Return-Path: <nifl-family@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id fBBLbo019974; Tue, 11 Dec 2001 16:37:50 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 16:37:50 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <c.1fc06102.2947d65a@aol.com> Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov Reply-To: nifl-family@literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-family@literacy.nifl.gov Sender: nifl-family@literacy.nifl.gov Precedence: bulk From: KathleenBombach@aol.com To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-family@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-FAMILY:503] Re: Barriers to Family Literacy X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Mailer: Unknown (No Version) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Status: O Content-Length: 1091 Lines: 4 A major barrier to participation is the need for employment and money. We usually do not identify employment as a barrier because employed parents generally opt out from the beginning and are not on our radar. But their families can receive the same benefits from family literacy--has anyone designed a program where the only (single parent) or both (two parent) parent(s) are employed? It goes against the construct of family literacy programs, where intensity and duration are important predictors of impact and so are built in from the beginning. I once developed an elementary school reading program that had far more impact than I ever imagined it would have. Our intent was to provide at four to eight hours of programming a week after school for children who were not reading (grades 2-6). Because so many parents signed their children up, it was reduced to two hours a week and included children from pre-school to 6th grade. I did not think that it would have much impact with that amount of dilution, but it surpassed what I anticipated from the 4-8 hour model. Kathleen Bombach
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Jan 18 2002 - 11:27:48 EST