The COVID-19 pandemic has changed the way school districts reach, educate, evaluate, and support students. Remote schooling provided opportunities for reflection and revaluation of curriculum, but also limited the content teachers were able to deliver in 2020 and 2021 and the skills students were able to develop, and increased chronic absenteeism for at risk students (Southall et al., 2021). In the past, grade retention, or repetition, has been a common way for school districts to address low achievement and high absenteeism.

As parents, schools, and districts assess student learning progress at the end of the 2020-21 school year, some stakeholders may propose grade retention as a mechanism to support students. As this brief will explain, the research is clear that grade retention has no long-term benefits for student achievement or long-term outcomes and may in fact have negative consequences for both students and districts. While there is some evidence of short-term positive effects, these are to be expected as students are completing work they have already been exposed to. As students move into later grades, these effects disappear, indicating that while students may improve on work they have already completed, grade retention does not provide a scaffold for learning new skills or approaching new challenges in future grades.

Grade retention is not an educationally advantageous or cost effective solution for supporting struggling students, and may in fact cause more harm in the long run both to individual students and to their districts.

While the specific conditions of remote learning during a global pandemic are unprecedented, the retention of students for low achievement and high absenteeism is not. Here, we review existing literature on two forms of grade retention: involuntary, otherwise known as “holding students back,” and voluntary, often referred to as “redshirting.” We conclude that grade retention is not an educationally advantageous or cost effective solution for supporting struggling students, and may in fact cause more harm in the long run both to individual students and to their districts. In lieu of grade retention, we recommend using district funds towards research-supported interventions for students such as tutoring programs, increased socio-emotional support, culturally-responsive pedagogy, and teacher training on differentiation and effective use of data to support student growth.  

Involuntary Grade Retention – Impact on Retained Students

Most research on grade retention examines the involuntary form of the practice, often labeled as “leaving a student behind.” There are a number of potential reasons why a school may recommend or require a student be retained, including low exam scores, attendance, or other performance metrics. In general, students who are retained repeat their current grade the following year as their classmates move on to the next grade. As this unique school year comes to a close, schools and districts will need to examine the best solution for a potentially increased number of students labeled as “underperforming.”

The research on the efficacy of grade retention suggests that it is not a particularly effective intervention, although there is evidence of some short-term gains. For example, a number of studies find students typically improve during the year they repeat (Frey, 2005). Other research suggests positive impacts on self-concept as well (Lamote et al., 2014). This may be expected, however, given that the content the students are receiving is similar if not identical to the year prior; these gains may simply be limited to the “head start” repeating students have in comparison to peers learning content for the first time.

When examining results beyond the repeated year, research suggests that any gains experienced by retaining students fade away, if not outright switch to a negative impact. Both Jimmerson et al. (1997) and Karweit (1999), for example, find that short-term positive effects are not sustained, and within a few years retained students see no benefit from the intervention. Further, other work finds negative long-term impacts on student achievement; Lamote et al. (2014) finds little short-term impact, but a strong decline in language achievement for students who were retained in eighth grade when examining students’ performance later in high school.

There are other serious potential negative academic implications of grade retention as well, particularly when considering the potential impact on high school dropout rates. Jacob and Lefgren (2007), for example, find that retention among low-achieving eighth-grade students increases the likelihood that these students will drop out of high school. Similarly, Hughes et al. (2018) finds that students who were retained in grades 1-5 are also more likely to drop out of high school, with effects strongest for Hispanic and African American girls, even though academic achievement was not significantly lower for these students.

One study found that grade retention is associated with increased absences, behavioral difficulties, and lower peer acceptance.

Other, non-academic negative effects are associated with grade retention as well. Jimerson (1997) finds that grade retention is associated with increased absences, behavioral difficulties, and lower peer acceptance when compared to a similarly performing control group who were not retained. A follow-up study (Jimerson, 1999) also found retained students had notably lower employment and postsecondary outcomes, including lower wages and less likelihood to be enrolled in college.

In sum, the research is clear that retaining students is not associated with positive outcomes and may lead to negative academic and non-academic outcomes in the long run. The salient question, then, is what might be an alternative? A typical response might be “social promotion” or automatic promotion, in which a student is moved on to the next grade despite not mastering the content of the prior year. While popular in the past, additional attention paid to benchmarking and competency as far back as 1983’s A Nation at Risk has led to significant arguments against the practice (Frey, 2005). Still, research suggests that socially promoted students may actually outperform their retained peers, despite not receiving any additional interventions (Holmes & Matthews, 1984). It may be helpful, then, to consider involuntary grade retention and social promotion as two of a number of options; other interventions could buoy struggling students as they move from grade to grade, which we examine in the concluding section of this brief.

