READING WORKSHOP REDEFINED Review of Related Literature My students are African-American, living within an impoverished neighborhood and poverty

complete with a struggling high intervention school which totals disaster. Further, the third grade classroom in which I completed this project showed that more than half of the students were performing below grade level. Hernadezs (2012) report shows that given the statistics mentioned our students are 35 percent less likely to graduate than children with proficient reading scores (p. 4). Murnane, Sawhill, and Snow (2012) stated, Low literacy levels among children from less advantaged families dramatically reduce the potential for upward mobility. (p. 6). Schools all over the country are moving to the Response to Intervention model to address the needs of their low level learners. This model support varying levels of intervention based on student need. In this third-grade classroom some aspects of the RTI model are present, but begin in a different way. Torgensen (2002), found, the identification of children at risk for reading failure coupled with the provision of systematic, comprehensive, and evidence-based reading interventions can reduce the number of students reading below basic level to less than 6 percent, (as cited in Lyon & Chhabra, 2004). Ability Grouping Versus Flexible Grouping Our school supports ability grouping, which uses student data to place students into a classroom. Given there are only two classrooms at the third grade level in our school, one class is for the lower learners and one for the high. Students who perform well on the NWEA reading test may be permitted to move up to another classroom or move down depending on their new score. Many researchers, such as Gentry and Owens (1999) and Hughes (1999) give ability grouping a negative connotation finding, Whereas the research on ability grouping showed detrimental effects for low-achieving students, the results on flexible grouping indicate positive effects for all students, (as cited in Castle, Baker Deniz & Tortora, 2005). The preference is to

READING WORKSHOP REDEFINED use flexible grouping of students, which begins like ability grouping, but then allows for students to change groups based on student need. Castle, Baker Deniz & Tortora (2005) found, positive increases in student learning occurred during the period in which the use of flexible grouping was increasing. (p. 148). In our third grade novice classroom, the teachers also provide the students with needs based instruction either through one-on-one learning or small group instruction. Many professionals have argued that teachers must decentralize some of their instruction if they are going to appropriately meet the needs of the increasing number of students with reading difficulties. (Vaughn, Hughes, Moody & Elbaum, 2001, p. 133). Small group intervention Another method of intervening to support lower level readers is to employ small group intervention or instruction. Researchers support the use of small group intervention and instruction as a method to teach the reading deficiencies experienced by learners (Vaughn, Hughes, Moody & Elbaum, 2001; Yadegari & Ryan, 2002; Fisher & Fray, 2007; Slavin, Lake, Davis, & Madden, 2010; Rose & Magnotta, 2012). There is a significant body of evidence suggesting that whole-class reading instruction is insufficient and that students need to participate in small, needs-based groups, (Fisher & Fray, 2007, p.35). While small group instruction and intervention is an incredible component, the implementation of one-to-one intervention can bring about superior results. In a study conducted by Yadegari & Ryan (2002), homogenous third grade classrooms which used small group intervention and flexible grouping showed two years grade level growth in reading by the end of the school year (p. 34). One-on-one intervention One-to-one instruction from certified teachers and reading specialists is the gold standard among intervention for struggling readers, (Slavin, Lake, Davis & Madden, 2010, p.

READING WORKSHOP REDEFINED 6). While one-on-one tutoring is a preferred method of providing students with intervention it is often a struggle and not a realistic method given the demands of the instructional day. Vaughn, Hughes, Moody & Elbaum (2001) disagree, finding, One-to-one interventions place severe practical limits on the number of students that can receive supplemental instruction. Despite the popular belief that one-to-one instruction is more effective than instruction delivered to larger numbers of students, there is actually little systematic evidence to support this belief. (p. 606). Becoming a School That Beats the Odds Unlike much of the research I found, we use multiple components presented here in our third grade classroom, but during the school day. Intervention takes place all day long every day not just for 30-45 minutes. We employ one-on-one instruction with our paraprofessional and small group instruction at a completely different grade level in small group with an additional certified teacher. While this happens, grade level instruction occurs for those students who performing at grade level. The team that works with this third grade classroom is committed to the growth of their students and will continue to do whatever is necessary to help the students achieve their goals. Denton, Foorman, and Mathes (2003) found there are six common threads to create a school that beats the odds: a sense of urgency and commitment to learning, strong instructional leadership and accountability, professional development and coaching, regular assessment and monitoring of student progress, targeted instruction and intervention, and a no excuses approach. By having many of these components, I believe our school is on its way to beating the odds.