National Strategy for Early Literacyen.copian.ca/library/research/nsel/report/report.pdfThe present initiative to create a pan-Canadian National Strategy for Early Literacy (NSEL)

National Strategy for Early Literacy

Report and Recommendations

Prepared by

The Canadian Language and Literacy Research Network

2 NationalStrategyforEarlyLiteracy•Report and Recommendations

Report and Recommendations•NationalStrategyforEarlyLiteracy 3

Acknowledgements

Thisprojectreflectsthejointcontributionsofmanydedicatedindividuals,includingtheauthorsofthepolicyresearchpapers,themembersofthepanelsattheeightNSELHearings,andthosewhomadewrittenororalsubmissionstotheHearingprocess.Thispublicconsultationalloweddirectexchangeofknowledgeandviewpointsamongtheresearch,policy,professional,andadvocacysectors.

National Advisory Committee: KimCrockatt,Executive Director, Nunavut Literacy CouncilMargaretEaton,President, ABC CanadaLeonaGadsby,Director of Community and Adult Literacy, 2010 Legacies NowRobyHochman,Vice President, Ontario Branch of the International Dyslexia AssociationD.G.Jamieson,CEO and Scientific Director, CLLRNet (Chair)RobinMcMillan,Senior Consultant, Canadian Child Care FederationPennyMilton,Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Education AssociationSallyShearman,Past President, Ontario Branch of the International Dyslexia AssociationCharlesUngerleider,Director of Research and Knowledge Mobilization, CCLDorettaWilson,Executive Director, Society for Quality Education

Past Members: DanielButeau,Coordinator Elementary Secondary Division, Council of Ministers of Education

MargoFauchon,Fédération canadienne pour l’alphabétisation en françaisPeterHicks,Executive Director, Strategic Analysis, Audit and Evaluation Branch, HRSDCAprilKalyniuk,Chair of Member Council, Canadian Child Care Federation, Lord Roberts Preschool

Project Staff: JerenBalayeva,Manager, Knowledge Group, CLLRNet (Project Coordinator)RobynGoldberg,Research Assistant, CLLRNetStaceyGreenberg,Former Research Assistant, CLLRNetK.ChrisKirby, Manager of Technical Services, CLLRNetRachaelMillard,Research Assistant, CLLRNetJackieReid,Research Assistant, CLLRNetAnnMarieSchenk,Executive Assistant, CLLRNetMelanieSlade,Former Communications Officer, CLLRNet JenniferStarcok,Managing Director, CLLRNet

Design/Layout: PhilipWong,Si Design Communication Inc.

Copyeditor: SimoneGraham,Graham Communication Strategies

Translator: AllLanguagesLtd.

©2009CanadianLanguageandLiteracyResearchNetwork

Reportisavailableonlineathttp://docs.cllrnet.ca/NSEL/finalReport.pdf

Primary Blue: pantone 648 CMYK: 100, 88, 38, 34Primary Orange: Pantone 151 CMYK: 0, 51, 98, 0

Secondary Red: Pantone 710Secondary Orange: Pantone 7408CSecondary Blue: Pantone 631Secondary Green: Pantone 376


Table of Contents

Executive Summary................................................................................................................................... 5

Introduction................................................................................................................................................ 7

Whyisthisstrategyneeded?................................................................................................................. 7

Responsibilityforprogramsimpactingliteracydevelopment................................................................... 8

NationalStrategyforEarlyLiteracyProcess............................................................................................. 9

Concepts................................................................................................................................................... 11

Definitionsofliteracy............................................................................................................................ 11

Measurementofliteracy....................................................................................................................... 11

Importanceofearlylanguageandliteracyenvironment........................................................................ 12

The early literacy challenge in Canada................................................................................................... 13

ExtentoflowliteracyinCanada........................................................................................................... 13

Impactoflowliteracy........................................................................................................................... 14

Literacydriveseconomicgrowth.................................................................................................... 15

Literacydriveslabourmarketoutcomes.......................................................................................... 15

Literacydrivesproductivitygrowthandinnovationinfirms............................................................. 15

Literacyincreasestheproductivityoftaxinvestmentsforhealthandeducation.............................. 15

Literacyenablesparticipationinthedemocraticprocessandsocialengagement............................. 16

Literacywillbecomemoreimportantinthefuture......................................................................... 16

Barriers to literacy development in Canada.......................................................................................... 17

Systemicbarrierstosuccessfulliteracyoutcomes.................................................................................. 17

Barriersforindividuals.......................................................................................................................... 19

Interventions to improve literacy........................................................................................................... 23

Familyliteracyinterventions.................................................................................................................. 24

Interventionsinearlylearning/childcaresettings................................................................................... 27

Classroominstructionandinterventions............................................................................................... 30

Communityinterventions..................................................................................................................... 34

Clinicalinterventions............................................................................................................................ 36

Conclusions............................................................................................................................................... 37

Recommendations................................................................................................................................... 38

References................................................................................................................................................ 43

Appendices............................................................................................................................................... 49


Literacyimpactsallaspectsofmodernlife.Forindividuals,itisthefoundationforacademic,financial,andlifesuccess;fornations,itiskeytoahealthydemocracyandaflourishingeconomy.Adultswithpoorliteracyskillsarelesssuccessfulinschool,workless,andareunemployedlonger.Theyrequiremoresocialassistanceandaremorefrequentlyinpoorerhealth.Moreover,itisclearthattheeconomicandsocialimportanceofliteracyskillsisincreasingasournationandworkforcefaceincreasedglobalcompetition.

Forthesereasons,itisofparticularconcernthatwell-designednationalstudies(e.g.,theInternationalAdultLiteracyandSkillsSurvey)haveestablishedthatatleast42%ofCanadianadultslacktheliteracyskillsneededtosucceedinCanadatoday.Moreover,repeatedsurveyshaveshownthatthesestatisticshavenotimprovedformorethanadecade.

ImprovingtheliteracyskillsofCanadiansisthusfundamentaltonumerouselementsofpublicpolicy:

1. Literacyskillsdriveeconomicgrowth,labourmarketoutcomes,productivitygrowthandinnovationinfirms.

2. Literacyincreasesthereturnonpublicinvestmentsineducationandhealth.

3. Literacyisimportantforparticipationinthedemocraticprocessandforsocialengagement.

ImprovingtheliteracyskillsofCanadianswouldcarryextraordinaryvalue.StudiesbyStatisticsCanada,theUniversityofOttawa,andtheTorontoDominionBankhavecalculatedthatreducingthepercentageofCanadianswhohavelowliteracyskillsbyjust1%(from42%ofthepopulationto41%)wouldincreaselabourproductivityby2.5%andCanada’sannualGrossDomesticProduct(GDP)by1.5%perperson,leadingtoapermanentincreaseof$18billion/yearinCanada’sGDP.

Becausethefoundationforliteracyskillsislaidinchildhood,andthebenefitsfromimprovedliteracyaccrueoveralifetime,itisimportanttofocusfirstonimprovingtheliteracyskillsofCanada’schildrenandyouth.Experiencesinthefamily,inearlylearningenvironments,andintheelementaryschoolyearshaveimportantconsequencesforchildren’slong-termdevelopment.Unfortunately,whilethereisgrowingconcernovertheneedtoimproveearlyliteracyskills,andincreaseawarenessofthecostsassociatedwithlowliteracy,Canadahaslackedastrategyforactiononthisissue.Thisreportreviewswhatcanbe–andisbeing–donetoimproveliteracyskilloutcomesforCanadianchildrenandyouth,frombirththroughage16.

Thepresentinitiativetocreateapan-CanadianNational Strategy for Early Literacy (NSEL)hasinvolved:

1. Determiningwhatisknownandnotknownaboutimprovingearlyliteracyoutcomes.

2. Preparingpolicyresearchpaperstosummarizetheavailableevidenceinkeyareas.

3. Conductinganationalpublicconsultationtoobtainadviceonwhatcanandshouldbedonetoimproveliteracyoutcomes.Thisstepinvolvedthesolicitationofwrittenbriefs,followedbypublichearingsineightmajorcitiesacrossCanada.

4. Synthesizingandevaluatingsubmissions,policyresearchpapers,presentationsanddiscussionatpublichearings,andotherrelevantmaterials,leadingtothepresentdocument.

Executive Summary


Throughthisprocess,anumberofsystemicandindividualbarrierstosuccessfulliteracyoutcomesforCanada’schildrenandyouthwereidentified.Importantsystemicbarriersinclude:

1. TheinabilityofmanyCanadianchildrentoaccesshigh-qualityearlychildhoodeducationandcareprograms.Accesstendstobeaparticularchallengeforthosechildrenwhoaremostvulnerabletopoorliteracyoutcomesbecausetheylackadequatesupportsthroughtheirhomeandneighbourhoodenvironments.

2. TheinabilityofmanyCanadianchildrentoaccesslibraries,andothersupportingprogramsandservices,againwithaccesschallengesincreasingformanyofthemostvulnerableCanadianchildren.

3. TheinabilityofmanyCanadianschoolstoidentifyanddealeffectivelywithchildrenwhoalreadylagbehindtheirpeerswhentheyfirstenterschool.

4. Theneedtoimproveteacherpreparationintheareaofreadingdevelopmentandreadinginstruction,andtoimprovethequalityofliteracy-relatedinstructioninCanadianclassrooms.

Fortunately,itisclearthatmostliteracychallengescanbepreventedthroughanappropriatemixof:1)effectiveinstruction;2)earlylearningexperience;3)systematicassessments(toidentifyanychildrenwhoexperiencedifficultyatanearlyage);and4)appropriateintervention.ManyinternationalandCanadianprogramshavebeenimplementedinattemptstoimproveearlyliteracyskillsusingvariousversionsofthisgeneralapproach.Themostpromisingoftheseprogramsarereviewedinthebodyofthereport.Unfortunatelyatthistime,thereisnocoordinatedefforttoshareknowledgeaboutprograms,implementations,andoutcomes.Asaresult,programsdevelopedorimplementedinonepartofthecountryarerarelysharedwithotherCanadians.

Moreover,fewinitiativestoimproveliteracyoutcomesforyoungCanadianshavebeensubjectedtorigorousevaluationstomeasureimpactandbenefitsprovided.Asaresult,wecannotbeconfidentthatCanada’sreturnonourlargepublicinvestmentsinthisareaproducetheexpectedbenefits,andwecannotidentifywhichinitiativesmeritwideradoptionandwhichrequiremodificationtoimprovetheireffectiveness.Canadathusrequiresacomprehensiveapproachtopromoteevaluation,networking,andsharingofknowledgeacrossregionsandsectorsintheearlyliteracyarea.

Thereportconcludeswithspecificrecommendationsregardinghowcurrentpoliciesandpracticescanbemodifiedtoimproveliteracyoutcomes,andhowthesecanbemonitoredpublicly.Thefourmaingeneralrecommendationsare:

1. Toencourageandassistinitiativesthatfacilitatechildren’slanguageandliteracydevelopmentfromaveryyoungage.

2. Toensurethatappropriateteachingstrategies,shownthroughrigorous,evidence-basedresearchtobeeffectiveindevelopingstrongliteracyskills,areusedinallCanadianclassrooms.

3. Toencouragecommunityengagementandsupportforongoingliteracydevelopmentthroughouttheyear.

4. Toensurethatinitiativesaresystematicallyandrigorouslyevaluatedandtoimprovecommunicationandthesharingofliteracy-relatedknowledgeandresources.


Introduction

Why is this strategy needed?

Literacy–theabilitytogainanduseinformationthroughtheprintedword–isessentialfortheeconomic,academic,andsocialsuccessofindividualsandsocieties.YetmorethansevenmillionCanadianadultsstrugglewithliteracyproblems.StatisticsCanadareportsthatmorethan42%ofCanadianslackthebasicliteracyskillsrequiredtosucceedintoday’ssociety(StatisticsCanada&OrganisationforEconomicCo-OperationandDevelopment[OECD],2005).