Voluntary and Involuntary Grade Retention – Impact on “Redshirted” Students

A second implementation of grade retention occurs when parents or caregivers, rather than teachers, request that a student be “held back.” Generally, voluntary grade retention happens either when parents or caregivers request that their child repeat a year, or (much more commonly) when they wait to enroll their child in school for the first time, a practice typically called “redshirting.” Research on this type of grade retention is far less prevalent, especially when considering impacts for older students as the practice is comparatively uncommon. Still, there are lessons we can learn from redshirting that may help guide decisions for districts, schools, and parents.

The research is not nearly as clear in comparison to existing work on involuntary grade retention, and there are a small handful of studies that uncover short-term benefits. For example, Datar (2006) finds that within the first two years of schooling, students who enter Kindergarten at an older age relative to their same-grade peers do have higher test scores, especially for students who are labeled as at-risk, and other work finds that older students outperform younger students more generally, including through high school (Bedard & Duhey, 2006).

Despite the studies cited above, more substantial and broad evidence suggests that redshirting has no long-term benefit to the students who are retained (Huang, 2015). For example, Lincove and Painter (2006) find that while students entering Kindergarten at a younger age than their same-grade peers are more likely to repeat a grade later on, they are actually less likely to see any negative effects of retention. Moreover, they are more likely to attend college, earn higher wages, and even achieve higher test scores in high school when compared to students who were redshirted. Additionally, a variety of studies (see Huang, 2015 for a summary) have found redshirted students are more likely to be placed in a special education program, have higher prevalence of behavioral issues, and are more likely to be disengaged. Finally, boys’ increased likelihood to redshirt can at least partially explain the boy-girl gender gap in high school and college completion (Deming & Dynarski, 2006).

Impacts on Larger Community

While the impacts of both voluntary and involuntary grade retention are certainly felt by individual students, it is also important to note the impact both practices have on the larger schooling community. First, districts do not generally budget for students to be involuntarily retained, meaning that an individual student being asked to repeat a grade will cost a district anywhere from $13,000 to $35,000, depending on the district (CT School Finance, 2021). These funds could otherwise be spent on other, more useful interventions.

An individual student being asked to repeat a grade will cost a district anywhere from $13,000 to $35,000, depending on the district.

While pre-Kindergarten redshirting doesn’t typically have the same costs associated with later grade retention (parents are still typically paying for some version of pre-school instead), there are other, non-financial costs associated with the practice, specifically when considering equity. Given the increased cost of redshirting placed on parents, it is perhaps unsurprising that caregivers with high socioeconomic status are more likely to use this practice, and academically redshirted students are more likely to be White than their non-redshirted peers, even as poorer families are more likely to be concerned about their child’s readiness for Kindergarten (Bassok & Reardon, 2013). As a result, the practice may actually exacerbate existing achievement gaps, in the short term, between White and BIPOC students (Lenard & Pena, 2018).

Alternatives to Grade Retention

The evidence is clear: grade retention is not an effective or fiscally prudent intervention for students performing below grade level, nor can it be recommended as an elective practice for younger students. However, some stakeholders may suggest this option because they experienced the potential shortterm positive effects discussed above as students, as parents, or as teachers. It is imperative that districts acknowledge these effects and then engage in research-oriented dialogue about the short and long-term costs and negative effects of grade retention and offer other interventions to families and schools to support struggling students. Of course, automatically promoting students to the next grade despite poor performance or attendance does not mean that a district’s responsibilities and opportunities for support and intervention end. Rather, funds that might have been used in retaining students could be used to provide interventions that are proven to improve student outcomes. 

