Reflection:
Reflection
The ideas presented in this class have been transformative to me as I consider my future as a librarian. The issue of literacy, and specifically family literacy, really struck a chord with me. I believe that approaching the issue of literacy from a family perspective can have a transformative generational impact.
Literacy Theory:
I enjoyed reading about the way the theory of family literacy began from the inception of the term in the early 1980s by Denny Taylor. The rise in popularity of the programs in the 1990s was encouraging; however, studies in the early 2000s questioning the effectiveness of family literacy programming has impacted the implementation and funding of programs. I learned about what is considered the most essential components of an effective literacy program: an adult component, a child component, and a parent-child component, such as “basic skills education for adult family members to help them learn skills for the workplace; early childhood education for the children to bolster the skills they will need to succeed in school; parent education that enables adult family members to discuss parenting practices, nutrition, and the importance of literacy learning for their children; time for the adults and children to participate together in literacy activities that they can also do at home” (Holloway 2004).
Collection Development:
Learning about literacy resources was beneficial to help expand my knowledge about what was available on the topic of family literacy and to assist families, especially online. The “Start with a Book” website (www.startwithabook.org) had a wealth of information to help families keep up reading and make connections together during the summer. There were also two classic print resources, including Jim Trelease’s The Read-Aloud Handbook. It is in its seventh edition, and continues to work to inspire families to add reading aloud to their daily routine to help promote literacy and a love for reading. Highlights magazine also remains in print and is a great opportunity for shared family reading time and activities.
Interviews:
For me, the best part of the semester has been interviewing professionals in the literacy field. Because of their generosity and willingness to speak to me on the issue, I actually got to talk to five different professionals. When I first started reaching out to people who worked with family literacy, I contacted several organizations. At first, I only heard back from Dan Marcou of Hennepin County libraries. I was so grateful for the opportunity to speak to him, since I had admired his work since first reading about it in American Libraries magazine. Mr. Marcou’s literacy efforts within correctional facilities include both adult and family literacy programs. He also is passionate about helping inmates realize the range of free services that the library offers to help them with transition back into society after their release.
After I did the interview with Mr. Marcou for our assignment, several of the other professionals responded and agreed to talk with me. Even though our assignment was already turned in, my personal interest in the issue of family literacy, and especially family literacy outreach, compelled me to take advantage of the opportunity to talk to these innovative professionals. So I learned about many different types of family literacy programs that are available throughout the United States. Kim Noriega discussed the award-winning READ/San Diego program, which works through the library system to provide the three components of family literacy: adult education, child education, and parent-child activities together. Beth Rollingson talked to me about the Advocacy Outreach literacy program in Elgin, Texas. Her story of how they began by targeting homeless populations and women’s shelters, and created a family literacy program to serve the community of Elgin and its surrounding areas, was fascinating. Rollingson also provided a lot of information regarding the recent funding difficulties that have occurred as government and state organizations have cut back their financial support of family literacy. I also spoke with Johanna Hosking-Pulido regarding her work as the Parent Education Coordinator for the ASPIRE family literacy program in Austin. We discussed the link between family literacy and ESL programs, since many of their students qualify for both programs. I also spoke with Kallie Benes, who is a librarian at the Children’s Museum of Houston. The Children’s Museum has partnered with Houston Public Library and created FLIP (Family Literacy Involvement Program) kits. The FLIP kits can be checked out using a Houston public library card at 35 branches. The FLIP kits include family literacy activities based around the theme of a particular book. There are 201 different versions of the kit, and more than 2000 FLIP kits available for checkout (FLIP Kits 2015). I was truly inspired by the passion and creativity these individuals bring to their family literacy programming.
Funding:
After discussing the difficulties of funding with Beth Rollingson, especially since the cancelling of the government’s Even Start program (family literacy component of Head Start), I was glad to find a few grants that could be connected to family literacy programs. Through my research, I found the Wish You Well Foundation, the Dollar General Foundation Family Literacy Grants, the Sparks! Innovation Grants, and the Lois Lenski Foundation grant. The Lois Lenski grant no longer provides grants for public libraries - unless it is for a bookmobile program. Since one of the components of family literacy that I have researched includes a bookmobile-based program, this would be an option for funding that type of programming.
Literacy and Economics:
Since all of my professional and parenting experience has been in Texas, I was interested in starting to learn about what the literacy and economic situation is in Colorado. As with many areas of Texas, there is a group of counties, mostly in the Southeastern portion of the state, where widespread poverty is an issue. I investigated Otero County, Colorado. The percentage of children in poverty for 2009-2013 was 42.4% with 68% eligible for free lunch. One of the most interesting things about this county was that the high school graduation rate was 75.7%, which is above the state average. However, the Bachelor degree or higher rate was only 15.4%. So these children are graduating high school, but are not moving on to higher education that can lead to better-paying jobs. This made me wonder about the role of digital literacy in this area. As we have learned this semester, there are higher-level literacy components that are needed in our increasingly digital world. One way this particular area may need help is through programs that increase the skill level of its high school graduates to move onto higher education and more technically proficient jobs.
Observations:
For my observations this semester, I observed a traditional family storytime at the public library, a creative “Teddy Bear Camp” program at the public library, and listened to a lecture regarding the best practices when working with families, titled “The Impact of Family on Literacy Development” (Edwards 2013). While all three had their strengths and weaknesses, both programs and the lecture offered insight into ways to approach working with families in the area of family literacy.
