1. 1
Running head: ED 7999, TERMIANAL MASTERS SMR ESS-PROJ,WINTER 2015, 4/24/15
Making the Case for Early Intervention
Kaila Collins
Wayne State University
3. 3
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this research paper is to answer the essential question: “Do the benefits of
early reading intervention make such programs a worthwhile investment?” through relevant data
from significant studies on the topics of early intervention, Response to Intervention (RTI), and
Special Education. This paper will review and utilize studies conducted on early intervention
programs over the last 20 years with the intent of formulating a solid basis of evidence.
What is Early Intervention?
Early intervention programs typically begin from infancy or early childhood. These
programs focus on prevention as opposed to rehabilitation, integrating approaches to reach the
whole child through concurrent efforts across multiple social and public agencies. The primary
goal of early intervention programs is to prevent developmental delays and academic failure.
(Reynolds, 2007)
Historical Views on Early Intervention
The Encyclopedia of Special Education states the year between 1970 and 1995 an
increase in research on early intervention was seen. Early intervention programs went from
splintered forms of “disparate activities and therapeutic approaches” to more cohesive
intervention programs (Reynolds, 2007). Initial early intervention programs focused on gathering
data to support the effectiveness of such program while current programs focus on the quality of
intervention methods and the type of student such interventions work best with. Thus early
intervention has gone from simply providing intervention to individualizing intervention to meet
the specific needs of the student.
4. 4
Intervention programs serve a bridge between meeting the needs of students with
disabilities following government mandates such as IDEA (2004). Intervention programs of
today support students with a wide range of conditions; there are 11 conditions listed in the
Encyclopedia of Special Education however two of the categories listed are most likely to affect
students referred for special education services under the category of learning disability,
disadvantaged at-risk children, young children with communication (speech and language)
disorders. To address students with these conditions, early intervention programs can and should
be crafted around eight specific guiding principles established by the Division for Early
Childhood Task Force (DECTF) on Recommended Practices. These principles include:
1. Whatever the service delivery model, it should be the least restrictive and most natural
environment for the child and family.
2. Programs should center on the needs of individual families and children, and be responsive
to families’ priorities.
3. Programs should not only be interdisciplinary, but should fully integrate components from
each discipline.
4. Empirical results and professional family values should guide service delivery practice.
5. Each child’s and each family’s services should be individualized and developmentally
appropriate.
6. Intervention programs should be based on local communities.
7. Intervention programs should integrate services from a variety of agencies using a systems
model.
8. Intervention programs should begin as early and be as intense as realistically possible and
appropriate for the child and family. However, for some conditions, timing and intensity of
5. 5
treatment must be base carefully on each child’s level of development since manipulations
that occur too early or are too intense may have iatrogenic effects, being actually harmful.
(Reynolds, 2007)
Out of these principles come effective early intervention programs models. One such
model for addressing early reading intervention is Response to Intervention (RtI).
Early Intervention and Special Education
Early intervention can have a positive affect on the number of students identified as
learning disabled and referred for special education services in that the number of older children
can be vastly reduced. Without the benefit of early identification, these students would need
intensive support in a long term special education program. These programs which tend to result
in scant gains for the student. By means of early intervention, remediation programs are
supplanted with effective prevention programs while at the same time offering students who
continue to need support the ability to take advantage of instructional enhancements and
mainstream back into the general education classroom.
The Role of RtI Models
Following the reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act in
2004 which included the use of RtI models, schools were able to inculcate new methods in
identifying students eligible for special education services under Learning Disability (LD)
Identifying LD has proven difficult due to the tendency for learning disabilities to manifest
themselves as time progress. As a result of utilizing traditional means of addressing students
through the wait and see method, many students would fall further behind as their needs had not
been identified soon enough. On the other hand teacher referrals lead to a vast number of boys
6. 6
being referred for special education services than girls when in reality both girls and boys can
suffer from reading difficulties. Thus the need for a more student centered approach to
identification becomes necessary. Through RtI students are tracked from the moment they begin
the program as data through universal screening and continual progress monitoring and the
specific individual needs of the student are addressed. While the success of RtI in schools is
dependent on ensuring students receive high quality instruction, many schools implementing RtI
models have seen a decrease in special education referrals while student achievement has risen.
In additional, schools have benefited in that RtI has supported the development of all students
not only those identified as LD.
Based on these findings it becomes evident that the role of early intervention is pivotal.
