Twenty-five books a day: Literacy events in subsidized childcare

Methods employed in the original study

For the original study, I used purposeful sampling (Rapley, 2014) to identify an outlier subsidized childcare centre, that is, a program where excellent outcomes for high-risk children were the norm. I developed and implemented a nomination protocol aimed at identifying a regional subsidized childcare centre with strong evidence of overall programme quality and high literacy assessment data, that also served an economically-, culturally-, linguistically-, and ability- diverse population of young children (Cheyney-Collante and Cheyney, 2018). The selection criteria used for the nomination protocol included data points collected by regional and national agencies and accreditation bodies. I elicited nominations from the governing agency that oversaw monitoring and childcare subsidy dispersement. This agency returned with only one nomination: DELC. After receiving Institutional Review Board approval, I approached the programme’s two administrators with the opportunity to participate in the study. Research commenced after informed consent was secured from these key informants, Sofia and Maria (the programme’s executive and onsite directors, respectively). I spent five months embedded in their day to day preschool activities, in over 100 hours of participant observation (Schensul et al., 1999).

This original study employed participant-driven methods (Koro-Ljungberg et al., 2015), including the use of two photovoice cycles (Latz, 2017; Wang, 2006) for data collection. Photovoice is a method of qualitative research whereby participants are given cameras and asked to take pictures of day to day experiences that elucidate a phenomenon collaboratively identified for exploration. Photographs are then used as the starting point for individual, open-ended interviews using photo-elicitation (Rose, 2007). Participants work with the researcher to synthesize the results, and then choose ways to communicate their findings directly to their communities.

The final data set for the original study consisted of participant-observation notes, transcripts from five and a half hours of interviews, and 4,338 photographs (479 taken by Maria and Sofia). I analyzed transcripts and photographs together, using Gilligan and colleagues’ (2003) listening guide, which entailed four separate, systematic ‘listenings’ of the transcripts. Each listening further elucidated the participants’ unique story, lens, voice, and ultimately a meaningful synthesis. I modified these basic procedures by adding a fifth listening, which I termed Listening for Collaborative Visual Voice (Cheyney-Collante and Cheyney, 2018). In this last step, we (researcher and participants) co-created a photographic installation communicating the research findings to our communities (see Figure 1).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

(a) ‘The Best of Me’ photographic installation. (b) ‘The Best of Me’ photographic installation.

Methods employed in the extension study

For a deeper exploration of the ‘twenty-five books a day’ theme, I identified an additional research goal – to describe the operationalization of the ‘twenty-five books a day’ paradigm – after a second photographic installation (exhibited at DELC in June 2013). Building on our original epistemological, theoretical, and methodological choices (Cheyney-Collante and Cheyney, 2018), I first returned to my participant-observation field notes in order to compile a basic timeline of how language and literacy events occur during a typical day. I then returned to the transcripts and photo archives and completed an additional listening of each, focusing attention on the new research question. Next, I aggregated these data points to compile a narrative of literacy events within a hypothetical day at the centre, as well as emic (participant) perspectives on how and why the various components of the ‘twenty-five books a day’ strategy was implemented in real time (e.g. Gubrium and Holstein, 2008; Tedlock, 2011).

I then returned to participants for member checking of findings. In this extension of the original study, I met with my participants twice to discuss my formative analysis. In both cases, I sent them drafts of the narrative analysis (with photographs embedded) in advance, then met with them at DELC at the end of the school day for discussion. I brought my field notes to all meetings, and made revisions based on their feedback and clarifications as we met. I also sent my participants the final draft of this manuscript for feedback twice during the process of submission and publication. For peer debriefing of my new analysis, I returned the findings to an expert familiar with early literacy practices, but unaffiliated with any of the institutions connected to the study. Validity and reliability measures included long term engagement (Schensul et al., 1999), triangulation (Mertens, 2014), member checking and peer debriefing (Lincoln and Guba, 1985), as well as data reanalysis (Wasterfors et al., 2014).

Setting and participants

DELC is a childcare programme in the Southeastern US, serving children from various ethnic backgrounds, children with disabilities and dual language learners, as well as children from families with working parents, but who still fall below the poverty line. At the time of the original study, DELC had two physical school sites. The first served children six weeks to three years old. The other served children three to five years old. DELC was accredited by the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) and served approximately 75 children in total.

