Examining the Discourse of Strengths vs. Deficits in a Family Literacy Program
Kathy Nakagawa, Allison McKinnon, and Mary Ruth Hackett
Arizona State University
Paper prepared for presentation at the 2001 Annual
Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA. Please send questions and comments to: Kathy Nakagawa, College of Education,
Arizona State University, P.O. Box 870611, Tempe, AZ 85287-0611 or nakagawa@asu.edu
Introduction
Family literacy programs, which began in the late 70s and early 80s, started with the idea that in order for “early intervention” to work, the parents’ own literacy skills and the ways parents interact with their children must be improved (St Pierre & Swartz, 1995). As an example, Even Start, the national model for family literacy programs, includes early childhood education, adult education (ESOL classes, Adult Basic Education), and parent education (parent skills training, parent-child interaction time) as key components in the program.
Although most family literacy programs attempt to use a discourse about family “strengths,” Auerbach (1995) argues that such programs often fail to truly respect or acknowledge the diversity in literacy and parenting skills that families of other cultures and languages may practice and, instead, view families as having “deficits.” In particular, for lower-income ethnic and language minority families, culture, language, and class differences may lead to dissonance between the program and families.
This paper considers these issues in relation to one family literacy program, an Even Start model called Family Tree, that serves a primarily Latina/o, Spanish-speaking population. The Family Tree program is part of the largest school district in Arizona, and serves over 150 families each year. It has been in existence for 10 years. The primary questions to be considered in this paper are: (a) Is a “deficit” perspective produced through the Family Tree program? If so, how? and (b) Is a “strengths” perspective supported through the program? If so, how? Using observational data and archival documents we examined the ways in which discourse related to the Family Tree family literacy program might lead to these two views.
Given the recent emphasis on literacy in relation to early childhood education (e.g., President Bush’s educational initiatives), examining whether and how educators might inadvertently perpetuate a deficit perspective is crucial. As Polakow (1995) noted in discussing the term “at-risk”: “Simple nuances in naming and framing construct early futures” (p. 267). In other words, family literacy educators should be mindful of the discourse used when interacting with families and how the discourse shapes educators’ expectations and perceptions of others.
In the past 5 years, I think a second generation of family literacy programs has emerged, one in which virtually all of the proponents of family literacy claim to oppose deficit perspectives and to embrace family strengths. In fact, adopting an antideficit stance has come to be seen as a sine qua non for gaining legitimacy within the field. The discourse of family literacy is permeated with calls for cultural sensitivity, celebration of diversity, and empowerment of parents. (Auerbach, 1995, pp. 643-644)
In the above quote, Auerbach problematizes the shift in discourse toward strengths and examines how parts of the “strengths” rhetoric reinforces a deficit perspective. In particular, she notes how the “intervention/prevention” model for family literacy constitutes a kind of “neodeficit” model that points at parents’ lack of skills, cultural knowledge, and understanding as the “problem” to be solved by family literacy programs.
A study by Handel (1999) of the “Family Reading” program in Newark, New Jersey highlights some of the difficulties in trying to build on strengths. Handel’s model centered on the enjoyment of reading and helping parents to elicit this joy in both themselves and their children. The program was offered to all parents at the school site, with most parents from lower-income, African American backgrounds. Teachers were trained to work with parents on how to read books with their children, and often began by seeing parents as lacking in abilities. As Handel observed, “The prevailing mindset appeared to be that parents learn from schools; there was less attention to developing the reciprocal relationship in which schools and school personnel might learn from families and parents be considered resources for the school” (p. 119).
Handel’s work demonstrated the importance of recognizing the “literacy history” of parents—that all parents come with some memories and practices related to literacy and that these can be used to generate ways of interacting with their own children. Similarly, Handel clearly recognized that parents sometimes do not have comfortable ways of reading with their children and need practice entering into this relationship. The “multiple-literacies” perspective that is advanced by Handel seeks to recognize what “funds of knowledge” (Moll & Greenberg, 1990) and practices the parents already know. By beginning with the perspective that there are many ways of using language and print, and that the school advocates only one (sometimes narrow) view (Heath, 1983), both educators and parents expand their ways of knowing. Teachers were able to learn from parents; in particular they realized that the reasons for parents’ lack of involvement often stemmed from incompatibilities between family and school rather than lack of caring on the part of the parent.
