The effects of a reading partnership with the Department of Juvenile Justice on English teacher candidates

On any given day, nearly 60,000 youth under age 18 are incarcerated in juvenile jails and prisons in the United States (American Civil Liberties Union, Juvenile Justice, n.d.a, b). Just five years ago, 424,300 juveniles were arrested (Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2025b). More youth are incarcerated in the United States than any other developed country in the world – despite having one of the lowest youth crime rates in decades. Youth incarceration rates in the U.S. are approximately twice the global average and well above that of all other NATO member countries (Nam-Sonenstein & Sawyer, 2025). The picture is even bleaker for students of color as Black and Indigenous youth are overrepresented in juvenile facilities while White youth are underrepresented (Nam-Sonenstein & Sawyer, 2025).

This article details a partnership project between a state university and the Department of Juvenile Justice designed to meet the needs of justice-involved youth, teacher candidates and the larger community through the provision of summer literacy instruction. In order to determine the effects of this literacy partnership, action research was conducted to answer the following questions: What are the effects of a summer reading partnership on teacher candidates' understanding of reading, the teaching of reading and “at-risk” readers?

A complex interrelationship seems to exist between literacy, graduation and incarceration. For example, a student who can't read on grade level by third grade is four times less likely to graduate by age 19 than one who does (Hernandez, 2011). If this same student lives in poverty, they are thirteen times less likely to graduate on time. And students who don't graduate are more likely to end up in jail or juvenile detention centers as compared to high school graduates (Sum, Khatiwada, McLaughlin, & Palma, 2009). Whereas we cannot determine if these relationships are causal, we can clearly see some connection between a student's lower literacy levels and our nation's prison population.

More recent studies document that imprisoned individuals often have markedly lower literacy skills than the general population, and researchers argue that literacy should be prioritized in all aspects and components of education in incarcerated settings (Berglund, Bjursell, & Hugo, 2025). A large proportion of youth who enter the juvenile justice system demonstrate below-grade literacy levels, and such deficits are tied to broader risk pathways into and through the justice system, including higher chances of re-offending upon release (Crary, 2024). Tatum (2019) suggests that many face challenges transitioning back into society due to limited interactions with texts. If public education is to realize its full capacity to reduce recidivism, it must make learning a top priority for justice-involved youth (Crary, 2024).

The need for education in incarcerated settings is validated by research demonstrating education reduces recidivism (Nur & Nguyen, 2023; Roxell, 2024; Stickle & Schuster, 2023). However, conventional teaching methods are not always successful for youth who may not have had positive experiences with traditional schooling; instead, alternative literacy practices (Jacobi, 2008) are encouraged. Since the national average length of confinement for youth in public facilities in 2023 was 58 days and in private facilities was 97 days (Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2025a), such alternative literacy instruction also needs to be implemented in a short amount of time.

It has also been suggested that teachers need to be better prepared to teach incarcerated individuals to read effectively and provide the necessary reinforcement that promotes a positive transition to society when released (Bennett, Gunn, Sedlack, & Ramos, 2025). Community-engaged teacher education is an approach to preparing teachers that integrates academic preparation with reciprocal engagement in community contexts. Rather than confining teacher learning to university classrooms or isolated school placements, this partnership situates teacher candidates within a meaningful and justice-oriented partnership within the community to collaboratively address literacy needs while deepening professional learning. Research on community-engaged teacher preparation shows that immersion in authentic community contexts can enhance culturally responsive teaching dispositions and self-efficacy (Smith, Doe, & Brown, 2026). Community-engaged teacher education encourages ongoing reflective practices which support the development of critical professional identities and dispositions for social justice.

This partnership reflects a commitment to social justice theory and practice and is guided by the National Association for Professional Development Schools, Essential 1. Social justice as theory posits education as a tool to challenge systemic inequities (Freire, 2000/1970). A teacher committed to social justice theory utilizes pedagogy to raise students' critical consciousness (Freire, 2000/1970), their awareness of the world and the power structures that shape it. Through our curriculum and teaching, we guide students to become critical observers of the world, and in this case, of the interrelationships between literacy and incarceration, in the hopes that their enlightened consciousness will lead to a desire to transform problematic conditions.