One such intervention could be a “high-dosage” tutoring program, an intervention supported by significant research (Kraft & Goldstein, 2020), in which individual tutors work with students throughout the year to support academic growth. Another potential intervention involves “wraparound” services in which schools use comprehensive support models to address out-of-school factors that may be inhibiting learning; these services have been demonstrated to improve not only learning outcomes but also socio-emotional development (Bowden & Wasser Gish, 2021). There is also evidence that providing additional socio-emotional support and family engagement through strengthened guidance programs (Lapan et al., 2007), community events and partnerships (Sheldon, 2003), and culturally-responsive pedagogy are each helpful for improving student outcomes (Dee & Penner, 2017). Lastly, any intervention must come with in-depth and sustained teacher training (Darling-Hammond & Richardson, 2009), providing teachers with the skills and dispositions necessary for individualizing and differentiating instruction for students. This includes developing more robust and nuanced skills around student data collection and assessment that inspires changes to curriculum and pedagogy (Filderman et al., 2020). These suggestions are not new, and may already be part of many school district improvement plans for Alliance Districts in Connecticut. However, in conversations about supporting students during and after the COVID-19 crisis these efforts should be redoubled, especially if grade retention is suggested by parents, teachers, or school administrators. Resources are limited and precious for school districts, and thus using them on research-based interventions and not on grade retention is vital to serving students equitably and responsibly.

Author Biographies

Samuel Kamin is a doctoral candidate at the University of Connecticut in the Department of Educational Leadership. His research uses a quantitative lens to examine questions of equity in K-12 public schools, particularly surrounding issues of choice. He is currently working with the Career and Technical Education Research Network examining CTE implementation, access, and equity. He is also a former high school math teacher in New York City public schools.

Alexandra Lamb is a doctoral candidate at the University of Connecticut in the department of Educational Leadership and a former educator, leader, and technology integrator in K-12 schools. Her research uses organizational and institutional lenses to understand how schools and districts change with the introduction of educational technology programs. Specifically, she examines how educational leaders create conditions for positive change in the presence of technology that supports deeper learning, more equitable schooling, and better student outcomes. Her most recent work in the Journal of Educational Administration examines 1:1 technology as a feature of the educational infrastructure of school districts.

Note: Adapted from Snow (2006).

Understanding where students fall along a developmental continuum allows teachers and caregivers to provide intervention where necessary. Children who fall behind in their literacy development are at greater risk of not becoming fluent readers because of the Matthew effect, or the phenomena in which children with early reading difficulty have less exposure to texts because they read less, ultimately slowing their language and reading development (Stanovich et al., 1986). Children will experience reading challenges for any number of reasons, but reading difficulty is most often highly correlated with poverty, intellectual disability, hearing problems, dyslexia, ELL, and language disorders (Snow, 2006). Although these may be risk factors in children’s reading development, a strong preschool literacy program and partnerships with families can mitigate the effects on children’s reading development. In the next sections, I offer a review of the literature on best practices for preschool instruction and strategies families can use at home.

What are instructional best practices in preschool?

A majority of children ages 3-6 spend their weekdays in the care of someone other than their primary caregivers (Green et al., 2006). These arrangements include public and private preschools and home-based daycares. Preschool literacy instruction most often focuses on group activities like read aloud and alphabet instruction. In a survey of 180 preschool teachers, Green et al. (2006) found that 78% of preschool teachers read aloud to kids in groups and 93% taught the alphabet while 58% taught features of books and 63% taught about how words are arranged. The impact of preschool programming on a child’s reading development depends on teacher training, parental involvement, and length of program enrollment. In addition, researchers have found that preschool literacy instruction was more effective when teachers had a wide variety of print materials and, in one study, more children present in the classroom (Green et al., 2006; Neuman & Roskos, 1997).

Strong preschool literacy programs focus on developing children’s oral language skills, knowledge of the alphabetic code, and print knowledge. Teachers’ direct instruction can be both code and meaning-focused so students learn letters and sounds while also engaging with the meaning of words and stories (Piasta, 2016). Teachers can develop print rich environments by labeling parts of the classroom, making a variety of texts available, and cultivating many opportunities for children to talk. Research suggests that phonemic awareness and letter knowledge instruction is best supported by lessons that are brief (10 -15 minutes max), highly engaging and fun, and follow a predictable pattern (e.g. begin with rhyming followed by phonemic awareness games that have them identify/add/delete/substitute sounds, and finish with learning a new letter and sound). Class conversations and shared book reading can be more free-flowing, allowing children to engage in authentic engagements (Piasta, 2016).

Evidence indicates that teachers should actively encourage students to develop strong oral language skills and knowledge in their first language; this base affirms the children’s home language identity and serves as a foundation for the students to build on as they learn to speak and read in English.

