Can you do this

0

2

Recommendations to Solve the Problem of Below-Average Proficiency Rates in Reading at Meadowfield Elementary School in South Carolina

by

Michael Whitener

An Applied Case Study

Presented in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree

Doctor of Education in Educational Leadership

Liberty University

2026

Approved by: Comment by David Schaaf: This belongs on the Signature Page, which is the second page of the manuscript. The Signature Page looks like the Title Page, except this is at the bottom, right justified.

David Schaaf, PhD, Faculty Mentor

Abstract

This qualitative research aims to examine factors that may be influencing below-average reading proficiency at Meadowfield Elementary School in Columbia, South Carolina, and to determine evidence-based best practices to enhance student reading outcomes. The issue is that the school's 41% reading proficiency rate is below the district's and state's rates. The teachers' and school leaders' perceptions of reading instruction will be analyzed alongside students' reading needs and institutional barriers to literacy development. This information will be collected through semi-structured interviews with 8-12 classroom teachers, reading specialists, and school leaders; a five-point Likert-scale survey of around 20-25 classroom teachers; and structured, nonparticipant observations of selected classrooms at primary and intermediate grade levels.

Thematic analysis of interview and observation data will be carried out, and descriptive data analysis of survey responses will be used, with these then compared to the qualitative data. The study will be implemented under the guidance of the Active View of Reading. This framework will inform the review of fundamentals of reading, teaching, and school-level supports for reading. The desired outcome is a set of recommendations to improve reading instruction, teacher professional development, implementation, and reading proficiency at Meadowfield Elementary School in the context of their setting.

Subjects: reading skills, Active View of Reading, elementary school, evidence-based reading teaching, qualitative research

Dedication

This applied single case study is dedicated to my mom, who always has my back, has encouraged me, has been patient with me and has always been there to love me and support me in my studies. Her sacrifice taught me a lot about understanding and to trust in myself, and made me never give up to get my academic goals.

I also dedicate this piece to those teachers, reading specialists, school leaders, and students who influence the development of literacy in elementary schools. Their passion for education and their willingness to assist children in becoming confident and proficient readers demonstrate the impact that teaching and learning have.

Lastly, this applied single case study is for all educators who work diligently to help students read well and to provide every child with opportunities for meaningful learning. I hope that it will stimulate further thinking, sharing, and improvement in reading instruction and learning, and help address literacy issues at Meadowfield Elementary School and other schools working to raise student achievement.

Acknowledgments

I am very grateful to all those who have helped and encouraged me to finish this applied single case study. I am thankful to God for the strength, wisdom, perseverance, and guidance He has given me on this academic journey.

I thank my faculty mentor and the faculty at Liberty University for their guidance, constructive feedback, and a commitment to excellence. They have been important sources of ideas and support to me as a scholar and educational leader.

Finally, I thank the teachers, reading specialists, and school leaders whose experiences and voices are integral to this research. Their dedication to improving literacy teaching and learning offers an example of how to address issues in reading proficiency.

I want to express my gratitude to my mother and friends for their support, encouragement, and understanding during this process. They have been a tremendous help when things were tough. Lastly, I recognize all educators and researchers who promote evidence-based reading instruction and enhance opportunities for children in school. Thank you all for helping with this worthy educational project.

Table of Contents

Abstract 2

Dedication 3

Acknowledgments 4

Table of Contents 5

List of Tables 7

List of Figures 8

List of Abbreviations 8

Chapter 1: Introduction 9

Overview 9

Background 9

Problem Statement 13

Purpose Statement 14

Significance of the Study 14

Research Questions 15

Definitions 15

Summary 16

Chapter 2: Literature Review 18

Overview 18

Theoretical Framework 18

Related Literature 20

Summary 48

Chapter 3: Method 49

Overview 49

Research Design 49

Research Questions 50

Site 50

Researcher’s Role 51

Data Collection Procedures 52

Data Analysis Procedures 63

Ethical Considerations 66

Summary 67

References 68

List of Tables

Table 1. Alignment of Research Questions With Data Sources and Analysis 55

List of Abbreviations

Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)

Institutional Review Board (IRB)

Multi-Tiered System of Support (MTSS)

Richland County School District One (RCSD 1)

Socioeconomic status (SES)

Chapter 1: Introduction

Overview

This chapter introduces the applied single case study by outlining the topic of below-average reading proficiency at Meadowfield Elementary School in Columbia, South Carolina. It presents the background of the study, the problem statement, the purpose statement, the significance of the study, the research questions, the key definitions, and a summary. The method and design are briefly noted to provide context for the study: an applied single case study that will use interviews, a survey, and classroom observations to examine the extent to which the problem exists at the site. Comment by David Schaaf: Remove the blank line below.

Background

Reading proficiency in the elementary grades has long been treated as a foundation for success across the curriculum, and difficulties that emerge early tend to persist and widen over time (Stanovich, 1986). Researchers have described reading as the product of several interacting capabilities, including word recognition, language comprehension, and the self-regulatory processes that connect them (Castles et al., 2018; Duke & Cartwright, 2021). Because these capabilities develop through instruction and practice, schools carry much of the responsibility for ensuring that students become proficient readers. The background that follows describes the historical, social, and theoretical contexts in which the problem of below-average reading proficiency at Meadowfield Elementary School is situated.

Historical Context

The historical context for this study begins with the long-running debate over how reading should be taught, a debate that Castles et al. (2018) traced back more than 200 years and that pitted advocates of phonics instruction against advocates of whole-language approaches. Gough and Tunmer (1986) offered an influential way of organizing the research with the simple view of reading, which proposed that reading comprehension depends on decoding and linguistic comprehension. Hoover and Gough (1990) later tested this proposition with elementary students, and the model became a common tool for explaining reading research to educators (Duke & Cartwright, 2021). Over time, researchers and practitioners have noted that the model, while useful, does not capture every contributor to reading success, which led to renewed interest in how reading science is communicated and applied in classrooms.

Significant developments occurred during the past decade, when the phrase science of reading moved from research circles into state legislation, district policy, and public discussion. A special issue of Reading Research Quarterly examined the claims made under this label, and Petscher et al. (2020) responded to common misunderstandings by describing how the accumulated evidence on reading informs education. Ehri (2020) documented how controlled studies of word learning supported systematic phonics instruction, while Shanahan (2020) and Seidenberg et al. (2020) examined the difficulty of translating research findings into classroom practice. These changes contributed to the current understanding of reading instruction and shaped the practices schools use today.

More recent historical trends show continued debate over the strength and scope of the evidence. Wyse and Bradbury (2022) concluded that phonics policy in England was not sufficiently underpinned by research evidence, and Hoover and Tunmer (2022) defended the simple view of reading against proposed replacements. At the same time, federal policy has encouraged schools to select programs with demonstrated effectiveness; the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA, 2015) defined evidence tiers that Neitzel et al. (2022) used to review programs for struggling readers. This historical progression creates a foundation for examining below-average reading proficiency in contemporary settings and highlights the need for continued research that connects broad evidence to the conditions of individual schools.

