| Path: Home > Advocacy > National Literacy Trust > Literacy and Social Inclusion |
Literacy and Social Inclusion: The policy challenge
A NIACE response to a discussion paper by the National Literacy Trust Supported by the Basic Skills Agency
Published: July 2004
1. NIACE welcomes this report which clearly outlines the risks to children, adults and families of social exclusion, associated with poor literacy skills. The multiple and complex challenges, which accompany underdeveloped literacy and which are often invisible, are indicated. NIACE supports this analysis. We welcome the research position, which places families and young adults at the heart of concern. Family learning programmes are often some of the first places where learning about child development takes place. We endorse the focus on home and community practice. This approach could reveal how systemic changes might affect subsequent generations and sustain effective change, in involving More and different learners in better provision.
2. We welcome the desire to continue to research the relationship between under-developed literacy and economic and social well-being. We particularly support the concept of a strong correlation between poor literacy, low self esteem and low confidence. The joint NIACE - NYA work on Getting Connected has demonstrated the importance of the framework for social inclusion amongst young adults. Further study is also required in this area to determine ways of addressing these challenges.
3. NIACE agrees that defining what works in addressing adult literacy development is complex and challenging but that there is increasing evidence of the approaches required to combat negativity, build positive attitudes and develop skills.
4. NIACE feels that accurate referencing and citations in the text would enhance its clarity and status. It also believes that using the term 'hard to reach' places a responsibility on individuals which they cannot and should not carry. It is services and provision which are hard to reach. We recommend that this term should not be used. The report rightly indicates that many people do not feel that their existing literacy skills pose huge problems. If we then say that people 'need to' or have 'literacy needs', these are someone else's perception and not those of the potential learners. Reference is made to creating people who fail as well as 'disaffected'. A more positive approach would be to suggest that the system fails them. We urge that the language, which might create negative images of people because their literacy development has not reached the standards set by government, is reviewed.
Early Years - Questions
1. How can our knowledge of early language development be shared more effectively with at risk parents whose very young children are manifesting signs of language delay?
NIACE acknowledges the very important work carried out by such initiatives as Sure Start. We acknowledge the key role of well trained professionals in building relationships and trust with families and parents. Their influence cannot be under-estimated. We suggest that also harnessing the contributions of the voluntary and community sector and of Youth Services in working with families through pre-schools, carer and toddler groups and work with young parents should be seriously assessed. This would also include specialist organisations concerned with disabilities, housing and health. Training and development for volunteers working with families should be offered so that they can work more effectively with 'at risk' parents. Targeting of the most disadvantaged areas would assist in this process. Note the research by Veronica McGivney, "The Contribution of Pre-Schools to Adult Learning" (NIACE/PSLA 1998).
2. How can links between early years settings and library services be developed further to promote parental interest in reading and sharing books with very young children?
We know that libraries are being used less and less by families. These services could be developed, in particular in partnership with the voluntary and community sector, to reach more and different families through outreach, bridging and linking activities. Taking the library to families is an under-developed but not new idea. We note such initiatives as Youthboox and its contribution to libraries and youth services. Working with early years groups and specialist organisations (as indicated above), on an outreach basis, could enhance their work and involve more parents and children.
3. How can early years settings further support the development of family learning programmes, including support for parents' own skills development?
A trailblazer centre is the Pen Green Centre in Corby; parents are supported to operate reflectively on their learning by building on home communicative practices.
The use of early years settings as relaxed, sensitive sites for adult learning seem under-utilised. However, combining parental development with such provision should be done in co-operation and in partnership with those parents. Fun activities for parents carers and their children are vital. Valuing parents and carers and addressing what they want for their children is usually the first step. In such activities, developing a shared understanding and language between different strands and services is important. This is vital where such services are co-located in an early years setting. It must be acknowledged that it takes a long time to a) address parents skills and b) effect change.
4. How can our understanding of successful basic skills awareness raising programmes such as Step in to Learning be extended to support other organisations in the parenting and health fields?
The skills of many staff in early years care and education often require development. This was revealed by the Step in to Learning programme. Staff in the voluntary and community sector, whether paid or volunteers, should be included in Basic Skills awareness - raising programmes. In addition, staff in specialist services to support families with particular needs (eg mental health, learning difficulties and/or disabilities, travellers, speech) should be included in the cohort.
NIACE is aware that the National Family Learning Network and Parenting Education and support Forum are seeking to develop a model that signposts one to the other. Such sign-posting is important but must build on awareness and information.
Working with parents: Questions
1. How can funding mechanisms provide sustained support for parents in their parenting role, as part of the package to help them improve their literacy skills?