Early intervention has a greater affect on three key areas, student efficacy, teacher practice, and
program funding. Out of these three areas arise three main questions and their respective
subquestions:
1. How does early intervention affect teacher best practice?
• What is the role of the teacher in early intervention?
2. How does early intervention affect student efficacy?
• Can early intervention prevent student reading failure?
3. Why should early intervention programs be vested?
• Do the result make early reading intervention worth the investment?
Chapter two will discuss each of the three areas in depth through trade and empirical studies.
Key terms
Teacher best practice:the set of guiding research-based activities, policies, and tools that
have been determined to work best in a specific environment.
7. 7
Student efficacy:a personal judgment of ones self based on the ability to perform a
specific activity. For students the belief that they can or cannot perform (efficacy) and
achievement strengthens as they advance in school. (McCabe & Margolis, 2001)
Chapter three will discuss the real world application of the finding presented in
chapter two as well as experiential examples. Chapter four will discuss final thoughts on
the presented research and ultimate decisions that can be made based on the findings.
CHAPTER 2
8. 8
LITERATURE REVIEW
Over the past several years an increasing number of studies on the topic of early
intervention have been written. Much of the research has built upon an initial longitudinal study
by Connie Juel entitled Learning to read and write: A longitudinal study of 54 children from first
to fourth grades first published in the Journal of Educational Psychology in 1988. This study
addressed three primary and subsequent questions: Do the same children remain poor readers
year after year? Do the same children remain poor writers year after year? What skills do the
poor readers lack? What skills do the poor writers lack? What factors seem to keep poor readers
from improving? What factors seem to keep poor writers from improving? The findings of this
research concluded that there was a .88 probability a student ending first grade as a poor reader
would remain a poor reader at the end of fourth grade. It was also found that the correlation
between early writing skills and later writing skills was not as easy to predict as reading ability.
One of the cited causes for students with poor reading ability was found to be linked to a lack of
or little phonemic awareness upon entering first grade thus these students, by the end of fourth
grade, remained at a loss in achieving the deciding skills good readers acquired at the start of
second grade. A final contribution factor observed was that students who were good readers read
most often both in and out of school, thus their reading ability continued to grow (Juel,1988).
Juel’s (1988) research lays a foundation for reasoning on the benefits to addressing the needs of
students early on. If the identifying factor in poor reading ability is linked to a skills deficit that
can be remediated early on then early intervention is essential to making sure that students do not
remain at a loss from which they cannot recover. Juel’s (1988) research has been cited in over
2000 articles to date. Many of the journal articles presented in this chapter and throughout this
9. 9
paper are off shoots of the study. The articles in this chapter are organized to address each of the
main questions and their subquestions followed by an analysis of the articles.
Early Intervention and Teacher Best Practice
In meeting the needs of struggling readers the classroom teacher has the initial
responsibility of addressing the student prior to any special education referrals or acting on the
developmental lag theory. The development lag theory supposes that students will eventually
catch up to their peers in their own time. The wait and see method has proven ineffective as it
delays the reading support students need to successfully achieve academic reading gain (Francis,
1996). And as Juel reports (1988), struggling readers fail to catch up but rather remain behind
their peers.
How does early intervention affect teacher best practice?
Best teacher practice involves a research based approach to students learning. Effective
early intervention programs incorporate high quality (HQ) reading program, from the start, in the
classroom. If the students are receiving HQ teaching then a lack of instruction can be ruled out as
a factor in a student’s poor reading ability, the teacher can then systematically roll out student
centered interventions. If these interventions are not successful then the student can be moved
through a sequential battery of interventions and assessment. If, after all pre-referral efforts have
been exhausted and the student still fails to make progress then the students can in good faith be
referred for special education services. This chain of events thus ensures that the teachers are
doing all they can to be accountable to their students and play an active role in the assessment
and remediation of student reading process rather than passing the task on to someone else. RtI
models take into account teacher practice by implementing a tiered approach that leaves minimal
to no room for any student to fall through the cracks.
10. 10
What is the role of the teacher in early intervention?
As an effective practitioner, the classroom teacher should identify and intervene on
behalf of students who show low reading growth. In the past teachers assumed that given time
students would eventually catch up, current studies have proven otherwise.
Results suggest that the developmental course of reading skills in children with reading disability
tends to favor deficit models rather than developmental lag models (Francis, 1996).
