Reading Psychology

ISSN: 0270-2711 (Print) 1521-0685 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/urpy20

Using Information from an Early Intervention

Program to Enhance Literacy Goals on the
Individualized Education Program (IEP)

Evelyn A. O'connor & Anastasia E. Yasik

To cite this article: Evelyn A. O'connor & Anastasia E. Yasik (2007) Using Information from an
Early Intervention Program to Enhance Literacy Goals on the Individualized Education Program
(IEP), Reading Psychology, 28:2, 133-148, DOI: 10.1080/02702710600846902

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/02702710600846902

Published online: 07 May 2007.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 458

View related articles

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=urpy20
Reading Psychology, 28:133–148, 2007
Copyright

C 2007 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

ISSN: 0270-2711 print / 1521-0685 online

DOI: 10.1080/02702710600846902

USING INFORMATION FROM AN EARLY INTERVENTION

PROGRAM TO ENHANCE LITERACY GOALS ON THE
INDIVIDUALIZED EDUCATION PROGRAM (IEP)

EVELYN A. O’CONNOR
Adelphi University, Garden City, New York, USA
ANASTASIA E. YASIK
Pace University, New York, New York, USA

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act requires that an Individualized

Education Program (IEP) be developed for each child that receives special edu-
cation services. To develop the most effective IEP, information is gathered from
everyone who has worked with the child. In many schools the child receives early
intervention services prior to referral to special education. One early intervention
program that is utilized for first grade children falling behind in reading and
writing is Reading Recovery
R
. The detailed information gathered as part of this
program provides invaluable information that may facilitate development of ap-
propriate literacy goals. This article discusses the information that is collected in
the Reading Recovery program and provides an example of how this information
can be utilized to support the development of IEP literacy goals.

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) requires

that an Individualized Education Program (IEP) be developed to
meet the specific and distinctive needs of the child. The IEP in-
cludes information about the child’s current level of academic
performance and detailed short-term and long-term goals to be
met by the teacher. The development of IEP goals takes place by
a team composed of parents, teachers and possibly other related
or early intervention service providers (e.g., school psychologists,
literacy specialists). To facilitate the development of an IEP a vari-
ety of assessment tools and strategies must be employed. The IEP
should reflect the child’s current performance and abilities and
should be tailored so that it accurately meets the needs of each
particular child. Information gathered from an early intervention

Address correspondence to Evelyn O’Connor, School of Education, Adelphi Univer-

sity, 1 South Avenue, Garden City, NY 11530. E-mail: eoconnor@adelphi.edu

133
134 E. A. O’Connor and A. E. Yasik

program can provide additional information that can strengthen

and improve the development of effective literacy goals.

Reading Recovery: An Early Intervention Program

A recent trend in many elementary schools is to have the child

go through an intensive one-on-one early intervention program
prior to being referred for special education services. One early
intervention program that is being utilized as a “safety net” for
first-grade children falling behind in reading and writing is Read-


R
ing Recovery . This program not only provides intensive instruc-
tion to children experiencing literacy difficulty but also supplies
comprehensive information about a child’s literacy progress.
Children are identified for Reading Recovery by classroom
teacher recommendation and performance on the standardized
administration of the Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement
(Clay, 2002). The Observation Survey is an authentic, systematic ob-
servation tool that is used to assess a child’s current reading and
writing knowledge and ability through the administration of six
literacy tasks. The six tasks are:

1. Running Records of Text Reading—The child reads a series of

increasingly more difficult texts that he/she has not seen be-
fore. The examiner provides a minimal, scripted introduction
and records reading behaviors using a coding system (see Clay,
2002) on the running record. It is used to record information
such as correct reading, errors (i.e., substitutions, omissions, in-
sertions), self-corrections, and repetitions. The running records
are used to assess the child’s reading level and strategic activity.
2. Letter Identification—The child is asked to identify 54 letters,
the upper and lower case standard letters as well as the print
form of a and g.
3. Concepts About Print—The examiner reads a short book and
invites the child to perform a variety of tasks to find out what
the child has learned about the way spoken language is put into
print. The text reflects important concepts to be acquired by
children in the beginning stages of learning to read. Concepts
about print (e.g., directional rules, word by word pointing, and
punctuation) are being assessed using this task.
 Using Information from an Early Intervention 135

