Families’ roles in children’s literacy in the UK throughout the 20th century

Abstract

This paper explores the changing roles of families in children’s developing literacy in the UK in the last century. It discusses how, during this time, understandings of reading and writing have evolved into the more nuanced notion of literacy. Further, in acknowledging changes in written communication practices, and shifting attitudes to reading and writing, the paper sketches out how families have always played some part in the literacy of younger generations; though reading was frequently integral to the lives of many families throughout the past century, we consider in particular the more recent enhancement of children’s literacy through targeted family programmes. The paper considers policy implications for promoting young children’s literacy through work with families.

Keywords

Literacy reading writing family literacy early childhood young children

Introduction: From reading and writing to literacy

Working with families to promote children’s early literacy development in the UK is a relatively recent practice, having evolved over the last two decades (see Hannon (1995) for a discussion of this). Only in the last decade has policy acknowledged the home learning environment as important to developing young readers (DfE, 2012; Sylva et al., 2004). However, it is also important to understand the historical roots of reading in families that have brought us to a point where family literacy is, at the least, not unusual.

Of course, in the hundred years that this paper spans, ‘literacy’ itself is a relatively recent term, and we adopt as a starting point the UNESCO definition of it as the:

… ability to identify, understand, interpret, create, communicate and compute, using printed and written materials associated with varying contexts [which] involve a continuum of learning in enabling individuals to achieve their goals, to develop their knowledge and potential, and to participate fully in their community and wider society. (UNESCO, 2005: 27)

To this we add Hannon’s earlier recognition of literacy practices as part of the socio cultural tools of the community:

Literacy is the ability to use written language to derive and convey meaning. In the teaching of literacy one generation equips the next with a powerful cultural tool. Written language enables members of a culture to communicate without meeting: to express and explore their experience; to store information, ideas and knowledge; to extend their memory and thinking. (Hannon, op. cit.: 27)

These fairly simple definitions show most policy definitions to be merely functional, and anticipate the idea of literacy as a social practice (Barton and Hamilton, 1998).

The emergence of literacy

‘Literacy’ is a relatively recent term which first took on some shared currency in the UK as an umbrella term for reading and writing in the late 20th century (however, interestingly, the first documented instance was in the United States in 1880). While referred to as ‘English’ in the UK Education Reform Act 1988, which heralded the National Curriculum in English schools, ‘English’ became known in primary schools as ‘literacy’ with the advent of the National Literacy Strategy from 1997 (DfE, 2011; Jolliffe, 2004; Machin and McNally, 2008). For most UK national and local policies, literacy is broadly identifiable with a traditional notion of reading and writing skills (with more recent acknowledgment of oral expression as an important co-function). Other current uses, such as in the terms ‘visual literacy’, ‘emotional literacy’ and ‘e-literacy’, indicate a heterogeneity which enhances a broadly politicised conception of ‘competence’ or ‘aptitude’ as functions of enhanced identity.

It would be naive to proceed with the assumption that literacy can be viewed as simply ‘the reading and writing of written language’. Although functional definitions of literacy may be useful, they have in recent years become overwritten with ideology, often politically saturated. Perspectives on literacy include the complexity of the abilities to understand and use persuasively the dominant symbol systems of cultures. These abilities include, to varying degrees, the manipulation of media and electronic text, in addition to alphabetic and numerical systems, and they vary in different social and cultural contexts according to politicised needs, demands and forms of education (Lankshear and Knobel 2003; Merchant 2007).

Literacy practices, the way we use text to interact with others, are interwoven with individual and group identities and practices. Fast-developing digital technologies have prompted particular emphasis on new multimodal practices, such as the use of graphic, spatial and pictorial elements, and evolving typographical conventions (Finnegan, 2002); in addition, literacy is now part of wider multimodal communication practices. While ‘literacy has always developed hand in hand with the technologies’ (Bazerman, 2004), today’s technological explosion is effectively redefining literacy and its practice in homes, schools and communities.

There is an academic argument about the extent to which consideration of oral expression should contribute towards a definition of literacy. In a close examination of the historical development of literacy, Graff argues for the ‘vital role of socio-historical context’ and a belief that literacy is ‘profoundly misunderstood’ (Graff, 1987: 17). Havelock (1976) makes a strong argument that because human beings have used speech for far longer than the graphics of alphabetic literacy, oracy should take precedence within any definition. Galbraith (1997) similarly argues that as recently as in late 19th century Britain, ‘there was no clean break between orality and literacy, but instead a mix of the two within individual life cycles and in families and communities’ (Galbraith, 1997: 3). In some families and cultures, oracy remains the dominant form of communication, and in others writing is more strongly related to the visual than the oral mode (Yamada-Rice, 2015); and awareness that systems of reading and writing vary between cultures has implications for understanding home literacies in the multicultural context of the UK, and indeed in cultures across the world. Thus, we need to remain mindful of the complexities of definitions and of their relation to multiple lived realities. Though not easily captured in convenient conceptualisation, any exploration of the evolution of literacy highlights the need to recognise from the outset that terms such as ‘literacy’, ‘orality’, ‘reading’ and ‘writing’ must be viewed from the perspective of the social, political and economic context across time and space.