Based on this evidence the supposition that reading disabilities are a result of a lag in cognitive
maturation cannot be supported. Furthermore, the evidence implies that reading disabled students
fail to eventually develop necessary reading skills as they age thus their disability persists
throughout their lifetime (Francis, 1996). To address these long term concerns it becomes vitality
important that “strong leadership, professional development for teachers and parental
involvement” are initiated in efforts to identify and offer appropriate interventions for struggling
readers (Rose, 2012).
As the first line of defense, teachers have several primary responsibilities.
(1) they clearly identify the academic and behavioral issues involving their students;
(2) they determine sound reasoning for why the issues exist; (3) they decide on the most
appropriate research-based interventions to use; (4) they record and monitor their students
response to their personalized intervention plan at Tier 1; and (5) they are aware of and take the
next steps in the intervention process when students fail to make sufficient progress at Tier 1.
Evidence shows that Intervention is essential and ideally executed in the early grades to
prevent the prevalence of poor reading skills. Kindergarten and first-grade students tend to show
the greatest response to early intervention. When implementing a reading intervention program
through an embedded professional development program one study noted that struggling first
11. 11
grade students had made sizable gains in four reading areas and saw increased growth across the
year in three reading areas when compared to their counterparts. These students received
individualized instruction in phonemic awareness, phonics knowledge, vocabulary,
comprehension strategies, and reading fluency (Amendum, 2014).
Following the program it was noted that not only were students possibly affected but also
they teachers. The first-grade teaching team’s ideals on literacy teaching and learning had
transformed; rather than sticking with a “balanced literacy/meaning-oriented approach” the team
focused on a “balanced literacy/individualized approach” (Amendum, 2014).
The openness to explore and meet the specific needs of their students contributed to the
positive gains of their students. It can be said then, that the personal attention teachers provide
their students can have a significant affect on their reading ability. Studies suggest that teacher
behavior can improve or impede growth; for instance it has been noted that poor readers choices
in literature tend to be limited by teachers who may expect little from these students. However, it
has become clear that giving students the ability to choose can promote positive affects on their
attention to reading, understanding, and achievement. It becomes important for teachers to
promote high expectations for students at all times even if they do receive early intervention
services (Hurry, 2007).
The roll of the teacher is one of great import at when it comes to initiating and implanting
an early intervention program. Teachers have to address both their methods of teaching, they
way they approach learning and literacy, and they way they approach their students.
Early Intervention and Improving Student Efficacy
A students belief in his or her abilities is directly tied to experiences they have had in
proving their capabilities. In the case of a capable reader, he or she feels confident in their
12. 12
ability and continues to read, increase the volume in which they read, and accept opportunities to
share their abilities with others. It is not uncommon to notice a child excitedly offer to read a
favorite book to someone. These students have a strong sense of efficacy making them likely to
“work hard, persist, and seek help” when carry out more difficult expectations. In turn their
determination increases their chances of reaching their goals promoting engagement in more
literacy experiences (Walker, 2003).
What of those students who are poor readers or non-readers? When these students fail to
see their reading ability increase along with their peers and find that the expectations in school
become more demanding they tend to shy away from reading altogether and any outlets where
reading is a mainstay, particularly school. The efficacy of the poor reader continues to remain
low or even diminish as they see fewer experiences for improvement; it is with much apathy that
they attend to the task of reading instruction. Students lacking a can-do attitude toward reading
tend to make scant effort to improve their reading abilities which in turn prohibits progress,
making the efforts between the students and the teacher more of a “chore” (McCabe & Margolis,
2001).
Can early intervention affect student efficacy?
Consider some of the implications poor reading skills can carry.
• The gap between poor readers and their peers persists throughout school “because poor
readers read less than their peers” (Hurry, 2007).
• Readers who remain poor readers upon completion of kindergarten or first grade
average reading and spelling levels 1.5 to 2 years below their age level (Hurry, 2007).
On the other hand it has been confirmed that strong early identification and intervention
can positively effect student achievement. Based on student measurement results, early
13. 13
assessment and interventions have been the most successful in addressing poor reading skills
deficits (Rose, 2012). In another study struggling readers who received intervention saw
“significantly greater gain scores” by the end of the school year. These students even out
performed their non-struggling peers who did not receive any intervention (Amendum, 2014).
These examples highlight the potentially positive effect early intervention can have on
students. Students are not subjected to falling further behind but they are given the tools they
need to successfully increase the number of positive experiences they have with reading. Another
source of improved self-efficacy comes from individualized learning and student involvement.