4. Word Test—The child reads aloud a list of 20 frequently oc-

curring words. For each word read correctly the child receives
credit.
5. Writing Vocabulary—The child writes as many words as he/she
knows in ten minutes. The child receives credit for each word
he/she writes correctly.
6. Hearing and Recording Sounds in Words—To assess phonemic
awareness, the child records a short story that is dictated by
the examiner. The child receives one point for each phoneme
he/she has correctly identified (see Clay, 2002, for further in-
formation on the Observation Survey).

These six tasks are also administered at the end of a child’s pro-
gram to determine whether the child will discontinue (successfully
complete) the program or be referred for additional services. Chil-
dren successfully discontinue the intervention if and when they
have reached the average performance level of their peers, based
on teacher judgment and the results of the Observation Survey.
Once a child has been identified as being one of the low-
est functioning students in literacy, the Reading Recovery teacher
designs a program of instruction that is tailored to the child’s
strengths and needs. This program is delivered in daily 30-minute
lessons with one-to-one instruction for a period of up to 20 weeks.
The Reading Recovery lesson includes reading several familiar and
one new book, writing and cutting up an original story, using mag-
netic letters to visually identify letters and patterns within words.
During the entire lesson the teacher is there to support and scaf-
fold the child’s learning, building upon what the child knows. To
successfully teach for the child’s accelerated progress, the teacher
meticulously examines the child’s reading and writing activity on
a daily basis.
To accurately understand the child’s current literacy knowl-
edge and performance the teacher must monitor and record
what he/she observes the child do on a regular basis. A unique
feature of the Reading Recovery program is the detailed record
keeping on each child. Detailed records document the teacher’s
observations of the child’s current understanding and new learn-
ing. They are used to note changes over time. In addition to the
Observation Survey data, teachers take daily running records to
monitor progress and observe the child’s use of problem-solving
136 E. A. O’Connor and A. E. Yasik

strategies. Teachers also write daily lesson records to note what was
focused on and to document the gradual progress of the child.
These sensitive observations provide the teacher with the infor-
mation to make appropriate instructional decisions from day to
day.
The goal of this program is for the child to develop a “self-
extending system” of reading and writing strategies that help
him/her read and write beyond the Reading Recovery sessions
(Clay, 1991, 1993, 2001). This means that the child becomes an in-
dependent reader and writer who extends his/her knowledge and
abilities with every opportunity to read and write. At the end of the
20-week program a decision is made about the child’s progress.
There are two positive outcomes to the Reading Recovery pro-
gram. One possible outcome is that the child will have developed
a self-extending system and successfully leave the program read-
ing and writing at or above the average level of his/her classroom
peers. Research and program evaluation have shown that a major-
ity of children are successful and discontinue from the program
(Gomez-Bellenge, 2003; Lyons, 1998; Shanahan & Barr, 1995). The
other outcome is that of a child who does not successfully catch up
to the average of his/her peers. This child is identified as needing
long-term remediation and is referred for services to the School
Based Support Team. This outcome is considered to be a second
positive outcome because the child will receive the additional ser-
vices and support he/she needs.
Information gathered as part of the Reading Recovery pro-
gram may assist school personnel at many different levels. This
information is relevant to the referral process, assessment process,
and intervention planning. Once the appropriateness of a refer-
ral has been substantiated, eligibility testing for special education
services begins. Often this involves norm-referenced testing which
provides valuable insights into a student’s skills and abilities; how-
ever, the utility of these assessment results for intervention plan-
ning is limited. “Tests alone will not give a comprehensive picture
of how a child performs or what he or she knows or does not know”
(Waterman, 1994, p. 5). Many of the assessment instruments that
are utilized are “norm-referenced, standardized tests that give a
snapshot of a student’s performance within broad curricular areas,
but are not sufficient for developing specific instructional plans
when educators must write IEPs” (King-Sears, 1994, p. 3).
 Using Information from an Early Intervention 137

