Three people did the preliminary test and interview and signed up for the group at Growing Together Child and Parent Society, but no one attended a single session, and I cancelled the group after two sessions to which no one came.
I wanted to know what caused the low attendance rate, and especially I wanted to know if the activities themselves were to blame, or if my facilitation of the groups was putting people off. However, since I had told people when they signed up that they were free to drop out at any time, no questions asked, I couldn’t probe their reasons, or pester them with phone calls or e-mails. Changing the meeting day gave me a legitimate reason to phone or e-mail everyone in the group that met on campus, however, and they gave no indication of dissatisfaction with the group or the process. During my life as a teacher I had phoned many a student with sporadic attendance, and these phone calls had similar results: they cheerfully assured me that they had every intention of coming, but something in their life was preventing them coming at the moment.
At the end of the sessions, the project evaluator phoned the contact numbers we
had for all 29 participants, and, when she made contact, asked specifically about
reasons for not attending, and about their opinions of me as a group facilitator.
Those who attended only once or a few times gave the following reasons: daycare
challenges, family responsibilities, schedule changed, and a busy life (Evaluator’s
Report, Jan 2008). No one suggested that the content of the group, or my facilitation,
had any bearing on their lack of attendance. “Participants surveyed had very
positive feedback for Kate’s performance as the instructor… (They) commented that
she was patient, a good listener, an experienced instructor, astute and respectful
”
(Evaluator’s Report, Jan 2008).
Moreover, attendance or lack of it had no relationship with participants’ evaluation of the usefulness of the group, which was positive for everyone who came to the final interview and test.
I planned to use my usual egalitarian approach to facilitation with the groups. By this I mean that I acknowledged differences in power between me and the participants, and attempted to reduce such differences by acknowledging the strengths participants brought to the project we were working on and recognizing the importance of their knowledge of their children, and the vital importance to the project of their review and assessment of the activities under review.
I tried to establish a sense of comfort and safety by building on parents’ strengths and experience rather than their deficits. I was very concerned to set a tone in the sessions that recognized the strengths parents have in knowing what would work with their kids. I set it up as a partnership—I would bring my knowledge of math and my experience of teaching experientially, and they would show me how to adapt what I had developed to make it more suitable, and they would give me directions for new games and activities that families could use.
I took an exploratory and holistic approach to math, which means that I encouraged participants to do the activities to see what might happen, rather than being focused on coming to a pre-determined conclusion. A holistic approach meant that the activities engaged the participants’ minds, bodies, hearts and souls. I developed the activities for the groups based on my reading and my experience teaching math to ABE/literacy students, which I write about in Changing the Way We Teach Math (Nonesuch, 2006).