Pennington Publishing Blog

Administrators, special education teachers, ELD and EL coordinators, reading specialists, teachers, and parents need to work together to mesh Response to Intervention (RtI) guidelines with resources, personnel, and schedules  to plan and implement effective reading intervention programs that will work for their own schools. Following are eight intervention models with proven track records. After all, why re-invent the wheel? Each of the following models is described and analyzed in pro-con format and includes suggestions for successful adaptations and preparations for your school site.

1. The Early-Late Reading/English-language Arts Model

Description

All students are grouped according to reading (or literacy) levels. The lower-middle group is scheduled to begin school, say 55 minutes before core instruction. The middle-upper group is scheduled to begin after the early group is dismissed. This traditional elementary school model has now been implemented by some middle schools. High schools and community colleges traditionally have larger student populations, which provide greater schedule flexibility with extended morning and afternoon classes at some sites.

Pro

*Reduces class size for both remedial and other readers

*Does provide a specific daily time for reading remediation

Con

*Reduces the instructional time for other content areas

*Arbitrary placement of students into “high” and “low” groups

Suggestions

*Make early-late placement flexible so students can transition from early to late and from late to early.

2. The After-School Remedial Reading Model

Description

Students are flexibly grouped according to reading levels. Teachers and/or instructional assistants provide compensatory instruction beyond the instructional day. Both full-year and half-year intensive programs are typically used in this model.

Pro

*Provides compensatory instruction so that students are able to “catch up” and “keep up” with grade-level instruction

*Is easily scheduled and allows for flexible student groupings and “in and out” transitions

Con

*Budgetary considerations

*Student and parent “buy-in”

Suggestions

*Explore flexible teacher scheduling e.g., split-schedules, part-time hires, shared contracts.

*Use a highly-trained reading teacher with excellent curricular resources.

3. The Pull-Out Remedial Reading Model

Description

Students are pulled from Reading/English-language Arts instructional blocks according to diagnostically assessed reading deficits and receive reading instruction, frequently from special education specialists.

Pro

*Does not disrupt student schedule

*Students can be remediated in ability groups

Con

*Interrupts student and teacher instruction and students miss out on core instruction

*Pull-outs can be perceived as embarrassing for students

Suggestions

*Pull out students at beginning or ending of period or during assigned reading time.

*Use a highly-trained reading teacher with excellent curricular resources.

4. The Reading Elective Model

Description

Students are assigned to a remedial reading class in lieu of their elective.

Pro

*Students can be scheduled throughout the day in roughly defined ability groups

Con

*Replaces the students’ elective choices

Suggestions

*Use a highly-trained reading teacher with excellent curricular resources.

5. The Replacement Model

Description

Students are assigned to a remedial reading class in lieu of their language arts, physical education, science, or social studies core classes, or combination thereof.

Pro

*Students can be scheduled throughout the day in roughly defined ability groups

Con

*Students miss out on grade level instruction

Suggestions

*Use a highly-trained reading teacher with excellent curricular resources.

6. The Reading/Language Arts Block Model

 Description

The school schedules an extended period (or days) of reading/language arts with time within the block allocated to Tier I and II differentiated reading instruction.

Pro

*Does provide for a specific time for reading intervention

*Does not disrupt student schedules

Con

*Requires all teachers to be proficient in and committed to remedial reading instruction

*May not provide enough time for remedial reading instruction

Suggestions

*Need school-wide professional development in remedial reading instruction.

7. The Heterogeneously Grouped Differentiated Instruction Model

Description

Students are grouped heterogeneously with the expectation that teachers will teach Tier II or III reading skills through differentiated instruction.

Pro

*Mixed class provides opportunities for flexible grouping and peer tutoring

*Does not disrupt student schedule

Con

*Requires all teachers to be proficient in and committed to remedial reading instruction

*May not provide enough time for remedial reading instruction

Suggestions

*Need school-wide professional development in remedial reading instruction.

8. The ELD and SDAIE Grouped Instruction Model

Description

English-language learners are grouped according to CELDT or other assessments into leveled ELD or SDAIE classes to receive differentiated reading instruction, support content instruction, and maximize language acquisition. Separate newcomers classes are usually the norm.

Pro

*Narrows ability grouping by language development levels

*Differentiates instruction

*Provides extensive support for newcomers

Con

*Limits student scheduling

*Tracking affects student attitude and behavior

*Requires extensive ELD or SDAIE expertise

Suggestions

*Train a cadre of teachers in specific teaching strategies.

*Guarantee “in and out” program mobility for students.

The Science of Reading Intervention Program: Word Recognition includes explicit, scripted instruction and practice with the 5 Daily Google Slide Activities every reading intervention student needs: 1. Phonemic Awareness and Morphology 2. Blending, Segmenting, and Spelling 3. Sounds and Spellings (including handwriting) 4. Heart Words Practice 5. Sam and Friends Phonics Books (decodables). Plus, digital and printable sound wall cards and speech articulation songs. Print versions are available for all activities. First Half of the Year Program (55 minutes-per-day, 18 weeks)

The Science of Reading Intervention Program: Language Comprehension resources are designed for students who have completed the word recognition program or have demonstrated basic mastery of the alphabetic code and can read with some degree of fluency. The program features the 5 Weekly Language Comprehension Activities: 1. Background Knowledge Mentor Texts 2. Academic Language, Greek and Latin Morphology, Figures of Speech, Connotations, Multiple Meaning Words 3. Syntax in Reading 4. Reading Comprehension Strategies 5. Literacy Knowledge (Narrative and Expository). Second Half of the Year Program (30 minutes-per-day, 18 weeks)

The Science of Reading Intervention Program: Assessment-based Instruction provides diagnostically-based “second chance” instructional resources. The program includes 13 comprehensive assessments and matching instructional resources to fill in the yet-to-be-mastered gaps in phonemic awareness, alphabetic awareness, phonics, fluency (with YouTube modeled readings), Heart Words and Phonics Games, spelling patterns, grammar, usage, and mechanics, syllabication and morphology, executive function shills. Second Half of the Year Program (25 minutes-per-day, 18 weeks)

The Science of Reading Intervention Program BUNDLE  includes all 3 program components for the comprehensive, state-of-the-art (and science) grades 4-adult full-year program. Scripted, easy-to-teach, no prep, no need for time-consuming (albeit valuable) LETRS training or O-G certification… Learn as you teach and get results NOW for your students. Print to speech with plenty of speech to print instructional components.

SCIENCE OF READING INTERVENTION PROGRAM RESOURCES HERE for detailed product description and sample lessons.

Get the SCRIP Comprehension Strategies FREE Resource:

Get the Diagnostic ELA and Reading Assessments FREE Resource:

Literacy Centers, Reading, Spelling/Vocabulary EL reading, esl reading, intervention models, Language!, Mark Pennington, reading comprehension, reading intervention, reading programs, reading strategies, remedial reading, response to intervention, RTI

I teach seventh grade English-language arts in Elk Grove, California. I have a wonderful mix of students, including Filipino, Mexican, Hmong, Mien, Chinese, Vietnamese, Russian, Ukrainian, Cuban, Colombian, and Korean children, each with varying degrees of proficiencies in their primary languages. These are not “newcomers,” or L1 or L2 classified students, but are L3, L4, and L5 students. This means that they have more than just “playground” familiarity with English, but some will have significant struggles with the academic language of the classroom. Each language brings special challenges to the world of expository writing.

Reading impacts writing. The reading-writing connection is more important than many of us realize. The Mien and Chinese primarily use a logographic written language, based upon the Chinese characters. Some of my students can write some of the symbols; some can’t. Most can read some of the more common characters because their parents still use them. The Hmong developed an alphabetic system only in the last last fifty-five years. Many of my Hmong parents would be considered illiterate in English. Russians and Ukrainians use the Cyrillic alphabet. The symbols are significantly different than those of our alphabetic code. Students are particularly adept at code-switching between languages; however not everything regularly “translates.”

Oral language proficiency most significantly impacts expository writing ability. The language of the playground is conducive to the narrative form. Students are more likely to ask “What did you do at lunch, which requires a narrative response, rather than “Tell me two reasons why you like this school and explain,” which requires an expository (informational, here) response. Additionally, even though our school does mix friendships across ethnic lines more than some, the predominant groupings are by languages. A mix of English and primary languages constitutes “out of classroom” talk. Primary language is even more emphasized when “newcomers” or L1-L2 students are part of the groups. This fact is often ignored in language acquisition research, because even if students have demonstrated L5 or full English proficiency, they still “hang-out” with friends with less English proficiency.

Compounding the challenges or teaching students of mixed primary languages is the issue of dialect. My Spanish-speakers have significantly different dialects and idioms. Mexican, Colombian, and Cuban speakers share the mother tongue of Spanish, but their pronunciations and expressions are different. Add to this mix my African-American students with mixed dialects.

All of my developing writers bring different degrees of oral language proficiencies and dialectical influences that will impact their ability to appropriate English vocabulary, diction, grammar, syntax, and usage. For example, Asian students struggle with singulars and plurals and articles. African-Americans struggle with double negation and the misplaced “to-be” verbs. Spanish-speaking students struggle with adjective placement. Even punctuation differences affect writing abilities.

In the mixed salad bowls of our classrooms, each culture and language contribute a distinctive flavor to our learning environment. Teachers reading articles such as this one are taking important steps to meet the instructional challenges of this diversity. Being aware of how oral language proficiency impacts writing is the first step. Differentiating instruction, accordingly, is the next step.

Find essay strategy worksheets, on-demand writing fluencies, sentence revision andrhetorical stance “openers,” remedial writing lessons, posters, and editing resources to differentiate essay writing instruction in the comprehensive writing curriculum,TEACHING ESSAYS BUNDLE.

Grammar/Mechanics, Writing dialects, EL students, el writing strategies, ELD, English language learners, esl essay strategies, esl reading, ESL writing, esl writing skills, oral language, oral language proficiency