A few other articles, papers, and lectures that I read during the course of our classwork had an impact on me as well. “Promoting Preschool Literacy: A Family Literacy Program for Homeless Mothers and Their Children” is a research article detailing a Family Literacy Program at a homeless shelter in an urban area of Ontario, Canada (Di Santo 2012). I also learned a lot from viewing the lecture “Unbarred: Strengthening Families Affected by Incarceration Conference – Library Outreach to Corrections Facilities: Promoting Reading, Reentry and Relationships” in Minneapolis, Minnesota. It can be found at www.danielmarcou.com/presentations. Another area that interested me was the “Providence Talks” program in Rhode Island, based on research that says that by the age of 3, low-income children have heard 30 million fewer words than their more affluent peers (Ludden 2013).
Personal Reflection:
The more I learn about family literacy and ways that programs can affect generational literacy issues, the more I am driven to find a way to incorporate this area into my future as a librarian. I have learned so much over this semester. I consider it a positive sign that I continue to research and look into family literacy programs and outreach even after the assignments are due and the homework completed. To me, that is a true indication that I have found an area of librarianship and literacy that I would like to continue to pursue once I graduate.
References:
Di Santo, Aurelia. (2012). “Promoting Preschool Literacy: A Family Literacy Program for Homeless Mothers and Their Children.” Childhood Education 88, no. 4.
Edwards, Patricia & Piazza, Susan. (2013). “The Impact of Family on Literacy Development: Convergence, controversy, and instructional implications”. You Tube. Posted by Global Conversations in Literacy Research Seminar Series. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hodO0kn8Kik
"FLIP Kits Family Literacy Involvement Program." (2015). Children's Museum of Houston. Accessed March 5, 2015. http://www.cmhouston.org/flip.
Highlights Magazine. (2015) Honesdale, Pennsylvania. Highlights Press.
Holloway, John H. (2004) "Family Literacy." Educational Leadership 61, no. 6: 88-89. Professional Development Collection, EBSCOhost (accessed January 22, 2015).
Ludden, Jennifer. (2013) "Closing The 'Word Gap' Between Rich And Poor." NPR. Accessed February 16, 2015. http://www.npr.org/2013/12/29/257922222/closing-the-word-gap-between-rich-and-poor.
Marcou, Daniel. (2015) "Presentations." Daniel Marcou. Accessed February 16, 2015. http://www.danielmarcou.com/presentations/.
"Start with a Book." (2015) Start with a Book. (Accessed February 6, 2015). http://www.startwithabook.org.
Trelease, Jim. (2013) The Read-aloud Handbook. 7th ed. New York: Penguin Press.
Class Presentation:
This is some of my classwork referenced above from throughout the semester regarding Family Literacy:
Literacy Theory:
Literacy Paper - Research
Link: Family Literacy
The term “Family Literacy” was
coined by researcher Denny Taylor in 1983 in describing the ways in which reading and
writing were embedded in the daily lives of families. Since then, the concept
of family literacy has developed as a method of exploring supportive literacy
development within a family environment (International Encyclopedia of Marriage
and Family 2003).
In his Educational Leadership article, “Family
Literacy”, author John Holloway evaluates the development of family literacy
programs, as well as key components to their successful implementation.
Holloway begins
by analyzing the National Center for Education Statistics survey which links
early reading proficiency with literacy activities in the home. The Early
Childhood Longitudinal Study measured home literacy activities and showed a
“positive relationship between a home literacy environment and children’s
reading knowledge and skills” (Holloway 2004, p. 88).
Holloway defines comprehensive
family literacy programs as having the following components: “basic skills
education for adult family members to help them learn skills for the workplace;
early childhood education for the children to bolster the skills they will need
to succeed in school; parent education that enables adult family members to
discuss parenting practices, nutrition, and the importance of literacy learning
for their children; time for the adults and children to participate together in
literacy activities that they can also do at home” (Holloway 2004, p. 89).
Evaluations of family literacy programs that
incorporate these elements show value for both the parent and child. Holloway references a 2000 study in which
participants’ benefits included “increased reading time spent with parents,
improved language skills, increased interest in books, and increased enjoyment
of reading” (Holloway 2004, p. 89). Parents also reported “increased
self-esteem, confidence, literary competence, parental efficacy, and interest
in their own education as well as a better understanding of the important role
that parents play in their children’s education” (Holloway 2004, p. 89).
The article
points out factors that can limit family literacy activities, including poverty,
race/ethnicity, education, and families with a home language other than
English. As a result, many formalized family literacy programs are targeting
disadvantaged families (Holloway 2004, p. 88). Holloway’s article focuses on
studies that support family literacy programs, and does not include any studies
that may question the value of such programs.
Both public and
school libraries are natural vehicles for Family Literacy programming. Public
libraries can incorporate family literacy programs within their library walls
through regularly offered in-house programming, or through outreach to
different locations, such as shelters, refugee centers, and prisons. School libraries can host parent-child family
literacy nights on a regular basis, collaborating with faculty, administration,
and support groups such as the PTO for funding and assistance.
References:
"Family Literacy." (2003). International Encyclopedia of Marriage and
Family.
Holloway, John H. (2004) "Family Literacy." Educational
Leadership 61, no. 6: 88-89. Professional Development Collection,
EBSCOhost (accessed January 22, 2015).
