The National Center for Leadership in Intensive Intervention (NCLII), a consortium funded by the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP), prepares special education leaders to become experts in research on intensive intervention for students with disabilities who have persistent and severe academic (e.g., reading and math) and behavioral…

In this longitudinal study, we investigated the role of word reading and mathematical difficulties measured in 9th grade as factors for receiving educational support for learning in upper secondary education in Grades 10 to 12 (from ages 16 to 19) and furthermore as predictors of dropout from upper secondary education within 5 years after…

The nation's focus on the literacy skills of students--especially boys--has produced many notions of reform. School districts reorganized and changed curricula to meet the needs of struggling readers and writers. In New York City, where this author was teaching, "Balanced Literacy" (a reading and writing workshop) had been implemented in…

Responsiveness to intervention (RTI) is addressed through federal law and refers to a tiered approach to instruction. Students who do not make adequate academic progress and who are at risk for reading and other learning disabilities receive increasingly intensive instructional services. This brief was developed to help you understand…

Focuses on two promising intervention programs for children with learning difficulties and looks at major issues in interpreting the effectiveness of such programs. Profiles the writing to read and the reading recovery programs, and discusses some of the criticisms that have been directed at these programs. (RJM)

This report on a study of the first year of implementation of the Portland Reading Recovery Program assesses the current status of the program in terms of program planning, teacher outcomes, student outcomes, and parent involvement. Following preliminary data about the 91 first graders and their teachers who were involved in the program, the…

Reports on the second year of a supplementary reading program. Notes the program was successful with nonreading or delayed-reading students from regular and special education classrooms in grades one through eight. Argues that labels such as at-risk, learning disabled, and dyslexic are excuses for not initially teaching children how to read. (SR)