Martine van der Pluijm

126 Chapter 5 2007; O’Donnell & Mulligan, 2008). However, these classifications should be interpreted with caution, as research also shows large variations in quantity and quality of HLEs within groups of lower-educated families (Philips & Lonigan, 2009; Van Steensel, 2006) Despite thesefindings, there is littleknowledgeof howlower-educatedparents canbe supported effectively to promote their children’s oral language development at home (Van der Pluijm, Van Gelderen, & Kessels, 2019). For decades, educators, researchers, and policymakers have been encouraged to develop programs that acknowledge the home and school environment as the two most important domains where young children acquire language (Bronfenbrenner, 1977; 1992). Numerous initiatives have been launched to enhance children’s language development together with parents. For example, Epstein (2011) introduced goal-directed School-Family Partnerships (SFPs), defined as collaborations between teachers and parents to coordinate child support, based on equality (Bakker, Denessen, Denissen, & Oolbekkink-Marchand, 2013; Epstein, 2018; Van Voorhis, Maier, Epstein, Loyd, & Leung, 2013). Meta-studies have shown that overall, SFPs have a positive effect on children’s academic achievement, particularly those that stimulate parental involvement at home and regardless of parental backgrounds (Castro et al., 2015; Hill & Tyson, 2009; Jeynes, 2007; 2016; Wilder, 2014). However, there is little evidence that SFPs that support young children’s oral language development are effective for children of lower-educated parents (Boonk, Gijselaers, Ritzen, & Brand-Gruwel, 2018; Goodall & Voorhaus, 2011; Sheridan, Knoche, Kupzyk, Edwards, & Marvin, 2011; Van der Pluijm et al., 2019). Family Literacy programs (FLPs) have been developed to prevent the intergenerational transfer of language and literacy problems. These programs aim to contribute to enriching the home literacy environment (Wasik & Van Horn, 2012) by involving both parents and children in program activities (Hannon, 2003). Unfortunately, meta-studies show that these programs are less effective for low SES parents often with low education levels that need this support most (Manz, Hughes, Barnabas, Bracaliello, & Ginsburg-Block, 2010; Mol, Bus, De Jong, & Smeets, 2008; Van Steensel, Herppich, McElvany, & Kurvers, 2012). However, program activities (e.g., shared reading) can be difficult for parents with low educational levels and literacy skills. These parents are often less familiar with the specific type of communication that requires them to support child initiative (cf., Mol et al., 2008; Reese et al., 2010; Van Steensel, Herppich, McElvany, & Kurvers, 2012). Recent findings show convincing effects of interventions that apply focused activities and strategies to enhance child language development, carefully adapted to the skills and resources of lower-educated parents (Boyce et al., 2010; Reese et al., 2010; Landry et al., 2008; Van der Pluijm et al., 2019; Van Steensel, Fikrat-Wevers, Bramer, & Arends, 2019). Another problem that complicates finding customized interventions for lower-educated parents is that much intervention research does not provide detailed insight into the backgrounds of parents, allowing interventionists to learn about what works for these parents. Parental education level is often one of the indicators of parental socioeconomic status (SES),