Abstract
Recent advances concerning emerging/beginning reading skills, positive behavioral support, and 3-tiered school-wide prevention models (i.e., primary, secondary, and tertiary levels) combined with federal mandates (i.e., IDEA and No Child Left Behind) have stimulated interest in providing early and intensive instructional intervention services to children at risk for reading and behavior problems. Making this possible are new measures for identifying young students as early as kindergarten who are not acquiring early basic literacy skills. However, questions regarding exactly how to formulate, deliver, sustain, and manage secondary-level interventions remain to be addressed. This paper describes first-year, 1st grade findings for students participating in secondary-level interventions (i.e., small group reading instruction) in a randomized trial of the efficacy of secondary and tertiary reading and behavior interventions underway at the Center for Early Intervention in Reading and Behavior, University of Kansas. The formulation of the experimental secondary-level intervention was guided by evidence supporting the efficacy of small groups of 3-6 participating students and low student teacher ratio combined with (b) explicit, phonics-based instruction. Selected curricula were Reading Mastery, Proactive Reading, Programmed Reading, and Read Well, use of which varied by choice across experimental group schools. Positive Behavioral Support (PBS) was an additional intervention context in experimental schools. Control schools and first grade teachers did not employ the 3-tiered model nor early screening nor PBS; and most students were taught using conventional whole-group instruction, little/no individualization, and curricula with weak scientific evidence. Initial results indicate significantly larger growth for experimental secondary-level at risk students compared to controls. Experimental group first graders not showing growth were those identified with disabilities, behavioral risks, and English Language Learners. Implications are discussed.
Previous Page | Next Page
(Table of Contents) | (Introduction)