Social Context

The social context for this study centers on the unequal conditions under which children learn to read, which affect students in high-poverty communities in South Carolina and across the United States. A meta-analysis by Sirin (2005) found a medium to strong relationship between socioeconomic status (SES) and academic achievement, and Hoff (2013) described how differences in language experience in early childhood contribute to gaps that appear when children enter school. Neuman and Moland (2019) reported that print resources were scarce in high-poverty neighborhoods, which limits opportunities to practice reading outside school. Recent trends also point to attendance as a concern, because chronic absenteeism reduces instructional time and can affect classmates as well as the absent student (Gottfried, 2019; Santibañez & Guarino, 2021).

Within this context, stakeholders such as school leaders, teachers, and district administrators are experiencing the consequences of low reading proficiency, which makes it important to examine the problem in its local setting. Meadowfield Elementary School is a public Title I elementary school in Richland County School District One (RCSD 1), located at 525 Galway Lane in Columbia, South Carolina. About 615 students attend the school from prekindergarten through fifth grade, the majority of students are African American, and all students are eligible for free or reduced-price lunch (South Carolina Department of Education, 2025). The school is led by Principal Dr. Melissa Johnson and is a National Paideia Model School that offers gifted and talented programs, science, technology, engineering, and mathematics instruction, and visual and performing arts (South Carolina Department of Education, 2025). Per-pupil spending is about $22,848, yet reading proficiency is 41% and mathematics proficiency is 40%, both below state averages (Public School Review, 2025).

Staffing and attendance data add to this picture. Over five school years, the number of teachers at Meadowfield declined by about 7% while enrollment remained near 610 students, and the chronic absenteeism rate ranged from 22.3% to 31.1% (SchoolDigger, 2025). Sorensen and Ladd (2020) described the hidden costs of teacher turnover, including disruption to instructional continuity, which is relevant to schools that lose teachers faster than they can replace them. Understanding these patterns is essential because the combination of poverty, attendance challenges, and staffing pressures may shape how reading instruction is delivered. This study offers insights that may inform instruction, intervention, and resource allocation at Meadowfield Elementary School.

Theoretical Context

This study is guided by the Active View of Reading, originally developed by Duke and Cartwright (2021) as an expansion of the simple view of reading (Gough & Tunmer, 1986). The central premise of the model is that reading difficulties can have a number of causes, that word recognition and language comprehension overlap in important ways, and that active self-regulatory processes such as motivation, strategy use, and executive function contribute substantially to reading. Within the context of this study, the model explains why a below-average proficiency rate cannot be attributed to a single cause and why instruction, student characteristics, and school conditions must be considered together.

Research on the theoretical background of the topic supports this broader view. Hoover and Gough (1990) provided early evidence that decoding and linguistic comprehension each contributed to reading comprehension in elementary students. Burns et al. (2023) later synthesized 26 meta-analyses and reported that components of the Active View of Reading were associated with reading outcomes and could serve as intervention targets, and Cartwright and Palian (2024) found in a meta-analysis that executive function interventions improved reading in grades 1 through 8. At the same time, Hoover and Tunmer (2022) argued that the simple view has strong empirical support and that the proposed replacement was unproven, which shows that the theoretical conversation continues.

Problem Statement

The problem is that many elementary students in high-poverty schools read below grade-level expectations, and the instructional and school-level conditions that sustain low reading proficiency are not well understood within individual schools. Existing research indicates that reading difficulties arise from multiple causes and that improvement depends on the quality, intensity, and consistent delivery of instruction and intervention (Burns et al., 2023; Donegan & Wanzek, 2021; Duke & Cartwright, 2021; Hall et al., 2023; Neitzel et al., 2022), demonstrating that this issue affects struggling readers in many settings. However, it is not yet known to what extent below-average reading proficiency exists within a high-poverty urban elementary school such as Meadowfield Elementary School, where 41% of students are proficient in reading and the rate falls below the district and state rates (South Carolina Department of Education, 2025), and specifically among the teachers, reading specialists, and school leaders responsible for reading instruction. This is significant because the experiences of these educators shape the decisions made about instruction, intervention, and resources. Without examining the extent to which below-average proficiency is present, stakeholders at Meadowfield may be limited in their ability to make informed decisions regarding reading instruction, professional development, and support for struggling readers. Therefore, this applied single case study is needed to examine the extent to which below-average reading proficiency exists at Meadowfield Elementary School in order to inform stakeholders and identify potential areas for improvement within this setting.

Purpose Statement

The purpose of this applied single case study is to examine the extent to which below-average reading proficiency exists at Meadowfield Elementary School in Columbia, South Carolina. In this applied single case study, reading proficiency will be generally defined as the ability to read, comprehend, and apply grade-level text, which depends on word recognition, language comprehension, and the self-regulatory processes that link them (Duke & Cartwright, 2021). The theory guiding this study is the Active View of Reading (Duke & Cartwright, 2021).

Significance of the Study

This study contributes to the theoretical understanding of below-average reading proficiency by examining how it is reflected within a specific school, building on literature that has primarily focused on broader populations of struggling readers (Burns et al., 2023; Hall et al., 2023). By grounding the study in the Active View of Reading, this research provides insight into how word recognition, language comprehension, and self-regulation may be interpreted within a localized setting (Duke & Cartwright, 2021). Empirically, this study builds on prior research such as Neitzel et al. (2022), who synthesized evidence on programs for struggling readers in elementary schools, and Fien et al. (2021), who examined whether multi-tiered systems of support can improve equity and reading achievement, by using an applied single case study design to examine the extent to which the problem exists at the site. This approach provides context-specific support that may not be captured in broader studies. Practically, the findings may support teachers, reading specialists, school leaders, and district administrators at Meadowfield in making informed decisions by identifying areas for improvement in instruction, intervention, and professional development. The development of site-specific recommendations may guide improvements in reading outcomes for the students the school serves. The findings are not intended to be generalizable and are not transferable beyond the scope of the site.

Research Questions

The following research questions will guide the study. They follow the applied single case study approach by examining the extent to which the problem exists within a specific site, the factors that appear to contribute to it, and the strategies that may address it.

Research Question 1:

To what extent does below-average reading proficiency exist at Meadowfield Elementary School?

Research Question 2:

What factors appear to contribute to below-average reading proficiency within Meadowfield Elementary School?

Research Question 3:

What evidence-informed strategies could address below-average reading proficiency within Meadowfield Elementary School?

Definitions Comment by David Schaaf: The terms no longer need to be in Bold. Remove the Bold from them.

· Active View of Reading: The Active View of Reading is a model that expands the simple view of reading by describing reading as the interaction of word recognition, language comprehension, bridging processes, and active self-regulation (Duke & Cartwright, 2021).

· Chronic Absenteeism: Chronic absenteeism is a pattern of missing a substantial share of school days, conventionally defined as missing 10% or more of the school year (Gottfried & Ehrlich, 2018).

· Evidence-Based Reading Instruction: Evidence-based reading instruction is instruction whose practices are supported by the accumulated findings of scientific research on how children learn to read and how instruction influences that learning (Petscher et al., 2020).