Collection Development:
Public
Library
Electronic
resource:
Summary:
The Start with a Book website is an excellent source for families exploring
literacy. It is a project of Reading Rockets, focusing on literacy ideas during
the summer, but its resources can really be used for families year round.
Category headings on the website include 24 Learning Themes, Summer Science,
Reading Aloud, Fluent Kids, Kids’ Books, and Literacy Resources. The website
feature topic lists of books by subject matter, reading adventure packs, parent
tips, craft ideas, field trip ideas, and author/illustrator interviews. It is
colorful and easy to navigate, truly overflowing with ideas for using literacy
to bond families.
Justifications:
Startwithabook.org is listed as an ALA Great Websites for Kids (sponsored by
the ALSC) and received positive reviews from Common Sense Media and the Parents
Choice Foundation. It also was the Silver Award 2012 winner in the Education
and Family/Parenting category in the W3 awards, which honors excellence on the
web.
Citation:
"Start with a Book." (2015). Start with a Book. Accessed February 6,
2015. http://www.startwithabook.org.
Print
Resource:
The
Read-Aloud Handbook: Seventh Edition by Jim Trelease
Summary:
The classic text on sharing literacy continues to inspire and explain why
reading aloud and literacy-rich environment is important in developing lifelong
readers and learners. The book has sold millions of copies, since the first
edition was released in 1982, and has been updated to tackle such issues as
standardized testing and digital learning. It is a source of information and
inspiration for parents, educators, librarians, caregivers, families, and
anyone interested in the issue of literacy.
Justification:
Core work; Key Author, positive reviews from The Washington Post, The Denver
Post, The Los Angeles Herald Examiner; recommended by the International Reading
Association; author Jim Trelease received the Jeremiah Ludington Memorial Award
for outstanding contribution to reading, presented by Educational
Paperback Publishers Association.
Citation:
Trelease, Jim. (2013). The Read-aloud Handbook. 7th ed. New York:
Penguin Press.
Serial
Resource:
Highlights
for Children magazine
Summary:
Highlights magazine continues to be a perennial favorite for introducing
reading and stories to families with children of all ages. Highlights is
a magazine that can be read independently by some readers, but many of the
articles, stories, and activities are easily shared among family members.
Stories are short and engaging, and easy to share, even for adults who may not
be confident in their own literacy skills. Early decoding strategies are
present in Rebus stories, as well as some non-verbal opportunities for family
discussion and fun through Hidden Pictures. Highlights magazine has been
in print for more than 65 years, which helps strengthen the nostalgia
connection between parent or caregiver and child - many adults remember enjoying
the magazine, and are excited to share the experience with their children. One
note, High Five magazine, a spin-off of Highlights for younger
children, has just begun its first bilingual Spanish version of the magazine: High
Five Bilingüe.
Justification:
Core work; Core literacy publisher; awards give by The Association of
Educational Publishers, iParenting Media, National Association for Gifted
Children, National Conference of Christians and Jews, National Parenting
Center, National Safety Council, Parents’ Choice, and Parent’s Guide to
Children’s Media Awards.
Citation:
Highlights Magazine. (2015). Honesdale,
Pennsylvania. Highlights Press.
Interview:
Family Literacy Outreach - Interview
with Dan Marcou
For this
assignment, I interviewed Mr. Dan Marcou, corrections librarian for Hennepin
County Public library system in Minnesota. He provides support at the Adult
Correctional Facility, which has inmates who have been convicted to short-term
sentences of less than one year.
Mr. Marcou’s literacy outreach
programs at the Adult Correctional Facility in Hennepin County include family literacy
programs, financial literacy and job search workshops, as well as other adult literacy
programs such as author events, poetry workshops, and writing workshops. He also serves as one of two librarians who
provide library services to inmates every week. Library Journal recognized Mr. Marcou as a 2009 Mover and Shaker
for his work promoting the library as a resource for people reentering society
after time in a corrections facility (Marcou 2015).
My particular area of interest was in Mr.
Marcou’s family literacy outreach program, Read
to Me, which I first read about in American
Libraries magazine (Cottrell 2014). Mr. Marcou got into Literacy Outreach
programs after jobs as a small town library director and a consumer health
librarian. He feels that literacy programs are a natural part of the work of
librarians. “You’re missing something big if you don’t become part of it.” Mr.
Marcou notes that especially with the non-traditional library users he
services, many have never been exposed to library services. “Many, many people
I’m serving are first time library users.”
When discussing factors that
contribute to illiteracy, Mr. Marcou says that watching his young son develop has
helped him realize how important literacy skills can be from early on in life.
Many of the residents he works with were never exposed to the five elements of
early literacy as children, and he believes that set them up for a more
difficult time in school and life. Mr. Marcou shares that “many of the
residents tell me they never read until they got to prison.” In his position as
the correctional librarian, one challenge he faces is finding books to appeal
to the lower-literacy readers. He would like to be able to give book talks on
more high interest, low literacy options for the adults in the facility, which
would interest all the inmates and promote discussion between readers of all
levels.
Mr. Marcou explained that in
Hennepin County’s Read to Me family
literacy program, incarcerated parents participate in a three one-hour long programs.