Lowliteracyimpactsallaspectsoflife:adultswithpoorliteracyskillsworkless,areunemployedlongerandmorefrequently,requiremoresocialassistance,andareinpoorerhealth(StatisticsCanada&OECD,2005).TheyarealsolesssociallyengagedandmorelikelytobeimprisonedthanotherCanadians(CorrectionalServiceofCanada,1998).Itisincreasinglyrecognizedthatliteracylevelsareimpactingthesuccessofpublicprograms.Asoneexample,considerhealthliteracy–“theabilitytoaccess,understand,evaluateandcommunicateinformationasawaytopromote,maintainandimprovehealthinavarietyofsettingsacrossthelife-course”(Rootman&Gordon-El-Bihbety,2008,p.11).ThePublicHealthAgencyofCanada(2009)recentlyreportedthatliteracyisasignificantdriverofhealthoutcomes,withaninfluencecomparabletomorefamiliardeterminantssuchastobaccouse,diet,andsocioeconomicstatus(SES).TheCanadianPublicHealthAssociationprovidesspecificexamplesofhowlowliteracyimpactsthehealthofsomanyCanadians(Rootman&Gordon-El-Bihbety,2008);forexample,thismayincludemothersnotbeingabletomakedecisionsinthebestinterestsoftheirbabiesbecausetheycannotunderstandlabelsorfollowwrittenhealthinstructionsaccurately.

“Low literacy skills impede wealth creation, undermine competitiveness and create a significant cost burden on federal, provincial and municipal budgets.” Maxwell & Teplova, 2008, p. 22

Lowliteracythereforeresultsinsubstantiallylowerreturnsonpublicinvestmentsinhealthcareandeducation,highercostsforpolicingandthecriminaljusticesystem,aswellasforwelfareandemploymentsupports,andreducedproductivity.ImprovingtheaverageliteracyskillsofCanadianshasbeenidentifiedasbeingthesinglegreatestopportunityforachievingahighreturnonpublicinvestment(Alexander,2007).Infact,reducingthepercentageofCanadianswhohavelowliteracyskillsbyjust1%(from42%ofthepopulationto41%)wouldincreaselabourproductivityby2.5%andCanada’sannualGrossDomesticProduct(GDP)by1.5%perperson,leadingtoapermanentincreaseof$18billion/yearinCanada’sGDP(Coulombe,Tremblay,&Marchand,2004).Importantly,theTDBankFinancialGroup’sreportonthestateofliteracyinCanadaspecificallyrecommendsinvestinginliteracyearly.


On a cost-benefit basis, the clear recommendation is to put the greatest weight behind youth literacy. The reason is that benefits accrue over a longer time span than for adults. Moreover, literacy appears to be a virtuous circle in skill development. Higher literacy promotes greater education that, in turn, lifts literacy and helps to develop skills. Starting this self-reinforcing cycle early leads to greater returns… On the cost side, age is not a barrier to improving literacy, but the cost of enhancing youth literacy might be lower, since many argue that children learn faster than adults. In economic terms, all of this is simply a way of saying that there are declining returns on investment in human capital with age. (Alexander, 2007, p. 15)

Thefoundationforliteracyskillislaidinchildhood,thusCanada’sfuturecompetitivenessandsuccessasanationdependsontheskillsthechildrenacquire.Itisthereforecriticalthatchildrenaregivenqualityexperiencesintheirfamily,earlylearningenvironments,andelementaryschoolyears.ImprovingtheliteracyskillsofyoungCanadianswouldhaveenormouslong-termbenefitsforindividualsaswellasforCanadaasanation.

Responsibility for programs impacting literacy development

Canadiangovernmentshaverecognizedtheimportanceofliteracyinavarietyofways.WhileCanada’sConstitution(specifically,Section93oftheBritish North America Act,nowknownastheConstitution Act, 1867)assignsthepowertomake“LawsinrelationtoEducation”totheprovinciallegislatures“exclusively”,thereisawide-spreadacknowledgementofanationalinterestintheprovisionofeducationalopportunities,andthatthenationalgovernmenthasaroletoplayincreatingtheseopportunities.TheConstitutionisevolutionary,andthereisanever-strongerconsensusthattheParliamentandGovernmentofCanadashould,andmust,helptomakeeducation–inthebroadestsense–availabletoeverycitizen,nomatterwhereheorshelives.Thus,aproperrespectforSection93doesnotprecludeafederalpresenceineducationalmatters.

Thispresenceisexpressedintwodistinctbutcomplementaryways.Themostobvious,theoldest,andperhapsthebest-known,aretheprogramsthatfinanceresearch.Throughthreenationalgrantingcouncils,thefederalgovernmenthasformanyyearsprovidedpeer-validatedsupporttouniversitiesforscholarsinthesocialsciences,scienceandengineering,andmedicine.Theseprogramshavebeenbroadenedinrecentyears–significantlyandimportantly–toincludegrantsforbuildingsandequipment,andformaintenanceandoperations.Studentaidprogramsareanotherexampleofalegitimate,accepted,andevenwelcomed,federalpresenceineducationalmatters.They,too,havebeenexpandedinrecentyears.

Thenationalgovernmenthasalsocometoplayanever-importantroleinensuringthatCanadianworkershavetheskillsandtheexperiencetheyneedtofunctioninamoderneconomy.TherearemyriadexamplesoftrainingprogramsofonenatureoranotherthathavebeenorarebeingfundedbytheGovernmentofCanada,eitherthroughtheEmploymentInsurancePlanorthroughotherfederalprograms.

Inaddition,asizeableeducationalcomponentisincludedinthefinancialresourcesthatthefederalgovernmenttransferstotheprovinces.Thesegrantsareunconditional,althoughtheindividualprovincesmustspendthemwithinthebroadareasspecifiedbyParliament,whichare:supportfor


children,post-secondaryeducation,andsocialprograms.In2009-2010,theCanadianSocialTransferwillprovide$1.133billioninsupportforchildren,$3.332billiontopost-secondaryeducationand$6.388billioninsocialprograms(DepartmentofFinanceCanada,2009a).Thisdiffersfromequalizationpayments,whichareunrestrictedandthusmaybespentbytheprovincesastheyseefit.Equalizationpaymentsaddressfiscaldisparitiesamongprovincesbyenablinglesswealthyprovincialgovernmentstoprovidepublicservicesthatarereasonablycomparabletothoseinotherprovincesatreasonablycomparablelevelsoftaxation.In2009-2010,sixprovinces(PrinceEdwardIsland,NovaScotia,NewBrunswick,Quebec,OntarioandManitoba)aretoreceive$14.2billioninequalizationpayments(DepartmentofFinanceCanada,2009b).

Inshort,thereisampleprecedentfortheuseoffederalmoneytoobtainspecificobjectives,notwithstandingthatthoseobjectivesmayfallwithintherubricof“education”.

Inadditiontothesegeneralconsiderations,intheareaofliteracy,federalsupporthasformanyyearsbeenconcentratedonadultliteracyandskilldevelopment,withlittleornodirectsupportprovidedintheareaofearlyliteracy.NeitherthecurrentConservativegovernmentnorpreviousLiberalgovernmentshavetakensubstantialactiontoimpactearlyliteracydevelopment.Moreover,attheprovincialandterritoriallevels,thenumerouschild-andyouth-focusedinitiativeshavenotbeenwellcoordinated,theyappeartohavelackedastrongevidencebase,andtodate,theyhavenotresultedinbroadimprovementinliteracyoutcomes.

Fortunately,muchisknownabouthowtoensurethatchildrenandyouthacquirestrongliteracyskills.ThisknowledgeneedstobeappliedbroadlyandsystematicallyacrossCanada.Untilthishappens,toomanyCanadianchildrenwillfailtoachievetheessentialliteracyskills.Thecostsandconsequencesofthispatternofunderperformance–toindividualsandtoCanada–aresoenormous,thatitcannotbepermittedtocontinue.CanadaneedsaNationalStrategytoraisetheliteracylevelofourpopulation,forthebenefitofall.

National Strategy for Early Literacy process

Tofacilitatethecreationofapan-CanadianconsensusonwhatshouldbeCanada’stargetsforliteracyachievement,andontheactionsneededtoachievethesetargets,arangeofeducation,literacyandpublicinterestorganizationscametogethertoleadtheNational Strategy for Early Literacy (NSEL)initiative.

Twomainquestionswereposed:

1. WhatcanbeachievedintermsoftheliteracyskillsofCanadianchildrenandyouth?

2. Whatneedstobedonetooptimizetheseskills?

TheNSELinitiativebuiltontheexpertiseandadministrativeresourcesoftheCanadianLanguageandLiteracyResearchNetwork(CLLRNet).Theinitiativedrewupontheknowledgeandexperienceofpolicymakers,practitioners,andresearchersandwasguidedbyaNationalAdvisoryCommittee,withrepresentativesfromthevarioussectorsthathavemajorinfluenceoverpoliciesandpracticesthatrelatetolanguageandliteracydevelopment.


Thisgroupidentifiedtheknowledgerequiredtoformulateasuccessfulstrategyanddeterminedtheexistingknowledgegaps.Tobegintoaddresstheseknowledgegaps,CLLRNetcommissionedaseriesof15policyresearchpapers,withfinancialsupportprovidedbymajorpartners.ThesepolicyresearchpaperswerewrittenbyleadingCanadianliteracyexpertswhosummarizedtheevidencebaseneededforinformedpolicyrecommendations.Thepolicyresearchpapersarepubliclyavailableathttp://nsel.cllrnet.ca/category/full-paper-available/.

Subsequently,CLLRNetorganizedanationwidepublicconsultationthroughpublichearingsineightmajorcitiestosolicitadviceonwhatcouldandshouldbedonetoimproveliteracyoutcomesandtheimplicationsforprogramsandpolicies.Toparticipateintheprocess,interestedparties(e.g.,literacygroups,libraries,schoolboards,etc.)submittedinformationbriefsthatincludedrecommendationsforthestrategy–mostofthesewereheardduringoralpresentations,whileotherpositionswereconsideredbasedonthewrittenbriefs.Theconsultationcomponentwasessentialforthesuccessofthestrategy.Itprovidedanopportunityfordirectexchangeofknowledgeandviewsamongtheresearch,policy,professional,andadvocacysectors.ThetransparencyofthehearingprocesswasincreasedthroughtheNSELblog(http://blogs.cllrnet.ca/nsel/),makingitpossibleforalltoviewandcommentuponthepresentationsanddiscussionthattookplaceateachofthehearings.

Theinformationcollectedthroughthesephasesofresearch,review,andpublicconsultationwassynthesizedandorganizedintothisreport,summarizingwhatisknownaboutpoliciesandpractices,beginningatbirthandcontinuingthroughage16,thatcontributetothebestpossibleliteracyskilloutcomesforCanadianyouth.Thisreportsummarizesthekeyfindingsfromthisprocess,concludingwithspecificrecommendationsregardinghowcurrentpoliciesandpracticescanbemodifiedtoimproveliteracyoutcomes,andhowthesecanbemonitoredpublicly.


Concepts

Definitions of literacy

Inthetraditionalsense,“literacy”istheabilitytoread,write,andperformsimplenumericcalculations.Inabroadersense,itincludesmultipleliteraciesrequiredtosucceedinaknowledgeeconomy.

ManydifferentdefinitionsofliteracywereofferedinthecourseoftheNSELprocess.Oneexampleishealthliteracy–“theabilitytoaccess,understand,evaluateandcommunicateinformationasawaytopromote,maintainandimprovehealthinavarietyofsettingsacrossthelife-course”(Rootman&Gordon-El-Bihbety,2008,p.11).Thelevelsofhealthliteracyvaryacrossdifferentpopulationgroups,withthemostvulnerablegroupsbeingseniors,recentimmigrants,individualswithlowerlevelsofeducationandwithlowFrenchorEnglishlanguageskills,aswellaspeoplereceivingsocialassistance.Thesegroupsaremorelikelytoexperiencenegativehealthoutcomesbecauseoflowhealthliteracyskills(Rootman&Gordon-El-Bihbety,2008).