Sophia, DELC’s Executive director, had lived in town since early childhood and was very active in her community. Maria served as DELC’s Assistant Director. She came to the US in 2003 from Puerto Rico as a single mother, and though she was credentialed to teach in elementary school there, as an English language learner, she had difficulty navigating the US teacher certification system. According to Maria, she found the website in her state confusing, and the people she spoke with on the phone dismissive. She also did not feel confident taking the required certification exams in English. As a result, Maria initially took a position in a local preschool ‘just to tide me over’. She enjoyed the company of other Latinas at this preschool, and stayed in the field permanently. Maria credited Sophia with her eventual move from classroom teaching into leadership: ‘I always knew I wanted to teach, but I did not know I had the ability to be an administrator until Sophia pushed me to believe in myself.’ Maria and Sophia had similar credentials: a bachelor’s degree in a related field, a state director’s credentials, and hundreds of hours of in-service training. Both sat on the board of their regional NAEYC chapter and were actively engaged in early childhood leadership, advocacy, and training activities in their community and state.

DELC employed 17 teachers between both locations. Though I did not interview teachers as part of this study, I did observe them throughout my participant observation. All teachers gave voluntary consent for this level of involvement in the study and returned IRB approved forms before I entered their space. All had completed the mandated in-service training hours, and many held college degrees in EC or closely related fields of study. Teachers were assigned to their age-groups and content areas based on the teacher’s interest and the leadership’s impressions of their personal strengths. Maria and Sophia provided their staff with ongoing professional development across a wide range of content including curriculum implementation, pedagogy, and classroom management and behavioral support. They also fundraised to send teachers to state and national conferences, where teachers were encouraged to focus on their age-level or content area expertise.

7:00 a.m. (indoor choices/breakfast)

When I arrive at DELC’s preschool site, it is early so there are only a few cars parked in the small car park. The school looks inviting and warm from the outside; it was a home before the school moved in. I walk around the back to a locked chain-link fence and punch in the key code. The large playground is quiet with a light sunny haze glinting off the playhouse. The branches of a huge granddaddy oak are spread over the shed and a long row of trikes and wagons. As I walk in the back door, Jonie runs up and asks me for a biscuit. Her little brown eyes look sad when I tell her I didn’t bring any biscuits this time, but soon she’s back to her colouring, jabbering away to her little friends. Maria smiles and comes to give me a hug, but before we can chat we hear someone crying. Isaiah and Jennifer are arguing over the tinker toys. Maria scurries off to assist with a resolution.

At this time of the morning there are only a few children and a few adults on site, and the atmosphere is quiet and relaxed. In line with the curriculum framework DELC uses, each room is prominently marked with its content area. The rooms are fairly small for a preschool, which is not so much in disrepair as ‘well-loved’, as Sofia says. It is an older building with mismatched flooring, some missing doorknobs, scuffed walls, and old fluorescent lighting. Not ideal for my photography. But children’s work samples line the walls in-between the bookshelves, which are filled to overflowing in every room. DELC’s extensive library includes Sofia’s own collection of children’s books.

In our first interview she explained: ‘I have over 5,000 books. I started when I was younger, and I’ve just kept my books.’ My participant-observation confirmed this. The centre is organized, but chocked full to the brim. Books are everywhere (Figure 2). According to Sophia, she was able to curate such a large and diverse library for DELC through ‘creative exploitation’ of community resources. For example, the local library system hosted used-book sales several times a year; Sophia and Maria attended every one. They also frequented garage sales and consignment shops. Additionally, Sophia regularly applied for, and was frequently awarded, local and state grants to increase not only the total number of books in their library, but diversity in genre.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 2.

Books everywhere.

While Maria is engaged with the few children who have arrived early, one of her teachers is gathering materials for an activity. Another teacher is preparing breakfast in the kitchen, which is in the centre of the building and open to most of the rooms. She’s singing along to the alphabet rap song playing softly in the background. A young father comes in the back door with his son, who is obviously reluctant. I recognize Matteo right away. He’s three years old and new to the school this week. Maria walks over with a broad smile and greets them quietly. I notice she has snatched up the book ‘A Mother for Choco’ (by Keiko Kasza) on her way. Matteo’s tears have already begun to stream down his face and his father, looking stricken, whispers something in his ear. Maria puts her hand on the father’s back, smiles, and winks. They exchange a few words in Spanish. Two minutes later Matteo is curled up on Miss Maria’s lap, listening to the story, playing absentmindedly with at stuffed animal, a parrot, that looks just like the main character of the book. Pretty soon a few more children are leaning in to listen. Jonie joins the group with a basket almost as big as she is, filled with books about dinosaurs. I know already that Maria will read every last one and that they’ll hear some of them again in the Science room during the course of the week’s exploration of paleontology. I’ve observed this scenario many times. This is not a fancy place, but it is cozy and certainly happy.