When we employ a social justice framework in teaching, we want to foster a sense of agency in students. More than heightening awareness, we want students to respond to issues of inequity and injustice and affect change (Stachowiak, 2017). To do so, teachers committed to social justice move learning outside of the classroom and engage students in communities. We know many enter the teaching profession to make a difference in the world, and higher educators need to find ways to transform pre-service teacher ambitions in the pursuit of social justice into concrete skills (DeMink-Carthew, 2018).

Because this partnership involves collaborative planning between DJJ, university faculty, teacher candidates and justice-involved youth, it may be considered a community-based social action project. Social action projects encourage teacher candidates to heighten critical consciousness while engaging in community partnerships and action (Lash & Kroeger, 2018). This partnership, in particular, positions teacher candidates to become change agents as they apply their literacy knowledge and take action within their community, using the word to help transform the world (Freire, 2000/1970).

Social action projects reach beyond helping others and actively work to dismantle systems of privilege and power. Our social action project disrupts how power operates in curriculum as traditional texts are discarded in favor of young adult and street literature, chosen by youth. Power relationships between students and teachers are also disrupted as they enter into more of a “horizontal power relationship” (Naiditch, 2010, p. 100), learning with and from one another. Lash and Kroeger (2018) also suggest that social action projects offer an “inroad” for teacher candidates to understand current issues (p. 706). Underlying this partnership is the current issue of literacy practice and “at-risk” youth.

An “at-risk” youth is in danger of not meeting academic expectations, of not graduating, due to a combination of environmental, academic and behavioral factors. Unfortunately, there is a relationship between being an “at-risk” student and juvenile incarceration. Students are often funneled into the juvenile and criminal justice system through the “school-to-prison pipeline” (American Civil Liberties Union, School-to-Prison-Pipeline, n.d.a, b) due to a range of environmental, academic and behavioral factors. Academic and behavioral struggles often include low academic performance, problematic behavior and truancy. Environmental factors can include zero tolerance disciplinary policies, increased police presence in schools, racial and disability disparities and trauma (Elias, 2013). For at-risk students, incarceration often creates a cycle of disadvantage. Young people who are incarcerated are less likely to graduate from high school, more likely to be arrested again as adults, and are limited in their future prospects because a criminal record can hinder employment (Mendel, 2023).

For 15 years, I have facilitated a reading partnership with the Department of Juvenile Justice. Each summer, English teacher candidates accepted into the Master's of Teaching (M.T.) Secondary English program at the University of South Carolina register for their first course, Foundations of Reading Instruction. Our first few weeks are spent in a traditional university setting as we grow our understanding of adolescent literacies. We begin by exploring and sharing our reading and writing histories, reflecting on those childhood and school experiences which have shaped our attitudes towards literacy – for better or worse.

Personal experiences are then informed by professional readings as we study Weaver's definitive Reading Process (2009) to learn about cue systems, theoretical models, miscue analysis and retrospective miscue analysis. Next, we explore reading scaffolds in Beers' When Kids Can't Read, What Teachers Can Do (2023) and fix-up strategies in Tovani's I Read It, But I Don't Get It (2000). To gain a greater understanding and appreciation of the context in which we will be teaching, we read chapters from Literacy behind Bars (Styslinger, Gavigan, & Albright, 2017). Tatum (2005, 2009) reminds us to be culturally responsive and we review the tenets of culturally relevant and sustaining pedagogy.

As we will have the privilege of soon matching adolescent readers with book choices, we spend a good amount of time scouring the Young Adult Library Services Association (Link to the website), In the Margins (Link to the website), and the Children's Book Council (Link to the website) award listings and booklists and, as a result, become better informed about young adult and street literature.

