Fath
Flower123
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 .