Duringpublichearings,familyliteracywasdefinedastheabilitytoachieveone’sgoalsanddevelopone’sknowledgeandpotential.Otherdefinitionsofliteracyincludednotonlyreadingandwriting,butalsospeaking,viewing,andrepresenting,aswellaswhatthesemeantovarioussocialandculturalgroups.Includedwere,“theabilitytoreadandwrite,butalsotocommunicatethoughtsandideasineffectiveways.Wewanttoenableindividualstothinkcritically,tosolveproblems,todevelopknowledge,andessentiallytobeabletoparticipatefullyinsociety”(Tams,2009).

Thesebroaddefinitionsexpandonthedefinitionofliteracythatisusedinthemajorinternationalsurveysofliteracyskills(e.g.,theInternationalAdultLiteracyandSkillsSurveyandtheAdultLiteracyandLifeSkillsSurvey)conductedbytheOrganisationforEconomicCooperationandDevelopment(OECD)andStatisticsCanada.Forthesesurveys,literacyisdefinedas:“theabilitytounderstandandemployprintedinformationindailyactivitiesathome,atworkandinthecommunity–toachieveone’sgoalsandtodevelopone’sknowledgeandpotential”(OECD&HumanResourcesandSkillsDevelopmentCanada[HRSDC],1997).

Thepopulation-levelstudiesoftheliteracyskillsofCanadiansarebasedontheOECDdefinitionofliteracy.Thesestudiesdemonstratethatmorethan42%ofCanadianslackthebasicliteracyskillsrequiredtosucceedintoday’ssociety(StatisticsCanada&OECD,2005).Becauseliteracy,asdefinedbytheOECD,providesthefoundationforthemoreexpansivedescriptionsproposedbyothers,adoptionofanyofthesebroaderalternativedefinitionswouldincreasetheestimatednumberofCanadianswholackadequateliteracyskills.

Measurement of literacy

AvarietyofinstrumentsareavailableandhavebeenappliedtomeasuretheliteracyskillsofCanadians.Forinternationalandpan-Canadiansurveys,theInternationalAdultLiteracyandSkillsSurvey(IALSS)wasdesignedasavehicletodirectlymeasurethefunctionalliteracyskillsofadultsacrossdifferentcountries.Similarly,theProgramforInternationalStudentAssessment(PISA)isasystemofinternationalandpan-Canadianassessmentfocusedon15-year-olds’abilitiesinreading


literacy,mathematicsliteracy,andscienceliteracy.ResultsfromsuchsurveysareconsistentinfindingthatahighproportionofCanadians(typicallyaround40%)lackappropriateliteracyskillsandthatthereissignificantvariationinliteracyskillacrossCanada(StatisticsCanada&OECD,2005).

SeveralCanadianMinistriesofEducationhaveimplementedsystem-widemeasurementprotocolstoassessthereading,writing,andmathematicsskillsofstudentsinelementaryandsecondaryschools.Forexample,Ontario’sEducationalQualityAssuranceOffice(EQAO)measuresreading,writing,andmathematicsliteracyforallchildreninGrades3and6.SuchsurveysshowthatahighproportionofCanadianchildren–approximately30%ofGrade3andGrade6studentsinOntario–lacktheexpectedliteracyskills,evenatthisearlystage(EQAO,2008).

Assessmentofchildrenpriortoandatschoolentryisbecomingmorecommon.Oneofthemostcommonreasonsforassessmentistoscreenforchildrenatriskforreadingdifficulties(Desrochers&Glickman,2008).TheseapproachesdemonstratethattoomanyCanadianchildrenarereceivingapoorstart.Forexample,theOntarioMinistryofChildandYouthServices(2007)foundthatbyfourandfiveyearsofage,approximatelyone-fifthofallchildrenshowdelaysinvocabularydevelopment.

Twomeasurement/screeningapproachesthatweredevelopedandhavebeenadoptedquitewidelyinCanadaprovidegeneralguidanceregardingthedevelopmentofyoungchildren.ThefirstoftheseistheEarlyDevelopmentInstrument(EDI;http://www.offordcentre.com/readiness/index.html),whichassessesthegeneraldevelopmentofchildrenacrossfivedomainsaroundthetimetheyenterKindergarten.TheEDIiscurrentlyusedinseveralprovinces,includingBritishColumbia,Ontario,andManitoba.Thisinstrumentisusedasapopulation-basedmeasuretoexaminethedevelopmentofgroupsofchildren;itisnotintendedfortheassessmentofindividualchildren.OneapplicationoftheEDIisthestudyofthegeographicdistributionofat-riskchildren,coordinatedwithpopulation-levelinformationtoimproveoutcomes(Lapointe,Ford,&Zumbo,2007).

Thesecondinstrument,theEarlyYearsEvaluation(EYE;https://www.ksiresearch.com/eye/index.php)wasdesignedtoassessthedevelopmentofindividualchildren,aged3to6,acrossfivedomains.TheEYEhasbeenimplementedprovince-wideinNewBrunswickandPrinceEdwardIsland,aswellasinsomeschoolsinAlbertaandSaskatchewan.Inaddition,threeinternationalpilotprojectsarecurrentlybeingimplementedinTrinidadandTobago,DominicanRepublicandJordan.LearningtoreadisidentifiedasaparticularfocusfortheEYE,anditisintendedthattestresultswillbeusedtoguideinterventionsandsupportsforindividualchildrenbyparentsandeducators.

Importance of early language and literacy environment

Thefirstthreeyearsofachild’slifehaveenormousimpactonthedevelopmentofbasiclanguageandcognitiveskillsandlaythefoundationforearlyliteracydevelopment.Infact,theinfluenceofachild’shomelanguageenvironmentcanbeobservedwithinthefirstfewmonthsafterbirth.Thelanguageandliteracyenvironmentofthechild’shomeandearlylearningandchildcare(ELCC)settingsarethereforestrongdeterminantsofearlylanguageandliteracyskills.Asparentsaretheirchildren’sfirstteachers,theyneedtobeawareoftheimportanceofcreatingalanguage-andliteracy-richenvironmentinthehome.ELCCteachersalsoneedtocreateprogramstohelpchildrendeveloptheirlanguageandemergentliteracyskills.


The early literacy challenge in Canada

Extent of low literacy in Canada

Aboutadecadeago,CanadaandothercountriesintheOECDbegantocollaborateonaprogramtomeasureliteracyskillsintheirpopulations,andtosharetheirresultsinordertoallowinternationalcomparisons.Theseinitiativesweredevelopedtoprovideabenchmarkagainstwhichtomeasureourperformance,andtheyhavedemonstratedjusthowmanyCanadiansareunpreparedfortheliteracydemandsofmodernsociety(Jamieson,2006).

Theinternationaltestssummarizeliteracyskillintermsoffivecategories.Level5,whichindicatesthehighestlevelofskill,isattainedbyindividualswhodemonstratecommandofhigher-orderinformationprocessingskills.Level3denotestheskillleveltypicallyrequiredforsuccessfulhighschoolcompletionandcollegeentryinCanada.ScoresatorbelowLevel2areconsideredinadequateforfullparticipationinsociety(StatisticsCanada&OECD,2005).

Toillustrate,apersonatLevel1wouldtypicallybeunabletodeterminetheamountofmedicinetoadministertoachildbasedonsimpleinstructionsprintedonabottle.ThoseatLevel2canunderstandsimplematerialsonly.Becausetheseindividualsfrequentlydevelopcopingskillswhichmasktheirdifficultyandallowthemtodealwitheverydayliteracydemands,they(andothers)mayoverestimatetheirproficiency,thoughtheyhavedifficultyinnovelsituations,suchaswhenlearningnewjobskills(StatisticsCanada&OECD,2005).

Astonishingly,theestimates–overarangeoftestsandtestingprograms–revealthatabout42%ofCanadiansbetweentheagesof16-65failtoachieveLevel3proficiency.Moreover,only14%ofCanadiansdemonstrateskillsatthehighendofthescale–Level4and5,representingcritical,analytical,andevaluativereaders.Unlessthesituationcanberemedied,theconsequences–forindividualswithpoorliteracyskillsandforotherCanadians–aredaunting.Unfortunately,Canada’sresultshaveshownlittleimprovementfromthefirstfindingsin1994tothemostrecentin2003(StatisticsCanada&OECD,2005;StatisticsCanada&HRSDC,2005).

Whilethenationalandinternationalliteracysurveyshavefocusedonadultsandolderyouth,itisclearthatreadingandwritingdifficultiesbeginearlyinlife(Stanovich,1986).ApproximatelyoneinthreeCanadian15-year-oldsperformsatorbelowLevel2(Willms,2004a).

Someintheliteracyfieldhavesuggestedthattheseresultsneednotcausealarm.ThisviewfocusesontheobservationthattheinternationalliteracysurveysshowthatCanadianstendtodemonstratehigherlevelsofliteracyskillthanthoseinmostotherOECDcountries(Purcell-Gates,2009).ProponentsofthisviewmayormaynotacknowledgethatspecificpopulationsinCanadafaceliteracychallenges.

OthersemphasizethesubstantialproportionofCanadianswhofailtoacquireadequateliteracyskills.Forexample,20-40%ofthecurrentcohortofCanadianstudentsfailedtomeettheperformancestandardforliteracyskillsnecessarytocompeteinaglobaleconomy(McCracken&Murray,2009).Lowliteracyismoreprevalentincertainvulnerablepopulations,including:Aboriginalchildren(StatisticsCanada&HRSDC,2005);Englishasasecondlanguage/Frenchasasecondlanguage(ESL/FSL)learners(Geva,Gottardo,Farnia,&ByrdClark,2009);childrenfromlow


SEShomes(Maxwell&Teplova,2008);andchildrenwithspecialneeds(Lavin,2009).Onaverage,literacyachievementislowerforruralstudentsthanfortheirurbancounterparts(CanadianCouncilonLearning[CCL],2008).Thus,parentsinruralareastendtohaveweakerliteracyskillsthanthoseinurbanareas.Parentswithweakliteracyskillscanunintentionallysponsorhomeconditionsthathinderchildren’sliteracydevelopment,anddatasuggestthatthereisindeedaweakerorientationtowardsliteracyinruralhomes(CCL,2008).

“Closing the rural/urban gap requires efforts on several fronts: to help rural families provide rich literacy experiences for their children; to help rural students see the value of education and strong literacy skills; and to help rural schools meet higher standards of excellence.” CCL, 2008, p. 29

Impact of low literacy

Literacyisfoundational.WithinindividualsectorsofCanadiansociety,thisfactiscomingtobeappreciated.Forinstance,withinthehealthsystem,itisincreasinglyunderstoodthatliteracyskillshaveasubstantialinfluenceonhealthoutcomes(Rootman&Gordon-El-Bihbety,2008).Healthproblemsdiminishmarkedlyacrosspopulationsasliteracylevelsincrease(Roberts,2009).Accordingly,literacyneedstobeamajorconcerntohealthplannersasamediatorofpopulationhealth.Healthstatus,SES,andliteracyarestronglyinterconnectedandinterrelated.Ineverypopulation,thereisahealthgradientwherehealthstatusimprovessteadilyasSESmovesfromthelowesttothehighestlevelsofeducation,employmentandincome.“Socioeconomicstatusandliteracygohandinhandacrossthelifecycle”(Roberts,2009).Thisincludestheinfluenceoffamilyliteracyonchildren’searlybraindevelopmentandlearning,whichsetsthestageforfuturecopingskillsandbiologicalresponsestostress.Literacyalsoinfluencesreadinessforlearninginschoolandprogressionthroughhighergrades,whichultimatelyinfluencestheamountofeducationalattainmentandlifetimeemploymentandincome.

