FatherInvolvmentandFamilyLiteracy.pdf

10

Father Involvement and Family Literacy

Vivian L. Gadsden

Questions related to father involvement and families are increasingly examined in relation to

children’s literacy, schooling, and academic achievement. The integration of these issues into dis-

cussions of family literacy is particularly important as the fi eld expands—in the questions being

addressed, the populations studied, the conceptual frameworks that inform programs, and the

rigor of research. This expanded focus demonstrates the multidimensionality of family literacy

as a critical concept and its potential reach through sound programs and policies.

At the same time, family literacy continues to (re)formulate itself as a specifi c area of literacy

research and practice, linked to adult and children’s literacy but uniquely organized around the

social contexts of learning, home and school connections, and family engagement. Both the rec-

ognition of these dimensions of learning and literacy and the recognition of the complexities and

possibilities of families are leading the fi eld to look closely at the ways in which distal and proxi-

mal relationships among family members contribute to learning within families; the infl uence of

contextual and temporal factors that enhance or obstruct access to literacy; and new opportunities

for research and practice in family literacy to provide critical analyses in education and schooling.

Two characteristics of families are salient in understanding the ways literacy is taken up

and experienced for and by family members. One characteristic develops the idea that families

include a range of constellations and forms, defi ned by and interpreted within cultural practices,

social mores, political events, and economic factors. A second reminds us that families consti-

tute a fundamental social system that promotes, disrupts, or mediates the learning and literacy

experiences of family members; they exchange knowledge, resources, and services. Fathers are

situated at diff erent locations in this system, depending upon accepted societal expectations and

traditions, fathers’ relationships with family members and social institutions, and families’ cul-

tural and social practices.

In this chapter, I focus on father involvement and the possibilities and implications of fathering

programs to extend current agendas in family literacy. An emerging body of literature suggests

father involvement takes on multiple forms with applications to the following: (a) father-child

interactions around literacy; (b) the nature and eff ect of fathers’ involvement on children’s aca-

demic achievement and well-being; (c) fathers’ parenting; and (d) fathers’ engagement with the

family (Day & Lamb, 2004). Throughout the chapter, I am concerned with how fathers are or can

be involved in family literacy, including the question of what it takes to prepare family literacy

programs for fathers (and to prepare fathers for family literacy programs). In the fi rst section, I off er

an overview of background issues in fatherhood research and practice. In the second, I focus on

fathers’ involvement in children’s schooling, including growing attention to father involvement in

151

C op

yr ig

ht ©

$ {D

at e}

. $ {P

ub lis

he r}

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

Vivian L. Gadsden

152

children’s early learning. In the third section, I present a discussion of fatherhood programs, a brief

overview of three local programs, as well as commentaries from fathering practitioners. In the

fourth section, I provide a synthesis of family literacy research on fathers. In the last section, I off er

commentary on the ways in which the issues across the earlier sections intersect, the implications

for an expanded discourse, and the possibilities for families and for the fi eld.

Embedded throughout this discussion is the idea that multiple opportunities exist for inte-

grating family literacy into fatherhood eff orts and vice versa, and that these opportunities stand

alongside persistent challenges facing both areas of inquiry. In current discussions and past writ-

ing (e.g., Gadsden, 2003), I have noted similarities in the emergence of the two fi elds and the

tendency to promote each with relatively low levels of funding. Critical theoretical issues and

programmatic concerns also persist, as well as the daunting questions of whether either father-

hood programs or family literacy programs are built upon the cultural and social practices of

families, promote equity and access for families with the greatest need, or enhance families’ abil-

ity to navigate educational and social systems. The practical wisdom is that both areas can make

meaningful contributions to the literature and to the ways in which families are understood and

constructed in the public, academic, and policy discourses in which they have increasing visibil-

ity. The challenge is to deepen our understanding of family knowledge and its uses within and

outside of programs and take up the issue of what counts as knowledge.

Background Issues in Fatherhood and Families

The focus on fatherhood, or what is often described as responsible fathering, refl ects an assump-

tion that the meaning and enactment of responsible parenting are at the heart of social and

cultural debates about the individual and combined roles of families and society in ensuring the

health and well-being of children. How fatherhood is framed has been widely infl uenced by

research on family development and family studies as well as practice and policy on children and

families. Prior to the 1960s, research and policy in these areas were dominated by models devel-

oped around intact or nuclear families in which mothers and fathers resided with their children.

The role of fathers was examined within a decidedly Western interpretation of family function-

ing in which fathers provided for the economic well-being of their children and mothers ensured

their children’s developmental progress (Cowan, Cowan, Pruett, Pruett, & Wong, 2009). Not

until the resurgence of interest in family studies in the 1990s did research or policy highlight

the diversity of family functioning, interactions, and expectations embedded in the cultural and

ethnic histories of families and communities (see Anderson & Zuberi, 2000). Several programs

ensued that were designed to address this diversity, particularly in relation to nonresident, non-

custodial fathers and in relation to low-income communities.

Fathers and families research, as it is currently discussed, is a relatively new area of inquiry and

practice and is tied to a range of factors, including shifting trends in children’s living arrange-

ments, resulting from declines in marriage; increases in non-marital childbearing; rising rates of

incarceration; and rising rates of foster care placement (see Amato, Meyers, & Emery, 2009, for

a historical perspective). The research literature over the past 15 years is replete with discussions

on father-child presence with increasing, though still inadequate, clarity. The use of the concept

responsible fathering itself refl ects a relatively recent shift among academics and professionals away

from value-free language toward a more explicit value-advocacy approach.

Research on fathers invariably points to the deleterious eff ects of father absence for chil-

dren, families, communities, and society, including a focus on “fragile families” (McLanahan &

Carlson, 2004) and families experiencing hardship, absent of the supports necessary for optimal

healthy development. In general, however, researchers agree that what fathers do with and for

their children is much more important than whether fathers simply co-reside or have frequent

C op

yr ig

ht ©

$ {D

at e}

. $ {P

ub lis

he r}

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

Father Involvement and Family Literacy

153

contact with them (Gadsden, Fagan, Ray, & Davis, 2001). In examining these issues, questions

regarding fathers’ economic status, employment/employability, literacy, and education are often

raised, along with questions regarding cultural diff erences, race and racial discrimination asso-

ciated with employability, incarceration rates, and intergenerational transfer of father absence.