· Multi-Tiered System of Support: A multi-tiered system of support is a framework in which all students receive core instruction and students who need additional help receive increasingly intensive, data-informed support (Fien et al., 2021).

· Reading Intervention: Reading intervention is additional instruction, delivered through approaches such as small-group or one-to-one tutoring, that targets the needs of students who are reading below grade level (Neitzel et al., 2022).

· Reading Proficiency: Reading proficiency is the ability to read words accurately, understand language, and comprehend grade-level text, as reflected in performance against grade-level benchmarks (Castles et al., 2018; Duke & Cartwright, 2021).

Summary

This chapter introduced the applied single case study by presenting the background, the problem statement, the purpose statement, the significance of the study, the research questions, and the definitions. The problem is that elementary students in high-poverty schools often read below grade level, and it is not yet known to what extent below-average reading proficiency exists at Meadowfield Elementary School, where 41% of students are proficient in reading. The Active View of Reading was identified as the theory guiding the study, and three research questions were stated to examine the extent of the problem, the factors that appear to contribute to it, and the strategies that could address it. Chapter 2 presents the theoretical framework and reviews the literature related to reading proficiency and the factors associated with it.

Chapter 2: Literature Review Comment by David Schaaf: You have 60 references cited in Chapter 2, which is perfect. The minimum is 50.

Overview

The purpose of this literature review is to examine the existing body of research related to elementary reading proficiency and the factors associated with below-average reading achievement. This chapter begins with the theoretical framework that provides the foundation for the study, the Active View of Reading, followed by a synthesis of the related literature addressing reading proficiency, evidence-based reading instruction, reading intervention, Multi-Tiered Systems of Support (MTSS), socioeconomic factors, chronic absenteeism, teacher preparedness, school leadership and resources, and teacher perspectives. The review highlights what is currently known, identifies the questions that the literature leaves unanswered, and demonstrates how the research applies to the problem of below-average reading proficiency at Meadowfield Elementary School.

Theoretical Framework

This study is grounded in the Active View of Reading developed by Duke and Cartwright (2021), which expands the simple view of reading proposed by Gough and Tunmer (1986). The simple view held that reading comprehension is the product of decoding and linguistic comprehension, so that a deficit in either component limits comprehension regardless of strength in the other. Hoover and Gough (1990) tested this proposition with elementary students and found support for the contribution of both components, and the model subsequently became a common way of explaining reading research to teachers. Duke and Cartwright observed that the simple view has been widely presented to educators in professional development on the science of reading and, in the 35 years since it was proposed, research has revealed additional understandings about reading that the model does not represent. Comment by David Schaaf: Having older literature in the Theoretical Framework section is desired because you should be citing the seminal work of this theory.

Duke and Cartwright (2021) synthesized research documenting three advances. First, reading difficulties have a number of causes, not all of which fall under decoding or listening comprehension. Second, rather than operating independently, word recognition and language comprehension overlap in important ways. Third, many contributors to reading not named in the simple view, such as active self-regulatory processes, play a substantial role. The Active View of Reading represents these advances by depicting word recognition, which includes phonological awareness, decoding, and sight recognition, and language comprehension, which includes background knowledge, vocabulary, and verbal reasoning. Between and around these components are bridging processes such as fluency and vocabulary knowledge, and active self-regulation, which includes motivation and engagement, strategy use, and executive function. The authors also reported research showing that instruction aligned with these advances can improve students’ reading.

Subsequent research has examined the empirical standing of the model. Burns et al. (2023) conducted a meta-analysis of 26 meta-analyses and found that components of the Active View of Reading were associated with reading outcomes and could serve as intervention targets. Cartwright and Palian (2024) conducted a meta-analysis of studies of reading-specific executive functions and concluded that executive function interventions improved reading in students in grades 1 through 8. At the same time, Hoover and Tunmer (2022) argued that the simple view has garnered strong empirical support, has achieved consensus within the field, and has shown utility for educators, and they characterized the proposed replacement as a weaker and unproven model. These exchanges indicate that the model is part of an active scholarly conversation rather than a settled account, which is a reason to apply it as a lens for inquiry and not as a fixed set of predictions.

The Active View of Reading is appropriate for an applied study of below-average reading proficiency for three reasons. The model identifies causes of reading difficulty within and beyond word recognition and language comprehension, which allows instructional, individual, and contextual contributors to be examined without assuming a single explanation (Duke & Cartwright, 2021). It also points to concrete targets for instruction and intervention, an emphasis that was reinforced by evidence that its components can be addressed through intervention (Burns et al., 2023). In addition, it is consistent with the broader reading science literature, which has described reading acquisition as a developmental process in which phonics, vocabulary, and comprehension each play a role (Castles et al., 2018).

In this applied single case study, the Active View of Reading provides the framework for examining reading instruction and school conditions at Meadowfield Elementary School at three levels. At the student level, the framework directs attention to the word recognition, language comprehension, and self-regulation skills that students need. At the classroom level, it directs attention to how instruction, differentiation, and intervention address those skills. At the school level, it directs attention to the staffing, time, materials, professional learning, attendance, and leadership conditions that influence whether evidence-based practices are used consistently. Socioeconomic and learning needs are treated as contextual factors and not as predetermined explanations for students’ reading performance. This framework is consistent with the description of the problem in Chapter 1 and with the research questions that guide the study.

Related Literature Comment by David Schaaf: I started commenting on the format changes required for this section, specifically the headings are not at the correct level. You must go through all the sections and ensure the headings are formatted correctly. Comment by David Schaaf: I also made comments below that the discussion in a couple of sections appeared to be in the wrong spot. Reread the Chapter to make sure your discussion is consistent. Comment by David Schaaf: For this section, you should have minimal citations for literature more than 5 years old. Since you are completing this research in 2027, you should focus on literature published 2023-2027. I would accept some literature from 2022.

Research on elementary reading proficiency spans cognitive science, instructional research, program evaluation, and education policy, and the findings have shaped what schools are expected to do for struggling readers (Castles et al., 2018; Petscher et al., 2020). Researchers have generally agreed that reading outcomes reflect a combination of student characteristics, instructional quality, intervention, home and community conditions, and school-level supports. However, they have also noted limitations and inconsistencies that make it difficult to apply findings from one setting directly to another. The sections that follow synthesize the research on reading proficiency, evidence-based instruction, intervention, MTSS, socioeconomic conditions, attendance, teacher preparation, school leadership and implementation, and teacher perspectives, and they connect that research to the problem of below-average reading proficiency at Meadowfield Elementary School. Comment by David Schaaf: As this is one of the reading outcomes and contains commas, the other reading outcomes should be separated by semi-colons (APA Manual, section 6.4, p. 156).

Reading Proficiency in Elementary Education Comment by David Schaaf: All of your headings in this section are Level 2 headings. According to your outline in the previous paragraph, there are nine Level 2 headings and the rest are all Level 3 headings. The headings must be structured correctly. Confirm the headings are in the correct order and set to the right heading level.