In the first session, six inmates join the community librarian, Mr. Marcou, and
a volunteer. The first goal is to get to know the residents and find out more
about their families and the age of their children. Then they begin teaching
the residents about basic early literacy skills, brain development, why reading
to children is important, how to make it interactive, model reading aloud, and
find out if the residents have any memories of books from when they were
children. Mr. Marcou notes that it is important to make the discussion feel
like a casual conversation, not a lecture. He points out that many of the
incarcerated were not successful in traditional school settings, and if they
feel like they are being lectured, it can turn them off to the program. In the
second session, the librarian again models reading a book aloud, and then has
residents model reading aloud as well, with such books as Animalia by Graeme Base. Then they talk to the residents about free
library programs for families, and show the Freedom Ticket video, which
highlights how library services can help with residents once they are released
from incarceration: http://www.hclib.org/about/outreach/freedom-ticket#freedom-ticket-video.
In the final session, the inmates pick out a book they’d like to share with
their children and record it on CD. The CD and book is then mailed to the
children’s caregivers, so they are able to listen and read along to a story
from their incarcerated parent. In the last session, the incarcerated parent is
also given a certificate for completion of the program. Mr. Marcou pointed out
that in a correctional facility, certificates are important. They can be used
to show a judge or a parole officer that the inmate has been using his or her
time effectively while in the facility.
The Read
to Me program is only one of many different literacy programs offered to
the incarcerated men and women. In addition to the Read to Me program, Marcou’s other adult literacy programs are
available to the entire incarcerated population. The creative writing and
poetry workshops expose inmates to different forms of expression through
writing. Marcou also conducts One Read
programs. In those, inmates read a selected book, have small group book
discussions, and then a program related to the book, such as a speaker,
performer, or the author of the book.
The programs offered to the inmates
are moving forward with technology; however, certain options are limited by the
security rules and regulations of the Adult Correctional Facility. For the Read to Me program, Mr. Marcou is
incorporating bringing iPads out to the facilities. With the iPads, the program
may be able to offer video recordings of the story telling as well as the audio
recording. It would also be a chance to introduce tablet and iPad skills to
inmates who may not be familiar with the device. In addition, librarians and
volunteers could use the iPad to reference book lists for kids, the library web
page, and to emphasize the services that the library offers such as family
programs and job resources. Mr. Marcou feels that the progress with technology
is moving along, as the Read to Me
program has gone from “cassette tapes to iPads in 8 ½ years.”
Marketing the different programs
that the library offers is crucial, Mr. Marcou believes. He does “non-stop
marketing in every single way that I can.” Mr. Marcou created the “Going Home”
guide that goes to anyone who is leaving the facility. He uses flyers, posters,
and bookmarks to advertise programs and services. “I think that no matter where
you’re at in the library world, marketing is key,” Mr. Marcou says. He believes
it is especially important to market to non-traditional library users, who
usually do not know all of the programs that the library offers. The literacy
and skills programs within the facility, such as Read to Me, are offered to residents of both the men and women’s
sections, in addition to their weekly library visit.
Due to facility regulations, the
volunteers Mr. Marcou uses for his programming are recruited and trained by the
correctional facility itself. Fortunately, he says, the volunteers that he
works with are committed to the mission of the library outreach and there has
been a low turnover rate of volunteers.
While the weekly library service
visits are part of the library budget, all the additional outreach programming
is funded by the Friends of Hennepin County Library foundation. Mr. Marcou says
he has been very fortunate to have a group that so fully supports the outreach
mission of the programs offered at the correctional facility. If money was not
a factor, Mr. Marcou says there are several things he’d like to do. For the
basic library services, he would like to be able to go out to the correctional facilities
more than once a week. The librarians usually respond to 1000 requests at their
visits, so another staff member would also be a big help. For outreach programming,
he’d really love to be able to offer more for the caregivers who are raising
the children while the parent is incarcerated. He’d also like to do more
extensive follow-up to see how residents are using what they’ve learned about
the library resources and literacy after they are released.
In fact, Mr. Marcou says he’s “hard
core about evaluating.” Every program he does gets evaluated. For the Read to Me program, inmates are given
pre-tests and post-tests. His results have shown that “after just three
conversations about literacy, participants are inspired to read to their kids
and make that commitment to literacy.”
(For further evaluation results, see www.danielmarcou.com under
presentations/powerpoints) In addition, facilitators complete a survey, and
caregivers in the home complete a survey. If the caregivers send back the
survey, they receive additional books sent to them.
Mr. Marcou’s advice for new
librarians is to “get to know the people you are going to serve”. He says its
“best to have a conversation about what they need and want, don’t assume you
know what is best for them.” In graduate school programs, Mr. Marcou would like
to see classes that are teaching about serving non-traditional library users.
He would recommend having a practicum or class focused on serving homebound
patrons, going into homeless shelters, or visiting a correctional facility.
In order to get these types of
outreach programs started, Mr. Marcou says to start by asking, “How can we
serve people who aren’t coming into our library?” There needs to be motivation
for this type of program, and it’s important to remember that the outreach
programming they do at Hennepin County is scalable. If a library isn’t ready to
take on a long-term weekly or monthly program, maybe try a “one-shot” version
of the program. Perhaps do a one-time family literacy workshop before the
holidays for the incarcerated adult to record and send home a book to their
children as a gift. In order to work with a correctional facility, Mr. Marcou
recommends you focus on ways your program could help reduce recidivism and
promote public safety. According to Mr. Marcou, this type of outreach requires
passion and creativity. If a local corrections facility does not want to
cooperate, reach out to parole officers, who may be interested in a similar
program for parolee families.