It is no surprise that the fi eld of fatherhood and the larger fi eld of family studies grapple with

an array of diffi cult questions and uncharted terrain. What is needed in this still growing fi eld

are rigorous analyses that refl ect the ways in which fathers, mothers, and children, revise their

identities within families and respond to the social and cultural expectations of home and soci-

ety. In order for change to occur, a conceptual framework is critical—one that refl ects a deep

understanding of the multifaceted issues and possibilities to eff ect change in all communities

where there are fathers and children. Understanding fathers’ roles in children’s schooling and

learning has important implications for expanding the work of family literacy.

Fathers’ Involvement in Children’s Schooling and Early Learning

Several studies have been designed to chart empirically fathers’ involvement and to measure the

nature and impact of fathers’ infl uence in children’s lives (see Gadsden et al., 2001). The consis-

tent theme across these studies and others is that fathers play (or have the potential to play) a criti-

cal role in caring for children, supporting their socio-emotional development, and contributing

to their academic achievement. One of the most frequently cited empirical studies to examine

the eff ects of fathers’ participation in children’s schooling is the 1997 study conducted by Nord,

Brimhall and West. The study found that children from two-parent families and whose fathers

were moderately or highly involved in school were signifi cantly more likely to receive high

marks, enjoy school, and never repeat a grade. It also found that children whose nonresidential

fathers were involved in school had the same outcomes. In addition, when fathers and mothers

were compared on the extent of involvement, fathers were less involved than mothers in all types

of school activities, including volunteering and attending class events, parent-teacher confer-

ences, and school meetings. Fathers who had not graduated from high school were much less

likely to be involved in their child’s school than fathers with higher levels of education.

Schools are increasingly addressing the question of how to engage fathers in the school lives of

their children. They pursue this question in the midst of arguments that schools and other edu-

cational settings are designed for mothers’ participation, given staff members are mostly women

and the longstanding expectation that mothers will be the primary caregivers for and socializers

of their children. Schools, literacy programs, and other educational programs confront more

prickly issues as well in getting fathers involved, especially nonresidential fathers who may have

antagonistic, diffi cult relationships with the mothers of their children or whose participation in

the program may not be considered a priority by program staff (Gadsden & Ray, 2002; Ortiz

& Stile, 2002). In these cases, practitioners are often hesitant to involve fathers or are uncertain

of the boundaries of their relationship with families in confl ict. Other problems associated with

engaging fathers stem from the unavailability of fathers who are the family’s primary or only

breadwinners and whose time in the household may be constrained by the responsibilities of

work outside the home.

Eff orts to involve fathers in programs raise questions about how gender is discussed and

approached in the programs, with practitioners and other staff , and by the communities in

which the families or the programs are located. These questions concern the content of program

instruction and how boys and girls or men and women learn literacy, the instructional materials

that are most useful for each, and the nature of interactions between parent and child. They also

center on how prepared programs are to involve fathers, an increasing number of whom are chil-

dren’s primary caregivers or want to be involved more actively in their children’s development

C op

yr ig

ht ©

$ {D

at e}

. $ {P

ub lis

he r}

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

Vivian L. Gadsden

154

(Gadsden & Ray, 2002), and many of whom have non-traditional relationships with the mothers

of their children.

Several positive examples of parent and father involvement come from Head Start, which

requires parent involvement, and increasingly Early Head Start (Cabrera, Shannon, Jolley, &

Tamis-LeMonda, 2008). Factors such as the amount of time fathers spend in child-centered

activities, the amount of participation in arousing physically active play, and the amount of sup-

port fathers give to their children have been found to be related to children’s social competence

(Palm & Fagan, 2008).

Given early childhood education’s focus on families and parents, one might assume that the

programs are prepared to invite and serve fathers. However, not unlike other child, family, and

education programs, early childhood educators are more likely to engage with mothers, largely

because mothers and maternal grandmothers traditionally and typically have been the most

likely people to follow children’s schooling. Although this trend is changing, it would not be

surprising that, even when early educators accept the premise that father involvement is “a good

thing,” they are then faced with the issues of how to integrate fathers into programs. They are

also faced with a range of other questions regarding sustaining fathers’ presence through mean-

ingful engagement: How does an early childhood program, historically considered the purview

of women and mothers, invite and welcome men and fathers to support children? What types of

preparation are needed for staff ? What programmatic changes are necessary to sustain participa-

tion? What constitutes father participation? What types of curricular materials are important to

complement the eff ort? How do fathering programs address these issues in their practice, and

how do they focus on literacy?

Fathering Programs and Practice: Is There a Place for Family Literacy?

Diversity of Programs: An Overview

Similar to family literacy programs, fathering programs serve a range of fathers but typically

focus on fathers and families in low-income settings (Gadsden & Rethemeyer, 2003). They

embrace a variety of specifi c goals that encourage father-child connectedness. Program goals

often include increasing paternity establishment at birth, teaching parenting skills to new fathers,

increasing men’s compliance with child support payments, fostering continuing positive contact

between fathers and children, and enhancing father-child relations. The programs often serve

specifi c target populations and are part of integrated services designed for populations consid-

ered at risk for poverty, hardship, and discrimination. The context and purposes of the program

determines whether it is driven by defi cit perspectives, by a focus on broader cultural and social

practices, or if it is in response to court and legislative mandates.

Father-focused programs vary in several ways. First, they diff er by clientele and/or partici-

pants: Some programs focus primarily on nonresident, noncustodial, low-income fathers, while

others are directed at resident fathers across income levels. Second, programs diff er in their origi-

nal missions. Some programs are established to serve fathers only, while others provide a range

of support and resources to fathers and men in general. Other programs off er multiple services

or are integrated into existing programs serving mothers and children primarily: e.g., maternal

health, general parent education services, early childhood education, or literacy assistance as

well as co-parenting workshops. Third, programs diff er according to the focus of their eff ort.