Reading proficiency in the elementary grades is both an educational outcome and a gateway to later learning, because students who read well can use text to acquire knowledge in every subject. The literature on how proficiency develops describes a progression from learning the alphabetic code to reading words fluently and then to constructing meaning from text. Researchers have also documented that early differences in reading tend to widen as students move through school. The subsections below describe how reading proficiency develops, why early difficulties matter, and what the research suggests about proficiency gaps in high-poverty settings.

The Development of Reading Proficiency Comment by David Schaaf: The subsections under Reading Proficiency must be Level 3 headings.

Castles et al. (2018) reviewed the science of learning to read from children’s earliest alphabetic skills to the fluent word recognition and skilled comprehension of expert readers. They explained that children must learn that graphemes represent phonemes before they can progress to more advanced reading and that, once the code is mastered, reading depends increasingly on vocabulary, background knowledge, and the ability to make inferences. Ehri (2005) described a similar development in the way readers learn to read words, in which connections between spellings, pronunciations, and meanings are stored in memory so that words can be recognized automatically. Perfetti and Stafura (2014) emphasized that knowledge of words, including their forms and meanings, is central to a theory of reading comprehension. These accounts suggest that reading proficiency is not a single skill but a coordinated set of competencies that develop over time with instruction and practice.

Components of Comprehension Comment by David Schaaf: This appears to be subordinate to the previous heading, which would be Level 4. However, you cannot have a single Level 4 heading so I recommend deleting this heading.

Comprehension depends on more than the accurate identification of words. Cain et al. (2004) studied children’s reading comprehension and found that component skills such as inference making, comprehension monitoring, and knowledge of story structure contributed to comprehension beyond word reading and vocabulary. Elleman and Oslund (2019) reviewed reading comprehension research and discussed its implications for practice and policy, noting that comprehension is influenced by multiple factors and that instruction must attend to more than decoding. Sun et al. (2021) conducted a meta-analysis of the relationship between reading strategy use and reading comprehension and found that the two were related, which supports the Active View of Reading’s attention to strategy use as part of self-regulation. Together, these studies indicate that students who decode accurately may still struggle to comprehend if their language knowledge, strategy use, or monitoring skills are underdeveloped.

Early Reading Trajectories

Stanovich (1986) described Matthew effects in reading, in which students who read well gain access to more text and more vocabulary and therefore improve further, while students who struggle read less and fall progressively behind. Mol and Bus (2011) conducted a meta-analysis of print exposure and found that it was related to language and reading outcomes, which suggests that opportunities to read contribute to development in addition to instruction. Gersten et al. (2020) synthesized studies of reading interventions for students at risk in the primary grades, which reflects the emphasis that researchers have placed on intervening early. For schools, these findings imply that the primary grades are an especially consequential period, because difficulties that are not addressed early may accumulate and become more difficult to remediate.

Language and Knowledge Foundations Comment by David Schaaf: This appears to be subordinate to the previous heading, which would be Level 4. However, you talk about reading comprehension and socioeconomic circumstances which would fall under the first and third sections. Please review this section to ensure your headings are correct and organized consistently.

Reading proficiency depends on the language and knowledge that students bring to text as well as on their ability to decode. Perfetti and Stafura (2014) described word knowledge as a central link between the written word and meaning, so that students who know more about the words they read tend to comprehend more. Pace et al. (2017) reviewed how socioeconomic circumstances are related to children’s language development, which indicates that students may arrive at school with different amounts of vocabulary and background knowledge. Castles et al. (2018) noted that reading comprehension becomes increasingly dependent on language and knowledge as decoding becomes automatic. These findings suggest that a proficiency rate reflects the combined effect of several kinds of skill, and that a student who is below grade level may need support in different areas than a classmate who is also below grade level.

Proficiency in High-Poverty Schools

Researchers have documented that reading achievement is unevenly distributed across communities. Sirin (2005) conducted a meta-analysis of research on socioeconomic status and academic achievement and found a medium to strong relationship that varied with characteristics of the student population and school. Fien et al. (2021) argued that evidence-based practices and multi-tiered systems of support have the potential to improve equity and reading achievement for low-income students, which frames below-average proficiency as a problem that schools may be able to influence. At Meadowfield Elementary School, where 41% of students are proficient in reading and every student is eligible for free or reduced-price lunch (South Carolina Department of Education, 2025), these findings are relevant because they suggest that the proficiency rate reflects both community conditions and the effectiveness of school-based supports. A proficiency rate alone, however, indicates that a problem exists without revealing why it persists or how teachers experience it, which is the kind of question that school-level research is positioned to address.

Evidence-Based Reading Instruction

Evidence-based reading instruction refers to instructional practices supported by the accumulated findings of research on how children learn to read and how teaching influences that learning (Petscher et al., 2020). The literature on this topic has been marked by both consensus and disagreement. Researchers have largely agreed that foundational skills such as phonemic awareness and phonics matter, while they have debated how much emphasis these skills should receive, how they should be combined with language and knowledge instruction, and how research findings should be translated into practice. The subsections below review the research on foundational skills, structured literacy, comprehension and language, and the debates surrounding the science of reading.

Foundational Skills and Systematic Phonics Comment by David Schaaf: Subsections are Level 3 headings. I will not continue to distinguish between Level 2 and Level 3 headings. Please ensure you have addressed them all.

Ehri (2020) reviewed research on how beginners learn to read words and concluded that the evidence supported systematic phonics instruction that teaches the knowledge and skills essential to word reading. Castles et al. (2018) similarly explained why phonics instruction is central to learning to read in a writing system such as English, while cautioning that phonics alone is not sufficient for comprehension. Erbeli et al. (2024) conducted a meta-analysis on the optimal cumulative dosage of early phonemic awareness instruction, which illustrates that research has moved beyond whether such instruction works to questions of how much is needed. Phonics instruction that is explicit and sequenced also has implications for how teachers plan lessons for students who are behind. For a school with low reading proficiency, these findings suggest that the consistency and quality of foundational skills instruction in the early grades is a central question. Comment by David Schaaf: illustrated All discussion about past research must use past tense verbs.

Structured Literacy

Spear-Swerling (2019) compared structured literacy with typical literacy practices and described how the two differ in the explicitness, systematic organization, and diagnostic use of instruction on language structure, including sound-symbol relationships, syllables, and morphology. The comparison is important because many classrooms combine elements of several approaches, and the practices teachers use may not match the practices recommended by research. Hindman et al. (2020) argued that teachers need tools that bridge research and practice, and they described resources for bringing the science of reading to preservice elementary teachers. When teachers lack such tools, they may understand the importance of foundational skills in principle but find it difficult to implement them systematically. Structured approaches are particularly relevant for students who have fallen behind because they provide clarity and repetition and allow teachers to locate where a student’s skill breakdown occurs.

