Evaluation of Reading Intervention Programs for Students with Dis.pdf

National Louis University
Digital Commons@NLU
Digital Commons@NLU
Dissertations
12-2020
Evaluation of Reading Intervention Programs for Students with
Evaluation of Reading Intervention Programs for Students with
Disabilities
Disabilities
Diana Greer
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.nl.edu/diss
Part of the Curriculum and Instruction Commons, Elementary Education Commons, and the Special
Education and Teaching Commons
Recommended Citation
Recommended Citation
Greer, Diana, "Evaluation of Reading Intervention Programs for Students with Disabilities" (2020).
Dissertations. 510.
https://digitalcommons.nl.edu/diss/510
This Dissertation - Public Access is brought to you for free and open access by Digital Commons@NLU. It has been
accepted for inclusion in Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons@NLU. For more
information, please contact digitalcommons@nl.edu.

Evaluation of Reading Intervention Programs for Students with Disabilities
Diana Greer
Educational Leadership Doctoral Program
Dean, National College of Education
June 26, 2020
Date Approved
Approved:
Chair, Dissertation Committee
Member, Dissertation Committee
Dean’s Representative
Director, Doctoral Program

Evaluation of Reading Intervention Programs for Students with Disabilities
Diana Greer
Educational Leadership Doctoral Program
Submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirements of
Doctor of Education
National College of Education
June 2020

iii
Copyright by Diana Greer, 2020
All rights reserved

iv
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this evaluation is to identify a delivery model for reading
intervention services that can provide successful support for Students with Disabilities in
reading. The participants in this study, general education and exceptional education
teachers who teach reading content in grades K-5, answered survey and interview
questions related to the current delivery of intervention services at ABC Elementary
(pseudonym). The results of this evaluation revealed that addressing additional time for
reading intervention and using materials that provide a multi-component of reading
elements can improve the delivery of reading intervention services for Students with
Disabilities. Based on these findings, I proposed that additional time be structured in the
master schedule for reading intervention for students showing deficits in the fourth and
fifth grades. The additional time can provide a framework in which targeted intervention
is provided to ensure increased gains in reading for all students.

v
PREFACE
The achievement gap between Students with Disabilities (SWD) and their general
education peers in reading has been a problem in our state and district for the past five
years. The intervention block is the designated time in the master schedule to provide
targeted support to address deficits and close the achievement gap. My program
evaluation is focused on evaluating the intervention support services provided to all
students as part of this mandated intervention block. As a school building administrator,
I have observed general education teachers struggle with differentiating instruction
during the reading intervention block to meet the needs of their SWD. Identifying a
delivery model that can provide successful intervention support in reading for SWD can
be valuable to assist school districts and schools close the achievement gap.
My program evaluation is relevant to all stakeholders including teachers, parents,
students and school leaders because it provides insights on how to effectively provide
targeted support for struggling readers. Parents trust that the school system will provide
the services and supports their child needs to be successful. Reading deficits can pose
challenges for students all through their educational careers. An effective intervention
model in reading can assist teachers and school leaders help SWD become fluent readers.
School districts have a commitment to prepare students to be productive citizens and
literacy is an essential skill needed for this endeavor.
One important leadership lesson I gained from my evaluation of reading
intervention is that reading is a complex skill that requires targeted, small group
instruction to support all learners. I learned that as a building administrator I play a
crucial role in ensuring that teachers are provided with professional development on

vi
foundational reading skills to gain the expertise needed to effectively provide reading
instruction. I also learned the importance of gaining teacher input on barriers and
challenges in the delivery of instruction during the intervention block. The evaluation
process showed me the value of this input and how to use it to make recommendations to
improve the delivery model.
As a result of this program evaluation I have grown as an instructional leader.
This experience has shown me how conducting research, analyzing and collecting data
can be a powerful tool to enact change. The process of developing a Change Leadership
Plan showed me the value of looking at a problem and envisioning the change that is
possible in terms of the context, conditions, culture and competencies. As a leader I
believe that I can positively affect the structure of reading intervention services to ensure
that SWD experience success in reading.

vii
DEDICATION
To my husband, Brett, thank you for your unconditional love and support through
this process. I appreciate all the weekends you allowed me to work on my dissertation,
ensuring a quiet home to encourage me to write.
To my sons Philip and Matthew, my motivation in all that I do. You make me
proud every day, and I know you share my love for learning and personal growth. Thank
you for your love, support, and encouragement during this journey.
To my parents Martha and Pedro Valdivia, my biggest supporters in life. As
Cuban immigrants, you showed me the real value of hard work and the importance of an
Education. Thank you for your love and for always believing I can accomplish anything.
To my friends and extended family, I can’t thank you enough for all the
encouragement and support through this journey.

viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................... iv
PREFACE ............................................................................................................................v
DEDICATION.................................................................................................................. vii
List of Figures.................................................................................................................... xi
CHAPTER ONE..................................................................................................................1
Introduction..........................................................................................................................1
Purpose of the Program Evaluation .........................................................................3
Rationale ..................................................................................................................6
Goals of the Program Evaluation...........................................................................10
Definition of Terms................................................................................................12
Research Questions................................................................................................17
Conclusion .............................................................................................................18
CHAPTER TWO ...............................................................................................................19
Literature Review...............................................................................................................19
Elements of Reading Interventions for Students with Disabilities........................19
Multicomponent Reading Interventions ................................................................24
Components of Effective Reading Intervention Implementation..........................27
Challenges of Providing Reading Intervention to Students with Disabilities........30
Conceptual and Theoretical Frameworks ..............................................................34
Conclusion .........................................................................................................................35
CHAPTER THREE ...........................................................................................................37
Methodology......................................................................................................................37
Research Design Overview....................................................................................37
Survey ........................................................................................................37
Interviews...................................................................................................38
Student Data...............................................................................................39
Participants.............................................................................................................40
Data Gathering Techniques....................................................................................42
Surveys.......................................................................................................42
Interviews...................................................................................................43
Student Data...............................................................................................43
Ethical Considerations ...........................................................................................44
Data Gathering Techniques....................................................................................45
Surveys.......................................................................................................45
Interviews...................................................................................................45
Conclusion .............................................................................................................46
CHAPTER FOUR..............................................................................................................47
Results................................................................................................................................47
Findings..................................................................................................................47

ix
Survey ........................................................................................................47
Interviews...................................................................................................60
Student Data...............................................................................................67
Limitations.............................................................................................................69
Organizational Change Based on the 4 C Model...................................................71
Contexts....................................................................................................72
Culture......................................................................................................74
Conditions ................................................................................................76
Competencies ...........................................................................................77
Interpretation..........................................................................................................80
Judgments ..............................................................................................................84
Recommendations..................................................................................................88
Conclusion .............................................................................................................93
CHAPTER FIVE ..............................................................................................................94
To-Be Framework ..............................................................................................................94
Envisioning the Success To-Be..............................................................................96
Contexts ..................................................................................................96
Culture.....................................................................................................98
Conditions...............................................................................................99
Competencies........................................................................................101
Conclusion ...........................................................................................................102
CHAPTER SIX................................................................................................................103
Strategies and Actions......................................................................................................103
Context.................................................................................................................103
Culture..................................................................................................................104
Conditions............................................................................................................105
Conclusion ...........................................................................................................106
CHAPTER SEVEN .........................................................................................................108
Implications and Policy Recommendations.....................................................................108
Policy Statement ..................................................................................................109
Analysis of Needs ................................................................................................110
Educational Analysis ...............................................................................110
Economic Analysis ..................................................................................111
Social Analysis.........................................................................................112
Political Analysis .....................................................................................113
Legal Analysis .........................................................................................114
Moral and Ethical Analysis......................................................................114
Implications for Staff and Community Relationships .........................................115
Conclusion ...........................................................................................................117
CHAPTER EIGHT ..........................................................................................................118
Conclusion .......................................................................................................................118
Discussion............................................................................................................118

x
Leadership Lessons..............................................................................................121
Conclusion ...........................................................................................................125
References........................................................................................................................126
Appendices.......................................................................................................................135
Appendix A: Teacher Survey Invitation...........................................................................136
Appendix B: Teacher Survey on Intervention Instruction in Reading
for Students with Disabilities (SWD)........................................................137
Appendix C: Teacher Interview Invitation.......................................................................140
Appendix D: Teacher Interview Questions......................................................................141
Appendix E: AS IS 4C’s Analysis...................................................................................143
Appendix F: TO BE 4C’s Analysis.................................................................................144
Appendix G: Strategies and Actions Chart .....................................................................145

xi
FIGURES
Figure 1. Teacher Responses to Statements 1 and 2 ..........................................................49
Figure 2. Teacher Responses to Statement 3......................................................................50
Figure 4. Teacher Responses to Statements 5 and 6 ..........................................................52
Figure 5. Teacher Responses to Statements 7, 8, and 11 ...................................................53
Figure 7. Teacher Responses to Statement 10....................................................................54
Figure 10. Teacher Responses to Statement 14..................................................................58
Figure 11. Teacher Responses to Statements 15 and 16 ....................................................59
Figure 12. Teacher Responses to Interview Question 1.....................................................61
Figure 17. Teacher Responses to Interview Question 11...................................................67
Figure 18. State Standards Proficiency in ELA for SWD from 2018 to 2019...................68
Figure 19. Learning Gains in the ELA Portion of State Standards Assessment
for SWD from 2018 to 2019............................................................................69
Figure 20. End of Year (EOY) i-Ready Diagnostic Results in Reading
for SWD from 2018 to 2019............................................................................70

1
CHAPTER ONE
Introduction
ABC Elementary School (pseudonym) serves 740 students and is part of 123
Public School District (pseudonym), a large urban school district located in the southern
United States. It has received an “A” rating by the state’s department of education for
over ten years. The past three years, it has been designated as a “School of Excellence”
by the state’s department of education. This designation provides flexibility in the
schedules for the English Language Arts block. Of the school’s subgroup categories,
Students with Disabilities (SWD) comprise approximately 20% of the school population.
The context of my study is that our SWD are underperforming in the area of reading
when compared to their regular education peers. Results of the state’s standardized
assessment in 2017 in English Language Arts showed that only 30% of the exceptional
education students at ABC Elementary School scored proficient compared to the school
proficiency of 80%. Within the context of the broader educational community, SWD in
123 Public School District are underperforming in English Language Arts when
compared to their regular education peers. The district’s SWD scored at 15% proficiency
compared to the district’s 55% overall proficiency.
The problem context shows a noticeable achievement gap or disparity in
academic performance between our Students with Disabilities (SWD) and our regular
education students. Our 2017 state assessment results in English Language Arts reported
that only 5% of our SWD in fourth grade scored proficient compared to the school
proficiency of 80%, and only 10% made learning gains compared to the school's learning

2
gains of 50%. The general education teacher provides intervention services to SWD when
they are in the classroom with their general education peers.
The problem statement is the current delivery of intervention support for SWD in
the fourth and fifth-grade classrooms is not yielding results. There is a need to provide a
delivery model for SWD with reliable and specialized interventions. In the current
delivery model, students receive 30 minutes of tiered intervention by the classroom
teacher twice a week in English Language Arts. During the intervention block SWD
receive weekly push-in academic support four times a week for thirty minutes from the
exceptional education teacher or paraprofessional. The current delivery of intervention
support in fourth and fifth-grade classrooms is not producing learning gains for SWD in
reading based on the performance data on state assessments. Currently, the resources and
strategies used by the general education teachers for intervention do not meet the needs of
SWD. In the classroom observations I have conducted, I noted general education teachers
struggle with differentiating instruction during the intervention block for students with
disabilities. My observations also indicate general education teachers do not have
adequate training in support strategies for exceptional education students. There is a need
for a delivery model in which reliable interventions are provided to our students with
disabilities with fidelity. Effective specialized intervention support is essential for the
success of students with disabilities: “Increasing the intensity of effective instruction
(e.g., use of smaller groups, more time spent in intervention) may have positive effects on
student outcomes” (Wanzek & Cavanaugh, 2010, p.194). Providing an effective
intervention delivery model that includes specific targeted skills and differentiation in a

3
small group setting to SWD can make a positive impact on the reading achievement and
learning gains of SWD.
Purpose of the Evaluation
All students in 123 Public School District receive thirty minutes of intervention
outside of the English Language Arts block. This is part of the mandated Multi-Tiered-
System of Support state requirement for all elementary students. The program I am
evaluating is the intervention support services provided to all students. Students receive
thirty minutes of reading intervention instruction twice a week as part of the multi-tier
system of support in the general education classroom. The general education teacher
delivers the intervention support in her classroom using state-adopted materials and
resources. The ESE teacher supports the classroom teachers with strategies and
monitoring of SWD weekly. The ESE teacher provides pull out resource time to SWD
during the ELA block to help meet the Individual Education Program (IEP) goals of the
students. The individual classroom teacher can use a variety of strategies or elements to
engage students in the content. Currently, there is not a standard delivery model for
intervention support services at ABC Elementary School.
I became aware of the intervention support model and its deficits as part of my
work in creating the master schedule for my school as the building administrator.
Additionally, analyzing ABC Elementary School’s reading data for the past three years, I
found a consistent gap between the reading gains of students with disabilities (SWD)
compared to their general education peers. The data not only showed a gap in
proficiency, but a gap in the learning gains made each year by SWD. During classroom
observations, I also noted that there was not a consistent structure in the delivery of

4
intervention support for SWD within the school building. Periodic monitoring of teacher
lesson plans and discussions during data meetings also showed there are limited resources
approved by the district for use during reading intervention, and all teachers are not using
the materials with fidelity. The currently approved materials by the district have to be
purchased by the school. ABC Elementary currently uses the i-Ready computer-adaptive
program and the Curriculum Associates Language Arts Standards workbooks for reading
intervention. The i-Ready program must be used by students for 45 minutes a week for
students to make gains in their instructional path. Teacher monitoring and adjustment of
lessons are vital to growth. Not all teachers not providing students enough time on the
program weekly and are not monitoring the lessons and providing re-teaching of failed
concepts.
The program evaluation of intervention support is related to student learning in
the critical role it plays in closing the achievement gap in reading. Students who struggle
with foundational reading skills will have difficulty comprehending text and cannot read
for understanding and knowledge. Evaluating the intervention support provided in
reading to SWD could identify effective strategies and models for the delivery of
instruction that are yielding success and can potentially help struggling readers become
fluent. Intervention support services help close the achievement gap for students not
performing on grade level. Deficits in reading can pose challenges to the reading of
subject-specific content for all students. These reading deficits are especially significant
in upper elementary grades when reading instruction transitions from the foundational
reading domains such as phonics and phonemic awareness to areas related to
comprehension, as indicated in the research:

5
For students with learning disabilities (LD) in reading who are often still learning
to read, this transition away from beginning reading instruction places increased
emphasis on the importance of their special education services for providing
effective interventions to assist them in acquiring necessary reading skills.
(Wazneck & Kent, 2012, p. 5)
This is also impacted by the greater focus on non-fiction, informational text in the
intermediate grades instead of fiction typically focused on the primary grades.
Evaluating intervention support services for SWD at the elementary level, there must be a
focus on foundational reading components: phonics, phonemic awareness, fluency,
vocabulary, and reading comprehension. This will ensure that students in fourth and fifth
grades can gain the fluency and close reading strategies required to read and comprehend
text in other content areas such as math word problems, social studies and science
curriculum.
The purpose of my evaluation of intervention support services is to identify a
delivery model that can provide reliable and successful specialized intervention support
to our SWD students in reading. The purpose of finding effective skilled intervention
academic support for SWD may lead districts to choose to adopt a set of interventions
and resources that would be used to provide targeted specialized intervention for all
SWD. Monitoring would require implementation with fidelity at all schools.
Teachers would need to be trained in the intervention strategies and receive
professional development using the materials to provide specialized intervention to SWD.
From the training, teachers could make connections to student gains as a result of
implementing specialized strategies. There would need to be an increased understanding

6
by teachers of the specific reading intervention needs of the SWD in their classroom:
“Effectiveness comes to be defined in terms of what works with the children one is
teaching” (Murphy, 2016, p. 70). The teacher’s understanding that specific targeted
strategies and differentiation will be required to meet the needs of their students is key to
the success of the delivery of the intervention model. Professional development with
embedded training and coaching cycles in the implementation of the intervention
strategies and model would be provided to ensure teachers can differentiate reading
instruction for SWD.
Rationale
My rationale for choosing to study effective specialized intervention support for
students with disabilities (SWD) in reading is due to the achievement gap in learning
gains between my SWD and their general education peers. Only having 10% of my
SWD making learning gains in reading last year on the state assessment is unacceptable. I
would expect my SWD to make learning gains comparable to that of their general
education peers, which were at over 50% learning gains last year on state assessments.
Every child, regardless of their reading level, should show growth from the academic
supports and learning they receive every day in my school.
Historically, the challenge of methods available to measure gains for students
with disabilities (SWD). All SWD students have an Individualized Education Program
(IEP) of services with goals to meet their individual needs. The discrepancy comes with
meeting each child’s individual needs while exposing them to grade-level reading content
that is potentially above their instructional level, the level that a student can read and
comprehend text independently. To access grade-level content, these students require

7
“support (scaffolding) as they are learning new knowledge and skills, gradually reducing
the level of support as students move toward independence” (Wanzek & Cavanaugh,
2010, p. 200). 123 Public School’s vision is to be the “top producer of successful
students in the nation.” In this statement, the district and school board are clear they have
a vision and commitment to ensure all students are successful. Reading is a skill all
students will need to be productive and successful members of society. Teachers,
parents, and community members have a responsibility to ensure the reading success of
all students, not just general education students. The Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA) outlines how all SWD would receive free and appropriate
education, which includes full participation and related services designed to meet their
unique needs (U. S. Department of Education, USDOE, 2015). “And yet, under various
curriculum programs and assessments, accommodations and modifications for students
with disabilities continue to be perceived as not having been adequately addressed”
(Glatthorn, Boschee, Whitehead, & Boschee, 2016, p. 531). To ensure that a SWD
receives an appropriate education that meets his/her individual needs, intervention
support in reading must offer appropriate modifications and specialized instruction.
One critical issue related to the delivery of intervention services in reading for
students with disabilities (SWD) is that the school system does not have a consistent
delivery model for reading intervention provided to SWD. There is a need for a review
of current resources to develop a consistent delivery model for reading intervention. In
addition to these resources, high yield strategies, a collection of strategies shown by
research to improve instruction, implemented in the intervention structure would be
essential in the identification of teacher actions during the intervention block. Merely

8
providing a small block of time in the student’s schedule for additional reading support
has not yielded effective results at the school or district level. Waneck and Kent
underscore this: “Decisions - such as the amount of intervention (dosage), instructional
group size, and intervention implementer - provide context for the intervention and the
resulting outcomes” (2012, p.10). The instructional group size or the number of students
in a group receiving small group instruction is a critical component of effective
intervention. The time and frequency of the intervention or the dosage is another factor
that impacts how the student will respond to the intervention. I agree with Waneck and
Kent’s position that there are many decisions involved in the effective implementation
and analysis of intervention services. Consideration of these many factors is necessary to
ensure consistency in an intervention model.
Another critical issue related to the delivery of intervention services in reading for
students with disabilities (SWD) is the lack of teacher training and expertise in
differentiating instruction in reading to meet the needs of struggling students. Since
general education teachers the reading intervention block and not the exceptional
education teacher, the expertise and background knowledge of these teachers are
primarily in reading. Teachers have general professional development training in reading
and strategies to support reading development, but not the background of how to address
deficits in the reading of the exceptional education student. As Vaughn, Hughes, Moody,
and Elbaum have stated: “Many teachers reveal they have received little or no
professional development in how to develop and implement successful instructional
groups” (2001, p. 134). To effectively provide differentiated instruction during the
reading intervention to meet the needs of SWD, teachers have to receive professional

9
development on how to organize students in groups to differentiate instruction.
Professional development in differentiated instruction will help teachers effectively
provide small targeted group instruction to exceptional education learners.
Effective intervention support for students with disabilities (SWD) is essential to
ensure all students achieve success in reading. Reading is a life skill and necessary for all
students to be able to access information and content in other disciplines. The district and
the school have a commitment to all stakeholders to ensure they prepare students to be
productive members of the community. The district also commits as part of its vision to
ensure that all students are college and career ready when they leave high school.
Literacy will be an essential skill needed by all students for post-secondary success.
The school community has a responsibility to afford a fair and equal education to
all students, including exceptional education students. They have an obligation to
provide equitable opportunities for all students, including accommodations and
modifications, if necessary, to ensure all students experience reading success. The
reading performance of all students is tied to the school’s accountability. This provides
an added reason for schools to focus on success in reading for all students.
Parents, as constituents and taxpayers expect the public-school system to deliver
on its promise to educate their child. Parents have trust that the system will provide the
services and supports their child needs to be successful. This trust is especially
significant for parents of exceptional education students. They know their child has an
Individual Education Plan (IEP) that outlines goals and accommodations that must be
provided by law to meet the needs of their child. Attending IEP meetings, I have seen the
importance of gaining parents’ trust during these meetings personally and carefully

10
reviewing with the classroom teacher the accommodations and supports implemented to
meet the students’ needs in a general education classroom setting.
The business and community at large have an interest in ensuring SWD develop
the necessary reading skills that they need to be productive members of society. In
addition, the fact that “Nationally, the number of students identified with LD increases by
approximately 37% in the upper elementary grades, and students with reading disabilities
make up the largest percentage of students in the LD category” (Fletcher, Lyon, Fuchs, &
Barnes, 2007; U.S. Department of Education, 2010). National Center for Education
Statistics reports that between 2011-12 and 2018-19, the number of students served in
programs for SWD increased from 13% to 14% of the total public school enrollment.
There will be a significant impact on society if we don’t meet the learning needs of our
SWD, considering the increase of identified students in the general population. Ensuring
the SWD become literate and contributing members of society should be a priority for all.
Economically, the business community, as well as the greater community as a whole, has
an interest in the ability of these students to sustain themselves financially while making
valuable contributions to society.
Goals of the Program Evaluation
An intended goal for this evaluation of reading intervention services for students
with disabilities (SWD) is to determine an effective delivery model that can be
implemented by general education teachers during a block of time designated for
interventions. An inquiry into the delivery model would include looking at the
characteristics of the intervention time blocks such as student grouping and other factors
associated with intervention services delivery. The evaluation purpose is to determine

11
the effectiveness of delivery characteristics such as student grouping, time block, and
strategies used. When presented in a setting characterized by small targeted groups,
SWD are more successful.
Another goal for this evaluation of SWD reading intervention services is to
identify highly effective intervention strategies and resources that yield high gains in
student achievement. Within ABC elementary and 123 school district, the intervention
services provided to all are not implemented with consistency in terms of materials and
strategies at this time. To ensure effective interventions that demonstrate student
performance gains, there is a need for identifying research-tested best practices that are
conducive to sustained school-wide and district-wide fidelity of implementation. Such
constancy of practice requires the calibration of delivery, instructional materials,
resources, and strategies within the school and district at large. An example of a reading
strategy used across all intervention sessions would be the identification of a struggling
reader’s processes as they approach a text. “The nature of struggling comprehenders’
difficulties may be revealed through the processes in which they engage during reading”
(McMaster, Espin, & van den Broek, 2014, p. 22). Through the process of providing
intervention to struggling, readers teachers can identify basic skills such as decoding and
vocabulary knowledge that impact comprehension. This approach pairs effective
intervention with informal observations to make assessments about students’ reading
deficits.
My goals in evaluating the effectiveness of reading intervention services for
students with disabilities (SWD) is related to student learning to ensure that all students
become proficient readers and that we close the achievement gap for struggling readers.

12
“Many students are not receiving the level of academic support needed to meet grade-
level expectations in the area of reading” (Austin, Vaughn, & McClelland, 2017, p. 191).
Student achievement data should show an increase in learning gains in reading for SWD.
Teachers would be able to deliver specialized targeted intervention to their SWD to
improve instruction and deepen understanding.
Definition of Terms
The following educational and content-specific vocabulary terms were used
throughout this dissertation. The knowledge of these terms will be relevant to the reader
in terms of specific content knowledge and understanding throughout my dissertation.
• Academic Supports. Programs and strategies used by a school to increase
academic achievement of students. (Peterson et al., 2014).
• Achievement Gap. Refers to the disparity in academic performance between
groups of students. (Ansell, 2011).
• Close Reading. A strategy in which a piece of text, fiction, or non-fiction is
analyzed closely by students to increase higher-level thinking skills and
comprehension.
• Differentiated Instruction. Tailoring instruction to meet the needs of
individual students.
• Direct Instruction. Refers to the explicit teaching of a skill or concept by a
teacher to a student using speech and demonstration.
• District Professional Learning Communities (DPLC). This uses the structure
of Professional Learning Communities, which is a group of educators with a
shared mission, vision, and values; collective inquiry; collaborative teams; an

13
orientation toward action; commitment to continuous improvement; and a
focus on results but expanding it to groups within a school district. (DuFour &
Eaker, 1998, p. 45).
• Document-Based Questions (DBQ). Resources that allow students to practice
answering engaging historical questions and learn to use evidence to support
arguments. (DBQ Project).
• Diagnostic Reading Assessment (DRA). A formative reading assessment
system that allows teachers to assess student reading level and observe,
record, and evaluate changes in performance. (pearsonassessments.com).
• English Language Learners (ELL). A student who is learning English in
addition to their native language.
• Exceptional Education. Often referred to as special education, it refers to
alternative instruction, support, and services provided for students who have
academic, behavioral, health, physical, or other unique needs beyond those
met by traditional educational techniques. (Seder, 2014).
• Foundational Reading Skills. A set of skills that students must master to
become fluent readers and essential components of effective reading
instruction. These are: print concepts, phonological awareness, phonics, and
word recognition, and fluency. (Mesmer, H. A., 2020, p.23).
• High Yield Strategies. Instructional strategies that have a high probability of
enhancing student achievement for all students. (Marzano et al., 2001, p. 7).

14
• Independent Functioning Skills. The ability of an individual to have skills
such as self-care, self-direction, and communication to be able to function in a
real-world setting.
• Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Enacted in 1975, this law
mandates the provision of a free and appropriate public education for eligible
students identified by a team of professionals as having a disability that
adversely affects academic performance and as needing special education and
related services. (United States Department of Education, 2015).
• Individualized Education Plan (IEP). Each public school child who receives
special education and related services must have this plan. It is designed for
one student and is an individualized document for all school personnel and
parents to work together to improve educational results for children with
disabilities.
• Instructional Reading Level. A text that provides the right level of support
and challenge for the child’s current processing abilities to be able to practice
reading (Ransford-Kaldon, Flynt, Ross, Franceschini, Zoblotsky, Huang, and
Gallager, 2010).
• i-Ready. This is adaptive computer software that uses diagnostic assessment
data to identify students’ strengths and learning gaps at the reading subskill
level. It delivers individualized learning paths in the digital platform. Offers
support in grouping students for differentiation.
• Learning Gains. This term is used when a student demonstrates growth form
one year to the next year sufficient to meet the criteria outlined for the Florida

15
Standard Assessment Performance Task. (Florida Department of Education,
2020).
• Leveled Readers. A set of books organized by levels of complexity and
difficulty from easy to more complex. The teacher selects these texts to work
with a small group who have similar reading processes (Ransford-Kaldon et
al., 2010).
• Lexile. A measure used by schools to assess a student’s reading ability and
independent reading level to properly select books.
• Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS). This involves the systematic use of
multi-source assessment data to most efficiently allocate resources to improve
learning for all students, through integrated academic and behavior supports.
(citation withheld to preserve confidentiality).
• Professional Learning Community. A group of educators with a shared
mission, vision, and values; collective inquiry; collaborative teams; an
orientation toward action; commitment to continuous improvement; and a
focus on results. (DuFour & Eaker, 1998, p. 45).
• Pull Out Support. This refers to academic instruction and services provided to
students by the exceptional education teacher or a resource teacher outside of
the general classroom setting, usually in a resource room.
• Push-In Support. This refers to academic instruction and services provided to
students by a paraprofessional, exceptional education teacher or resource
teacher by going into the students’ classroom setting.

16
• Scaffolding. Instructional strategies used to break or chunk new concepts to
help students move toward understanding and greater independence in
learning.
• School Improvement Plan (SIP). A school’s use of data for purposeful
planning and problem solving focused on improving student outcomes and
closing the achievement gap.
• Self-Awareness. The ability to be conscious of yourself, your thoughts and
feelings, as well as how others perceive you.
• Self-Contained Classroom. A classroom composed of students requiring
special services that benefit from being in a structured environment composed
of students with similar academic needs.
• Special Education. Often referred to as exceptional education, it refers to
alternative instruction, support, and services provided for students who have
academic, behavioral, health, physical, or other unique needs beyond those
met by traditional educational techniques. (Seder, 2014).
• Students with Disabilities (SWD). Refers to students with some physical or
mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities.
Learning is considered a major life activity.
• Universal Design for Learning (UDL). A framework to improve and optimize
teaching and learning all students based on insights on how humans learn.
(UDL center).

17
Research Questions
I will need to collect data on how the current delivery of intervention support
services are provided in reading to evaluate the program effectively. As part of my
evaluation, I plan to use the following primary research questions:
1. What do general education teachers and exceptional education teachers report
is working well in the intervention services program for SWD?
is not working well in the intervention services program for SWD?
as the greatest challenges in the intervention services program for SWD?
as ways to address these challenges (if any), or improve in the intervention
services program for SWD?
The data collected from my primary research questions will provide me with
specific problems identified by the teachers working with our SWD in the current
delivery model of intervention services.
As part of my evaluation of the intervention program, I will need to collect data
from teachers related to their professional development and training needs, as well as
their needs for instructional resources. As part of my evaluation, I plan to use the
following secondary research questions:
1. What do general education teachers and exceptional education teachers
report as their needs for professional development to support SWD?
2. What do general education teachers and exceptional education teachers

18
report as their needs for instructional materials to support SWD?
The information collected by these related research questions will allow me to collect
qualitative data and insight on what the teachers providing the intervention support
services note are their needs for professional development training and materials to
support our SWD effectively.
Conclusion
In conclusion, there is a noticeable achievement gap in reading between my
students with disabilities (SWD) and my general education students. To close the
achievement gap, SWD must receive specialized intervention support in reading: “In
general, most students with reading difficulties make progress when provided with (a)
more instruction, (b) more intensive and efficient instruction, and (c) extended
opportunities to practice with and without teacher support” (Vaughn, Denton, & Fletcher,
2010, pp. 433-434). This specialized intervention plan must include extended time to
conduct the intervention as well as the structure and personnel support to improve the
delivery model. As I continue my studies, I plan to research and review the literature on
effective intervention models for SWD and specialized interventions in reading.

19
CHAPTER TWO
Review of Literature
Research shows most students with disabilities (SWD) experience significant
difficulties in reading (Austin, Vaughn, & McClelland, 2017). These difficulties affect
their performance in all other academic areas. SWD are not making progress in reading
at the same rate as their general education peers. Effective specialized intervention
support in reading is essential for the success of SWD. The current delivery of
intervention support provided at ABC Elementary is not yielding results for SWD. The
current delivery model includes a thirty-minute block provided by the general education
teacher. The purpose of my evaluation of intervention support services is to identify a
delivery model in which reliable and successful specialized intervention support is to
SWD in reading. I believe there is a need for a delivery model in which reliable and
successful specialized intervention support is provided to our SWD to ensure academic
gains. My evaluation research examined elements of reading interventions for SWD,
described multicomponent reading interventions, which combine more than one element
of reading instruction such as sight words and phonics, defined components of effective
implementation of reading interventions, outlined challenges of providing reading
intervention to SWD, and connected conceptual and theoretical frameworks from
research related to reading intervention.
Elements of Reading Interventions for Students with Disabilities
Repeated reading is a common element used in the structure of reading
intervention. Many of the intervention strategies address repeated reading tied to
building reading fluency: “Fluency is one of the most difficult components to remediate

20
for children with learning disabilities” (O’Connor, White, & Swanson, 2007). Ransford-
Kaldon, Flynt, Ross, Franceschini, Zoblotsky, Huang, and Gallager (2010) conducted an
empirical study on the effectiveness of Fountas and Pinnell’s Leveled Literacy
Intervention (LLI). This study showed significant overall gains in students in
kindergarten through second-grade students who received LLI, specifically noting a
definite increase in reading fluency for ESE students. The LLI system primarily
consisted of using leveled readers; readers leveled to correspond with the individual
reader’s reading level by Lexile, to build students’ fluency through repeated readings.
The findings noted significant differences for first-grade students who participated in LLI
and exceeded those who were not participating in LLI on the DIBELS (Dynamic
Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills) subtests of Oral Reading Fluency as well as
Letter Naming Fluency. In this study, research findings noted an average gain of 4.64 on
benchmark levels compared to only an average gain of 2.99 for students in second grade
participating in the LLI intervention. I believe the repeated reading through the use of
appropriately leveled text, as provided by the LLI intervention can improve students’ oral
fluency while building opportunities to interact with authentic text.
Reviews completed by W. L. Castillo (2011) on repeated reading to improve oral
fluency for SWD also show positive results. Castillo affirms that SWD, who struggle in
reading, tend to read slowly and labor over unfamiliar text. This lack of fluency
compromises the comprehension for these students, who then do not spend sufficient
time reading. She notes that the design of interventions should first, to meet the needs of
the student. The studies she examined all showed the improvement in overall reading
when the intervention used the practice of repeated reading of entire passages to improve

21
reading fluency. This study does not focus on authentic leveled text as part of the
intervention, but rather appropriate leveled passages. Appropriate leveled passages
provide a flexible option when leveled reading books are not available for teachers
planning for intervention by accessing a bank of passages.
Tied to overall improvements to reading comprehension, studies conducted by
Stevens, Walker, and Vaughn (2017) synthesized over 70 articles. They found 19 studies
that met their criteria for reading intervention of students in kindergarten through fifth
grade targeting reading fluency. The authors focused on reading fluency interventions
that incorporated the strategy of repeated readings (the practice of having a student read a
text over and over until fluent) with a model and without a model. The results showed
positive outcomes in reading rate, accuracy, and comprehension of students who received
reading intervention in fluency tied to repeated reading.
Likewise, a synthesis conducted by Kim, Bryant, Bryant, & Park (2017) of twelve
studies of interventions used to improve oral reading fluency with students with
disabilities found that the most effective practices used repeated reading with a model.
There were a variety of models used throughout the studies. These models included self-
modeling introduced through video recording, modeling by the teacher using repeated
text, modeling by the teacher with error correction, and pre-teach modeling to preview
essential vocabulary before reading the text. The synthesis concluded that teachers
should provide students with disabilities repeated and sufficient opportunities to read text
and should implement the use of repeated text as well as instructional features related to
modeling by the teacher during the reading intervention to yield positive results. I have
seen effective modeling by teachers during small group guided intervention at the

22
primary level. I know the value of students' exposure to correct literacy models when
reading text. I have not seen as many examples in the intermediate grades and can see
how this could be valuable to our students with disabilities who are not fluent, have self-
awareness, and might be embarrassed to read aloud in class.
Chard, Ketterlin-Geller, Baker, Doabler, and Apichatabutra (2009), have
researched whether to consider repeated reading as an “evidence-based” practice. They
concluded that repeated reading has not been evaluated with quality and rigorous
standards to support this practice. They evaluated eleven research studies to establish the
effectiveness of repeated reading as related to rigorous and quality standards. The
authors found that none of the 11 research studies, which they reviewed and evaluated,
met the conditions for rigorous and quality research as outlined in the categories of the
rubric developed by them for the study. These findings indicate that repeated reading
does not meet the conditions for consideration as an evidence-based strategy for SWD.
This evidence can also imply that single-subject research completed on the practice of
repeated reading may need to increase in rigor in future research since the authors found
that none of the 11 studies they reviewed met their criteria in the rubric to qualify as
rigorous standards. I found that the review of the research by these authors had
weaknesses about repeated reading studies due to the lack of information about the
specific interventions, as well as lack of information about the teachers providing the
intervention across all the experimental and quasi-experimental studies examined. The
lack of information about the specific interventions makes it difficult to evaluate the
research and note if the results are due to the effects of the intervention concerning
repeated reading itself, or the delivery by the teacher.

23
Sight word recognition is another common element implemented during reading
intervention for SWD. SWD exhibit difficulty with rapidly decoding words, phrases, and
sight words quickly. Difficulty in decoding affects the area of reading fluency, which is
an essential skill for reading proficiency. Research by Vaughn and Wanzek (2014) on
meaningful impacts of intensive reading interventions for SWD, note that word
recognition typically focuses on phonics and decoding skills and sight word recognition.
In their study, they found that this included spelling and reading of individual word lists
and then applying words to decodable text. They found that when provided explicit
instruction in these areas, SWD made substantial gains in decoding words, fluency, and
comprehension skills. This research shows that SWD benefit from reading interventions
that focus on word decoding and sight word instruction. In their study related to elements
of sight word intervention with SWD authors Haegele and Burns (2015) found in their
research that the effects of modifying intervention set size concerning the acquisition rate
(AR) had a significant impact on the implementation of sight word interventions. AR is
the amount of information that a student can recall at least one day after the intervention
session. Three SWD who were studied received sight word intervention. The results
showed that in terms of retention, all three participants had higher retention of unknown
words when taught in the rate of their AR condition for each of the sets. The average
numbers for words recalled per minute were the highest level of retention and recall for
all three students when AR conditions were met. The authors note limitations in their
research to consider in terms of the measuring of variables in the study. They report that
the stimuli used during the sessions for instruction were words categorized as unknown
and taken from an appropriate list for the students’ grade level. They contend that though

24
the grade level list made the data applicable to the instructional setting, it also limited the
validity internally. I believe this study provided enormous implications for the
importance of knowing the characteristics and needs of all students before beginning an
intervention. Taking time to assess each student’s AR through informal small group
assessment of sigh word recognition during a small amount of time would provide
valuable insight in preparing the amount of content delivered during a single intervention
session.
Multicomponent Reading Interventions
A significant number of studies on reading intervention for SWD involved
programs that did not focus on a single reading skill but incorporated several
foundational reading skills to provide a multi-component approach to intervention.
Afacan, Wilkerson, and Ruppar (2018) conducted a review to examine the quality and
characteristics of published research on multicomponent reading intervention for SWD.
They found that seven empirical studies fit their inclusionary criteria. They defined
multi-component interventions as interventions that provide instruction in at least two to
five components of reading. Components in the studies examined included phonemic
awareness, phonics, fluency, comprehension, and vocabulary. Effective strategies
incorporated in the multi-component approach included direct instruction, time delay,
repeated trials, and read aloud. Overall, the review noted that integrated reading
instruction that consists of a multi-component approach has shown to be effective with
students with disabilities.
The examination of literature conducted by Kang, McKenna, Arden, and Ciullo
(2015) included studies of integrated reading and writing interventions for students with

25
disabilities. Of the ten studies reviewed, they found four studies met the inclusion criteria
according to the What Works Clearing House (WWC) design standards. The findings
show the relevance of incorporating reading and writing multi-component intervention in
line with the practice of tying together reading and writing skills during an instructional
period. Their research notes that students with disabilities who struggle in reading
typically have difficulty in writing, so on many levels integrating the intervention
components for reading and writing makes sense. Effective strategies incorporated in the
reading and writing multi-component intervention approach for SWD included the use of
graphic organizers as a planning tool and a way to organize the students’ thinking. I have
seen the graphic organizers, such as thinking maps, help support young learners in
reading and writing. The ability to have students organize their thinking and frame their
knowledge can lead to connections that can transfer to their writing.
A research synthesis by Ciullo, Lo, Wanzek, and Reed (2016), focused on the
effectiveness of multi-component reading interventions for SWD designed to improve
comprehension through complex informational text. The authors point out the challenges
SWD experience when reading informational texts due to their inability to decode
fluently and, therefore, an inability to build understanding as they read and link as well as
recall key facts. They analyzed 12 studies related to SWD in kindergarten through fifth
grade. It was noted that students acquired more science and social studies content while
reading informational text when using tools such as graphic organizers. Limitations of
the studies that authors noted included the brief duration of sessions in the studies
reviewed, the lack of fidelity measurement for the instructional delivery as well as limited
use of standardized measures.

26
Guzel-Ozmen (2011) conducted a study on the effectiveness of multi-component
interventions for SWD, specifically for improving the oral reading fluency of Turkish
students. The methods used combined listening to a passage through modeling, repeated
reading of the passage, and repeated reading with performance feedback. The study
concluded that effective intervention packages that included components of repeated
reading, modeling, and performance feedback proved effective in increasing oral fluency
for students. I find that to improve the reading performance of SWD effectively; we must
look at all the components of literacy development, not just decoding to build sight word
fluency. The multi-component intervention approach specifically targets several key
foundational reading domains. Providing intervention that integrates these domains with
writing can provide a connection in learning for SWD that can lead to positive gains in
reading proficiency.
The i-Ready computer-adaptive program provides individualized instructional
paths for students based on their needs. This program uses a diagnostic assessment to
identify individual students’ strengths and deficits in foundational reading skills.
Students access their personalized lessons on their dashboards when they log into the
program to address their reading needs. In my analysis of this program, I noted that
student lessons incorporate multi-component reading skills such as phonological
awareness, phonics and word recognition, vocabulary, and reading comprehension. The
program can differentiate instruction in a classroom setting based on students log on.
This log on feature provides autonomy for a struggling reader who may be working
below grade level but accesses the program like every student. The i-Ready program also
offers resources and strategies on how to create instructional groups for academic support

27
and intervention based on data. Using the i-Ready computer-adaptive program during the
intervention block can provide a structure for some students to work on deficit reading
skills independently. This structure allows the teacher to work in small groups with
students and can be beneficial for teachers who struggle with differentiation of learning
for SWD.
Components of Effective Reading Intervention Implementation
The implementation of the reading interventions for SWD impacted the results in
most of the studies I evaluated. Studies that yielded positive results noted useful
components in the implementation of the intervention. In their research on the
implementation of intensive intervention, the National Center on Intensive Intervention
(NCII, 2013) found seven main findings across the five districts analyzed. The first main
finding was that all sites had an intensive intervention classified as a component of the
Multi-Tiered System of Support (MTSS). The second finding was that all sites used data
to drive instruction. The third finding was that all sites encouraged capacity-building
practices related to the intervention. The fourth finding was the impact that engaging
families in decisions about programs had in supporting the implementation. The fifth
finding detailed how the delivery of special education services occurred separately from
intensive intervention support. The sixth finding identified the process of adapting
secondary interventions considered in Tier 2 that encompass components of Data-Based
Individualization. The last main finding was the fidelity of implementation of secondary
intervention programs. These seven main findings in the study described factors that
assisted in the implementation of intensive intervention in all five district sites selected.
This study had limitations in the selection of the school districts chosen for participation

28
in the study. The five school districts chosen for the study met the criteria for NCII,
suggesting success with SWD but had limited data within their districts on SWD’s
achievement results.
The use of reciprocal teaching and self-regulation strategies were components that
yielded results in my reviews of reading intervention for SWD. Gomaa’s (2015) study on
the effect of reciprocal teaching on fifth graders with reading disabilities noted the
reciprocal approach, which uses discussions to improve students’ reading comprehension,
showed improvements in overall motivation and reading skills. The study included sixty-
six students as participants with a focus on reciprocal teaching strategies that focused on
questioning, summarizing, clarifying, and predicting. The results showed students in the
control group receiving reading intervention with reciprocal teaching strategies improved
their reading comprehension compared to students in the control group taught in
traditional ways. Self-regulated teaching routines, when teaching reading intervention
strategies, had promising results in a study conducted by Antoniou and Souvignier
(2007). They noted students with reading disabilities face challenges comprehending text
as they read due to their gaps in other reading skills such as recall and decoding.
The size of the intervention group and the time allotted for intervention was
another component that affected the positive results of the implementation in my reviews.
Authors Wanzek and Kent (2012) focused on reading interventions for SWD in the upper
elementary grades. They conclude that group size and time on intervention strategies
affect the effective implementation of the intervention. Small groups provide
opportunities for small group intense intervention. Increased time to provide intervention
strategies offers more opportunities to address deficits. These authors also share that

29
group size and dosage have significant implications in the context of reading intervention
for SWD. They note that increasing the number of hours provided a week increases
opportunities for student learning. Wanzek and Kent discuss small groups of two to four,
and one to one ratios between students and teachers noted higher effects for improving
student reading than groups of six to ten in the study. They noted the lack of research on
group sizes larger than six; therefore, it is undetermined whether these larger group sizes
have as high effects as the smaller groups. Group size is also noted in the study of the
Leveled Literacy Intervention (LLI) program by Ransford-Kaldon et al. (2010). The LLI
program builds on reading fluency for students in kindergarten through second grade.
The intervention applied in small groups of four to six students provided 30-minute
intervention five times a week for 14 weeks, resulted in significant gains for SWD. I
have seen positive results in students’ achievement and engagement when the delivery of
intervention occurs in small groups within the classroom structure.
In addition to group size and time, the delivery of the intervention or modeling by
teachers with fidelity proved an effective factor in implementation. In their synthesis of
research on effective reading interventions for SWD, authors Chard, Vaughn, and Tyler
(2002), note that effective models for improving fluency include opportunities to re-read
familiar text independently. Modeling by an adult or modeling by a proficient peer can
be incorporated in these intervention sessions. They note that other elements of
intervention can affect reading fluency. Elements include the amount of text presented to
students at one time and the complexity or difficulty of the text. The number of
repetitions is critical as well, with higher performance coming from repeated readings
from three to seven times in comparison to a single reading of a text. The research in the

30
review presents strong support for including the use of modeling and fluency activities as
a component of effective reading interventions with SWD. I believe modeling by the
teacher provides students with a fluent and proficient reader as a role model, which is
critical. A common practice I observe during reading lessons is the “round-robin”
practice of students taking turns reading aloud. Though this might provide limited
practice in oral reading for students, for struggling readers, it reinforces non-fluent
reading that might be provided by peers as they read. The teacher should be modeling
and reading aloud to students to model correct strategies and inflection of tone and voice
while reading.
Challenges of Providing Reading Intervention to Students with Disabilities
A reoccurring theme across the research I reviewed that highlighted the
challenge of providing reading intervention to SWD was the lack of time in the master
schedule to implement the intervention program consistently. In the case of the Leveled
Literacy Intervention (LLI) study conducted by Ransford-Kaldon et al. (2010), teachers
interviewed noted concerns about effectively implementing the full lesson in the thirty-
minute time frame. Providing the intervention five times a week was concerning when
the master schedule did not include sufficient intervention time tied to the English
Language Arts block. In contrast, in their study of intensive reading interventions for
SWD, authors Vaughn and Wanzek (2014) found that when in the general education
setting, SWD were not spending a significant amount of time participating in reading.
This lack of practice was not due to lack of scheduled time but attributed to off-task
behavior, waiting for support, or engaging in nonliterary activities such as coloring and
playing games. This off-task behavior resulted in 50 percent of the instructional reading

31
block used for activities other than reading for SWD. The findings by authors Vaughn
and Wanzek resonate with some of the observations I have made in my school building.
My general education teachers lack the strategies to provide accommodations and support
to SWD. They often choose to offer other activities that are not standards-aligned for
these students, so they can work independently or provide time on the computer to avoid
“off-task” misbehavior. Training in implementing differentiated instruction strategies
and the use of effective resources would ensure that SWD would be engaged in
meaningful literacy activities when in the general education setting.
In the case study by Legere & Conca (2010), the authors show how the
effective implementation of the Response to Intervention Model (RTI), now known as the
Multi-Tiered System of Support (MTSS) can be a model to identify students with reading
difficulties. This system can revitalize reading services for SWD. The study summarized
how a flexible schedule and various levels of support in the general education classroom
and with the academic support of the exceptional education teacher could result in
positive reading gains. In this case study of a fourth-grade student with a learning
disability, the exceptional education teacher, general education teacher, and
paraprofessional provided the multi-tiered academic support. The academic support
occurred during the student’s English Language Arts block. In this block where small
group ratios, as well as thirty-minute increments with instructional staff and fifteen-
minute increments with a paraprofessional. Tiered support resulted in the student moving
from a DRA 2 (below kindergarten level) to a DRA 28 (late second-grade level). I have
seen the effective integration of the MTSS support system on my campus. Using the
MTSS system of support has successfully identified students needing additional tiered

32
academic support and specific areas to target. The challenge has been in ensuring the
consistent tiered support throughout the day and the additional personnel to support the
classroom teacher with the MTSS interventions.
Throughout my review of the research, teachers’ perceptions of their ability to
successfully implement intervention strategies varied. At the center of this was the
amount of professional development or lack of training received by the teachers. In the
study conducted by the National Center on Intensive Intervention (year) of the many
lessons learned from the field was the importance of using professional development
opportunities. Teacher surveys and interviews were collected from the five districts
highlighted in this study. My analysis of survey and interview data showed that
professional development and train-the-trainer models of professional development were
crucial in building capacity in differentiating instruction. The collaboration between the
special education teacher and regular education teacher increased due to the support and
focused on building capacity at each school site.
In Vaughn and Waneck’s (2014) evaluation of intensive intervention, they noted
that SWD received very little differentiation during the instructional block and minimal
intervention in comprehension strategies. They also noted that large amounts of time
doing independent seatwork and worksheets. In examining the approaches that the
teachers used while providing reading instruction to SWD, they stated the interventions
lacked intensity and specialization. This lack of intensity and specialization is attributed
to the general education teachers not being trained in a specific intervention strategy to
use with their SWD. Authors Wanek and Kent (2012) did research on reading
interventions for SWD in the upper elementary grades and concluded that the

33
implementation of the intervention was affected by teacher training. They noted that the
implementation results were higher when it was implemented by the researchers
conducting the study than the classroom teacher. They attributed these results in research
due to the lack of additional training on the intervention by the teacher and the time
constraints. Overall the study resulted in positive gains in reading for students who
received the word recognition fluency intervention.
In his meta-analysis of intervention outcomes in reading for SWD, Swanson
(1999), examines results in the domains of word recognition and comprehension. Criteria
used to select the studies included the measure of word recognition, effect size, and
treatment group. Ninety-two studies included in the research and Swanson (1999) found
that the studies varied in the explicitness of the instruction and whether the intervention
focused on general reading strategies or specific reading skills such as word recognition.
Swanson also notes that the challenges of implementation of effective interventions
include the lack of focus on explicitly targeted reading skills and the time allotted to
provide teacher training in its delivery.
A systematic review by Hill (2016) on phonics-based reading intervention for
SWD finds that students positively respond to direct phonics-based instruction. He notes
that teachers need interventions that are simple and can be easily in the general classroom
setting. The challenge is implementing it within the general education setting to SWD
within a large group environment. Of the eleven studies included in his review, five
occurred with students in a self-contained setting. I believe that for general education,
teachers will need to learn successful strategies to be able to provide specialized
academic support during intervention for SWD. They will need to be provided with

34
professional development on successful strategies to differentiate instruction
appropriately.
Conceptual and Theoretical Frameworks
I found several theoretical frameworks to support elements of specific reading
intervention for SWD. In their review of repeated reading, authors Chard et al. (2009)
note two theoretical frameworks to support the correlation between reading fluency and
increased proficiency in reading. The first framework discussed is Perfetti’s verbal
efficacy theory which explains that the reader must develop a lower level of processes,
such as word identification, before being able to perform higher-level processes such as
comprehension (2009). The second framework discussed is Logan’s instance theory of
automatization that suggests that memory retrieval plays a part in the ability to have
automaticity and fluency when reading 2009). Memory retrieval will increase and
strengthen with the repeated performance of a task. Both of these theoretical frameworks
are the basis for the intervention practice of repeated reading used with SWD.
Opportunities to develop fluency through repeated reading can result in positive gains in
reading comprehension for SWD struggling to read fluently.
The Center for Research in Educational Policy (CREP) uses the theoretical
framework analyzed by Ransford-Kaldon et al. (2010) of the Leveled Literacy
Intervention System (LLI). The framework uses leveled readers as the basis for reading
intervention. The framework is based on the research findings that young children with
deficits in their early literacy skills will continue to struggle with literacy skills later in
their educational career if not addressed (2010). According to Ransford-Kaldon et al., the
LLI system early intervention programs can be effective in preventing lasting reading

35
deficiencies in children (2010). The expectation and findings support that providing early
intervention for SWD can help close the achievement gap before the intermediate grades,
where reading for knowledge in subject content areas will be required (2010).
Finally, authors Haegele and Burns (2015) related the theoretical framework by
John Ceraso (Ceraso, 1967) in their study of Acquisition Rate (AR) related to information
processed during an intervention session. Ceraso (Ceraso, 1967) developed the Inference
Theory. Haegele and Burn’s (2015) research on the effectiveness of set size on AR, they
refer to how critical the right amount of material a learner can practice and retain after an
intervention session is on the effectiveness of the intervention. In Ceraso’s Inference
Theory, he states that when there is an attempt to cover too much material at one time, it
can lead to difficulties in learning the new information and can reduce the ability to recall
the previously taught material. Haegele and Burns (2015) confirm this theory in the
results of their study on AR during reading intervention provided to SWD. I believe in
carefully monitoring the amount of information presented during an intervention session
to ensure recall over time.
Conclusion
Students with Disabilities (SWD) struggling in reading need to participate in
specialized intervention services to make academic gains. Currently, the models used in
elementary schools to support intervention in reading are not resulting in improved
academic gains for SWD. My review of the research indicates that schools need to
change their practices and delivery models to meet the needs of these students. I found
several elements present in the research of reading intervention provided to SWD that
yielded positive results. These elements included repeated reading experiences to build

36
fluency and sight word recognition. Studies also showed positive results for SWD when
the intervention combined a multi-component approach. This approach combined
intervention in several reading domains such as word recognition and oral fluency with
embedded writing practice to increase literacy skills as a whole.
Additionally, studies that had positive outcomes for SWD, in terms of reading
achievement, had common components in their implementation. These components
included a systematic implementation of the MTSS to guide data-driven instruction. The
use of modeling during the intervention block by the classroom teacher and the number
of students receiving the intervention were all common components of effective
implementation. I also noted several challenges in meeting the needs of SWD struggling
with reading skills. These challenges included lack of time allotted in the master
schedule for the intervention block, inflexible scheduling to provide multi-tiered support,
and a need for professional development for teachers on specialized interventions and
differentiated instruction. Throughout my review of research, there were several
theoretical frameworks related to reading intervention with SWD. These included
Perfetti’s verbal efficacy theory (Perfetti, 1988), Logan’s instance theory of
automatization (Logan, 1988), Fountas and Pinnell’s framework (Ransford-Kaldon et al.,
2019) and Ceraso’s Inference Theory (Ceraso, 1967). All of these theories related to
reading intervention support and correlated with students’ retrieval of information, their
ability to process oral language, and their development of foundational and early literacy
skills as critical in the effective reading support of SWD. Implementation of effective
elements of reading intervention in a systematic manner for SWD would result in
academic learning gains for these students.

37
CHAPTER THREE
Methodology
Research Design Overview
The purpose of my Evaluation of Reading Intervention Programs for Students
with Disabilities (SWD) was to identify a delivery model that provides reliable and
successful specialized intervention to our SWD students in reading. “Program evaluation
is undertaken to inform decisions, clarify options, identify improvements, and provide
information about programs and policies within contextual boundaries” (Patton, p. 40).
The purpose of finding effective specialized intervention support for SWD would
hopefully lead districts to choose to adopt a set of interventions and resources that would
be used to provide targeted specialized intervention for all SWD. Monitoring would
require implementation with fidelity at all schools. With an effective model in place,
district administrators can ensure that SWD achieve success.
To gain insight into the evaluation of this program, I had to collect data. In line
with recommendations by Carroll and Carroll (Caroll & Caroll, 2002), I collected
“qualitative data that is descriptive” as well as “quantitative data that is numeric” (p. 5). I
used the following methodology to collect my data.
Surveys. I distributed surveys to 45 instructional staff. Teachers were provided
with an invitation to participate in the survey (Appendix A), the survey (Appendix B),
two consent forms, and two manila envelopes in their mailbox. They were provided with
the purpose of the survey that indicated that participation was optional. The directions
stated that if they chose to participate, they could complete the survey and place it in one
envelope and sign one of the consent forms and place it in the other envelopes. Both
envelopes could be returned to a labeled box located in the front office workroom,

38
assuring that anonymity was protected for the participants. Participants were to keep one
of the consent forms for their records. The directions also noted that participants should
throw the envelopes away if they chose not to participate.
Interviews. I invited six fourth, six fifth, and two exceptional education teachers
to participate in the interview. Teachers were invited to participate in the interview
through invitation (Appendix C), and they were provided with two consent forms in their
mailbox along with two manila envelopes. Fourth, Fifth and ESE teachers were invited
to participate because teachers in these grades would have students with scores on the
state’s reading assessment from the previous school year. The purpose of the interview
with time choices on the invitation and two consent forms were provided with the
envelopes in the teachers’ mailboxes. The teachers were instructed that by signing the
consent form indicating that they understood the purpose of the interview and agreed to
participate in one 30-minute interview, with possibly up to five email follow-up
exchanges to clarify any questions, I may have had regarding the interview data from the
interview questions (Appendix D). I informed participants that I would audiotape and
transcribe the interviews. All information collected in the interviews reflected the
participant's experience and opinion as a teacher providing intervention instruction in
reading to SWD.
If teachers chose to participate in the interview, they signed the consent form,
selected at least three interview time choices from the invitation, and placed the consent
form and choices in the envelope and returned it to a labeled box located in the front
office workroom. They kept one of the consent forms for their records. If they chose not
to participate, they threw the envelope and forms away without penalty.

39
Student Data. I collected the following student data: I-Ready End of the Year
Reading Diagnostic data from SY 2018 and SY 2019 for all SWD in 3rd
, 4th
, and 5th
grades for a total of sixty students’ records from ABC Elementary. State Assessment
English Language Arts (ELA) results for proficiency for SY 2018 and State Assessment
ELA results for proficiency for SY 2019 for all SWD in 3rd
, 4th
, and 5th
grades for a total
of sixty students’ scores. State Assessment ELA results for learning gains for SY 2018
and State Assessment ELA results for learning gains for SY 2019 for all SWD in 4th
and
5th
grades for a total of sixty student scores.
I used the following primary and secondary research questions to evaluate reading
intervention programs for SWD.
My primary exploratory questions included:
1. What do general education teachers and exceptional education teachers report is
working well in the intervention services program for SWD?
2. What do general education teachers and exceptional education teachers report is
not working well in the intervention services program for SWD?
3. What do general education teachers and exceptional education teachers report as
the greatest challenges in the intervention services program for SWD?
ways to address these challenges (if any), or improve in the intervention services
program for SWD?
My secondary exploratory questions included:
their needs for professional development to support SWD?

40
their needs for instructional materials to support SWD?
I have completed a cross-analysis of my research questions and my survey statements and
interview questions. The data collected from the teacher surveys and teacher interviews
will specifically provide quantitative and qualitative data connected to my research
questions.
Participants
The survey was provided to all instructional staff at ABC Elementary School.
The instructional staff consisted of up to 45 general education teachers and four
exceptional education teachers who taught reading content in grades K-5. The ages of
these teachers ranged from 25-62 years of age. Of these teachers, 90% were females, and
10% were males.
The interview invitation was provided to eighteen teachers from ABC Elementary
School. The interviews included the fourth, fifth, and exceptional education teachers.
The ages of these teachers ranged from 25-62 years of age. Of these teachers, 90% were
females, and 10% were male.
All teachers were provided with an invitation to participate in the survey
(Appendix A), a paper survey (Appendix B), two consent forms, and two manila
envelopes in their mailbox. One manila envelope was labeled “informed consent,” and
the other envelope was labeled “survey.” Teachers were provided with the purpose of the
survey, directions of information about the option nature of participation in the survey.
The directions stated that if they chose to participate, they could complete the survey and
place it in the envelope labeled survey and sign one of the consent forms and place it in

41
the envelope labeled informed consent. Both envelopes could be returned to a labeled
box located in the front office workroom, assuring that anonymity was protected for the
participants. Participants retained one of the consent forms for their records. The
directions noted that participants throw the envelopes away if they chose not to
participate. The directions also clearly stated that participation was strictly voluntary,
and they should not feel obligated to participate.
All fourth grade, fifth grade, and ESE teachers were provided an invitation to
participate in the interview (Appendix C), two consent forms, and two manila envelopes
in their mailboxes. The purpose of the interview, two consent forms, and appointment
time choices were provided with labeled envelopes. The directions stated that if they
chose to participate in the interview, they could sign the informed consent form and place
it in the envelope labeled informed consent. The directions also indicated to the
participants that they understood the purpose of the interviews and agreed to participate
in one 30-minute interview, with possibly up to five email exchanges to clarify any
questions I may have had regarding the interview data from the interview questions
(Appendix D). I made participants aware that I would audiotape and transcribe the
interviews. All information collected in the interviews reflects the participant's
experience and opinion as a teacher providing intervention instruction in reading to
students with disabilities.
If teachers chose to participate in the interview, they signed the consent form and
placed the form in the envelope labeled informed consent. They then used the bottom of
the invitation to select at least three interview time choices and placed the interview
choices in the envelope labeled interview times. Both envelopes were returned to a

42
labeled box located in the front office workroom, assuring that anonymity was protected
for the participants. Participants kept one of the consent forms for their records. The
directions clearly stated that if they chose not to participate, they could throw away the
envelopes and forms. They were assured that participation was strictly voluntary, and
they had no obligation to participate in the study and could discontinue at any time
without penalty.
Data Gathering Techniques
To gain insight into the Evaluation of Reading Intervention Programs for Students
with Disabilities, I gathered data from surveys, interviews, and student test scores.
Surveys gave me anonymous quantitative data about the current delivery model of
intervention services at ABC Elementary school. Individual teacher interviews provided
more qualitative data about the specific components that were going well and the needs
for improvement. Student data scores from i-Ready diagnostic testing and State
Standards Assessment results in English Language Arts (ELA) provided quantitative
comparison data for ESE students in reading over two years.
Surveys. I distributed surveys to all instructional staff at ABC elementary school.
All teachers were provided with an invitation to participate in the survey (Appendix A),
the survey (Appendix B), two consent forms, and two manila envelopes in their
mailboxes. They were provided with the purpose of the survey and the directions
explaining that participation was optional. The directions stated that if they chose to
participate, they could complete the survey and place it in one envelope and sign one of
the consent forms and place it in the other envelopes. Both envelopes were returned to a
labeled box located in the front office workroom, assuring that anonymity was protected

43
for the participants. Participants kept one of the consent forms for their records. The
directions also noted that participants could throw the envelopes away if they chose not to
participate.
Individual interviews. I extended an invitation to participate in interviews to all
fourth, fifth, and exceptional education teachers from ABC elementary school. Teachers
were invited to participate in the interview through invitation (Appendix D) and were
provided with two consent forms in their mailbox along with two manila envelopes. The
purpose of the interview with time choices on the invitation and two consent forms were
provided with the envelopes in the teachers’ mailbox. The teachers were instructed that
by signing the consent form indicating that they understand the purpose of the interview
and agree to participate in one 30-minute interview, with possibly up to 5 email
exchanges to clarify any questions I may have regarding the interview data from the
interview questions (Appendix D). I made participants aware that I would audiotape and
transcribe the interviews. All information collected in the interviews reflected the
participants’ experiences and opinions as teachers providing reading intervention
instruction to SWD.
If teachers chose to participate in the interview, they signed the consent form,
selected at least three interview time choices from the invitation, and placed the consent
form and choices in the envelope and returned to a labeled box located in the front office
workroom. Participants kept one of the consent forms for their records. If they chose not
to participate, they could throw the envelope and forms away without penalty.
Student data. I collected the following student data: I-Ready End of the Year
Reading Diagnostic data from SY 2018 and SY 2019 for all SWD in 3rd
, 4th
, and 5th

44
grades for a total of 60 student records from ABC elementary. State Standards
Assessment English Language Arts (ELA) results for proficiency for SY 2018 and State
Standards ELA results for proficiency for SY 2019 for all SWD in 3rd
, 4th
, and 5th
grades
for a total of 60 student scores from ABC elementary. State Standards Assessment ELA
results for learning gains for SY 2018 and State Standards Assessments ELA results for
learning gains for SY 2019 for all SWD in 4th
and 5th
grades for a total of 60 student
scores for ABC elementary.
Ethical Considerations
Participation in this study did not involve any physical or emotional risk beyond
that of everyday life. While participants were not likely to have any direct benefit from
being in this research study, their taking part in this study could contribute to our better
understanding of the implementation of reading intervention services for SWD.
I assured participants that participation was voluntary, and they could discontinue
participation at any time without penalty. The directions provided in the teacher
mailboxes with the purpose of the study also directed participants to throw away the
envelopes if they chose not to participate. I will keep the identity of the school and all
participants confidential, as it will not be attached to the data, and I used pseudonyms for
all participants. I assured participants that only I would have access to all of the
interview tapes and transcripts, and field notes, which I will keep in a locked cabinet at
my home or on a password-protected hard drive for up to 5 years after the completion of
this study, at which time I will shred all interview transcripts, tapes, and notes. I will
communicate to participants that while the results of this study may be published or
otherwise reported to scientific bodies, their identities will in no way be revealed.

45
Data Analysis Techniques
I collected quantitative and qualitative data to evaluate reading intervention
programs for Students with Disabilities (SWD). I measured the variables in my data by
using ordinal measurement scales for my surveys and a coding system for my interviews.
These scales provided me an opportunity to quantify my data and summarize it logically.
Surveys. The teacher survey (Appendix B) consisted of eleven questions
organized as agreement statements. I analyzed the survey data through the use of ordinal
scaling. An ordinal scale was used with the following ordinal values assigned: 4-
strongly agree, 3-agree, 2-disagree, 1-strongly disagree. A value of 0 was assigned to
responses of neither agree nor disagree. The remaining eight questions were structured as
short responses. A coding system analyzed these questions. The coding system was set
up to identify themes and patterns in the responses. The following coding was applied to
analyze the questions with short responses: 1-scheduling, 2-time, 3-professional
development, 4-resources, and 5-support. The use of the ordinal scaling and coding in
my surveys helped me interpret the responses in a quantifying manner.
Individual interviews. The individual teacher interviews (Appendix D)
consisted of twelve questions. To analyze the data collected from the interviews, I used a
coding system to code the interview responses. The coding system was set up to identify
themes and patterns in the responses. The following coding was applied to analyze the
questions with short responses: 1-scheduling, 2-time, 3-professional development, 4-
resources, and 5-support. The coding system and research notes as I conducted the
interviews allowed me to compare the interview data with that of my survey analysis.

46
Conclusion
SWD exhibit difficulty with decoding words and phrases and sight words rapidly.
Decoding difficulty affects the area of reading fluency, which is an essential skill for
reading proficiency, and for the application in the real-world as needed for independent
functioning skills, these include the ability to self-care, self-direct, and communicate
effectively to function. Research by Vaughn & Wanzek (2014) on meaningful impacts of
intensive reading interventions for SWD note that word recognition interventions
typically focus on phonics and decoding skills and sight word recognition. My reason for
conducting an evaluation of reading intervention programs for SWD was to identify a
delivery model in which reliable and successful intervention support is provided to SWD
in reading. As I analyzed data collected from student data from the i-Ready diagnostic
assessment and State Standards Assessment, teacher surveys, and teacher interviews
during my evaluation, I was able to identify current trends in the current reading
intervention delivery model for SWD. For our SWD to be college and career ready, it
will be essential that they can read fluently to comprehend text and be able to be
productive and successful adults.

47
CHAPTER FOUR
Results
The findings from my evaluation of reading intervention programs for students
with disabilities (SWD) provided answers to my research questions to identify a delivery
model that was reliable and produced effective outcomes. My research was conducted at
ABC Elementary School. It included surveys, interviews, and student data from the State
Standards Assessment for English Language Arts and the i-Ready End of the Year
Diagnostic Assessment, which tracked SWD data for two years. Teacher surveys and
interviews were collected from teachers who delivered reading intervention to SWD.
The data results provided insight into the programs being used and their effectiveness.
Findings
Survey. The Teacher Survey on Intervention Instruction in Reading for Students
with Disabilities (Appendix B) was placed in the mailbox of 45 teachers at ABC
Elementary School who provided reading intervention to students. The teachers were
provided within their mailbox with an invitation, two consent forms, a survey, and two
separate envelopes to participate. A reminder was provided two weeks after the initial
survey was placed in teacher mailboxes. Of the 45 teacher invitations sent, I received 19
completed surveys and consent forms, creating a survey response rate of 42.2%.
The survey was designed to collect quantitative data about the intervention
instruction provided to Students with Disabilities (SWD) in reading. I used an ordinal
measurement scale to quantify the responses from the survey in line with
recommendations of Carroll and Carroll: “Ordinal scaling is used often in education
applied to agreement statements to interpret the data” (2002). The following values were

48
assigned on the rating scale: 0= neither agree nor disagree, 1=strongly disagree,
2=disagree, 3=agree, 4= strongly agree. The survey included 11 statements that were
quantified using this scale.
The first two statements on the survey were designed to collect feedback on the
respondents’ overall view of intervention support for SWD and the current computer-
adaptive program in place at the school. In statement 1, I asked the respondents to agree
or disagree with the following: Intervention support for SWD in reading yields positive
results. All nineteen participants (100%) either selected agree or strongly agree. In
statement 2, I asked the respondents to agree or disagree with the following: The i-Ready
computer-adaptive program provides beneficial support and practice in reading skills for
SWD. Fourteen participants (73%) agreed that it did. I believe this data reflects that
most teachers believe that additional support in reading for SWD, whether through direct
instruction or an adaptive computer program, yields positive results. As a teacher, when I
provided intervention support to my SWD through computer adaptive programs, I felt it
was an option to support students when I wasn’t physically available to provide direct
instruction.

49
Figure 1. Statements 1 and 2: Statement 1 teachers’ responses to intervention support for
SWD yielding positive results; Statement 2 i-Ready program providing beneficial
intervention for SWD (n=19)
Statements 3 and 4 were designed to collect information from respondents on the
time, schedule, and structure of the reading intervention provided to SWD. In statement
3, I asked respondents to agree or disagree with the following: There is adequate time in
the schedule to provide academic intervention support in reading for SWD. The
respondents were split on this statement with eleven of participants (58%) agreeing that
there is adequate time in the schedule to provide academic intervention support in reading
for SWD and eight of participants (42%) disagreeing that there is sufficient time in the
schedule to provide academic intervention support in reading for SWD.
100%
73%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Question 1 Question 2

50
Figure 2. 5: teachers’ responses to adequate time in the schedule to provide reading
intervention for SWD (n=19)
In statement 4, I asked participants to agree or disagree with the following:
Reading intervention in reading is provided in small groups of six to eight students.
Seventeen (90%) of respondents agreed that the intervention was delivered in small
groups. This data shows that intervention services are provided in small groups for the
majority of classes. My analysis of the data shows that 2 (10%) of respondents don’t
agree with this statement. This response can be based on many factors, such as the
teacher's comfort in providing small group instruction or the number of students in a class
needing the same tiered intervention, leading to larger group sizes. Time in the
intervention schedule is a concern, as noted by 11(58%) of respondents.
58%
42%
Disagree Agree

51
Figure 3. Statement 4: teachers’ responses to reading intervention is provided in small
groups of six to eight students (n=19)
In statements 5 and 6, I focused on collecting data about the resources and
materials for providing reading intervention for SWD. Statement 5 asked respondents to
agree or disagree to the following: I have the resources I need to provide effective
reading intervention to SWD. Seventeen (89%) of respondents noted they had effective
resources. Statement 6 asked respondents to agree or disagree to the following:
Resource materials from Curriculum Associates are effective in providing intervention to
SWD. Only eleven (58%) of respondents responded that these resources were effective
in providing reading intervention for SWD. This data leads to questions about what
specific resources are being used by respondents that they feel are effective in providing
intervention services for SWD since the purchased Curriculum Associates materials,
workbooks based on standards for English Language Arts, are not viewed as effective.
90%
10%
yes no

52
Figure 4. Survey Statements 5 and 6: teachers’ responses to their perception of having
adequate resources for reading intervention and their perception of the effectiveness of
Curriculum Associates resource materials for reading intervention for SWD (n=19)
Statements 7, 8, and 11 were designed for me to collect information about the
teachers’ past professional development experiences and current needs. In statement 7, I
asked respondents to agree or disagree to the following statement: I have received
adequate professional development on how to provide reading intervention to SWD.
Fifteen (79%) of respondents agreed with this statement. In statement 8, I asked
respondents to agree or disagree with the following: I have participated in professional
development on how to provide differentiated instruction for SWD. Seventeen (89%) of
respondents agreed that they had participated in professional development on
differentiation. In statement 11, I asked respondents to agree or disagree with the
following: I would like additional professional development on specific strategies in
reading to support my SWD. There were twelve (63%) who responded as wanting
additional professional development for specific strategies in reading to support SWD.
This response reflects a significant number of teachers wanting additional professional
89%
58%
11%
42%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Effective Resources for Reading
Intervention
Curriculum Associates Resource
Effectivenes
Have Effective Resources
Do Not Have

53
development to support their SWD may be an indication that they need further
development on how to differentiate instruction to meet the academic needs of SWD.
Figure 5. Survey Statements 7, 8 & 11: teachers responses to receiving adequate
professional development on how to provide reading intervention, participation in
professional development on how to differentiate instruction, and if they would like
additional professional development on specific strategies to support SWD in reading
(n=19)
Statement 9 specifically addressed the differentiation of instruction for SWD. In
statement 9, I asked respondents to agree or disagree with the following: There are
challenges in differentiating instruction for SWD in reading. Eighteen (99%) of
respondents agreed that there are challenges in differentiating instruction in reading for
SWD. This data shows that teachers may have knowledge of differentiation strategies
but are finding it challenging to implement these strategies in their instructional day.
This statement supports the notion that though teachers note they have had professional
development on differentiating instruction, they want specific training on how to
differentiate instruction in reading to support SWD.
79%
89%
63%
21%
11%
37%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Adequate PD PD on Differentiation Additional PD Needed
Agree Disagree

54
Figure 6. Survey Statement 9: teachers’ responses to the degree of the challenge they
perceive in implementing differentiated reading instruction for SWD (n=19)
In statement 10, I asked respondents to agree or disagree with the following: I
have appropriate reading materials and text to scaffold instruction for SWD. Sixteen
(84%) respondents agreed that there were appropriate materials and text to scaffold
instruction. Based on responses from statements 9 and 10, the challenge in providing
intervention in reading to SWD is not related to the lack of materials. The need for
training on how to differentiate instruction in reading for SWD using the appropriate
materials may be the problem.
Figure 7. Survey statement 10: teachers’ responses to the availability of appropriate
scaffold instruction materials for SWD (n=19)
16%
74%
10%
0% 0%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree
nor Disagree
Disagree Strongly
Disagree
21%
63%
10%
5%
0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
strongly agree agree neither agree
nor disagree
disagree strongly
disagree

55
Eight open-ended statements were included in the teacher survey. I used a coding
system to identify general themes and trends in the responses. According to Leavy, “The
coding process allows you to reduce and classify the data generated” (2017, p.151). The
following coding was applied to analyze the short responses:
1-scheduling, 2-time, 3-professional development, 4-resources, and 5-support.
In survey statement 12, I asked teachers to report what they felt was working well
with the current intervention services in reading for SWD. There were two major trends
in the responses to what was working well. The first was support, with seven out of
nineteen responses (37%) listing this in some manner in their response. This data was
related to support by the ESE teacher, a paraprofessional, or additional push in support
provided during the intervention block by resource teachers for SWD. One respondent
noted, “the support from the paraprofessional and ESE teacher provides the opportunity
to work in smaller groups during intervention.” The second trend that appeared in
responses was scheduling, with six out of nineteen responses (32%) noting that the
schedule allowed for a dedicated intervention block. One respondent listed that
“scheduling of hourly tutor to provide push-in support during the block is helpful.”
Figure 8. Survey statement 12: open-ended teachers’ responses to what was working well
with current intervention in reading for SWD (n=19)
37%
32%
26%
5%
Support Scheduling Resources No Response

56
In survey statement 13, I asked teachers to report what they felt was not working
well with the current intervention services for SWD. Three major themes emerged in the
responses. The first was time, with six out of nineteen responses (32%) noting the time
as a factor. Responses ranged from “not enough time” to time SWD receive “pull out
support from the speech teacher taking away time in class.” The second theme that arose
was scheduling with five out of nineteen responses (26%) listing that the schedule and
structure for the intervention block were not working well for their particular class. One
respondent noted that “time for intervention closer to the ELA block would help the
focus.” The third major theme that emerged in the responses was resources, with four out
of nineteen responses (21%) stating that the current materials in place from Curriculum
Associates didn’t meet the needs of their students. This is a contradiction from the data
collected in statement 5, where 89% of respondents reported that they had adequate
resources to provide intervention. This leads me to believe that some respondents are
explicitly referring to the Curriculum Associates materials as not adequate. This
statement could have been worded differently to request more specific data as to what
resources are currently available that teachers feel are adequate. One response
specifically noted this about the Curriculum Associates materials saying, “the Language
Arts Standards book (citation withheld to preserve confidentiality) is too challenging and
no easy way to modify.” This data provides insights that one challenge in the delivery of
intervention support for SWD is not in the lack of resources, but teachers lacking

57
knowledge of how to easily modify the resource to accommodate SWD.
Figure 9. Survey statement 13, open-ended teachers’ responses to what was not working
well with current intervention in reading for SWD (n=19)
I designed survey statement 14 to collect feedback from teachers on the
challenges in providing intervention services in reading for SWD. When asked to
identify the greatest challenge in the current intervention services in reading for SWD
was, the following themes emerged in the responses: time with ten out of nineteen
responses (52%), scheduling with four out of nineteen responses (21%), resources with
three out of nineteen responses (15%), and professional development with two out of
nineteen responses (11%). There was one respondent who noted “not sure” in their
response to this statement. This data shows that overwhelmingly, teachers feel that the
time constraints in the schedule are one of the biggest challenges in providing reading
intervention services for SWD.
26%
32%
21%
5%
16%
Scheduling Time Resources Support No Response

58
Figure 10. Survey statement 14, open-ended teachers’ responses to the greatest challenge
in the current intervention services in reading for SWD (n=19)
I designed survey prompts 15 and 16 to elicit feedback from teachers about ways
to address the challenges perceived by them in providing intervention services in reading
for SWD and suggestions to improve the current intervention program. The following
were common themes that emerged from the responses. The theme concerning the
provision of more time in the block elicited eleven out of nineteen responses (58%); this
was noted by respondents as a way to address challenges and as a suggestion for
improvement. The theme related to greater support being provided by the addition of
personnel occurred as a response from four out of nineteen respondents (21%) in
response to addressing challenges and as a suggestion for improvement. Additional
resources were a response given by two out of nineteen responses (11%) who noted
additional resources as a means to addressing challenges and as a suggestion for
improvement. Two out of ten responses (11%) did not provide a response to these areas
on the survey. Teacher responses demonstrates that additional time and additional
support could help improve the current intervention program for SWD.
52%
21%
15%
11% 1%
Time
Scheduling
Resources
Support
No Response

59
Figure 11. Survey statement 15 and 16, open-ended teachers’ responses to how to
address the challenges in providing reading intervention and ways to improve the
intervention program for SWD (n=19)
I designed survey prompt 17 to elicit feedback on what instructional resources
teachers felt would assist with reading intervention instruction for SWD. There were no
common themes or resources noted in responses. One respondent noted additional
resources were needed that focus on phonics. Another respondent noted leveled passages
aligned to the reading standard as a needed resource to be able to adjust skill level
appropriate content to students’ needs. Survey prompt 18 was designed to elicit
participants’ responses concerning whether they thought that professional development
would assist with reading intervention instruction for SWD. One respondent noted
training for teachers is needed to assist teachers to identify and select skills which they
should be targeting to support struggling readers. Another respondent noted that there is
a need for training in specific strategies to implement into instructions to improve student
ability to comprehend reading material. The other seventeen respondents either left this
question blank or responded with the selection “not sure”. Question 19 was designed to
elicit respondents’ ideas about any information that was not included in the survey: “Is
57%
21%
11%
11%
More Time
Additional Support Personnel
Additional Resources
No Response

60
there anything else you would like to share about the SWD program?” There was not
very much information gleaned from this prompt: thirteen out of nineteen respondents
(68%) left this prompt blank; four respondents (21%) responded with “no,” and two
respondents (11%) responded “not at this time”.
Interviews
Teacher interviews, consisting of twelve questions (Appendix D), were conducted
to collect qualitative data on the intervention instruction provided to Students with
Disabilities (SWD) in reading in the intermediate grades, this refers to 4th
and 5th
grade.
These questions “were inductive and relied on non-directional language” (Leavy, 2017, p.
72). Of the 14 teacher interview invitations sent, I received 6 participation forms with
choice of interview times and dates and signed consent forms to participate in interviews.
This accounted for a 42.8% response rate for teacher interviews. The interview times
ranged from 6 minutes, 40 seconds to 10 minutes, 8 seconds for an average interview
time of about 8 minutes.
To analyze the data collected from the interviews, I used a coding system to code
the interview responses. The coding system was set up to identify themes and patterns in
the responses. The following coding was applied to analyze the questions correlating
with survey short responses: 1-scheduling, 2-time, 3-professional development, 4-
resources, and 5-support. This coding system was only used in questions 2-12 since
question 1 was more open to overall perceptions by the teachers of the current
intervention structure. Using the coding system and taking notes as I conducted the
interviews allowed me to compare the interview data with that of my analysis of short
responses to the survey.

61
Interview question 1 was designed to gain the teachers' overall perceptions on
whether or not the current intervention support for SWD in reading was yielding positive
results. All 6 respondents (100%) answered that the intervention support was yielding
positive results in some way for students. Responses varied on reasons from targeting
specific skills to consistent support blocked in the schedule. Four out of the six
respondents, 66%, mentioned that the dedicated time block on the schedule for reading
intervention allows for the small group instruction in their responses of why the current
intervention support was yielding positive results. One teacher noted that “small groups
allow for individualized support.”
Figure 12. Interview question 1, teachers’ responses to why the current intervention
support for SWD is yielding positive results (n=6)
I asked interview question 2 to gather data on whether teachers felt that there was
adequate time in the schedule to provide reading intervention for SWD. The responses to
this question were split. Three responses, for 50% of respondents, noted that there was
enough time and they prefaced it with answers that indicated a designated time block.
One respondent answered, “Yes, but more time in the day would help.” The three
66%
17% 17%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Small Group Instruction Repetition Targeting Specific Skills

62
responses, for 50% of respondents, noted not enough time with the current 30-minute
intervention block on the schedule. One respondent noted, “A block of 45 minutes in the
intermediate grades is needed.” The data collected from this interview question aligns
with the data collected from the survey in statement 4 in which eight out of 19
participants (42%) disagreed with the statement that there is adequate time in the
schedule to provide intervention support in reading for SWD.
Figure 13. Interview question 2, teachers’ responses if they feel there is adequate time in
the schedule to provide intervention to SWD (n=6)
Interview question 3 was designed to determine if reading intervention for SWD
was provided in small groups and if this was working. All six respondents, for 100%,
answered that intervention in reading for SWD was being provided in small groups. Two
respondents noted that the small groups were working due to the additional push in
support of extra personnel to keep groups to 8 or less.
Interview questions 4 and 5 were designed to get teachers’ feedback on what was
working well with the current intervention services in reading for SWD and what wasn’t
working well. Two themes that emerged from the respondents about was working well.
The first was support, with three out of six respondents, 50%, noting this. This support
referred to support from push in personnel such as a paraprofessional or as one teacher
Adequate Time Inadequate Time

63
noted “collaboration with ESE teacher.” The paraprofessional would be a classified staff
member that would have some experience working with students and can go into the
classroom to help students working on independent tasks so that the teacher can
concentrate on small group instruction. The second theme that emerged was the
schedule, with two out of six respondents, 33% referencing the schedule. Respondents
noted that the dedicated block in the schedule with coordinating support was a factor in
what was working with the intervention services for SWD. One respondent indicated that
time for collaborative planning to align intervention resources and standards was
beneficial. This was coded under time. Of the responses to what wasn’t working well,
time emerged as the common theme, with three out of six respondents, 50%, noting time
constraints. Time was pointed out in terms of not enough time to provide intervention
support. Time was also noted in reference to the time SWD are pulled for other related
services such as speech and resource support that affect their time out of class. One
respondent noted that some students need individual support saying, “one on one or
intensive small groups for select students would help.” Another respondent said that
these students being pulled for related services such as speech and occupational therapy
during the intervention block makes it difficult to have consistency in the instruction
every week. This was noted under the schedule, since how the itinerant services (speech,
language, SLD) are scheduled to provide services is a factor.

64
Figure 14. Interview question 4, teachers’ responses to what is working well in the
current intervention services for SWD (n=6)
Interview questions 6 and 7 referred to the greatest challenges in the current
intervention services in reading for SWD and how to address the challenges. There were
varied responses to the challenges in the current intervention services. Two out of six
respondents noted the lack of resources to address the gap in skills between students as a
challenge. One of the six respondents noted the need for resources to target vocabulary
and phonics for a total of three out of six respondents (50%), noting resources in some
form as a challenge to the current services. Time was noted in various ways, with two
respondents indicating not enough time to differentiate multiple levels and one
respondent noting that SWD require additional time. Responses related to how to address
the challenges in the current intervention services, some of the current practices in place
were noted, with three respondents noting that additional push in support for the
intervention block is continued. Two respondents indicated that increasing the
intervention block from 30 minutes to 45 minutes would address some of the time
constraint challenges.
50%
33%
17%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Support Schedule Time (Planning)

65
Figure 15. Interview question 6, teachers’ responses to what is the greatest challenge in
the intervention services for SWD (n=6)
In interview question 8, respondents referenced ways to improve the intervention
program for SWD, and question 9 referred to what instructional resources would assist
with reading intervention instruction for SWD. Five of the six participants, 83%,
mentioned more time in the intervention block to individualize instruction as a way to
improve the current program. Two respondents (33%) also said that daily reading
intervention instead of three times a week, since in the current block, there are three days
dedicated for reading and two days dedicated to math. One respondent noted that fluid
grouping and the use of data to adjust groups frequently would improve targeting specific
skills. This was noted as a scheduling improvement, which can guide the grouping of
students in addition to the block of schedule, for total responses related to scheduling as
50%.
Responses referencing resources that would improve the current intervention
program from question 9 noted specific materials for differentiated reading. Two
respondents, 33%, mentioned the use of the Curriculum Associates Language Arts
Standards books (citation withheld to preserve confidentiality) to expose SWD to grade-
level standards but covering the content at a slower pace. Three respondents, 50%,
Resources
(vocabulary
and phonics)
50%
Time
50%
Resources (vocabulary and phonics) Time

66
referenced using materials such as (Readworks, 2020) passages as resources to assist with
fluency and practice with the capability of differentiating instruction through leveled
passages.
Figure 16. Interview question 8, teachers’ responses to how to improve the current
intervention services for SWD (n=6) *
I asked interview question 10 to gather data from participants if they had
experience with a particular reading intervention program that they felt would benefit
SWD in reading. Four out of the six participants, 66%, mentioned the i-Ready computer-
adaptive program. Two teachers, 33%, said a program that targets phonics and
vocabulary skill practice called Making Words to help SWD build phonics and
vocabulary skills. This is a resource that uses a developmental approach to teaching
phonics and spelling in grade 1st
-3rd
but can be used in the intermediate grades for
students who need strengthening in phonics to increase vocabulary.
I asked interview question 11 to gather information about what professional
development would assist teachers with reading intervention instruction for SWD. Two
of the six participants (33%) noted that training on how to identify reading deficits to
83%
50%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
More Time Scheduling

67
target specific needs as needed. One participant (17%) noted how to address reading
comprehension in the intermediate grades when students are reading at a primary level.
The other three participants stated that they were unsure of what professional
development was needed. I asked question 12 to allow participants an opportunity to
share anything else they would like to discuss SWD support services. I did not receive
any substantial feedback on this question. Most respondents answered “not at this time”
or simply answered no.
Figure 17. Interview question 11, teachers’ responses on what professional development
would assist you with reading intervention instruction for SWD? (n=6)
Student Data
To gain insight into the overall performance of SWD in reading at ABC
Elementary, I examined proficiency results for SWD on the English Language Arts
(ELA) portion of the State Standards Assessment for 2018 and 2019. The results showed
that there was a sizeable gap between the performance in reading for SWD compared to
their general education peers. In 2018 SWD scored at a 44% proficiency rate compared
to the 83% proficiency scored by general education students. In 2019 SWD had an
increase in proficiency scoring at 53% proficiency, but despite the improvement, still
66%
34%
Professional Development Identifying Reading Deficits
Professional Development Reading Comprehension Strategies in Intermediate Grades

68
showing a 29% gap from their general education peers scoring at 82%. This data,
compared to the district and state data, shows ELA proficiency for the state at 57% for
the district at 55%. For SWD, the ELA proficiency is at 26.2% for the state and 20.3%
for the district. This shows there is a consistent 30% gap in the state and district scores
for SWD as well. The proficiency rates within SWD also varied between grade levels,
with 4th
grade showing the only positive gains from 2018 to 2019 scores for SWD. This
data indicates that individual grade levels may have a better grasp of how to differentiate
instruction for SWD due to their success with increasing student achievement results.
Figure 18. State Standards Proficiency in ELA for SWD from 2018 to 2019 (n=42 for
2018 and n=35 for 2019)(Data Source: State reporting source removed to maintain
anonymity)
I also examined learning gains for SWD on the ELA portion of the State
Standards Assessment for 2018 and 2019. In 2018 59% of SWD made learning gains in
ELA compared to 72% made by their general education peers. In 2019 SWD scored 45%
learning gains compared to 66% scored by general education students. Though the
learning gains gap is at 20%, and not as big as the proficiency gap for SWD in ELA,
there is a gap. These gaps increase from 4th
grade to 5th
grade, as illustrated in the figure
below. All students at ABC Elementary had a dip in learning gains from 2018 to 2019.
Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5
2018 50% 30% 48%
2019 44% 54% 40%
50%
30%
48%
44%
54%
40%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
-6%
+14%
-8%
2018 2018
2018
2019 2019
2019

69
This data may indicate that there are overall challenges in the delivery of reading
instruction for all students, not just for SWD at the school. If you look at the data,
tracking student testing groups, SWD in 4th
grade made 57% learning gains from 3rd
grade to 4th
grade, but only made 38% learning gains from 4th
to 5th
grade. This data may
also be an indicator of how the 4th-grade teachers deliver collaborative planning, and
instruction in reading intervention for SWD may be something to explore and share with
the 5th
-grade team. My analysis of the data shows that 4th
-grade teachers were able to
help students make a more significant percentage of learning gains within a year than the
5th
-grade teachers. Looking closely at how 4th
-grade teachers plan for reading
intervention and provide the small group intervention support to their students may be
beneficial in identifying effective strategies.
Figure 19. Learning gains in the ELA portion of State Standards Assessment for SWD
from 2018 to 2019 (n=52 for 2018 and n=35 for 2019)(Data Source: State reporting
source removed to maintain anonymity)
In addition to state assessments, I analyzed the results from the end of the year
(EOY) i-Ready reading diagnostic for SWD in 2018 and 2019. Results showed that in
2018, 19% of SWD scored on grade level target on the EOY reading diagnostic
Grade 4 Grade 5
2018 57% 59%
2019 50% 38%
57%
59%
50%
38%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
-7% -14%
2018 2018
2019 2019

70
compared to 79% scored by general education students. In 2019, SWD scored 57% on
grade level target on the EOY reading diagnostic compared to 81% on the target of
general education students. On target scores for the EOY diagnostic in reading varied
among the grade levels analyzed, but there was a trend of improvement across all grade
levels from 2018 to 2019. There was an increase in the EOY results for SWD from 2018
to 2019, with 50% increase in third grade, 15% increase in fourth grade,
and 16%
increase in fifth-grade, noting that the use of the i-Ready computer-adaptive program in
reading showed positive gains for SWD from 2018 to 2019.
Figure 20. End of Year (EOY) i-Ready diagnostic results in reading for SWD from 2018
to 2019 (n=52 for 2018; n=35 for 2019) (Data Source: State reporting source removed to
maintain anonymity)
Limitations
Though the data collected through my program evaluation provided me with
insightful information about the reading intervention services for SWD at ABC
Elementary, I did encounter some unanswered questions from my analysis. The first
question is, what are the adequate resources the teachers are referring to when answering
the survey question? There is conflicting data, in which teachers report they have
Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5
2018 38% 10% 19%
2019 88% 25% 30%
38%
10%
19%
88%
25%
30%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
+50%
+15% +16%
2018 2018
2018
2019 2019
2019

71
adequate resources to provide reading intervention on survey statement 5. Then later
note in the open-ended questions that one of the challenges in delivering the intervention
for SWD are the current resources. It is difficult to judge if teachers feel they have
adequate resources, but when forced to use the purchased Curriculum Associates
materials, they don’t feel the resource is adequate. The question about adequate
resources would be clear had I written the survey question to be more specific and ask to
note specifics. Another unanswered question I have is, how does the collaborative
planning process on select teams impact the delivery of intervention services for SWD?
At ABC Elementary, the 4th
-grade team has shown to yield higher learning gains for their
SWD using the same resources and time constraints of the school. The answer to this
question may be in how a team plans or how they structure the intervention block in their
classrooms that may be yielding higher learning gains. I have observed the planning
sessions and data meetings of the 4th
-grade team at ABC Elementary, and they use data to
group their students for intervention support carefully. In my professional experience, if
other teams could duplicate this structure, it may improve the learning gains for all
students on different grade levels.
Organizational Change Based on the 4 C Model
My program evaluation on reading intervention for SWD is based on the problem
that SWD are struggling in reading and need to participate in specialized intervention
services to make gains. Currently, the program model used in ABC Elementary school l
to support intervention in reading is showing some academic gains for SWD, but not
sufficiently addressing how to close the achievement gap for these students. There is a
need for organizational change in the way we support SWD during reading intervention

72
or, in other words, the delivery model the school uses to provide the intervention. To
address this change, we look at the 4C model by Wagner et al. (2006) that is “an
approach to thinking systematically about the challenges and goals of change in school
and districts they call the 4C’s”. The 4C’s, referring to contexts, culture, conditions, and
competencies, can be used to analyze a problem of practice. I used the 4C’s Diagnostic
tool to complete the AS Is Chart (see Appendix E) for my analysis of reading
intervention for SWD at ABC Elementary, and to guide my recommendations for a
change plan in the delivery model.
Contexts. ABC Elementary is recognized as a “School of Excellence” by the state
department of education for its students’ high achieving performance on state
assessments. The school is located in an affluent neighborhood, with the community
having many private school options within the school zone. Historically ABC
Elementary has been awarded a designation as an “A” school in the state’s accountability
rating. The designation as “School of Excellence” is an example of the school’s ability to
maintain the high performance for over three consecutive years. This designation also
allows for some flexibility in mandated daily minutes in the English Language Arts block
to be broken up from a continuous 120-minute block to a 90 minute and 30-minute block
throughout the day. This designation is an influential economic factor for parents and
community members supporting the local public school and choosing public over private
education.
SWD comprise 20% of the student enrollment. 123 School District) has been
focused on English Language Arts (ELA) proficiency for the past three years in an effort
to raise the district’s reading proficiency. State assessment results in English Language

73
Arts show a decrease in learning gains from 59% to 45% for SWD at ABC Elementary,
but an increase in proficiency from 44% to 53%. This increase in proficiency guides me
to refer to my research question of, “What do general education teachers and exceptional
education teachers report is working well in the intervention services program for SWD?”
to account for the increase in proficiency. 123 Public School District (pseudonym) has
created a model in which teams at each school to participate in District Professional
Learning Communities (DPLC). These teams have received training on close reading
strategies to bring back to all teachers at their respective school sites to improve ELA
achievement. In this model, school teams received training in effective reading
strategies, such as close reading and text-dependent questioning techniques. School
teams then returned to their schools and shared the strategies with their respective grade-
level teams so that there were common strategies used school-wide to improve English
Language Arts achievement. The use of these school-wide strategies by all teachers
during the traditional ELA block could account for the increase in proficiency though not
explicitly mentioned by teachers in their answer to the interview question.
The current master schedule at ABC Elementary includes a 30-minute
intervention block built into the schedule for each grade level. This time block is seen as
a barrier in providing reading intervention students for SWD, which is tied to my
research question of “What do general education teachers and exceptional education
teachers report as the greatest challenges in the intervention services program for SWD?”
In survey and interview questions tied to this research question, teachers noted the
insufficient time as a challenge in providing the reading intervention for SWD. During
the block, some push-in academic support is provided by the ESE teacher, tutor, or

74
paraprofessional for SWD for reading, which is related to my research question “What do
general education teachers and exceptional education teachers report is working well in
the intervention services program for SWD?” Teachers noted on survey and interview
questions that the additional support was working well. The push-in support, however, is
limited to staff schedules, and in some instances, the ESE teacher can push in on certain
days, but on other days the paraprofessional provides the push-in support. The reading
tutor provides pull-out and push-in academic support once a week as needed. Though the
current context has some structure in the way of terms of consistent school-wide and
district reading strategies, there is still a considerable gap between the performance of
SWD compared to their general education peers. The school and district have a vested
interest in narrowing the achievement gap and ensuring reading success for all students.
Continued structure of additional support by resource personnel will need to be a
consideration of the change plan of the delivery model, and structures for targeting
specific reading skills during the intervention block will have to be addressed in the
school’s culture in terms of planning.
Culture. ABC Elementary has the shared belief that all students can achieve
success. There is a vision for creating a technology-enriched environment to engage
students in learning. Wagner et al. define some characteristics of an organization’s
culture as “expectations and behaviors related to students and learning, teachers and
teaching, instructional leadership, and the quality of relationships within and beyond the
school” (2006, p. 102). Teachers and staff members at ABC Elementary have a growth-
mindset and build positive relationships with students to ensure they see the application
of the real-world with their learning experiences. The school has an embedded culture of

75
meeting collaboratively in Professional Learning Communities (PLC) to discuss student
data. Professional Learning Communities (PLC) is a group of educators with a shared
mission, vision, and values; collective inquiry; collaborative teams; an orientation toward
action; commitment to continuous improvement; and a focus on results. (DuFour &
Eaker, 1998, p.45). At ABC Elementary, grade level PLC’s meet weekly to discuss
student data and look for trends in the grade-level data to guide instruction. The PLC
meetings are facilitated by the grade level team leaders who receive coaching and
guidance from the instructional coach.
Common planning takes place weekly to address ELA instruction and reading
intervention lessons. Targeted grouping is present on every grade level during the
intervention block to address specific skills with students effectively. Coordinating and
planning for targeted grouping across the grade level in the current schedule with the time
constraints may not be working to provide reading intervention services for SWD
adequately. My research question addressing this was, “What do general education
teachers and exceptional education teachers report is not working well in the intervention
services program for SWD.” Though there is a culture for collaboratively planning and
providing lessons, the structure of the master schedule only providing a 30-minute block
for intervention seems to be the greatest obstacle reported. Time was also the major
theme collected from my research question, “What do general education teachers and
exceptional education teachers report as the greatest challenges in the intervention
services program for SWD?” Specifically, the 30-minute time block was noted as not
sufficient to address the needs of SWD and needed addressing in the organizational
change plan.

76
Conditions. ABC Elementary currently has a 30-minute reading intervention
block three times a week. The intervention block is consistent in the master schedule,
and the thirty minutes was allotted to comply with the state’s Multi-Tiered System of
Support (MTSS) requirement of what struggling readers must receive in terms of targeted
academic support outside of the English Language Arts (ELA) block. The general
education teacher provides the delivery of intervention services in reading unless a
student is in a self-contained classroom. In this instance, the intervention is provided by
the exceptional education teacher. The class size average for students in grades K-3 is 18
students and 22 for students in 4th
and 5th
grade. The intervention is provided in the
general classroom for SWD, except for students who are in self-contained classrooms.
ABC Elementary (pseudonym) has one self-contained classroom with six students
ranging in grades 2-5th
. These six students receive reading intervention from the
exceptional education teacher of record assigned to the self-contained classroom and the
exceptional education paraprofessional assigned to the self-contained classroom.
Students are grouped for targeted support for reading intervention, with the 25%
lowest-performing students receiving small group support from two adults. These adults
include the classroom teacher and additional support personnel, which could be the ESE
teacher, a paraprofessional, or a resource teacher. English Language Learners (ELL)
students receive intervention support in this structure. If they fall in the lowest 25%, they
receive small group instruction, in which one of the adults could be the bilingual
paraprofessional or resource teacher. The designated personnel depends on the time and
availability of the staff member to push into the classroom.
Currently, there is an achievement gap in ELA proficiency and learning gains

77
between SWD and their general education peers. This leads me to the assumption that
there are challenges in providing intervention support students in reading to SWD. I
collected data on how to improve some of the challenges noted through the following
research question: “What do general education teachers and exceptional education
teachers report as ways to address these challenges (if any), or improve in the
intervention services program for SWD?” Teacher responses to survey and interview
questions related to this question noted that additional support during the intervention
block and more time in the schedule. Providing additional personnel to support the
intervention block for SWD is a financial burden since this allocation isn’t built into the
school’s budget. To effectively provide conditions to support SWD during reading
intervention, ABC Elementary would have to look at other funding sources and creative
use of existing resources personnel. Creative ideas would include the compliance teacher
and instructional coach, as well as the school’s classified staff help provide this additional
support in the change plan.
Competencies. In relation to organizational change, Wagner et al. refer to
competencies as “the repertoire of skills and knowledge that influences student learning”
(2006, p. 99). ABC Elementary currently has two certified Exceptional Student Education
(ESE) teachers to support the ESE population at the school. One ESE teacher provides
instruction in a self-contained classroom to students with Emotional Behavior Disorders
(EBD). The other ESE teacher provides resource support throughout the day in the
resource room and pushes into the classrooms during intervention or academic time
blocks to offer academic support for SWD within their general education classroom.
ESE teachers have taken additional courses and passed state examination tests on

78
exceptional education services to be certified to teach SWD in grades K-12. Their general
education teacher serves SWD the majority of the day. General education teachers have
taken college course work and have passed state certification exams to be certified to
teach English Language Arts instruction to elementary-aged students. General education
teachers will need to have training in strategies to support their SWD in reading. Time
constraints with teacher planning schedules during the day don’t allow for the ESE
teachers to attend collaborative planning sessions and Professional Learning Community
(PLC) meetings with all grade levels. The collaborative planning sessions are used by
individual grade levels to plan for reading instruction. The PLC meetings are used to
look at data to note grade level trends, group students by skill need for intervention
services, and select deficit skills to target during the intervention. Since the ESE teacher
serves students in grades K-5, her planning time is not associated with a particular
planning block like the general education teacher’s planning.
Limited professional development has been provided by the school and school
district on the Universal Design for Learning (UDL) to teachers to help build expertise in
differentiation strategies for their SWD. Recently the state has added a requirement for
teachers to have at least twenty hours of professional development in exceptional
education before recertification. 123 School District has designed online-modules on
Universal Design for Learning (UDL) strategies for teachers to take that satisfy this
recertification requirement. Though these modules provide a practical overview and easy
way to meet recertification requirements, it does not offer a comprehensive
implementation framework to assist teachers with applying the knowledge to planning,
teaching, and setting up instructional spaces. UDL strategies include the use of

79
engagement, representation, action, and expression by a teacher to meet the needs of the
learner. To effectively implement any change plan in the delivery of intervention
services in reading for SWD, collaborative planning sessions with the ESE teacher will
have to be developed as well as professional development, specifically on the
implementation of UDL strategies will need to be addressed.
My next step will be to create an organizational change plan for ABC Elementary.
The plan will include input from all stakeholders, the implementation of a master
schedule that provides flexibility in the daily schedule of support personnel, and
professional development by curriculum experts to support the school’s reading plan to
improve learning gains and differentiation of instruction in reading. I would include this
reading focus as part of the state’s required School Improvement Plan (SIP) so that time
and resources could be aligned to the school’s improvement goals. Making this a focus
for the school will ensure that all teachers and staff are focusing on reading improvement
for all students, not just SWD.
First, I would seek input from teachers and resource personnel as to their specific
needs to improve their ability to provide intervention services for SWD. The information
will include insight on the scheduling of support personnel and how to maximize or
increase the support for all students how teams use the collaborative planning time to
plan reading intervention. It will also give insight on how data is used during grade level
PLC meetings to identify grade level deficits, create instructional groups, and inform
instruction. Information provided from this input can guide the structure and professional
development calendar to provide specific training in differentiating instruction in reading.
This training could include the efficient use of the current resources and exploration of

80
other materials used appropriately. This training could also incorporate elements of the
Universal Design for Learning and proven strategies to be effective in the instruction of
SWD.
Secondly, I would communicate the school’s improvement plan with parents and
the community and the current data to support the improvement as recommended by
Wagner: “Data are employed creatively, compelling, and strategically to focus the
community’s attention on the children who are the heart of the work” (2006, p. 146).
Meeting with the School Advisory Committee (SAC) and Parent Teacher Organization
(PTO) about the school’s action plan to improve reading learning gains would gain
understanding and support towards the school’s goal for improvement. Though not
mentioned in the data I collected, I believe that support can be leveraged to gain
sponsorship from the PTO funds to provide evening curriculum nights focused on
reading. These curriculum nights could benefit our families to learn how to assist their
child’s literacy development.
Next, I would meet with the administration, registrar, and personnel involved in
the scheduling to develop a master schedule that can increase the intervention time block
from 30 to 45 minutes for the intermediate grades. An intervention block of 45 minutes
would provide a teacher with 18 students to provide at least 15 minutes of direct
intervention academic support in a small group of no more than six students. This
structure and time would allow the teacher to cycle or rotate students three times, so she
provides a small group of direct instruction to all students during an intervention block.
Focusing on only two grade levels for this change can make this an easier task when
scheduling the academic support for SWD from the ESE teacher and resource personnel.

81
An effort would also be made in scheduling the intervention block close to the ELA
block to help with the transfer of content and consistency for SWD when they leave the
general education classroom setting to receive related services in a resource room.
Lastly, for the delivery of intervention services to improve for all students,
teachers must feel empowered and confident in their delivery of the instruction. Ensuring
teachers have adequate professional development in foundational reading strategies first
will give them the skills and confidence they need to identify reading deficits in
struggling readers successfully. Additional professional development in UDL strategies
to be able to support SWD may be vital to helping SWD make gains in reading. Reading
experts and district curriculum personnel could be used to develop a professional
development calendar to support the teachers and resource staff at ABC Elementary
(pseudonym).
Interpretation
My Evaluation of Reading Intervention Programs for Students with Disabilities
identified successful components used at ABC Elementary (pseudonym) to provide
specialized intervention support and an analysis of changes needed in the delivery model
to support academic gains for SWD. Through my interpretation of the data, I hope to, as
Patton encouraged, “make meaning of the findings and provide significance” (2008, p.
486) so that I can make recommendations for organizational changes that will provide
improvement in the delivery of intervention services for SWD in reading. The current
delivery model is not having a significant impact on student achievement for SWD on
state assessments. Analysis of student data showed a decrease in proficiency from 2018
to 2019 for SWD in 3rd
and 5th
grade, with only 4th
graders making gains. This decrease

82
was true in learning gains on state assessment from 2018 to 2019, with both 4th
and 5th
grade SWD showing a decrease in learning gains. In contrast, the end of the year (EOY)
diagnostic on the i-Ready computer-adaptive program showed significant gains for SWD
from 2018 to 2019 in reading, with an increase of over 15% in grades 3-5.
An analysis of the survey and interview data revealed several successful
components in the current model used for intervention services for SWD in reading at
ABC Elementary. The first component was built in time in the master schedule with
additional personnel support during the reading intervention. Survey open-ended
responses and teacher interviews both indicated that additional support during the
intervention block allowed for small group instruction and individualized support for
SWD. This finding aligns with my research of literature in where a case study
summarized by Legere and Conca (2010) noted that flexible scheduling and
paraprofessional support during the reading intervention had yielded positive results for
SWD. Another successful component that arose from the data analysis of surveys and
interviews was the use of appropriately leveled passages and individualized support on
targeted skills through the i-Ready computer-adaptive program. These findings align
with my research of literature in which a study by Castillo (2011) on repeated reading of
leveled passages showed improvement in fluency for SWD in reading. The use of the i-
Ready program with fidelity during the reading intervention block can account for the
gains seen in the EOY diagnostic for SWD from 2018 to 2019.
The analysis of the survey and interview data revealed significant challenges and
concerns with components of the current model used for intervention in reading for
SWD. The first component identified as a challenge was the 30-minute time block.

83
Teacher surveys and interviews indicated that 30 minutes was not an adequate amount of
time to provide specialized intervention support in reading to SWD. These findings align
with my research of literature noted in a case study by Ransford-Kaldon et al. (2010) in
which teachers using a leveled reading intervention program noted that they had
difficulty implementing the program within a 30-minute time frame. The second
component identified as a challenge in the current model was the lack of explicit phonics
and vocabulary practice in the current materials used. Responses related to this challenge
from teachers noted the current resources. The current model is using a combination of i-
Ready computer adaptive resources and Curriculum Associates Language Arts Standards
books (citation withheld to preserve confidentiality) that provide practice on grade-level
standards through non-fiction passages. Currently, ABC Elementary does not have
specific materials to fill in gaps for students who need additional phonics practice to
decode and vocabulary support to build knowledge. The i-Ready program does provide
teacher resources through i-Ready central, but it requires teachers to search the site for
specific skills by grade. I don’t believe teachers are leveraging this resource or
understand how to use it to provide additional phonics and vocabulary practice for
students. This data aligns with my research of literature in which studies by Afacan,
Wilkerson, and Ruppar (2018) note that a multi-component intervention program that
offers practice in phonics, fluency, vocabulary, comprehension, and writing for SWD
shows effective results in overall reading achievement. Guidance from the instructional
coach during collaborative planning on how to access vocabulary and phonics resources
from i-Ready central will be essential to help teachers target these skills with available
already purchased resources.

84
The use of surveys with open-ended questions and interviews to collect data on
the effectiveness of the current model of reading intervention for SWD allowed teachers
to provide answers openly to the questions and note specific recommendations for
improvement. These questions provided an opportunity to identify components that were
effective in the current delivery model and challenges within the current model that may
be affecting the reading achievement of SWD. The structure of the survey statements
using an ordinal measurement scale could have impacted the results in the data collected
since it allowed respondents to agree or disagree. This is significant because of the
response to survey questions in which teacher respondents noted challenges did not
provide a context of why they noted elements such as time, schedule, support, or
resources as a challenge. More insight into why respondents listed these challenges
would have helped further define and address teacher perceptions in providing reading
intervention services for SWD. The data collected will be used to guide components
such as time, schedule, and personnel, which need to be addressed in the change plan in
the current delivery model for intervention services in reading for SWD at ABC
Elementary.
Judgments
My project evaluation of Reading Intervention for Students with Disabilities
(SWD) was designed to identify a delivery model in which reliable and successful
specialized intervention support is provided to SWD in reading. My first two primary
research questions focused on gathering perspectives from teachers on what they felt was
working well and not working well with the current delivery model. These questions
were:

85
• What do general education teachers and exceptional education teachers report
is working well in the intervention services program for SWD?
is not working well in the intervention services program for SWD?
When looking at the results of what is working well in the reading intervention
services for SWD, findings noted that 37% of participants indicated that some push-in
support and the dedicated schedule viewed as components that were working well.
Though the survey and interview data answered my two primary research questions, it
would have been more effective to have teachers note specifics in their responses.
Though they noted general elements, such as push-in support, some responses were not
specific about who provided the support, whether provided by the ESE teacher, resource
teacher, or a paraprofessional. These findings related to what was working well with the
intervention support, in terms of push-in support by additional personnel during the
intervention block. These findings should be considered in the future changes and
implementation of the intervention services in reading for SWD.
A significant component that arose in my results of what was not working well
with the intervention services in reading for SWD was time. Forty-eight percent of
participants on the survey noted that there was not enough time to provide intervention
services to SWD in the current 30-minute time block. Time was also noted as a challenge
in the interview data analysis. Another component that was noted in the survey data as
not working well with the current intervention services for SWD was scheduling, with
21% of participants responding to a challenge in the schedule. More specific information
to this question would have been helpful to determine if there was anything in addition to

86
time that was scheduling. Extending the intervention block to a longer time block should
be a consideration in future changes in the delivery model of intervention services in
reading for SWD. Also, careful examination of the time of day to schedule the
intervention block in the master schedule and ensuring that it is connected to the English
Language Arts block for more continuity in subject matter instruction for teachers and
students.
My next two primary questions related to the teachers’ perspective on the
challenges related to providing intervention services in reading for SWD and how to
address that challenge. These questions were:
as the greatest challenges in the intervention services program for SWD?
as ways to address these challenges (if any), or improve in the intervention
services program for SWD?
Time was once again a major theme in the analysis of my research data, with 52%
of respondents noting time as the greatest challenge in delivering intervention services in
reading for SWD. Teachers noted time not only as the greatest challenge but identified
time as an area of the current delivery model that was not working well. I believe this
question served as a “corroboration, in which one set of findings is confirmed by the
other” (Leavy, 2017, p. 181). I was able to connect a challenge with components of the
current delivery model that need to be addressed. This research data points to the fact
that a 30-minute time block for providing intervention services for SWD in reading is not
adequate and should be increased in future models.

87
Scheduling also emerged in the analysis of my data as the greatest challenge in
providing intervention services in reading for SWD, with 21% of respondents noting
scheduling as the greatest challenge. Though my research questions did allow me to
gather responses with common themes connected to challenges in delivering intervention
services, they did not provide the specifics in the responses that could have been
beneficial in making sound judgments and recommendations. What to change or address
in the schedule other than time, such as the time of day or the pairing with the English
Language Arts block, would have been helpful details that were not worded or specified
due to the structure of the question. Though scheduling of the intervention block should
be a significant consideration when making changes to the delivery model for providing
intervention services for SWD, the limited data makes it difficult to make judgments or
offer specific recommendations.
My secondary research questions focused on gathering data related to teachers’
needs in professional development and instructional materials to provide reading
intervention services in reading for SWD. These questions were:
• What do general education teachers and exceptional education teachers report as
their needs for professional development to support SWD?
• What do general education teachers and exceptional education teachers report as
their needs for instructional materials to support SWD?
The analysis of this data did not provide enough definitive answers to make judgments of
teacher needs in terms of professional development. Seventy-nine percent of respondents
noted that they had effective professional development in differentiating instruction. This
data did not specifically help make connections on the specific nature of the

88
differentiated strategies or how it applied to reading instruction for SWD. Data analysis
of this question also noted that 63% of participants said they would like additional
professional development on how to differentiate instruction in reading. I believe this
question would have yielded better results if it were broken down into more specific parts
to generate more details from the participants. I think that since I conducted the
interviews, this could have had an impact on the willingness of teachers to provide too
many details.
Analysis of the data connected to teachers’ needs for instructional materials also
showed mixed results. Responses noted that 89% of participants felt they had adequate
materials to provide reading intervention services for SWD. Still, at the same time, 58%
responded that the current materials used from Curriculum Associates were not effective
for differentiated instruction. It is unclear if the use of the i-Ready computer-adaptive
program was a consideration in these questions since interview data did show participants
noting the program as effective in targeting specific skills. Interview data did not yield
any clarifying results when responding to this question, with one respondent noting a
need for more “vocabulary instructional materials” and another indicating a need for
materials to build phonics such as “Making Words.” These results make it difficult to
make judgments on specific needs for additional professional development or
instructional materials since the data did not produce common themes or trends to use to
make these judgments.
Recommendations
Based on the results of my program evaluation and my own experiences in
providing intervention as a teacher and monitoring intervention services as an

89
administrator, I think ABC Elementary School should make changes in the current
delivery model of intervention service in reading for Students with Disabilities (SWD).
This change should consist of three major components: Time and scheduling structure,
additional personnel support, and multi-component instructional materials. I believe
these changes will help close the achievement gap in proficiency and learning gains in
reading between SWD and their general education peers.
The first recommendation I propose to improve the delivery of intervention
services in reading for SWD is restructuring of the master schedule to include a 45-
minute reading intervention block connected with the students’ English Language Arts
(ELA) block in third through fifth grade. Since ABC Elementary (pseudonym) has been
designated as a “School of Excellence,” they have flexibility in the ELA block so it can
be broken up into a 90-minute section and a 30-minute section instead of the continuous
120-minute block daily for ELA instruction. Breaking the ELA block into a 90-minute
section will allow for the intervention block to be connected to the ELA block and the
other 30 minutes to be used to integrate social studies standards with ELA standards. By
using the additional 30 minutes of ELA to integrate social studies, it frees up the 30
minutes in the master schedule currently designated for social studies. Now an additional
15 minutes can be added to the current 30-minute intervention block to provide a 45-
minute intervention block for all students in reading. This change in schedule, though it
may require careful manipulation of other time blocks and requirements in the master
schedule, would address the challenge of insufficient time in the schedule to provide
intervention that was reported in the findings. Additionally, the placement in the
schedule of the intervention block connected to the ELA block will address the other

90
noted schedule challenges noted in the research findings that would connect the
intervention in reading to reading instruction, making it a smoother transition for SWD.
The second recommendation I propose to improve the delivery of intervention
services in reading for SWD is the use of additional support personnel during the reading
intervention block. This recommendation would require a redistribution of human
resources across the school. The Exceptional Student Education (ESE) teacher would
have a flexible schedule so that he/she can push in and support SWD during the reading
intervention block, with a priority in grades 3-5th
. These students would be a priority
since they take the state assessments and generate an accountability score for proficiency
and learning gains in 4th
and 5th
grade. The ESE teacher schedule would change the time
she provides instruction to primary students and uses for planning to be able to provide
support to the intermediate grades during the intervention. Additional resource personnel
such as the Reading Coach, Compliance Teacher, and Multi-Tiered System of Support
Coach would also adjust their schedules so that they can provide push-in support. This
support ensures that all classes with SWD would have additional personnel during the
intervention block. The use of trained paraprofessionals can be incorporated in the
schedule to support when additional instructional personnel is not available to assist with
the reading intervention block. This paraprofessional support can also be instrumental in
classes in which there is an increased number of SWD. Having the paraprofessional in
the classroom allows the teacher to focus on providing small group instruction during the
intervention block. The paraprofessional can assist students in working on independent
tasks and the computer. The careful placement of the intervention block for each grade

91
level would have to be staggered to be able to leverage the use of the additional personnel
across all grade levels.
My last recommendation is to carefully maximize the current materials used for
reading intervention services for SWD that the research data shows are yielding positive
results. I would also add additional resources that provide multi-component support and
include adaptability to scaffold the instruction. Research findings showed that the i-
Ready computer-adaptive program is yielding positive gains in reading for SWD on the
diagnostic assessments. Teachers also reported that the program is beneficial in targeting
specific reading skills. I would continue the use of the i-Ready computer-adaptive
program weekly to address deficit skills and gaps for SWD in reading. I would leverage
the use of the program during the first 15 minutes of the intervention block so that
students are receiving at least 30 minutes of i-Ready support a week but ensuring that
part of the daily intervention block is used for direct instruction. The additional small
group support during the reading intervention for SWD is used to address specific deficits
skills in comprehension, vocabulary, and phonics. The current materials used from
Curriculum Associates address grade-level standards in terms of comprehension and do
not offer the flexibility to scaffold the instruction according to the findings. Additional
materials to build phonics and vocabulary were also noted in the research findings. I
propose that the Curriculum Associates materials be used once a week during the reading
intervention block to expose SWD to grade-level standards and specific question types
that they will encounter on the state assessment. The other two days, I propose teachers
use materials that help build foundational skills and have differentiated levels to allow for
the scaffolding of instruction. Vocabulary and phonics were specific areas noted from

92
the findings of the research. Teachers can use vocabulary and phonics lessons from the
Teacher Tool Box available through the i-Ready program to provide additional support in
these areas. These materials are provided in multiple grade levels and provide explicit
directions on how to deliver the targeted practice. The use of the Teacher Tool Box
materials would address the multi-component need during the intervention block.
Teachers may need professional development from the Curriculum Associates
consultants on how to access these materials effectively and appropriately identifying
deficit skill levels when analyzing student monitoring reports. Carefully analyzing
students' growth reports can assist school personnel in viewing skills and lessons not
mastered by students and where to access additional lessons and reteach materials to
provide targeted skill intervention. Using materials that are already available and
accessible to all teachers would minimize the need for ABC Elementary to have to buy an
additional program or additional materials. The use of the Teacher Tool Box would
provide direct instruction in the multi-component needs of the intervention services for
SWD in reading and incorporate a structure that can be delivered in a small group setting
by a teacher or paraprofessional.
Conclusion
My evaluation of the reading intervention programs for Students with Disabilities
(SWD) provided answers to my research questions to identify components of a delivery
model that was reliable and produced effective outcomes. My findings suggest that
addressing the time and schedule, including additional support, and using materials that
provide a multi-component of reading elements, has the potential of positively improving
the delivery of reading intervention services provided to SWD. SWD experiencing

93
reading difficulties “benefit from an intervention that has multiple components focusing
attention on increasing the rate and accuracy of reading” (Chard et al., 2002, p. 404). The
use of the i-Ready computer-adaptive program provides opportunities for students to
receive academic support in multi-component areas of foundational reading such as
phonological awareness, phonics and word recognition, vocabulary, and comprehension.
Access to the Teacher Tool Box also provides additional resources teachers can use to
target deficits in particular areas such as phonics and vocabulary. ABC Elementary and
like schools should consider the findings from my evaluation to develop a structure and
future implementation of the delivery of intervention services in reading for SWD.

94
CHAPTER FIVE
To-Be Framework
Reading is an essential life skill, and schools are given the responsibility of
teaching all students. As Van Keer and Vanderlinde stated, “Learning to read is one of
the most crucial learning processes children are involved in during elementary school”
(2013). My program evaluation on reading intervention for students with disabilities
(SWD) at ABC Elementary provided some insight on how to improve the current
delivery model and successfully close the achievement gap. My Change Leadership Plan
(CLP) for ABC Elementary would begin with gathering data from all stakeholders on the
current master schedule and delivery of reading intervention services: “Leaders must
assess with diligence the readiness to change their organizations and themselves”
(Reeves, p. 7). Assessing all stakeholders’ knowledge of the current schedule and
delivery of reading intervention would provide valuable information as to any
misconceptions that need to be addressed before implementing any changes in the
reading intervention structure. Using the input explicitly collected from teachers and
staff on their background knowledge would be valuable in moving forward with
addressing the significant issues identified in my program evaluation and setting the stage
for real change.
The first issue I would address in my CLP would be building teachers’ expertise.
The fact that ABC Elementary) experienced a decrease in English Language Arts (ELA)
learning gains on state assessments from 2018 to 2019 indicates that teachers may need
additional professional development in reading strategies and differentiated instruction.
They may also need professional development in the effective use of components from

95
the i-Ready Tool Box to target specific skill deficits in reading and access additional
lessons and materials for re-teaching. Providing continuous professional development in
not just reading but connecting all literacy components to increase ELA competencies for
all students would be essential. In addition to addressing ELA expertise, building on
teacher’s knowledge of strategies associated with Universal Design for Learning (UDL)
would be necessary if teachers are to address the needs of their SWD.
The next major issue I would address in my CLP would be the structural
components of the intervention block at ABC Elementary (pseudonym). My findings
indicated that time and the lack of additional support were significant barriers in the
effective delivery of intervention services for SWD. The administration and all personnel
associated with the creation of the master schedule would have to create ways to increase
the intervention block from thirty minutes to forty-five minutes for fourth and fifth
graders. Personnel schedules would have to be adjusted so that the Exceptional
Education Teacher and school paraprofessionals could provide additional support.
Lastly, my CLP would focus on the connection of the purpose and value of
improving reading intervention services for SWD with all stakeholders. The goal is to
leverage purposeful peer interactions: “The key to achieving a simultaneously tight-loose
organization lies more in purposeful peer interactions than in top-down direction from the
hierarchy” (Fullan, 2008, p. 41). Providing additional planning time for teachers to
conduct vertical Professional Learning Communities to collaborate would be essential.
Focusing English Language Arts instruction on the School Improvement Plan (SIP) by
using targets for learning gains and proficiency from state assessments, there would be a
connection between my CLP and the SIP. Communicating the School Improvement Plan

96
and ELA targets with key parent organizations would be instrumental in creating support
for improvements, soliciting outside funding for resources, and supporting changes
associated with reading intervention schedules.
Envisioning the Success To-Be
To address and solve an identified problem, a CLP must develop a vision for what
the future would look like if the plan were realized. The creation of a 4Cs TO-BE chart,
the 4 C’s Diagnostic Tool created by Wagner et al. (2006), can be used to assist leaders
with a roadmap and visual representation of how to produce the desired results for their
organization. In developing my TO-BE chart, I looked at the changes that would need to
be made in the context, culture, conditions, and competencies of delivering reading
intervention services at ABC Elementary. My TO-BE chart (Appendix F) outlines the
necessary strategies, structures, and supports that will be in place in the effective delivery
of reading intervention services to narrow the achievement gap in reading between SWD
and their peers.
Contexts. The context of my CLP focuses on decreasing the gap in English
Language Arts (ELA) proficiency and learning gains between SWD and their peers. One
clear way to decrease this gap is to focus on ELA instruction as a school. This focus
would align with 123 Public School District’s focus on increasing ELA learning gains for
all students. The district’s focus on ELA created a structure for schools to receive
specific training in reading strategies through the District Professional Learning
Community (DPLC) model. ABC Elementary has a team that participates in DPLC. One
of the reading strategies the school team has received training in is close reading. Close
reading is the process of analyzing a piece of text closely to develop higher thinking

97
skills and increase comprehension. The school team has received training on close
reading strategies to bring back to their grade level teachers to improve ELA
achievement.
Building on the work that the DPLC team has started at ABC Elementary
(pseudonym), I would continue to build teacher expertise and training on the use of
close reading strategies. These strategies would support students’ ability to
comprehend texts and successfully answer questions related to the texts with
methods for decoding the deeper meaning of the text. Research advances this need:
“Significant research links the close reading of complex text whether the student is a
struggling reader or advanced- to significant gains in reading” (Lapp, Moss, Grant
and Johnson, 2015, p. 17). DPLC team members on each grade level can serve as
teacher leaders and facilitate the lesson planning to ensure that close reading
opportunities are embedded in the ELA instruction and across areas of the
curriculum for all students in every grade level. For teachers to address learning
gains for all students, careful considerations and scaffolds will need to be discussed
in the planning and selection of complex texts. The collaboration of the Exceptional
Education Teacher in common planning sessions in collaboration with DPLC team
members will be vital to ensuring in determining the level of complexity of the text
for SWD and how to build scaffolds to provide opportunities for success as they
close read. Scaffolds for SWD would include academic support in phonics to assist
with fluency and decoding of unfamiliar text. Academic support in vocabulary
would have to be incorporated as students analyze non-fiction text to access prior
knowledge and increase understanding. Leveraging the i-Ready computer-adaptive

98
program and adding additional lessons on the individual student’s learning path in
phonics and vocabulary would help strengthen these areas.
Culture. The culture of my CLP will include a structure for vertical
Professional Learning Communities (PLC) to meet monthly. There will also be a
focus on the use of data to drive planning and grouping to targeted intervention in
reading. This will include data from i-Ready diagnostic assessments, fluency tests
through cold reads, and Diagnostic Reading Assessments (DRA) given in the
primary grades. This change in culture from meeting in only grade level PLCs to
broader and larger vertical PLCs will shift the focus from grade level needs to
school-wide needs. Using data to drive instructional planning and grouping for
reading intervention will ensure that specific deficits in reading are targeted for
groups of students.
The current structure for teachers to meet in PLCs is structured around the
common planning a grade level has built into the daily schedule. Though this is
valuable time that grade-level standards and targets are addressed, there is not an
opportunity to collaborate with other grade-level teams. Lack of collaboration can
limit opportunities for teams who yield higher results in student achievement with
their SWD to share their strategies in the differentiation of instruction. This was the
case at ABC Elementary, in which the fourth-grade team had consistently higher
results in ELA proficiency and learning gains. The use of PLCs “provides a
systematic method of ensuring that all teachers understand and can focus on the
essential outcomes” (DuFour and Eaker, 1998, p. 176). A structure will be developed
to build cultural competence in the area of school-wide collaboration, in which

99
teachers can meet in vertical PLCs to collaborate with other grade levels. Early
dismissal Wednesdays once a month would be dedicated to the school calendar for
this collaboration. Teachers would be organized in different vertical teams that
would consist of one representative from each grade. This structure would keep
vertical PLC teams small but provide focused discussions centered on strategies to
differentiate reading instruction during the intervention block.
To ensure that targeted grouping for reading intervention is data-driven and
fluid, there will need to be a shift on how data is used to plan for reading
intervention. Weekly common planning of ELA will include the use of data to
analyze common assessments and diagnostic results for weaknesses and deficits
across the grade level. This will “help the team narrow the scope of inquiry and
narrow the focus area for the work” (Boudett, City & Murnane, 2013, p. 68). This
data will be used to determine targeted skills that need to be addressed during
reading intervention and which grouping of students need what skills to facilitate the
formation of the intervention groups. These groups should be monitored through
scheduled bi-weekly progress monitoring checks so that the effectiveness of the
intervention could be assessed and the adjustment to intervention groups is fluid.
Conditions. The ideal conditions to support reading intervention for SWD in
my CLP would require that the intervention block be extended to forty-five minutes,
four days a week. This is a fifteen-minute extension from the current thirty minutes
already structured in the master schedule. The additional fifteen minutes is feasible
using the content minutes from social studies, in which the content reading can be
integrated in English Language Arts block. In addition to a more extended period,

100
providing additional support during reading intervention in classrooms with SWD
would be beneficial. The extended time and additional support would ensure that
differentiated, small group instruction can occur during the intervention block.
Increasing the reading intervention time and frequency would provide more
time to target deficit skills in reading. The use of the i-Ready program to fill in
instructional gaps in reading based on individual student needs has yielded positive
results at ABC Elementary. The program, however, requires at least 45 minutes of
online instruction weekly to produce results. The increase in time in the intervention
block would allow for small group and differentiated instruction in which students
can do rotations of 15 minutes from the computer program to the direct small group
instruction provided by the classroom teacher. Marzano stated that “Small groups
can enhance the processing of new information” (2007, p. 43). This additional time
can provide a structure for small group differentiated instruction during the reading
intervention block and the use of the i-Ready program’s other resources from the
Teacher Tool Box to target specific reading deficits.
Additional support during the reading intervention block provides a structure
for students to receive reading intervention in targeted small groups. By providing
additional personnel, the teacher can pull small groups while the paraprofessional
works with select students and monitors the classroom. Push in support by the ESE
teacher during this time block can also be used to observe the progress of SWD on
their reading and support with the delivery and monitoring of the targeted tiered
intervention in conjunction with the general education teacher.

101
Competencies. My CLP will require that teachers and school leaders gain
competencies in the area of reading instruction and knowledge of the Universal
Design for Learning (UDL). Teachers need to gain expertise in the fundamental
components of reading instruction to effectively identify deficit skills and correctly
target appropriate interventions for students. Understanding how to use strategies
related to the Universal Design for Learning will assist teachers with the successful
differentiation of instruction to meet the needs of their SWD.
For students to become fluent readers, they need to master foundational
reading skills. These skills include elements of phonological awareness, phonics,
high-frequency words, and reading fluency. For teachers to correctly identify deficit
skills, they need an understanding of how to teach these components of reading
instruction and how to provide tiered intervention on the skill accurately.
Professional development that provides explicit instruction for teachers on how to
teach, monitor, and assess the foundational reading skills will be critical in the
successful delivery of reading intervention for all students. School leaders should
also have a basic understanding of how reading is taught so they can provide
actionable feedback when observing teachers during the ELA and intervention block.
Having a shared understanding of the necessary components that need to be present
during reading instruction will provide a foundation for successfully identifying
skills that need to be addressed during tiered interventions.
Understanding how to use UDL strategies during reading instruction and
intervention would be vital in helping teachers differentiate instruction to meet the
needs of their SWD. Narkon and Wells support this: “UDL focuses on using

102
instructional methods, materials, and technologies that make the curriculum
accessible for all learners” (2013, p. 233). Teachers will need professional
development on how to incorporate UDL strategies during lesson planning. The
planning of these strategies during reading instruction and reading intervention can
provide engagement and scaffolds for SWD. School leaders should be informed of
these strategies so that they can identify which teachers and classrooms are providing
inclusive practices.
Conclusion
My CLP focuses on how to transform the current delivery model for reading
intervention at ABC Elementary (pseudonym) so that all students, including SWD,
make learning gains. The creation of the “AS-IS” chart (Appendix E) identified
current issues in the context, culture, conditions, and competencies that are
impacting the delivery of reading intervention. Using this framework, I identified
the issues and developed a roadmap for change through my “TO-BE” chart
(Appendix F). Successfully implementing the changes outlined in my CLP could
transform the delivery of reading intervention to support SWD, narrow the
achievement gap, and positively impact student achievement.

103
CHAPTER SIX
Strategies and Actions
My Change Leadership Plan (CLP) addressed specific areas that were needed to
improve the delivery model of reading intervention at ABC Elementary (pseudonym). I
used tools created by Wagner et al. (2006) to analyze the current structure through the
“AS-IS” chart (Appendix G) and develop a vision for change through the “TO-BE” chart
(Appendix H). Focusing on changes identified in my CLP in terms of context, culture,
conditions, and competencies, I developed strategies and actions that are outlined in my
Strategies and Action Chart (Appendix I). The implementation of these strategies and
actions will address specific improvements required for the delivery of reading
intervention for Students with Disabilities (SWD) to ensure these students make learning
gains and narrow the achievement gap.
Context
The first two strategies I have identified in my chart address the changes that need
to be made in terms of context to improve the delivery of reading intervention services at
ABC Elementary. “You won’t close the implementation gap with another set of three-
ring binders or announcements about the latest initiative” (Reeves, 2009, p. 93). The
focus of these strategies should build upon existing structures that can show visible
recognition of what works. The first strategy is to refine the use of close reading
strategies to support ELA proficiency. This strategy will build upon the work that ABC
Elementary and 123 School District have focused on related to improving reading
achievement. The actions to ensure this strategy is implemented include using the current
structure of District Professional Learning Community (DPLC) team members and the

104
instructional coach to share model lessons during common planning for the ELA block.
The leadership team will periodically review lesson plans to monitor that close reading is
embedded in the reading lessons at each level. The second strategy is to develop a
structure for progress monitoring reading achievement of SWD consistently. The current
computer-adaptive program, i-Ready, will be used to monitor reading achievement. The
i-Ready progress monitoring capability will be used to monitor students in reading after
each diagnostic consistently. The leadership team will review the i-Ready usage reports
weekly and progress monitoring results monthly to monitor student growth.
Culture
My CLP addressed areas of need concerning the culture at ABC Elementary that I
included in my chart as strategies three and four. Strategy three is to create a school-wide
structure for teachers to meet in vertical PLCs. The creation of vertical teams will
include representatives from each grade level. This team structure would enable
discussions across all grade levels on effective reading strategies and practices. “People
who engage in collaborative team learning are able to learn from one another, thus
creating momentum to fuel continued improvement” (DuFour & Eaker, 1998, p. 27).
One Wednesday afternoon a month would be dedicated for teachers to meet in their
vertical teams and collaborate on the implementation of effective strategies during the
reading intervention to support student achievement. The fourth strategy is to develop a
culture of data-driven instructional practices. “Some essential features that enable teams
to harness energy and capitalize on learning include providing adults with relevant data to
analyze” (Drago-Severson, 2009, p. 91). Teachers would need training on how to
analyze data to identify deficit areas effectively. The leadership team would need to

105
provide teachers with time once a month to analyze grade-level data. Analyzing relevant
data reports would be essential for teachers to be able to use the analysis to create tiered
strategies to address deficiencies during the reading intervention block.
Conditions
Certain conditions will need to be present to fully implement my CLP, which I
outline on my chart as strategies five and six. The fifth strategy is to increase the reading
intervention to 45 minutes, four times a week, for 4th
and 5th
-grade students.
Manipulation of the master schedule will provide a consecutive 45-minute block in 4th
and 5th
grades for reading intervention four times a week. The sixth strategy to improve
the conditions related to the delivery of intervention is to provide additional personnel to
support students in the lowest reading intervention block, which includes SWD.
Scheduling will ensure that other staff is pushed into classrooms serving the lowest
reading intervention groups with SWD. The additional personnel can assist in the
classroom so that teachers can target tiered reading skills in small groups. As a building
administrator, I have seen firsthand how teachers can effectively provide tiered reading
intervention to a small group and target a specific skill. This small group instruction can
happen efficiently when extra personnel is in the classroom to support the other students
and minimize the interruptions to the small group instruction. The use of flexible
scheduling for ESE teachers and paraprofessionals will be essential to this strategy so that
they can provide additional support within the select classrooms during the reading
intervention block four times a week.
I identified two areas in my CLP to build teacher competencies that are integrated
into strategies seven and eight on my chart. Strategy seven is to increase teacher expertise

106
in reading instruction. Teachers need to have a deep understanding of foundational
reading skills and how to identify deficits in these skills in struggling readers.
Professional development in foundational reading skills would be provided to build this
competency. Once teachers can adequately identify deficit skills to target, they “must
believe in the relevance of an explicit reading strategy” (Van Keer & Vanderlinde, 2013,
p. 57) to target during the intervention block. Training in foundational reading skills will
increase teachers’ understanding of how to identify deficit reading skills and the
importance of providing specific tiered intervention in these skills to address this deficit.
Extending the knowledge and application of Universal Design for Learning (UDL) is the
eighth strategy to build teachers’ competencies. To ensure that they experience success
in reading, SWD require scaffolds to access the learning. The use of UDL practices and
strategies in lesson planning by teachers can help SWD improve skills and make
meaningful gains. Teachers will need professional development on how to incorporate
UDL strategies into daily instruction. Classroom observation and review of lesson plans
will be a way to monitor teachers’ application of UDL strategies from the training.
Communicating with our parent organizations on how to support all our students through
these inclusive practices will be achieved through curriculum and open house nights.
Conclusion
Through my program evaluation and research on reading intervention for SWD, I
developed a CLP to improve the current delivery model of intervention services at ABC
Elementary. To implement the changes, I noted in my CLP, specific strategies and
actions were developed in terms of the context, culture, conditions, and competencies
needed at ABC Elementary. These changes were noted in my Strategies and Action

107
Chart (Appendix G). The chart serves as a guide on how to use the specific strategy and
accompanied action steps to ensure a successful implementation of the CLP. Using these
strategies and actions as a guide, real progress can be made to close the achievement gap
in reading between SWD and their general education peers.

108
CHAPTER SEVEN
Implications and Policy Recommendations
The results of my program evaluation on reading intervention for students with
disabilities (SWD) at ABC Elementary provided insights on how the school can improve
the current delivery model to assist in narrowing the achievement gap between SWD and
their peers. The data shows that there is a 30% gap in reading proficiency and a 20% gap
in reading learning gains on state assessments between SWD and their peers. Current
state requirements for K-12 Reading intervention require students who have been
identified as deficient readers receive daily intensive intervention. The only stipulation is
that this intervention occurs daily, outside of the 90-minute reading block, and be
conducted in a smaller group setting. Research shows that successful interventions need
more than a small group setting to be effective. DuFour, DuFour, Eaker, and Karhanek
share that “To meet the needs of students, interventions must be timely, directive, and
systematic” (2010, p. 23). To comply with state requirements, 123 School District has
required that reading intervention at the elementary level be scheduled daily for 30
minutes in addition to the 90-minute English Language Arts (ELA) block. My
organizational Change Leadership Plan (CLP) suggests the adoption of a policy by the
state and local districts to extend the required daily intervention services to 45 minutes,
four times a week, in addition to the 90 minute ELA block for students in the
intermediate grades, grades 4th
and 5th
, at the elementary level.
This policy change would support my CLP by focusing on the necessary
conditions of time and support for learning that will ensure that there is a commitment to
learning for all students in line with research findings: “A commitment to learning of

109
each student means additional time and support for learning when he or she struggles”
(DuFour, DuFour, Eaker& Karhanek, 2010, p. 11). The current model of thirty minutes
doesn’t adequately provide additional time for targeted small group support for SWD.
Using state assessment data from third and fourth grades, districts and schools would be
able to adequately identify all students who are showing deficits in reading, including
SWD. This data would be used to accurately schedule a block of 45 minutes four times a
week for identified students in fourth and fifth grades to receive reading intervention
services. The extended time would provide teachers with opportunities to target specific
skills in small groups as well as use the i-Ready computer-adaptive program to positively
impact reading growth for all students and narrow the achievement gap for SWD.
Policy Statement
The policy I am recommending for 123 School District to support schools like
ABC Elementary is one that increases the reading intervention block to 45 minutes, four
days a week for 4th
and 5th
-grade students showing deficiencies in reading. Though
intervention efforts in reading have yielded some positive results at ABC elementary,
there is still a gap in reading proficiency and learning gains between SWD and their
peers. The increase in time support findings from my program evaluation and CLP in
which time consistently is a barrier to adequately providing small group, differentiated,
targeted interventions for students in reading. The policy change would provide
additional time for teachers to work in small groups with students to support their specific
reading needs during the reading intervention. This extra time would provide a structure
for students to use the i-Ready computer-adaptive program to work on deficit skills.

110
Analysis of Needs
The recommended policy to increase the intervention block for fourth and fifth-
grade students in reading will require an analysis of the needs and changes that will be
involved to implement the policy thoroughly as recommended in research: “The link
between the policy environment and classroom instruction is a central issue in the
sociology of education” (Diamond, 2007, p.286). This analysis will include looking at
the policy from the following six distinct disciplinary areas: educational, economic,
social, political, legal, and moral, and ethical. This analysis will allow me to carefully
look at the necessary considerations and changes that will be involved in the full
implementation of the policy.
Educational Analysis. The educational issue related to my policy is the
achievement gap between Students with Disabilities (SWD) and their peers in the area of
reading. A gap in reading achievement is unacceptable for any student as reading is the
core of early education, as stated by Derringer: “mastering reading skills has long been a
core of early education” (Derringer, 2017, p. 60). Participation in specialized
intervention services can assist struggling readers to make gains. My program evaluation
of reading intervention services for SWD at ABC Elementary indicated that the daily 30-
minute reading intervention block is insufficient to provide specialized, small group
support in reading by the general education teacher. The new policy will require the
school’s master schedule to provide fourth and fifth-grade students a 45-minute reading
intervention block four times a week.
Ensuring that SWD make learning gains in reading is the focus of this policy. For
these students to make sufficient gains to narrow the achievement gap, they will require

111
targeted tiered intervention in reading provided in a small group setting. The intervention
block will build on the core and then differentiate the instruction in small groups and
through the i-Ready adaptive computer program to address deficit skills. This practice
will maximize growth: “Building on core teaching and learning practices that are solid,
the intervention can refine them for maximum individual growth” (Tomlinson, 2000,
p.7). The 45-minute block will provide enough time for teachers to rotate through
multiple small student groups to provide direct instruction on targeted skills. In contrast,
the other students work independently on the i-Ready program.
Economic Analysis. This policy change will have an economic impact in two
significant ways. First, it will impact the number of students that receive tutoring services
before school due to their reading performance on state assessments. Currently, school
budgets have a small amount reserved through the Supplemental Academic Instruction
(SAI) component. The amount allocated through SAI usually doesn’t cover the cost of
paying teachers at their hourly rate to provide the small group tutoring support in reading
before school. To keep tutoring groups small and targeting all students below reading in
3rd
, 4th,
and 5th
grades, additional funds must be used from the school’s general funds to
provide this tutoring. Increasing the intervention block to target deficit reading skills for
struggling readers could improve students’ reading performance on state assessments and
reduce the number of students below grade level requiring the tutoring service. Reducing
the number of students requiring tutoring will also save costs because fewer tutors will be

112
required to provide the intervention. This would be a cost-saving to the school since
general funds will not have to be used to cover what the SAI funds doesn’t for tutoring.
A second economic impact the policy would have is the cost of providing
additional professional development for teachers in foundational reading skills. This
training is vital to ensure that teachers can identify deficit skills to target during the
reading intervention block. The increase in time during the intervention block is
designed to allow teachers additional time to meet with students in small groups and
provide tiered intervention. This additional time is in keeping with Lapp, Moss, Grant,
and Johnson’s observation: “Learning to become a skilled, purposeful reader requires the
support of teachers who know how to create focused, personalized, varied, scaffolded,
and motivating learning experiences” (2015, p. 1). Financial resources will have to be
used to provide professional development to teachers through consultants or district
experts on the components of foundational reading skills and how to identify which skills
are deficit when students are struggling to read. Time for professional development will
also be an impact of this policy since it would require a block of time for teachers to
receive the training during their contractual time. Early release Wednesdays at ABC
Elementary allows for the school day to end an hour early to provide time for teachers to
receive professional development. If additional time is needed beyond the hour
designated on early release Wednesdays for teacher training, funds may need to be used
to pay for substitute teachers. Substitute teachers would enable for teachers to attend the
training for a full day during their regular work hours on the school campus.
Social Analysis. The first social implication related to the policy change is the
ability for Students with Disabilities (SWD) to access grade-level curriculum. “Students

113
with disabilities continue to perform well below peers in reading and, as a result, enter
middle school lacking foundational skills necessary to meet grade-level standards” (Cook
and Rao, 2018, p. 179). Providing additional time in reading intervention will allow for
SWD to receive the necessary support they need to improve their foundational reading
skills. Early intervention to narrow the achievement gap in reading will increase SWD’s
success at the secondary level so that they can access grade-level content.
Secondly, the policy change will socially impact teachers’ confidence in
identifying deficit foundational reading skills and effectively implementing an
intervention strategy, as emphasized by Cook and Rao: “Although teachers may provide
accommodations that can support reading fluency for SWD, it is also necessary to
provide specialized instruction to improve deficit areas” (2018, p. 180). The professional
development provided in reading will build teachers’ capacity to identify and to teach
foundational reading skills. The competence will translate to an effective system to
identify and target deficit skills during the intervention block that can positively impact
student achievement for SWD.
Political Analysis. Politically my policy change is associated with ensuring that
SWD have access to the general education curriculum while being provided specialized
instruction to meet their needs. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)
of 2004, reauthorized as the Every Student Succeeds Act in 2015, mandates that these
rights are afforded to these students (U. S. DOE, 2015). Reading intervention is intended
to improve the academic performance of SWD so that they can fully access the general
education curriculum with their peers. The individual needs of students are unique and
growing. Wagner et al. reminds us that “American public education is highly politicized

114
and becoming more so, with constituencies making demands on the politicians and
school board members they elect” (2006, p. 65). State standardized assessments to
monitor student progress and evaluate teacher performance is a reality today and has led
to the continued politicized agenda demanding accountability through standardized
testing. The achievement gap in reading on standardized testing between SWD and their
peers reflects the notion that our schools are not meeting the needs of this population and,
therefore, not complying with the requirements of IDEA.
Legal Analysis. The legal issue related to my policy is the requirements set by the
state to provide students with instructional interventions beyond what is provided
universally in the content area. For example, “The basic elements of the State’s MTSS
are required by the Elementary and Secondary Act (ESEA) and the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)” (Florida Department of Education, 2020). Currently,
the requirement outlines that students receive at least 30 minutes of intervention
academic support outside of the English Language Arts (ELA) block daily. My policy
would increase the intervention requirement by 15 minutes to 45 minutes, four times a
week, and leave the option of continuing for only thirty minutes on Wednesdays due to
early dismissal at ABC Elementary school. The state’s Multi-Tiered System of Support
(MTSS) is meant to be a continuum in which students have access to instruction and
support at varying intensity levels based on need. Increasing the time of the intervention
ensures that the basic tenets of the law and requirements are carried out fluidly and lead
to improved academic outcomes for SWD in reading.
Moral and Ethical Analysis. The moral and ethical implications related to my
policy are that literacy is a civil right. Our SWD have a right to be educated with their

115
peers and be provided supplemental services if needed, to benefit from public education.
The achievement gap in reading between SWD and their general education peers shows
that these students are not making equitable gains. Ravitch reminds us that the gaps have
causes that must be addressed: “We have made genuine progress in narrowing the
achievement gaps, but they will remain large if we do nothing about the causes of gaps”
(2013, p. 55). Currently there are still gaps between general education peers and SWD.
In my program evaluation alone, I noted a 50% gap within ABC Elementary’ s SWD and
general education peers on the state’s standard assessment results for English Language
Arts proficiency. My policy addresses one cause in the reading gap between SWD and
their peers due to the lack of foundational reading skills. Increasing the reading
intervention block to provide tiered support in the deficit skills can assist with increasing
reading proficiency for SWD. When the achievement gap is narrowed, then we can
ensure that all students are making gains and having a positive and equitable experience
from their public education.
Implications for Staff and Community Relationships
The proposed policy will impact the relationships between teachers and staff at
the school level. Changing the master schedule and increasing the intervention block will
require teachers to embrace the need for the increased block of time to provide tiered
support. Assuring teachers that they are doing their job but refining their skills can lead
to more significant gains for all students, needs to be the message of this policy change.
Kotter stated wisely that “New ideas can easily seem to suggest that someone isn’t doing
their job” (2013, p. 117). Teachers and staff will need to be open to improving the
delivery of intervention to support all students. Teachers will need to embrace the

116
challenge of increasing their own foundational reading skills through professional
development so they can effectively identify deficit skills and provide the appropriate
tiered intervention for students.
The community’s relationship and support of the policy will be dependent on
communicating the urgency for the change, as Wagner states: “The first critical step in
creating a community-wide focus on the skills that matter most for students is engaging
in the strategic planning” (2008, p. 274). Communication by school leaders to the
community on how the changes to the master schedule to increase the intervention block
in reading will result in gains for students will be crucial. The strategic planning of the
change should also be communicated with feeder middle schools, which would be
positively impacted by the policy. Ensuring that students leave the elementary setting as
confident and proficient readers will minimize the number of students that will need to be
enrolled in reading remediation classes instead of electives at the secondary level.
The other stakeholder relationships that the policy will impact is our parents.
Having the support and engagement of parents is vital to any school initiative. I have
experienced firsthand working with my parent organizations how this support can lead to
increased resources and assistance with communicating the message to other parents at
large. Educating parents on the urgency for the change and sharing that there is a plan to
address the intervention for deficit skills while allowing on grade level students to work
on enrichment skills will be critical. Once parents understand how the policy can
increase reading proficiency for SWD and strengthen reading for all students across the
board, leading to the school’s increased reading scores on the state assessment, they will
support the policy. Proficiency in English Language Arts (ELA) impacts a school’s

117
rating on the state’s accountability system. For schools like ABC Elementary to keep
their high achieving rating, they must continue to show proficiency and learning gains in
ELA. Having this status affects the community’s real estate and economic growth, which
would be important to community members and parents.
Conclusion
The policy change proposed is based on results from my program evaluation on
reading intervention for students with disabilities (SWD). For SWD to make gains to
narrow the achievement gap, they will require intensive targeted support during the
reading intervention block. Intensive targeted support during the intervention block will
require extended time in the master schedule and additional personnel to support small
group instruction. Teachers will need to be provided professional development in
foundational reading skills to build their capacity to identify and target deficit reading
skills adequately. The community will need to be engaged so they can understand the
benefits of the policy to students at the secondary level and support it. More proficient
readers at the elementary level will result in a decrease of remedial classes needed to be
offered at the secondary level. This would allow students to take electives and participate
in career and technical programs. Public schools have the moral and ethical
responsibility to ensure that all students are provided with free and equitable education.
Our SWD should be provided with specialized instruction to meet their individual needs.
This policy can ensure increased gains for SWD and successful outcomes in reading for
all students.

118
CHAPTER EIGHT
Conclusion
The problem at the center of my program evaluation is that the current delivery of
intervention support for Students with Disabilities (SWD) in the fourth and fifth-grade
classrooms at ABC Elementary is not yielding adequate results to close the achievement
gap. The analysis of research allowed me to examine successful elements of reading
intervention for SWD and identify components of a delivery model that produced
effective outcomes. Schools and teachers must ensure that all students are provided with
the support necessary to grow in reading. Reading is a life skill that all students will need
to be productive members of society. Developing a delivery model that produces
successful outcomes for all students should be a priority for our schools.
Discussion
The purpose of my program evaluation of reading intervention services for SWD
was to identify a delivery model that would lead to improved outcomes in reading for
these students to close the achievement gap successfully. The goals of the evaluation
included identifying an effective delivery model that could be implemented during the
reading intervention block by the general education teacher as well as effective strategies
and resources that can lead to high gains in student achievement. The process I used to
address my program evaluation goals was to review literature, collect data through
teacher surveys, teacher interviews, and review student data on state assessments and i-
Ready Diagnostics for SWD. My findings revealed that addressing time in the schedule
and using materials that provided a multi-component of reading elements could be

119
structured to develop a reading intervention model that could yield increased results for
all students.
I created a Change Leadership Plan (CLP) based on my program evaluation and
research to address the context, culture, conditions, and competencies needed in the
delivery of reading intervention services at ABC Elementary. The context of my plan
showed that there was a gap in English Language Arts (ELA) proficiency and learning
gains between SWD and their peers. My plan focused on English Language Arts (ELA)
instruction for all students as a priority to address this gap adequately. Focused
instruction on ELA instruction at ABC Elementary would be achieved through the
continued use of The District Professional Learning Communities structure, in which
grade level experts received training on strategies to improve reading comprehension.
The strategies were then shared with individual teachers at each grade level so that
effective and common reading strategies would be used at ABC Elementary.
My CLP addressed the culture needed to ensure that ELA proficiency was a focus
of planning instruction. This would be achieved through the use of vertical Professional
Learning Communities (PLC). Meeting in vertical teams would provide an opportunity
for teachers to engage in data to drive planning related to school-wide needs instead of
grade-level needs. This structure would also provide a dedicated time once a month
during PLC Wednesdays, in which teachers could collaborate with other grade-level
teams. Early student release on Wednesday allows an additional hour for teachers to use
for professional development, grade-level PLC meetings, and planning. This structure
can be used to designate one Wednesday a month for vertical PLC meetings.

120
The conditions needed to provide effective reading intervention to SWD would
require additional time in the master schedule. My CLP addresses the barrier of not
enough time in the master schedule to provide reading intervention for SWD by
extending the intervention block to 45 minutes, four times a week for fourth and fifth-
grade students. This additional 15 minutes to the existing 30-minute block can be
structured by addressing Social Studies Standards during the ELA block, thus providing
the extra time in the schedule that is typically dedicated to the Social Studies block. The
extended time during the intervention block will enable teachers to differentiate
instruction and target skills in small groups. In the extended time, SWD would
participate in 15-minute rotations between independent skills, direct teaching in small
groups by the teacher, and use of the i-Ready computer-adaptive program to address
deficit skills.
My CLP plan outlines the competencies that teachers will need to instruct
struggling readers. The focus on elements of foundational reading skills and planning for
SWD through the use of Universal Design for Learning (UDL) strategies would be a
priority. By becoming competent in instructing and assessing students in the elements of
foundational reading, teachers would be able to identify deficit skills and provide targeted
intervention. Understanding how to plan and create a learning environment using UDL
strategies can help teachers scaffold instruction to meet the needs of their SWD. My CLP
addressed the context, culture, conditions, and competencies to close the proficiency and
learning gain gap between SWD and their peers. The extension of the reading
intervention block is a critical component of my CLP that led to my suggested policy for
123 School District.

121
My recommended policy for 123 School District to support targeted reading
intervention for SWD at the elementary level is to increase the reading intervention block
from 30-minutes to 45 minutes four times a week for fourth and fifth-grade students
showing a deficit in reading. ABC Elementary would have to adjust the master schedule
to build in the additional time. This adjustment can be made by integrating the Social
Studies Standards during the ELA block, freeing up the time dedicated for Social Studies
on the master schedule. The increase in time would afford general education teachers the
ability to provide small group instruction and rotate students through the i-Ready
computer-adaptive program to work on deficit skills. This policy would allow SWD to
receive the intensive targeted support in reading to make gains and close the achievement
gap.
123 School District should adopt a plan in which the Social Studies standards and
content are embedded in the two hours of the ELA block. This would ensure that schools
have an additional thirty minutes in the master schedule in which to extend the
intervention block for fourth and fifth-grade students. This extra time would enable
schools to structure a 45-minute reading intervention block, four times a week, to address
deficit reading skills and close the achievement gap for SWD.
Leadership Lessons
The process of conducting my program evaluation allowed me to gain valuable
leadership lessons and insights into my leadership skills. The first leadership lesson
learned is that the ability to read and comprehend text is a complex skill. My research of
literature on components of effective reading intervention programs for SWD allowed me
to gain insight into the foundational elements of reading instruction. It also showed me

122
how critical the direct, small group instruction provided by the teacher could be for
students. To accurately identify deficit skills in struggling readers, teachers must
understand the elements of foundational reading instruction. Once a month, one early
release Wednesday will be dedicated to professional development at ABC Elementary
with a focus on foundational elements of reading instruction. The district’s elementary
reading resource teacher and the school’s reading coach would provide the training for
teachers and structure application and practice. The following month a follow-up
training of the introduced strategies would be provided to allow participants to share what
strategies they used and the results through data. The reading coach would conduct
classroom observations to provide feedback to teachers on how strategies could be
incorporated during the intervention and small group instruction. The first three months
of the school year would focus on providing professional development in foundational
reading skills. This understanding would allow teachers to target specific skills and
provide targeted instruction effectively. Knowledge of Universal Design of Learning
(UDL) as a teacher and how to plan effectively to meet the needs of Students with
Disabilities is essential for teachers to meet the needs of all their students. During
preplanning, the staffing specialist and exceptional education teacher will provide an
overview of UDL. They will provide resources and strategies for how to plan for and
create an inclusive classroom environment—doing this overview before the school year
starting is vital so that teachers can prepare their classroom space and lessons to support
SWD. As a building administrator, I have to provide the necessary professional
development for my teachers in foundational reading skills and strategies related to the
Universal Design of Learning. This training would assist teachers in providing instruction

123
and supporting SWD needs adequately. I would use general funds to pay for substitute
teachers to give a half-day training during the instructional day. I would schedule district
resource reading coaches and program specialists to commit to two full days of training
on my campus. This would allow me to do a morning and afternoon session of about 25
teachers and use a full day substitute to cover both sessions. I would schedule a fall
training and follow up spring training to provide for opportunities for the safe practice of
strategies for a couple of months by classroom teachers. I would use a combination of
district digital resources already created by our district on UDL and a review of strategies
and implementation by the staffing specialist and MTSS coach during a Wednesday
afternoon reserved for professional development to support teachers in the
implementation of these strategies.
The second leadership lesson I learned is how much the structure and time
designated for the reading intervention block can impact the delivery of instruction.
Feedback from teacher surveys and interviews noted the time as a significant barrier for
teachers’ in their ability to provide tiered interventions in small groups for their SWD
during the reading intervention block. I learned that in my role as an administrator, I
could remove this barrier if I create a master schedule that provides additional time in the
reading intervention block for 4th
and 5th
-grade students at least four times a week.
Integrating Social Studies standards during the English Language Arts block (ELA)
would create extra time in the master schedule. Social Studies texts provide a unique
opportunity for students to be engaged in reading non-fiction content during the block.
Additionally, the use of Document Based Questions (DBQ) answered through the
use of historical documents provided opportunities for students to also write during the

124
ELA block related to the Social Studies Standards. Schools should look at opportunities
to integrate subjects in meaningful ways to make connections for students. The use of
DBQ type lessons provides a structure for Social Studies Standards to be integrated
during the ELA block. Districts already provide DBQ training for teachers in fourth and
fifth grade in 123 School District. Ensuring that all fourth and fifth-grade teachers at
ABC Elementary receive the training in DBQ would provide the framework and expertise
to integrate these lessons during the ELA block. The integration of these subjects would
give additional time in the master schedule, usually dedicated to Social Studies
instruction. This additional thirty-minutes a day can be used to extend the intervention
time for fourth and fifth-grade students to 45-minutes. This time is crucial to enable
teachers to provide targeted support in small groups to students to ensure struggling
readers make learning gains.
As a leader, this program evaluation has shown me the benefits of doing research
and how the data collected can be used to develop a Change Leadership Plan (CLP). As
a leader, I developed skills to help me address systematic change in my school building
by looking at the context, conditions, culture, and competencies of the school and its
teachers. I also learned that a well- developed CLP can be used as a roadmap to enact
real change for an identified problem by a school leader. In the case of my program
evaluation, developing a plan that can potentially improve the delivery of reading
intervention services for all students and help close the achievement gap for my SWD is a
worthy pursuit.

125
Conclusion
By evaluating the delivery of reading intervention for SWD, I was able to use the
results from the study to make recommendations for ABC Elementary on how to improve
the services for these students. I was also able to guide school leaders on how to
implement a CLP and advocate for a specific policy that could benefit all struggling
readers. As a leader, I gained valuable insights on how critical the role of teaching
particular foundational reading skills is for all children at the elementary level. I also
reaffirmed my belief that as school-based administrators, we must advocate for SWD. In
other words, being equitable may mean providing more for this group of students.
Addressing the significant themes that emerged from my evaluation resulted in
making recommendations to the structure in which reading intervention services should
be provided to yield effective results. A policy directed at increasing the reading
intervention block to 45-minutes would offer additional time for targeted support by the
teacher through the use of a small group structure. Specific strategies and actions related
to the CLP provide the “how” for school leaders to support reading instruction for all
students in a systematic manner. Ensuring that all students receive explicit reading
instruction to make reading gains should be a priority for every school.
Struggling readers must receive targeted tiered support to address deficit skills. In
the case of SWD, the structure and delivery of the interventions are crucial since reading
affects every other school activity. “A child who does not learn to read well will find it
almost impossible to be successful in school or the workplace” (Forness, Kavale, Blum,
& Lloyd, 1997, p.4). Our public-school system has a moral obligation to ensure that all
students, regardless of their disability, become literate and contributing members of our
society.

126
References
Afacan, K., Wilkerson, K. L., & Ruppar, A. L. (2018). Multicomponent reading
interventions for students with disability. Remedial and Special Education, 39(4),
229-242. doi: 10.1177/0741932517702444
Ansell, S. (2011, July 7). Achievement gap. Education Week. Retrieved July 7, 2020
from http://www.edweek.org/ew/issues/achievement-gap/
Antoniou, F., & Souvignier, E. (2007). Strategy instruction in reading comprehension:
An intervention study for students with learning disabilities. Learning
Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 5(1), 41-57
Austin, C. R., Vaughn, S., & McClelland, A. (2017). Intensive reading interventions for
inadequate responders in grades K-3. Learning Disability Quarterly, 40(4), 191-
210.
Boudett, K. P., City, E. A., & Murnane, R. J. (2013). Data wise: A step-by-step guide to
using assessment results to improve teaching and learning. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard Educational Press.
Castillo, W. L. (2011). Repeated reading to improve oral fluency of adolescents with
learning disabilities. National Teacher Education Journal, 4(4), 35-41.
Carroll, S. R. & Carroll, D. J. (2002). Statistics made simple for school leaders.
Lanham, Maryland: Scarecrow Education.
Ceraso, J. (1967). The interference theory of forgetting: A classical hypothesis about
forgetting is that learning some things tends to make on forget others. Science
American, 217(4), 117-121.

127
Chard, D. J., Vaugh, S., & Tyler, B. J. (2002). A synthesis of research on effective
interventions for building reading fluency with elementary students with learning
disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35(5), 386-406.
Charo, D. J., Ketterlin-Geller, L. R., Baker, S. K., Doabler, C., & Apichatabutra, C.
(2009). Repeated reading interventions for students with learning disabilities:
Status of the evidence. Council of Exceptional Children, 75(3), 263-281.
Ciullo, S., Lo, Y. S., Wanzek, J., & Reed, D. K. (2016). A synthesis of research on
informational text reading interventions for elementary students with learning
disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 49(3), 257-271.
Clay, M. M. (1993). An observation survey of early literacy awareness. Portsmouth,
NH: Heinemann.
Cook, S. C., & Rao, K. (2018). Systematically applying UDL to effective practices for
students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 41(3), 179-91.
Cunningham, P., Hall, D.P, & Heggie, T. (2001). Making words, grades 1-3.
Greensboro, NC: Carson-Dellosa Publishing LLC
Curriculum Associates. I-Ready. Retrieved (2020) from
https://ireadycentral.com/articles/getting- the-most-from-online-
instruction/?utm_source=Pendo
Curriculum Associates. (2020). Language Arts state standard book. Retrieved from
https://www.curriculumassociates.com/products/ready/reading-ela
DBQ Project. (2020) The DBQ project. Retrieved from https://www.dbqproject.com/
Derringer, N. (2017). Addressing low reading scores with a tight focus on strategies that
worked. Educational Digest, 83(1), 59-64.

128
Diamond, J. B. (2007). Where the rubber meets the road: Rethinking the connection
between high stakes accountability policy and classroom instruction. Sociology
of Education, 80(4), 285-313.
Drago-Severson, E. (2009). Leading adult learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
DuFour, R., DuFouor, R., Eaker, R. & Karhanek, G. (2010). Raising the bar and closing
the gap: Whatever it takes. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree
DuFour, R., & Eaker, R. (1998). Professional learning communities at work: Best
practices for enhancing student achievement. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree
Florida Department of Eduction. (2020). Florida’s Multi-Tiered System of Support
(MTSS). Retrieved from http://www.florida-rti.org/floridaMTSS/mtf.htm
Fluke, S., O’Connor, A., Hoff, N., & Peterson, R. L. (2014, September). Academic
support, strategy brief. Lincoln, NE: Student Engagement Project, University of
Nebraska-Lincoln and the Nebraska Department of Education. Retrieved from
http://k12engagement.unl.edu/academic-supports.
Fomess, S. R., Kavale, K. A., Blum, I. M., & Lloyd, J. W. (1997). Mega-analysis of
meta-analysis. Teaching Exceptional Children, 29(6), 4-7.
Fountas, I.C., & Pinnel, G.S. (1996). Guided reading. Good first teaching for all
children. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann
Fullan, M. (2008). The six secrets of change: What the best leaders do to help their
orgtanizations survive and thrive. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc.
Glatthorin, A., Boschee, F., Whitehead, B., & Boschee, B. (2016). Curriculum
leadership: Strategies for development and implementation. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications

129
Gomaa, O. M. K. (2015). The effect of reciprocal teaching intervention strategy on
reading comprehension skills of 5th
grade elementary school students with
reading disabilities. International Journal of Psycho-Educational Services, 4(2),
39-45.
Guzel-Ozmen, R. (2011). Evaluating the effectiveness of combined reading
interventions on improving oral reading fluency of students with reading
disabilities. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 9(3),
1063-1086.
Haegele, K., & Burns, M. K. (2015). Effect of modifying intervention set size with
acquisition rate data among students identified with a learning disability.
Journal of Behavioral Education, 24(1), 33-50. doi: 10.1007/s10864-9201-0
Hill, D. (2016). Phonics based reading interventions for students with intellectual
disability: A systematic literature review. Journal of Education and Training
Studies, 4(5), 205-214. doi: 10.11114/jets.v4i5.1472
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Retrieved from U.S. Department of
Education. Retrieved from https://sites.ed.gov/idea/
Kang, E. Y., McKenna, J. W., Arden, S., & Ciullo, S. (2015). Integrated reading and
writing interventions for students with learning disabilities: A review of the
literature. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 31(1), 22-33.
Kim, M. K., Bryant, D.P., Bryant, B. R., & Park, Y. (2017). A synthesis of interventions
for improving oral reading fluency of elementary students with learning
disabilities. Preventing School Failure, 61(2), 116-125.
Kotter, J. P. (2013). Buy in: Saving your good idea from getting shot down. Boston,

130
MA: Harvard Business Review Press
Lapp, D., Moss, B., Grant, M., & Johnson, K. (2015). A close look at close reading:
Teaching students to analyze complex texts. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Leavy, P. (2017). Research Design. New York: The Guiliford Press
Legere, E. J., & Conca, L. M. (2010). Response to intervention by a child with a severe
reading disability: A case study. Teaching Exceptional Children, 43(1), 32-39.
Logan, G. D. (1988). Toward an instance theory of automatization. Psychological
Review, 95(4), 492-527. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-
295X.95.4.492
Marzano, R. J. (2007). The art and science of teaching. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum.
Marzano, R. J., Pickering, D. J., & Pollock, J. E. (2004). classroom instruction that
works: Research-based strategies for increasing student achievement.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development
McMaster, K. L., Espin, C. A., & van den Broek, P. (2014). Making connections:
Linking cognitive psychology and intervention research to improve
comprehension
of struggling readers. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 29(1), 17-24.
Mesmer, H. A. (2020). There are four foundational reading skills. Why do we only talk
about phonics? Education Week, 39(4), 23.
Murphy, J. (2016). Creating instructional capacity: A framework for creating academic
press. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin

131
Narkon, D. E., & Wells, J. C. (2013). Improving reading comprehension for elementary
students with learning disabilities: UDL enhanced story mapping. Preventing
School Failure, 57(4), 231-239.
National Center for Education Statistics. Students with disabilities.
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cgg.asp
National Center on Intensive Intervention. (2013). Implementing intensive intervention:
Lessons learned from the field. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education
Office. https://intensiveintervention.org/sites/default/files/Lessons_Learned_From
_Field_0.pdf
National Center on Universal Design for Learning at CAST. UDL Framework. Retrieved
from http://www.cast.org/our-work/about-
udl.html?utm_source=udlguidelines&utm_medium=web&utm_campaign=none&
utm_content=homepage
O’Conner, R. E., White, A., Swanson, H. L. (2007). Repeated reading versus continuous
reading: Influences on reading fluency and comprehension. Council for
Exceptional Children, 31-46. Retrieved: September 29, 2007 from Education
Full Text (WILSON)
Patton, M. Q. (2008). Utilization focused evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications, Inc.
Perfetti, C. A. (1988). Verbal efficiency in reading ability. In M. Daneman, G. E.
Mackinnon, & T. G. Waller (Eds.), Reading research: Advances in theory and
practice, 6, 109-143. San Diego, CA, US: Academic Press.

132
Pearson Assessment. (2020). Diagnostic reading assessment. Retrieved from
https://www.pearsonassessments.com/store/usassessments/en/Store/Professional-
Assessments/Academic-Learning/Reading/Developmental-Reading-Assessment-
%7C-Second-Edition-PLUS/p/100001222.html
Ransford-Kaldon, C., Flynt, E., Ross, C., Franceschini, L., Zoblotsky, T., Hauang, Y.,
and Gallager, B. (2010). Implementation of effective intervention: An empirical
study to evaluate the efficacy of Fountas & Pinnell’s leveled literacy intervention
system (LLI). Retrieved from University of Memphis, Center for Research in
Education Policy:
https://www.memphis.edu/crep/pdfs/publications/lli_efficacy_wo_appendices_ac
cessible_10_29_18.pdf
Ravitch, D. (2013). Reign of error: The hoax of the privatization movement and the
danger to America’s public schools. New York, NY: Vintage Books.
Rapp, D. N., Broek, P. V. D., McMaster, K. L., Kendeou, P., & Espin, C. A. (2007).
Higher-order comprehension processes in struggling readers: A perspective for
research and intervention. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11(4), 289-312
Reeves, D. B. (2009). Leading change in your school: How to conquer myths, build
commitment, and get results. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
Seder, E. (2014). What’s so special about special education. Retrieved from
https://napacenter.org/whats-so-special-about-special-education/
Stevens, E. A., Walker, M. A., & Vaughn, S. (2017). The effects of reading fluency
interventions on the reading fluency and reading comprehension performance of

133
elementary students with learning disabilities: A synthesis of research from 2001-
2014. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 50(5), 576-590.
Swanson, H. L. (1999). Reading research for students with LD: A meta-analysis of
intervention outcomes. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32(6), 505-532.
Tomlinson, C. A. (2000). Reconcilable differences? Standards-based teaching and
differentiation. Educational Leadership, 58(1), 6-11.
Tomlinson, C. A. (2017). What is differentiated instruction? Reading Rockets. Retrieved
from http://readingrockets.org/article/what-differentiated-instruction
U. S. Department of Education. (2015). Reauthorization of the IDEA 2004 through IDEA
Public Law 114-95 (Every Student Succeeds Act). Retrieved from
https://sites.ed.gov/idea/statuteregulations/
U. S. Department of Education. (2010). 29th annual report to Congress on the
implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 2007.
Washington, D. C.: Author.
Van Keer, H., & Vanderlinde, R. (2013). A book for two: Explicitly taught reading
comprehension strategies paired with peer tutoring can boost reading skills for
elementary students. Phi Delta Kappan, 94(8), 54-58.
Vaughn, S., Denton, C. A., & Fletcher J. M. (2010). Why intensive interventions are
necessary for students with severe reading difficulties. Psychology in the Schools,
47(5), 432-444.
Vaughn, S., Hughes, M. T., Moody, S. W., & Elbaum, B. (2001). Instructional grouping
for reading for students with LD: Implications for practice. Intervention in
Schools and Clinic, 36(3), 131-137.

134
Vaughn, S., & Wanzek, J. (2014). Intensive interventions in reading for students with
reading disabilities: Meaningful impacts. Learning Disabilities Research &
Practice, 29(2), 46-53.
Wagner, T. (2008). The global achievement gap. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Wagner, T., Kegan, R., Lahev, L., Lemons, R. W., Garnier, J., Helsing, D., Howell, A.,
& Rasmussen, H. T. (2006). Change leadership: A practical guide to
transforming our schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Wanzek, J., & Cavanaugh, C. (2010). Characteristics of general education reading
interventions implemented in elementary schools for students with reading
difficulties. Remedial and Special Education, 33(3), 192-202.
Wanzek, J., & Kent, S. (2012). Reading interventions for students with learning
disabilities in the upper elementary grades. Learning Disabilities: A
Contemporary Journal, 10(1), 5-16.

135
Appendices
Appendix A: Teacher Survey Invitation……………………………………………..136
Appendix B: Teacher Survey…………………………………………………………137
Appendix C: Teacher Interview Invitation………………………………………….140
Appendix D: Teacher Interview ……………………………………………………..141
Appendix E: AS IS 4C’s Analysis……………………………………………………143
Appendix F: TO BE 4C’s Analysis…………………………………………………..144
Appendix G: Strategies and Actions Chart…………………………………………145

136
Appendix A
Teacher Survey Invitation
Dear Participant,
I invite you to participate in my National-Louis University doctoral research study
regarding the Evaluation of Reading Intervention Programs for Students with Disabilities
(SWD).
The enclosed survey has been designed to collect information on the current delivery
model of reading intervention services provided to SWD at our school.
Your participation in the research study is completely voluntary. You may decline
altogether or leave blank any questions you don’t wish to answer. There are no known
risks to participation beyond those encountered in everyday life. Your responses will
remain confidential and anonymous. Data from this research will be kept under lock and
key and reported only as a collective combined total.
If you agree to participate in this study, please answer the questions on the survey as best
you can. It should only take approximately 10 minutes to complete and should not
interfere with instructional time. Please sign and return one Informed Consent Form in
the envelope marked “Consent” to the labeled box in the front office work room. Once
you have completed the survey, place the completed survey in the envelope marked
“Survey” to the labeled box in the front office work room. Keep a copy the extra copy of
the Informed Consent Form for your records.
Thank you for your assistance in this research study. I appreciate your feedback.
Sincerely.
Diana Greer

137
Appendix B
Teacher Survey on Intervention Instruction in Reading for Students with
Disabilities (SWD)
Use the scale below to respond to the following statements:
strongly
disagree
disagree neither
agree or
disagree
agree strongly
agree
1. Intervention support for SWD in
reading yields positive results.
2. The i-Ready computer adaptive
program provides beneficial
support and practice in reading
skills for SWD.
3. There is adequate time in the
schedule to provide intervention
support in reading for SWD.
4. Reading intervention in reading is
provided in small groups of six to
eight students.
5. I have the resources I need to
provide effective reading
intervention to SWD.
6. Resource materials from
Curriculum Associates are effective
in providing intervention to SWD.

138
7. I have received adequate
professional development on how
to provide reading intervention to
SWD.
8. I have participated in professional
development on how to provide
differentiated instruction for SWD.
9. There are challenges in
differentiating instruction for SWD
in reading.
10. I have appropriate reading
materials and text to scaffold
instruction for SWD.
11. I would like additional professional
development on specific strategies
in reading to support my SWD.
Provide a short written response to the following questions:
12. What is working well with the current intervention services in reading for SWD?
13. What is not working well with the current intervention services in reading for SWD?

139
14. What is the greatest challenge in the current intervention services in reading for
SWD?
15. What are ways to address the challenges in the current intervention services in
reading for SWD?
16. What are ways to improve the intervention program for SWD?
17. What instructional resources would assist you with reading intervention instruction
for SWD?
18. What professional development would assist you with reading intervention
instruction for SWD?
19. Is there anything else you would like to share about the SWD program?

140
Appendix C
Teacher Interview Invitation
Dear Participant,
I invite you to participate in my National-Louis University doctoral research study
regarding the Evaluation of Reading Intervention Programs for Students with Disabilities
(SWD).
My project will address the process of which reading intervention services are provided
to SWD and how it impacts our school. I will use the data I collect to understand the
current delivery model of reading intervention services for SWD and findings that may
lead to providing effective specialized intervention support and resources to SWD. I
would like to interview you in regards to your thoughts on the reading intervention
services at our school.
You may participate in this study by signing this consent form indicating that you
understand the purpose of the interview and agree to participate in one 30-minute
interview, with possibly up to 5 email exchanges in order clarify any questions I may
have regarding your interview data. I will audio tape and transcribe the interviews. All
information collected in the interviews reflects your experience and opinion as a teacher
providing reading instruction to SWD.
If you agree to participate in this interview, return this invitation with selected days of the
week and times below that will be convenient to schedule the interview. Return the
interview invitation in the provided envelope labeled “interview times” to the labeled box
located in the front office work room. Please sign and return one Informed Consent Form
in the envelope marked “Consent” to the labeled box in the front office work room. Keep
a copy the extra copy of the Informed Consent Form for your records.
Thank you for your assistance in this research study. I appreciate your feedback.
Sincerely,
Diana Greer

141
Appendix D
Teacher Interview Questions on
Intervention Programs in Reading for Students with Disabilities (SWD)
Questions Research Notes
1. Please describe why or why not you feel
the current intervention support for SWD
in reading is yielding positive results?
2. Please describe why or why not you feel
there Is adequate time in the schedule to
provide intervention support in reading for
SWD?
3. Is reading intervention provided in small
groups of six to eight students? How well
is this working, or not working? If it is
not, should it be? Why or why not?
4. What is working well with the current
intervention services in reading for
SWD?
5. What is not working well with the
current intervention services in reading
for SWD?

142
6. What is the greatest challenge in the
current intervention services in reading
for SWD?
7. What are ways to address the challenges
in the current intervention services in
reading for SWD?
8. What are ways to improve the
intervention program for SWD?
9. What instructional resources would
assist you with reading intervention
10. Is there a particular intervention program
that you’ve had experience with that you
feel would benefit SWD?
11. What professional development would
assist you with reading intervention
12. Is there anything else you would like to
discuss today about SWD support
services?

143
Context
• School has been designated as a School of
Excellence by the state department of education
• SWD comprise 20% of enrollment
• District is focusing on English Language Arts
proficiency
• Gap in ELA proficiency and learning gains
between SWD and general education peers
Conditions
• Thirty minute time block in master
schedule for intervention
• Delivery of intervention by general
education teachers
• Lowest intervention group has weekly
push in paraprofessional support and
ESE teacher support during
intervention
Culture
• Teachers meet in grade level
Professional Learning Communities
monthly to collaborate on lesson
plans
• Common and collaborative planning
by teams for the ELA block
• Targeted grouping for intervention
across all grade levels
Competencies
• Lack of teacher training and expertise on specific reading
strategies to support struggling readers
• Limited Collaboration with ESE teachers to assist with
differentiated instruction
• Limited teacher understanding of Universal Design for
Learning to support ESE students
Appendix E
AS IS 4 C’s Analysis for Evaluation of Reading Intervention Programs for Students
with Disabilities
Intervention
support for
SWD in
reading helps
to close the
achievement
gap

144
Context
• School has been designated as a School of
Excellence by the state department of education
• SWD comprise 20% of enrollment
• District is focusing on English Language Arts
proficiency
• Decreased gap in ELA proficiency and learning
gains between SWD and peers
Conditions
•Forty-Five minute time block
in master schedule for
intervention in 4th
and 5th
grade
•Delivery of intervention by
general and ESE teachers
•Lowest intervention group has
daily push in paraprofessional
support and ESE teacher
support during intervention
Culture
• Teachers meet in vertical
Professional Learning Communities
monthly to collaborate on lesson
plans
• Common and collaborative planning
by teams for the ELA block
includes intervention planning
• Targeted grouping for intervention
across all grade levels is fluid and
data based
Competencies
• Teachers gain expertise through training on
specific reading strategies to support struggling
readers
• Teachers collaborate monthly with ESE teachers
to assist with differentiated instruction for SWD
• Teachers are provided on-going Professional
Development on Universal Design for Learning
Appendix F
TO BE 4 C’s Analysis for Evaluation of Reading Intervention Programs for
Students with Disabilities
Intervention
support for
SWD in
reading is not
closing the
achievement
gap

145
Appendix G
Strategies and Actions Chart
Context Strategies Actions
1. Refine the use of close
reading strategies to
support the ELA
proficiency.
2. Develop a structure for
progress monitoring
reading achievement of
SWD consistently.
• DPLC team members
and instructional coach
will share model lessons
and facilitate common
planning for ELA.
• Administration will
review lesson plans to
ensure that close reading
strategies are embedded
in reading lessons.
• i-Ready progress
monitoring in reading
will be scheduled for all
SWD after each
diagnostic.
• Administration will
review i-Ready usage
reports weekly and
progress monitoring
results monthly.
Culture Strategies Actions
3. Create a school-wide
structure for teachers to
meet in vertical PLCs.
4. Develop a culture of
data-driven instructional
practices.
• Create vertical teams that
include representatives from
each grade level.
• Provide time once a month
on Wednesday afternoon for
teachers to meet in vertical
PLCs to align strategies and
instruction.
• Train teachers on how to
effectively analyze data to
identify deficit areas.
• Provide teachers with time
once a month to analyze
grade level data and create
tiered strategies to address
deficiencies.
Condition Strategies Actions

146
5. Increase intervention to
45 minutes for 4th
and 5th
grade students.
6. Provide additional
personnel to support the
lowest reading
intervention blocks with
SWD.
• The master schedule will
be manipulated to
provide intermediate
grades with 45 minutes
of reading intervention
four times a week.
• Provide additional
personnel to the lowest
reading intervention
classrooms so that
teachers can conduct
intervention in small
groups.
• Use flexible scheduling
for ESE teachers and
paraprofessionals so that
they can push in to select
classrooms during the
reading intervention
block four times a week.
Competencies Strategies Actions
7. Increase teacher
expertise in reading
instruction.
8. Extend teachers’
understanding and
application of Universal
Design for Learning
(UDL).
• Develop professional
development for teachers
in foundational reading
skills.
• Develop professional
development for teachers
on how to incorporate
UDL strategies in daily
instruction.

Evaluation of Reading Intervention Programs for Students with Dis.pdf

More Related Content

Similar to Evaluation of Reading Intervention Programs for Students with Dis.pdf (19)

More from Reynaldo Calo (8)

Recently uploaded (20)

Evaluation of Reading Intervention Programs for Students with Dis.pdf