Several programs are dedicated to workforce development, entrepreneurship, or employment

training, while some emphasize paternity establishment and child support. Still others attempt

to help fathers reconnect with their children after a long-term absence, often fostered by local

departments of human services and described as reunifi cation. Fourth, programs diff er in their

C op

yr ig

ht ©

$ {D

at e}

. $ {P

ub lis

he r}

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

Father Involvement and Family Literacy

155

ability to provide regular supports to participants and community members. Finally, they diff er

by funding sources and in fi nancial stability, with many programs discontinuing after relatively

short periods of time (Gadsden & Rethemeyer, 2003).

Fathering practitioners are deeply aware of the day-to-day experiences of fathers. Many pro-

grams have long histories of working with children, mothers, and families (e.g., maternal health

and Head Start), while others are at the forefront of fatherhood work at the outset of national ini-

tiatives. This is particularly the case for early childhood programs, such as Head Start, in which

parents have a critical role in the day-to-day experiences of children. These are natural settings

in which to focus on fatherhood in family literacy. Since 2000, the expansion of fathering pro-

grams has been evident in national networks and federal initiatives that focus on fatherhood and/

or healthy marriage. Policy eff orts have grown at all levels of government, beginning with the

implementation of Temporary Assistance to Needy Families in the mid-1990s and White House

and federal initiatives to promote father involvement (see Rosenberg & Wilcox, 2006).

The diversity within and across fathering programs is consistent with emergent fi elds that

have a service orientation and that developed out of real or perceived social urgency. As a result,

it is often the case that the apparent need outweighs the incentive for initiatives to create a sys-

tematic approach or to address systemic issues. This problem has faced family literacy and looms

over fatherhood practice and programming, which have grown more rapidly than the accompa-

nying research knowledge base. Information is lacking on what resources exist, what initiatives

have been implemented, and with what eff ects. This disparity in the growth of programs and the

knowledge base about either programs or fathers is exacerbated by the fact that, until the previ-

ous decade, research studies provided only limited data on fathers. However, any cursory review

of the state of father involvement research today would reveal a signifi cant increase in the num-

ber and variety of studies on fatherhood over the past decade (see National Center on Fatherhood

FatherLit Database). On the other hand, a similar examination of research on programs would

reveal a remarkable dearth of work.

With still relatively fl edgling status and increasing though limited funding, fathering pro-

grams, in everyday terms, are the bedrock of the fatherhood eff ort in the United States; the

issues they raise help advance responsible fathering to the top of national, state, and local agendas.

Organizations that promote fatherhood practice and involvement at national and local levels pro-

vide compelling evidence of the magnitude and intensity of fathering activities and the implica-

tions for fathers, especially fathers in low-income settings; nonresidential fathers; urban fathers;

and low-income, minority and immigrant fathers (see Gadsden & Rethemeyer, 2003). They

acknowledge that programs may be established as freestanding collectives; components of newly

developed eff orts; and new divisions within traditionally mother- and child-focused programs

established by the courts, in family and human services agencies, and in school systems and other

educational institutions. In addition, fathering program demonstrations are also likely to address

child support, Head Start and Early Head Start, and children’s schooling.

There are at least two ways to integrate family literacy and fathers. One is to insert a family

literacy agenda into fathering programs, another is to integrate fatherhood work into literacy

programs. Both approaches are viable and important, and both come with opportunities and

constraints. Fathering programs focusing on literacy and education might well collaborate with

literacy specialists to include a strand of work that attends to fathers and children and that targets

family learning as a critical subset of work with fathers. In this case, programs that have not

historically had rigorous educational programs and that have not prioritized literacy can expand

their off erings to include a more heightened focus on families. They would need to accommo-

date perspectives that are not familiar, be prepared to work with new populations with diff erent

problems and histories, cultivate ways of working with men and women, and engage in collab-

orative eff orts that can be sustained with family literacy specialists.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

$ {D

at e}

. $ {P

ub lis

he r}

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

Vivian L. Gadsden

156

The sensitivity of integrating literacy and educational work in fathering programs was evi-

dent in a study which my colleague, Karl Rethemeyer, and I conducted almost 10 years ago of

fatherhood programs located in northern California (Gadsden & Rethemeyer, 2003). The study

revealed that these programs had a range of purposes, with education and literacy being among

the least mentioned. We were struck by the multiple demands on the programs, with some of the

most visible problems facing fathers (e.g., unemployment, poverty, and recurring pregnancies)

overshadowing the less visible problems (e.g., education, literacy, and poor schooling). More-

over, many of the practitioners in the programs were not aware of the opportunities or resources

available and were not knowledgeable of the full gamut of fathers’ needs.

In interviews and surveys, programs noted that participants often lacked the knowledge

needed to gain access to government assistance programs. Although this assertion could not be

confi rmed directly from the data, the prevalence of literacy and numeracy issues described by

practitioners and fathers suggests that the problems contributed, in large measure, to participants’

diffi culties in supporting their children and families. Practitioners indicated that almost 50% of

all participants lacked the reading and writing skills necessary to participate in legal proceedings,

and 25% lacked the skills necessary to use program materials. These fi ndings suggest that low

literacy levels and educational attainment were major inhibitors to fathers seeking and gaining

eff ective assistance, even when they could fi nd the time. In addition, nearly every program iden-

tifi ed low educational attainment as a chief challenge for program participants.

Fathering practitioners typically agree that young fathers join programs because they wish

to improve the quality of their parenting and interactions with their children. They argue that

the very factors that impinge on fathers’ parenting also restrict, if not reduce, their ability to

participate in programs and activities that might improve their options. In our estimation, the

root cause of these issues may be traced, in part, to low levels of educational attainment, which

then have an impact on at least three facets of participants’ lives: competing demands on their

time, an inability to access resources, and low wages and levels of employment. Family literacy

programs are capable of addressing these issues of literacy but would need to consider recruit-

ment strategies, expand content, revise schedules, challenge practitioners’ assumptions about

“women’s work” and “men’s work,” and consider the question of how to accommodate both

mothers and fathers.

Addressing the Needs of Fathers: Images from Fathering Programs

To provide a glimpse of the purposes of fathering programs, their everyday practice, and the

role they can play in merging their work with family literacy, I draw here upon interviews that I

conducted with administrators in two urban programs and one national program serving fathers.