Fluency, Vocabulary, and Comprehension

Instruction that develops word reading must be accompanied by instruction that builds the language and knowledge students need to understand what they read. Hudson et al. (2020) synthesized research from 2000 to 2019 on fluency interventions for elementary students with reading difficulties, reflecting the role of fluency as a bridge between word recognition and comprehension. Perfetti and Stafura (2014) argued that word knowledge is central to comprehension, and Cain et al. (2004) showed that comprehension skills contribute beyond word reading and vocabulary. Campbell (2021) examined shared picture book reading in an era of phonics-first instruction and identified a tendency for shared reading to be reduced or narrowed to phonics content, which indicates that attention to foundational skills can crowd out rich language experiences if instruction is not balanced. Elleman and Oslund (2019) likewise emphasized that comprehension instruction should be part of the reading program. These studies support the view that effective programs address word recognition and language comprehension together. Comment by David Schaaf: It would best to find more current research which supports these findings.

Balancing Skills and Meaning Comment by David Schaaf: This appears to be subordinate to the previous heading, which would be Level 4. However, you cannot have a single Level 4 heading so I recommend deleting this heading.

Instruction that attends to the code but neglects meaning can leave students unable to use their skills to learn from text. Castles et al. (2018) concluded that effective instruction teaches both the alphabetic code and the language skills that support comprehension, and Ehri (2005) described how learning to read words depends on connecting spellings with pronunciations and meanings. Campbell (2021) observed that shared reading was crowded out in classrooms that emphasized phonics first, and Elleman and Oslund (2019) discussed the need for comprehension instruction in policy and practice. Taken together, these works indicate that the purpose of foundational skills instruction is to enable students to read and understand text, which means that a program can emphasize the right skills and still fall short if it does not give students opportunities to apply them to meaningful reading. Comment by David Schaaf: These are dated references, especially the Ehri article which is over 20 years old. Your research support must be current to ensure your findings and recommendations are compared to today’s best practices.

Debates About the Science of Reading

Not all researchers have agreed on how the evidence should be characterized. Wyse and Bradbury (2022) reported a meta-analysis of 55 experimental trials and a survey of 2,205 teachers and concluded that England’s approach to phonics was not sufficiently underpinned by research evidence, and they recommended changes to curriculum policy. Shanahan (2020) examined what constitutes a science of reading instruction, and Seidenberg et al. (2020) described challenges in connecting reading science and educational practice. Petscher et al. (2020) responded to misinformation by describing how the science of reading informs twenty-first-century education. Taken together, these works indicate that the strength of the evidence for particular practices varies and that translating research into classroom practice requires judgment. This conclusion is relevant to schools such as Meadowfield because it suggests that adopting a labeled program is not equivalent to implementing the instructional practices that the evidence supports. Comment by David Schaaf: These are all 6-7 years old. Your supporting literature needs to be more current (published after 2022).

Reading Intervention for Struggling Readers

Even strong core instruction will not meet the needs of every student, and the literature on reading intervention describes what schools can do for students who are reading below grade level. Researchers have synthesized decades of experimental studies to estimate the effects of small-group instruction, tutoring, intensive intervention, and whole-class approaches. The findings have generally been positive, although effects vary by program, grade, and implementation. The subsections below summarize the research on primary-grade intervention, intervention for upper elementary students, and the characteristics associated with effective programs.

Primary-Grade Intervention

Gersten et al. (2020) conducted a meta-analysis of 33 experimental and quasi-experimental studies conducted between 2002 and 2017 and found a significant positive effect of reading interventions for students at risk in grades 1 through 3, with a mean effect size of 0.39. Wanzek et al. (2016) conducted meta-analyses of Tier 2 type reading interventions in grades K through 3 and found positive effects on reading outcomes. Wanzek et al. (2018) updated the research on intensive early reading interventions and reported that effects were larger in kindergarten and first grade than in the later primary grades. Denton et al. (2014) conducted an experimental evaluation comparing guided reading, an explicit intervention, and typical school instruction for primary-grade students at risk and found that both interventions outperformed typical instruction on untimed word identification, while the explicit intervention was more likely to accelerate progress in decoding, fluency, and comprehension. These findings indicate that early, targeted intervention is effective and that the design of the intervention matters. Comment by David Schaaf: It is great to check later research to see if previous findings are still valid. However, this research is 8-9 years old. Are the previous findings still valid today?

Intervention in Upper Elementary Grades

Students who are not identified early continue to need support in the intermediate grades. Donegan and Wanzek (2021) reviewed research on reading interventions implemented for upper elementary struggling readers and discussed the findings of recent studies, which are important for understanding the issues encountered when supporting students who remain below expected reading levels. Hall et al. (2023) completed a systematic review and meta-analysis of forty years of reading intervention research for elementary students with or at risk for dyslexia, which contributes to knowledge about what works for students with the most persistent difficulties. These reviews indicate that intervention remains valuable after the primary grades while also showing that research on upper elementary students is less extensive than research on younger children.

Characteristics of Effective Programs

Neitzel et al. (2022) synthesized quantitative research on programs for struggling readers in elementary schools and examined 65 studies of 51 programs. They found positive outcomes for one-to-one tutoring and positive, though smaller, outcomes for one-to-small-group tutoring, and they found no differences in outcomes between teachers and teaching assistants who served as tutors. Whole-class approaches, mostly cooperative learning, and whole-class or whole-school approaches that incorporated tutoring produced outcomes for struggling readers as large as those of tutoring while benefiting many more students, whereas technology-supported adaptive instruction did not show significant positive outcomes. These results suggest that schools have several effective options, and they underscore that the choice of program should be informed by evidence and by the capacity of the school to deliver it. Erbeli et al. (2024) added that the amount of instruction matters, as their meta-analysis addressed the dosage of phonemic awareness instruction.

Dosage, Grouping, and Duration Comment by David Schaaf: This should be a Level 4 heading as it falls under the previous heading.

Researchers have also asked how much intervention is enough and in what format it should be delivered. Wanzek et al. (2018) examined features such as the duration of intervention, instructional group size, grade level, and individualization as potential moderators of the effects of intensive early reading interventions. Gersten et al. (2020) found that the overall effect of interventions varied across outcome domains and areas of instruction, so the benefit of an intervention depends on what is taught and what is measured. Erbeli et al. (2024) approached the dosage question for phonemic awareness instruction and quantified how the amount of instruction relates to outcomes. Because schools have finite time and personnel, these studies imply that decisions about grouping and scheduling should be informed by evidence about intensity and not made solely for convenience.

Students With Persistent Difficulties Comment by David Schaaf: Level 4 heading

A subset of students continues to struggle despite instruction and intervention, and research has examined what is known about helping them. Hall et al. (2023) synthesized four decades of research on reading interventions for elementary students with or at risk for dyslexia, which provides a basis for understanding the effects of intervention on students with the most persistent word-reading difficulties. Cartwright and Palian (2024) concluded that executive function interventions improved reading in students in grades 1 through 8, suggesting that self-regulatory skills are an additional target for some students. Denton et al. (2014) found that explicit intervention was more likely than guided reading to accelerate progress for primary-grade students at risk. These findings imply that students who remain below proficiency may require more explicit, intensive, and carefully matched instruction than core classroom instruction provides.