Two related assumptions impact on the ways in which literacy has been perceived and defined: first, that concepts of literacy acquisition are often regarded as synonymous with concepts of education and schooling. Etymologically, there is a link between literacy in the sense of being ‘lettered’/able to read and write, and having access to education through ‘literature’, and hence being ‘literate’ in the broader sense of ‘learned’. This illustrates the cultural capital long associated with written text. Olsen (1975: 149) argues that the ‘currency of schools is words’ and that schools are themselves ‘shaped up for the requirements of literacy’. Olsen goes on to state that literate people, such as educators, tend to place an unrealistic value on the role of literacy in society, stating that literacy ‘is overvalued because of the very structure of formal schooling’ (Olsen, 1975: 149). Olsen is suggesting here that it is a mistake to assume that the ‘values and pleasure’ of literacy are so great that all individuals will want to seek at least a high level of literacy through the medium of education. This misconception is further recognised by Elasser and John-Steiner (1977: 361) who question the widely held belief that ‘education in and of itself can transform both people’s sense of power and the existing social and economic hierarchies’, and they go on to claim that this view is naive because ‘educational intervention without social change is, in fact, ineffective’.

A second assumption is that the literacy skills acquired through education are in themselves agents of change. Graff (1987: 18) cautions against the temptation to assign ‘consequences’, ‘implications’ or ‘concomitants’ to the acquisition of literacy, arguing that literacy in itself is simply ‘a learned or acquired skill’ and must therefore be viewed as a ‘basis or foundation’ rather than ‘an end or conclusion’ in its own right (Graff, 1987: 19). Graff recognises that what follows from a foundation is possibly of greater concern, while Nutbrown argues that understanding the literacy capabilities of young children should be the basis for their future literacy development in the social context of the home: ‘literacy processes and outcomes cannot be divorced from the range of social contexts in which they occur’ (Nutbrown, 1997: 27).

Literacy practices provide children with values, attitudes, motivations, ways of interacting and perspectives, which together construct the primary identities that children acquire through early socialisation (Gee, 2004) in their families and communities. So, a child becomes ‘a person like us’ (Gee, 2004: 23), a member of a particular family belonging to a particular socio cultural group. For Gee, ‘people like us’ do and value ‘things like this’ that involve specific types of language. This notion that ‘people like us’ do and value ‘things like this’ can mean that, for some children, the ‘things they do’ are extensive and wide-ranging; for others, they are restricted by poverty, ill-health and limited social and cultural capital. The challenge for education, then, is to discover and widely replicate those literacy experiences which enhance children’s capital.

Research questions and methodological approach

Research questions

This paper is focused around the broad question: What part did families play in the development of children’s literacy in the UK throughout the 20th century? And more specifically we ask, first, how has reading been part of family life in the UK throughout the past century? By understanding how reading has been rooted in the home, the longevity, everydayness and perhaps futures of home literacy practices can be appreciated and better understood. Secondly, we ask, what part have family literacy programmes played in supporting young children’s early literacy development? With early intervention being an espoused policy of the UK government (Chowdry and Oppenheim, 2015; Cunha and Heckman, 2007; Heckman, 2006), it is crucial to have a critical understanding of the contribution of programmes to enhanced family literacy.

The focus in this paper on literacy learning in families called for a historiography of literacy, for while current meanings and practices of literacy are often contested, they are also readily understood in the ‘everyday’. The methodologies which have been used to define literacy practices – and the pedagogies which have thus been generated – have changed radically since the emergence of ‘Enlightenment’ values.

Methodological approach

The period of time studied

We have drawn on select scholarship, policy and legislative literatures in a systematic search of the academic and ‘grey’ disseminations on reading, writing and literacy in families throughout the 20th century, and focused fairly exclusively on reports and studies from 1900 to 2000. At the margins of this period, we reached further back in the case of UK education legislation so as better to understand the educational context at the start of the given period, and we have drawn on studies published in the early part of the 21st century which shed light on our focus period. The salient features of this period include two World Wars, extensive expansion in state education, varying economic conditions and significant demographic changes in the UK.

Databases and search criteria

To find research and grey literature pertinent to our study, systematic searches were carried out through the Education Resource Information Centre (ERIC) and British Education Index (BEI) education databases, and through key journals in the field of early and family literacy for the period under study. As relevant research articles were identified, their citations were followed up to identify further sources. Key search terms included: reading, writing, literacy, family literacy, early literacy, parents, home literacy, family literacy programmes and family literacy practices.

We also identified major educational legislation in England to seek to understand the values and priorities which lay behind the particular formulation of a policy within a specific socio political context and more or less embedded conceptions of literacy. Examples include the 1944 Education Act (McCulloch, 1997), or the serial raising of the school-leaving age during the 20th and 21st centuries from 13 in 1880 to 18 by 2015.

