Running head: ED 7999, TERMIANAL MASTERS SMR ESS-PROJ,WINTER 2015, 4/24/15

Making the Case for Early InterventionKaila Collins

Wayne State University

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………………3CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW………………………………………………………….8CHAPTER 3: CLASSROOM IMPLICATIONS..……………………………………………….19CHAPTER 4: CONCLUSION.………………………………………………………………… 25REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………………………..30

2

CHAPTER 1INTRODUCTION

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 pro-

grams 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 in-

crease in research on early intervention was seen. Early intervention programs went from splin-

tered forms of “disparate activities and therapeutic approaches” to more cohesive intervention

programs (Reynolds, 2007). Initial early intervention programs focused on gathering data to sup-

port the effectiveness of such program while current programs focus on the quality of interven-

tion 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.

Intervention programs serve a bridge between meeting the needs of students with disabili-

ties following government mandates such as IDEA (2004). Intervention programs of today sup-

3

port 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 re-

ferred 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 envi-

ronment 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 appro-

priate.

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

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.

4

(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 in-

tensive 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 iden-

tifying students eligible for special education services under Learning Disability (LD)

Identifying LD has proven difficult due to the tendency for learning disabilities to manifest them-

selves 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 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

5

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 de-

crease 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 sub-

questions:

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.

6

Student efficacy:a personal judgment of ones self based on the ability to perform a spe-

cific 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

7

LITERATURE REVIEW

Over the past several years an increasing number of studies on the topic of early interven-

tion have been written. Much of the research has built upon an initial longitudinal study by Con-

nie 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 ad-

dressed 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 re-

search 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 be-

tween 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

8

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 responsi-

bility of addressing the student prior to any special education referrals or acting on the develop-

mental 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 do-

ing 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 mod-

els take into account teacher practice by implementing a tiered approach that leaves minimal to

no room for any student to fall through the cracks.

9

What is the role of the teacher in early intervention?

As an effective practitioner, the classroom teacher should identify and intervene on be-

half of students who show low reading growth. In the past teachers assumed that given time stu-

dents 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 involve-

ment” 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 appro-

priate 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

10

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 individ-

ualized 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 trans-

formed; rather than sticking with a “balanced literacy/meaning-oriented approach” the team fo-

cused 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 pro-

mote high expectations for students at all times even if they do receive early intervention ser-

vices (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 abil-

11

ity 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 fa-

vorite 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 deter-

mination 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, mak-

ing 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 aver-

age 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 assess-

12

ment 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 high-

light the potentially positive effect early intervention can have on students. Students are not sub-

jected 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 re-

ceived 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 inter-

vention in Amendum’s study (2014) made strong reading gains in the areas of letter-word identi-

fication, 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 reduc-

13

tion of first-grade students at-risk (Amendum, 2014). Thus, at least in the short term, 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 In-

tervention 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 of-

fered 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 re-

search 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 compo-

nents are further referenced throughout this discussion.

Despite the positive results previously mentioned, there are limitations to early interven-

tion models such as RtI. One of the measurement tools used, DIBELS, while valued as a screen-

ing 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 diffi-

cult for this tool. For example, a student may show strong growth through high scores but in real-

ity continues to be at-risk. When utilizing measurement tools, singularly, to make program deci-

sions 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 drawbacks, kinder-

14

garten 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 inde-

pendent readers and students who are presently at-risk and will continue to need more intense in-

dividualized intervention or long-term remediation. In view of measurement results some stu-

dents 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 pro-

grams. 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 con-

sistent 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 under-

standing 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 stu-

dents abilities or lack of will determine the value of the community. Since increased gains in stu-

dents 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 ini-

tiatives. Instituting early intervention is an initially high investment with a potentially high pay-

off.

Why should early intervention programs be vested?

15

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 re-

tention in hopes that, again, they will catch up academically. Not only does retention fail to iden-

tify 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 mate-

rials 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 in-

vestment any additional costs are minimal and limited to occasionally replacing items or con-

sumables. On the student side, increased student achievement has been gained through identifica-

tion 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

of students scoring as at-risk dropping almost 10 percent and the number of students scoring at

16

proficient jumping 13 percent from 59 percent to 72 percent in just six years following imple-

mentation (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 pro-

grams?

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 chap-

ter 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 pro-

grams offer additional instruction to many at risk-students and reduce teacher bias thereby weed-

ing out students who need mild reading support from those who need serious ongoing interven-

tion or will truly qualify as learning disabled (Vaughn, et.al, 2003).

Do the result make early reading intervention worth the investment?

17

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 ap-

propriate performance levels” (Vellutino, et.al, 2007) through long-term cost efficient interven-

tions. 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 im-

proves” 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 attain-

ment 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 re-

sults 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 pos-

itive results school and districtwide; chapter three discusses one such example.

CHAPTER 3CLASSROOM IMPLICATIONS

Since the implementation of early intervention initiatives, many school districts have suc-

cessfully improved student reading achievement thereby offering resounding impetus for incor-

18

porating 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 ex-

plosive results in reading following the district-wide adoption of an innovative approach to read-

ing 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 ser-

vices 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

Research-based reading curricula that involve direct, explicit, and systematic instruction

19

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 inter-

vention 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 compre-

hensive 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 com-

ing from low socioeconomic households. As an added benefit to the program, the number of stu-

dents in special education has drastically decreased and those who do need special education ser-

vices 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

• A process in which to “accurately identify” students below reading level despite having high quality instruction

20

• 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 opportuni-

ties 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

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

21

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. (Good-

win 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 con-

tinue 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 curricu-

lum. 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 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.

22

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 moni-

toring takes place to evaluate student learning outcomes and develop new learning goals. A pos-

sible intervention to address the needs of tier 2 students used by schools could be providing read-

ing 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 de-

velop severe problems without intervention. At Tier 3 remediation is the prime concern as stu-

dents 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 as-

sessment 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, mem-

ory development, word recognition, one-to-one word correlation, and left to right orientation.

23

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 repre-

sent 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. Stu-

dents read a short passage at their appropriate reading level orally while being timed. Any mis-

cues are noted by the teacher. After reading orally the student reading the passage silently fol-

lowed 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 recog-

nition, and self-correction.

4. Reading comprehension practice through activation prior knowledge can be done to aid stu-

dents in recalling topic specific information. Activating prior knowledge supports comprehen-

sion 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 connection or experience

prior to reading and then predict what the text will discuss related to the main idea.

24

CHAPTER 4

CONCLUSION

Summary of Findings

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.

25

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 atten-

tion 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 teach-

ing 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 factors are

non-cognitive which can mean that a students regression is not tied to the student’s IQ or cogni-

tion 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

26

this case the teacher, interventionist and administration may question whether the inter-

vention 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 even-

tually 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 de-

spite 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?

27

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, op-

posers 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 stu-

dents 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 educa-

tional 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 interven-

tion is needed that addresses the best age or grade to begin interventions with and the areas in

which intervention is most effective.

28

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.

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

29

Francis, D. (1996, March 17). Developmental Lag versus Deficit Models of Reading Disability:

A Longitudinal, Individual Growth Curves Analysis. Journal of Educational Psy-

chology, 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 Edu-

cation, 30-35.

Reynolds, C. (2007). Encyclopedia of special education: A reference for the education of

children, adolescents, and adults with disabilities and other exceptional individu-

als (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 Commis-

sion of the States.

30

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.

31