However, in Auerbach’s (1995) view, family literacy programs should go beyond even a multiple literacies perspective and promote “social change.” In this framework, it is not enough to recognize that cultural background informs literacy, but one must also seek to understand and promote how literacy is tied to issues of power: “Literacy education must take into account power relationships within families . . . , within classrooms . . . , within programs . . . , and within institutions . . .” (p. 655). Drawing on Freire’s (1970) work on literacy, a social change perspective needs to incorporate participant control, critical reflection through dialogue, key issues from the lives of participants, and learning to take action to change society. In a social change framework family literacy programs would focus not just on improved skills for parents, but would provide opportunities for parents to reflect on and transform their own lives as well as society. The educator role in this framework is crucial; the educator should not just “transmit” information for participants to “memorize” but should instead be working with participants to understand the process of learning and to “arrive at a more critical view of their reality” (Freire, 1970, p. 257).
From an educator’s perspective, making this transformation from transmitter of information (and one who sees students as deficient) to knowledge-builder with students (and one who sees students as building on strengths) is not easy. For instance, Ballenger’s (1999) book on her experiences as a preschool teacher in a Brookline, Massachusetts Haitian preschool illustrates the tension between viewing deficits and strengths. She observed about her own mindset:
I began with these children expecting deficits, not because I believed they or their background were deficient—I was definitely against such a view—but because I did not know how to see their strengths. (p. 3)
As with Ballenger’s own self-reflectiveness, it seems that those working in family literacy programs may understand the danger in seeing deficits, but not know how to see strengths.
This study is a beginning attempt to explore how deficits and strengths are perceived and reinforced in a family literacy program. It is part of an on-going project to examine the long-term effects of family literacy programs (see paper by Walton for more details). For this part of the study, two kinds of data were used:
(a) Observation notes. Each of the seven sites has been observed periodically over two semesters for 4-5 hour blocks of time. Two researchers attended each site observation. Observations were initially done to document the structure of the program, the curriculum, and the kinds of interactions that took place between families and teachers as well as parents and children. Informal interviews with teachers were done following each observation in order to clarify what occurred. Furthermore, teachers often volunteered information in the course of our observations that were then incorporated in the running record notes.
(b) Written/archival documents. Information about the goals of this particular Even Start program, as well as descriptions of the National Even Start program were used. Assessment forms and other written information (e.g., lists of parent education topics) were also analyzed.
An exploratory discourse analysis was done to see if and how deficit and strength discourses were constructed. In particular, for this study we analyzed the texts from a perspective of discourse as “social interaction” (Van Dijk, 1997). This form of discourse analysis takes into account the cultural and social practices that inform particular kinds of discourse, the relationships between speakers (with respect to issues of power), the aims of the discourse, and the contexts in which the discourse is used.
This analysis revealed three ways that a discourse of deficits is constructed in the Family Tree program: through the stated goals and aims of the program, through the required assessments, and through parent education topics.
Goals and aims. The stated goals of a program frequently reflect underlying beliefs about those who participate in the program. Program goals and objectives cover the areas of adult education, early childhood education, parent involvement, parent support, life skills training, and home visits. Example 1 is an excerpt of the goals and objectives for the parent involvement component (“Even Start Application,” 1998, pp. 7-8).
Example 1: Program Goals and Objectives (Parent Involvement)
Enable parents to become familiar with, and comfortable in, the school setting.
3.1 Parents will participate in school activities involving their children which will foster a sense of belonging and develop a positive relationship with the school.
3.2 Parents will experience a variety of school environments by volunteering in classrooms, playgrounds, offices, media centers or other settings.
Improve parenting skills and assist parents in discovering their influence on their child’s learning and development.
4.1 Parents will demonstrate skills as observers of their child’s development.
4.2 Parents will demonstrate their role as a model, teacher, and supporter of their children in school and at home.
4.3 Parents will improve their ability to communicate effectively with their children.
4.4 Parents will improve their ability to support their children’s health and well being.
Improve the relationship of the parent and child through planned, structured interaction.
5.1 Parents will participate with their children in planned Parent and Children Together (PACT) time activities during the school day.
5.2 Parents will apply newly learned parent/child interaction strategies in the home.
Provide a role model for the child of parental interest in education.
6.1 Parents will attend family literacy adult education classes on a regular basis while their children attend EDE classes.