The programs are diverse in their off erings and approaches used but are notably similar to other

programs throughout the United States in relation to the everyday practice.

Focus on Fathers, Resources for Children’s Health

The Focus on Fathers program provides comprehensive services for fathers, stepfathers, and other

male caregivers and is housed in Resources for Children’s Health (RCH), a Philadelphia, Penn-

sylvania, non-profi t agency dedicated to promoting positive parenting, healthy pregnancies, and

the health and well-being of children and families (for more information, go to Facebook.com/

Resources for Children’s Health.). According to the administrators, Focus on Fathers has been

funded by public and private support, including the U.S. Department of Health and Human

Services’ Administration for Children and Families, the Philadelphia Department of Human

Services, and the United Way of Southeastern Pennsylvania, since its implementation in 1996.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

$ {D

at e}

. $ {P

ub lis

he r}

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

Father Involvement and Family Literacy

157

Over its almost 15-year history, Focus on Fathers has been concerned primarily with sup-

porting fathers in their parenting roles, while also addressing issues such as male empowerment,

employment, and legal problems. The program administrators describe the program’s overall goal

as increasing “the participation of fathers and other male caregivers in activities that support an

active and positive parenting role.” The program serves more than 400 men each year, includ-

ing fathers with child welfare involvement, fathers in recovery, formerly incarcerated fathers,

unemployed/underemployed fathers, teen fathers, and fathers with language barriers. The aver-

age age of the fathers served is 35. They are typically unmarried, single, or living with a partner

(sometimes but not always the mothers of their children) and have an average of two children.

Approximately 75% are African American, 20% are Latino, and 5% represent other ethnic groups.

The program serves the men through a 2-hour per week parenting education and skills

development course based on national curricula designed for fathers that meets for 12 consecu-

tive weeks. Administrators also report that, during the 12-week period, fathers in the program

receive individual case management, including assessment, individualized service plans, coun-

seling, and referrals; participate in peer discussion/support groups; and are involved in positive

family-oriented activities off ering opportunities for them to practice what they learn with their

children and partners. These services are off ered in settings with which fathers are familiar and

comfortable, including their homes, in the organization’s offi ces, and in community sites. Fathers

are referred to additional services as necessary, for example, assistance in resolving family vio-

lence problems through a partnership with Menergy, a counseling service for batterers.

Among the major issues for which the program off ers support is custody/visitation. Fathers

often are ordered by the Department of Human Services, a judge, or a probation offi cer to take

the program’s parenting education before they are reunifi ed or gain custody. Case managers then

assist in the process of fathers gaining custody by helping them to navigate systems; advocating

for the fathers; explaining the process; and connecting the men to employment, housing, and

other resources that are necessary prior to reunifi cation. All services are conducted in English

and Spanish.

The program’s staff and the umbrella organization, RCH, have been leaders in promoting

collaborative advocacy and program development with other providers and organizations such

as the Philadelphia Council for Fathers and Families, which RCH fi rst convened in 1999 as The

Philadelphia Fatherhood Practitioners Network. The program evaluates its services using pre-

and post-tests, formal and informal assessments, and semi-structured surveys. The administrators

describe participants as demonstrating increased knowledge, skills, and confi dence as a result of

their involvement in the program. Focus on Fathers distinguishes itself by focusing directly on

parenting education and skills, stating that “fathers do not have access to the same training and

resources to parent their children as mothers do.… [and ] they are in need of education and sup-

port around issues related to child development, attachment and bonding, nurturing parenting

techniques, etc. [rather than focusing solely on issues like employment].”

In describing the ways in which the literacies of fathers and their children are addressed, the

administrators indicated that one session in the curriculum focuses on children’s literacy and suc-

cess in school, emphasizing topics such as having a literacy-friendly home, reading to children,

helping with homework, and accessing school district resources. The case management addresses

these issues as well. Books are used as incentives for fathers’ participation, and information is

distributed about local resources (e.g., Parent University, Mayor’s Commission on Literacy, and

the Police Athletic League Center) and event notifi cations (e.g., book sales and school district

activities). In addition, several father-child activities are organized throughout the year wherein

children and other family members are invited to attend with the men.

When asked about the possibilities of and barriers to integrating family literacy in the existing

program, administrators also noted that as an educational setting, Focus on Fathers is “always

C op

yr ig

ht ©

$ {D

at e}

. $ {P

ub lis

he r}

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

Vivian L. Gadsden

158

conscious of literacy.” They indicated that one of the major barriers that the program faces in

implementing a family literacy component is the amount of time that many of the fathers, who

are typically noncustodial, nonresidential fathers, have available to spend with their children.

With that reality, the program, they stated, “emphasizes] the importance of routine and con-

sistency when raising children (literacy issues included).… Many of the fathers struggle with

these concepts because they are or have been very inconsistent in the past.” Another barrier,

administrators report, is “fathers’ reading and education levels.” They also noted that if fathers

“struggle to read or help their child with homework, they often say that they feel ashamed and

stop trying to help their children.” While not focused on family literacy, the program aims to

integrate literacy issues in relationship to fathers’ roles and responsibilities for their children and

their need to improve their own literacy and education. As the program administrators assert,

Focus on Fathers is developed around building parenting, and literacy is essential to these eff orts.

How programs such as Focus on Fathers negotiate the apparent need with limited fi nancial and

human resources has yet to be determined.

The Fatherhood Initiative Program, Philadelphia Mayor’s Offi ce for Community Support

The Fatherhood Initiative Program (FIP) in Philadelphia aims to “strengthen the relationship

between fathers and their children, as well as reverse the absentee fatherhood trend” (for more

information, go to http://www.phila.gov/mocs/Fatherhood_Initiativ.html). According to the

director, participants in the program attend fatherhood training sessions over a 6- to 8-week

period, reduced from 12 weeks to ensure higher father attendance and retention. The program

describes the sessions as being designed to (a) promote responsible fatherhood and holistic par-

enting; (b empower fathers to assume emotional, moral, spiritual, psychological, and fi nancial

responsibility for their children; (c) accentuate the psychosocial development of fathers and their

children; (d) help fathers understand the challenges of parenting; and (e) increase fathers’ skills

in building and maintaining healthy relationships. Most of the fathers the program serves are

noncustodial, nonresidential fathers from low-income settings. Approximately 80% of program

participants are referred by Child Support Enforcement and 20% from the district attorney’s

offi ce, parole offi cers, and other referrals. Four to fi ve hundred fathers are referred each year,

with an approximate 50% retention rate.