Thecriticalimportanceofliteracyissimilarlybecomingrecognizedinotherpublicpolicydomains.Forexample,itisbecomingwidelyappreciatedthatmanyofthosewhocomeintocontactwiththecriminaljusticesystemhavelowlevelsofliteracy.Therelationshipofliteracytoeducationaloutcomes,economicoutcomesandtherequirementsforsocialsupportsisapparentaswell.Thisgrowingrecognitionisonlyabeginning:Canadiansneedtocaremuchmoreaboutlowliteracy,forseveralreasons.


Literacy drives economic growth

Differencesinaverageadultliteracylevelsexertaprofoundinfluenceonkeyindicatorsofeconomicsuccess,explainingasmuchas55%ofthedifferencesinthelong-termgrowthrateofGDPpercapitaandproductivitygrowthatthenationalandinternationallevel(Coulombe,Tremblay,&Marchand,2004;Coulombe&Tremblay,2006).Thedistributionofadultliteracyskillinfluencesthelong-termeconomicsuccessofnations;specifically,higherproportionsofadultswithlowliteracyskillsresultinloweroverallratesoflongtermGDPgrowth.Canadianjobsthatrequirelowskillsaredisappearing,andintheabsenceofadditionalinvestmenttoimproveliteracyskills,thenumberoflow-skilledadultswillremainunchanged.Accordingtoonerecentestimate,by2016,therewillbeverylimitedeconomicdemandforthe48%ofOntarioadultswhohavelow-levelskills(McCracken&Murray,2009).

Improvingliteracylevelsinacountrycanhaveasignificantimpact:a1%incrementintheaverageliteracyscoreisassociatedwitha2.5%increaseinlabourproductivityanda1.5%overallincreaseinpercapitaGDP.Basedonthesefindings,increasingtheproportionofCanadianswhoachieveLevel3literacybyjust1%wouldresultinapermanent,$18billion/yearincreaseinCanadianGDP(Coulombe,Tremblay,&Marchand,2004).Inaddition,raisingindividualsfromLevel1and2toLevel3literacywouldcreateanextra$11billionintaxrevenueeachyear.Itwouldalsosave$5billionperyearinemploymentinsuranceandsocialassistance(Murrayetal.,2009).

Literacy drives labour market outcomes

Differencesinliteracyskillareassociatedwithalargevarianceinemployability,wagerates,incomeandrelianceonsocialassistanceaswellasothertransfers.Adultswithhigherliteracyskillsworkmore,earnmore,spendlesstimeunemployedandrelylessongovernmenttransfers(StatisticsCanada&OECD,2005).Morethan40%ofCanadianswhoscoreatLevel1areunemployed,andmorethanhalfofthoseCanadianswhoareunemployedatanygiventimescorelowerthanLevel3.

Literacy drives productivity growth and innovation in firms

Literacyfacilitateseffectivecommunication,increasesoverallproductivity,andinfluencestheacquisitionandapplicationofinformationandcommunicationtechnologiesindailylife,includingtheworkplace.Higherlevelsofliteracyincreaseemployeeretentionandreducetheincidenceandseverityofworkplaceillnessandaccident.Cisco,oneoftheworld’stechnologyleaders,suggeststhatcommunicationskills–specificallylanguageandliteracyskills–willbetheprimarydeterminantofbothproductivitygrowthandcompetitiveadvantageinthecomingdecades(Johnson,Manyika,&Yee,2005).

Literacy increases the productivity of tax investments for health and education

Higherliteracylevelsreducethecostofdeliveringhealthandeducation,andincreasereturnsonpublicinvestmentsintheseareas.Literacyskillshaveaprofoundinfluenceoneducationalsuccess–impactingtheprobabilityofhighschoolcompletion,theprobabilityofpost-secondaryparticipation,thelevelofpost-secondaryparticipation,andthelevelandintensityofparticipationinformaladulteducationandtraining(Willms,2004b).Literacyislinkedtoindividualhealthoutcomes,includingtheprobabilityofexperiencingillness,thelengthofrecovery,thecostoftreatmentandtheageatdeath.Individualswithlowliteracyskillbecomeillmoreoften,experiencemoreworkplaceillnessesandaccidents,takelongertorecover,experiencemoremisusesofmedications,anddieyounger(FederalProvincialandTerritorialAdvisoryCommitteeonPopulationHealth,1999).


Literacy enables participation in the democratic process and social engagement

Adultswithlowerliteracyskilllevelsparticipatelessincommunityactivities,volunteerlessandarelesslikelytovote(StatisticsCanada&OECD,2005).

Literacy will become more important in the future

Throughmassiveeducationalinvestments,Canada’scompetitorsarerapidlyimprovingtheliteracyskillsoftheircurrentandfutureworkers.Thesemoreskilledworkforceswillincreasinglyallowfirmsinthedevelopingworldtocompeteonqualityaswellasprice,placingintensepricepressuresonCanadianfirmsandincreasingincentivestomoveproductiontolowercostcountries.Marketsforgoodsandservicesareincreasinglyglobal,offeringhugeopportunitiesandeconomiesofscaletothosefirmsabletocompete.Marketsforkeyinputs–financialcapital,technologyandhigh-endhumancapital–arealsoglobal,effectivelyincreasingtherelativeimportanceoftheskillsoftheworkforceforbothcompetitivenessandpublicpolicy.Confrontedwithrapidlyrisingcompetition,Canadianfirmshavefewoptions.Toremaincompetitive,thesefirmsmustadoptmoreefficientworkorganizationsandtechnologies.Bydefinition,theseworkorganizationsaremoreknowledge-andinformation-intenseand,thus,demandworkerswithmuchhigherlevelsofessentialskills,mostnotablyhigherliteracylevels(McCracken&Murray,2009).

Forallofthesereasons,literacydevelopmentcanbeseenasnotsimplyanissue,butasastrategyforaddressingotherissuesandforbuildingthefutureofCanada.


Barriers to literacy development in Canada

Systemic barriers to successful literacy outcomes

AnumberofsystemicbarriersreduceopportunitiesforyoungCanadianstoacquirestrongliteracyskills.Onekeysystemicbarrieristheabsenceofuniversally-available,high-quality,affordableearlychildhoodeducationandcareprogramsinCanada.ThisdeficiencyisparticularlyimportantbecauseofthegreatvariabilityinearlylearningopportunitiesinhomesacrossCanada.Canadaalsodisplaysconsiderablevariabilityintheavailabilityofhighcalibrechildcareanddevelopmentalenvironments,programs,andservicesacrossneighbourhoods.Forinstance,theretendstobelessaccesstosuchprogramsandservicesinlowSESneighbourhoods(Hertzman,McLean,Kohen,Dunn,&Evans,2002).Asaresult,manydevelopmentalissuesofchildrenintheseneighbourhoodsarenotidentifiedandaddresseduntillaterinchildhood,whenitmightbetoolatetointervenesuccessfully.SomeofthebarriersinlowSESneighbourhoodsarelowerlevelsofawarenessbyparentsofearlychilddevelopmentanddevelopmentalmilestones;work/lifeschedulesthatmakeitdifficulttoaccessavailableserviceswhentheyareoffered;limitedaccesstotransportation;andlanguagebarriers(Hertzmanetal.,2002).Thus,thefamilieswiththemostneedoftenhavetheleastsupportfromcommunityservices.

Acomprehensive,universalearlylearningandcaresystemwouldaddressmanyoftheearlylearningneedsofchildrenwhodonotreceiveappropriatesupportandstimulationwithintheirhomeandwithintheircommunities.Itisimportanttoemphasize,however,thatwhilethereisarecognizedneedtogiveextraattentiontochildrenfrompoorfamilies,60%ofCanada’svulnerablechildrencomefrommiddleclassandaffluentfamilies(Willms,2002).Forthisreason,itisimportantthatCanada’searlylearningsupportsystembeuniversallyavailable.

Arelatedissueinvolvesaddressingtheneedsofadultswithlowliteracyskills;asoftoday,Canadahasnotyetdevelopedacoherentsystemtoaddresstheseneeds.LowliteracyimpactsCanadiansinthreeways:opportunitycosts,remedialcosts,andintergenerationalcosts.Opportunitycostsassociatedwithlowliteracyincludeunemployment,lowerGDP,andlowerincomefortheindividual.Remedialcostsincludehighercostsforhealthcareservices,criminaljusticesystems,andsocialassistanceandsocialservicesdemands.Theintergenerationalcostsoccurthroughneglectingadultliteracyandpassingonthechallengestothenextgeneration.Anationalstrategyonearlyliteracycannotthereforefocusonearlylearningwithoutconsideringparents’influentialroleinachild’sdevelopment.Effectiveearlychildhoodprogramsmustincludeparentswithlowliteracylevelsaspartners(Maxwell&Teplova,2008).

“Many adults with low literacy skills are themselves parents. Research has shown that youth literacy levels are highly conditioned by parental skill levels. Thus, an investment in raising adult skill levels will precipitate improvements in their children’s scores.” McCracken & Murray, 2009, p. 12


ManychildrenenterCanada’sschoolsystemlackingasolidfoundationforacquiringstrongliteracyskillsandthisisaresultofthecombinedimpactsofinsufficientearlylearningsupportsinthehomeduetolowliteracyskillsofparents,highlyvariablecommunitysupportsforearlylearningandtheabsenceofuniversally-available,centre-based,high-qualityearlylearningandcareprograms.Infact,morethanoneinfourchildrenwhoenterGrade1aresignificantlybehindtheirpeers(Janus,2006;Lloyd&Hertzman,2008;Kershaw,Irwin,Trafford,&Hertzman,2006;Willms,2002).Furthermore,manyCanadianschoolsareillpreparedtoidentifyanddealeffectivelywithsuchchallengeswhenchildrenstartschool.Theresultisthatchildrenwhoaredisadvantagedatschoolentrytendtofallfurtherandfurtherbehindtheirpeersastheyprogressthroughtheschoolyears.Thus,earlyidentificationandinterventionatschoolentryiscritical.StudentsexperiencingreadingdifficultiesattheendofGrade1almostneverachieveaveragereadingskillsscoresbytheendofprimaryschool(Torgesen,2004).

Moreover,manychildrenwhoarewellpreparedtolearnwhentheyenterschoolneverthelessfailtoacquirestrongliteracyskillsalongsidetheirpeers.Thisfactpointstotheunevenqualityofliteracy-relatedinstructioninCanadianschools.Manyjurisdictionshaveidentifiedtheneedtoimproveliteracyinstructioninschools,butprogresshasbeenslowandtheeducationsystemcontinuestofailtoomanychildren.Itisessentialthatchangesoccurinthewaythatreadingandwritingaretaughtinclassrooms,asclassroomexperienceisacriticallyimportantdeterminantofhowwellCanadianchildrenwilllearntoread.ImprovingthewayreadingandwritingaretaughtinCanadaisthereforethesinglemostimportantconsiderationforincreasingliteracyoutcomesforCanadianstudents.

“Teachers must be taught how to teach reading to students. We all should recognize the catastrophic effects on learners and on society of our failure to teach reading.” Bredberg, 2009

SuchchangerequiresimprovementsinCanada’ssystemforpreparingnewteachersandinprovidingcontinuingprofessionaleducationandteachersupportprograms.Atpresent,manystudentteacherscompletetheiruniversityteacherpreparationprogramswithoutlearningthebasicscientificprinciplesbehindthedevelopmentofreadingskillandeffectivereadinginstruction.Asaresult,thesubstantialbodyofknowledgeonhowtoteachchildrentoread,howtoidentifychildrenwhohavefailedtoacquirespecificreadingskills,andhowtointerveneeffectivelyisnotbeingappliedinmanyCanadianclassrooms(Brodeur,Dion,Mercier,Laplante,&Bournot-Trites,2008).