8:00 a.m. (voluntary pre-Kindergarten session)

An hour later DELC looks like it has been taken over by a mob of little people. Every size, shape and colour of the rainbow is represented. Today is a special day. Miss Wishy Washy is coming for a surprise visit – that is, Miss Maria is dressing up as the character to present a very special shared storybook reading.

Typically, only the four-year-old class would participate in these specific literacy activities designed to meet the state standards for its voluntary pre-Kindergarten programme; however, today’s special events will involve all children at this site. Sofia is sitting on a stool at the front of the large carpet in the Construction classroom, as the children file in with their groups. Miss Anna comes to the front of the room and begins a song. The children sing along and follow her hand motions until everyone is seated, legs crossed, hands in their laps. Sofia sings along and helps a few stragglers figure out what’s going on and what is expected of them. When everyone is quiet, Sofia tells the group they have a special guest coming, but before the excitement gets out of hand she reminds them of their agreements during Circle Time: ‘One voice at a time. When it’s our guest’s turn, you’ll be very, very quiet. When it’s your turn, we will all be very quiet. This way we can hear our story and we can hear each other.’

Just then, Maria, dressed as Miss Wishy Washy, appears from the back of the room. She is wearing an apron and her hair is pulled back in a bandana, just like in the books. She is carrying a basket with stuffed animals, soap, and a scrubbing brush. She comes and sits by the big metal tub at the front of the room. The children are mesmerized. Finally, one little boy blurts out, ‘That’s not Miss Wishy Washy. That’s Miss Maria!’ Everyone laughs.

What follows is a brilliant shared storybook reading. Sofia holds the big book as Maria tells the story and talks about the book with the children. Sofia’s lips mouth the words of the story as Maria reads. These two women have done this together many times (Figure 3). Children and teachers are fully engaged. Smiles fill the room (Figure 4). Singing, dancing, and, finally, a group picture follows the story and related lively discussion before Miss Wishy Washy scurries back to her farm. Once again Miss Anna takes control of the room with a finger play that ends with everyone lined up, hands folded in front of them.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 3.

Maria and Sofia on Miss Wishy Washy Day.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 4.

Children listening to Miss Wishy Washy.

9:00 a.m. (morning centres)

By this time, the children of DELC have separated into their groups and have settled into their first centre for the day. Miss Susan, the Emergent Literacy teacher, has welcomed the Blue Group to the room. After everyone is seated on the carpet, she leads them in some deep breathing exercises until everyone is settled. What follows is a typical Circle Time at DELC. Children do the calendar, observe the weather, and sing a few related songs. In-between these activities, Miss Susan reads another book, chosen by the children from a special basket of ‘transition books’ (Figure 5).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 5.

Miss Susan sharing a book.

Next, Miss Susan brings the children to a different area of the room. There is a colourful chart posted on the wall, with a letter ‘Mm’ at the top. There are no words on the chart, only a picture of monkeys engaged in mischief. Next to the chart is a brainstorm web (from the day before) highlighting words that start with the ‘mmm’ sound. Miss Susan has written the words and drawn figures to represent them. She reviews all of the ‘mmm’ words the children thought of the previous day, highlights the children in the class whose names start with that sound, then allows the class to add a few more words. She asks if they are ready to hear the rhyme and immediately several little hands go up. Miss Susan calls on Madeline, who knows without being told to turn the chart around to the other side and quickly sits back down. This side of the chart contains the alliterative poem they have all been waiting for – a story about monkeys drinking milk and making a mess. After hearing the poem three times, the children begin to ‘read’ it along with Miss Susan, filling in the ‘mmm’ words when she waits for their response. After adding more words to their brainstorm web, each child is given a chance to repeat an ‘mmm’ word before they choose a literacy centre. ‘Mmmmastadon!’ says one child, remembering a new word she learned from their paleontology unit in Science this week.