Similar to other programs, FIP uses skill and character-base curricula, developed by local

and nationally recognized organizations and facilitated by certifi ed master trainers and facilita-

tors. Fathers participate in open discussion of various topics, ranging from anger management

and self-confi dence to healthy relationships and culture. Most of the component features of the

curricula concern men’s character, family structure, and fathers’ background experiences. They

also focus on family values, child support issues, and relationships with the mother(s) of their

children as well as with their children. Anger is addressed throughout the program, with former

participants serving as counselors and supports.

When asked about the major issues that fathers bring to programs, FIP’s director cites three: (a)

child support, which is addressed through the curriculum; (b) employment and job readiness; and

(c) relationships, also addressed through the curriculum. He notes the importance of education

and literacy and reports that FIP conveys to fathers that family literacy is a family value, high-

lighting the importance of literacy and education. However, he points to the limited informa-

tion available about family literacy and other literacy resources in fathering programs. From his

perspective, leveraging the services in fatherhood programs with those in family literacy would

strengthen the focus on fathers and families and improve fatherhood programs by promoting

partnership and collaboration. As an example of the urgency around literacy and schooling, he

C op

yr ig

ht ©

$ {D

at e}

. $ {P

ub lis

he r}

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

Father Involvement and Family Literacy

159

cites the 50% high school dropout rate among fathers in FIP, reinforcing the importance of par-

ents’ explicitly expressing education as a value and fathers being more involved in their children’s

schooling. He argues that fathers need to be prepared for programs, and programs need to be

prepared for fathers.

FIP serves fathers only and does not work with families, although it has events (e.g., fam-

ily outings) periodically in which family members participate. An activity “in the works,” the

director notes, is a co-parenting workshop that will include both mothers and fathers and allow

the program to embrace the entire family in its work.

Changing Fatherhood, Raising Him Alone Campaign

The Raising Him Alone Campaign, a program originally designed to address the needs of single

mothers raising sons, launched the Changing Fatherhood component to complement its work

with mothers and contribute to eff orts that support fathers in becoming leaders in community

development (for more information, go to www.raisinghimalone.com). The co-founder of the

campaign reinforces the statement that appears on its website when defi ning good fathers:“…

sober, responsible, spiritually guided men who are courageous enough to support their children

and family unconditionally [and] believes that courage becomes the cornerstone for fathers who

are concerned with creating social, political and economic conditions within communities that

promote optimum development of the family.” Much of the Campaign’s work is conducted collab-

oratively with the support of the Open Society Institute’s Campaign for Black Male Achievement.

Changing Fatherhood and Raising Him Alone are unique in that neither provides direct

services but reaches hundreds of parents through social networking and technology. To achieve

their goals, Changing Fatherhood works with men and women across the United States through

ongoing dialogue about the role of fathers. As its description indicates, the dialogue is focused

on “supporting mothers, reconnecting fathers and families, impacting policy initiatives, and

strengthening communities.” Changing Fatherhood hosts special seminars about the role of

fathers at the Raising Him Alone Kickoff s and partners with community groups to host seminars

in targeted communities.

Most of the program’s work is around advocacy—conducting support groups for fathers,

including getting fathers referred to appropriate services. A prominent example of the eff ects

of Changing Fatherhood’s social networking centers on the ability to bring together fathers

and children who live in diff erent parts of the country and world. As a case example, Chang-

ing Fatherhood organizes using Facebook, an approach also used by other organizations such as

Fatherhood, Inc. in New York City. According to Changing Fatherhood’s administrator, the

social networking site contributed to a father, the mother of his child, and the child himself re-

establishing a relationship. Unique to the social networking is engagement and supports from

fathers, mothers, and others raising children alone. The father, the president notes, received

support from users of the site. Disseminating information is seen as the hallmark of the organiza-

tion’s work, including workshops on navigating special education and on ensuring black male

graduation. Over 13,000 parents receive the Raising Him Alone Newsletter, and thousands of men

receive daily motivational messages to stay involved with their children. Based in Baltimore,

Maryland, and Newark, New Jersey, the organization has 16 partners and has been working with

Amnesty for Dads, a Father’s Day eff ort, throughout the country.

A former literacy specialist focused on community development, the co-founder notes the

urgency of literacy and the complex issues that fathers—particularly those in low-income, urban

communities—face. Having worked with the City of Baltimore’s eff orts to increase reading (Bal-

timore Reads) more than a decade ago, he speaks of the need to integrate literacy into fatherhood

eff orts, not necessarily as family literacy but as learning and engagement.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

$ {D

at e}

. $ {P

ub lis

he r}

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

Vivian L. Gadsden

160

Summary. I have chosen to ask a question that does not assume the responsibility for family literacy lies solely in family literacy programs or that integrating fatherhood is greater than the

scope of the fi eld as it exists. However, to move forward an agenda in which the concepts of

family and parent involvement embrace both parents and the multiple members of the family,

we might work more directly to understand how fatherhood programs already make sense of the

issues and use what we know about the culture of fathers and families to create useful approaches

in determining what matters in a responsive agenda. In the next section, I describe a few research

studies that have focused on fathers’ understanding of their children’s literacy and the ways in

which father involvement is being addressed in family literacy programs.

Support from Research: There is a Place for Family Literacy in Fathering Programs

A theme that cuts across the programs described in the previous section is the real and potential

signifi cance of literacy and family literacy in addressing the needs of fathers. An equally compel-

ling theme is negotiating the inherent complexities of structure, service, substance, and popula-

tions in fatherhood programs when they consider integrating family literacy into their current

work. Programs are faced with multiple challenges in trying to serve fathers, such as the short

timeframe in which the work is to take place, the diversity of fathers, unemployment and socio-

economic needs of the fathers, the nonresidential and noncustodial nature of many father-child

relationships, and constraints in off ering wider services. Many of these issues have faced family

literacy eff orts as well. However, the often court-mandated participation of many fathers in the

programs takes on a diff erent kind of authority in getting the men to persist and interpret local,

state, and federal policies in diff erent ways. Both fatherhood programs and family literacy pro-

grams draw upon critical theoretical perspectives, responding to questions of whose values and

beliefs are framing the expectations for the fi eld and of programs themselves.