As one of the final discussion
points, Mr. Marcou talked about some of the moments that challenged and
inspired his idea of what a correctional librarian could accomplish. The correctional
facility where he works houses short-term sentence offenders, and sometimes he
sees inmates be released, only to return. He even recalled one experience when
a father introduced him to his adult son; both men were serving time in the
facility. “When I started being a corrections librarian, our focus was on
recreational reading. And for me, six months into the job, seeing people come
back [into the correctional facility] was just like a kick in the face. We’ve
got to do more than bring out the latest John Grisham. Libraries were huge in
my life, and I thought that they could make a difference. I think that’s the
number one hardest thing about this job, seeing good people end up back inside…
It’s a very tough but rewarding area of librarianship.”
My conversation with Mr. Marcou was
inspirational and motivational, and I am grateful for his time. I appreciated
his insight and the many ways he is reaching out beyond the library walls to
impact an underserved family community.
Works Cited
Cottrell, Megan. 2014.
"Reading on the Inside." American Libraries 45, no. 11/12:
46-49.
Hennepin County Library. 2015. "Freedom
Ticket." Accessed February 16, 2015. http://www.hclib.org/about/outreach/freedom-ticket#freedom-ticket-video.
Hennepin County Library. 2015. “Outreach
Services.” Accessed February 16, 2015. http://www.hclib.org/about/outreach.
Marcou, Daniel. 2015. "Hey
There!" Daniel Marcou. Accessed February 17, 2015. http://www.Mr. Marcouielmarcou.com.
Marcou, Daniel. 2015. Telephone interview by author.
Funding:
Wish You Well Foundation
The Wish You
Well Foundation’s mission is, “Supporting family literacy in the United States
by fostering and promoting the development and expansion of new and existing
literacy and educational programs”.
Board meets
four times per year, upon funding request the organization will be notified
which meeting the request will be reviewed and funding voted on by the Board.
The Wish You
Well Foundation does not fund requests for:
- Donations to individuals
- Donations for candidates of
political office
- Donations for building or
construction projects
- Donations for debt reduction or
capital campaigns
- Donations for graduate or post-graduate research
Requests
must come from an Internal Revenue Service recognized 501 (c) (3) non-profit
organization, which could be satisfied through a “Friends of the Library” program.
The Wish You Well Foundation requests organizations receiving donations to
submit a follow up report to the Foundation no later than one year after
receipt of funding. Reports should include general project outcomes and results
as well as any supplemental materials such as event photographs, printed
materials, newsletters, etc.
Dollar General Foundation Family
Literacy Grants
Dollar
General Foundation
Eligibility:
· A qualified 501(c)(3) organization
with a valid IRS tax ID
· A K-12 Private or Public School
· A College or University
· A Public Library
Family
Literacy Grants provide funding to family literacy service providers.
Organizations applying for funding must have the following three components:
· Adult Education Instruction
· Children's Education
· Parent and Child Together Time (PACT)
Deadline: 02-26-2015
Award Max: $3,000.00
Must be in a
state in which Dollar General operates and your organization must be within 20
miles of a Dollar General store. You also must not have received funding for
the previous two consecutive years to be eligible for a grant this year.
THE LLCF
LIBRARY GRANT PROGRAM
The Lois
Lenski Covey Foundation
The Lois
Lenski Covey Foundation annually awards grants to libraries and (other institutions
that operate a library) for purchasing books published for young people
preschool through grade 8. School libraries, non-traditional libraries operated
by charitable [501(c)(3)] and other non-taxable agencies, and bookmobile
programs are eligible. The Foundation provides grants to libraries or
organizations that serve economically or socially at-risk children, have
limited book budgets, and demonstrate real need. The library grant program
provides grants for purchasing children’s fiction or non-fiction books.
School library, bookmobile, or non-traditional libraries (501(c)(3)].
Must have been in operation for at least three years. Important note: This
grant no longer gives to public libraries, but will provide grants to a public
library bookmobile program. Family literacy outreach through bookmobiles could
satisfy the requirements of this grant, and is definitely one of my areas of
interest for outreach.
Grant amount $500-3000
Grant submission deadline, May 29th, 2015.
Sparks!
Ignition Grants for Libraries
http://www.imls.gov/notice_of_funding_opportunity_fy_2015_sparks_ignition_grants_for_libraries.aspx
|
Deadline:
|
February
02, 2015
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Grant
Amount:
|
$10,000 to
$25,000
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Grant
Period:
|
Up to one
year
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Cost Share
Requirement:
|
No
matching requirements
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Eligibility:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Libraries
that fulfill the general
criteria for libraries may apply. In addition, institutions of
higher education, including public and nonprofit universities, are eligible.
This type of grant could be used to fund an innovative family literacy
outreach program.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Program
Overview:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Sparks!
Ignition Grants for Libraries are a special funding opportunity within the
IMLS National Leadership Grants for Libraries program. These small grants
encourage libraries and archives to test and evaluate specific innovations in
the ways they operate and the services they provide. Sparks Grants support
the deployment, testing, and evaluation of promising and groundbreaking new
tools, products, services, or organizational practices. You may propose
activities or approaches that involve risk, as long as the risk is balanced
by significant potential for improvement in the ways libraries and museums
serve their communities.