Analytical processes

Our analysis was governed by our research questions and sought to uncover understandings of family literacy practices over the last hundred years or so, a period spanning two World Wars, extensive expansion in of state education, varying economic conditions and significant changes to the population of England. We were also seeking to understand the part that family literacy programmes played in the later part of the period under study. We categorised the literature identified in our search according to three main themes: (i) reading, writing and ‘literacy’, (ii) family literacy practices, (iii) family literacy programmes. There was, of course some overlap with some sources referring to one, two or all three main themes. Other secondary themes, such as gender, social class, age, language, digital literacies and learning difficulties, also emerged in our analysis but, while important, these are not the primary focus of this paper.

Having described our methodological approach, the next section will identify and discuss the emergence, throughout a century, of written communication practices from reading and writing to literacy.

What part did families play in the development of children’s literacy in the UK throughout the last century?

Learning to read and write has long been a key part of the UK education system. From the end of the 19th century onwards,¹ we can see that major educational legislation in England variously supported the development of reading and later ‘literacy’. Subsequent education legislation² had at its core a desire that children should learn to read (and later write). Such legislation discloses both the values and socio-economic priorities of their times and thus point to the quotidian circumstances (of schooling, for example) which informed an attitude towards reading and writing ability in the UK by the beginning of the 20th century. Most significantly, however, education legislation in the past mostly failed to acknowledge the part that many families played in the development of young readers. Neither does it seem that the literacy difficulties of parents were paid sufficient attention, as Moser (1999: 23) argues, ‘when parents have trouble with reading, writing, or numeracy, it is more likely that their children will start with a similar disadvantage at school’. Vincent (2000: 348) demonstrates the disconnect between education policy and the home lives of many children: … recent research has demonstrated that the likelihood of a child benefiting from contemporary literacy campaigns is strongly influenced by the level of attainment in its family background.

The role of the family in children’s learning was highlighted in the 1980s when parents’ roles in their children’s learning began to receive official policy recognition. The Rumbold Report (DfE, 1989), for example, identified parents as the ‘first educators’ of their children, arguing that what children learn at home, with their families, before they attend any form of group and well before school, was a crucial part of a child’s learning experience. From this point on, subsequent policies have made explicit mention of parents’ involvement, and schools and other early years settings today are required positively to involve parents (DfE, 2014), many running specific programmes for them focusing on literacy.

How has reading been part of family life in the UK throughout the past century?

If we look across the decades, we can see how reading has long been part of many families’ lives and the responsibility for teaching children to read has passed variously between home and school throughout the last century and across the social classes, for different reasons. Most European countries made mass literacy a goal over the course of the 20th century, moving from homes and communities being the places where reading (and writing) was often learned and used, to establishing schools as the locus of control (Vincent, 2000). This move established the school as the place where reading was taught, and the home as the place where children practised their learning.

Despite some sporadic initiatives going as far back as the late 1800s to promote home reading, it remained the case during the 1950s that parents in England were still largely excluded from the mysteries of teaching reading – it being the clearly marked territory of the school. Yet the pendulum swings, and in June 2014, the Chief Inspector of schools in England stated that parents who did not read to their children should be fined. While, over the years, the home has played a part in supporting the development of children’s reading (Auerbach, 1989; Baghban, 1984; Hannon, 1995; Neumann and Roskos, 1997; Petellier and Brent 2002; Taylor and Dorsey-Gaines, 1988), in the main it has been mothers who have been the main supporters of their children’s home reading activity (Mace, 1998). Hartas (2011) identified that literacy development in young children at age five is more directly related to the mother’s level of education than it is to family income, also a finding of a study by Nutbrown et al. (2005), who also identified considerable involvement of fathers in their young children’s literacy at home (Morgan et al., 2009).

The literature on home reading in the UK following Second World War is sparse, yet something of the ‘therapeutic’ potential of books was seen to be important (Moore, 1943). Frank Smith offered an important justification for supporting parents to help their children learn to read and to enjoy reading at home through a range of media, arguing that: until education … became systematically organised in the middle of the 19th century, the prevailing point of view had for centuries been that you learn from the company you keep (Smith, 2011: 14).

Between the 1950s and the 1980s, a number of studies shifted the emphasis towards schools working with parents, explicitly to encourage them to teach their children to read. Reading at home was becoming an activity that was no longer left to chance but actively facilitated (Gomberg, 1970; Hannon and Jackson, 1987; Larrick, 1959; Niedermeyer, 1970). Hansen (1969) identified significant links between the home environment and later reading habits, and encouraged schools to work with parents to address reading difficulties. In the US, Taylor and Strickland (1986) followed families who regularly shared storybooks with their children, and provided advice for other families, explaining why sharing books is ‘good’, how it helps with writing, and which books to read. The influence of parental attitude on reading and its resulting motivational influence on children was also explored by Baker et al. (1997), who found that only 6 per cent of young children in the study did not enjoy being read to, and that parents made conscious efforts in their reading to foster motivation. While access to books is crucial, the role of a mediator, a parent or other close adult, who spends time with the child and makes reading ‘exciting’, is also important (Cullinan, 2000). Nutbrown and Hannon (2003) found that despite the fact that children in their first term of full-time school are required to read with their teacher every day, they identified the home as the place for reading, which is echoed by Collins and Svensson’s (2008) finding that rich home-literacy environments where parents discuss books with their children are a factor contributing to the development of confident young readers. This built on earlier work which highlighted how positive enhancement of rich home-literacy environments by a book-gifting scheme or library membership contributed to the accessibility of books and improved parents’ and carers’ attitudes towards reading with their children (Hines and Brooks 2009; Treasury, 2004; Wells 1986).

