Intervention & access: staying focused on the core: a continuum of differentiated interventions and effective core instruction for all students are the keys to better student performance.

During the last decade, schools have paid considerable attention to the area of reading intervention. With efforts such as No Child Left Behind, Reading First and exit exams, the focus on intervention has intensified like never before. While there is common focus on the issue of intervention, the clarity of what intervention is and how best to approach it is lacking.

Case in point. Take a minute to consider what comes to mind when you think about intervention. If you are like most people, you probably thought about small group instruction, specialized materials and remediation based oil assessed student needs.

What do those things have in common? Well, the simple fact is that they focus on the student. In essence, the message is that deficiencies lie within the student, thus the need for intervention. While all those things are appropriate and necessary when addressing intervention, they are not enough.

System in need of intervention

What we have is a most interesting paradox. On the one hand I acknowledge the need to diagnose and prescribe based on student needs; on the other, I'll argue--persuasively, I hope--that while many students may need intervention, this is a symptom of the fact that it is the system (or lack of) within the institution called school that is also in need of an intervention.

While an effective and comprehensive system's approach to literacy requires that a continuum of differentiated interventions and assistance be provided to students requiring such services, it is essential that such a system is rooted in data, ongoing professional development and assessment and monitoring. The model of delivery shown in the graphic at right does a wonderful job of building off of California's vision in reading while enhancing it to accommodate federal efforts in No Child Left Behind and in the reform occurring at the national level with special education.

Fundamental to this model is effective core instruction. Only by assuring a quality and effective "general health plan" (core) can we prevent the over-reliance on ambulances and emergency services (intervention).

It all starts at the core

Effective literacy reform must begin at the core level. Core is the adopted and articulated program used to assure grade-level standards instruction for all students. Students require the assurance of systematic, scientifically based instruction to acquire the necessary skills required to be proficient readers and writers. California has addressed this by providing a list of approved materials that are both comprehensive and aligned to grade-level standards.

Classroom supports

Many students will need additional, differentiated support in attaining many of their grade-level standards. For that reason our new adoptions include what I refer to as "classroom supports." It is here that small-group, focused instruction is provided using universal access techniques and strategies that are differentiated on a continuum of intensity. Needed preview, review and practice is primarily focused at helping students within the classroom acquire the core curriculum.

Schoolwide supports

While classroom supports are adequate for many of our students, teachers will still have students who lack foundational skills and underpinnings. This is usually manifested in performance many levels below current grade-level placement. For these students, while classroom supports are needed, they will not be sufficient. These students will need to avail themselves of intensive intervention services.

Through the use of diagnostic assessment, some students may access a targeted intervention service for something such as phoneme awareness or fluency, while others may require a more comprehensive intervention treatment plan for multiple areas of need. Due to the scope of services needed, intervention should be offered within a schoolwide setting so that groupings can occur through identified needs, vs. each teacher trying to accommodate the wide range of needs in each class.

Within this model the school identifies scientifically based intervention programs that can be offered to meet the assessed needs of their students. Clear benchmarks are established for the various services so that a coherent continuum of intensity is established. The rule of thumb is that the more intensive the need, the more intensive the intervention.

Even though we are currently experiencing what seems to be the most effective reading and language arts adoption California has had in its history, my concern is that the core programs, as they are used currently, are not differentiated enough to bring the changes needed to assure successful access and mastery for all students.

K-3 intervention

At the K-3 level, for instance, intervention is only at the classroom support level, being provided through curriculum-embedded components of the adopted series. The K-3 California road map in reading and language arts offers direction and guidance at the core level, as well as classroom supports aimed at students needing assistance to fully access the core. Teachers, however, have a fair number of students requiting intensive intervention as well.

The need for more intensive intervention at the K-3 level, within a comprehensive literacy delivery system, is also recognized by publishers. For example, SRA, publisher of Open Court, has recently added an intensive program to complement Open Court, starting in second grade. They are also field-testing an intensive intervention program for kindergarten and first grade. Likewise, Houghton Mifflin has an intensive intervention program for second grade and beyond.

Once these components are well known and used in correlation with the state approved reading adoptions, California schools will be in a better position to offer a continuum of service that includes a core reading program and strategic classroom supports, as well as an intensive intervention for students two or more years behind in reading performance.

Until such a system is in place, we have what Ed Kameenui has so eloquently coined, "The rhetoric of all, the reality of some and the unmistakable smell of mortality."

While some people will argue that we have moved Kameenui's "reality of some" to the "reality of most," we must deal with the hot that we will not reach the goal of leaving no child behind until we successfully meet the needs of all our students. Getting to 100 percent requires holding ourselves responsible for the bottom quartile. Assuming students will catch up when offered a quality core adoption with only classroom support is wishful thinking. Catching up is a low probability occurrence.

Secondary intervention

In California at grades 4-12 we have just the opposite problem. Whereas the K3 model of literacy instruction does not include aligned intensive intervention support, at the 4-12 level intervention is defined only in terms of a comprehensive, intensive intervention requiring two to three hours daily. While there are many intermediate and secondary students who require this level of support, even a greater number of students requite a more targeted intervention. These students may be candidates for a scientifically based intervention aimed at a particular skill, such as multi-syllabic word attack or fluency. Both of these intervention examples take approximately 45 minutes per day rather than two or three hours.

Why is this important? By focusing in on the one or two areas of identified need, students falling into this profile can receive targeted intervention while continuing to receive core English language arts instruction. This design allows students' needs to be addressed without denying them access to their core, grade-level standards.

Untangling the issues

We must untangle the issue of accessing the core curriculum from the issue of intervention. In the preponderance of cases, it is not an either/or situation. We must stay focused on the goal of increasing student achievement so that all students become literate and proficient. Students need as much access to the core curriculum as possible.

For students struggling in reading, access must be within the context of scientifically based core material, coupled with effective instructional strategies that ensure universal access and equity. Many students will also need access to effective intervention services and programs. Effective diagnostic assessment will be key in identifying what the issue(s) are facing individual students, and whether classroom supports will be enough or whether a targeted intervention or a comprehensive intervention will also be needed.

The point is that a comprehensive literacy approach will require all of these levels of service. We can not reach all children without taking care of each child. As Kameenui says, "the education of ALL children is not merely a vision, but it is warranted and attainable; that is, we have the means to do it." We simply need the will to provide the guidance and accountability to see that it happens.

While it is true that we are well on the road to large scale, sustainable improvements in the area of reading and language arts instruction, we must recognize that the complexities of traveling this path are many. Many competing distracters are conspiring to limit the effectiveness of our efforts. One such distracter is that in our attempt to design and implement a doable system, we have over-simplified the task of assuring success for all our students in the area of reading and language arts.

Differentiated services 

Many educators believe improved performance for all students requires implementing one of the state-approved language arts adoptions with quality professional development, support and monitoring. While these things are needed, they are not sufficient by themselves to result in dramatic achievement gains fur all students. Such gains require that a continuum of differentiated services and supports be provided to students based on their assessed areas of need, while assuring access to high quality, grade-level core instruction.

Leslie McPeak is a private reading consultant and a former member of the Reading First Review Panel in Washington, D. C.