Once this necessary foundation is laid, we are ready to begin meeting with students. And so early one morning, we follow each other down a long, gravelly road to a camp-like setting. Students at this particular site are all male and range in age from twelve to eighteen with reading levels from fourth grade to college level. The justice-involved youth – adolescents or young adults who have had contact with the juvenile or criminal justice system – have been found guilty of non-violent crimes most often related to drugs and alcohol. In academic contexts, this term is preferred because it is person-first, emphasizing developmental status and potential for rehabilitation rather than definition by legal status (Abrams, 2013). Teacher candidates and youth are partnered quickly and randomly, and we begin to put into practice all that we have learned.

At the first meeting, teacher candidates introduce themselves and share their literacy histories with students, knowing the more information they offer, the more willing students will be to share. Teacher candidates are forewarned not to ask questions about why students are incarcerated and instead encouraged to ask questions about their likes and dislikes. What is their favorite sport and team? What music do they like? What is their favorite food? Which video games do they play? What do they enjoy doing outside of school? Eventually, teachers administer a reading interview adapted for adolescent readers (Goodman, Watson, & Burke, 2005). This interview format helps teachers discover how students define reading, but candidates also ask additional questions that will help them select books. Many design supplementary surveys to help them discover what genre and authors students may prefer. This first meeting is recorded and transcribed, and based on these interviews, teacher candidates select two books and explain their choices in reflections, written after each meeting.

At the second meeting, teacher candidates share what they have learned and ask follow-up questions. Using pre-reading scaffolds (e.g. anticipation guides, K-W-L, probable passage), they introduce each of the two book choices and explain why these texts were chosen. Once the student has selected a book, they establish a reading calendar for the remaining five meetings.

To gain a greater understanding of the reader and a window into their processing, teacher candidates administer a miscue analysis (Goodman, 1969) including an oral and silent retelling to better understand the cue systems (i.e. graphophonic, syntactic and semantic) utilized by readers during the third meeting. If time allows, they may conduct a miscue analysis with a different genre.

At the next meeting, teachers deepen student meaning-making by engaging students in during-reading scaffolds. I watch as reading partners sketch-to-stretch, say something, or write on post-its (Beers, 2023).

Teachers guide students to reflect on their reading processes during the fifth meeting through retrospective miscue analysis, using questions they have written in advance (based on their coding of the miscue) to foster metacognition. Then they support their student's strategic reading by teaching fix-up strategies (Tovani, 2000).

During the sixth meeting, teacher candidates design a literacy lesson of their choice to best meet their student's needs, drawing from the array of during reading strategies and scaffolds read about this summer. And at their final meeting, teacher candidates practice after-reading strategies, extending meaning with students. The partnership concludes after four weeks with a Chick-fil-A breakfast and the presentation of a new book by the teacher candidate to the student.

Teaching and research are reciprocal processes. There is no teaching without research and research without teaching, Freire (2001) reminds us. So to explore the effects of this summer reading partnership, specifically on teacher candidates' understanding of reading, the teaching of reading and “at-risk” readers, I engaged in the action research process. This study met the distinctions of action research as defined by Arhar, Holly, and Kasten (2001) in that I was an educational insider; the research was geared toward improving the researcher as well as the practice; and I knew this inquiry would be self-critical. Defined by Sagor (2005), action research is a cyclical process involving four stages: clarifying vision, articulating theory; implementing action and collecting data; and finally, reflecting on data and planning informed action. As I have clarified goals, structured research questions, reviewed literature, articulated theory and described the project, a description of data collection and analysis follows.

Before taking part in this reading partnership, teacher candidates reflected on early literacy experiences and crafted a literacy autobiography. They also completed an initial Burke reading inventory and a starting survey, which prompted teacher candidates to consider their definitions of reading, their understanding of the English teacher's role in supporting readers and their understanding of at-risk youth. After each meeting with DJJ students, teacher candidates completed written reflections on their literacy teaching experiences. They were asked to consider what they learned about teaching reading each day and their strengths and challenges. They also completed an exit survey on the last day of the project, which prompted reconsideration of their definitions of reading, their understanding of the English teacher's role in supporting readers and their understanding of at-risk youth. They also completed a five-page narrative on their overall experiences at the conclusion of the project.