The international literature acknowledges the importance of reading at home (Brown et al., 2013; Corter and Petellier, 2005; Harper et al., 2011; Swain et al 2014); however, this was not always the case and, in England, two important national initiatives in the latter part of the 19th century changed access to books for all – opening the way for the changes seen in the 20th century. The establishment of public libraries³ made books freely available to all, and the National Home Reading Union, 1889–1930, positively promoted reading for pleasure (Baker et al., 1997; Buckingham et al., 2013; Collins 1890; Snape, 2002). In England in the 1980s, Gibbs (1983) argued for special training for children’s librarians so as to take their important role in child development into account. The role of libraries has evolved, from a source of freely available books to the provision of digital devices, magazines, e-books, music, films and electronic games. Where they have survived savage cuts in public spending, more recently, libraries have become community spaces where children experience literacy in a multitude of forms (Pahl and Allen, 2011). In 1948, Banton Smith argued that reading materials tended to be chosen on the basis of presuppositions, political leanings and so on, with the majority of readers looking to read material which reinforced their opinions. In essence, what Banton Smith (1948) and her contemporaries describe is what Bourdieu (1986) and Bourdieu et al. (1994) would later refer to as ‘cultural capital’. Today, reading still functions as a vital access point to society and can lead to increased social engagement, and ‘even the benefits of democracy, and the capacity to govern ourselves successfully, depend on reading’ (Cullinan, 2000); thus reading as part of an individual’s social identity and/or cultural capital is reinforced.

As reading choices and modes have expanded with the advancement of technology, increasing numbers of children now have access to smartphones and tablets, using these to communicate across various social media (Ofcom, 2012), with much of this including literacy practices (Marsh et al., 2005; Merchant, 2007). Rapid developments in digital technologies have opened access to global communications inconceivable a century, or even a decade, ago. These developments have prompted new understandings of what reading and writing are and how literacy is shaped (Prensky, 2001); and as words, images, sounds, colours, animations, videos and styles of print can now be quickly combined, this highlights the importance of context, purpose and practices around print, including family literacy practices (Marsh et al., 2015). A key message is that while literacy has changed, fundamental practices within families have not. For, regardless of changing modes or practices of literacy, for some in every generation, literacy has been a part of family life. However, for others, this has not been the case, and so in order to try to ensure that all have the benefits of reading at home, family literacy programmes have been introduced in various parts of the world as an intergenerational response to reduce the perpetuation of low levels of literacy.

What part have family literacy programmes played in supporting young children’s early literacy development?

Hannon et al. (2005) stress the importance of family literacy that acknowledges and makes use of learners’ family relationships and engagement in family literacy practices. Wasik and Van Horn (2012) suggest that:

The intergenerational transfer of literacy has intrigued educators, researchers and policy makers and served as a fundamental rationale for family literacy programmes. … Not only does the family determine the child’s early language, but a family’s culture, beliefs, and traditions also influence the way children use words for discourse (Heath, 1983). Their family’s literacy levels also influence whether children develop strong language skills and literacy at home, having many print materials available and modelling the use of reading, writing and math in daily life. (Wasik and Van Horn, 2012: 3)

Family literacy has, for the past three decades, been seen as a way of minimising some of the inequalities in children’s literacy development when they begin school (Brown et al., 2013; Corter and Petellier 2005; Harper et al., 2011; Swain et al., 2014). Family literacy practices embrace the ordinary and everyday literacy events that take place (often with little or no conscious planning) in families, while family literacy programmes are planned systematically and specifically to encourage and maximise the potential for children’s engagement in those practices. There is clear evidence that family literacy can positively enhance children’s engagement in literacy (Brooks et al., 2012; Nutbrown et al., 2005; Swain et al., 2014).

While family literacy programmes recognise the family dimension in individuals’ learning, literacy practices within families play a crucial part in developing children’s literacy. The term ‘family literacy’ was first attributed to Taylor (1983), in the United States, who showed how young children’s early literacy practices were influenced by parents’ and other family members’ uses of written language. Many studies have illuminated existing family literacy practices (Weinberger, 1996) in a range of social classes and ethnicity groupings, resulting in a strong international research base depicting a variety of language and literacy practices in families: on reading (Baker et al., 1997; Brown et al., 2013; Harper et al., 2011; Heath, 1982); on bilingualism (Gregory, 1996; Harper et al., 2011; Hirst, 1998; Moss, 1994); the impact of home background (Purcell-Gates, 1995; Teale, 1986; Taylor and Dorsey-Gaines, 1988); differing views of parents and teachers (Hannon and James, 1990); on the role of communities (Barton and Hamilton, 1998; Cairney and Ruge, 1998; Corter and Petellier 2005); on the benefits of family literacy programmes (Swain et al., 2014) and on digital technologies in family literacy (Marsh et al., 2015).

