Reading intervention programs provide the foundation for the educational success of students, especially those who are considered struggling readers. States across the country recently implemented legislation related to reading achievement, in which districts are required to provide specific literacy interventions to struggling readers in order to prevent retention. The choice in reading instructional programs has long-term impact on the future of students, as it is these programs that determine the need for retention in response to this legislation. This research study examines the factors that affect the decision of an urban district in selecting a reading intervention program to support struggling readers. The primary data sources include interviews and observations of two teachers who have chosen different reading intervention programs within the district. This study provides insights into schools currently affected by this policy and how they are choosing to respond to the new demands. The research question is: What factors influence an urban school district's decision about specific reading instruction programs for struggling readers in response to state legislation requirements?
DeArmondM., DeniceP., GrossB., HernandezJ., & JochimA. (2015). Measuring up: Educational improvement & opportunity in 50 cities. Center on Reinventing Public Education. Retrieved from www.crpe.org
2.
FieldsR. (2012, June 25). Ohio Gov. John Kasich signs third grade reading guarantee bill into law. The Plain Dealer. Retrieved from www.cleveland.com
3.
GappS. C., ZaludG., & PietrzakD. (2009). End of intervention reading recovery decisions and subsequent achievement. Reading Improvement, 46(1), 9–18.
4.
GiessS., RiversK. O., KennedyK., & LombardinoL. J. (2012). Effects of multisensory phonics-based training on the word recognition and spelling skills of adolescents with reading disabilities. International Journal of Special Education, 27(1), 60–73.
HillS., ComberB., LoudenW., RivallandJ., & ReidJ. (2002). 100 children turn 10: A longitudinal study of literacy development from the year prior to school to the first four years of school.Canberra, ACT: Commonwealth of Australia.
9.
HollimanA. J., & HurryJ. (2013). The effects of reading recovery on children's literacy progress and special educational needs status: A three-year follow-up study. Educational Psychology, 33(6), 719–733. doi:10.1080/01443410.2013.785048.
JohnsonA. (2008). A short guide to action research (3rd ed.). Boston: Pearson/Allyn and Bacon.
13.
KennedyE. (2010). Improving literacy achievement in a high-poverty school: Empowering classroom teachers through professional development. Reading Research Quarterly, 45(4), 384–387.
MingK., & PowellT. (2010). Emergent literacy: Ways to foster these skills in preschool children from low-socioeconomic backgrounds. NHSA Dialog, 13(2), 126–133.
ReynoldsM., WheldallK., & MadelaineA. (2009). The devil is in the detail regarding the efficacy of reading recovery: A rejoinder to schwartz, hobsbaum, briggs, and scull. International Journal of Disability, Development & Education, 56(1), 17–35. doi:10.1080/10349120802681580.
ScheffelDebora L., ShawJack C., & ShawRose. (2008). The efficacy of a supplemental multisensory reading program for first-grade students. Reading Improvement, 45(3), 139–152.
28.
StakeR. (1995). The art of case study research.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
29.
TumnerW. E., & ChapmanJ. W. (2008). Reading Recovery: Distinguishing myth from reality. IDA 54th Annual Conference Commemorative Booklet “Our Mission to Literacy.” Retrieved from www.wrightslaw.com
30.
TurnerH. M.III (2008). This systematic review empirically documents that the effectiveness of orton-gillingham and orton-gillingham-based reading instruction remains to be determined. Evidence-Based Communication Assessment & Intervention, 2(2), 67–69. doi:10.1080/17489530802037564.
WaldvogelS. J. (2011). Examining the effectiveness of a multi-sensory instructional reading program in one rural midwestern school district. ProQuest Information & Learning, Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences, 71(7), (2011-99010-030).
33.
WambaN. G. (2010). Poverty and literacy: An introduction. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 26(2), 109–114. doi:10.1080/10573560903547429.
34.
WhatW. C. (2010). Orton-gillingham-based strategies (unbranded). What Works Clearinghouse Intervention Report.