Within five minutes, every child is engaged in a paired literacy activity, with Miss Susan visiting each table, engaging children in conversation about their work. After making sure the other children are working well in their centres, she has a seat in the cozy corner. It has not escaped my attention that one of the two children situated on the pillows is a girl who had been upset earlier in the day. Later Miss Susan would explain that her grandmother had been in hospital and needed some extra love and care. Miss Susan has guided this little one to the cozy corner in order to get in some extra one-on-one read-aloud time. Both children have made stacks of their favourite books. Miss Susan sits and begins to read as the two children huddle close. She reads a book from each of their piles, then takes out the ‘The Feelings Book’ by Todd Parr. She looks at me and winks. Occasionally, she gets up to help other groups or to navigate an argument over materials. Miss Susan is adept at moving back and forth between planned and impromptu literacy experiences, systematic/explicit and embedded instruction.

In one of our interviews, I showed Maria some pictures of Miss Susan's facilitating literacy activities in her classroom. As Maria explained, Miss Susan had begun teaching the literacy component of the curriculum as Maria’s teaching assistant: ‘I see Susan doing things that I used to do… that come from the times we were teaching together.’ Maria also mentored Miss Susan as she transitioned from an assistant to a lead teacher. She explains, ‘Not only was I helping [in the classroom], I feel like I was a mentor for her too, because she is doing a lot. And she’s doing so great. I see amazing things going on in that classroom.’

11:00 a.m. (gross motor/outdoor play)

Soon the playground will be filled with children but before playground activities can commence, certain necessities need to be addressed. Miss Susan lines up the Blue Group in the hallway for a bathroom break. As each child takes their turn, she crouches down and pulls on a glove (Figure 6), with Velcro characters attached to the fingers. She begins to tell them a story. Not a single literacy opportunity is wasted at DELC.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 6.

Miss Susan using a story glove while children take turns in the bathroom.

Playground time is filled with more opportunities for literacy events. As Miss Emilia paints body outlines and names on the playground wall (Figure 7), Miss Jackie stands on the bike path, singing ‘Roll Over’, a counting song from a book by Merle Peek she read aloud earlier in the day. Next, she counts the number of bounces they each do on the big bouncy balls (Figure 8). Meanwhile Miss Anna reads ‘Leaf Man’ by Lois Ehlert in a corner of the playground and then gathers the children for a romp in the leaves left by the granddaddy oak (Figure 9). Miss Maria helps a group of children playing in the playhouse to give an oral play-by-play of what they are doing – impromptu authors of an oral narrative about a family making tortillas and feeding the dog.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 7.

Miss Emilia’s playground name recognition activity.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 8.

Counting, bouncing, and discussing with Miss Jackie.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 9.

Miss Anna telling stories and playing in the leaves.

Even lining up to wash hands for lunch includes more literacy interactions, as Miss Anna reinforces phonological awareness skills by singing several rounds of ‘Anna Fanna BoBanna, FeFi MoManna…’. Next, teachers sit with children during lunch, talking about their day and listening to stories about siblings and last night’s TV shows. Finally, each teacher transitions her group to naptime at their own pace, and I capture a sweet moment of Franklin squeezing in one more book before drifting off (Figure 10).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 10.

Franklin with a book on his cot before naptime.

2:30 p.m. (afternoon centres)

By 2:30 p.m., the once napping building is again buzzing with talk and action. As I walk through the halls, I look into each room, noticing that every teacher, not just the Emergent Literacy teacher, is beginning her lesson with a story. I also notice that the children are comfortable with this structure. They understand the routine of listening to the teacher while she reads, chiming in when prompted, and asking questions or commenting on the story by raising their hands and waiting their turn. Some are more adept at this than others, but I have been a participant-observer at DELC long enough to know that this is all an expected, well-practised part of their day.

Next, I decide to take a seat in Miss Anna’s class in Dramatic Play and am not surprised to observe a brilliant introduction to a book that highlights colours and emotions. I notice that Miss Anna has come prepared with props of her own making and that she is using many of the same shared storybook reading strategies Maria modelled earlier in the day. She asks open-ended questions, waits and listens to children’s responses, and elicits deeper answers when needed. She writes key words on a vocabulary list that will later be placed on the interactive word wall. At one point, a little boy admits that he is feeling blue and sad because he misses his mom. Miss Anna acknowledges this and ties it back to the book. Through the next few pages the boy persists with announcing his feelings. Anna gathers him up on her lap: ‘I know it can be hard being away from those we love,’ she says, then continues with the story (Figure 11).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 11.

Miss Anna delivering a shared storybook reading.