Technology and Whole-Class Approaches Comment by David Schaaf: Level 4 heading

Not every approach has shown the same promise. Neitzel et al. (2022) found that technology-supported adaptive instruction did not show significant positive outcomes for struggling readers, while whole-class approaches such as cooperative learning produced outcomes as large as those of tutoring. Hudson et al. (2020) synthesized fluency interventions for elementary students with reading difficulties, which indicates that targeted practice in fluency is one component that schools can address within or alongside the core program. Gersten et al. (2020) similarly found that effects varied by area of instruction. For schools that have limited staff, these findings imply that investment in whole-class instructional improvement may reach more students than adding supplemental software, although the evidence depends on the specific program and its implementation.

Application to High-Poverty Schools Comment by David Schaaf: Level 4 heading.

The research on intervention is particularly relevant to schools that serve many struggling readers because the demand for intervention may exceed the capacity to provide it. When a large portion of a school’s students read below grade level, schools must decide how to prioritize groups, allocate staff, and sustain intervention schedules. Neitzel et al. (2022) indicated that approaches reaching many students, such as whole-class and whole-school approaches, can produce meaningful outcomes for struggling readers, which is a consideration for schools with large numbers of students below proficiency. At the same time, effective intervention depends on accurate identification of student needs, which links intervention research to the research on tiered systems of support described in the next section.

Multi-Tiered Systems of Support Comment by David Schaaf: Continue examining the rest of the sections/subsections below to ensure the headings are correct. I will check them out later but wanted to get this back to you quicker.

Multi-Tiered Systems of Support (MTSS) are frameworks that organize instruction and intervention into levels of increasing intensity, guided by assessment data. In reading, MTSS typically includes core instruction for all students, targeted small-group intervention for students who need additional support, and intensive, individualized instruction for students with persistent difficulties. The framework is widely used in elementary schools, and the research on it addresses both its potential and the difficulty of implementing it well.

The Promise of MTSS for Equity and Achievement

Fien et al. (2021) examined whether the evidence revolution in education and multi-tiered systems of support could improve education equity and reading achievement for low-income students. Their discussion framed MTSS as a mechanism for connecting evidence-based practices to students who are most at risk. Neitzel et al. (2022) similarly aligned their review with response-to-intervention networks and found that substantial effects could be obtained for struggling readers with interventions that were organized within such networks. For a high-poverty school, the logic of MTSS is that students receive support as they struggle instead of waiting until difficulties become severe, and that progress monitoring informs decisions about whether instruction should be intensified.

Implementation Challenges

While MTSS has the potential to be effective, it requires conditions that schools may not be able to routinely maintain. Arden et al. (2017) reviewed lessons learned from national implementation efforts and noted the need for systemic supports to support tiered systems. It takes time and coordination between classroom teachers, reading specialists, interventionists and administrators to implement. Research on implementation suggests that program outcomes are more positive when programs are delivered in a more faithful and quality manner (Durlak & DuPre, 2008), meaning that a program that is written and designed in a book may have a positive impact if it is delivered as written. The results indicate that a system of MTSS does not ensure it is effective.

Data Use and Progress Monitoring

The effectiveness of a tiered system depends on how educators use assessment data. Teachers must be able to identify which skills are lacking, group students appropriately, monitor progress, and adjust instruction when students do not respond. Hindman et al. (2020) emphasized the need for tools that help teachers apply research in practice, and Spear-Swerling (2019) noted that structured approaches permit teachers to diagnose where skill breakdowns occur. Without sufficient preparation and time, data may be collected without being used to change instruction. This possibility is relevant in schools with limited staff, where the same personnel may be responsible for assessment, intervention, and classroom teaching.

Equity Considerations

Tiered systems are often discussed as a means of promoting equity because they are intended to provide additional support to students who are furthest behind. Fien et al. (2021) framed the evidence revolution and multi-tiered systems of support as potential means of improving equity and reading achievement for low-income students. Burns et al. (2023) discussed the implications of the Active View of Reading for social justice by evaluating its components as intervention targets, which links instructional decisions to questions of fairness in students’ opportunities to learn. However, a system that exists in a school does not ensure equitable outcomes unless it is implemented consistently across classrooms and grade levels (Arden et al., 2017). This consideration is relevant to schools that serve large proportions of students from low-income families because inconsistent implementation may disproportionately affect students who depend most on school-based support.

Relevance to Meadowfield Elementary School

Meadowfield Elementary School has experienced a decline in teaching staff over five school years while enrollment has remained near 610 students (SchoolDigger, 2025), and these conditions may limit the capacity to deliver small-group intervention consistently. The literature indicates that the presence of an intervention framework does not ensure that students receive the intended support (Arden et al., 2017; Durlak & DuPre, 2008). Therefore, a rate of 41% proficiency may reflect both the needs of the student population and the extent to which tiered supports are staffed, scheduled, and monitored. This reasoning underscores the value of understanding how a specific school implements the practices that research recommends.

Socioeconomic Factors and Reading Achievement

Socioeconomic conditions influence children’s access to language, books, enrichment, and stable learning environments, and the research on these influences has been extensive. At the same time, researchers have cautioned that socioeconomic disadvantage should not be interpreted as a deterministic explanation for low achievement, because schools can influence outcomes through the quality of instruction and support. The subsections below review research on the relationship between socioeconomic status (SES) and achievement, on language and print environments, and on the school-level implications.

SES and Achievement

Sirin (2005) conducted a meta-analysis of research on SES and academic achievement published between 1990 and 2000 and found a medium to strong relationship at the student level, with variation by factors such as minority status and school level. Although the study is older, it remains a foundational source because of its scope and because later research has continued to examine the relationship. Fien et al. (2021) approached the problem from the perspective of what schools can do, discussing how evidence-based practices and tiered systems might improve reading achievement for low-income students. Together, these perspectives indicate that SES is associated with achievement but that school practices may moderate the relationship.

Language Environments

Hoff (2013) examined the early language development of children from low-SES and language-minority homes and discussed the implications for closing achievement gaps, describing how differences in language experience contribute to differences in vocabulary and related skills. Pace et al. (2017) reviewed pathways between SES and language development, which included differences in the language input children receive and the contexts in which they learn. Because vocabulary and language comprehension are central components of reading in the Active View of Reading (Duke & Cartwright, 2021), differences in language environments are a plausible contributor to differences in reading comprehension. These findings do not mean that low-income families lack language resources but rather that children may enter school with different experiences, which schools can address through language-rich instruction.

Access to Print

Neuman and Moland (2019) studied the consequences of income segregation for children’s access to print and found that print resources were scarce in high-poverty neighborhoods compared with middle-income neighborhoods, a condition they described as book deserts. Mol and Bus (2011) conducted a meta-analysis showing that print exposure was related to language and reading outcomes. When children have limited access to books, they have fewer opportunities to practice reading, build vocabulary, and acquire background knowledge outside school. This places additional importance on school and classroom libraries, protected reading time, and programs that provide books to students in high-poverty communities.

Poverty and School Practices

The relationship between poverty and reading achievement is not fixed, because it is mediated by what happens in schools. Sirin (2005) found that the association between SES and achievement varied with characteristics of students and schools, which implies that the relationship can differ from one context to another. Jackson and Mackevicius (2024) reported that additional school spending generally improved outcomes, which indicates that school resources can offset some effects of disadvantage. Fien et al. (2021) similarly argued that evidence-based practices have the potential to improve outcomes for low-income students. These studies suggest that high-poverty schools can influence reading achievement through instruction, intervention, and the use of resources, even though community conditions shape the challenges they face.