Several studies have focused on fathers in literacy programs, indicating that family literacy

welcomes the focus on fathers. Two strands of research are most prominent. One examines

whether and how fathers understand their children’s literacy and whether mothers and fathers

diff er in their understanding of and responses to children’s learning. Three studies are notable in

the diff erent ways in which fathers and mothers are described. Hiebert and Adams’ 1987 study

was intentional in its focus on the nature of fathers’ and mothers’ perceptions of young children’s

capabilities and the relationship that exists between children’s age and gender and parents’ pre-

dictions. Hiebert and Adams found that both fathers and mothers overestimated their children’s

performance on more than half the measures, and that no diff erence existed between parents’

assessments of boys versus girls.

Taylor, in Learning Denied (1990), captures the experiences of both father and mother in

her chronicling of the interactions of Patrick, whose enthusiasm for reading and writing were

incompatible with classroom practices and standardized test-driven approaches of his school.

She highlights both parents’ eff orts to ensure their son’s access to literacy and schooling and to

value the knowledge that he brought to learning. Without matching Patrick’s father’s contribu-

tions against his mother’s involvement, Taylor paints a clear picture of the ways in which each

parent commits to Patrick’s well-being. In much the same way, she reinforces the importance of

understanding families’ cultures and literacies in her 1997 edited volume, Many Families, Many

Literacies, in which she challenges defi cit-driven family models upon “which many literacy pro-

grams are predicated.”

Another body of work focuses mostly on fathers and examines their participation in Head

Start and Early Head Start, as noted earlier in this chapter. Several studies (e.g., Cabrera et al.,

2004) have examined whether and how fathers are involved, but few studies tell us much about

C op

yr ig

ht ©

$ {D

at e}

. $ {P

ub lis

he r}

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

Father Involvement and Family Literacy

161

the nature of fathers’ participation in the day-to-day learning of their children. One study (Fan-

tuzzo, Gadsden, & McDermott, 2011), using home connections, off ers modest results, with

fathers co-creating with their children almost 50% of the home connections tasks completed and

returned to teachers as part of the weekly curriculum-based activities. Although not designed

specifi cally for fathers but for family members, the study revealed clear patterns of engagement

across assignments and over time.

A second strand of research is more recent and highlights programs and their roles in support-

ing fathers in family literacy programs. Gadsden (2003) identifi ed eight themes from a study with

50 young fathers who were primarily nonresidential, noncustodial fathers. Among the themes

that emerged as salient in working with fathers were (a) using multiple approaches to engage

and sustain participation by fathers; (b) using approaches that are not intrusive and invasive; (c)

recognizing the purposes for which fathers would read and write or support their children; (d)

using alternative descriptors (other than family literacy) to recruit fathers; (e) highlighting the

importance of fathering roles; and (f ) examining young fathers’ assumptions about the linkages

between poverty, literacy, and power. In addition, interviews with the fathers revealed tensions

between their desire to support their children’s literacy and their goal to enhance their own abili-

ties. The interviews also showed the considerable diversity of the fathers, despite several com-

mon characteristics across backgrounds, educational experiences, and histories of father absence.

Several other recent studies have shed light on how fathers interact with their children in

family literacy programs. Morgan, Nutbrown, and Hannon (2009) interviewed fathers in a study

designed to examine their involvement and experiences in programs that invite both mothers

and fathers to participate. Using home records maintained by the teachers and observation, the

analysis revealed that a large percentage of fathers were involved in some way in home literacy

activities with their children, with low-income fathers being less involved. The study provides

more support for the possibilities that exist for engaging fathers—e.g., fathers’ interactions with

their children around literacy and recognition of their children’s achievement—but fewer exam-

ples of the specifi c frequency, nature, and quality of their interactions within the program itself.

The role of book reading continues to be an area of possibility to uncover the ways in which

parents, both fathers and mothers, contribute to children’s curiosity and interest in reading.

Karther (2002) reported that the fathers she studied engaged in a range of monitoring and sup-

port activities, including book reading. In a study of Hispanic fathers, Ortiz (1999) along with

his colleagues (Ortiz, 2000; Ortiz & Stiles, 2002) found that involvement varied across fathers,

with some fathers engaging actively in activities such as book reading and those who did not.

The study suggests that a cultural mismatch may contribute to the range of participation by

fathers but provides less information on whether and the degree to which fathers’ own literacy

may serve as a barrier to engaging their children. Building upon the activities used by Ortiz

and his colleagues (1999), Saracho’s (2007) case study of 25 fathers documents the participation

of fathers and their children in a family literacy workshop. With the fi nding that fathers were

immersed in the activities of the program and engaged their children in written experiences,

storytelling, and other literacy activities, Saracho’s study revealed that fathers could be encour-

aged to participate in programs that consider fathers’ interests, allowing the fathers to build upon

cultural and social practices that are familiar and meaningful to their families and themselves.

