This study was written during 2000–2005, a period that witnessed an
unprecedented production of advice texts focused on the literacy development
of children. The focus on the family setting as a key site for literacy development
has also coincided with expanded definitions of literacy more generally. These
now include, as the Movement for Canadian Literacy has observed, “literacy,
the universe and everything”
(2005), whereby literacy is associated
with all that is good and desirable in a young child: secure attachment, emotional
and physical health, a long attention span, a love of story books, a large vocabulary,
school readiness, academic and financial success, and even “happiness”
(Gordon, 2003).
The ideas that parents are teachers and “home is the first school”
have become accepted as statements of fact. Many provincial educational reforms
are motivated by research that suggests that parental involvement is the most
significant factor affecting a child’s success in school (Lofthouse, 1999).
Much seems to be at stake for Canadian society in how well parents perform this
role. Christensen, former Minister of Education in British Columia noted that
“parents are essential partners in our education system and can inspire
their children to new levels of achievement”
(2005, p. 1). This message
crosses borders. Former United States First Lady and family literacy advocate
Barbara Bush captured the emphasis placed upon parenting practices to achieve
education policy goals in her statement, “Our success as a society
depends not on what happens in the White House, but what happens inside your
house”
(Sears & Sears, 2002, p. 31).
Education reform initiatives aim to institutionalise parental involvement
in schools and increase parents’ accountability for their children’s
educational success2. This policy thrust as well as researchers’
attention to children’s literacy learning before formal schooling has
given rise to the family literacy movement and to what Hutchison (2000) has
termed the “growth industry”
of parent education, particularly for
supporting children’s literacy. It is interesting to consider this trend
alongside a phenomenon commentators have termed “hyper-mothering”
(Warner, 2005). This is characterized by the increased pressure and expectations
for mothers to raise literate, “successful”
children (Sears &
Sears, 2002), hold down productive jobs, support their communities, manage a
clean and a spacious home in a “good”
neighbourhood close to good
schools, and not feel stressed while doing it “because stress is bad for
your baby”
(Canadian Institute for Child Health, 1997). While women have
been protesting the “myth of the ideal mother”
for more than fifty
years (Hulbert, 2005), this myth continues to take new forms, and the shifting
standards for the “good” mother can powerfully shape mothering experiences
even when women protest and resist these standards. These ideals conflict with
the material conditions for mothering expressed by mothers like Pat Guy (2000),
who writes:
2 For example, in British Columbia in April 2002, the government mandated new school planning councils that require three member parents, a teacher, and a principal. These councils have expanded responsibilities including submitting school accountability reports advising on curriculum, setting funding goals, and monitoring academic progress. The Ontario government places the onus on parents (who can afford to do so) to remove their children from “failing” schools through vouchers to subsidize private schooling.