“Collective efforts must focus on increasing scientific knowledge in the area of reading instruction and acquisition, along with the improvement of reading instruction skills in all practicing regular and resource teachers.” Brodeur et al., 2008, p. 27


Someschoolsfaceparticularchallenges.Forexample,ruralschoolsareoftensmallerinsize,resultinginmoremulti-gradeorsplitclasses.Theseschoolsmayalsohavehigherratesofteacherturnover,feweropportunitiesforprofessionaldevelopmentforteachers,fewerresourceteachers,andreducedaccesstospeech-languagepathologistsandotherprofessionalstosupportstudentswithspecialneeds(Lavin,2009).Thesechallengescanimpedeliteracyoutcomesforruralstudents.Moreover,otherissuescommontomanyruralcommunitiesmayinteractwitheducationalsystemfactors;theseincludeincreasedratesofruralunemployment,loweraverageeducationalattainmentamongadultsinthecommunity,andloweraverageoccupationalandeconomicstatusamongparents(CCL,2008).Theeducationalrequirementsofthejobsthatareavailablewithinstudents’communitiesarestronglylinkedtostudents’literacyskills(Cartwright&Allen,2002).

Barriers for individuals

Arangeofbarrierscanbedescribedwhichhindertheacquisitionofstrongliteracyskillsforindividuals.Addressingthesebarriersfostersequity,therebyincreasingopportunitiesfortheaffectedindividualstobesuccessful.

First,sensorydeficitshaveasubstantialandclearlyunderstoodimpactonthedevelopmentofearlyliteracyskills.Earlyidentificationofhearingandvisionissuesarethereforekeyfactorsforthetimelydevelopmentofstronglanguageandliteracyskills.Recognizingtheimportanceofearlyidentificationandinterventionforchildrenwithhearingloss,severalCanadianprovinceshaveimplementeduniversalinfanthearingscreeningprograms.However,inmanypartsofCanada,childhoodhearinglossmayremainunidentifiedanduntreatedforaconsiderabletime.

Childrenwhoaredeaforhardofhearingfacesteepbarrierstosuccessfulliteracyacquisition.Thesechildrenoftenexperiencechallengeswithlearningtoreadbecauselackingfull(orany)accesstothesoundsofspokenlanguage,theyareunabletousetheimportantphonemicawarenessandphonicsskillstoassistinthedecodingofwrittenwords(CCL,2009a).

Thetypicalstudentwithahearinglossgraduatesfromhighschoolwithreadingcomprehensionskillsatapproximatelythefourth-gradelevel(Allen,1986;CenterforAssessmentandDemographicStudies,1991;Traxler,2000).

Visionisanotherimportantcomponentofacquiringliteracyskills.Tenpercentofpreschoolerswillhaveavisiondeficiency,whichincreasesto1in4studentsbetweenKindergartenandGrade6(TheAlbertaAssociationofOptometrists,2009).Itisestimatedthat60%ofchildrenwithlearningdifficultieshaveanundiagnosedvisionproblem.Undetectedvisionproblemscancausefrustrationwithlearning,failuretolearnattherateofpeers,anegativeselfimage,apossibleneedforspecialeducation,disciplineproblems,youngoffenderrisks,increaseddropoutrates,andapotentialburdenonourprisonandwelfaresystem(Vaughn,Maples,&Hoenes,2006).Childrenwhoareblindorvisuallyimpairedrequirehighqualityinterventionandareotherwiseatriskforliteracyproblems(Amato,2000).However,manyofthesechildrenreceiveinstructionfromparaprofessionalswhomaylackspecializedtrainingorawarenessofeffectiveliteracyteachingpractices(Forster&Holbrook,2005;French,1999;MacCuspie,2002).Trainingandskilldevelopmentisrecommendedtohelpparaprofessionalscontributemoreeffectivelytoliteracydevelopmentamongblindorvisuallyimpairedchildren(MacCuspie,2002;CCL,2009a).


Second,childrenwhodonotdevelopstrongearlyspeechorlanguageskillsareatriskfordevelopingpoorreadingandwritingskills.Itispossibletoidentifysuchchildrenatanearlyageandtointerveneappropriately(Baker,2009).

Third,childrenwithvarioustypesofdisabilitiesoftenhavesignificantdifficultieswithliteracy.InCanada,approximately175,000,oralmost5%,ofCanadianchildrenaged5-14areaffectedbysometypeofdisability(StatisticsCanada,2007).Ofthese,69%havealearningdisability.Mostofthesechildren,89%,requirespecialeducationservices.Thereis,however,noagreementacrossprovincesregardingthedefinitionoflearningdisabilities;consequently,childrenareprovideddifferenttypesandlevelsofserviceiftheymoveacrossprovinces.Attheextreme,astudentwhomovescanunexpectedlyloseeligibilityforspecialeducationservicesthatwereprovidedintheirpreviousprovince(Kozey&Siegel,2008a,2008b).

Therelationshipamongdifferenttypesofdisabilities,education,andliteracyiscomplex.Canadianswithlearningdisabilitiestendtohavelesseducationoverall(byapproximatelythreeyears)thanthosewhodonothaveadisability.Inaddition,eachyearofaperson’seducationisassociatedwitha6%increaseinliteracyskillsonaverage.Finally,individualswithlearningdisabilitiesshowweakerliteracyskillsthanthosewithoutadisabilitythathavethesameamountofeducation(StatisticsCanada,2007).Consequently,individualswithlearningdisabilitiesrequirespecializedprogramminginordertoensurethattheyareabletoachieveanadequatelevelofliteracyskill.

Studentswithemotionalorbehaviouraldisordersareamuchsmallergroupthanstudentswithlearningdisabilities,however,theireducationaloutcomestendtobemorenegative(Maccini,Gagnon,&Hughes,2002).Thesestudentsoftenpresentwithbehaviouralchallengesintheclassroom,forcingteacherstofocusmoreonmanagingtheirbehaviourandlessontheirliteracyachievement.Duetothebehaviourproblems,difficultieswithlearningareoftenmissed.However,suchstudentstendtorespondaswelltointerventionsasdothosewithlearningdisabilities(Jones,2005).

Childrenwithautismcanhavemanyfactorsthatmaycontributetotheirdifficultieslearningtoread;theseincludeproblemswithlanguage,attention,andsocialinteraction(Vacca,2007),aswellasalackofmotivationtoread.Despitethesedifficulties,childrenwithautismgenerallyhaveintactphonological,morphological,andsyntacticskills;however,theseskillsmaybedelayed.Whilesomechildrenwithautismdonotlearntoread,manyhigherfunctioningchildrencanbecomesuccessfulreaders(CCL,2009a).

Fourth,childrenfromminoritylanguagecontextshavedifficultieswithlanguageandliteracyskills.AmongstudentsinFrenchschoolsystemsoutsideofQuebec,literacyachievementtendstobelowerthanforFrancophonestudentsinQuebec(CouncilofMinistersofEducation,Canada[CMEC],2004).WhenminorityFrancophonestudentsenterschool,theymaybelessreadytobeginreadingthantheirAnglophonecounterpartsduetolimitedearlychildhoodFrench-languageresourcesinthechild’shomeandcommunity.Inaddition,schoolsinminoritylanguagesettingsmayhavefewerFrenchlanguageresources,includingteachingmaterials,educationalsoftwareandlibraryresources.StudentswholiveinaFrancophonesettingandengageinFrenchpreschoolliteracyactivitiesareuptosixtimesmorelikelytosucceedinGrade3readingevaluations(Duadet-Mitchell,2009).SpeakingandlivingtheFrenchcultureathome,daycare,andpreschoolandengaginginFrenchpreschoolliteracyactivitiesareimportanttoensurelaterpreparationandsuccessinFrenchatschool(Daudet-Mitchell,2009).


BilingualismmaybeafactorforFrancophonestudentsastheyaremorethantwiceaslikelytobebilingualthanAnglophonestudents.InmanybilingualfamilieswhosendtheirchildrentoFrancophoneschools,thehomelanguageisEnglish.Asaresult,aFrancophonestudent’sliteracyskillsintheFrenchlanguagemaynotreflecttheiroverallliteracyskilllevel:insomecircumstances,bilingualFrancophonestudentsdisplaybetterliteracyskillsinEnglishthanFrench(Landry&Allard,1992).AsubstantialnumberofFrancophonestudentsinsuchaminoritylanguagesettingmaythereforeenterschoolwithrelativelyweakerFrenchlanguageskills.Inturn,thissituationmayleadtolowerachievementmotivationanddiminishedperformanceexpectationsforstudents(CMEC,2004).

Fifth,immigrantchildrenlivinginhomeswhereneitherEnglishnorFrenchisspoken(EnglishLanguageLearners/FrenchLanguageLearnersELL/FLL),demonstrateclearliteracychallenges(EQAO,2008).Thesechildrenrequireanaverageof14yearsofresidenceinCanadainordercatchupwiththeirCanadian-bornpeersacademically(Bussiereetal.,2000).AlackoffamiliaritywiththeCanadiansystemdecreasestheabilityofsomeimmigrantparentstobeeffectivelyinvolvedintheirchildren’seducation.Inaddition,theseELL/FLLstudentshaveneedsthatextendbeyondlearningasecondlanguage,includingadjustingtoanewcultureandintegratingintoanewsociety.Alloftheseadjustmentsmayrestrictthedevelopmentofimportantacademicskills.Consequently,ELL/FLLstudentsaremorelikelytoleaveschoolwithoutobtainingagraduationdiplomaora“generallevel”diploma,whichwillnotallowthemtoundertakepost-secondaryeducation(Gevaetal.,2009).EnablingELLstudentswithlowerlevelsofEnglishreadingandlanguageskillstoremaininhighschoolforlongerperiodswhilereceivingappropriateinstructionmayhelpthemimprovetheirlanguageandliteracyskillsandobtainthehighschoolcreditsnecessarytomeethigh-schoolgraduationrequirements(Gevaetal.,2009).

Instructioninawell-developedheritagelanguage(thestudents’mothertongue)cansupportandpromotesecondlanguageproficiencyandliteracyskills.ItisthereforesurprisingthatheritagelanguageprogramsdonotreceivemoreemphasisinCanadianeducation.Higher-levelliteracyskillsinEnglishsuchasreadingcomprehensionandwritingareimpairedbyweaknessesinsecondlanguageoralproficiency,includingacademicvocabularyandadvancedsyntacticskills.Forexample,Grade9and10adolescentstudentswhoarerecentimmigrantstoCanadaperform,onaverage,ataGrade2levelonvocabularyandataGrade4levelonword-reading(Pasquarella,Grant,&Gottardo,2007).Takentogether,thesefindingsindicatethatELL/FLLstudentsarelikelytofaceseriousacademicchallengeswhendealingwithgradeappropriatecurriculumwhentheirvocabularyknowledgedoesnotmatchacademicdemands(Gevaetal.,2009).

Sixth,anothergroupofstudentsthatfacechallengesareAboriginalchildrenandyouth,manyofwhomareimpactedbothbyreducedavailabilityofhealthprofessionalsandotherdevelopmentalspecialistsandbythelanguagechallengesofahome/communitylanguagewhichisneitherStandardEnglishnorFrench.Forexample,restrictedaccesstohealthservicesmaypermithearing,language,speech,orvisionproblemstoremainunidentifiedanduntreated,withseriousconsequencesforthedevelopmentoflanguageandliteracyskills.Availablemonitoring,screening,anddiagnostictoolshaverarelybeenvalidatedforusewithAboriginalchildren(orformanygroupsofnon-EnglishorFrenchspeakingchildren).ForStatusIndianchildrenlivingonreserves,follow-upservicesmaybeunavailable,evenifproblemsareidentified.Aboriginalchildrenwhosefamiliesliveoffreservemayfacelongwaitlistsforservicesiftheyliveinurbancentresandmayfindservicesalmostentirelyabsentiftheyliveinruralandremoteareas(Ball,2008).