Shared experiences of intergenerational family literacy and family involvement and encouragement of young children’s literacy have ranged, for example, from the whole family gathering together to read the Bible (in the earliest part of the period under study) to shared Internet searching for information and online gaming. Educational initiatives with parents since the 1950s have aimed at encouraging parents to become involved in their children’s learning, and work since the 1980s has focused on parents being actively engaged in supporting early literacy development (Hannon, 1995). We now know much more about family literacy practices (Auerbach, 1989; Brown et al., 2013; Wasik & Van Horn, 2012; Weinberger, 1996; Wolfendale and Topping, 1996), and programmes to help parents support their children’s developing literacy are well established in many parts of the world (Brooks et al., 2012; Edwards, 1994; Nutbrown et al., 2005; Swain et al., 2014). Such programmes to encourage home reading highlight the importance of owning and reading a wide repertoire of books through book-loan or book-gifting schemes (Jerrim, 2013).

In England in the 1980s, initiatives were introduced to connect school and home reading, and so the concept of ‘parents as educators’ (Topping, 1986) emerged. The Haringey Reading Project (Tizard et al., 1982) persuaded schools to send children’s reading books home regularly. Later, the Belfield Project (Hannon and Jackson, 1987) encouraged children to take books home daily and offered support to parents in reading with their children. Nowadays, this is basic practice, but in the 1980s this was innovative and extended children’s opportunities to practise reading at home. That school and home shared responsibility for children’s learning and development (Glynn, 1996) prompted the development of partnership models specifically to promote literacy development. Amongst these was the home reading model PACT – ‘Parents and Children and Teachers’ (Hewison and Tizard, 1980), whereby children took books home from school on a regular basis to read with their parents and similar schemes grew around the UK (Branston, 1996; Glynn, 1996). Awareness that literacy practices differ between families led to a model of ‘family literacy’ from the Basic Skills Agency in 1994 (Brooks et al., 1997, 1999) which focused on adults’ and children’s literacy. It also sought to reduce the achievement gap at school-start age by encouraging parental involvement in the pre-school years (Hannon, 1996).

Around the late 20th and early 21st centuries, concerns from schools and politicians about a lack of reading surfaced – particularly in the US and the UK – and researchers looked for ways to persuade parents about the positive impact of home reading. Here again, the notion of cultural capital comes to the fore, with reading at home being connected to Bourdieu’s notion of habitus – a way of being which is multiply influenced by notions of family, culture, society, history, language and so on. Reay (1998) argued that while white middle-class mothers were comfortable in becoming involved in their child’s education, mothers from minority backgrounds and ‘working-class’ mothers found themselves in a position where they were expected to transform their habitus, a prospect with which they often engaged unsuccessfully. Of course, combining all mothers from several different minority backgrounds into one single grouping of ‘minority groups’ raises its own difficulties because ‘minorities’ represent many different social backgrounds, and this illustrates the difficulty of ‘reading off’ such research to identify single pertinent issues to be resolved. In the US, Edwards (1994) argued strongly that black working-class and unemployed mothers should be taught the skills that white middle-class mothers already had, so that they too could support their own children’s literacy development. Hartas (2011) also suggested that mothers who are ‘educated’ are more likely to be able to identify and access activities for their children, and argued for educating parents so that they might be better equipped to help their children. In Hartas’s view, parental involvement, while strongly effective, should not be seen as a ‘panacea for making up for the effects of socio-economic inequality’ (2011: 909), but part of a coherent policy designed to address social-justice issues. Researchers seem to agree that, whatever their social class or family heritage, parents are in the main keen to support their children’s literacy learning and see reading as important (Auerbach, 1989; Blackledge, 2001). Our analysis indicates that, in recent years, family literacy programmes have become better adapted to the range of needs, interests and backgrounds of the diversity of families who participate.

Conclusion

As we have seen, what is understood by literacy now is very different from the more simply defined acts of reading and writing at the beginning of the 20th century. The types of ‘capital’ associated with literacy and the extent to which oral expression in the development of communication practices have become inseparable from the ‘literate’ mean that what one reads and how one speaks hold different ‘capital’ in different strata of society. It is clear that reading and writing are now part of wider ‘literacy’ practices incorporating digital technologies non-existent in the early 1900s.

Definitions and constructions of literacy are highly context-dependent and we must acknowledge the vital role of socio-historical context. This means that, as we move further into the 21st century, we are obliged not only to recognise the impact of digital technology, but also the need to strive actively to understand how advancement in media and electronic text is changing constructions and practices of literacy in families and how these practices connect to other communicative modes and change the very nature of text (Cook-Gumperz, 2006). This in turn challenges modern notions of what it means to be literate, and what it will mean in the future.

This paper has highlighted the importance of the home in children developing reading along with the need for children to engage with home literacy practices from their earliest years. Families can and do support their children at home, and while literacy has changed throughout the 20th century and beyond, fundamental practices in families have not. In recent years, family literacy programmes have become better adapted to the range of needs, interests and backgrounds of the diversity of families who participate, and this needs to become further embedded in educational practice so that more parents can confidently support their children’s literacy development and enhance their socio cultural capital.

