Smythe and Isserlis (2003) examined the role of mothers in the preparation of their child for school as well as the important role they play in the creation of quality schools. They composed a mothering discourse from interviews held with teachers, administrators and mothers. This mothering discourse is built on the idealized images and stereotypes of the middle-class mother and the "standard" North American family. The interviews demonstrated that working-class mothers live with financial constraints related to their jobs, which undermine their capacity to participate in school life. According to Smythe and Isserlis, when schools depend on the volunteerism of mothers, a kind of inequality is created that helps perpetuate educational and social differences between families.

This is why the practitioners must ask themselves the following questions: Do mothering discourses limit opportunities for women's education beyond their role as a parent? Does our teaching reinforce mothering discourses, or provide women and men with opportunities to question, reflect upon, and perhaps resist images of the "ideal" mother and parent? Are we, as literacy educators, contributing to a shift toward making parents - and mothers in particular - responsible for their children's educational achievement, in a context of unequal distribution of social resources? We can open up a discussion with learners about family literacy texts by asking whether the advice learners receive for supporting their children's learning is realistic, about who does the homework supervision and "teaching" in the home, and about their experiences. In looking at images of mothering on posters and promotional materials, we can ask: Is this what literacy looks like in our homes? What else could it look like? Is reading with our children always easy and happy? Does it always feel natural? How else is literacy part of our children's lives? What does it mean to be involved in our children's schooling? Perhaps in creating family literacy texts based on the actual experiences of mothers and families, the field of family literacy can map out a more inclusive and diverse understanding of the best approaches to supporting literacy in families and in schools (Smythe and Isserlis, 2003, p. 33).

Britto et al. (2006) carried out a quantitative research based on Vygotsky's theory of learning. They studied the associations between how mothers taught reading skills and how well the children were prepared for school in low-income African-American families. They found a strong correlation between the teaching models of the mother (e.g., guided supervision, instructions, answers to the child's needs, clear verbal indications, emotional aspect of reading, use of vocabulary, choice of the time for conversation during shared reading) and the use of expressive language and preparation for school. The researchers recommend that family literacy programs emphasize a variety of interactive activities beyond shared reading activities. This recommendation could also apply to fathers.

6.4.4 A participative and critical approach based on the participants' pre-existing literacies

Caspe (2003) indicates that in spite of good intentions, some family literacy programs too often discourage the families they are trying to help. For example, the discussion of gender within the programs tends to reproduce the traditional roles of the father and the mother.