“While there are commonalities in the biological unfolding of language and literacy capacities across all children, the cultural nature of development, as well as variations in access to supports and services, call for a focused consideration of the needs and approaches to supporting Aboriginal children’s language and literacy.” Ball, 2008, p. 5

Aboriginalchildrenandyouthhavehighratesofschoolfailurebecauseoflanguageandliteracydifficultiesordelays(e.g.,Ball,2008;CCL,2007).Forexample,amongGrade4studentsinBritishColumbiain2003,thefailurerateforliteracyachievementwas16%higherforAboriginalthanfornon-Aboriginalstudents;byGrade7,thisdifferencewas21%(Belletal.,2004).Between40%and50%ofAboriginalstudentsfailtomeettheliteracyrequirementsofGrades4,7,and10.Aboriginalchildren’sattachmenttoandsuccessintheeducationsystemisoftenweakduetotheirpoorsocioeconomicsituation,whichincludesahighincidenceofpovertyandviolence,poorparentalsupport,lowcapacityofschoolsonreservesandincitiestorespondtotheneedsofthisgroupofchildren,aswellasculturalandlinguisticbarrierstolearning(Maxwell&Teplova,2008).

ThelanguageofinstructionmaybeanimportantfactorinthesuccessofAboriginalstudents.IthasbeensuggestedthatFirstNationsstudents’accesstoeducationisreducedbecauselinguistic,pedagogicalandpsychologicalbarriersarecreatedwhenthedominantlanguageofinstructionisEnglishorFrench(BearNicholas,2009).AsdiscussedaboveforotherEnglish/Frenchlanguagelearners,andforotherslearninginaminoritylanguagecontext,literacyacquisitioninthemothertongueislikelytoassistchildreninacquiringthenecessaryliteracyskills.Childrenwhoattendschoolswheretheirmother-tongueisexplicitlytaughtareshowntoperformbetteracademicallyandthisinstructionhelpsdeveloptheirabilitiesinthemajoritylanguageaswell(Cummins,2001).

Finally,theenvironmentinwhichchildrengrowuphasasignificantinfluenceonthedevelopmentofliteracyskills.Youngpeoplefromdisadvantagedcommunitiesfacemultiplerisksthatextendbeyondlowincome.Forexample,parentsareoftenunableorunwillingtobuildconnectionstotheschools;thisisespeciallytrueforparentswhothemselveshadnegativeexperiencesinschool,singleparentsorrecentimmigrantstoCanadawhohavealimitedcapacitytospeakEnglishorFrench.Moreover,theschoolsthemselvesarenotwelladaptedtosupportingstudentswithsocialandeconomicdisadvantagesandthecommunitymaypresentsafetyandlifestylerisks,suchasaddictionandviolence.Thestudentsthemselvesmayhavehadsetbacksduringtheirearlyschoolyears,whichmakethemdistrustfuloftheschoolenvironment(Maxwell&Teplova,2008).


Interventions to improve literacy

Mostliteracychallengescanbepreventedthroughprovisionofasuitableenvironmentwhichsupportslanguageandliteracydevelopment,coupledwithexplicit,systematicinstructiontoensurethatchildrenacquirethevariousskillsthatarethefoundationofreading.Whenchallengesdooccur,mostcanberemediediftheyareidentifiedearlyandappropriateinterventionisprovided(e.g.,D’Angiulli,Siegel,&Maggi,2004;Fletcher&Foorman,1994;Foorman,Francis,Shaywitz,Shaywitz,&Fletcher,1997).

Muchisknownabouthowtoensurethatchildrenandyouthacquireappropriateliteracyskills.Certainactivitiesinthehome,earlylearningchildcaresettings,schoolsandclinicalsettingsareclearlyassociatedwithbetterliteracyoutcomesforchildren.Thereisalsoasubstantialandgrowingbodyofknowledgeregardingtheeffectivenessofvariousinterventionapproaches.

ManyCanadianprogramshavebeenimplementedinordertoimproveearlyliteracyskills.Reviewingthemostpromisingoftheseprogramscanassistourunderstandingofwhatcanbedonetoimproveliteracyoutcomesforchildren.Themostpromisingoftheseprogramsarethereforedescribedbelow.Eachoftheseprogramsdrawsoninternationalresearchtosomedegree,butitmustbeemphasizedthatthereisalackofsystematicresearchevaluatingsuchCanadianprograms.Moreover,nolarge-scale,randomizedcontrolstudieshaveyetbeenundertakentoevaluatesuchprogramsinCanada.Forthesereasons,thetrueimpactofmostofCanada’sliteracyinstructionandinterventionprogramsispresentlyunknown.

“We have learned that any focus other than on teaching and learning practices and home-school connections – such as changing governance structures or finance systems or implementing school choice – will not by itself create the desired improvements in students’ learning.” Levin, 2007, p. 10


Family literacy interventions

“When parents have knowledge about early literacy development, they are able to provide home environments that are rich with meaningful and embedded literacy experiences for preschool children.” Pelletier, 2008, p. 9

Parentsplayacrucialroleinchildren’searlylearning.Ideally,theyareabletoprovidearichenvironmentwithinwhichtheirchildrenarehelpedtoacquirestronglanguageandliteracyskills.Familyliteracyprograms,whichfocusondevelopingliteracywithinthefamilyasawhole,helpparentstocreatesuchliteracy-richhomeenvironments.Thesefamilyliteracyprogramsarebeingconductedinavarietyofcommunitysettings,includinglibraries,schools,churches,andcommunitycentres,aswellasathome.Thecomponentsoftheseprogramsinclude:1)helpingparentsunderstandtheimportanceofthehomeenvironmentindevelopingchildren’slanguageandliteracyskills;2)helpingparentsacquirelearningresourcesforusewiththeirchildren;3)teachingparentsspecificactivitiesthatpromotelanguageandliteracydevelopment;and4)buildingtheliteracyskillsoftheparents.

Familyliteracypractitionersemphasizeseveralgeneralprinciples.First,programsshouldaimtoinvolveallfamilymembersandotherinfluentialcaregiversinachild’slife.Forexample,involvingfathersinfamilyliteracyactivitiesmaybeparticularlyusefulforyoungmales(Lavin,2009).Second,familyliteracyprogramsshouldnotbeofferedasanisolatedsupport,butinconjunctionwithagenciesthatarealreadyapartofafamily’ssupportnetwork.Finally,accordingtoOnclin(2009),“familyliteracyprograms[should]addressthreelevelsoflearning:1)intellectual(e.g.,language,literacy,emergentliteracy);2)emotional(e.g.,positiveinteractionsandbonds,resiliency,confidence,security);and3)sociallearning(e.g.,connectiontothecommunity).”

ThereissomeevidencethatELCCprovidersandfamiliescanplayanimportantroleinsupportingliteracydevelopmentthroughfamilyliteracyprogramsandthroughschool-basedintegratedservicesforculturallyandlinguisticallydiversepopulations(Pelletier,2008).Forexample,eveningfamilyliteracyworkshopsinlocalschoolscoordinatedbyvolunteerELCCteacherswereshowntoproducesignificantliteracygainsforchildren,particularlyinalphabetknowledge,conventionsofprint,meaningandvocabulary,andinchangesinhomeliteracypractices(e.g.,increasedlibraryvisits,increasedsharedreading,anddecreasedtelevisionviewing)(Pelletier,Reeve,&Halewood,2006;Pelletier,Doyle,Press,&Zhang,2007).

Sénéchal’s(2005)reviewoffamilyliteracyinterventionsonchildren’sacquisitionofreadingindicatedthatparentinvolvementhadapositiveimpactonchildren’sreadingacquisitionfromKindergartentoGrade3.Specifically,therewasa10-pointgainonaliteracytestforchildrenwhoreceivedfamilyliteracyinterventionsoverthosewhodidnot.Havingparentsteachspecificliteracyskillstotheirchildrenwastwo timesmoreeffectivethanhavingparentslistentotheirchildrenreadandsix timesmoreeffectivethanparentsreadingtotheirchild.Thefamilyliteracyinterventionsexaminedinthisreviewwereaseffectiveforchildrenexperiencingreadingdifficultiesastheywerefortypically-developingchildren.Theseresultsindicatethathomefamilyliteracyinterventionscanhelpchildrenlearntoread.However,theeffectivenessofparents’helponliteracyacquisitionvariesaccordingtothetypeofparent-childactivitythatisusedinafamilyliteracyintervention.


Inseveralprovinces,familyliteracyinitiativeshavebeendevelopedwithinthehealthcaresystemtoreachfamilieswithyoungchildrenataveryearlystage.Forexample,NovaScotia’sReadtoMe!program(http://readtome.ca)distributesbagsofbooksandliteracyinformationtothemothersofnewbornbabiesatall11hospitalsacrosstheprovincethatprovidematernityservices.Theprogram,startedin2002,hastodate,deliveredover55,000bags(ReadtoMe,2009),reachingmorethan95%ofthebabiesbornintheprovince(CentreforResearchinFamilyHealth,2009).ThebagsareavailableinEnglish,French,Chinese,Arabic,andBraille.Theorganizationdeliversbooksthroughhospitalstoensurethattheprogramisuniversal.Accordingtotheprogramorganizers:

Delivering a literacy program in a hospital setting reinforces the health literacy connection and gives parents the message that literacy is an integral part of their baby’s overall health and well-being. We enhance the capacity of parents to promote a child’s early language skills and cognitive development and support their role as their child’s first and most important teacher. (McDougall, 2009)

Inordertomeasureandimprovetheuptakeoftheprogram,ateamofresearchersfromDalhousieUniversityandliteracyprofessionalsfromReadtoMe!areconductingalongitudinalstudyofthisintervention.Thefirstandsecondphasesofdatacollectionhavebeencompletedthroughsystematictelephoneinterviewswithover1,650familieswhoreceivedtheReadtoMe!bag(CentreforResearchinFamilyHealth,2009).Inaddition,readingpracticesofparentsinNovaScotiawhoreceivedabagofbooksfromtheReadtoMe!programwhentheirbabywasbornwerecomparedwithreadingpracticesofparentsinPrinceEdwardIslandwhodidnotreceiveabagofbooks.PreliminaryresultsshowthatNovaScotianparentswhoreceivedthebagsarereadingtotheirbabiessignificantlymorethanparentsinPrinceEdwardIsland–74.1%vs.53%(McDougall,2009).

Similarprogramsarebeingdevelopedinotherprovinces.Forexample,inBritishColumbia,theBooksforBCBabiesprogram(http://books4babies.bclibrary.ca)providesbooksandhelpsparentsunderstandtheimportanceofreadingtotheirchild.Thisprogramensuresthateverybaby(42,000annually)borninBritishColumbiareceivesafreebookbag.Thedistributionofthesebagsiscoordinatedbythepubliclibraryinconjunctionwithothercommunityagenciesineachcommunity.

InNovaScotia’s13FirstNationcommunities,thebooksforbabiesapproachhasbeenextendedtoprovideadevelopmentallyappropriatebookeverymonthuntilthechildturnsfiveyearsold.Eachbookisprovidedtogetherwithsuggestionsforhowthefamilycanpromotetheirchild’sliteracydevelopment.DollyParton’sImaginationLibraryprogram(http://www.imaginationlibrary.com),whichisonecomponentofalarger“WellnessthroughLiteracy”program,hasreceivedfundingforallbabiesborninNovaScotia’sFirstNationcommunitiesfrom2008–2013.AformalevaluationoftheprogramisplannedtotakeplaceduringYear3andfollowingYear5(Desborough,2009).

Olderchildrencanalsobenefitfromsupportforliteracyskilldevelopment.ManyofCanada’spubliclibrariesplayanimportantroleinthisregardthroughprovisionofcommunityearlyliteracyprograms(e.g.,storytimesforchildrenandtheircaregiversatlibraries)andthroughoutreachprograms(e.g.,storytimesatlocaldaycarecentresandmalls,andbookmobilelibraryservices).Somelibraryprogramsaremoreelaborate–forexample,anOttawaPublicLibrary(http://www.biblioottawalibrary.ca)programtakesastructuredandsystematicapproachtoearlyliteracy,teachingparentshowtohelptheirchildrenacquirethesixbuildingblocksofearlyliteracy.