Successful proposals will address problems, challenges, or needs of broad relevance to libraries and/or archives. A proposed project should test a specific, innovative response to the identified problem and present a plan to make the findings widely and openly accessible. To maximize the public benefit from federal investments in these grants, the Sparks! program will fund only projects with the following characteristics: Broad Potential Impact—You should identify a specific problem or need that is relevant to many libraries and/or archives and propose a testable and measurable solution. Proposals must demonstrate a thorough understanding of current issues and practices in the project’s focus area and discuss its potential impact within libraries and/or archives. Proposed innovations should be widely adoptable or adaptable. Significant Innovation—The proposed solution to the identified problem must offer strong potential for non-incremental, significant advancement in the operation of libraries and/or archives. You must explain how the proposed activity differs from current practices or takes advantage of an unexplored opportunity, and the potential benefit to be gained by this innovation.
Literacy and Economics:
I chose Colorado to
investigate because we just found out this month that there is a very good
chance we will be transferred to Colorado this summer! So I thought I should
start learning about the programs of my (most likely) future home state. There
are two counties that are almost interchangeable in the poorest county
category, depending on which statistics you look at: Otero County and Crowley
County. In fact, many articles list them together as Otero/Crowley County. They
are adjacent to each other. Another county adjacent to them, Bent County, is
also one of the poorest. So this particular area in Southeast Colorado is the
poorest section of the state. I focused my statistic research on Otero County.
There are literacy
programs available in Otero County. They include Colorado Reads, Reach Out and
Read Colorado, Head Start, and a family literacy program that I was unfamiliar
with called Motheread/Fatheread Colorado. This program tries to “to augment
children’s school readiness and optimize their literacy skills and ongoing
success in school by helping to create a reading environment in the home,
increasing the frequency and quality of being read to by parents, childcare
providers and early childhood educators, who may have low literacy skills
themselves” (“Motheread/Fatheread” 2010). It targets children third grade and
below, in an effort to improve third grade literacy scores in particular.
The literacy rates in
Otero County were worse than the state rate: 16% vs 10% lack basic literacy
skills. Of the programs I found, most all were targeted toward Emergent and
Family literacy, I did not find many Adult Literacy program, most of the ones I
found were volunteer run programs sponsored by local churches or Catholic
Charities. Otero County does have a 40% Hispanic population, so ESL classes may
be part of the Adult Literacy programs offered.
Interestingly, the
high school graduation rate is at 75.7%, which is actually higher than the
overall state rate of 74%. So the residents of Otero County are finishing high
school at a positive rate; however, the rate of residents with a Bachelor’s
degree or higher is only 15.4%. Overall, the state of Colorado has 37% of
people with a Bachelor degree or higher. So most of the residents of Otero
County are not continuing on with higher education. The county does have Otero
Junior College, which is a two-year program that offers certification programs
for entry-level positions or is meant to help students to transfer into a
four-year University degree plan.
It was very
interesting to examine the poverty issue and how it affects the state of
Colorado, especially since I’m unfamiliar with the area. I was glad to see some
Family Literacy programs in the state, but as with poor counties throughout the
country, it seems many more are needed.
Child Development
Services: Head Start. (2015). Retrieved February 16, 2015, from http://cds.ojc.edu/headstart.html
Colorado Association
of Libraries. (2015). Retrieved February 16, 2015, from http://www.cal-webs.org
Observations:
Literacy Observation
1: Traditional Family Literacy Program
For my traditional Family Literacy
Program observation, I attended the Family Storytime at the George Memorial
Branch of the Fort Bend County Library system. The program is held on Saturday
mornings at 10 am, and is advertised on the library calendar as a Family
Storytime with stories and activities for the whole family.
The librarian, Blair Greene, began
by welcoming us to the new puppet theater program room designed for smaller
programs. Usually the weekday storytime programs are held in the main meeting
room, but demands for space prompted the Youth Department to revitalize a
smaller program space to offer the library more room options for programming.
The theme of the storytime was
“Sweet Stuff”. The librarian announced at the beginning of the program that
because we were in a new room, the new projector was not working yet, so none
of the songs or rhymes would be able to be displayed on the screen. She did
play music from a laptop for the action songs.
There were 14 children, ranging in
ages from 5 months to 9 years, and 8 adults in attendance. Ms. Greene reminded
us of the storytime rules, which included to silence cell phones and encouraged
parents to participate with their children.
The program began with a morning
stretching warm-up, followed by the “Shake Your Sillies Out” song. After this,
the librarian highlighted the literacy skill focus of the day, which was Play.
She encouraged parents to play word games with their children when out at the
grocery store, such as “bring me the fruit that begins with the letter B.”
The first book of the storytime was
a big book version of If You Give a Pig a
Pancake by Laura Numeroff and Felicia Bond. Next, we did a flannel board
action rhyme where we counted ice cream cones. Ms. Greene encouraged parents to
play number games with their kids as well. Following the flannel board was an
action rhyme about bananas. Since Ms. Greene didn’t have the capabilities to
show the words on the screen, she modeled repeating the rhyme back to her. This
was very effective for this age group in particular, since many of toddlers and
preschoolers could not have read the screen even if it was available, and the
parents could also still follow along by repeating.
The second book was A Birthday for Cow written and
illustrated Jan Thomas. Ms. Greene asked the children questions about the story
as she read. Following that, the kids were able to pick out egg shakers for the
next action song. Parents were encouraged to get an egg shaker as well. We then
did a repeat action song called “We’re going to the market”. The final story
was The Cow Loves Cookies by Karma
Wilson and Marcellus Hall, followed by a repeat action rhyme “I’m a Little
Apple.”