It is important that preschool teachers keep in mind the variety of learners in their classrooms including being thoughtful about incorporating strategies to meet the needs of students for whom English is not a first language. Evidence indicates that teachers should actively encourage students to develop strong oral language skills and knowledge in their first language; this base affirms the children’s home language identity and serves as a foundation for the students to build on as they learn to speak and read in English. Researchers have found positive effects for instruction in phonemic awareness, print knowledge, and vocabulary for students who do not yet have English oral proficiency (Roberts et al., 2004). If the students’ first language shares an orthography with English (i.e. Spanish, Portuguese), print knowledge is highly transferable and can be instructed in either language (Farver et al., 2009). In addition, children who are English Language Learners benefit from explicit instruction in phonemic awareness and vocabulary in English and in frequent opportunities for adult-child conversation with feedback.

The following practices have been identified as having the greatest impact on student literacy outcomes (see Appendix A for links to additional resources).

Literacy rich environments.

A literacy rich preschool classroom promotes students’ ongoing engagement with language throughout their school day, which promotes understanding of environmental/every day print (e.g. food labels, street signs, clothing logos, etc.) and allows for independent reading activities. Literacy rich classrooms include:

1. A library nook with a recommended 5 books per child with illustrations that are about everyday experiences, favorite topics, or skill foci (e.g. ABCs, rhyming) that take about 10-15 minutes to read with children (Neumann & Roskos, 1997).
2. Labeled classroom parts (e.g. sink, table, etc.) which provide multiple opportunities for letter and word recognition and an understanding of how print is related to the environment.
3. Play areas that incorporate literacy-related materials (e.g. cookbooks, maps, notebooks) that allow children to develop an understanding of how literacy is central to everyday life.

Interactive read aloud.

Interactive read aloud, also called dialogic or shared reading, is consistently ranked as the most impactful activity on preschoolers’ literacy development both at home and at school (Dennis & Horn, 2011). This form of reading allows children to actively engage with both code and meaning levels of the text which helps them develop understandings of the concepts of print (i.e. book features like titles, dialogue, etc.) and practice listening comprehension. An interactive read aloud should position the children as active participants in the story and should be a dynamic conversation between the adult and children about the text and connections the children have (see Table 2 for a guide).

Note: Table taken from Dennis & Horn (2011).

Print referencing.

Print referencing is a strategy that can be incorporated during any literacy activity but is most often used during interactive read aloud to point out important and interesting ideas about print to bring to students’ attention. Teachers can use this strategy to highlight the relationships between letters and sounds, to teach students new concepts of print, and to instruct new vocabulary. Justice & Ezell (2004) suggest the following three print referencing techniques:

1. Ask questions about the print (e.g. What do you notice about the word red on this page?).
2. Offer comments about print (e.g. I see the date on the newspaper the man is reading).
3. Track your finger under print while you read.

Interactive conversations.

Oral language skills are highly correlated to future reading ability (Neuman & Dickinson, 2001). Teachers can actively incorporate dynamic conversation opportunities into circle times, shared reading, meals, play, and other classroom activities. These conversations give children models of speech, teach them new vocabulary words, and offer them the opportunity to practice their own speech. The following talk strategies have empirical evidence suggesting additional benefits for students (Piasta, 2016):

1. Recasting: Restating what the child said with more detail or correct language (e.g. child says, “Milk” and the teacher responds, “I want milk please!”
2. Expanding: Adding details to the child’s statement (e.g. child says, “Baby cry” and the teacher responds, “The baby is hurt so she’s crying”)
3. Open-ended questions: Asking the child to expand their statement (e.g. child says, “I’m sad” and teacher responds, “Why are you sad?”)
4. Extended reciprocal and responsive conversations: Engaging in multiple extended questions and responses with children

Small group instruction.