FamilyliteracyprogramscanprovideeffectiveinterventionsforminorityFrancophonestudents,especiallywhentheyinclude:1)resourcekitsthatprovideFrenchlanguageliteracyresources(Lopez&Carrière,2007);2)community-basedprograms,specificallycommunityschoolcentres,whereschoolsareusedasabaseforprovidingservicesinFrench(Landry,Allard,&Deveau,2007);and3)French-languageearlychildhoodeducation(CMEC,2004).InManitoba,forexample,eightfamilycentresintheDivisionscolairefranco-manitobaineschools(http://www.dsfm.mb.ca)offerFrenchprogramsthatincludeastorytimeandafreebookexchangefortheFrancophonecommunity(Colliou,2009).

“Supporting minority Francophone parents in their efforts to contribute to their children’s early literacy development can be an effective way of alleviating the effects of limited French-language resources and institutional completeness for minority Francophone students.” CCL, 2009b, p. 23

Severalprovinceshavestartedtoimplementprovince-wideprogramswhichinvolvesupportsforfamilyliteracyactivitiesasanimportantcomponent.Forexample,Ontario’sEarlyYearsCentres(http://www.gov.on.ca/children/oeyc)aredesignedforchildrenuptotheageofsixandtheirparentsandcaregivers;thecentresgiveparents/caregiversandchildrentheopportunitytoparticipateinprogramsandactivitiestogether.Inaddition,thesecentresprovideinformationonchildren’sdevelopmentandonhowparentsandcaregiverscansupportthedevelopmentofchildrenintheircare.Theseservicesareofferedfreeofchargeatdifferenttimesthroughouttheday,intheevenings,andonweekends.Servicesareprovidednotonlyfortypicallydevelopingchildren,butalsoforchildrenwithspecialneeds.Currently,thereareover100OntarioEarlyYearsCentresacrosstheprovince;manyofwhichhavesatellitesitesandmobileprograms.Thecentresarestaffedbytrainedearlyyearsprofessionals,aswellasvolunteers.

BritishColumbiabegantodevelopaseriesof“StrongStart”earlylearningcentresinpriorityareasacrosstheprovincein2006topreparechildrenforsuccessinschool.StrongStartBC(http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/early_learning/strongstart_bc/)offersfreeservicestopreschool-agedchildrenandtheirparents/caregivers.Attheendofthe2008-09schoolyear,thereare200centresoperatingacrosstheprovince,with100morescheduledtobeaddednextyear.Outof60schooldistrictsinBritishColumbia,58arecurrentlyparticipatingintheprogram.Thecentresareusuallylocatedatschoolsandarecurrentlybeingexpandedtoruralandremotecommunities.Servicesareprovidedatleastthreehoursadayandfivedaysaweekduringthecalendaryear(BritishColumbiaMinistryofEducation,2009a).

AccordingtotheMinistryofEducation’spolicy,StrongStartBCearlylearningcentresareestablishedto“promotethefollowingareasofchildren’sdevelopment:physicalhealthandwell-being;socialandemotionaldevelopment;languageandcognitivedevelopment;andcommunicationskillsofpreschool-agedchildren”(BritishColumbiaMinistryofEducation,2009b).Thegovernmentiscommittedtoinvesting$43milliontoestablish400StrongStartBCcentresacrosstheprovinceby2010(BCLiberals,n.d.).Eachschooldistrictwillreceive$50,000toopenanewStrongStartBCcentreandanadditional$30,000eachyeartocoveroperatingcosts.


InManitoba,theHealthyChildManitobaprogramcoordinatesearlyyearsprogrammingandfamilyresources,withRegionalHealthAuthorities(RHA)havingamajorrole.Anongoingcommunityhealthassessmentprocesstrackspopulationandhealthdataovertheyears,andregionalparent-childcoalitionsprovidepracticalsupportforfamilycentres,communityprograms,andresources.TheRHAsnotonlyhavetheinformationrequired,butinruralregions,theyaretheonlyorganizationsthathavethemandate,scope,andabilitytoinitiateregion-wideplanningandprogramming(Roberts,2009).

SomeCanadianfamilyliteracyprogramshavegrownandbecomenationalandeveninternationalinscope.Forexample,theParent-ChildMotherGooseProgram(P-CMGP;http://www.nald.ca/mothergooseprogram),whichstartedinTorontoin1986,iscurrentlyinuseacrossCanada,inChina,andinAustralia.P-CMGPtargetsparentswhohavelowincomes,areisolated,educationallydisadvantaged,newtothecountryorcity,and/orlackpositiverolemodelsforparenting.Thisprogramisdesignedtofosterlanguagedevelopmentbyprovidingparentswiththebasicknowledgeandskillstheyneedtoengageinlanguagemediatedplay.Parentsaretaughtrhymes,songs,andstoriestousewiththeirchildren(Ball,2008).Aparallelprogramisalsoofferedtochildrenwithhearingimpairments.TheAmericanSignLanguage(ASL)Parent-ChildMotherGooseProgramisuniqueinteachingnurseryrhymesandsongstochildrentoimprovetheirsignlanguagedevelopment,helpingthesechildrentodevelopageappropriateliteracyskillsandincreasetheirreadinessforschool(Snodden,2009).

OtherCanadianfamilyliteracyprogramsarebasedoninitiativesdevelopedelsewhereintheworld,withthegoalofassistingparentstobecomeengagedintheirchild’sliteracydevelopment.Onesuchprogram,whichwasdesignedtoincreasechildren’sreadinessforschool,istheHomeInstructionforParentsofPre-schoolYoungsters(HIPPY)program.Itwasfirstdevelopedin1969attheHebrewUniversityofJerusalem,Israel(http://www.hippy.org.il/html/about_international.html).Thisparent-focused,home-basedearlyinterventionprogramprovidesparentswithsupport,informationandtoolsneededtobecomeaneffective“firstteacher”fortheirchild.

InCanada,thefirstHIPPYprogrambeganinVancouver,BritishColumbia,in2001(http://www.hippycanada.ca).AsofJune2009,HIPPYCanadahasserved2,533familiesthroughitssites.AnAmericanstudyontheimpactofHIPPYontheschoolperformanceofmorethan1,000childreninGrades3and6foundthat:

Participation in HIPPY had the following positive effects: 1) reduced levels of suspension; 2) higher grades; 3) higher achievement test scores; and 4) better classroom behavior. As a general rule, these effects were quite modest (effect sizes mostly about .2 to .3), but they persisted at both 3rd and 6th grades. (Bradley & Gilkey, 2002, p. 309)

Interventions in early learning/child care settings

MorethanoneinfourCanadianchildrenwhoenterGrade1aresignificantlybehindtheirpeersandpoorlypreparedtolearn(Janus,2006;Lloyd&Hertzman,2008;Kershaw,Irwin,Trafford,&Hertzman,2006;Willms,2002).Manyofthesechildrenarenotabletocatchuptotheirpeersand,asaresult,becomedisruptiveinschool,failtograduate,andareunabletofullyparticipateinandcontributetosociety.ThistroublingstatisticdemonstratesthatCanadaneedstoimprovesupportforearlylearning.


IncreasingnumbersofCanadianchildrenarenowparticipatinginformaldaycare/earlylearningcentres;thesecentresprovideaparticularopportunitytosupportearlylearning.AccordingtoStatisticsCanada(2006),participationratesareincreasing:in2002-2003,54%ofCanadianchildrenagedsixmonthstofiveyearsreceivedsometypeofnon-parentalchildcare,anincreasefrom42%overthepreviouseightyears.Thisriseaffectedchildrenfromalmostallbackgrounds,andinallregions;forexample,inruralareas,52.4%ofchildrenwereparticipatingby2002-03,anincreasefrom36.3%in1994-95.

Attendinghighqualityearlylearningandchildcareprogramscanimprovechildren’slanguageandliteracyskills,readinessforschool,andearlyschoolperformance.Researchshowsthatthisisespeciallytrueforchildrenfromdisadvantagedbackgroundswho,followingtheirattendanceinqualityearlychildhooddevelopmentprograms,hadhighereducationalandoccupationaloutcomes,suchasstayinginschoollongerandearninghighersalarieslaterinlife(Karoly&Bigelow,2005).AlargeandgrowingnumberofCanadianchildrenspendtimeinearlylearningandcareprograms,whichprovideanaturalsettingwithinwhichtohelpdevelopchildren’sskills.Intensiveearlylearningprogramscanalsoprovidesignificantlonger-termbenefitsforat-riskchildren,includingareducedneedforremedialandspecialeducationservices,increasedgraduationrates,increasedemploymentprospects,andreducedincidenceofdelinquencyandcontactwiththejusticesystem(e.g.,seeReynolds,Temple,Robertson,&Mann,2002–TitleIChicagoChild-ParentCentres;CommitteeforEconomicDevelopment,2006–Abecedarian,ChicagoCPC,andPerryPreschool;Currie,2001–HeadStart).

Theimmediateandthelong-termeffectsofhigh-qualitychildcareoncognitiveandlanguagedevelopmentofchildrenhavebeenreportedinnumerousstudies(Barnett,2001;Campbell,Pungello,Miller-Johnson,Burchinal,&Ramey,2001;NICHD&Duncan,2003;Peisner-Feinbergetal.,1999).Evidencealsodemonstratesthesubstantialeconomicbenefitsofhighqualityearlylearningenvironments.Forexample,over40%ofthecostforearlychildhoodprogramsinQuebecispaidforbythetaxrevenuesobtainedfrommotherswhocouldnotworkifaffordablechildcarewasnotoffered(Lefebvre&Merrigan,2008).EconomistsfromtheUniversityofTorontoestimateda$2returnforeverygovernmentdollarinvestedinhighqualitychildcare,reflectingreductionsincostsforremedialeducationandprovisionofsocialservices,andincreasedtaxespaidbyworkingparents(Cleveland&Krashinsky,1998).

HighqualitypreschoolprogramsintheUnitedStates(e.g.,theAbecederianEarlyChildhoodIntervention,theHigh/ScopePerryPreschoolProgram,theChicagoChild-ParentPreschoolCenterProgram,HeadStart)haveclearlyillustratedthatthebenefitsoftheseprogramssignificantlyoutweighthecosts.Returnstosocietyfromsuchprogramshavebeenestimatedatbetween$2.00and$8.74perdollarinvested(Nores,Belfield,Barnett,&Schweinhart,2005).Theshort-andmedium-termbenefitsoftheHeadStartprogramindicatedthat40-60%ofthetotalcostsoftheprogramwereoffsetbythesebenefitsalone(Noresetal.,2005).Internationalresearchhasalsodemonstratedthebenefitsofprovidingappropriateearlysupporttoat-riskchildrenandhasestimatedthereturnoninvestmentatupto$7.00forevery$1.00invested(Coates,2008).

Itisimportanttoemphasizethattheinitiativesnotedaboveprovidedhighquality,intensiveearlylearningexperiences.Programsthatprovidelessintensiveandlower-qualitylearningsupportsmaynotreturnproportionalbenefits.Moreover,theavailabilityandqualityofearlylearningandchildcare(ELCC)programsvariessubstantiallyacrossCanada’s13provincesandterritories.In2004,Canadahadover745,000regulateddaycarespaces,withnearlyhalf(justover321,000)ofthem


beinglocatedinQuebec(StatisticsCanada,2006).QuebeccomesclosesttohavingauniversallyavailableELCCprogram.Beginningin1997alow-cost($5/day;now$7/day)centre-basedchildcareprogramwasintroducedandthishasbeenstrengthenedinsubsequentyears,tonowbeavailabletoallQuebecchildrenfrombirththroughagefour.QuebecparentsthuspayfarlessthanmostotherCanadiansforchildcareexpenses,anditisthereforenotsurprisingthatQuebechasthehighestpercentageofchildrenagedsixmonthstofiveyearsinnon-parentalchildcare(67%)outofallprovinces,whileAlberta(43%)hasthelowest(StatisticsCanada,2006).