We have highlighted the powerful role that families play in developing the literacy of younger generations. We have also seen that this role can be positively extended and supported by planned work with families. However, we should be cautious about the ways in which current policies ignore hard-won insights into the crucial role of the family. For while literacy has become broadly defined, English policy – particularly in the early years – has effectively re-narrowed this definition and seems somehow to have reverted to an earlier conception of reading and writing which was a defining characteristic of educational practice in the early part of the 20th century. Further, while family literacy practices are now invigorated by the realm of the digital, education policy in general, and again most particularly in the early years, has yet fully to embed the technologies that are inexorably part of the character and terrain of quite what it is to be literate; and of course, this drives a wedge between home and school literacy practices. In a manner reminiscent of the early 20th century, we are hearing again a distinct echo of the failure to realise the vital continuity of the home–school partnership that is worthy of the name.

Footnotes

Acknowledgement

An earlier review of literature commissioned by Booktrust into reading, writing and social mobility whetted our appetite to focus on a historical perspective of literacy in families.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Notes

References

Auerbach

(1989) Toward a social-contextual approach to family literacy. Harvard Educational Review 59(2): 165–181.

Baghban

(1984) Our Daughter Learns to Read and Write, New York, Delaware: International Reading Association.

Baker

Scher

Mackler

(1997) Home and family influences on motivations for reading. Educational Psychologist 32(2): 69–82.

Banton Smith

(1948) The personal and social values of reading. Elementary English 25: 490–500.

Barton

Hamilton

(1998) Local Literacies: Reading and Writing in One Community, London: Routledge.

Bazerman

(2004) A reflective moment in the history of literacy. In: Huot

Stroble

Bazerman

(eds) Multiple Literacies for the Twenty-First Century, New York, NY: Hampton.

Blackledge

(2001) ‘The wrong sort of capital? Bangladeshi women and their children’s schooling in Birmingham, UK’. International Journal of Bilingualism 5: 345.

Bourdieu

(1986) ‘The forms of capital’. In: Richardson

(ed.) Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education, New York, NY: Greenwood Press.

Bourdieu P, Passeron JC and De Saint Martin M (1994) Academic Discourse (Teese R, transl.). Oxford: Polity. (Originally published as Rapport pédagogique et communication. The Hague: Mouton, 1965).

10.

Branston

(1996) ‘Children and parents enjoying reading (CAPER): Promoting parent support in reading’. In: Wolfendale

Topping

(eds) Family Involvement in Literacy: Effective Partnerships in Education, London: Cassell, pp. 37–43.

11.

Brooks

Gorman

Harman

et al. (1997) Family Literacy Lasts, London: Basic Skills Agency.

12.

Brooks

Hannon

Bird

(2012) ‘Family literacy in England’. In: Wasik

(ed.) Handbook of Family Literacy, 2nd ed. New York, NY: Routledge.

13.

Brooks

Harman

Hutchison

et al. (1999) Family Literacy for New Groups, London: Basic Skills Agency.

14.

Brown

Byrnes

Watson

et al. (2013) Young learners: Aspects of home literacy environments supporting hypotheses about the structure of printed words. Journal of Early Childhood Research 11(3): 262–273.

15.

Buckingham

Beaman

Wheldall

(2013) ‘Why poor children are more likely to become poor readers: The early years’. Educational Review 27; 2: 1–19.

16.

Cairney

Ruge

(1998) Community Literacy Practices and Schooling: Towards Effective Support for Students, Canberra: Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs.

17.

Chowdry H and Oppenheim C (2015) “Spending on later intervention: How we can do better for less” Early Intervention Foundation, London. Available at: www.eif.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/SPENDING-ON-LATE-INTERVENTION.pdf (accessed 6 April 2016).

18.

Collins

Svensson

(2008) If I had a magic wand I’d magic her out of the book: The rich literacy practices of competent early readers. Early Years 28: 81–91.

19.

Collins

(1890) ‘The National Home Reading Union and its Prospects’. The Contemporary Review 58: 193–211.

20.

Cook-Gumperz J (ed.) (2006) The Social Construction of Literacy, (2nd ed.). International Studies in Cultural Linguistics, Vol. 25. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

21.

Corter C and Pelletier J (2005) Parent and community involvement in schools: Policy panacea or pandemic? In: Bascia N, Cumming A, Datnow A, et al. (eds) International handbook of educational policy. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer, pp. 295–327.

22.

Cullinan BE (2000) ‘Independent reading and school achievement’. School Library Media Research 3: 1–24. Available at: www.ala.org/aasl/slr (accessed 6 March 2016).

23.

Cunha F and Heckman J (2007) The technology of skill formation, American Economic Review 97; 2: 31–47.

24.

Department for Education (1989) The Rumbold Report on Quality in Early Childhood Education for Under Fives, London: HMSO.

25.

Department for Education (2011) The National Strategies 1997–2011 A brief Summary of the Impact and Effectiveness of the National Strategies, London: HMSO. [Ref: 00032-2011PDF-EN-01].

26.

Department for Education (2012) The Early Years Foundation Stage, London: HMSO.

27.

Department for Education (2014) Statutory Framework for the Early Years Foundation Stage: Setting the Standards for Learning, Development and Care for Children from Birth to Five, London: HMSO.

28.

Edwards

(1994) ‘Responses of teachers and African–American mothers to a book–reading intervention program’. In: Dickinson

(ed.) Bridges to Literacy: Children, Families and Schools, Oxford: Blackwell.

29.

Elasser N and John-Steiner V (1977) ‘An Interactionist approach to advancing literacy’. Harvard Educational Review 47; 3: 27–35.

30.

Finnegan

(2002) Communicating: The Multiple Modes of Human Interconnection, London: Routledge.

31.

Galbraith

(1997) Reading Lives: Reconstructing Childhood, Books, and Schools in Britain, 1870–1920, London: Macmillan.

32.

Gee

(2004) Situated Language and Learning: A Critique of Traditional Schooling, London: Routledge.

33.

Gibbs

(1983/2004) The training of children's librarians. International Library Review 15(2): 191–120.

34.

Glynn

(1996) Pause prompt praise: Reading tutoring procedures for home and school partnership. In: Wolfendale

Topping

(eds) (1996) Family Involvement in Literacy: Effective Partnerships in Education, London: Cassell.

35.

Gomberg

(1970) Can disadvantaged parents motivate children for reading? Teachers College Record 71: 451–54.

36.

Graff

(1987) The Labyrinths of Literacy; Reflections on Literacy Past and Present, Lewes: Falmer Press.

37.

Gregory

(1996) Making Sense of a New World: Learning to Read in a Second Language, London: Paul Chapman Publishing.

38.

Hannon

(1995) Literacy, Home and School: Research and Practice in Teaching Literacy with Parents, London: Falmer Press.

39.

Hannon

(1996) ‘School is too late: Preschool work with parents’. In: Wolfendale

Topping

(eds) Family Involvement in Literacy: Effective Partnerships in Education, London: Cassell.

40.

Hannon

Jackson

(1987) The Belfield Reading Project – Final Report, London/Rochdale: National Children’s Bureau/Belfield Community Council.

41.

Hannon

James

(1990) Parents' and teachers' perspectives on preschool literacy development. British Educational Research Journal 16(3): 259–272.

42.

Hannon

Morgan

Nutbrown

(2005) ‘Parents' experiences of a family literacy programme’. Journal of Early Childhood Research 4(2): 19–27.

43.

Hansen

(1969) The impact of the home literary environment on reading attitude. Elementary English 46: 17–24.

44.

Harper

Platt

Petellier

(2011) Unique effects of a family literacy program on the early reading development of English language learners. Early Education and Development 22(6): 989–1008.

45.

Hartas

(2011) Families’ social backgrounds matter: Socio-economic factors, home learning and young children’s language, literacy and social outcomes. British Educational Research Journal 37: 893–914.

46.

Havelock

(1976) Origins of Western Literacy, Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.

47.

Heath

(1982) What no bedtime story means: Narrative skills at home and school. Language in Society 11: 49–76.

48.

Heath

(1983) Ways with Words: Language, Life and Work in Communities and Classrooms, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

49.

Heckman

(2006) Skill formation and the economics of investing in disadvantaged children. Science 312: 1900–1902.

50.

Hewison

Tizard

(1980) Parental involvement and reading attainment. British Journal of Educational Psychology 50: 209–15.

51.

Hines

Brooks

(2009) Bookstart National Impact Evaluation, London: Booktrust.

52.

Hirst

(1998) Pre-school literacy experiences of children in Punjabi, Urdu and Gujerati speaking families in England. British Educational Research Journal 24(4): 415–429.

53.

Jackson

Hannon

(1987) The Belfield Reading Project, Rochdale: Belfield Community Council.

54.

Jerrim

(2013) The Reading Gap: The Socio-Economic Gap in Children’s Reading Skills: A Cross-National Comparison using PISA 2012, Paris: OECD/London: Sutton Trust.

55.

Jolliffe W (2004) ‘The National Literacy Strategy: Not prescriptive enough?’ Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, 16–18 September. BERA: University of Manchester.

56.

Lankshear

Knobel

(2003) New Literacies, Changing Knowledge and Classroom Learning, Buckingham: Open University Press.

57.

Larrick

(1959) Your Child and His Reading: How Parents Can Help, New York, NY: Public Affairs Committee.

58.

McCulloch

(1997) ‘Privatising the past? History and education policy in the 1990s’. British Journal of Educational Studies 45: 69–82.

59.

Mace

(1998) Playing with Time: Mothers and the Meaning of Literacy, London: UCL Press.

60.

Machin

McNally

(2008) The literacy hour. Journal of Public Economics 92: 1441–1462.

61.

Marsh

Brooks

Hughes

et al. (2005) Digital Beginnings: Young Children’s Use of Popular Culture, Media and New Technologies, Sheffield: Literacy Research Centre, University of Sheffield.

62.

Marsh J, Hannon P, Lewis M, et al. (2015). Young children’s initiation into family literacy practices in the digital age. Journal of Early Childhood Research. Epub ahead of print. DOI: 10.1177/1476718X15582095.

63.

Marsh J, Plowman L, Yamada-Rice D, et al.(2015) Exploring play and creativity in pre-schoolers’ use of apps: Final project report. Available at: www.techandplay.org (accessed 6 April 2016).

64.

Merchant

(2007) Writing in the future in the digital age. Literacy 41: 118–128.

65.

Moore

(1943) The Nature and Treatment of Mental Disorders, New York, NY: Greene and Stratton.

66.

Morgan

Nutbrown

Hannon

(2009) Fathers’ involvement in young children’s literacy development: Implications for family literacy programmes. British Educational Research Journal 35(2): 167–185.

67.

Moser

(1999) Improving literacy and numeracy a fresh start, London: Department for Education and Employment.

68.

Moss BJ (ed) (1994) Literacy across communities. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

69.

Neumann

Roskos

(1997) Literacy knowledge in practice: Contexts of participation for young writers and readers. Reading Research Quarterly 32(1): 10–32.

70.

Niedermeyer

(1970) Parents teach kindergarten reading at home. Elementary School Journal 70: 438–45.

71.

Nutbrown

(1997) Recognising Early Literacy Development: Assessing Children’s Achievements, London: Paul Chapman.

72.

Nutbrown

Hannon

(2003) Children’s perspectives on family literacy: Methodological issues, findings and implications for practice. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy 3(2): 115–145.

73.

Nutbrown

Hannon

Morgan

(2005) Early Literacy Work with Families: Policy, Practice and Research, London: Sage.

74.

Ofcom (2012) Children and parents: Media use and attitudes. Available at: http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/research/media-literacy/oct2012/main.pdf (accessed 6 April 2016).

75.

Olsen D (1975) Towards a Literate Society. In: Proceedings of the national academy of education. London: McGraw-Hill.

76.

Pahl

Allan

(2011) “I don’t know what literacy is”: Uncovering hidden literacies in a community library using ecological and participatory research methodologies with children. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy 11: 190–213.

77.

Petellier

Brent

(2002) Parent participation in children’ school readiness: The effects of parental self-efficacy, cultural diversity and teacher strategies. International Journal of Early Childhood 34(1): 45–60.

78.

Prensky M (2001) Digital natives, digital immigrants part 1. On the Horizon 9; 5: 1–6.

79.

Purcell-Gates

(1995) Other people's words: the cycle of low literacy, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

80.

Reay

(1998) ‘Cultural reproduction: Mothers’ involvement in their children’s primary schooling’. In: Grenfell

James

(eds) Bourdieu and Education, London: Falmer.

81.

Smith

(2011) Ourselves: Why We Are Who We Are, New York, NY: Laurence Earlbaum Associates.

82.

Snape

(2002) ‘The national home reading union 1889–1930’. Journal of Victorian Culture 7: 86–110.

83.

Swain J, Brooks G and Bosley S (2014) The benefits of family literacy provision for parents in England. Journal of Early Childhood Research 2014; 12(1): 77–91.

84.

Sylva

Melhuish

Sammons

et al. (2004) The Effective Provision of Pre-School Education (EPPE) Project: Technical Paper 12 – The Final Report: Effective Pre-School Education, London: DfES/Institute of Education, University of London.

85.

Taylor

(1983) Family Literacy: Young Children Learning to Read and Write, Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

86.

Taylor

Dorsey-Gaines (1988) Growing up Literate: Learning from Inner City Families, Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

87.

Taylor

Strickland

(1986) Family Storybook Reading, Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

88.

Teale

(1986) Home background and young children’s literacy development. In: Teale

Sulzby

(eds) Emergent Literacy: Writing and Reading, Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.

89.

Tizard

Schochfield

Hewison

(1982) Collaboration between teachers and parents in assisting children’s reading. British Journal of Educational Psychology 52: 1–15.

90.

Topping

(1986) Parents as Educators, Beckenham: Croom Helm.

91.

Treasury

(2004) Child Poverty Review, London: HMSO.

92.

UNESCO (2005) Education for All: Literacy for Life Global Monitoring Report 2006, Paris: UNESCO.

93.

Vincent

(2000) The Rise of Mass Literacy: Reading and Writing in Modern Europe, Cambridge: Polity.

94.

Wasik

Van Horn

(2012) ‘The role of family literacy in society’. In: Wasik

(ed.) Handbook of Family Literacy, 2nd ed. New York, NY: Routledge.

95.

Weinberger

(1996) Literacy Goes to School – The Parents’ Role in Young Children’s Literacy Learning, London: Paul Chapman Publishing.

96.

Wells

(1986) The Meaning Makers: Children Learning Language and Using Language to Learn, Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

97.

Yamada-Rice

(2015) Cultural affordances of visual mode texts in and of Japanese landscapes and young children’s emerging comprehension of semiotic texts. In: Pahl

Rowsell

(eds) The Routledge Handbook of Literacy Studies Chapter 20, London: Routledge.