6.2 Parents will participate cooperatively in educational activities with their children at school and home.
Example 1 lists objectives and goals that seem fairly typical of early intervention programs. The wording is what is key in perpetuating a deficit perspective. Because there must be some measureable outcome, “improve” is a key word as is “demonstrate.” Such words, although typical of reports written for evaluation, portray a beginning stance of deficit, with parents needing to improve and having to prove (demonstrate) that they have “measured up.” Of concern is the fact that a lack of abilities is assumed to be the status quo. Rather than wording that suggests parents may already be doing these things, some of the wording suggests a reluctant parent (e.g., “parents will participate cooperatively”) who must be urged to get involved.
In contrast, there is no indication of the work teachers will do to achieve these goals. No staff program goals are stated, and no objectives about what the teacher needs to demonstrate or improve are included. As with other documents that seek to improve home-school relations, the discourse suggests that the change must be entirely on the part of the parent, rather than a change in the school (Nakagawa, 2000).
The objectives and goals provide a context to the program. The discourse represented in the goals and objectives influences how educators perceive these parents, and other practices then reinforce this deficit structure. For instance, children receive a free breakfast in the morning. Before serving breakfast, however, teachers were observed asking the children, “Did you have breakfast this morning? What did you have?” Because of this context, teachers were much more aware of the students’ eating habits than teachers of middle income children might be. This awareness, though, led teachers to view parents as lacking in parenting skills. As one teacher confidentially stated, “Look at what her mom sent her with—candy.” Rather than assuming this behavior was an exception, it was viewed as the norm. Rather than viewing breakfast as a tool for ensuring that students were prepared for learning, breakfast became an opportunity for constructing other beliefs about parenting abilities.
For instance, the language on the adult basic education, English ability, and parenting assessments was viewed as culturally biased by the staff. As some of the teachers stated, “The examples used are difficult. For instance, some ask about shoveling snow or what to say to service attendants.” For questions such as these, teachers recognized that parents may have little or no experience from which to adequately respond to such items.
Of particular concern for the teachers was the parenting assessment. Example 2 is an excerpt of the kinds of parenting behaviors asked about on the parenting inventory. The inventory consists of 50 items categorized into the areas of creativity, frustration, control, play, and teaching-learning. For each item, parents were asked to indicate on a Likert scale from 1-4 whether the item described his/her own parenting practices, with 1 being not at all like the parent and 4 being very descriptive of the parent. This assessment was used as a pre- and a post-test to examine change in parenting abilities.
|
1. Encourages child to ask questions. 2. Allows noise during child’s playtime. 3. Allows child to disagree with the parent. 4. Recognizes child’s need to play with the parent. 5. Understands the importance of early learning. |
6. Likes the child to make up stories. 7. Responds to child’s request for observation. 8. Wants child to talk more than the parent. 9. Feels comfortable pretending during play. 10. Knows how to tell if child learns lesson. |
The teachers felt that the vocabulary was difficult on this assessment, even when translated into Spanish. One teacher observed, “Parents fill out anything” because they often didn’t understand the question. Teachers felt there was both a socioeconomic and cultural bias to the questions. For instance “make up stories” could be viewed as lying by some parents, and having the child disagree or speak more than the parent reflected a lack of respect. Other teachers felt the assessment didn’t measure the changes that parents actually exhibited in parenting (in other analyses not reported here, the change in scores on this assessment was slight). The teachers went so far as to speak to the designer of this parenting assessment, who felt that the test was not intended to be a pre-post assessment but instead was meant to be a self-measurement tool for parents.
In the end, the number of assessments for the adults was discouraging for the parents. Some teachers stated that there were too many assessments for parents; one teacher observed, “Parents leave crying after the pre-test because it shows them what they don’t know. Sometimes they don’t come on the days when we have so much testing.” (In fact, although 80% of the parents in the FT program take the pre-assessments, only about 50% end up taking the post-tests). However, because of funding sources and the need for measureable outcomes, the testing is required and not only perpetuates a view of parent deficits for the teachers, but also causes some parents to view themselves as deficient.