Preschoolers can learn many literacy skills through play and reading, but some skills and knowledge require explicit instruction from a classroom teacher. Given preschoolers’ attention spans and varying development patterns, it is wise to instruct in small groups (Piasta, 2016). This allows teachers to pay close attention to students’ individual needs and to adapt instruction as needed. The following are skills/knowledge to teach in small groups:

1. Alphabet knowledge: Directly instruct letter names and sounds together and use memory aides.
2. Phonological awareness: Pair with alphabet instruction and build in phoneme manipulation tasks like identifying, blending, and segmenting.
3. Vocabulary: Directly instruct new words, allow for multiple interactions with the words, provide opportunities for students to use them, and post the words in the classroom. Teachers can also instruct vocabulary through book reading by introducing three new words, describing them using student friendly language, relating them to topics kids already know, and making them “come alive” through pictures or movements during book reading (Wasik, 2010).
4. Writing: Provide many different opportunities for children to engage in written expression; this may include: letters, stories, picture captions, etc. Allow students to use invented spelling or attempt to represent words in print on their own. One study illustrated that students who often used invented spelling had better literacy skills because it allows them to reinforce their understanding of the relationships between letters and sounds (Ouellette & Senechal, 2008). This is most appropriate for older preschoolers who have learned at least a handful of letters though younger students should be encouraged to draw and write as well.

Assessment.

Preschool teachers can use both formal and informal literacy assessment to get an idea of students’ literacy progressions and where they are in relation to their peers. Because literacy development is so variable at this stage, teachers should use assessment data to understand how to better support students rather than as a strict categorization of their literacy abilities (Lonigan et al., 2011). Research indicates that students are most successful in literacy development if they develop knowledge and understanding of the alphabetic code, oral language skills, and print awareness in preschool, so assessments should be focused on students’ letter and vocabulary knowledge, phonological awareness, and print concepts (Snow, 2006).

There are three primary forms of assessment for preschool literacy: screeners, diagnostics, and progress monitoring tools. Screeners are often brief measures used on all students to determine which students are at risk of delayed literacy development. Diagnostics are longer assessments used to identify specific domains in which students need more support; these are expensive and long tests which should be reserved for students with low screener scores. Progress monitoring tools allow teachers to track students’ academic progress over time; standardized measures of this type for all students are less widely available for preschool literacy. Currently, the field of special education offers a handful of tests based on a General Outcome Measurement Approach, which measures student growth over many points in time (Greenwood et al., 2011), to help early childhood educators determine when a student might need an intervention (see Appendix A for links to assessment resources).

What can families do to support literacy development at home?

Children develop almost all of their neural connections for sensory pathways and language during their first six years of life (Nelson, 2000). For this reason, preschoolers’ experiences both at school and at home are critical to successful literacy development. In one study, researchers found a significant relationship between children’s vocabulary knowledge and expressive language and the amount of time children spent engaged in book reading with their mothers (Roberts et al., 2005). The home literacy environment promotes multiple opportunities for language learning which are necessary for neural connections development through factors like the amount of shared adult-child reading, the number of books in the house, and children’s interaction with print (Horowitz‐Kraus & Hutton, 2015).

Fortunately, best practices for family literacy support require few resources and can be built into existing family routines. Researchers have consistently identified shared book reading as the most impactful activity families can do to support preschool literacy development as it promotes vocabulary development, understanding of text features, and print awareness (Whitehurst & Lonigan, 1998). In addition, authentic and frequent open-ended conversations with adults in the home support children in enhancing their receptive and expressive vocabularies. A strong oral vocabulary is a critical foundation for reading development as it allows children to both understand the content of texts and identify words as they learn to decode in early elementary school.

The following family practices have been identified as having the greatest impacts of students’ literacy development (see Appendix B for links to additional resources).

Shared reading.

Language benefits from shared reading have been shown to begin with children as young as six-weeks old (Burns et al., 1999). Children who read with their families at home and who make regular visits to the local library demonstrate stronger vocabulary skills (Senechal et al., 1996). When caregivers read with their children, they can use the following strategies to make the activity engaging and to emphasize critical language and vocabulary skills (Roberts et al., 2005):

1. Simple description: Describe a character, animal, object, simple action, or location; “Look at the zebra- I see he has white and black stripes. What else do you notice?”
2. Elaborate description: Explain, summarize, or elaborate on plot; “George is really curious so he asks lots of questions and explores the world.”
3. Links to world: Ask questions or make comments that help the child make connections between the text and their experiences; “Who else do you know that is very curious?”
4. Predictions and inferences: Ask child to predict what might happen or ask questions about character motivations/feelings; “Why do you think George was sad after he lost his boat?”
5. Book concepts: Refer to parts of the book or book reading process (e.g. turning the page, pointing out the title, etc.)
6. Letter-sound relationships: Point out letter-sound information; “This word is Cat begins with a “c” which makes the sound /k/.”
7. Recall and recite: Ask child to tell you about the text; “Oh that was a great story, can you tell me about it?”