Next it was time for the puppet
show. Ms. Greene was joined by another librarian for a version of “Who Took the
Cookies From the Cookie Jar.” We then did a craft, coloring an ice cream cone
and gluing it together. At the end, the kids got a hand stamp for
participating.
Since this was a family storytime,
I was curious how it would compare to the other weekday storytimes I have
attended. One thing I noticed was that every parent participated. Sometimes in
other storytimes, parents sit along the back wall and do not necessarily take
part, so I was really glad to see such a high level of involvement with the
program. Also, there were more Dads (4 out of the 8 adults) than I usually see
at the regular storytime, which was nice as well. One unique aspect about the
Fort Bend County Library system is the diversity of participants at its
programming, and we had a diverse mix of ethnicities attending the family
storytime as well.
To evaluate the program, the
librarian did head counts using a handheld clicker of the number of adults and
children attending. The number of guests was then recorded in a binder, where
attendance is tracked for all programs the library offers. That was the only
evaluation tool used for this particular storytime.
There were no books on display in
the program room for parents or children to look through or check out, and I
thought that would have been a nice addition to highlight the print literacy
aspect of the storytime. Usually most of the library programs I’ve attended at
George Memorial in the past have both a librarian and an assistant. Ms. Greene was without an assistant until the
puppet show, and it would have been useful if she would have had someone to
help her lead the songs and rhymes. The craft was simplistic, but perhaps that
was to account for the fact that this storytime has different ranges in ages.
Most of the 14 children were toddlers or preschoolers, but there were four
elementary-aged kids as well.
Ms. Greene did highlight early literacy skills
to the parents, which she said are usually included on one of the slides, and
would have been seen if the projector had been working. Many of the attendees regularly attended this
particular family program and were familiar with the format. Ms. Greene also
highlighted upcoming programs at the library, including a Dragon Dancing event
the following day in recognition of Chinese New Year. Overall, it was a
straightforward and traditional family storytime program, and the parents and
children seemed satisfied and had a good time.
Program Evaluation #2
For my non-traditional library evaluation, I evaluated
a new weeklong program at the University Branch of the Fort Bend County Library
system, Teddy Bear Camp. The program was held at the same time as local
schools’ spring break, March 9 - March 14th.
For the program, children of all ages were invited to
bring one of their stuffed animals for a week of overnight camp at the library.
Starting on Monday, the children could bring their stuffed animal to the Youth
Services desk for check-in. This included creating a tag for each animal with
the animal’s name, the child’s name, the parent’s name, an email address, and
phone number. Part of the tag went home with the child, part was filed in a
Camper Info box, and another part of the tag was tied with yarn around the
stuffed animal for identification. The kids were then able to put the stuffed
animals on the camp bus (a cart decorated like a bus - with, you guessed it,
the Pigeon driving it). Once the “camper” was situated, the librarian wheeled
the camper back to the library workroom. The camp started on Monday, but librarians
accepted campers to join the program all week.
Each day, Miss Wendy, the camp counselor, would email
the families the “postcards from camp”, which were pictures of the activities
that the campers had done each day at the library. At the end of the week, the
kids were invited to a party in the library’s small gathering room to pick up
their camper. At the pick-up, the children and parents filled out an evaluation
form, picked up their camper, signed a photo release if they were willing, had
their picture taken with their camper, and received a certificate. They also
were treated to snacks of Teddy Grahams, Smores snacks, or pretzel sticks in
little bags that they could take home with them. A slide show of all the
pictures and activities of the campers played on the wall during the pick-up
party.
According to the youth librarians, the purpose of the
program was to help families think about the library as a fun place to go over
spring break. Families made a special trip to the library at least twice that
week for the program, once to drop off the camper and another to pick them up.
When the librarians checked in the campers, they made sure to mention the other
regularly scheduled programs going on that week in the library, including story
times and a school-age craft time. The librarians also created a special camp
display, featuring books about camping that were available for checkout. It was
also a way to highlight all the different activities and resources available at
the library using fun pictures.
Advertising for the program was done through the
library’s website, which had a list of spring break programs at the county’s
different branches. There was also a display in the Youth Programs department
advertising the program. At first, the librarians were concerned that they did
not have enough advertising and wondered how many people would participate in
the program. However, they ended up getting 75 “campers” at the program by
week’s end, which was more than they expected.
The program presented a few challenges that the
counselors had not anticipated. The large number of campers led to more of a
time commitment to the program than originally planned by the librarians.
Animals were stored in large boxes in the locked storage closet in the Youth
Workroom. Each morning, before the library opened, two or three of the youth
services librarians/paraprofessionals would arrive and set the stage for the
pictures. With more than 70 stuffed animals, the staging and setup/takedown
process took longer than expected. In addition, one of the stuffed animals
started losing its stuffing due to a loose seam. The librarians did not believe
that it had happened while they were responsible for the animal, as it was most
likely a previous tear. However, Wendy decided to sew a few stitches in to
assure that the animal didn’t lose anymore of its stuffing. She then wrapped
the animal with a little bandage, and attached a note saying the camper had to
visit the camp nurse, but was all fixed up. Fortunately in this situation, the
parent and child were grateful for the extra attention to the animal. However,
the librarians discussed the fact that not all parents may be as understanding
in the future. They recommended that the librarian checking in the stuffed
animal to camp give it a quick lookover to make sure there is not any damage.