Parent Time discussion a video on “shaken baby syndrome” is shown, (chosen not because any parents in the class had exhibited such behavior but because it was one of the few videos that was also in Spanish). The video started with a picture of a mother with a crying baby, the mother tries to comfort the child, checks the diaper, tries to nurse, but nothing soothes the child. The mother ends up shaking and yelling at the baby. The video showed other negative ways of disciplining (threatening to hit) and what can happen to a baby when shaken. After watching about 10 minutes, the teacher stopped the video and had parents write down ideas for alternative actions and then discuss them. The parents generated a lot of ideas about singing to the baby, walking it around, talking to it, wrapping her up tight, massage, running bath with warm water, taking a deep breath, other physical problems (e.g., ear infection). Discussion went on for 15 minutes. Teacher acknowledged the wealth of experience the 11 mothers have. Watched about 5 more minutes of the video, and then parents were asked to write down one idea that they wanted to remember and include in their portfolio. [Field notes, 10/11/99]
In this session parents were very supportive of each others’ ideas and demonstrated a wealth of knowledge about effective, non-violent means of discipline. The parents also recognized that stress led to inappropriate actions like shaking the baby. Although the teacher acknowledges the parents’ expertise, rather than beginning with that expertise, parents are put in the position of waiting to exhibit it. The “problem” is not one of the parents’ choosing, nor is it necessarily useful to these parents. As with the assessments, which, ironically, the teachers were critical of, the structure and topics of discussion during this parent time session leads parents to believe in “the myth of their own ‘natural inferiority’” (Freire, 1970, p. 254) rather than recognizing that their actions and knowledge are already well-formed and powerful.
Other parent time sessions offered the opportunity for parents to ask questions or convey their observations of what they observed about their own child. However, in some instances “surprising” observations about children’s capabilities (such as words they would use) were discounted by the teacher, with an assumption that the parent must have misunderstood. These sessions again resulted in the teacher “validating” the students’ knowledge rather than the student and teacher co-constructing knowledge together.
The ways in which a discourse of strengths was supported were less overt—primarily through individual instances of relationships being built between educator and participants, and through opportunities for dialogue on meaningful issues.
Developing relationships. Many of the teachers had been with the Family Tree project a long time and were very invested in the parents’ development. Former students were observed returning to the various sites to talk with the educators, and at some of the sites parents were now part of the staff, usually as aides. Parents were observed collaborating with teachers informally in social situations—such as when decorating for a party, or discussing enjoyable reading. At times, teachers also turned to parents for help in translating from Spanish to English or vice versa.
Through these interactions parents built relationships with each other that strengthened their views. When new parents entered the program, the instructor had the “senior” parents generate ways of making new people feel part of the group. And when parents began learning how to be involved in various aspects of the school it was other parents, rather than the instructor, who helped with this socialization.
Delgado-Gaitan (1996) wrote about a family literacy program wherein parents worked with other parents on issues that were of import to them. School-based educators were available to support what the parents did, but it was the voices of the parents, rather than of the school system, that directed the program. In small ways the Family Tree program approaches this through the everyday interactions of its participants. It is only through these on-going relationships that teachers also begin recognizing that their work goes beyond transmitting knowledge. As an example, one teacher was working on her Masters in counseling in order to better serve the needs of parents in the program. She felt this was necessary because she was learning so much with them, and sometimes was unable to know how to respond to questions they had about traumatic life events.
Opportunities for dialogue. Although Parent Time sessions sometimes reinforced a deficit perspective, teachers also gave students the opportunity to examine critical issues in their own lives. In such instances, the parents were able to draw on their own experiences and “problematize” issues that they might have taken for granted. Example 4 is from field notes of a parent time session where parents and teachers engage in a discussion about Hispanic girls’ difficulties in school and the teachers begins taking on the role of participants rather than a leaders of the discussion.
To get the women warmed up, the teacher asked one of the particular mothers if she has felt any responsibilities around the household and taking care of the kids, or babysitting–things like that. The mother responded in quite an animated fashion and discussed her experience with taking care of twins. When she was quite young, she took care of her aunt’s twins for her–stating that it was hard. Then the teacher responded and asked about her dad and the mother stated that she never knew her dad. He was financially there and available, but his presence was never there to give her mother an actual break. The mother continues on, and elaborates on the story and how it made her feel. At this point, the teacher asked about her connection with school and if she felt that the article entitled: Hispanic Girls Fail to Finish School had any connection with her own life experience. She replied that she didn’t read it because she was absent on Monday. At this point, it is 8:20 and the teacher wants to know about other student experiences.