After the story, the children are guided to small group activities that involve acting out emotions in familiar settings: home, school, the grocery store, and the neighbourhood park. I notice there are writing materials and embedded, scaffolded activities included in each small group space.

As a participant-observer I made many notes in my journal about the interconnected nature of literacy events and social-emotional learning I observed at DELC. Teachers did not treat the two domains of development as separate. In one of my interviews with Sofia, I enquired about this. She explained:

If you have a kid who comes in and he’s tired all the time, or there’s hunger or whatever, that’s where you start. Because no matter how much I teach you about the letter ‘T’, if I can’t get you to trust me, there’s no learning going on. So, you have to get that nurturing across, that I care about you, I love you, I’m going to help you, we’re going to get through this together.

3:45–6:00 p.m. (gross motor outside play/late afternoon snack)

As the rest of the day winds down, some children leave to go home, though many will stay until closing at 6:00 p.m. A bus drops off children from the public-school pre-Kindergarten programme for children with special needs. A few volunteers come to read books to children. There is a turnover of shifts for some of the teachers.

Throughout these transitions, language and literacy interactions are still ubiquitous, both planned and impromptu. On the patio, Sofia pops in to share one of her favourite books, ‘The Snowy Day’ by Ezra Jack Keats. Miss Talia engages in a deep paleontology discussion with a few children in the sandbox (Figure 12). Sitting on a bench under a tree, Maria talks to a group of children about the morning’s Miss Wishy Washy experience, reinforcing new vocabulary. She then retells the story of ‘A Mother for Choco’, then helps the children listen for the twittering of birds in the trees (Figure 13). On the balance beam, Miss Anna talks to some boys about the books they’ve enjoyed this week. They are very excited about the dinosaur books they’ve experienced (Figure 14). Legs and mouths are all going at once. A volunteer from the local grandparent’s programme is reading/singing Cedella Marley’s book ‘One Love’ to a group sitting on the patio. In fact, there are stacks of books all over the patio. Throughout the afternoon I see children ‘reading’ to each other, to themselves, or to teachers. Often a read-aloud that starts with one child expands to a pair and then a group huddled around a teacher, even here on the playground.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 12.

Sandbox discourse on paleontology.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 13.

Maria retelling stories and birdwatching on the playground.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 14.

Miss Anna and the boys: Discourse about their favourite dinosaur books.

As DELC slowly empties out, I marvel at how second nature all of these literacy interactions are to teachers and children. Every photograph taken during the project was captured candidly, and the preponderance of the archive are images of teachers engaged with children: eye contact, presence, back-and-forth discussion, stories and exploration of content areas both with and without books, phonological awareness and alphabet knowledge play, comforting and consoling, teaching skills both academic and behavioural, singing, etc. Administrators, teachers, and children are all interconnected at DELC. Sofia described it in this way:

The truth is, if you can make a connection with them, an emotional connection, then they’re going to be more interested in taking risks for learning. Sometimes, there are kids that I feel like ‘oh, my goodness, I don’t know if we’ll ever do it’… And then they turn the corner, and the very next day you’ve got some kind of connection.

Access to high quality and diverse books

Research has long supported the importance of a literacy-rich environment in preschool, including classroom libraries with an adequate quantity and quality of books (e.g. Guo et al., 2013). Increasing a child’s exposure to books is correlated to an increase in motivation and knowledge about reading (e.g. McCormick and Mason, 1986). Evidence supports the critical nature of genre diversity as well. Exposure to nonfiction texts through interactive read-alouds contributes to a child’s overall literacy development in numerous ways, including enhanced vocabulary, oral language development, and background knowledge (Massey, 2014; Yopp and Yopp, 2012). While shared book reading is helpful in developing vocabulary and content knowledge for all children, it is critical for children from underserved communities, and children for whom English is a second language (Neuman and Kaefer, 2018).

Unfortunately, many preschool classroom libraries are lacking, both in terms of the quantity (Guo et al., 2013) and quality, including the range of genres and culturally-, linguistically-, and ability -diverse representations (Crisp et al., 2016). Moreover, there remains a significant gap in quality and diversity of books in programmes serving children in low-income families relative to their more affluent peers (e.g. Duke, 2000). Similar disparities persist in neighbourhoods themselves (Neuman and Moland, 2019).