One of the main goals of special education is to “solve the

problem of how to provide more effective programs for individual
students who are not served adequately in their education by the
core, or mainstream, educational program” (Deno, 1985, p. 2).
To appropriately develop and customize an IEP for a child, the
IEP team needs to gather data from multiple sources to create an
in-depth portrait of the child’s specific strengths and weaknesses.
Children who are having difficulties with literacy “have diverse
patterns of strengths and weaknesses and the way they orchestrate
their strengths and weaknesses within a situation creates very dif-
ferent reading behaviors” (Walker, 1996, p. 269).
Reading Recovery teachers are one source that can pro-
vide specific information regarding students’ reading and writing
knowledge and skills. As such, the IEP team that is writing literacy
goals will benefit from such a vital source of information pertaining
to important areas of academic functioning (i.e., reading, writing)
for young children. The detailed information gathered as part of
Reading Recovery (e.g., Observation Survey, teacher observations)
provides invaluable information that will facilitate development
of appropriate educational goals for the individual child. The use
of this data will help the IEP team develop a specific plan of ac-
tion, a tailored IEP, to support the individual student’s continued
progress in literacy.

Using Information from an Early Intervention Program

to Write IEP Goals

To demonstrate the kind of information that can be provided to the

IEP team, a discussion of a child who had completed a full program
of Reading Recovery but still needed additional assistance will be
discussed. Jasmine1 was identified as one of the lowest performing
first grade students in the school. When she was assessed using
the Observation Survey her scores confirmed that she needed extra
support. For each lesson, a running record and a lesson record
were completed. At the end of her program the Observation Survey
was administered for a second time. Jasmine had made progress
during these lessons as seen by the growth in all areas of the Ob-
servation Survey (see Table 1). However, based on these scores and

1 “Jasmine” is a pseudonym.
138 E. A. O’Connor and A. E. Yasik

TABLE 1 Jasmine’s Entry and Exit Scores on the Observation Survey

Hearing and
Running Ohio Concepts Recording
Record Letter Word About Writing Sounds in
Level Identification Test Print Vocabulary Words

Entry B (<A) 29/54 0/20 7/24 1 2/37

Stanine 1 Stanine 1 Stanine 1 Stanine 1 Stanine 1 Stanine 1
Exit 6 (D) 54/54 12/20 16/24 37 34/37
Stanine 4 Stanine 6 Stanine 4 Stanine 4 Stanine 6 Stanine 5

Note. The scores in parentheses in the Running Record column represent the equivalent
Fountas & Pinnell (1996) guided reading level. The stanine scores are from Clay (2002).
The updated U.S. Norms can be found in Clay (2006). The B noted on the Running Record
entry score is equivalent to a Reading Recovery level of less than 1.

her work in school, Jasmine was in need of long-term assistance

for literacy.
The Reading Recovery teacher can use the information gath-
ered from observations made during daily lessons as well as the Ob-
servation Survey (see Figures 1 through 7) to inform the IEP team
about Jasmine’s current progress and her unique needs. Patterns
of behavior become apparent when one examines the data. By ex-
amining all the data and utilizing his/her knowledge of this child
the Reading Recovery teacher can make suggestions to enhance
the literacy goals. The Reading Recovery teacher can provide this
information to a member of the IEP team or, because he/she has
extensive experience working with this child on an individual ba-
sis, the Reading Recovery teacher may be asked to be a participant
on this team when they meet to develop the goals. It is important
to note that the data that has been collected will identify not only
the areas Jasmine needs help with but also her strengths.
Effective instruction should always begin with what the child
knows. Jasmine has developed strengths that can be used to sup-
port her reading and writing. The results of her Observation Survey
and her daily lessons indicate that her writing is stronger than her
reading. When she is writing, she slowly articulates unknown words
and often can break up words and identify the sounds to the ap-
propriate letter. This information was gathered from the Hearing
and Recording Sounds in Words task (see Figure 7) as well as ob-
served in her writing during lessons. On the Writing Vocabulary
 Using Information from an Early Intervention 139