Another student responds with a discussion on how her life stresses affected performance in school. As the student continues on with the story, the teacher affirms the student’s feelings by saying, “Sounds like a lot of responsibility.” The other teacher goes around the classroom inquiring about personal experiences at home with children. She really does try to include many of the students and especially makes an effort to make connections between the article read and the moms’ personal experience.
As the discussion continues, another student talks about how boys weren’t expected to take care of the house and that made her really angry and she felt that there was somewhat of a double standard that girls often were expected to take care of the house and take care of the children and to run the household and that really distracted her from school, it was very difficult for her to focus, she felt tired all the time, and often times it made her feel behind in her work. So, school was really a second priority to her behind taking care of the house and taking care of the family.
The teacher is really trying to pull out two main themes here. The first being how life stresses and the mothers’ lives affected their school experiences. The second is related to how they perceive the gender differences in power when they were growing up. [Field notes, 2/16/01]
This session continued on with the mothers closely reflecting on their own experiences and how education changes relationships with men. One man is present during the discussion; when he voices an opinion about how men want to control women, the women are angered and argue to change his mind.
This discussion, in contrast to the ones about parenting practices, allowed the mothers to draw extensively on their own experiences and reflect on what was problematic about their own childhood. They then used these experiences to generate ideas for how to change things for their own children. Although the teacher supported ideas and helped to generate different practices, she acted more as a facilitator and participant as she related experiences from her own background that were pertinent to the topic. Freire (1970) stated, “For the educator who experiences the act of knowing together with his [sic] students, . . . dialogue is the seal of the act of knowing” (p. 257). In trying to build on individuals’ strengths, educators must enter into these dialogues with students so that they become learners along with the parents.
Overall, we found a tension in the program with strengths acknowledged but underlying deficits sometimes assumed. For instance, some of the state-required parenting assessments did not account for cultural differences in parenting, thus parents were sometimes rated as “deficient” in certain areas. Similarly, some observations of parent-teacher interactions demonstrated implicit judgements about “incorrect” parenting practices that did not allow for cultural differences. In contrast, observations of parenting discussions found that parents were candid and direct in their statements about parenting, providing helpful support and advice to each other. However, discussion topics sometimes assumed that these parents were at-risk of poor/harmful parenting practices.
Auerbach (1995) suggests going beyond the strengths/deficits models to one that emphasizes a discourse of social change (Freire, 1970). In order to promote social change parents must be given the opportunity for (a) participant control, (b) on-going dialogue about the program and its contents, and (c) a focus on “critical social issues from participants’ lives” (Auerbach, 1995, p. 656). Unfortunately, although these elements are sporadically present in the Family Tree program, they are not inherent to the structure of the program. Although, ironically, the teachers recognized the deficit perspectives underlying the assessments, they did not recognize the ways in which their own decisions about parenting topics, relationships with students, and dialogues could support either a strengths or deficits view. Perhaps most key is that the goals and objectives on which the program is built do not support such opportunities, so there is no underlying structure to promote a discourse of strengths.
References
Auerbach, E. (1995). Deconstructing the discourse of strengths in family literacy. Journal of Reading Behavior, 27, 643-661.
Ballenger, C. (1999). Teaching other people’s children: Literacy and learning in a bilingual classroom. New York: Teacher’s College Press.
Delgado-Gaitan, C. (1996). Protean literacy: Extending the discourse on empowerment. London: Falmer Press.
Freire, P. (1970). The adult literacy process as cultural action for freedom. Harvard Educational Review, 40.
Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life, and work in communities and classrooms. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Handel, R. (1999). Building family literacy in an urban community. New York: Teacher’s College Press.
Moll, L. C., &
Greenberg, J. B. (1990). Creating zones of possibilities: Combining social
contexts for instruction. In L. C. Moll (Ed.), Vygotsky and education:
Instructional implications and applications of socio-historical psychology
(pp. 319-348). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Nakagawa, K.
(2000). Unthreading the ties
that bind: Questioning the discourse of parent involvement. Educational Policy, 14,
443-472.
Polakow,
V. (1995). Naming and blaming: Beyond a pedagogy of the poor. In B. B.
Swadener, & S. Lubeck (Eds.). Children and families “at promise,”
(pp. 263-270). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Van Dijk, T. A. (Ed.), Discourse as social interaction (Vol. 2). London: Sage.