If there is, they suggested showing the parent and deciding then if they want
to librarian to repair it if possible, or perhaps recommend bringing a
different stuffed animal to the camp. Also, a week after the program, there
were still 7 “campers” who had not yet been picked up.
To evaluate the program, the librarians took a “head
count” of the campers, which ended up being 75 people registered for the
program. At the camper pick up party, they also had an evaluation form. The
form asked on how the participant learned about the program (website, staff,
display, word of mouth, other) and any comments or suggestions about the
program. According to the librarians, many patrons shared feedback both
verbally and on the form about how much they enjoyed the program. One family
had even created a scrapbook of the picture postcards. The Youth Services Director of the library
system was so impressed by the program that she encouraged the librarians to
submit the idea to a professional library magazine or journal. Overall,
especially for a first-time program, it was a fun and unique idea enjoyed by
many families.
Literacy
Observation #3 - Seminar
For my seminar
observation, I watched a webinar hosted by Global Conversations in Literacy
Research (GCLR). The purpose of GCLR is to host an “online
series of one-hour web seminars that feature leading and
internationally-recognized scholars in the field of literacy” (GCLR 2010). The
title of the lecture was “The Impact of Family on Literacy Development:
Convergence, Controversy, and Instructional Implications” and it was presented
by Dr. Patricia Edwards of Michigan State University and Dr. Susan Piazza of
Western Michigan University. Both women have an extensive background in family
literacy. The lecture was originally presented as a live webinar on February
17, 2013, and published online on February 24, 2014.
I chose this
webinar because of my focus on Family Literacy and outreach programs. According
to the description of the lecture, the speakers would “discuss
the importance of the family in the literacy support of children's learning… Even
though there is general agreement within the research community regarding the
importance of the family, there is disagreement among researchers about how to
work with families” (Edwards and Piazza 2013). Since
I would like to work directly with families in regards to literacy, I thought
it would be advantageous to learn different types of approaches to
collaborating with families.
The
lecture began with an introduction of the presenters. The goal of the lecture
was to present a literature study of the various methods that have historically
been used to work with family literacy programs. The seminar featured slides
that the audience could view while the professors spoke. The lecturers
alternated covering material that was featured on the slides. Dr. Edwards began
by discussing theories based on Accommodation. Several studies were highlighted
as supporting this type of interaction, which focuses on the concept that
literacy begins in homes, rather than schools. The lecturers also accompanied
the slides with audio clips from children, parents, and teachers throughout the
seminar.
The
next area of interaction was based on Incorporation. In this method, the focus
is on learning from the families themselves to create curriculum and
programming from multiple ethnic perspectives. The third strategy was Adaption.
Of the three methods, Edwards said this strategy has met with the most
controversy, due to its focus on helping other cultures adapt to the practices
of their new country, without as much attention on the country of origin.
Of
all the programs they researched, Edwards and Piazza felt one program
successfully combined the three theories. They recommended the program Parents
as Literacy Supporters (PALS) and PALS in Immigrant Communities (IPALS),
developed by Dr. Jim Anderson and Fiona Morrison. Piazza said she was impressed
with “how respectful and responsive this program is to the social and cultural
context of each community they work in. Yet it seems that most families do seek
out the knowledge and skills needed to support their children in the new
country” (Edwards and Piazza 2013).
As
a result of their research, Edwards and Piazza recommended a convergence of all
three theories to one integrated model of approach toward family literacy. They
call this model Culturally Responsive Family Engagement, and say it combines
the best aspects of the original three strategies. The professors then wrapped
up the lecture by answering two questions that had been asked during the
seminar in the online chat box.
For
evaluation methods of the seminar, the GCLR team took several approaches. At
the beginning of the lecture, they encouraged participants to “Like” them on
Facebook. They also asked participants to highlight on an interactive world map
where they were geographically. There was also a chat box where people participants
could ask questions and post comments during the live seminar. The video of the
lecture was later posted online, which offered another method of evaluation.
Through YouTube, they could track the number of views of the lecture, as well
as the number of people who followed their YouTube channel. In addition, people
who accessed the archived webinars through the GCLR website were asked to
participate in a survey regarding their web practices and access to online
seminars.
Overall,
I found the research and information in this seminar interesting. I had not considered
all the different research in the area of interacting with families for
literacy programming. The lecture was academic in nature, and while it held my
interest, it had a more limited audience appeal. The biggest detractors for the
seminar were the technical difficulties. Several times during the seminar, the presenters
had microphone and video difficulties. It was very difficult to hear the audio
clips, and required going back and updating settings on my computer. That was
disappointing, because I felt those offered the real-life, and less clinical,
perspective that the presentation was missing. Despite the technical
difficulties, I will be interested in checking out the other offerings by GCLR,
since I believe there will be many topics that will interest me in the field of
literacy.
References:
Edwards,
Patricia & Piazza, Susan. (2013). “The Impact of Family on Literacy
Development: Convergence, controversy, and instructional implications”. You
Tube. Posted by Global Conversations in Literacy Research Seminar Series. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hodO0kn8Kik
Global
Conversations in Literacy Research - GCLR. (2010). “Welcome to Global Conversations
in Literacy Research”. https://globalconversationsinliteracy.wordpress.com
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
No comments:
Post a Comment