Students need to be being given choices in their learning, solid strategies to utilize, opportunity
for self evaluation and adjustable assessment (Walker, 2003). Given time these students may
notice an upswing in their efficacy and attitude toward reading. Hence it is possible to prevent
low efficacy in reading through early intervention, but to what degree?
Does early intervention prevent reading failure?
Despite the best efforts of intervention models, some students will need more intensive
individualized instruction to reach grade level skill. Such has been the case of students who
received intervention during kindergarten but failed to make progress at that level, many of these
students have benefited from additional intervention in first grade with the possibility of reaching
grade level skills. A small number of students will remain at-risk readers despite intervention in
both kindergarten and first grade (Vellutino, et.al, 2007). First graders who received early
intervention in Amendum’s study (2014) made strong reading gains in the areas of letter-word
identification, spelling, and comprehension increased growth during the school year. Teacher’s
in the study recognized this progress in their students and attributed these measures to a possible
reduction of first-grade students at-risk (Amendum, 2014). Thus, at least in the short term,
14. 14
models of prevention in addressing deficits leading to reading failure for these students is
evidenced.
In the article, Avoiding the Devastating Downward Spiral: The Evidence that Early
Intervention Presents Reading Failure, Joseph Torgesen provides evidence to support the claim
that reading failure can be prevented through early intervention. Torgesen cited two studies
which found that explicit instruction and extensive practice in reading decodable texts proved
beneficial for students at risk for reading failure. Also the most explicit instruction in phonics
offered the students the strongest gains in reading growth. Torgesen’s research also found that
while interventions with order students age 9-12 did have some positive affect, the same level of
efficiency seen with interventions for younger students was not evident. Based on Torgesen’s
research it is noteworthy that students again reach greater reading gains when they receive
support early on. Also the inclusion of primary components phonemic awareness and
manipulation are at the forefront of the skills deficit that prevent students from being good
readers. These components are further referenced throughout this discussion.
Despite the positive results previously mentioned, there are limitations to early
intervention models such as RtI. One of the measurement tools used, DIBELS, while valued as a
screening mechanism in early identification and key in offering key information on a student’s
progress has its drawbacks. The ability to discern between student’s who are truly at risk can
prove difficult for this tool. For example, a student may show strong growth through high scores
but in reality continues to be at-risk. When utilizing measurement tools, singularly, to make
program decisions there is a serious potential for students to fall through the cracks. Clemens
(2012) suggests that a more well rounded picture of students come from “measures that assess
students' ability to synthesize and integrate many skills simultaneously….” Despite the potential
15. 15
drawbacks, kindergarten and first grade literacy skills based on RtI measures have actually been
found to be more accurate in determining students who are presently at-risk but have the
potential to go on as independent readers and students who are presently at-risk and will continue
to need more intense individualized intervention or long-term remediation. In view of
measurement results some students may eventually be identified as learning disabled and
justifiably so (Vellutino, et.al, 2007).
The use of RtI tools and programs have produced results that support the use of these
programs. The earlier students receive intervention the greater the chances of them gaining
mastery over the skills they lack and go on to becoming better readers. In turn student’s own
belief in their reading abilities will likely flourish. Early intervention is not an overnight quick
fix but a commitment to ensuring quality individualized instruction is provided with an emphasis
on consistent progress monitoring. RtI measures are not without fault but do present compelling
data to supports the overall benefits of use. Teachers and interventionist cannot rely on
assessment tools alone to provide all of the answers. They must be aware and remain actively
involved in understanding their student’s needs and abilities.
Investing in Early Intervention Programming
The literacy of students in any community should be of prime concern. In time these
students abilities or lack of will determine the value of the community. Since increased gains in
students reading achievement can be attributed to early intervention programs, and studies show
that students who are struggling readers will continue to be struggling readers, there is reason for
schools, districts, local agencies, and government offices to invest in intervention program
initiatives. Instituting early intervention is an initially high investment with a potentially high
payoff.
16. 16
Why should early intervention programs be vested?
Put simply early intervention programs save districts and communities more money in the
long run.
One of the solutions typically taken to address a student’s lack of growth is grade level
retention in hopes that, again, they will catch up academically. Not only does retention fail to
identify and address the students inherent problems, but it also cost more than intervention (Rose
and Schimke, 2012).
Retaining students will average $10,297 per year less assessment and identification (Rose
and Schimke, 2012). Further, it would cost nearly $1.3 million to retain just 10 percent of the
students in a district of 1,000 students for just one year (Rose and Schimke, 2012). When applied
to larger urban school districts this number skyrockets. Aside from the initial cost of retention,
the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development contributes retention to a large
problem in society, these retained students enter the workforce later (Rose and Schimke, 2012).
