s | 15
Resource Center. 1996. Web. 2013. http://literacy.kent.edu/Oasis/Pubs/0600-7.html
Weinstein, Gail. Family and Intergenerational Literacy in Multilingual Communities. Center for
Adult English language Acqusition. 1998. Web. 10/10/13
<http://www.cal.org/caela/esl_resources/digests/famlit2.html>
West Virginia Family Literacy Initiative. The Development of the National Family Literacy
Program Model. Literacy Information and Communication System (LINCS), 2002. Web.
2013. <http://wvde.state.wv.us/abe/wvfli/literacy.html>
Ying, Yu-Wen. Strengthening Intergenerational/Intercultural Ties in Immigrant Families.
. 2007. Web. 10/10.13 <http://www.apa.org/pi/oema/resources/
communique/2007/03/mar-special.pdf>