School-Level Implications

The research on SES suggests that schools serving low-income students may benefit from additional reading materials, protected instructional time, targeted intervention, family literacy activities, and coordinated support services. Jackson and Mackevicius (2024) reviewed evaluations of school spending policy in the United States and found that additional school spending generally improved student outcomes, though effects depended on how resources were used. This finding is consistent with the observation in Chapter 1 that Meadowfield’s per-pupil spending is high while its proficiency rate remains below the state average (Public School Review, 2025), because it suggests that the way resources are deployed may matter as much as the amount. The literature therefore supports examining how resources, time, and support are organized in a school, and not only how much funding the school receives.

Chronic Absenteeism and Reading Development

Regular absences deprive students of learning opportunities and the impact can be significant if they are frequent and clustered in the early years of school. Chronic absenteeism is a major policy issue, partly because federal accountability initiatives incentivized states to count and report on chronic absenteeism (Gottfried & Ehrlich, 2018). Studies of absenteeism have focused on its impact on the absent student, its impact on fellow students and teachers, and the types of supports that are likely to increase student attendance.

Effects on Achievement

Gershenson et al. (2017) examined whether student absences are worth the worry in U.S. primary schools and found negative associations between absences and achievement in the primary grades. Santibañez and Guarino (2021) reviewed the effects of absenteeism on academic and social-emotional outcomes and discussed lessons for the period of pandemic-related disruption, noting that absences were associated with lower achievement. For reading, absences can be especially consequential because instruction is cumulative; a student who misses lessons on letter-sound relationships may struggle with decoding, spelling, and independent reading that depend on those lessons. Donegan and Wanzek (2021) emphasized the need for intervention for students below expected reading levels, which is difficult to deliver when students are not present.

Spillover Effects on Classmates and Teachers

Gottfried (2019) employed elementary school student data from a large urban district to estimate the achievement impact of chronic absenteeism on the achievement of the students' classmates and found that students in classrooms with higher chronic absenteeism rates had lower achievement. The impact was larger for those who qualified for free or reduced-price lunch and for those students who were identified as having behavioral problems. Gottfried et al. (2024) found that teacher job satisfaction was negatively related to student absenteeism, indicating that such absences can interfere with the smooth running of the class and make teaching more challenging. These results have implications for reading instruction because teachers need to repeat instruction and regroup students and alter instructional pace when students come and go from the instructional sequence.

Early Grades and Cumulative Effects

Absences in the early grades may be particularly consequential because early reading skills build on one another. Gershenson et al. (2017) focused on the primary grades and examined the relationship between absences and achievement, and Stanovich (1986) described how early differences in reading can widen over time as students who read less fall further behind. Santibañez and Guarino (2021) discussed the effects of missed school on academic and social-emotional outcomes, noting that the consequences extend beyond test scores. When absences are frequent, a student may repeatedly miss the lessons on which later skills depend, and the resulting gaps may be difficult to close without intervention. This reasoning suggests that attendance and early reading instruction are closely connected in the early grades.

Addressing Absenteeism

Kearney and Graczyk (2020) described a multidimensional, multi-tiered system of supports model to promote school attendance and address school absenteeism, which applies the logic of tiered support to attendance. The model reflects the understanding that absenteeism has varied causes, including illness, transportation, family responsibilities, and school-related factors, and that responses should match the cause. Gottfried and Ehrlich (2018) introduced a special issue on combating chronic absence and described mentorship and other approaches that can improve attendance. This research suggests that attendance supports and instructional supports may need to be coordinated, particularly in schools where absenteeism is high and students need catch-up instruction after missing school.

Absenteeism, Poverty, and Instructional Disruption

Absenteeism is not distributed evenly across students, and its effects are not experienced equally. Gottfried (2019) found that the spillover effects of chronic absenteeism on classmates were greater for students who qualified for free or reduced-price lunch, which indicates that high-poverty classrooms may be affected more strongly. Santibañez and Guarino (2021) emphasized that absences are associated with both academic and social-emotional outcomes, which suggests that attendance problems may reflect broader barriers in students’ lives. Kearney and Graczyk (2020) recommended matching supports to the causes of absenteeism, and Sirin (2005) documented the association between socioeconomic conditions and achievement. In combination, these studies indicate that attendance, poverty, and reading instruction are interrelated and that efforts to improve reading may be less effective if they do not account for the circumstances that keep students out of class.

Relevance to Meadowfield Elementary School

Meadowfield Elementary School has had a high rate of chronic absenteeism in the past few years, ranging from 22.3% in 2019 to 31.1% in 2025 (SchoolDigger, 2025). With evidence that absenteeism impacts on absent students and the students in their classes (Gottfried, 2019), attendance is a viable factor in the school's low proficiency. Absences are one factor among many to consider when addressing the problem of school proficiency gaps, as there are no known measures of the contribution absences will make to the gap at any given school.

Teacher Preparedness and Professional Development

Teachers are central to reading instruction, and their knowledge, experience, and access to professional learning shape the quality of instruction students receive. The research on teacher effectiveness has examined characteristics of teachers, the effects of professional development and coaching, and the conditions that allow teachers to apply what they learn. The subsections below review research on teacher characteristics, professional learning, and the problem of staffing continuity.

Teacher Characteristics and Competencies

López-Martín et al. (2023) performed a meta-analytical review of teacher characteristics and competencies and their impact on academic achievement for students and found that teachers are important to student outcomes. Podolsky et al. (2019) found that generally, teaching experience is correlated with an increase in teacher effectiveness, with teachers showing the greatest improvement in the first few years of experience, and in supportive teaching environments. Teachers' expertise for reading involves knowledge of the development of decoding, the role of vocabulary in comprehension, and the need for further assessment when students have difficulty. Hindman et al. (2020) contended that preparation should be built around tools that help to bridge the gap between research and practice, suggesting there may be a need for more gaps between research and practice during preparation.

Teacher Knowledge of Language and Literacy

The understanding of how reading develops affects the way that teachers interpret the errors that students make and how they plan instruction. Structured literacy reflects explicit knowledge of language, and requires teachers to draw on their content knowledge, as described by Spear-Swerling (2019). Hindman et al. (2020) identified tools that connect research to practice in preservice elementary teacher preparation, indicating that knowledge is not always transferred from the research to the classroom. The implications of comprehension research for practice and policy were discussed by Elleman and Oslund (2019) and stressed the need for teachers to understand the language and knowledge needs of text. Teacher knowledge appears to be a precondition for the execution of evidence-based practices, but it is not enough to guarantee its regular use.