Sofia and Maria have faithfully followed the research by prioritizing access to high quality books in large quantities, from a variety of genres, and with cultural-, ability-, and language-diverse representations. The DELC building is overflowing with books because leadership has prioritized the goal. Again, though funding to ensure all programmes are well equipped was not forthcoming, DELCs administrators and staff jumped in to fill the void. Sophia explained: ‘I grew up with books everywhere. I loved books and still do…I figured if we had books all over, children would come to love them too.’ Sophia and Maria were resourceful but they were often overwhelmed. Sophia: ‘So I just kept pushing along … I wrote a lot of grants…. I was here all the time. And there was no way out.’ Their prioritization of access to books is admirable. However, serious questions remain about the sustainability of a model that depends so highly on the goodwill of staff who are themselves underpaid, overworked, and under-supported within the broader educational system.

Literacy events as responsive interactions

As expectations for Kindergarten have increased (Bassok et al., 2016), so have preschool expectations for school readiness and the resulting proliferation of state standards across many domains of child development (Haynie, 2019). Many preschool teachers face confusion over how to prioritize their growing instructional ‘To Do’ lists in developmentally appropriate and culturally sustaining ways. The good news is that the nexus between play and literacy is amply discussed in several decades of literature (Roskos and Christie, 2011). In fact, there is growing evidence to support the important role certain early literacy activities can play in the social-emotional development of young children (e.g. Bramwell and Doyle, 2008; Doyle and Bramwell, 2006; Montgomery and Maunders, 2015), suggesting the two domains need not battle for priority.

Maria's and Sofia’s ability to navigate this problem was a critical component of their success. They made both domains an organic part of the school day. Language and literacy events were seen as dialogic interactions. These interactions were embedded in the larger framework of nurturing children. From their perspective, this was not an either-or proposition. Neither were literacy and social-emotional development ranked. One was not seen as more important that the other. Both were required, and so they ‘just do both’ (Sophia). When Sofia got down on the level of a crying child and soothed, she viewed this as a literacy event, modelling language for emotional self-regulation. Simultaneously, she viewed this interaction as an opportunity to set the child’s stage for ‘taking risks in learning’. As in the case of Miss Susan purposefully making time to read stories to an upset little girl, the teachers at DELC were supported in using read-alouds to connect with children that needed more safe, adult attachment opportunities. At DELC, no child was expected to leave their emotions at the door when literacy instruction began.

Professional support

When teachers involved in literacy PD are also provided with coaching and high-quality children’s books, child outcomes improve. In Susan Neuman’s classic study (1999) flooding childcare centres with books in conjunction with PD and coaching for teachers, researchers found that children experienced more verbal interaction with teachers surrounding books, and more time engaged in book reading. Intervention group children showed statistically significant gains above controls in four of the six literacy assessment measures. Additionally, these gains persisted with the group of children available for further assessment in Kindergarten. Support for the environment, in the form of books, went hand in hand with PD and classroom coaching. Evidence supports the effectiveness of coaching/mentoring models alongside workshops and/or coursework to increase teachers' use of effective literacy practices in preschool settings (e.g. Hindman and Wasik, 2012; Hsieh et al., 2009; Landry et al., 2009; United States Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies Service, 2010).

Again, Sofia and Maria followed evidence-based practice in this area. In fact, they attributed a large part of their success to their commitment to supporting teachers. Rather than simply sending them to required trainings, Maria and Sofia came alongside their teachers and coached them in new knowledge, skills, and dispositions. Literacy professional development alone was not enough. They believed that teachers needed professional support. Maria and Sophia’s notion of professional support included high expectations (25 books a day) buoyed by supportive environmental structures (prioritization of environmental quality, particularly robust, diverse classroom libraries) and responsive teacher–child processes (mentoring in an interactional approach to literacy events).

Guo and colleagues (2012) stress the interconnected nature of physical and psychological preschool environments and assert that ‘teacher professional development and support needs to be at the forefront of early education policies designed to enhance the quality of classroom support to children’s literacy development’ (p. 323). In DELC’s case, high expectations were achieved because adequate professional support was consistently in place. Again, their recipe for success is simple, though far from easy to operationalize. Coaching alongside PD is well supported in the preschool literature, though not often funded. In the absence of public funds for literacy coaching within these settings, Maria and Sophia jumped in to do it themselves. Maria described her support of teachers in this way: ‘I’m just here to help. Any time you need my help, you just call me. If you have to scream in the hallway because I’m in the office, just call me, I’ll be here to help.’ Sophia responded to Maria’s comment, ‘This is us. This is real life here.’ Later she added, ‘When you’re with us, we take care of you… .’