Chapter 5 – Planning and Implementing Literacy Intervention

There has long been debate about the best way to teach literacy skills to children in U.S. Public Schools (National Council of Teachers of English, 2021). The debate, and the impassioned feelings on all sides, reflect a shared belief that literacy skills are foundational to a productive adult life and shared concerns about the development of literacy skills for our nation’s youth. The concern is supported by many years of data. Most recently, results from the 2022 National Assessment of Educational Progress indicate that 37% of fourth graders and 30% of eighth graders perform below basic levels in reading proficiency (National Center for Education Statistics, 2023). Further, there is on-going evidence that prevailing instructional practices are often ineffective at meeting the needs of students from low socioeconomic backgrounds and minoritized racial identities, as well as those who are emergent bilingual/multilingual learners (Shanahan, 2021). Of particular importance to the discussion of literacy intervention, many of the 7.5 million children who receive special education have disabilities that impact their ability to efficiently decode and/or comprehend printed text (National Center for Education Statistics, 2024). These include learners with Specific Learning Disabilities, Other Health Impairments, Speech Language Impairments, Intellectual Disabilities, and other disability categories served under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. All students benefit from high-quality instruction guided by research-driven understanding of how literacy skills develop. Students with disabilities and others who have reading difficulties require high-quality, targeted intervention that is grounded in research.

The Science of Reading

Although the phrase “science of reading” describes over 200 years of research about how individuals acquire reading skills (Shanahan, 2021), current use of the phrase has become shorthand for the “pro-phonics” side of the phonics/no-phonics debate. Many assume that the modern “Science of Reading” (SOR) emphasizes phonics over other aspects of literacy instruction. While SOR certainly does recognize phonological awareness and phonics-based decoding strategies as valuable, it actually advocates multi-component literacy instruction addressing both word recognition skills and language comprehension in order to acquire reading comprehension (The Reading League, 2021).

SOR is grounded in the Simple View of Reading, originally documented by Gough and Tunmer in 1986. The Simple View of Reading is commonly represented with the multiplicative equation shown in Figure 5.1. Gough and Tunmer were intentional in using the multiplication symbol to emphasize that if either word recognition or language comprehension skills are weak, reading comprehension will be substantially impacted (The Reading League).

Figure 5-1

Simple View of Reading

In 2001, Hollis Scarborough expanded upon the Simple View of Reading with what would come to be known as Scarborough’s Reading Rope. In her research related to early language and literacy development as a predictor of subsequent reading skill, Hollis described a process by which individuals become increasingly strategic in using language comprehension skills and increasingly automatic in word recognition skills. As word recognition and language comprehension weave together, readers strengthen their overall ability to acquire meaning from text. While some students will become more strategic and automatic with these skills simply through repeated exposure, other students need systematic instruction to do so. Table 5-1 lists the skills that Hollis associated with Language Comprehension and Word Recognition with examples.

Table 5-1

Skills Embedded in Scarborough’s Reading Rope

Students with disabilities and other reading difficulties may experience challenges with any or all of the skills identified by Scarborough. As noted in the Simple View of Reading, delays in either Language Comprehension or Word Recognition skills will have a negative impact on Reading Comprehension. It is crucial that reading intervention aligns with the specific areas in which the student has difficulties, while the student simultaneously receives continued opportunities for growth in the areas that are developing as expected. When educators focus on an area of need (e.g., decoding) and limit exposure to grade level concepts or skills in other areas (e.g., varied genres, grade-level vocabulary), they negatively impact the student’s progression in reading comprehension.

Reading Intervention

As with all instruction, effective literacy intervention is best planned by starting with the end-goal in mind (McTighe & Wiggins, 2004). When planning literacy instruction for students with disabilities, grade-level standards drive general education instruction while the goals established by the Individualized Education Program (IEP) team drive Specially Designed Instruction. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (2004) specifies that Specially Designed Instruction must include research-based methods. Selecting the right method requires knowledge of the individual student and how SOR applies to that student’s specific needs.

According to the National Center on Intensive Intervention (NCII) intervention options include using evidence-supported programs or evidence-supported practices (2020). Evidence-supported programs are published “kits” that may address a single component of Scarborough’s Reading Rope or multiple components. Programs include multiple structured lessons, a well-defined scope and sequence, and detailed lesson plans. These are often relatively easy for teachers to implement because materials and routines are prepared. Some evidence-supported programs require teachers to receive training before implementation in order to implement the program with fidelity. A downside to many evidence-supported programs, is that they are often quite expensive. Recently, many states, including Virginia have developed lists of approved programs for strategic support and intervention.

Evidence-supported practices are strategies or approaches that have research documenting effectiveness (NCII, 2020). They generally do not come in published kits. The practice, itself, is supported by research rather than the materials that are used to implement the practice. This gives educators the flexibility to implement the practice with the materials they have available. This can be helpful in terms of costs associated with intervention, but often requires more planning and preparation on the part of the teacher than what is required for many evidence-supported programs. As with evidence-supported programs, evidence-supported practices must be implemented with fidelity. Educators may learn about evidence-supported practices through peer-reviewed practitioner articles, empirical research articles, coursework, or professional development offerings. Explicit instruction is one example of an evidence-supported practice that is effective across content areas (e.g. decoding, vocabulary acquisition, comprehension strategies, math). Collaborative Strategic Reading (Klinger et al., 2012) is an evidence-supported practice, specific to reading, that is designed for implementation with a wide variety of reading materials and content areas. Although evidence-based programs and practices have research support, and therefore would be expected to be effective for students who have similar characteristics to the research population, teachers must always use classroom assessment and progress monitoring to determine effectiveness for individual students.

In addition to the evidence-based programs and practices, the National Center on Intensive Intervention (2020) describes promising programs or practices as those that are consistent with theory and research, but which have limited research related to the specific program or practice. A lack of research evidence could mean that the research has just not been conducted and published, and does not necessarily mean that the intervention is (or will be) ineffective. Educators must be knowledgeable about theory and research to determine if promising programs or practices might be effective with their students. Additional attention to classroom-based progress monitoring is important when using these programs.

Evaluating Interventions

By definition, Specially Designed Instruction is uniquely tailored to meet the needs of an individual student that arise from a disability. This means that special educators have a responsibility to identify intervention programs or practices that are specifically aligned with the needs of a single student. In practice, special educators are often able to identify small groups of students who have similar needs and provide targeted intervention using differentiation skills to adjust for the needs of specific learners. Even with effective grouping, special educators will often need to identify and implement more than one intervention program to ensure that all students on their caseload receive the instruction needed to make progress toward their individual goals in all areas of the literacy curriculum. Therefore, when selecting interventions the first priority is instructional alignment with student needs. A secondary, and important factor, is the teacher’s ability to implement the programs or practices with fidelity. The following questions are useful in helping educators select interventions:

1. What are your learners’ needs? In answering this question, special educators will consider goals established by the IEP team and the skills associated with achieving those goals. Programs and practices need to be clearly aligned with those learning outcomes. Additionally, the teachers should consider each students’ instructional needs. Do the students have specific needs related to how the content is presented (e.g., use of visuals, font sizes, computer-based vs. teacher delivered, language complexity)? Do the students have specific needs related to how they will respond to or interact with the materials (e.g., American Sign Language, augmentative and alternative communication devices, fine motor difficulties that impact writing)? Finally, will the materials and activities engage student interests (e.g., age appropriate, opportunities for choice)?

When exploring published programs, the publishers’ websites will usually provide an overview that will allow educators to quickly rule out some programs as being poorly aligned with needs. Marketing materials may oversell the elements of a program (Whittingham et al., 2024), so it is important to look at the scope and sequence to determine if the skills that need to be taught are sufficiently integrated into a program. Publishers will often provide free samples to help educators thoroughly evaluate programs.

2.  What is needed to implement the intervention with fidelity? A requirement of the Individuals with Education Act (2004), as clarified by the Endrew F. (2017) case, is that schools are required to identify and implement instructional practices that allow students to access the general education curriculum and make meaningful progress toward their individualized goals. These practices and services must be provided at no cost to the student or family, and legally, cost cannot be a factor that prevents a school from implementing the services needed for meaningful progress.

Selecting an evidence-supported practice or program aligned with the student’s needs is a good first step toward meeting these requirements. However, if the program can’t be implemented as intended, the benefits demonstrated through research may not be achieved. Educators need to be thoughtful about selecting programs that can be effectively and accurately used in their settings (Whittingham et al., 2024). A primary consideration related to fidelity is the amount of training required to implement an intervention. Some highly effective intervention methodologies (e.g., Wilson Reading System, Orton-Gillingham approach) have substantial training requirements. Others have detailed instructions, or even scripts, embedded in the teacher’s materials allowing the programs to be implemented with minimal training. Before selecting an intervention, it is crucial to ensure that educators will receive the training needed for implementation. Educators can choose intervention options that have lower training requirements if those interventions are expected to provide meaningful benefit to the student. However, a school division is responsible for ensuring that staff are trained in a specific type of intervention if the intervention is the only option that is reasonably assumed to meet student needs.

Beyond teacher training, educators should also consider school schedules and resources (Whittingham et al., 2024). Does the school and/or student schedule provide sufficient blocks of time for implementation? Are trained staff available for the needed blocks of time? For example, the publisher of the Wilson Reading System indicates that small group instruction with four to six homogeneously grouped students is ideal and that small group intervention should be provided for 45 – 60 minutes, 4 – 5 times per week (Wilson Language Training, n.d.). This level of intensity may be necessary for some students, in which case the school team needs to find a way to fit it into the schedule. However, some students may have equal benefit from a program that is implemented with fewer sessions or shorter duration. Educators can explore training and implementation requirements for programs by visiting publisher websites, reviewing sample materials, or reading program reviews in peer-reviewed journals.

Progress Monitoring

Time spent evaluating and selecting research-supported interventions aligned with student needs increases the likelihood that intervention will be successful. However, the only way to ensure positive outcomes for a specific student or students is to engage in frequent and sensitive progress monitoring (Jenkins & Murawski, 2023). There are a number of progress monitoring tools that assess the development of literacy skills. As with literacy interventions, progress monitoring tools may address single skills identified in Scarborough’s Rope or multiple integrated skills. Educators should select progress monitoring tools aligned with IEP goals and desired instructional outcomes. (Or, even better, develop IEP goals with desired instructional outcomes and associated progress monitoring tools in mind!) The National Center on Intensive Intervention offers an Academic Progress Monitoring Tools chart that provides information about the validity and reliability of some frequently used measures based on grade level. Additionally, some intervention programs may have embedded assessments that can be used for progress monitoring. The IRIS Center (2018) suggests that progress monitoring should occur at least once per week for students receiving Tier 2 intervention and once or twice per week for students receiving Tier 3 intervention.

With thoughtful planning and systematic progress monitoring, educators can help all learners develop increasingly strategic language comprehension and increasingly fluent word recognition skills that lead to strong reading comprehension. The case studies that follow provide background and assessment information for two students. The first case study documents Bailey Lynn’s educational evaluation that was completed in the spring of her first-grade year, as well as Phonological Awareness Literacy Screening (PALS) results from spring of her second-grade year. The second case study includes a written evaluation report based on the Qualitative Reading Inventory for Amir, a sixth grader.