Much of the prevailing evidence is that fathers’ involvement matters in children’s literacy and

that family literacy is a viable context to engage fathers. However, the message is not new. Only

one study (Gadsden, 2006) of those described earlier in this section took place in a program

focused on fathers. All built upon the cultural experiences that fathers bring, and all studied

young children. This focus on young children, as several studies suggest, is consistent with early

childhood programs’ eff orts to promote family involvement. The strength of this approach is the

opportunity to create positive learning environments as children’s emergent literacies unfold.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

$ {D

at e}

. $ {P

ub lis

he r}

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

Vivian L. Gadsden

162

The focus on fathers should be designed as an extension of what we know about mothers, an

eff ort to create a more rounded understanding of how parents and families engage, and engage

others, in literacy activities and build literacy acts within existing family cultural frameworks

which challenge longstanding western practices of parent-child interactions. One example of

the diversity of family cultures is Mui and Anderson’s 2008 study of the family literacy practices

of Genna Johar. Genna’s grandparents, two uncles and their wives and children, parents, and

siblings live in the same household, and the families take joint responsibility for the fi nances and

childrearing. The authors note that if neither of Genna’s parents is available for parent-teacher

meetings, one of the extended family members attends. Children learn from each other and from

adults. Financially well-off , Genna’s family relies upon known and valued cultural practices to

navigate the schooling and well-being of their children. They assert further that the way that

the family “does the business” of supporting children and taking responsibility for their learning

challenges a perceived bias in many family literacy programs—a focus on nuclear, Western-hon-

ored family traditions and practices. The study provides a useful analysis for our framing work

with fathers and family literacy, as we understand more about how diff erent family constellations

and cultures guide the everyday decisions and practices of families about who is involved, how

often, under what circumstances, and for what purposes to ensure the well-being of children.

The question of who and what constitutes the “family” part of family literacy persists, and

how we should respond is not particularly transparent. The complexity of relationships, pro-

grams’ lack of preparation in responding to the complexity, and staff members’ discomfort in

working with fathers may all serve as interlocutors in family literacy programs’ eff orts to expand

their work to think about fathers. They may also be constructed as points of opportunity. How-

ever, the small body of research is poignant and straightforward, showing that fathers want to be

involved and respond positively when programs learn about their interests, histories, and cultural

practices. Research and programs are needed that can enhance our understanding of fathers’

experiences with literacy, their goals for their children and other family members, and their

expectations of family literacy programs.

Closing Thoughts and Persistent Questions

More than 25 years after Taylor’s seminal work on families and literacy and the expansion of

family literacy programs, many of the issues raised in the work are being addressed while others

have become stark and new ones are being raised. This pattern reinforces the potential of family

literacy. The fundamental question of who constitutes the family in family literacy, what counts

as literacy, and how to understand better the social practices of families persist. However, family

literacy has become increasingly integrated into discussions of family support and child welfare

more generally, particularly regarding populations that are placed at risk by social institutions:

(im)migrant families, low-income families of color, families with special needs, and American

Indian families, to name a few. The issues of fathers and family literacy sit along a similar con-

tinuum; they are the issues of families, social contexts in which children learn and grow, and

institutional opportunities and barriers.

What are the ways in which fathers might be engaged? In this relatively new fi eld, more

recent than family literacy, the research is still too limited to say, and scholarly work and research

on programs and with practitioners will be critical in determining the potential for integration

of services and collaboration for ideas. The work that has been conducted demonstrates the effi -

cacy of eff orts to engage fathers but also the need to take the opportunity to transform the fi eld.

For example, despite the importance of shared book reading as the hallmark of parent-child

literacy, a focus on fathers will need to both support such work and consider alternative ways to

engage fathers and sustain their engagement. Ortiz and Stile (2002) and Saracho (2007) point to

C op

yr ig

ht ©

$ {D

at e}

. $ {P

ub lis

he r}

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

Father Involvement and Family Literacy

163

successful approaches to getting fathers to participate in family literacy programs. However, the

approaches are not formulaic and require adapting such that programs consider the demands on

the lives of the fathers who are most likely to attend them.

Several provocative and noteworthy examples of alternatives to traditional parent-child lit-

eracy used in many family literacy programs have been highlighted in the studies. They are

disproportionately focused on immigrant families and families for whom English is a second

language, but they off er critical insights. New technologies make for new opportunities to con-

sider family literacy, and many of these would be well worth examining carefully in order to

engage fathers and to chart their experiences. Moreover, the impetus need not come from family

literacy programs alone, but must be embedded in programs serving fathers directly—programs

where staff are deeply aware of fathers’ needs and expectations. Researchers have long noted

that both adult and family literacy are seen as women’s work (e.g., Prins & Toso, 2008; Prins &

Van Horn, this volume), an extension of traditional perspectives on women in families. While

much has changed, much has stayed the same. Fathers appear more directly involved in literacy

and learning than ever before, yet the empirical evidence is limited regarding the ways that their

involvement is making a diff erence in their own literacy, their children’s and other family mem-

bers’. Furthermore, answers to what counts as change needs to be determined.

As family literacy weighs the possibilities and opportunities of engaging a rigorous agenda

around father involvement, it will need to consider several issues:

1. How fathers are invited to participate in programs. Fathers often point to the discomfort

that they feel in women-dominant programs and report feeling unwelcomed by the women

in the program, both staff and participants. This criticism is typically reported diff erently by

women who also express the challenges around power when men enter the programs (Gads-

den, 2007). While the gender wars cannot be resolved by programs, they can be rendered

less poignant, both in how fathers and mothers participate (in groups of mothers and in

groups of fathers), and in how the staff members demonstrate comfort with fathers present.

2. How staff are prepared to work with fathers, particularly those whose backgrounds are vastly

diff erent from those of the staff and who diff er along ethnic, racial, and socio-economic

lines. Several of the fathers who participate in fathering programs have had encounters with

the criminal justice system, and several are mandated to participate in literacy programs.

Practitioners in programs often express some concern about their ability to support the

fathers. Programs that are wary of their ability to work directly with fathers might opt to

collaborate with fathering programs.

3. How curricula are developed and constituted. Curricula prepared for mothers will not

translate neatly to fathers. Both the content and the parenting expectations will need to be

revised to account for potential gender diff erences, interests, interactions, and opportunities

for child and father to work together.

4. How to draw eff ectively on successful models, such as Head Start, in supporting a diff er-

ent kind of transition (i.e., helping schools prepare for father involvement). Several eff orts

in Head Start call attention to the subtle and nuanced ways in which programs welcome

fathers. Family literacy might build upon what we are learning from Head Start and other

early childhood programs.

5. As research in the fi eld emerges, how to begin to decouple the role of fathers as similar yet

diff erent from the role of mothers and build upon the shared goals of fathers as parents. The

implications for program structure, staff , and activities are yet to be understood fully, but the

opportunities to work collaboratively to fi gure out strategic points of connection in family

literacy and fathering should be embraced and cultivated.