Open-ended conversation.

Children’s exposure to the world outside of school and home allows them to develop rich background and vocabulary knowledge which further strengthens the synapses needed for reading development. Parents and guardians can use these experiences to facilitate rich open-ended conversations with children by asking open-ended questions that allow children to explain their ideas and understandings. Although adventures outside of the home are a great time to engage in these conversations, these same techniques can be applied to everyday tasks around the home like eating meals together and getting dressed for school. In addition, these are great opportunities to introduce and explain new vocabulary (Strickland et al., 2004). Here are some tips for facilitating strong conversations:

1. Get on the child’s level (if possible)
2. Actively listen and respond to what the child says
3. Take turns talking
4. Ask questions about what the child is doing, seeing, or talking about
5. Give time for the child to respond
6. Extend children’s language (e.g. if the child says “car”, you can say “yes a red car is parked”)
7. Ask children to explain their thinking by using “why” and “how” questions Develop a standardized format to communicate with kindergarten teachers. Preschools and kindergartens use a range of assessment and data tracking methods however both have copious information about students’ literacy development. To streamline the coordination of record sharing and teacher communication, preschools can create a standardized format to capture literacy-related information, prioritizing data on children’s vocabulary, alphabet knowledge, and print awareness.

Language games.

Children’s phonemic awareness is strengthened by their interactions and understanding of language. Families can support this understanding by leading children in games that help them pay attention to the different sounds and relationships in letters and words. These activities can be spontaneous, brief, fun, and as simple as singing a song together. Ideas include:

1. “I spy” or Treasure Hunts: Lead children to identify an object around them by saying, “I spy something that starts with the letter a” or “Find me something in the room that starts with the letter ” These tasks require students to link the name of the letter (a) with its sound in the word which reinforces phonemic awareness and understanding of letter-sound correspondences (Games for 3-year-olds).
2. Rhyming: Lead children in a game of rhyme generation by saying, “I know a word that rhymes with cat, it’s rat. Your turn, tell me a word that rhymes with rat.” Rhyming is a foundational skill of phonemic awareness as it requires students to pay attention to the middle and end sounds of the word. This attention supports their ability to segment unknown words, which is a critical skill for early decoding (Palmer, I. M.).
3. Sing nursery rhymes & other songs: Nursery rhymes and other classic early childhood songs promote language development through the inclusion of repetition, rhyming, and alliteration (Paquette & Rieg, 2008). Singing helps children develop new vocabulary knowledge and promotes joy in the language learning experience (see ideas of songs).

Supporting literacy in the preschool to kindergarten transition

School and home-based preschool experiences allow children to develop the foundational literacy skills they need to build on throughout early elementary school as they learn to read. By the end of kindergarten, children are expected to recognize and write the letters of the alphabet, demonstrate phonemic awareness by generating rhymes and isolating, blending, and segmenting phonemes in words, and have a solid understanding of the structures of books and other print materials (Burns et al. 1999). The transition from preschool to kindergarten requires students to take on more independence, follow routines, and engage in more challenging academic work. For this reason, it can be a challenging transition for some children. Additionally, preschools and kindergartens are often separated by physical distance and system administration; that is, many children attend private or home-based preschools prior to entering the public school system (Purtell et al., 2020). Despite these differences, there is much that both preschools and families can do to set children up for success during this transition (see Appendix C for links to additional resources.

Preschools

1. Literacy program: The most important thing preschools (including public, private, and home-based programs) can do is establish strong literacy programming. This includes creating literacy rich environments with many accessible books, leading daily interactive story times, and building in many opportunities for adult-child and child-child conversations (Burns et al., 1999).
2. Family partnerships: Programs can actively work with families to create shared literacy models by incorporating reading and its importance into daily activities. To do this, programs can invite families to story time, send books home regularly, partner with local libraries for family visits and book sharing, provide families with a clear model of dialogic reading and print referencing (this can include handouts and video links), and host family literacy nights where children, caregivers, and teachers engage in book reading and language games (Dennis & Horn, 2011).
3. Communication with kindergartens: Because many children do not attend public preschool, there is often a gap in communication from preschool to kindergarten. Preschool teachers can minimize this gap by actively communicating with local kindergarten programs about students’ experiences and academic needs. School districts can strengthen this partnership by bringing preschools and kindergartens together to align programming and information structures and by issuing surveys of local preschools to gather information about children’s experiences including type of school, length of program, and attendance history (Purtell et al., 2020).
4. Partner with non-English speaking families: Evidence from a 2008 study (Roberts) suggests that shared reading in students’ primary language is just as effective as in English, especially if the same story is read at home and at school. Because research illustrates that students primarily learn oral language skills like vocabulary and expression at home, students benefit from partnerships that encourage shared reading and other language games in their primary language. Schools can partner with non-English speaking families by providing them with reading material and suggested practices in their primary language and by actively encouraging word play and engaging conversations with their children (Restrepo & Towle-Harmon, 2008).

