Dissertations / Theses on the topic 'Interventions'

Effective in 2011, The Department of Justice implemented a change to the direct threat standard, which is part of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. This change removed the threat of harm to self from the direct threat standard and potentially limits the actions that colleges can take when working with and responding to students who threaten self-harm. This study sought to determine how this change influenced the work of behavior intervention teams when responding to community college students who threaten self-harm. Higher numbers of students are arriving on college campuses with significant mental health challenges, especially community colleges that typically have open enrollment policies and attract at-risk students. Many behavior intervention teams were formed in the aftermath of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University shootings in April 2007, some through state mandates, and others as best practices. This multiple-case study gathered information from community college behavior intervention teams regarding these changes, as well as their current procedures when responding to this student population. The intent of this research study was to provide guidance and contribute to best practices among community colleges, when responding to and intervening with students threatening self-harm.

This is a quantitative research project utilizing secondary data. Reading Recovery and Leveled Literacy Intervention are two early literacy interventions based on a whole language and phonetic approach to reading instruction. For the purposes of this study, the end-of-first-grade benchmark is a Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA) 18 and the end-of-second-grade benchmark is a DRA 30. This study utilizes descriptive analyses, ANOVA, and ANCOVA analyses of variance, and regression analyses to determine which programs bring tier 3, non-special education readers to grade level status at the conclusion of first grade. Reading Recovery successfully brings first-grade students to grade level status (p = .002), and 47.1% of students who participated in this intervention met the end-of-first-grade benchmark. Overall, their mean end-of-kindergarten DRA score was a text level 3, and their mean end-of-first-grade DRA score was a text level 16. For students who participated in Leveled Literacy Intervention (LLI), 35.3% met the end-of-first-grade benchmark. Overall, their mean end-of-kindergarten DRA score was a text level 3, and their mean end-of-first-grade DRA score was a text level 14. LLI was not found to be statistically significant (p = .607). For students who participated in both Reading Recovery and Leveled Literacy Intervention, 30.1% met the end-of-first-grade benchmark. Overall, their mean end-of-kindergarten DRA score was a text level 3, and their mean end-of-first-grade DRA score was a text level 14. The combination RR and LLI group was not found to be statistically significant (p = .877).

According to this study, for students who participate in either Reading Recovery or Leveled Literacy Intervention, a child’s gender (ANOVA p = .000, ANCOVA p = .000), and ethnicity (ANOVA Black p = .214, Other p = .067; ANCOVA Black p = .765, Other p = .556) is not a significant predictor of their end-of-first-grade DRA level. Depending upon the analysis conducted, a child’s free or reduced lunch rate (ANOVA p = .005, ANCOVA p = .283) is a significant predictor of their end-of-first grade DRA level F(2,1) = 5.416, p = .005 with an R² value of .033 and an error of 612. As anticipated, a child’s initial kindergarten DRA level remains the most significant predictor of their end-of-first-grade DRA level (ANOVA p = .000, ANCOVA p = .000). The lowest scoring students in kindergarten tend to also be the lower scoring students at the end of first and second grades. The second greatest predictor for children who do not participate in Reading Recovery or Leveled Literacy Intervention is the child’s free or reduced lunch rate (p = .005). However, when an ANCOVA analysis of variance analyzed only students with a complete data set, kindergarten through second grade, a child’s lunch rate (p = .283) was shown not to be a significant predictor of end-of-first-grade DRA reading level. Additionally, a child’s lunch rate is not shown to be a significant predictor of a child’s text growth gain.

The study follows students who met the end-of-first-grade DRA 18 benchmark into second grade to ascertain if the students are able to maintain their grade level status. For students who participated in Reading Recovery and met the end-of-first-grade benchmark, 58.7% also met the end-of-second-grade benchmark. Their mean end-of-second-grade DRA score was a text level 30. For students who participated in Leveled Literacy Intervention and met the end-of-first-grade benchmark, 62.8% also met the end-of-second-grade benchmark. Their mean end-of-second-grade DRA score was a text level 30. For students who participated in both Reading Recovery and Leveled Literacy Intervention and met the end-of-first-grade benchmark, 53.8% also met the end-of-second-grade benchmark. Their mean end-of-second-grade DRA score was a text level 28.

Finally, the study utilized a regression analysis to determine if there is a difference in reading achievement growth based upon a student’s participation in Reading Recovery or Leveled Literacy Intervention. All analyses were controlled for initial DRA level, gender, ethnicity, and free or reduced lunch rate. The results found that while both programs appear to be moving students towards grade level status, Reading Recovery’s results are significant (p = .002), LLI’s results are not significant (p = .607), and the combination group of both RR and LLI are not significant (p = .877). According to this one year study, for students who participated in Reading Recovery or Leveled Literacy Intervention as first graders, once a child learns how to read, the variables—initial DRA level, gender, ethnicity and socio-economic status—do not affect a child’s continued reading achievement.

This dissertation examined the implementation of Response to Intervention (RtI) in two rural school districts in south central North Carolina. Federal legislation requiring an increase in school system accountability included the expectation for implementing differentiating levels of academic intervention for struggling students. Implementation structure and pragmatics differ from district to district as the process design remains with local education units. The filtering of federal legislative expectations to state-level administration and subsequently to school system and ultimately school site leadership is a long journey that can result in varied interpretations. The communication of methodology and expectations from district-level administration to school-level practitioners is crucial for effective implementation. Therefore, an understanding of and a focused vision for Response to Intervention implementation is essential throughout district and school leadership (Kratochwill, Valopiansky, Clements, & Ball, 2007).

This dissertation explored the district-level to school-level facilitation of RtI implementation in two rural but very different districts in south central North Carolina, both identified to demonstrate stellar RtI implementation processes. Individual staff members were interviewed at the district and school-level (elementary, middle, and high) using a structured interview protocol to explore this process of implementation. The responses were then analyzed using a theme matrix. A consistent set of core strategies, practices, and beliefs were found in schools in the two districts, although facilitation of the expectations from district to school-level differed significantly and impacted the breadth and levels of implementation. Monitoring the fidelity of the process remained at the school level. The results reinforce the barriers that rural districts confront in complying with federal mandates.

Educating children is a costly endeavor; however, when children with special needs enter kindergarten unprepared emotionally, socially, or academically, the increased costs and support systems have to be absorbed by the schools and communities. The purpose of this study was to determine if there was a significant difference between the academic achievement of students participating in Early Childhood Special Education (ECSE) compared to students without ECSE services with DIAL-3 scores ranked in the 20^th percentile or below. Achievement scores for second and third graders in one urban school district were utilized to compare the scores of ECSE and non-ECSE students. The sample included the TerraNova and Performance Series assessment scaled scores of 30 ECSE students and 30 non-ECSE students for a total of 60 students from academic years 2008 to 2012 from the participating school district. A stratified sampling was utilized within the two groups of students' assessment scores. Standard calculations included means, standard deviations, and a t-test. When comparing the second grade achievement scores, ECSE students had statistically significant gains on the overall scaled scores than the non-ECSE students. When comparing the third grade Performance Series reading, language arts, and math scaled scores of the ECSE students to the non-ECSE students, the ECSE students had statistically higher achievement scaled scores compared to the non-ECSE students. When comparing the third grade Performance Series reading and language arts standard item pool scores of the ECSE students to the non-ECSE students, the ECSE students had statistically higher achievement standard item pool compared to the non-ECSE students. The Performance Series standard item pool scores were not statistically significant between the two groups.