FIGURE 1 Running Record Sheet is from An observation surgery of early liter-

acy achievement (Scott, Foresman and Company, 1979a, pp. 80–81) by M. M.
Clay, 2002, Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Copyright 2002 by Heinemann NZ.
Reprinted with permission.

task, Jasmine used analogies to generate new words (e.g., look,

took, book) (see Figure 6).
Jasmine knows all of her letters, as indicated on the Letter
Identification task (see Figure 3). She also has a bank of known
140 E. A. O’Connor and A. E. Yasik

FIGURE 2 Running Record Sheet is from An observation surgery of early liter-

acy achievement (Scott, Foresman and Company, 1979b, pp. 80–81) by M. M.
Clay, 2002, Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Copyright 2002 by Heinemann NZ.
Reprinted with permission.
words that she can read and write. This information can be seen
on her Ohio Word Test (see Figure 4), Writing Vocabulary (see
Figure 6), and during daily Reading Recovery lessons. When read-
ing text, Jasmine monitors her reading of unknown words. When
 Using Information from an Early Intervention 141

FIGURE 3 Letter Identification Score Sheet is from An observation survey of early

literacy achievement(p. 86) by M. M. Clay, 2002, Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Copyright 2002 by Heinemann NZ. Reprinted with permission.

she encounters unknown words she pauses, makes an attempt and

if not satisfied appeals for help. This is demonstrated by the at-
tempts and eventual “tolds” (teacher gives correct response) seen
on her running records (see Figures 1 and 2). A fairly consistent
strategy for Jasmine is the use of the initial letter to help her to
make an attempt to identify unknown words.
Based on the data, several suggestions could be made to de-
velop IEP goals that will be most beneficial to Jasmine’s literacy
142 E. A. O’Connor and A. E. Yasik

FIGURE 4 The Ohio World Test Score Sheet is from An observation survey of early
literacy achievement(p. 167) by M.M. Clay, 2002, Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Copyright 2002 by Heinemann NZ. Reprinted with permission.

progress. The daily lessons revealed that Jasmine, like all children,
needs explicit teaching and modeling of strategies in the context
of real reading and writing activities. Jasmine sometimes will read
without monitoring for meaning. Because Jasmine speaks English
as a second language, there have been times when words (e.g., hot
dogs, garden) were new to her. The teacher should choose books
where Jasmine can use her prior knowledge and should be sure
to define terms that may be new for her. This would help Jasmine
 Using Information from an Early Intervention 143

FIGURE 5 Concepts About Print Score Sheet is from An observation survey of

early literacy achievement(p. 44) by M.M. Clay, 2002, Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Copyright 2002 by Heinemann NZ. Reprinted with permission.

improve her ability to use meaning when she reads. Another strat-
egy Jasmine needs to use is to reread for meaning when she comes
to an unknown word. Many times Jasmine will stop and attempt to
use initial visual information by making guesses that do not make
sense.
Running records taken during lessons and as part of the Ob-
servation Survey indicate that Jasmine also needs help with her
phrasing and fluency. Her reading at times sounds choppy, not
at all fluent. Her reading is word by word with some phrasing. She
144 E. A. O’Connor and A. E. Yasik

rarely uses intonation or expression when reading. In addition, she

is not pausing appropriately at punctuation. For example, some-
times she continues reading line by line without pausing for a pe-
riod. “When the reading is phrased like spoken language and the
responding is fluent, then there is a fair chance that the reader can
read for meaning and check what he reads against his language

FIGURE 6 Writing Vocabulary Observation Sheet is from An observation survey of

early literacy achievement(p. 103)by M.M.Clay, 2002, Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Copyright 2002 by Heinemann NZ. Reprinted with permission. (Continued)
 Using Information from an Early Intervention 145