As a co-literacy-learner, I also reflected, guided by the National Association for Professional Development Schools, Essential 4. This article, in fact, is the written product of my own contemplation after reading closely the responses of the nine teacher candidates participating in the literacy partnership during the summer of 2025. To determine the effects of this summer reading partnership, initial data (i.e. literacy autobiographies, Burke inventories, reading surveys) was divided and compared with data collected during and following the project (i.e. written surveys, final narratives). Data were coded using a content analysis approach and analyzed by set for pre and post-understandings of reading, the teacher's role in supporting readers and for understanding “at risk” youth. The remainder of this article compares initial teacher candidates' understandings with ending understandings. I share the most recurring themes and finally, consider the implications which lead to informed actions for planning next summer's partnership.

Discussed below are the effects of the summer reading partnership on teacher candidates' understanding of reading, the teaching of reading and of “at-risk” youth. Key findings indicate expanded definitions of reading to include aesthetic expereinces; increased specificity in supporting students' reading processes and use of reading strategies; and an increased awareness of factors contributing towards youth being labeled “at risk.”

Teacher candidates initially defined reading as a meaning-making process, one that involves “understanding” and “comprehending” text. More specifically, they described reading as an efferent experience: “You learn when you read, whether you realize it or not” and as one that “expands knowledge.” As was likely since all candidates possess undergraduate degrees in English, they also mentioned searching for “deeper meanings” and “messages” within a text. Surprisingly, some teacher candidates alluded to critical literacy as they decided reading should be applicable to the world and is “not just the words on the page but the intent behind it.”

Following this literacy partnership, definitions of reading offered by teacher candidates expanded from the efferent to the aesthetic and included references to the personal and cultural. Candidates still defined reading as understanding text, but they also described reading as a “shared experience where we learn about the world and ourselves.” Candidates came to recognize reading as “connecting.” Their initial focus on deeper meanings was expanded to include “identifying core themes and motifs and how they relate to you as an individual.” Future teachers noted that a reader's culture can affect their meaning-making as “people make meaning in countless ways.” Teacher candidates recognized reading as a “lifelong process” and a “journey” that can be supported with “strategies.”

Rosenblatt (1994, 1995) distinguished between efferent and aesthetic reading stances, which are reflected in the above definitions of reading. Whereas the efferent stance focuses on acquiring specific information from text, the aesthetic stance emphasizes the reader's emotional and sensory experiences with text. Efferent reading is about taking away information, such as facts, from a textbook. But aesthetic reading is more personal and is focused on enjoying the process and the feelings evoked by a textual experience. Definitions of reading offered by teacher candidates became more aesthetic as a result of partnering with DJJ readers.

When initially asked how English teachers could support a student's reading process, candidate responses were general. They should “check in to gauge students' progress and understanding of a text.” No detail was offered as to how to do this. English teacher candidates, associating reading with text and response, suggested teachers could “share a variety of literature with students” and “provide a range of options.” They should offer “choices,” a “variety of genre,” and “relate books to students' lives.” Teachers should “provide opportunities to read” and “encourage discussion” and “freedom to share.” Whereas all of these suggestions are important to foster reading motivation in adolescents, teacher candidates offered no specific reading strategies to help students. One intern suggested that teachers ask a student what they are struggling with and “address it,” again providing no detail as to how to do so. Teachers need to “work to help them” and “take extra time with them” and “recommend easier books.” When a student comes to a word they don't know, candidates suggested students should “Google it,” “look it up,” “ask someone,” or “use context clues.”

Following this partnership, teacher candidates described the role teachers should play in supporting the reading process more specifically and individually, suggesting “teachers need to get to know their students early in the school year and curate a reading list for them based on their interests.” When it comes to text, teachers reiterated that they need to offer choices, but more specifically, they thought teachers should find “texts that allow students to see themselves and their lives reflected on the page.” One candidate suggested a novel by Jason Reynolds, Look Both Ways, which tackles relevant and sometimes difficult topics like relationships, bullying, violence, grief and trauma.