6. How innovative approaches using new technologies and networks can be leveraged with

supports to fathers and families in both family literacy and fathering programs.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

$ {D

at e}

. $ {P

ub lis

he r}

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

Vivian L. Gadsden

164

The present is a particularly important time to consider the intersections and possibilities

for fatherhood work and family literacy. Despite the dearth of studies on fatherhood in family

literacy research, important questions are being raised that cross the boundaries of both areas of

inquiry, including conceptualizing “family,” understanding the multidimensionality and enact-

ments of parents’ roles within and outside of families, the contributions of fathers to child and

family literacy, as related to and separate from the contributions of mothers, issues of access and

hardship, and the signifi cance of cultural and social practices in understanding how literacy is

learned and used. We know considerably more about mothers and children’s literacy than about

fathers and children, though our knowledge even here is still limited, as the diversity of families

increase and the roles and responsibilities assumed by fathers and mothers shift.

To study fathers and to include them in the work of family literacy does not come with-

out considerable eff ort and often painstaking revision of our expectations, preparation of staff ,

interactions with agencies within and outside of education, and gender concerns, to name a

few. There are questions in fatherhood research and practice on issues related to child support,

visitation, and the courts that fall outside the typical work in family literacy. However, if family

literacy is to represent the diversity of families, family needs, family dreams, and family prac-

tices, it will take up these issues in research and practice, not as problems but as areas of learning.

What is promoted, as a result, is a more expansive view of literacy in which the social knowledge

and cultural practices that families use to shape their identities as fathers, mothers, children, and

family members are embraced as critical components of teaching and learning.

References

Amato, P. R., Meyers, C., & Emery, R. E. (2009). Changes in nonresident father-child contact from 1976 to 2002.

Family Relations, 58(1),41–53.

Anderson, E., & Zuberi, T (Eds.) (2000). The study of African American problems: W.E.B. Du Bois’s agenda, then and now

(The Annal of the American Academy of Political and Social Science). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Press.

Cabrera, N., Shannon, J., Jolley, S., & Tamis-LeMonda, C. S. (2008). Low-income nonresident father involvement

with their toddlers: Variation by fathers’ race and ethnicity. Journal of Family Psychology, 22(4), 643–647.

Cowan, P., Cowan, C., Pruett, M. Kline, Pruett, K., & Wong, J. (2009) Promoting fathers engagement with children:

Preventive interventions for low-income families. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 71, 663–679.

Day, R. D., & Lamb, M. E. (2004). Conceptualizing and measuring father involvement: Pathways, problems, and

progress. In R. D. Day & M. E. Lamb (Eds.), Conceptualizing and measuring father involvement. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Fantuzzo, J., Gadsden, V., & McDermott, P., (2011). An integrated curriculum to improve mathematics, language,

and literacy for Head Start children. American Educational Research Journal, 48, 763–793.

Gadsden, V. L. (2003). Expanding the concept of “family” in family literacy: Integrating a focus on fathers. In A.

DeBruin-Parecki & B. Krol-Sinclair (Eds.), Family literacy: From theory to practice (pp. 86–125). Newark, DE: Inter-

national Reading Association.

Gadsden, V. L. Fagan, J., Ray, A., & Davis, J. (2001). The Fathering Indicators Framework: A tool for quantitative and qualita-

tive analysis. NCOFF Report. Philadelphia: National Center on Fathers and Families, University of Pennsylvania.

Gadsden, V., & Ray, A. (2002). Engaging fathers: Issues and considerations for early childhood educators. Young

Children, 57(6), 32–42.

Gadsden, V. L., & Rethemeyer, R. K. (2003). Bay Area fathering initiatives: Policymaker and practitioner perspectives on

integrating fathering eff orts. Philadelphia: National Center on Fathers and Families, University of Pennsylvania.

Hiebert, E. H., & Adams, C. S. (1987). Fathers’ and mothers’ perceptions of their preschool children’s emergent lit-

eracy. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 44, 25–37.

Karther, D. (2002). Fathers with low literacy and their young children. Reading Teacher. 56 (2), 184–193.

McLanahan, & Carlson, M. (2004). Fathers in fragile families. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.) The role of the father in child develop-

ment (4th ed.). New York: Wiley.

Morgan, A., Nutbrown,C., & Hannon, P. (2009). Fathers’ involvement in young children’s literacy development:

Implications for family literacy programmes. British Educational Research Journal, 35(2), 167–185.

Mui, S., & Anderson, J. (2008). At home with the Johars: Another look at family literacy. The Reading Teacher, 62(3),

234–243.

Nord, C. W., Brimhall, D., & West, J. (1997). Father’s involvement in schools (No. NCES 98-091). Washington, DC:

U.S. Department of Education.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

$ {D

at e}

. $ {P

ub lis

he r}

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

Father Involvement and Family Literacy

165

Ortiz, R. W. (2000). The many faces of learning to read: The role of fathers in helping their children to develop early

literacy skills. Multicultural Perspectives, 2, 10–17.

Ortiz, R. W., & Stile, S. (2002). Project dads: Training fathers in early literacy skills through community-university

partnerships. The School Community Journal, 12, 91–106.

Ortiz, R. W., Stile, S. W., & Brown, L. (1999). Early literacy activities of fathers: Reading and writing with young

children, Young Children, 54, 16–18.

Palm, G., & Fagan, J. (2008). Father involvement in early childhood programs: Review of the literature. Early Child

Development and Care, 178, 745–759.

Prins, E., & Toso, B. W., (2008). Defi ning and measuring parenting for educational success: A critical discourse analy-

sis of the Parent Educational Profi le. American Educational Research Journal, 45(3), 555–596.

Rosenberg, J., & Wilcox, W. B. (2006). The importance of fathers in the healthy development of children. Washington, DC:

Offi ce of Child Abuse and Neglect, U.S. Children’s Bureau.

Saracho, O. N. (2007). Fathers and young children’s literacy experiences in a family environment. Early Childhood

Development and Care, 177(4), 403–415.

Taylor, D. (1990). Learning denied. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Taylor, D. (Ed.). (1997). Many families, many literacies. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

$ {D

at e}

. $ {P

ub lis

he r}

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .