Family literacy programmes: a comparative study of gender roles in England, Ireland and Malta

This article was downloaded by: [Ams/Girona*barri Lib]On: 28 October 2014, At: 07:48Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Early Child Development and CarePublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gecd20

Family literacy programmes: acomparative study of gender roles inEngland, Ireland and MaltaAnthea Rose a & Chris Atkin ba Institute for Policy Studies in Education (IPSE) , LondonMetropolitan University , London, UKb The Education Faculty , Liverpool Hope University , Liverpool,UKPublished online: 26 Jul 2010.

To cite this article: Anthea Rose & Chris Atkin (2011) Family literacy programmes: a comparativestudy of gender roles in England, Ireland and Malta, Early Child Development and Care, 181:6,775-790, DOI: 10.1080/03004430.2010.490297

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2010.490297

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gecd20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/03004430.2010.490297

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2010.490297

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Early Child Development and CareVol. 181, No. 6, July 2011, 775–790

ISSN 0300-4430 print/ISSN 1476-8275 online© 2011 Taylor & FrancisDOI: 10.1080/03004430.2010.490297http://www.informaworld.com

Family literacy programmes: a comparative study of gender roles in England, Ireland and Malta

Anthea Rosea* and Chris Atkinb

aInstitute for Policy Studies in Education (IPSE), London Metropolitan University, London, UK; bThe Education Faculty, Liverpool Hope University, Liverpool, UKTaylor and FrancisGECD_A_490297.sgm(Received 8 January 2010; final version received 28 April 2010)10.1080/03004430.2010.490297Early Childhood Development and Care0300-4430 (print)/1476-8275 (online)Original Article2010Taylor & [email protected]

There is concern from government in each of the sample sites over the role fathersplay in supporting their children through school. Fathers have become a more‘visible parent’ and a focus for policy-makers in education. Family literacyprogrammes are used in this article as an example of an educational programmewhere fathers are often absent. The article draws on interviews conducted withmothers in England, Ireland and Malta, regularly attending family literacyprogrammes and a small number of fathers who were not attending regularly, if atall, for a range of cultural and structural reasons. It explores why fathers did notattend and what might encourage them to do so. The authors argue that beingabsent from formal sessions does not necessarily mean that fathers are disinterestedin their child’s education or that they do not contribute to the learning process.

Keywords: fathers; family literacy; policy; children

Family literacy programmes and the importance of involving fathers

In Britain, national and local government has become increasingly interested in theconcept of ‘the family’ as a learning unit and how cycles of generational under-achievement can be broken by engaging the whole family in the learning process(Alexander & Clyne, 1995; Cox, 2000; OECD, 1997). Over the past 10 years,family literacy programmes have become common place in England. They havebeen used as a pedagogical tool under the Skills for Life (SfL) (DfEE, 2001) initia-tive as a means of addressing low levels of adult literacy and numeracy (Rose &Atkin, 2007). The broader policy rationale for funding programmes is to encourageadults back into education and hence improve the economic and life chances offamilies.

First introduced by Taylor (1983), the term ‘family literacy’ has been constantlydebated in an effort to find one clear definition (Hannon, 1999; Thomas, 1998).However, more than 25 years later the concept is still fluid, wide-ranging and illusive(Rose & Atkin, 2007). It has different meanings to different people in differentcontexts; for example, it can be referred to as intergenerational learning, lifelonglearning or family learning. Learning under this banner can be facilitated in the home,in schools, in flexible learning environments or in formal settings. For the purpose ofthis paper, family literacy programmes are defined as:

*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

s/G

iron

a*ba

rri L

ib]

at 0

7:48

28

Oct

ober

201

4

776 A. Rose and C. Atkin

a formal programme of delivery which occurs within a set time frame with a beginningand end date … delivered at a designated geographical location. Programmes are deliv-ered by at least one experienced facilitator, usually the adult practitioner. The learnersattending generally have dependant children at pre-school or primary school (aged threeto 11 years old). The underlying ethos of programmes is to teach literacy and numeracyskills. (Rose & Atkin, 2006, p. 131)

However, whilst they are officially called ‘family’ literacy programmes the word‘family’ in the title is somewhat misleading. Frequently, it is not the ‘family’ that isinvolved but the ‘mother’ and possibly the child (Brooks, Gorman, Harman, Hutchison,& Wilkin, 1996; Hannon, Morgan, & Nutbrown, 2006). Whilst there has been a greatdeal of research showing that such programmes are beneficial to both the ‘parent’ –assumed to be the mother or the father – and the child, it is still rare for fathers to bepresent at formal sessions (Brooks et al., 1996 and 1997; Hannon et al., 2006; NIACE,2003; Ofsted, 2000), despite the growing number of policy statements across govern-ment that recognise the importance of fathers in supporting education within the homeand community. Many men are still not aware of the positive impact their involvementcan have on their children’s education and development. Further, they are not activelylooking for ways to get involved since that is what teachers are perceived to be for.Often the absence of fathers is seen purely as a logistical issue since family literacyprogrammes are generally delivered during the ‘working’ day.

A recent publication by the National Literacy Trust (Clark, 2009) explores the roleof fathers in the literacy development of their children and finds that they do have animportant part to play. They also found numerous benefits to the fathers, for example,increased skills, confidence, father–child relationship and engagement with learningin general. Goldman (2005) suggests that the greater involvement of fathers in theirchildren’s education can lead to better:

● exam outcomes;● school attendance and behaviour; ● improved life chances.

Whilst involvement can be formal or informal, in school or out of school, it has longsince been assumed to be the responsibility of the mother (David, 1993; Walkerdine& Lucey, 1989; West, Noden, & Edge, 1998). However, the importance of a father’sinvolvement in all stages of a child’s development and education, but particularlyduring the early years, is increasingly recognised (Amato, 1994; Clark, 2009; McBride& Rane, 2001; Palm & Fagan, 2008; Radin, Williams, & Coggins, 1994; Stile & Ortiz,1999). The work of Flouri and Buchanan (2004) highlights the positive impact long-term contributions parents – fathers as well as mothers – can make to their children’sschooling. Drawing on longitudinal data taken from the National Child DevelopmentStudy (NCDS) Flouri and Buchanan examined the level of parental involvement at ageseven against qualifications achieved on leaving school by the age of 20. Theyconcluded not only was parental involvement a major factor in how well childrenachieved at school, but stressed the important role fathers had to play in educationalattainment. The early involvement of fathers was particularly noted as a ‘protectivefactor in counteracting risk conditions that might lead to later low attainment levels’(Flouri & Buchanan, 2004, p. 141). Studying the involvement of fathers in early child-hood programmes (ECP) in America, Palm and Fagan (2008) also found strong linksbetween a child’s attainment and the level of engagement by fathers. Their research

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

s/G

iron

a*ba

rri L

ib]

at 0

7:48

28

Oct

ober

201

4

Early Child Development and Care 777

showed that in groups where fathers were highly involved children made ‘greater gainsin mathematics readiness’ (Palm & Fagan, 2008, p. 756) compared to groups wherefather involvement was low.

The general importance of involving the extended family, not just parents, in childdevelopment is reflected in several of the British governments’ policies on educationand health [e.g. Every Parent Matters (DfES, 2007); The Welfare Act (OPSI, 2009)and The Childcare Strategy (Cabinet Office, 2009)]. Such policies also reflect thechanging nature of the family unit in modern Britain, in particular reflecting the risein the number of single parent families and the challenges faced by parents in manag-ing family demands on time and financial resources.

The changing nature of families and new models of parenting were recently high-lighted by Rake (2009), the new chief executive of the Family and Parenting Institute(FPI) in Britain. The organisation’s research report, Family Trends (Hunt, 2009),points to changing attitudes amongst men, and changing demands from workingwomen, which have led to a rise in the number of fathers now trying to spend moretime playing and interacting with their children – a trend which is set to increase(McVeigh, 2009).

Writing in Early Child Development and Care, Saracho (2008) outlines thatresearchers have tended to explore fathers’ involvement in ECP childhoodprogrammes from two major research domains: (1) the relationship between childdevelopment outcomes and fathers’ involvement; and (2) the way fathers balanceeconomic activity, household work and participation in child rearing activities. Thisarticle is particularly interested in exploring the first of these two major themes ofresearch.

Macleod (2008) makes an important point about the nature of identity in attractingfathers to family literacy programmes and suggests that if such programmes are toattract fathers they must be designed to accommodate the differing gender needs ofboth mothers and fathers:

Rather than relying on a standard provision for all, what is needed is a range of high qual-ity dedicated provision that caters for different requirements, specifically in this case, thediffering needs and preferences of mothers and fathers. (Macleod, 2008, p. 773)

This is an area further developed in Hauari and Hollingworth’s work Understandingfathering: Masculinity, diversity and change (2009), which also stresses the impor-tance of targeting fathers through bespoke programmes designed to show fathers theimportance of their role in child development; specifically in early childhood educa-tion. The work of Palm and Fagan (2008) reinforces the point that those hoping toengage fathers should carefully consider the needs, motivations and limitations offathers when designing programmes.

Therefore, over the past few years fathers have become a key policy focus – amore visible parent. As such their absence in family literacy programmes is seen bygovernment policy-makers and local coordinators at all three of the case study sites,as a missing research and role model. However, in this paper it is argued that fathersdo not necessarily have to be present at the primary point of delivery for learning totake place, or for it to be beneficial. Much of the research carried out in this area isbased on interviews with mothers. As well as the views of mothers, this article alsodraws on the views and experiences of fathers who were not attending family literacyprogrammes or had only attended on an occasional, ad-hoc basis, thereby giving

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

s/G

iron

a*ba

rri L

ib]

at 0

7:48

28

Oct

ober

201

4


fathers a voice. This article is based on comparative research carried out into familyliteracy programmes in England, Ireland and Malta.

Context of study

The benchmark from which to gauge the suitability of countries selected in this study,was the model of family literacy programmes delivered in England. The rationale forthis was two-fold. Firstly, the authors of the paper already had knowledge of familyliteracy programmes in England from previous research activities in the area of adultliteracy and numeracy (Atkin, Rose, & Shier, 2005). Secondly, they wished to begincomparisons of family literacy programmes from the perspective of a system that wasfamiliar to them. At the time of the study, all three selected countries were runningestablished family literacy programmes that were sufficiently similar to each other tobe comparable, yet different enough to provide a contrastable component to the study.

The main programmes delivered in England at the time of the research wereFamily Literacy, Language and Numeracy (FLLN) and Keeping Up With the Children(KUWTC). FLLN is a joint programme for parents and children delivered in primaryschools during the school day for families with children aged four to six years of age.They run once a week for a total of 30 or 60 hours – known as long or short courses.KUWTC is a short adult-only programme that runs for two hours a week for fiveweeks, also during the school day, usually in primary schools. Its key focus is to helpparents understand current literacy and numeracy pedagogic teaching in schools. InMalta, the main programmes were Club Hilti (meaning ‘my ability’) and I’d f’id(meaning hand-in-hand). Club Hilti is also a joint programme delivered in primaryschools during the afternoon but after school finishes. In Malta, schools finish earlierthan they do in England, usually at 2:30 in the afternoon. Club Hilti runs for two hoursa week over one school term and is for families with children aged six to nine yearsold. I’d f’id is similar to the KUWTC in that it is a short, five week adult-onlyprogramme and it also focuses on teaching parents the latest literacy and numeracytechniques. The Irish programmes consisted of basic family literacy, story sacks andsupporting children’s maths. Despite coming under the banner of family literacy, allof the Irish programmes were adult-only. Delivered in community venues rather thanschools, all of the Irish sessions were two hours a week over a period of ten, eight andseven weeks respectively.

The three countries involved in the study, England, Ireland and Malta, wereselected for their comparability and because they each delivered family literacyprogrammes that broadly met the definition given earlier. In terms of comparability,they had several commonalities as well as differences. For example, each countrybelongs to the European Union but is not part of continental Europe. English is anofficial language and widely spoken in all three countries; English has been part of theMaltese national curriculum since 1999 and whilst the majority of the adult popula-tion are already bilingual, it is now a ‘goal [that] must be reached by the students bythe end of their entire schooling experience’ (Ministry of Education, 1999, p. 30). Ineach country, the overriding policy rationale for funding family literacy programmeswas broadly similar. The key aim for all was to use education to improve theeconomic and social position of families who were, or had the potential to be, sociallyexcluded or disadvantaged. However, the case study countries also exhibited manydifferent characteristics, for example, in terms of socio-economics, culture, historyand religious practices.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

s/G

iron

a*ba

rri L

ib]

at 0

7:48

28

Oct

ober

201

4


Theoretical perspective

This article is grounded in two theoretical perspectives. Firstly, Bourdieu’s conceptsof habitus (1977) and field (1993), which incorporates different forms of capital:economic, social, human and symbolic and the idea of ‘symbolic violence’ and‘misrecognition’ (Bourdieu, 1971). Bourdieu sees the ‘field’ as an identified socialspace in which ‘struggles or manoeuvres take place’ (Jenkins, 2002, p. 85). Examplesof social fields include politics, religion, education and the family. Each field containsits own logic and rules with a predefined, long-established hierarchy of power andstatus. Inhabitants of a particular social field are fundamentally aware of their positionwithin the field, know the rules by which it operates and possess the relevant tools andknowledge to play the game. For Bourdieu, habitus is linked to how individuals withina field manage and rationalise the world in which they find themselves. It determineshow individuals behave within a particular field, setting the parameters for what isacceptable and what is not. Thus, it can dictate a father’s behaviour and attitudetowards their children’s education and help to explain why these differ between theprivate field of the home to that of the public field of school. Misrecognition is thecontinued reproduction of a position, such as the established gender division of labourwithin the family, including who takes responsibility for the children and their educa-tion. This occurs through the perceived act of ‘choice’ where in reality there is nochoice, which can, in some circumstances result in ‘symbolic violence’ (Bourdieu &Passeron, 1990) against some inhabitants of the field.

The second theoretical perspective is the notion of social capital, which combineselements of Putnam (2000) and Coleman’s (1988) work, specifically the concepts ofnetworking, bridging and bonding. Particularly helpful is Coleman’s description of thetransferability of social capital via human capital between family members beingdependent upon the parent/child relationship in connection with educational achieve-ment (Coleman, 1988, p. 109). The notion that social capital (bonding) can beconstraining, acting as a barrier to change, was particularly helpful in understandingsome of the mothers’ reactions to the possible inclusion (or intrusion as some motherssaw it) of fathers into family literacy sessions. In the study, we did not considerwhether the mother’s general resistance to fathers being present was also true for newwomen members. (Although our sense is that it was not.) The social capital developedwithin the groups had its foundation in the social conditions faced by the women andthe role society expected them to play in relation to their children.

Methodology

The methodological approach taken to data collection for this research was predomi-nantly qualitative in nature. The study consisted of 94 semi-structured interviewswith those involved in family literacy programmes across the three case study areas;30 in England, 30 in Ireland and 34 in Malta. Interviews were conducted by the firstauthor with coordinators, practitioners, learners, ex-learners, children’s teachers andfathers as detailed in the table below. Separate semi-structured interview scheduleswere designed for each group of participants because it would not have been appro-priate to ask mothers the same questions as practitioners and vice versa. The studywas interested in all aspects of programmes from the experiences of parents to thelogistics of delivery, such as the targeting or not of participants and issues of funding.Semi-structured interview schedules were different for mothers and fathers andconsisted of questions that could gather both socio-demographic data and more open

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

s/G

iron

a*ba

rri L

ib]

at 0

7:48

28

Oct

ober

201

4


responses designed to explore their experiences. For example, all mothers were askedhow many children they had, their ages, how long they had been attending theprogramme, their marital status and where they lived. Fathers were asked their ageand occupation. Mothers were probed on motivations for attending the programme,benefits gained and future aspirations for both them and their children. With fathers,we explored if they had ever considered attending the programme and justification fortheir responses, barriers to participation, sharing of learning and their perceivedimpact of the mother and child attending. Interview schedules were designed afterconsideration of the literature review and consultation with those working in the area;all schedules were piloted before the main case studies took place and amended asappropriate.

Table 1 outlines the nature of the interviewees from each sector of the sample, forexample, programme coordinators, adult practitioners, children’s teachers, learners,ex-learners and fathers.

Amongst the learners interviewed the overwhelming majority, 45 of 48 (94%),were mothers. The remaining three participants were male; two fathers on theKUWTC programme in England and one brother attending the Club Hiliti in Malta.Indeed, 87% (82) of all participants in the study were women; making family liter-acy programmes a female-dominated activity both in terms of delivery and learnerparticipation.

Interviews were supplemented by a range of other data sources including 13 class-room participative observations and secondary quantitative data provided by the casestudies where available. All interviews were audio recorded and transcribed beforebeing thematically analysed. The analysis was carried out in two stages. The firstlooked at comparable respondents, for example, all the interviews with learners oradult practitioners, to ascertain key themes, similarities and differences between thecase study areas. The second stage of analysis cut across different participant groupsbridging the three case study areas allowing some triangulation and validation offindings.

The intention had been to interview a number of fathers not attending, or notattending regularly, at each of the case study sites to gain a male perspective on familyliteracy programmes. However, this proved difficult with only five fathers actuallyinterviewed; three from Malta, two from England and none from Ireland. Whilst everyeffort was made by the researchers through local practitioners and coordinators torecruit fathers in advance, these proved unsuccessful. Therefore, the sample of fatherswas achieved by approaching mothers attending sessions on the day of the field visit,who then asked their child’s father if they would be willing to be interviewed. The

Table 1. Breakdown of interviews by type and case study.

Type of interviewee England Malta Ireland Total

Adult practitioners 3 4 4 11Children’s teachers 3 6 1 10Coordinators 1 1 1 3Ex-learners 5 4 8 17Fathers 2 3 0 5Learners 16 16 16 48Total 30 34 30 94

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

s/G

iron

a*ba

rri L

ib]

at 0

7:48

28

Oct

ober

201

4


resulting data should be considered in this light. It was not possible to interview anyfathers in the Irish case study because, in two of the four sessions observed, fatherswere not an everyday part of the families’ life; one session consisted of lone parentsand the other of asylum women living in a holding centre waiting to hear if their appli-cation for residency in Ireland would be granted. At the third session, no fathers wereavailable at the time of the study. The remaining session consisted solely of ‘traveller’women. Although the women had been living on a particular social housing estate onthe outskirts of the case study area for many years (in some cases for several genera-tions) they considered themselves to be part of the ethnic minority group known asIrish travellers. According to the Irish Traveller Movement (ITM), they number some25,000 and make up approximately 0.5% of the Irish population (ITM, 2007). Thetravellers are one of the Irish governments’ priority target groups that they are tryingto re-engage in adult education. Here, according to mothers, fathers would notconsider being interviewed without being financially reimbursed for their time, whichwas outside the remit of the project.

The fathers interviewed ranged in age from their early 20s to late 40s. They eachhad two children. Four of the five fathers were married; the fifth, one of the Englishfathers, was cohabiting with his long-term partner. Their wives and partners attendeda range of provision including Club Hilti, I’d f’id and family literacy programmes.

Findings

How fathers viewed family literacy programmes

Interviews with fathers explored: barriers to the fathers’ attendance; what, if anything,would encourage them to participate; the impact they had seen as a result of themother and child attending; and their general opinions of the value of family literacyprogrammes. Due to the size of the sample, the findings of these interviews should beconsidered as illuminative within a specific case study area. However, they can beconsidered alongside the findings of the interviews with the mothers who were bothcurrent and ex-learners to add perspective. They also provide an insight into the opin-ions of fathers that did not attend or attended irregularly concerning family literacyprogrammes.

All the fathers in the study viewed the programmes as beneficial to their childrenwith some also reporting a positive impact on the child’s mother. Fathers felt thatmothers were more able to help their child with reading, writing, mathematics andgeneral parenting as a result of attending programmes. One father reported that themother had stopped shouting at the children and started playing with them. Anotherfather stated ‘she’s got a better understanding of how to read the books to him’(English father 2) whilst a further father commented:

I think she is starting to understand parenting a bit more … You know she comes backand she tells me we should do this and not do that. For example at school they havestarted the new system with the abacus. I have no idea, but [she] has adapted to it.(Maltese father 2)

Fathers also saw a difference in their children as a result of attending programmeswith three specifically mentioning that their child had grown in confidence. This wasparticularly noted by the Maltese fathers in terms of their children’s reading andunderstanding of English; ‘she has started to read more English quickly, you know,and she understands it more now’ (Maltese father 1).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

s/G

iron

a*ba

rri L

ib]

at 0

7:48

28

Oct

ober

201

4


Four of the fathers interviewed were economically active; the fifth, a Maltesefather, was unable to work at the time of the study due to ill health. The four workingfathers were employed in a range of occupations including nursing, retail and a self-employed handyman. All had attended job-related training over the course of theirworking life and in some cases this was on-going. Therefore, the fathers were notadverse to the idea of lifelong or continuing education per se; particularly if itfurthered their own employment prospects by improving their economic capital. Inturn, this was perceived as having a positive impact on the quality of family life, inthe form of increased wages or enhanced employment prospects. This was the oppo-site view to the mothers, who saw education first and foremost in terms of the benefitto their children, rather than to themselves. All of the fathers broadly saw their rolewithin the family in traditional terms; as being the main ‘provider’. They viewedchildcare and education largely as the responsibility of the mother. However, they didnot dismiss the idea of role reversal, providing it made economic sense. Accepting thatas actors all of the adults in this study sit within a particular cultural context it didappear that economic necessity, rather than predefined gender roles, ultimately deter-mined the roles undertaken by the adults within each family unit.

Why fathers did not attend programmes

Fathers gave three main reasons why they did not attend family literacy programmes:

(1) They did not view it as part of their role or responsibility as a parent.(2) Competing pressures on their time.(3) Programmes were viewed as ‘female-dominated’ spaces.

Attending family literacy was not viewed as a father’s role

On the surface, there was a stark contrast in the attitudes of the two groups of fathers.The Maltese fathers appeared more open to attending programmes, whilst those inEngland seemed more reluctant. Of the three Maltese fathers one had attended afamily literacy session four times on occasions when his wife had been unable toattend due to commitments at work. One father had attended once, again when hiswife was unavailable; neither had attended with their wives. The remaining father hadconsidered attending, but had not actually done so. Neither of the two English fathershad ever attended or considered attending the programme. When asked why, theyounger of the two English fathers stated, it was because, ‘I’m the breadwinner at themoment’ (English father 1). Combining full-time employment with the child’s educa-tion, in a formal setting during working hours, was outside the fathers’ habitus. It wasa field rather than an individual position, formed by socially constructed norms.

Whilst the Maltese fathers were more open to the idea of attending, the generalhabitus of all five of the fathers in the study was that this responsibility fell to themother. There was a dominant cross-cultural notion amongst the fathers that the chil-dren’s formal education was the responsibility of the mother; a view that mothersseemed to accept. It formed part of the mothers’ role and was effectively seen as anextension of the home. These were mothering duties to which the father was periph-eral. The general consensus was that the fathers’ main role was to provide economicresources for the family by going out to work, even though some of the mothersalso worked. One Maltese father adhered to particularly strong traditional economic

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

s/G

iron

a*ba

rri L

ib]

at 0

7:48

28

Oct

ober

201

4


divisions of gender tasks within the family. He pointed out that his wife attendedbecause she was the ‘mum’ and that, ‘I’m here for work and well, she works too but… a woman is a woman and a man is a man’ (Maltese father 1); even though, at thetime, this father was on long-term sick leave and had more time to attend programmesthan the mother.

Even where the mother took any form of paid employment (full or part-time), thechildren and the interaction with school was still viewed as the mothers’ responsibil-ity. One Maltese mother (not connected to the three fathers interviewed), had negoti-ated with her manager to take time off at lunch time and at the end of the day to attendthe I’d f’id programme despite working full time. The mother saw this as her respon-sibility stating ‘it’s not that difficult’ (Maltese mother 1). Yet, few fathers werereported by mothers to be willing or able to be so flexible. Although these gender rolesare often associated with traditional family structures they also point to concerns aboutthe relative underachievement of boys, particularly in British schools. Education formany in itself is becoming feminine. A recent Joseph Rowntree Foundation researchstudy of underachievement in British Schools found that ‘boys outnumber girls as lowachievers by three to two’ (Cassen & Kingdon, 2007, p. xi). In British higher educa-tion, the proportions are reversed with ‘women now making up 57% of the [highereducation] student population (HEFCE, 2009, p. 19).

Whilst the genderfication of family roles may largely be for practical reasons, itcould also be viewed as a mechanism of misrecognition (Bourdieu, 2001) to ensureconsistency and the continuation of habitus by male domination in the family field.Ultimately, this relies on the reproduction of social roles to maintain the illusion ofmoral and social order and power status. In this way the powerful position of the fatherremains unthreatened. The true reason for gender-specific roles within the family canonly be known within the relevant family unit and the context in which that familyresides. However, it would seem that for most of the families in the study, it was theformer, practicalities (programmes being offered during the day) and economics(the father being the main wage earner) that provided the key drivers, as opposed tothe latter, that of retaining male-dominated hierarchies. Nevertheless, fathers, even theone quoted above, were not opposed to the idea of attending formal sessions per se.One father from England stated that he would consider attending if economic roleswere reversed:

if it was the other way around and [his wife] was the breadwinner, the income supporterand I was the one looking after the kids I would do it, to keep me occupied … [however,]… she’s got time on her hands and she enjoys it. (English father 1)

However, whilst he was working full-time, this father did not believe he had the timeto attend, nor did he view it as his role or responsibility.

Pressure of time

Time was another reason fathers gave for not attending. This was largely due to acombination of commitments outside the home and the timing of sessions, since theyall took place during ‘normal’ working hours. None of the programmes ran in theevenings or at weekends. According to the fathers interviewed, this made it almostimpossible for the majority of fathers to attend regularly. Some of the fathers also hadother commitments outside of work. As one Maltese father commented:

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

s/G

iron

a*ba

rri L

ib]

at 0

7:48

28

Oct

ober

201

4


I would like to, but I am afraid time is a problem; probably time-management is aproblem here. I am involved in so many things, that finding the time to go is difficult.(Maltese father 2)

Female-dominated spaces

A further reason given by fathers for not attending was that the majority of partici-pants were mothers. Sessions were seen as predominantly a female field where thefathers felt uncomfortable. Since the vast majority of family literacy participantsencountered during this study (94%) were mothers and most of the practitioners werealso women, this point was hard to deny. The Maltese father who had attended fourtimes reported being the only man amongst 20 women at each of the sessions. He hadfound it ‘difficult’ being the only man. However, perhaps surprisingly the Maltesefather with the strongest gender views did not appear to object to this aspect of theprogramme stating ‘it doesn’t bother me if I go, I don’t mind because I learn if I go’(Maltese father 1). The consensus from the interviews with the mothers was thatfathers would be more likely to attend if separate sessions specifically targeted atfathers were available. This was viewed as preferable to fathers having to fit into analready existing female-dominated field. Interviews with fathers supported this viewpoint. It also reinforces Macleod’s (2008) assertion earlier that fathers have differentneeds and requirements to mothers.

What would encourage fathers to attend family literacy programmes?

When asked what would encourage them to attend, changing the time of sessions oreconomic role reversal were two suggestions made by fathers. This would ensureattendance did not affect their work commitments and that fathers had time to attend.Whilst the first may be feasible for programme providers, the second is beyond theirscope.

When the Maltese father (2) above was asked if changing the session time wouldencourage him to attend, he thought it probably would:

Yes, probably, early evening would be much better because [now] it is straight afterschool at 2 o’clock in the afternoon. Usually, at 2 o’clock in the afternoon you are atwork or doing something else. It is very difficult because I work shifts. Having them at2 o’clock means splitting the day. I think it would be a better idea. (Maltese father 2)

The same Maltese father also suggested a formal invitation from the school, invitingthem as fathers to personally attend programmes, would be helpful. Such an invitationwould clearly reinforce the value attached to fathers being involved and potentiallystrengthen the legitimacy of programme providers. He felt that currently, ‘the invita-tion seems to be an informal thing that the mothers apply for and go with their chil-dren, but I don’t think there is ever a formal application or invitation’ (Maltese father2). Interviews with some of the mothers showed that many had assumed the fatherwould not have time or would not be interested in attending. Therefore, frequentlyfathers had not even been given the opportunity to attend. One father suggested notonly a formal invitation, but much better advertising of the programmes. In this wayfathers would at least be able to make an informed choice of whether or not to attend.Finally, fathers in both Malta and England said they were more likely to attend if themother told them it would help the educational development of their child. One father

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

s/G

iron

a*ba

rri L

ib]

at 0

7:48

28

Oct

ober

201

4


in England commented that he ‘probably wouldn’t need encouragement to go if [hiswife] said it would help him [his son] if I did go’ (English father 2). Whilst fathersmay have been willing to attend if specifically asked, interviews with the mothersshowed that not all mothers would be happy for this to occur.

Mothers’ views on fathers attending programmes

The majority of mothers in Malta and England did not object, in principle, to fathersjoining family literacy sessions. They felt it would help fathers to bond with theirchild and provide them with an insight into teaching and learning in school. However,they preferred their own husbands or partners not to attend. They viewed this timeand social field as something special either just for themselves, or for themselves andtheir child. One mother commented that having the father attend, ‘would get just likebeing at home again wouldn’t it? It probably wouldn’t work actually with the two ofus … It’s mine and [my son’s] time’ (English mother 1). Encouraging a greaternumber of fathers to attend was seen as recreating the home environment, whichmight result in the child playing one off against the other, rather than a special timethat the mother and child could share together. This time together could, potentially,lead to increased bonding and trust. Mothers also viewed the time as an opportunityto find support and develop social networks with other mothers. Finally, this couldthen be used to build social capital, in Coleman’s terms, for the benefit of bothmother and child. The Traveller women in Ireland were particularly keen thatsessions remained women only. Comments included; ‘I wouldn’t like it’ (Irishmother 1), ‘I wouldn’t like men to be here’ (Irish mother 2). Fathers also felt that thepresence of both parents could be seen as overpowering for the child, a ‘distraction’that might simply replicate the home environment.

Fathers’ engagement with their children’s learning outside the classroom

The lack of participation by fathers in formal family literacy programmes did notmean fathers were not interested, or did not take an active role in the educationaldevelopment of their children. Nor did it mean that the fathers did not participate inlearning following the mother and child’s participation. Fathers reported regularlyreading to their children, implementing literacy strategies for reading which their part-ner had learnt whilst on the programme. One English father went beyond reading,creating drawings and making templates, which the mother then took to the session tohelp develop the story sacks they were making as part of the programme. The fathercommented that whilst, ‘I’m not involved in it as much as [his mother] … we do ittogether’ (English father 1).

The involvement of the mother and child in family literacy programmes wasshown to have a clear impact on the way the fathers viewed educational progression.It seemed to lead to a changing habitus within the family field. It also resulted infathers having an increased understanding of current pedagogic teaching and learningmethods used in schools as a result of the transfer of knowledge gained by the motherduring the sessions to the father at home. One Maltese father found it particularlyhelpful since the method of teaching mathematics had changed between his first childstarting school and the second which meant he was unsure how to help his secondchild, ‘I learnt one method and now they have changed the method’ (Maltese father3). His wife attending the new sessions allowed him to gain an understanding of the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

s/G

iron

a*ba

rri L

ib]

at 0

7:48

28

Oct

ober

201

4


new system. Another Maltese father also found the strategies his wife and childrenbrought back from the programme beneficial commenting:

I’m learning through what they tell me. The fact that I have not attended, I spend timewith the children and what they learnt they pass on in their own way, even [their mother].When she learns something new, she comes home and tells me. (Maltese father 2)

This finding is an important one for funders particularly in Ireland, concerning thesignificance of joint parent–child sessions. If, as the interviews with fathers suggest,knowledge is being transferred from the mothers to fathers, when the fathers are notpresent, then there is no reason to suggest that the same dissemination of learning isnot occurring between the mothers and the children when the child is not present.Whilst there is no evidence to support this assertion it is a reasonable assumption tomake. At the very least, it is providing mothers in Ireland with the tools and the poten-tial opportunity to develop social capital or bonding relationships with their children.It opens up the possibility of unlocking parental human capital and ultimately assistingin the child’s educational growth. However, if this is occurring without the childrenbeing present, that is, in the family field, two opposing questions need to be consid-ered. First, how much more effective could family literacy programmes in Ireland be,particularly in developing the mother’s social capital, in allowing the child access tohuman capital, if the child were present? Second, does it matter if the child is presentor not? This latter point has already been raised by Hannon and Bird (2004) whohave pointed out that there is no conclusive evidence that combined adult–childprogrammes, as opposed to separate child or adult programmes, are better, in terms ofeither cost or efficiency. They question whether joint programmes are necessary oreven desirable.

Conclusion

In general, it appears that the roles and responsibilities concerning a child’s formaleducation within the family for parents in this study were allocated along establishedgender lines of what was practical, rather than to maintain any gendered stereotypicalroles. Mothers rejected suggestions of role reversal, preferring to take the responsibil-ity of the child’s education on for themselves, whilst the men concentrated on ‘goingout to work’. In some instances, particularly in Malta, mothers in the study appearedto be educated to a higher level standard than the fathers. Consequently, the mothersviewed themselves as being in a better position to engage in the education of theirchildren. One mother in Malta stated that she attended rather than her husbandbecause, ‘he knows that I have more education, school and things, capable of theschool maths and literature’ (Maltese mother 1). One of the fathers in Englandconfessed, ‘I’m a bit thick anyway … she’s a bit brainier’ (English father 1). Themothers in the study appeared to be more comfortable with the school environmentthan the fathers. One mother in Malta commented her husband was, ‘not very keen onschool, he’s a bit backwards, low self-esteem’ (Maltese mother 2). Mothers saw them-selves as in control, having a voice and making decisions, which were best for theirchildren and their family. They did not, in the main, feel oppressed or in need of‘saving’. They were all too aware of the rise in feminism and equal opportunities, butchose to run their families along the lines of traditional gender roles, as one of themothers in Ireland, typical of those interviewed, explained:

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

s/G

iron

a*ba

rri L

ib]

at 0

7:48

28

Oct

ober

201

4


I think we are very traditional, he goes out to work and is the bread winner and does allthe things like the fishing and the boat and all that kind of stuff. I cook the dinner, andclean the house; it’s the way I want it to be. I want to be at home when my kids come infrom school in the afternoon. I want to be there in the mornings to put them out to school.Fortunately I am in a position where I don’t have to work … I’m not saying that workingmothers are any disadvantage to their children, I’m just saying for me, I like to be athome. (Irish mother 3)

The interviews conducted with fathers confirmed that this view of habitus, regardingthe gender division of family labour, was shared by the fathers as much as by the moth-ers. This was not to say that the fathers did not assist in their child’s schoolwork, orwere not willing to be involved; it simply meant that they did so in different ways.However, feminist pedagogy might argue (Rockhill, 1987), and the work of Bourdieuwould concur, that the mothers were not choosing these roles freely. Rather, the roleswere a product of symbolic violence (Bourdieu, 1971) which, through the illusion ofmisrecognition and the hierarchies of power within the family field was socially repro-duced, from one generation to the next. This ensures that the division of gender rolesin this ‘traditional’, yet ‘practical’, way is viewed as natural and that the woman doeshave a choice. However, arguably human beings never have complete freedom ofchoice (Hayes & Flannery, 2000; Pritchard Hughes, 1995). Choice is always limitedto the options of which an individual is aware. Choices cannot be made for optionsthat do not seemingly exist. Misrecognition allows both mothers and fathers withinthe family field, to rationalise their roles for the good of the family, making them self-referencing and self-perpetuating. In this way, fathers continue to dominate the publicsphere in the field of paid employment economics and employment whilst mothersremain situated firmly in the private sphere of the home and family. This arrangementlargely places the onus of responsibility for a child’s formal education and learning –both successfully and unsuccessfully – with the mother. They become the interfacebetween the home and school fields, perpetuating the generational and societal beliefthrough established habitus that this division of tasks and responsibility within thefamily is the norm. The data would suggest that the absence of fathers from structuredfamily literacy programmes should not be viewed negatively; rather, programmescould be designed to take advantage of the ways in which fathers engage with, andsupport, their children’s learning informally, at home. In the interviews with mothersand fathers, interviewees saw the role of the father in terms of a child’s education asdifferent to that of the mother; but still they had a role to play. Fathers frequently under-pinned and supported at home the learning that took place on the family literacyprogramme including the learning, if any, of the mother, for example, by implementingreading strategies. In this way a change in habitus, albeit a slow change, towards educa-tion was cascaded down from the mothers attending the programme to the fathers.

Fathers did not attend because they were uninterested in their children’s education,but mainly because of the timing of the programmes. It was not possible or practicalfor most fathers to attend with work commitments having to take priority, as suggestedin the literature by Goldman (2005). Whilst they were few in number, fathers alsorecognised that programmes were female-dominated fields in which, if they attended,they would feel awkward and uncomfortable. The education of the child was theresponsibility of the mothers; it was predominantly her role to liaise with the school,bridging the two fields.

However, the data showed fathers did value the learning that took place throughfamily literacy programmes in both England and Malta. The fathers grasp of new

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

s/G

iron

a*ba

rri L

ib]

at 0

7:48

28

Oct

ober

201

4


concepts and the transference of knowledge gained concerning educational strategiesparticularly through the mother attending programmes, goes some way towardsdemonstrating that it may not be necessary for several members of the family to attendsuch programmes. In focussing on the gender role too closely one risks underminingthe important part fathers are playing in the education of their children. As Lamb andTamis-Lemonda pointed out:

By highlighting the unique qualities of fathers and mothers, they may promote narrowviews of fathers’ and mothers’ roles, thereby failing to capture similarities in the mean-ing and degree of influence parents excerpt on their children. (Lamb & Tamis-Lemonda,2004, p. 4)

If transition occurs between mothers and fathers, and mothers and none attending chil-dren (in the case of Ireland) there is no reason to suppose it will not occur betweenmothers and other family members such as younger siblings and grandparents.

There needs to be greater exploration of the role fathers play in the education oftheir children to establish how they can be supported, without necessarily having toattend formal programmes. Perhaps the new policy focus in England on the role offathers as a more visible parent in all areas of a child’s life including education willgo some way to addressing this important issue.

Notes on contributorsAnthea Rose is a research fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies in Education (IPSE). Herresearch has covered both schools and adult education. She is particularly interested in familyand adult learning, social inclusion, gender, literacy, numeracy and rural constructs. Anthea’sdoctorate was a comparative case study of family literacy programmes in Europe and wasundertaken at the School of Education, University of Nottingham. Her research drew on thetheoretical perspectives of Bourdieus’ habitus and field, and Bourdieu, Putnam and Colemans’opposing views of social capital. She has researched for a range of funders including theDepartment for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF), the National Research andDevelopment Centre for adult literacy and numeracy (NRDC), the Learning and Skills Council(LSC) and Becta.

Chris Atkin is director of graduate studies and research in the Faculty of Education at LiverpoolHope University. His main research expertise lies in the policy and practice of adult educationwith a particular focus on rural communities. He has completed a range of research projectsfunded by the UK funding councils (ESRC, NERC), the British Academy, the Association ofCommonwealth Universities, the National Research and Development Centre for adult literacyand numeracy (NRDC), Local Authorities and the Learning and Skills Council (LSC). Hisresearch has included both national and international comparative studies including practitio-ner-based enquiry with a range of educational stakeholders. Prior to taking up his current post,he was an associate professor in the School of Education, University of Nottingham.

ReferencesAlexander, C., & Clyne, P. (1995). Riches beyond price: Making the most of family learning.

Leicester: A NIACE discussion paper.Amato, P. (1994). Father–child relations, mother–child relations, and offspring psychological

wellbeing in early adulthood. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 56, 1031–1042.Atkin, C., Rose, A., & Shier, R. (2005). Provision of, and learner engagement with, adult

literacy. Numeracy and ESOL Support in Rural England: A comparative case study.London: National Research and Development Centre for Adult Literacy and Numeracy(NDRC).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

s/G

iron

a*ba

rri L

ib]

at 0

7:48

28

Oct

ober

201

4


Bourdieu, P. (1971). Systems of education and systems of thought. In E. Hopper (Ed.), Readingsin the theory of educational systems (pp. 157–183). London: Hutchinson.

Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Bourdieu, P. (1993). Sociology in question. London: Sage.Bourdieu, P. (2001). Masculine domination. Cambridge: Polity Press.Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J. (1990). Reproduction in education, society and culture (2nd ed.).

London: Sage.Brooks, G., Gorman, T., Harman, J., Hutchison, D., Kinder, K., Moor, H., et al. (1997).

Family literacy lasts: The National Foundation for Educational Research, follow-up studyof the Basic Skills Agency’s demonstration programmes. London: Basic Skills Agency.

Brooks, G., Gorman, T., Harman, J., Hutchison, D., & Wilkin, A. (1996). Family literacyworks, the NFER evaluation of the Basic Skills Agency’s Family Literacy DemonstrationProgrammes. London: Basic Skills Agency.

Cabinet Office. (2009). The childcare strategy. London: Cabinet Office.Cassen, R., & Kingdon, K. (2007). Tackling low educational achievement. York: Joseph

Rowntree Foundation.Clark, C. (2009). Why fathers matter to their children’s literacy. London: National Literacy

Trust (NLT).Coleman, J. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of

Sociology, 94(Supplement), 95–120.Cox, T. (2000). Combating educational disadvantage: Meeting the needs of vulnerable chil-

dren. London: Falmer Press.David, M. (1993). Parents, gender and education reform. Cambridge: Polity Press.DfEE (Department for Education and Employment). (2001). Skills for life: The national strat-

egy for improving adult literacy and numeracy skills. London: Department for Educationand Employment.

DFES (Department for Education and Skills). (2007). Every parent matters. London: Depart-ment for Education and Skills.

Flouri, E., & Buchanan, A. (2004). Early father’s and mother’s involvement and child’s latereducational outcomes. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 141–153.

Goldman, R. (2005). Fathers’ involvement in their children’s education. London: NationalFamily and Parenting Institute (NFPI).

Hannon, P. (1999). Rhetoric and research in family literacy. British Educational ResearchJournal, 26(1), 121–138.

Hannon, P., & Bird, V. (2004). Family literacy in England: Theory, practice, research andpolicy. In B. Wasik (Ed.), Handbook of family literacy (pp. 23–37). London: LawrenceErlbaum.

Hannon, P., Morgan, A., & Nutbrown, C. (2006). Parents’ experiences of a family literacyprogramme. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 4(1), 19–44.

Hauari, H., & Hollingworth, K. (2009). Understanding fathering: Masculinity, diversity andchange. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.

Hayes, E., & Flannery, D. (Eds.). (2000). Women as learners: The significance of gender inadult learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

HEFCE (Higher Education Council for England). (2009). A guide to UK higher education.Bristol: Higher Education Council for England.

Hunt, S.A. (Ed.). (2009). Family trends: British families since the 1950s. London: Family andParenting Institute (FPI). Retrieved October 14, 2009, from http://www.familyandparent-ing.org/

ITM (Irish Traveller Movement). (2007). What is the Irish Traveller Movement (ITM)?Retrieved August 3, 2007, from http://www.itmtrav.ie/

Jenkins, R. (2002). Pierre Bourdieu (Key Sociologists). London: Routledge.Lamb, M., & Tamis-Lemonda, T. (2004). The role of the father: An introduction. In M. Lamb

(Ed.), The role of the father in child development (4th ed., pp. 1–32). New York: John Wiley.Macleod, F. (2008). Why fathers are not attracted to family learning groups? Early Child

Development and Care, 178(7&8), 773–783.McBride, B., & Rane, T. (2001). Father/male involvement in early childhood programs:

Training staff to work with men. In J. Fagan & A. Hawkins (Eds.), Clinical and educationinterventions with fathers (pp. 171–190). New York: Haworth.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

s/G

iron

a*ba

rri L

ib]

at 0

7:48

28

Oct

ober

201

4


McVeigh, T. (2009, November 29). Working fathers must learn to juggle time for their fami-lies. The Observer, p. 14.

Ministry of Education. (1999). Creating the future together: National minimum curriculum.Malta: Ministry of Education.

NIACE (National Institute of Adult Continuing Education). (2003). NIACE evaluation of LSCfunded family programmes. (Final Report). Leicestershire: NIACE.

OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). (1997). Literacy skillsfor the knowledge society. Canada: Human Resources Development Canada and Ministerresponsible for Statistics.

Ofsted (Office for Standards in Education). (2000). Family learning: A survey of currentpractice. (Ref no. HMI 220). London: Ofsted.

OPSI (Office of Public Sector Information). (2009). Welfare Reform Act. London: OPSI.Palm, G., & Fagan, J. (2008). Father involvement in early childhood programs: Review of the

literature. Early Child Development and Care, 178(7&8), 745–759.Pritchard Hughes, K. (1995). Feminist pedagogy and feminist epistemology: An overview.

International Journal of Lifelong Education, 14(3), 214–230.Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New

York: Touchstone.Radin, N., Williams, E., & Coggins, K. (1994). Paternal involvement in childbearing and the

school performance of native American children: An exploratory study. Family Perspectives,27, 375–391.

Rake, K. (2009). ‘Policies for families: Challenges and choices’, Introductory speech at the TheFamily and Parenting Institute’s Annual Conference: Families 2020 – The Big Challenge,November 30, in London. Retrieved June 2, 2010, from http://www.familyandparenting.org/Families2020

Rockhill, K. (1987). Gender, language and the politics of literacy. British Journal of Sociologyof Education, 8(2), 153–167.

Rose, A., & Atkin, C. (2006). Family literacy programmes: A comparative European perspec-tive of local and global. In A. Fragoso, E. Lucio-Villegra, & E. Kurantowicz (Eds.),Between global and local: Adult learning and development (pp. 129–140). Faro, Portugal:University of the Algarve.

Rose, A., & Atkin, C. (2007). Family literacy in Europe: Separate agendas? Compare: A Journalof Comparative Education, 37(5), 601–615.

Saracho, O. (2008). Fathers’ and young children’s literacy experiences. Early Child Develop-ment and Care, 178(7&8), 837–852.

Stile, S., & Ortiz, R. (1999). A model for involvement of fathers in literacy developmentwith young at-risk and exceptional children. Early Childhood Educational Journal,26(4), 221–224.

Taylor, D. (1983). Family literacy: Young children learning to read and write. New Hampshire:Heinemann Educational Books.

Thomas, A. (Ed.). (1998). Family learning in Canada: Profiles of effective practices.Welland, ON: Soleil.

Walkerdine, V., & Lucey, H. (1989). Democracy in the kitchen: Regulating mothers andsocialising daughters. London: Virago Press.

West, A., Noden, P., & Edge, A. (1998). Parental involvement in education in and out ofschool. British Educational Research Journal, 24(4), 461–484.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

s/G

iron

a*ba

rri L

ib]

at 0

7:48

28

Oct

ober

201

4

Documents

Family literacy programmes: a comparative study of gender roles in England, Ireland and Malta