NIACE endorses funding for Skills for Families, phase 2, which identifies as a priority, the linking of Family literacy, language and numeracy with wider Family Learning.
Funding should recognise the time required to a) work in partnership and b) engage in outreach work. These aspects are vital in attempting to identify points of interest/engagement/motivation and purposes for developing literacy. They pose continuing challenges for organisations. Funding through the Adult and Community Learning Fund supported such activities; they were vital critical success factors.
Embedding literacy in other activities which could interest and motivate parents, continues to be an area which is a funding puzzle. The demands and challenges of 'embedding' literacy, language and numeracy are complex but they will remain so unless funding the development of such programmes is clarified.
2. How can institutions in contact with parents provide a 'facilitating' or supportive role to help them improve their literacy skills? What support might they need?
Support through 'befriending' and 'mentoring' could be more effective. We know that friendships are a vital part of involvement in any form of learning. This was a finding of the NIACE evaluation of LSC funded programmes (2003). Parents who have participated in developing their literacy, language and numeracy skills could be further supported and trained to offer peer support. Peer tutoring/mentoring has so many positive possibilities through common experiences and shared backgrounds that greater support could be generated through such activities. The training and development offered should be recognised and recorded, as in the LLU+ Peachers Programme.
3. How might research inform our understanding of how to design programmes that support parents' literacy within a wider support framework for families at risk?
Research which looks at motivation to engage in learning literacy and the kinds of programmes/activities which could respond to those motivations and support on-going involvement would help our understanding. The dissemination of Skills for Families activities and outcomes is important in this context. More research is required in all areas of literacy education although a good start has been made through the National Research and Development Centre for Adult Literacy and Numeracy. The involvement of parents in research at the Pen Green Centre, Corby is an exemplary approach.
4. How might research inform the development of effective approaches that involve fathers in literacy activity?
There are models and examples of where fathers have become involved in family learning eg football, DIY, available through the Adult and Community Learning Fund and Basic Skills in Local Communities. Unpacking and analysing what made such activities work, or not, could help to inform further research in this area. Exploration of where fathers/men do get involved in learning such as in the work place could help to inform studies of motivation and relevance. This seems to be an under-researched area but significant studies have been made with research for NFPI and the Fathers' Advisory Group (DfES). The NIACE/NYA Young Adults' Learning Partnership (YALP) has recently initiated work with young parents, including fathers.
5. How might the Children Bill and Every Child Matters: the next steps, provide the strategic framework for improving the literacy skills of families at risk?
The next steps should build on the key pillars identified of: placing families/parents at the centre of successful outcomes for every child; integrating services to prevent families 'slipping through the net', and offering a model for identifying parents who could benefit from specialist services. Supporting training for multi-disciplinary teams will be crucial in developing common language, values and agendas.
Working with children and young people: Questions
1. Is the development of language and wider communications skills acknowledged, and built in, to literacy support for young people?
We feel very strongly that oral communication skills, language development and thinking skills are poorly acknowledged, not only for young adults but for all adults, in literacy learning. Research into how such skills are developed and used amongst young adults in particular, should be undertaken. NRDC's research with NIACE and NYA is providing new insights into how oracy is acknowledged and/or built into current practices. Building on this and the work of such researchers as Maclure and Caxton would be sensible starting points; this would include issues around literacy and boys.
2. How can extra-curricular activities incorporate a literacy skills dimension in their work? What features would need to be in place?
(Please see the commentary from NRDC's research work with NIACE/NYA's through the Young Adults' Learning Partnership (YALP).)
Embedded models of delivery deserve continuing research and development; this should include extra-curricular activities. This category could include activities offered through health and sports facilities, trips and visits, libraries, museums and galleries and community events, youth centres and out-of-school clubs. However, the danger of embedding literacy could distort the purposes of such activities. Identifying the essential literacy features(s) of any event(s)/activities could be the key. The emphasis should be upon enhancing the extra-curricular activity so that the experiences are more fun, fulfilling and stimulating. Literacy development should optimise the outcome of the planned activities.
3. How might out-of-school approaches to improving young people's literacy skills be developed to include a parental learning strand?
Links between out-of-school approaches could include and involve parents as volunteers. Embedded literacy, based on practical, hands-on activities could be an approach, especially where parents undertake particular roles within out-of-school activities. The support should be through mentoring/buddying approaches rather than through more structured formal learning activities. However, sensitivity to young adults' preferences about parental involvement should prevail.
4. In the light of the Children Bill and Every Child Matters; the next steps, who might be responsible for co-ordinating support for home and community literacy approaches?
NIACE feels that more information is required on who will be involved in this area of work. Whilst we welcome more co-ordinated services we also hope that children and young adults will be more closely involved in the development and evaluation of the services they need and want.