FIGURE 6 (Continued)

knowledge” (Clay, 1993, p. 51). Working on phrased and fluent

reading will help Jasmine with her reading.
Jasmine is also having difficulty using visual information ef-
fectively when reading. This is apparent when one examines her
running records, the Ohio Word Test, and Concept About Print
task. On the Concept About Print task (see Figure 5) Jasmine does
not notice when line, word, or letter order is changed in the text.
Her attempts on the Ohio Word Test indicate that when she is
trying to solve (decode) words in isolation, most times she uses
the initial letter and a few times makes attempts at trying to use
more information beyond the first letter. In only one instance is
she successful at self-correcting. This same pattern of using the ini-
tial letter is seen on the running record. When Jasmine comes to
an unknown word she will use the initial letter to try to figure out
the word. Jasmine needs to learn to analyze new words through
146 E. A. O’Connor and A. E. Yasik

FIGURE 7 Hearing and Recording Sounds in Words Observation Sheet is

from An observation of early literary achievement(p. 118)by M. M. Clay, 2002,
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Copyright 2002 by Heinemann NZ. Reprinted with
permission.

analogy and taking words apart in reading to find parts she knows
to help her solve new words. The teacher must specifically teach
her how to do this and then prompt her when appropriate.
Jasmine’s performance on the writing tasks of the Observation
Survey indicates that this is an area of strength for her. The writing
goals for Jasmine are based on the daily writing she does in her
 Using Information from an Early Intervention 147

Reading Recovery lessons. Jasmine needs to learn to write longer,

more complex sentences. In addition, she also has difficulty with
sentence structure. For instance, she will write sentences such as,
“she go to the store.”

Conclusion

Reading Recovery teachers, because of their individual instruction,

daily observation, and assessment of a child, are in a unique po-
sition to help create IEP goals that are specifically customized to
a child’s distinctive needs. In the example of Jasmine, all the data
gathered by the Reading Recovery teacher provides a clear picture
of Jasmine’s strengths and weaknesses in reading and writing. In
particular, Jasmine needs to monitor for meaning while reading,
read in a phrased and fluent manner, and look for known parts
in words to help her solve unknown words. With this in mind the
teacher’s valuable insights into Jasmine’s literacy behavior can help
contribute to the development of specific long-term and short-
term IEP goals. Thus, having Reading Recovery teachers consult
with or participate, as a member of the IEP team is key to develop-
ing IEP goals. Having IEP goals that accurately reflect a child’s cur-
rent knowledge and understanding will better inform a teacher’s
instruction.

Acknowledgements

We would like to express our gratitude to Rosalie Forbes for her

helpful comments on an earlier draft of this article.

References

Clay, M. M. (1991). Becoming literate: The construction of inner control. Portsmouth,

NH: Heinemann.
Clay, M. M. (1993). Reading recovery: A guidebook for teachers in training. Portsmouth,
NH: Heinemann.
Clay, M. M. (2001). Change over time in children’s literacy development. Portsmouth,
NH: Heinemann.
Clay, M. M. (2002). An observation survey of early literacy achievement (2nd ed.).
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Clay, M. M. (2006). An observation survey of early literacy achievement (2nd ed. Rev).
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
148 E. A. O’Connor and A. E. Yasik

Deno, S. L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative.

Exceptional Children, 52, 219–232.
Fountas, I. C., & Pinnell, G. S. (1996). Guided reading: Good first teaching for all
children. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Gomez-Bellenge, F. X. (2003). Reading recovery data update 2001–2002. The
Journal of Reading Recovery, 2, 49–50.
King-Sears, M. E. (1994). Curriculum-based assessment in special education. London:
Singular Publishing Group.
Lyons, C. A. (1998). Reading Recovery in the United States: More than a decade
of data. Literacy, Teaching and Learning, 3, 77–92.
Scott, Foresman & Company. (1979a). Dave’s tricks. Glenview, IL: author.
Scott, Foresman & Company. (1979b). The boat ride. Glenview, IL: author.
Shanahan, T., & Barr, R. (1995). Reading recovery: An independent evaluation of
the effects of an early instructional intervention for “at risk” learners. Reading
Research Quarterly, 30, 958–996.
Walker, B. J. (1996). Five misconceptions about effective remediation. In L. R.
Putnam (Ed.), How to become a better reading teacher (pp. 267–276). Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Waterman, B. B. (1994). Assessing children for the presence of a disability.
NICHCY News Digest, 4, 1–29.