1).
The major reason for the failure of such programs is that schools are staffed by middle-class teachers, reflecting middle-class views of what literacy is. More often than not these mainstream teachers from middle class backgrounds unknowingly assume their students" early literacy experiences are similar to their own (Asselin, 2001a, p.1). Thus, marginalised families that are diverse in their language, culture, ethnicity and class are often represented as a deficit discourse. In viewing these families as lacking, instruction in schools often continues to overemphasise the language, culture and values of the mainstream population as a way to resist the shifting demographics. Sadly, there is often the underlying belief that transforming culturally diverse families to mirror mainstream families will produce educational and economic success for their children. Thus, these opposing differences between population and pedagogy often bring about tension and confusion for students, parents, teachers and school officials (Whitehouse & Colvin, 2002, p.1). It is not enough to simply provide ruling-class practices to the working-class and expect this to ensure social justice (Cairney, 2000, p.95). Obviously there is a difference between a community's diversity and knowing how, as a teacher, to deal with it. The solution is not to seek to conform families to school expectations of what it is to be literate (Cairney, 2000, p.98).
Another reason for the failure of such programs is that a lot of parents do not feel competent enough to deal with schoolwork. They often have insecurities and fears about participating in their children's learning. Parents" non-involvement is often as a result of their own low self-efficacy and they want to avoid facing their own inadequacies. Often reinforcing these insecurities are teachers" negative attitudes towards non-mainstream families and in particular, stereotyped views of low-income parents as not caring about their children's education.