Families

1. Kindergarten transition days: One of the most important things families can do to support the preschool to kindergarten transition is attend the transition days or experiences that the schools offer. This allows children to meet their teachers and classmates and the parents/guardians to develop a positive relationship with the teachers.
2. Bridge preschool-kindergarten communication: Before children exit preschool, parents/guardians can ask the preschool teachers about their child’s literacy skills. Parents can share this information with the kindergarten teacher; having an initial understanding of students’ oral language, alphabet knowledge, and print awareness allows the kindergarten teacher to act quickly to deliver responsive intervention for students who may need it.
3. Home literacy practices: When children begin kindergarten, families should continue nightly shared reading and regular library visits. It is important for children to view literacy experiences as enjoyable and motivating, especially as they begin to read as the process can be challenging for many children. Allowing children to choose books to read and using those books as time for engaging dialogue and sharing keeps these experiences meaningful and light for children.

Recommendations

The evidence on the benefits of early literacy development is clear – children who have strong oral language skills, alphabet knowledge, and beginning print awareness are more likely to become proficient readers in early elementary school (National Reading Panel, 2000). Fortunately, there are many promising practices that school districts, private, public and home-based preschools, and families can implement to support preschoolers’ literacy development. I outline recommendations below.

School District

2. Provide ongoing teacher training. A range of training exists for preschool teachers including professional developments on emergent literacy practices and on implementation of specific curricula (Piasta, 2016). Teachers who receive high quality training in shared book reading practices and language development strategies are more likely to feel confident in their instruction and have greater effects on students’ literacy development (Green et al., 2006; Piasta, 2016; Wasik, 2010). Organizations like the National Association for the Education of Young Children and Reading Rockets offer a host of online resources and accessible modules.
3. Create structures for public, private, and home-based preschool providers to connect with district kindergarten teachers. Because kindergarten is often most students’ first interaction with the public school system, kindergarten teachers often lack critical information about students’ previous literacy experiences (Purtell et al., 2020). The school district can mitigate this gap by providing communication structures or professional development opportunities for preschool and kindergarten teachers to share information about curriculums and student progress.

Preschools

1. Host multiple family literacy opportunities. Preschool teachers are uniquely positioned to support family literacy opportunities because they interact with caregivers daily during pick up and drop off. Teachers and preschools can use these moments to emphasize the importance of reading and language development by offering book sharing programs and shared reading examples. In addition, schools can support the community-based nature of literacy by hosting family literacy nights and regular library visits to immerse children and families in fun, meaningful literacy activities.
2. Develop a standardized format to communicate with kindergarten teachers. Preschools and kindergartens use a range of assessment and data tracking methods however both have copious information about students’ literacy development. To streamline the coordination of record sharing and teacher communication, preschools can create a standardized format to capture literacy-related information, prioritizing data on children’s vocabulary, alphabet knowledge, and print awareness.

   

Families

1. Read with children nightly. Research literature (e.g. Scarborough et al. 1991; Snow, 2006) consistently ranks family shared book reading as the most impactful literacy development activity. Families can borrow books from local libraries, from preschools, or use digital options (see Reading Rockets for links).

^[1] Throughout this brief, the term preschool refers to public school, private, and home-based programs.

Author Biography

Shannon Kelley is a doctoral candidate in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction at the University of Connecticut. Shannon’s research applies lenses from neo-institutional theory to understand how middle and high schools conceptualize and organize reading programs for students with persistent reading difficulty. Shannon has also engaged in research on teacher preparation, multisyllabic word reading instruction, and dyslexia discourse. Prior to graduate school, she taught high school English and middle school special education for almost a decade. In addition to her studies, Shannon currently teaches undergraduate and master’s-level courses on literacy instructional methods and works with local districts to design and implement high school reading intervention courses.