The two greatest costs of starting an early intervention program include purchasing
materials and training staff. One early intervention program put materials costs at $500 to $1000
per grade level and another $500 per staff for training. In a K-5 school with 26 staff members, an
early intervention program could potentially cost close to $20,000. However, after the initial
investment any additional costs are minimal and limited to occasionally replacing items or
consumables. On the student side, increased student achievement has been gained through
identification and intervention with positive results for the students.
Schools in Florida following the states new intervention and retention policies provide
examples of how early identification and intervention prove to be a better model for addressing
struggling readers. For example, 3rd grade reading scores constantly increased with the number
17. 17
of students scoring as at-risk dropping almost 10 percent and the number of students scoring at
proficient jumping 13 percent from 59 percent to 72 percent in just six years following
implementation (Rose and Schimke, 2012).
The most successful intervention programs included individualized instruction, regular
academic evaluation, low-student teacher ratios, and intensive interventions. Early intervention
should be the first step in a chain of step to improving student literacy. “The earlier children are
identified for services and receive specialized attention, the more likely they are to improve their
knowledge and skills” (Rose and Schimke, 2012).
Can early intervention prevent over identification of students in special education
programs?
The second method for dealing with struggling readers is referral for special education
services. Students are not typically referred for special education services until third grade, are
typically boys, with a disproportionate number being African-American. As mentioned in
chapter one, girls are just as likely to exhibit reading difficulties as boys, also reading difficulties
are based on skill deficits that can be present in students of any race, however; since referrals are
based on teacher recommendation, a large bias can be evident.
When early intervention programs are implemented efficiently there will be a reduction
in the number of special education referrals due poor teaching practice. Through research-based
instruction and intervention methods and consistent progress monitoring, early intervention
programs offer additional instruction to many at risk-students and reduce teacher bias thereby
weeding out students who need mild reading support from those who need serious ongoing
intervention or will truly qualify as learning disabled (Vaughn, et.al, 2003).
Do the result make early reading intervention worth the investment?
18. 18
Yes, data provides evidence that the majority of at-risk children can be easily identified
in early grades, such as kindergarten. Students at this grade level “can be accelerated to grade
appropriate performance levels” (Vellutino, et.al, 2007) through long-term cost efficient
interventions. Through this cost effective means of early intervention schools are able to
determine what resources are needed and where they should be funneled.
In addition to the cost benefits, research has shown that intervention “significantly
improves” skills deficits in student’s reading. One specific intervention, Reading Recovery was
found to have a notable effect on one group of six year olds who were complete non-readers
(Hurry, 2007). Another specific intervention, Phonological Training, supports immediate
attainment of phonetic based skills though not enough to prevent problems from presenting later.
With this in mind a strictly phonetic intervention approach may yelled immediate but not long
term results while an intervention program that incorporates a balanced literacy approach can
address skill deficits and provide reading strategies for long-term incorporation into a students
daily life (Hurry, 2007). The improvement of student’s attendance to reading and motivation
make for positive results school and districtwide; chapter three discusses one such example.
CHAPTER 3
CLASSROOM IMPLICATIONS
Since the implementation of early intervention initiatives, many school districts have
successfully improved student reading achievement thereby offering resounding impetus for
19. 19
incorporating early intervention models into more schools. How, though, does an early
intervention program function in reality?
Bethel School District in Eugene, Ore is one positive example of how early intervention
can not only improve student reading ability, but also improve an entire district. Bethel saw
explosive results in reading following the district-wide adoption of an innovative approach to
reading instruction.
Since the district began the program only two percent of students have left first grade as
nonreaders despite the low socioeconomic status of its students. Prior to the initiative, 15 percent
of Bethel students left first grade unable to read, by second grade referrals reached as high as 17
percent in one of the districts schools. As a result, district leadership, including the special
services director, sought out an instructional model that would allow students to receive
instruction appropriate for their needs. Bethel also made sure that intervention would take place
as early as possible, specifically in the second week of school.
Bethel School District’s Reading Intervention Model
Measurable district goals for each grade level
Regular and frequent assessment and monitoring
20. 20
Research-based reading curricula that involve direct, explicit, and systematic instruction
Protected time for reading instruction
Instruction in small groups at each child's skill level
Leadership role for principals
Training for all teachers and educational assistants in using the curricula and assessment
(Paglin, 2003)
Following initial benchmark assessments and teacher observation, students are grouped
together based on their learning needs. The results of this consistent pattern of immediate
intervention include decreased special education referrals of 4-6 percent for students in the
district from kindergarten through second grade. The district continues to see gains due to this
comprehensive reading intervention program; for example the number of third grade students
meeting state standard in reading increased from 79 percent during the 1998-99 school year to 92
percent during the 2003-04 schools despite an increase of over 10 percent in the number of
students coming from low socioeconomic households. As an added benefit to the program, the
number of students in special education has drastically decreased and those who do need special
education services include those with more serve reading challenges (Paglin, 2003).
What Does a Successful Early Intervention Program Look Like?
• K-3 balanced classroom instruction “skillfully devliered” with an emphasis on word-level
skills (i.e. phonemic awareness and decoding) and reading comprehension
21. 21
• A process in which to “accurately identify” students below reading level despite having high
quality instruction
• Explicit, intensive, and supportive reading instruction that can be executed by the classroom
teacher that should be provided early on, particularly in kindergarten and first grade
The core of an effective intervention program should be based on the following aspects
(Torgesen, 2004)
Components of a Quality Early Intervention Program
Component: High quality instruction
Academic needs met: Instruction that includes phonemic awareness and phonemic decoding
skills, fluency in word recognition and text processing, reading comprehension strategies, oral
language vocabulary, spelling, and writing skills. Ensuring that each element is delivered in a
consistent and skillful way has proven more effective than instruction that does not contain these
components. Additionally, classroom instruction needs to make regular use of small instructional
groups composed of children with comparable skill levels and needs. (Torgesen, 2004)
Tools: Balanced reading curriculum
Component: Screening measures to identify at-risk students
Academic needs met: Universal screening and progress-monitoring measures identify students
needing reading support and allow teachers and schools to focus additional resources on small
group of students that need to most assistance. These measures also provide teachers
opportunities to establish small instructional groups based on student’s skills.
Tools: Measuring assessment such as DIBELS
Component: Appropriate targeted reading instruction for at-risk students
22. 22
Academic needs met: Students entering first grade with weak letter identification, letter-sound
correspondence and phonological awareness necessitate explicit instruction to develop the
knowledge base and strategies needed to decode texts. The teacher directly connects the letters in
print and the sounds in words. The benefits of strong phonics program of instruction can support
students in learning to read independently. Ideally a well structured phonics program will include
“onset and rimes and sounding and blending phonemes within rimes.” (Juel & Cupp, 2007)
Thereafter more time can be spent in developing vocabulary, discussion of textual content and
the introduction of a variety of texts. (Juel & Cupp, 2007; Torgesen, 2004) It should be noted
that phonics instruction in and of itself is but one part of a quality intervention program.
(Goodwin 2012)
Tools: Explicit instruction reading program
Strategic Application of Early Intervention Programs
The most successful strategies can be divided among three tiers utilized in RtI models. At
each tier a students needs vary, therefore what worked at one tier may not be sufficient to
continue to use at the next. Depending on the school, special educators may be involved at tier 2
and tier 3 though a student has not been formally identified for special education services. In
other cases teacher assistants and paraprofessionals trained in intervention methods may
administer the program at the upper tiers.
Tier 1 instruction involves all students in the classroom and uses the schools core
curriculum. Tier 1 intervention pinpoints students unresponsive to core classroom construction.
The teacher makes use of differentiated instructional practices by adapting to the needs of the
student. Explicit systematic instruction along with numerous opportunities to practice application
of the skills and strategies learned both alone and with teacher support are necessary. Teachers
23. 23
also want to avoid simply covering crucial material but, rather ensure students learn the material
and follow up with progress monitoring and reteaching whenever needed.
Tier 2 instructional decisions follow universal screening. These students are identified as
at-risk and should receive supplemental and/or small group intervention. Regular progress
monitoring takes place to evaluate student learning outcomes and develop new learning goals. A
possible intervention to address the needs of tier 2 students used by schools could be providing
reading support through in class peer tutoring. This intervention would likely be used in grades
two or higher.
Tier 3 adds on an addition of intensive support addressed to a small group of students
school-wide. Again these students have been identified as at-risk, however they could likely
develop severe problems without intervention. At Tier 3 remediation is the prime concern as
students at this level can fall significantly lower than their peers. Intervention at this level is
ideally administered three-four times per week for 40-50 minutes depending on the students
situation.
Should a student fail to make adequate progress through and up into tier three, further
assessment and referral for special education services would then take place.
Sample activities utilized in early intervention
1. Practice reading sentence strips from a story making sure to point to each word. Cut up the
sentence and have the student read each word. Upon proficiency mix up all the words and have
the student put the sentence in order. This intervention would work for a student struggling with
memory and left to right orientation. Four targets skills are practiced during this activity,
24. 24
memory development, word recognition, one-to-one word correlation, and left to right
orientation.
2. Practice using Elkonin boxes. Using a paper divided into 4-5 Elkonin boxes and up to four
counters, segment a selected word and have the student and place a counter in each box to
represent the sound heard. To reinforce segmenting the student should touch each counter again
while segmenting the word. For a student struggling with phoneme segmentation this
intervention would work. Three skills are practiced during this activity; phonological awareness,
counting phonemes in words, and understanding alphabetic principles for decoding and spelling.
3. Practice using structured repeated reading to improve fluency, phrasing, and expression.
Students read a short passage at their appropriate reading level orally while being timed. Any
miscues are noted by the teacher. After reading orally the student reading the passage silently
followed by another oral time reading. Again miscues are noted. This process should continue
until the student has reached a rate of 85 wpm. This activity is best for students lacking fluidity
in there reading. Three skills are practiced during this activity; memory development, word
recognition, and self-correction.
4. Reading comprehension practice through activation prior knowledge can be done to aid
students in recalling topic specific information. Activating prior knowledge supports
comprehension of a text on the same topic. The teacher can orally ask guided questions or
provide the three main ideas from the text. Students would then reflect on a text to self
25. 25
connection or experience prior to reading and then predict what the text will discuss related to
the main idea.
CHAPTER 4
CONCLUSION
Summary of Findings
26. 26
In pushing for early intervention teachers should be aware that they are providing HQ
classroom instruction, including small group and one-on-one reading time, tailoring instruction
to meet the specific needs of at-risk students, assessing and regularly monitoring student
progress, and moving students along a continuum of interventions prior to any special education
referrals.
Students own belief in their ability is tied to their understanding and experiences. Student
efficacy can be positively or negatively affected by their strengths in reading. As students
progress through school they will build up wealth of experiences that will encourage them to
continue to read or give up. By providing at-risk students early intervention, they have a better
chance at addressing any skills deficits that can eventually dampen their belief in their ability to
become a good reader.
The initiating an early intervention program can prove costly on the front end, however
the cost to school ends up being less in the long term as providing special education services
later and throughout the course of a students schooling will eventually cost more.
This research also answered to specific questions for me. Does giving immediate
attention to the foundational skills deficits of students will likely prevent further or later reading
losses? Does early reading intervention truly work? What I found was that the sooner a students
is provided intervention the better the outcome. With grades K-1st being the ideal time to offer
intervention. I also found that even though there may be immediate or short-term gains, this may
not always predict continued success. Other factors can come into play such as changes in
teaching methods and instructional quality, changes in the curriculum demands, changes in a
students personal life, and changes in a students efficacy or feelings of ability. Each of these
27. 27
factors are non-cognitive which can mean that a students regression is not tied to the student’s IQ
or cognition but rather external sources.
Early reading intervention can work but it is not without limitations. There are a
number of factors that can affect the outcome of an early intervention program. There is
the chance to catch a number of students during universal screening including those who
may be very strong readers in the classroom but may lack in a seemingly small area. In
this case the teacher, interventionist and administration may question whether the
intervention program is truly effective in reaching the neediest of students. Conversely
there may be students who assess and guess well but struggle as readers in the classroom.
When noticed by the teacher a student may be recommended for intervention. With these
scenarios in mind it is best to look at early intervention as a proactive solution rather than
a quick fix-all. There should be flexibility on the part of teachers in addressing the needs
of students by utilizing all of the tools available to prevent students from falling through
the cracks, so to speak.
Personal Thoughts on the Research
After spending two years as a reading interventionist, early intervention made perfect
sense to me. Through my experience I saw K-1st grade students make sweeping gains in reading
after only one trimester of reading intervention; some of these students progressed out and back
into the classroom others progressed out but ended up regressing, inciting the need for reading
intervention once again; and I saw those students who did not respond to intervention and
eventually qualified for special education services.
Students in 2nd-4th and later on 5th grade struggled the most to make adequate progress.
The vast majority of these students never progressed out of the reading intervention program
28. 28
despite best efforts on the part of the classroom teacher and the interventionist team. The
research backs up my own experience and pushes me toward the promotion of early intervention.
Despite the challenges and the potential holes in any program, the benefits are far reaching.
Students are able to get the quality education they need to successfully move forward in their
academic career and in life.
Is further study needed?
It is clear that by the end of second grade into third grade it becomes more difficult to
provide intervention leading to solid reading gains, though it is possible, however because the
longitudinal studies either showed these students remained poor readers, for the most part,
opposers of early intervention may use theses results to prove their case. With early intervention
programs being implemented with greater frequency and fidelity in the last 15 years or so, I think
more studies are needed to see the long-term affects on students who have gone through these
programs as they have progressed through school. Particularly studies need to show those
students who initially benefited from early intervention during kindergarten and first-grade.
Since it was during these grades the greatest reading gain were made it would be beneficial to the
educational community to see if these student continued to make reading gains at the same level
of the peers or if they regressed. And if these students do regress what factors may have
contributed. With these concerns in mind I feel a continued body of research on the subject of
early intervention is needed that addresses the best age or grade to begin interventions with and
the areas in which intervention is most effective.
29. 29
REFERENCES
Amendum, S. (2014, January 1). Embedded Professional Development and Classroom-Based
Early Reading Intervention: Early Diagnostic Reading Intervention through Coaching.
Reading and Writing Quarterly, 348-377.
30. 30
Clemens, N., Hilt-Panahon, A., Shapiro, E., & Yoon, M. (2012, January 1). Tracing Student
Responsiveness to Intervention with Early Literacy Skills Indicators: Do They Reflect
Growth toward Text Reading Outcomes? Reading Psychology, 47-77.
Early Screening Is at the Heart of Prevention. (2004, October 1). Retrieved April 6, 2015, from
http://www.aft.org/sites/default/files/periodicals/EarlyScreening.pdf
Francis, D. (1996, March 17). Developmental Lag versus Deficit Models of Reading Disability:
A Longitudinal, Individual Growth Curves Analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology,
3-17.
Goodwin, B. (2012, March 1). Research Says / Address Reading Problems Early. Educational
Leadership, 80-81.
Hurry, J. (2007, August 1). Long-Term Outcomes of Early Reading Intervention. Journal of
Research in Reading, 227-248.
Juel, C. (1988, December 1). Learning to Read and Write: A Longitudinal Study of 54 Children
from First through Fourth Grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 437-447.
Juel, C., & Minden-Cupp, C. (2011, November 9). Learning to Read Words: Linguistic Units
and Instructional Strategies. Reading Research Quaterly, 458-492.
McCabe, P., & Margolis, H. (2001, September 1). Enhancing the Self-Efficacy of Struggling
Readers. The Clearing House, 45-49.
Paglin, C. (2003, January 1). Double Dose: Bethel School District's Intensive Reading Program
Adds Beefed-Up Instruction for At-Risk Readers from Day One. Northwest Education,
30-35.
31. 31
Reynolds, C. (2007). Encyclopedia of special education: A reference for the education of
children, adolescents, and adults with disabilities and other exceptional individuals (3rd
ed., pp. 1154-1156). Hoboken, N.J.: John Wiley & Sons.
Rose, S., & Schimke, K. (2012, March 1). Third Grade Literacy Policies: Identification,
Intervention, Retention. The Progress of Education Reform Education Commission of the
States.
Schwartz, R. (2005, May 1). Literacy Learning of At-Risk First-Grade Students in the Reading
Recovery Early Intervention. Journal of Educational Psychology, 257-267.
Torgesen, J. (2004, January 1). Avoiding the Devastating Downward Spiral | American ...
Retrieved April 6, 2015, from http://www.aft.org/periodical/american-
educator/fall-2004/ avoiding-devastating-downward-spiral
Vaughn, S., Linan-Thompson, S., & Hickman, P. (2003, June 1). Response to Instruction as a
Means of Identifying Students with Reading/Learning Disabilities. Exceptional Children,
391-409.
Vellutino, F., Scanlon, D., Zhang, H., & Schatschneider, C. (2007, October 30). Using response
to kindergarten and first grade intervention to identify children at-risk for long-term
reading difficulties. Reading and Writing, 437-480.
Walker, B. (2003). The Cultivation of Student Self-Efficacy in Reading and Writing. Reading
and Writing Quarterly, 173-187.