Upskilling adults at risk - Questions
1. How does main education spend and LSC funding support partnership development time and long-term support necessary to help engage disaffected young people and adults not predisposed towards learning?
This question is not clearly posed. However it seems to refer to the challenges associated with developing partnerships and supporting potential learners. The LSC funding methodology does not clearly indicate how partnership activities such as negotiations, meetings, reporting and supporting can be funded. Not only are they vital in widening participation in literacy learning, the government is a strong advocate of joined-up thinking and working. Offering support, for example on a drop-in basis for individuals, also offers funding challenges. Many learners need lots of opportunities to 'taste' before they can commit to even a short course. Linkages with neighbourhood advice services could offer such one-off individual support if training and sign-posting was available for staff. However, if close working relationships are to be maintained in such situations, funding the demands of partnerships remain an issue. More joined up services ensure fewer individuals 'fall through the net'.
2. Are teachers working with at-risk adults given adequate training and supervision?
Teachers of adult literacy are being offered CPD through the Quality Initiative. Some planned modular units are tailored for particular contents or situations. However, few teachers will have received training in such issues as mental ill-health, drug and alcohol abuse and homelessness and offending unless they are working in that particular setting. Providers who receive referrals from such contexts are unlikely to have received any awareness-raising or training. Moreover, many people working in the Youth and Community Sector have received little or no training in adult literacy education. They work with many 'at-risk' adults. This gap should be addressed.
3. How are front-line workers, including those in the voluntary and community sector, supported in their own skills needs, as well as in their capacity to encourage others to seek help with their literacy?
Awareness-raising programmes have been offered to some front-line workers; they are a helpful first step. Links with union learning reps have also helped to engage people in learning activities to address literacy, language and numeracy. The increasing workplace LLN learning opportunities will assist, along with UKonline, Ufilearndirect and Job Centre Puls training opportunities. However, there seem to be few strategic approaches to working with front-line staff, especially in the voluntary and community sector. These should be developed.
4. How can the experiences of other organisations in contact with at-risk adults in the health, housing and criminal justice fields contribute to our understanding of what works?
Where initiatives such as the Adult and Community Learning Fund and the Learning Curve as well as examples in the Youth and Community Sector, have supported health, housing and criminal justice organisations to engage learners, much has been learned and recorded. Organisations have formed partnerships with learning providers and negotiated opportunities which they believe work for their client group. This helps to build capacity for learning and develops the knowledge and skills of learning providers. This assumes a widening of the provider base and greater recognition of the VCS role as proposed in the LSC's voluntary sector strategy, Working Together.
5. Can the experiences of adult literacy teachers in meeting the needs of adults at risk, and the adult core curriculum, be utilised in the proposed 14-19 curriculum reforms? What might the issues be?
One of the concepts behind the 14-19 curriculum is that young adults who find the school system difficult can access a more 'adult' environment in FE colleges. This includes access to a different curriculum which could include literacy tuition. Using embedded or integrated approaches, linked to vocational learning can re-motivate learning and demonstrate purpose and relevance. The adult literacy education standards are compatible with the National Literacy Strategy. Issues around funding partnerships, group sizes, integrating the youngest learners in mixed groups and behavioural and emotional support should be considered.
The contributions of the Youth and Community Sector in supporting young adult learners to achieve parts of the core of the Diploma through wider activities should not be under-estimated. Tapping into motivational and 'alternative' activities can encourage changes in attitude to learning which is one of the drivers of the 14-19 curriculum reforms.
Summary and Conclusions
The summary and conclusions are clear. However references to 'home and community literacy activity' could be more clearly conceptualised and described. Hannon et al's (2203) set out the range of practices with clarity. In our experience, capitalising on the natural, purposeful literacies which arise from daily living and working offer opportunities for development. This is particularly so for many young adults, where so called 'informal' approaches prove attractive and rewarding. Through strategies and approaches, such as those identified in the report, many more people could be engaged in supporting the development of literacy, without describing the activity as 'teaching' or 'learning'. In order to support such ideas and developments, the concept of home and community literacies could be more clearly defined. That would help practitioners and providers to contribute their experiences and reflective analysis. It would also assist the policy makers in understanding how they could harness the concept to reach more adults and families at risk.
P. Hannon, K. Pahl, V. Bird, C. Taylor and C. Birch (2003) Community-focused provision in adult literacy, numeracy and language: an exploratory study, London: National Research and Development Centre for Adult Literacy and Numeracy.
| The full text of the discussion paper "Literacy and Social
Inclusion: The Policy Challenge" can be downloaded from the Literacy
Trust's website at: www.literacytrust.org.uk/socialinclusion/policychallenge.html |