TheoverallqualityofcareinQuebechasimprovedunderthisinitiative(Japel,Tremblay,&Côté,2005).Forexample,datafromtheQuebecLongitudinalStudyofChildDevelopment,showedincreasedqualityofformalandinformalcommunication,increasedcommunicationsupportprovidedtochildren,andmorefrequentactivitiesrelatedtobooksandothermaterialsthatfosterlanguagedevelopment(Japel,Tremblay,&Côté,S.,2005).Kohen,Dahinten,Khan,andHertzman(2008)analyzedfivecyclesofdatafromtheCanadianNationalLongitudinalSurveyofChildrenandYouth(1994/5-2002/3)toexaminetheimpactofQuebec’simplementationofuniversalchildcare.SincetheinceptionofQuebec’suniversalchildcareprogram,QuebecledCanadaintheprovisionofchildcare,althoughby2002,“theuseandavailabilityofregulatedchildcareinQuebecislowercomparedtoothercountries.Forexample,90-100%of3-and4-year-oldsinFrance,Denmark,theNetherlands,NewZealandandSpainareinlicensedchildcareorearlyeducationprograms”(Kohenetal.,2008,p.454).

Ontarioplansformoreintegratedcareandeducationof4-and5-yearolds:

While we have some great programs with talented, dedicated people providing them, too often services are disconnected from each other. We leave it to families to bridge the gaps, avoid the overlaps, and negotiate their way, if they can. The current fragmented patchwork of early childhood services too often fails the best interests of our children, frustrates families and educators, and wastes resources. (Pascal, 2009, p. 4)

Ontario’soverallplanistocoordinateservicesforfamiliesandhighqualityearlylearningforchildrenthroughacontinuumofservicesfrombirthtoage12.TohelpchildrensucceedwhentheyenterGrade1,theplanrecommendsthat:1)schoolboardsofferatwo-year,full-dayEarlyLearningProgramfor4-and5-year-oldspriortoGrade1,startinginSeptember2010,tobeavailableprovince-widewithinthreeyears;2)parentshaveachoiceabouttheirchild’sparticipation,includingtheoptionoffull-dayorhalf-dayattendance;3)fee-basedprogramming(beforeandaftertraditionalschoolhoursandduringthesummerholidays)beofferedattherequestof15ormorefamilies;and4)programsbestaffedbywell-trainedteamsofteachersandearlychildhoodeducatorsworkingwithanestablished,consistentcurriculumandapproachtolearning.Theestimatedfeesfor4-and5-year-oldchildrenwouldaverage$6,750annuallyor$27aday.Thesefeeshavebeencalculatedbasedonchildrenattendingfullyear,extendeddayprogramming.Low-incomefamilieswouldreceivechildcarefeesubsidiestomakethisaffordable(Pascal,2009).

AnumberofCanada’searlylearninginterventionprogramstargetspecificlinguisticorculturalcommunities.Asoneexample,NovaScotia’sFrancophoneschoolboard(Conseilscolaireacadienprovincial)implementedanewprogramwhentheyfoundthat65%ofthefive-year-oldchildrenwerearrivingatschoolwithoutspeakingFrench.Theboard’s“GrowingupinFrench”programisforfour-year-oldchildren,andtheyreportthat,afterfouryearsofoperation,80%oftheirchildrennowspeakFrenchwhentheybeginschool.Inthe2007-08schoolyears,152childrenregisteredtoattendthisprogram(Conseilscolaireacadienprovincial,2008).


Asanotherexample,BritishColumbia’sAboriginalChildCareSocietydevelopedaspeechandlanguageinitiativeforparentsandearlychildhoodeducators.Thisinitiativeusestoysandstoriestohelpenhancelanguagedevelopmentforchildrenaged3-5years.Theactivitiesandmaterialsguideparentsandeducatorsinprovidingplannedopportunitiesforchildrentopracticelanguageskillsinchildcareandpreschoolsettings,andathome.Aworkshopisusedtodemonstratehowtousethematerialsandtoexplainhowtheactivitieshelptodevelopchildren’sspeechandlanguage,social,andearlyliteracyskills.ThisprogramisreportedtohavebecomeextremelypopularinAboriginalearlychildhoodprogramsinBritishColumbia(Ball,2008).

CanadaimplementedanationalAboriginalHeadStart(AHS)program,beginningin1995.AHSisahalf-dayprogramintendedforAboriginal(Indian,MétisandInuit)childrenbetweentheagesof2and5years.WhileAHSdifferssubstantiallyfromtheoriginalHeadStartapproachintroducedintheUnitedStates,itsgoalissimilar:topreparechildrenforasuccessfultransitionfromhometoschoollearningenvironments.AHShasbeenimplementedinapproximately126communitiesacrossCanada.ProgrammingineachAHSfocusesonsixcomponents:1)cultureandlanguage;2)educationandschoolreadiness;3)healthpromotion;4)nutrition;5)socialsupport;and6)parentalandfamilyinvolvement(PublicHealthAgencyofCanada,2004).Theprogramsarefreeofcharge.MostsitesareoperatedprimarilyinEnglishwithsomeexposuretooneormoreIndigenouslanguages.Noformalevaluationofthisprogramisyetavailable.However,itisknownthat20%ofthesiteshaveidentifiedlowliteracyskillsamongparentsasaseriouschallengetoparentalinvolvement(HealthCanada,2000).

Classroom instruction and interventions

“There is reliable evidence from meta-analytic review that language-rich home and school environments, characterised by much shared book experience and purposeful and meaningful use of language through supporting naturalistic play and active learning, has a significant impact on early literacy. This appears particularly true in the K and pre-K years suggesting that school (literacy) and pre-school (language) initiatives should be closely linked to be effective.” Savage, 2008, p. 7

Effectiveclassroominstructionisessentialinfosteringchildren’sreadingdevelopment.Theelementsthatshouldbeincludedinordertoachieveeffectiveclassroominstructioninclude:classroommanagementbasedonpositivereinforcementandcooperation;balancedteachingofskills,literature,andwriting;scaffoldingandmatchingdemandstostudentcompetence;encouragementofstudent’sabilities;self-regulatorylearning(i.e.,studentsactivelymonitortheirlearning);crosscurricularconnections(e.g.,readingandwritinginstructioninallsubjects);andlessonsthatarebrokendownintoclearlyrelatedcomponents(Pressleyetal.,2001).Researchalsoindicatesthatchildrenbenefitfromhighlystructured,well-focused,scaffolded,andexplicitinstructionalstrategieswithinalesson;theselessonsmusthaveanobviouspurposeandberelatedtoachievementofaspecificgoal(Armbruster,Lehr,&Osborn,2003).Manyreadingproblemscanbepreventediftheabovetechniquesareusedforallchildren(Snow,Burns,&Griffin,1998).


Whenreadingdifficultiesdooccur,classroom-basedinterventionscanbeeffectiveinhelpingchildrenwiththedifficulty.Swanson(1999)conductedareviewofclassroom-basedinterventionstudiesforchildrenwithreadingdisabilitiesandidentifiedtheinstructionalcomponentsthatweremostsuccessfulforstudentlearning.Theseincludedbuildingautomaticityinbasicskills(e.g.,repetition-practice-feedback);segmentinginformation;scaffolding(e.g.,controllingdifficultyofthetask);modellingproblemsolvingsteps;presentingcuestopromptstrategyuse;anddirectedresponseandquestioning.Theserecommendationsencompassdirectinstructionandinstructioninstrategyuse.

Toachieveeffectivereadinginstruction,lessonsshouldincludethemaincomponentsofreadingdevelopment.Thesecomponentsinclude:1)printawareness;2)decodingwhichincludesletterknowledge,phonologicalawareness,phonemicawareness,andunderstandingthealphabeticprinciple;3)vocabulary;4)readingcomprehension;and5)fluency(CLLRNet,2008).

TheCommitteeonthePreventionofReadingDifficultiesinYoungChildren,comprisedofleadingliteracyresearchers,completedareportfortheU.S.NationalResearchCouncilin1998.Theyreportedthat:

There are three potential stumbling blocks that are known to throw children off course on the journey to skilled reading. The first obstacle, which arises at the outset of reading acquisition, is difficulty understanding and using the alphabetic principle—the idea that written spellings systematically represent spoken words. It is hard to comprehend connected text if word recognition is inaccurate or laborious. The second obstacle is a failure to transfer the comprehension skills of spoken language to reading and to acquire new strategies that may be specifically needed for reading. The third obstacle to reading will magnify the first two: the absence or loss of an initial motivation to read or failure to develop a mature appreciation of the rewards of reading. (Snow et al., 1998, p. 4-5)

Somechildrenfailtomakeprogressinreadingdespitehavingqualityinstructionintheearlygrades.Additionalservicesshouldbeprovidedtothesechildren,preferablybyareadingspecialistwhocoordinatesinstructionwiththeclassroomteacher.

Children who are having difficulty learning to read do not, as a rule, require qualitatively different instruction from children who are “getting it.” Instead, they more often need application of the same principles by someone who can apply them expertly to individual children who are having difficulty for one reason or another. (Snow et al., 1998, p. 12)

Classroomreadinginstructionshouldbesystematicandcomprehensiveinnature,anddesignedtohelpallstudentstosucceed.TheResponsetoIntervention(RTI)frameworkprovidesuniversalscreeningtochildrentoidentifythosewhoareatrisk,systematicallymonitorsthosestudentswhoarefallingbehindtheirpeers,andprovidesappropriateandimmediateinterventionforthosechildrenwhohavefallenbehind(Vaughn&Fuchs,2003).Studentsareprovidedwithsystematicreadinginstruction,followedbysuccessivelyintensiveandindividualizedinterventions,asneeded.Theseinterventionsaretypicallydeliveredbygeneraleducationstaffsupportedbyotherlearningexperts(Torgesen,2009).

Brodeuretal.(2008)proposetheadoptionoftheRTI(orThree-tier)modelforreadinginstructionandacquisitioninCanada.Theybelievethat,“itispresentlyoneofthemostpromisingmodelstobettersupporteachstudent’ssuccessinlearningtoread”(Brodeuretal.,2008,p.28).TheRTImodelhasbeensuccessfullyadoptedbymanyschoolsintheU.S.Infact,theU.S.hasattemptedtoimplementtheRTImodelonalargescalethroughtheReadingFirstprogram,thelargestfederally


fundedinitiativetopreventtheemergenceofearlyreadingdifficulties.Thegoalistobringthismodeltoschoolswherethemajorityofstudentscomefrompoorfamiliesorminoritybackgrounds.Forexample,Torgesen(2009)describestheresultsofusingtheRTImodelinFlorida,wheretheReadingFirstschoolsbeganusingRTIinthe2003–2004schoolyear.MoststudentsinthiscohortcomefromlowSESfamilies(72%),areminoritystudents(62%),andareEnglishasaSecondLanguagelearners(14%).

Inalittleoverthreeyears,theseschoolshaveseensignificantreductionsinthenumbersofstudentsidentifiedaslearningdisabledinKindergartentoGrade3(e.g.,thepercentageofstudentsidentifiedaslearningdisabledattheendofKindergartenfellfrom2.1%to0.4%fromYear1toYear3oftheprogram,an81%decrease).Inaddition,therewasareductioninthenumberofstudentswithseriousreadingdifficulties(thepercentageofstudentswithreadingskillsatorbelowthe5thpercentilefellby30%fromYear1toYear3inGrades1and2,whereasforthesamegrades,thepercentageofstudentsidentifiedwithlearningdisabilitiesfellby67%and53%,respectively).Althoughtheseresultsarepromising,theyshouldbeinterpretedwithcautionasratesofreferralandidentificationofreadingdisabilitiesarelikelyinfluencedbyvariousfactorsoutsideofstudentreadingimprovements(Torgesen,2009).

Todate,onlyoneCanadianschoolreadingimprovementinitiative–ABRACADABRA(ABalancedReadingApproachforallCanadiansDesignedtoAchieveBetterResultsforAll)–hasbeenevaluatedthrougharandomizedcontroltrial(Savage,2009).TheABRACADABRA

Documents

National Strategy for Early Literacyen.copian.ca/library/research/nsel/report/report.pdfThe present initiative to create a pan-Canadian National Strategy for Early Literacy (NSEL)