In order to better understand their students' meaning-making processes, teachers need to listen to students read and analyze their miscues. Teachers need to “care about students as individuals,” “meet them where they are,” “teach a variety of reading strategies,” and “model their own reading processes.” Candidates suggested equipping students with before, during and after reading strategies to foster more independent readers: “It is important to insure that students have the ‘tools’ necessary and the knowledge of what strategies to use when.” This can be attained through “guiding students to be metacognitive about their own processes” and “helping students think about their reading as they're doing it.”

Post partnership reflections demonstrate candidates' increased specificity in understanding, supporting and monitoring students' reading processes. For example, teacher candidates reference miscue analysis, a procedure for assessing a student's reading by analyzing deviations from the text they make when reading aloud, a process practiced during this reading partnership with DJJ students. English teacher candidates describe textual choices in more detail as they recommend texts that allow students to see themselves and others reflected on the page, including a novel by Jason Reynolds. Teacher candidates also reveal an increased understanding of the importance of reading strategies to deepen student comprehension before, during and after reading.

Preliminary descriptions of “at-risk” youth focused solely on deficient academic qualities, as teacher candidates described students as “reading below grade level” and “falling behind.” Students were depicted as struggling to comprehend, connect, or analyze text. They “lack motivation,” “see reading as a chore,” and “get easily frustrated.”

Following this reading partnership, English teacher candidates demonstrate an increased perception of at-risk youth, seeing beyond deficits and recognizing strengths. As one candidate clarified, “‘At-risk’ shouldn't be tied solely to academic performance.” At-risk youth are “not just “struggling with words on a page.” They “can be intelligent but still at-risk.” One candidate mentioned their student who “had his GED at 15.” And another candidate summarized, “Many of our students were incredibly capable readers, but they didn't know what to read.” Overall, candidates learned that teachers should “not make assumptions about students' abilities based on labels and backgrounds.”

Teacher candidates recognized other factors that can contribute to a student being at risk: “Readers enjoy reading regularly but may be defined at-risk due to his disciplinary record.”

Candidates demonstrated increased empathy and less judgment as this partnership “made me much more understanding to what can cause someone to end up labeled as ‘at risk.’” An at-risk student “can be anyone” and they often “don't want to be at-risk.”

Whereas academic factors often contribute to a student being considered “at-risk,” other causes mentioned prior include environmental and behavioral. As a result of this literacy partnership, English teacher candidates demonstrated increased awareness of other influences contributing towards a youth being labeled “at-risk.” Through their experiences reading with justice-involved youth, they saw beyond labels and deficiencies and instead acknowledged reasons, strengths and possibilities.

As teachers and professors, we hope our students are reading, thinking and learning about curriculum, theory and pedagogy introduced in education classes. We imagine teacher candidates rushing home to read the chapters assigned and write the responses requested. We engage our students in dialogue around ideas and believe they are learning. But this partnership has reaffirmed my belief in the power of application of ideas through authentic partnership experiences between teacher preparation programs, schools and communities. Community engagement guided these teacher candidates to critically reflect on their assumptions about justice-involved youth and reshape their understandings about literacy and their role as teachers.

An analysis of teacher candidate responses before and after this literacy collaboration reveals that while candidates initially could define reading as a meaning-making process, identify generally how to support readers and understand at-risk youth as academically challenged from traditional course experiences, they failed to see reading aesthetically, teaching strategically, or students personally. This community-engaged, justice-focused partnership made literacy learning and teaching more subjective, critical and cultural. While teacher candidates had discussed the importance of aesthetic reading prior to this reading partnership, it was not mentioned in their initial definitions. While candidates had read about the importance of modeling strategies before, during and after reading, these were not included in their initial surveys. And while candidates had explored varied factors affecting justice-involved youth, their descriptions were solely academic prior to participating in this literacy collaboration.

So what does this mean for future planning? As an educator, I have recognized the need for more continuous, community-engaged learning. Instead of beginning this partnership a month later, perhaps teacher candidates could spend more time at the camp site, building and sharing foundational knowledge. Ideas introduced could be questioned and confirmed alongside youth in order to prompt more aesthetic, strategic and critical literacy learning, sooner rather than later. If we are indeed committed to community-engaged social action projects that heighten teacher candidates' awareness of issues affecting youth, then more sustained experiences reading in partnership are needed.