Professional Development and Coaching

Kennedy (2016) summarized research on the effects of professional development on teaching and recommended that rather than focusing on the program components, attention should be paid to the theories of teaching and learning. Desimone (2009) suggested a conceptual model for research on professional development based on content focus, active learning, coherence, duration and collective participation. A meta-analysis by Kraft et al. (2018) of the causal evidence around the impact of teacher coaching revealed positive results for teacher instruction and student achievement. Opfer and Pedder (2011) presented a conceptual framework for teacher professional learning as a complex system, with the teacher, school, and learning activity playing a role; this means that the same professional learning experience can yield different outcomes in different schools. These findings indicate that workshops will not likely change practice and that follow-up, coaching and time for implementation is significant.

Teacher Turnover and Continuity

The costs of teacher turnover are described in this way by Sorensen and Ladd (2020): disruption of instructional continuity and increased workload for some staff members. Schools can lose the expertise gained from professional learning when teachers leave and are replaced by less experienced teachers or by a temporary teacher. According to Podolsky et al., (2019), effectiveness is related to experience, suggesting that high turnover may decrease the proportion of experienced teachers in a building. Zee and Koomen (2016) compiled 40 years of research and identified the links between teacher self-efficacy and classroom processes, the impact it had on student academic adjustment, and its relationship to teacher well-being, indicating that fostering teacher self-efficacy may help students.

Relevance to Meadowfield Elementary School

What the literature on teacher preparation suggests is that the effectiveness of evidence-based instruction is reliant on teachers' knowledge, time, and support. However, the reduction in the number of teaching staff at Meadowfield over 5 years (SchoolDigger, 2025) suggests that continuity and capacity may be a concern, but the literature does not suggest how continuity and capacity might impact reading instruction within a particular school. This disconnect underscores the importance of professional development practices, access to coaching and collaboration, and supports that teachers at the site believe are most beneficial.

School Leadership, Resources, and Implementation

Growth in reading needs a supportive school climate that sees instructional goals carried out in the classroom. School leaders shape the organization of resources, schedules, professional learning and collaboration, and these factors impact the consistency of implementing research-supported practices. A literature review on leadership and implementation offers a context for understanding the reasons for the efficacy of interventions in the research literature and the lack of efficacy in schools.

School Leadership

The organization Leithwood has led, re-examined seven robust assertions about effective school leadership and found that school leadership continues to be one of the most influential factors in school improvement, after classroom instruction in schools, with regards to influences on student learning. Liebowitz and Porter (2019) undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis of the impact of principal behaviors on student, teacher and school outcomes, and their results indicated that there is a relationship between principal behaviors and outcomes. The quality of leadership may impact whether an intervention is implemented as designed because leaders can design intervention schedules, protect instructional time, and coordinate staff roles. The results suggest that leadership support is a significant factor in achieving reading progress.

Instructional Time and Organization

Leaders also make a difference to the amount of time spent on reading and the way that time is managed. Liebowitz and Porter (2019) determined that there was a relationship between principal behaviors and student outcomes and teacher outcomes, including behaviors that affect the organization of instruction. Durlak and DuPre (2008) noted that the conditions of implementation, such as the organization in which a program is implemented, can affect the impact of a program. The teacher can provide intervention time and uninterrupted reading time as recommended in the research (Wanzek et al., 2018) because schedules allow for such times and time lengths. The literature thus indicates that schedule and organizational decisions are consequential to reading and warrant attention in conjunction with instructional decisions.

Collaboration and Instructional Teams

Ronfeldt et al. (2015) compared teacher collaboration within instructional teams and student achievement in mathematics and reading and observed that greater collaboration related to mathematics and reading achievement gains. Assessment and planning for groups of students with the sharing of assessment information and problem-solving of implementation issues can occur through collaboration. Kraft et al. (2018) discovered that coaching enhanced instruction and achievement, suggesting that structured professional support is beneficial for students. Schools that afford opportunities for collaboration should then be able to more successfully maintain the advancements in reading instruction.

Sustaining Improvement

Efforts to improve reading are seldom successful in a single year reading is a process that takes place over time. Leithwood et al (2020) once again highlighted leadership as a dynamic force that impacts on the improvement of schools, while Sorensen and Ladd (2020) demonstrated that staff turnover can have an impact on continuity. Kraft et al. (2018) concluded that coaching programs had a positive impact on instruction and achievement, but they also require the presence of qualified coaches and the time to implement. Kennedy (2016) suggested that professional development should be modeled on teachers' learning styles, suggesting that sequential professional development is more likely to change practice than single sessions. These studies indicate that institutions interested in improving reading achievement should have systems that outlast the tenure of individual teachers and/or the life of a specific program.

Implementation Fidelity and Resources

Implementation level influences program outcomes (Durlak and DuPre 2008) that is, program effectiveness in research studies is dependent upon program delivery. Fidelity may be impacted by factors such as frequency, length, content, and/or organization of an intervention, as well as staffing issues, scheduling problems, and limited materials. When spent on instruction, school spending can improve outcomes, as Jackson and Mackevicius (2024) have found. Concurrently, resources need to be utilized in a manner appropriate to the student population, and implementation needs to be monitored to allow teachers to interact with students, but still maintain the critical components of instruction. The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA, 2015) offers a federal policy context for accountability and for the use of evidence-based interventions, but policy expectations should be understood within the context of a school's ability to effectively implement improvement strategies. Comment by David Schaaf: Seminal work and government publications can be older references.

Relevance to Meadowfield Elementary School

Meadowfield Elementary School is a Title I school serving a high-poverty community, and its environment is within district structures that impact the allocation of resources and staff, as well as within the policy context of ESSA (2015). Research cited in the literature suggests that leadership, collaboration, and implementation fidelity are factors which affect whether RRSPs are implemented (Durlak & DuPre, 2008; Leithwood et al., 2020; Ronfeldt et al., 2015). Individual teacher decisions are not enough to explain reading proficiency; the effectiveness of evidence-based practices can be facilitated by the school environment or hindered by it.

Teacher Perspectives on Reading Instruction

Standardized assessments provide valuable information about student performance, but they do not fully explain how reading difficulties develop or how educators experience addressing them. Research on teachers’ knowledge, beliefs, and working conditions has shown that these factors shape instructional decisions and how research is received in schools. This section reviews research that illustrates why teacher perspectives are an important source of evidence on the conditions surrounding reading instruction.

Why Local Understanding Matters

Large syntheses can suggest practices that are likely to be successful on average, but cannot predict their success in a specific building. Opfer and Pedder (2011) said that teacher learning is influenced by the teacher, the school, and the learning activity, making the same program possible to impact differently in different contexts. Durlak and DuPre (2008) demonstrated that implementation quality matters and Arden et al. (2017) found that national-level efforts at implementing tiered systems provided lessons on the value of local conditions. For these reasons, the accounts that teachers offer about their teachers' reading practices in their schools offer data that cannot only be found in national studies.

Teachers as Informants on Practice

Wyse and Bradbury (2022) carried out a meta-analysis of experiments and also surveyed 2205 teachers and reported their results, which challenged the evidence base for this approach to phonics in England, highlighting the value of teacher survey data in complementing effectiveness research. Hindman et al. (2020) discussed the need for tools for bridging research and practice, indicating that the teachers' experiences of how research is communicated and supported impact its use. Seidenberg et al. (2020) outlined some difficulties in bridging the gap between reading science and educational practice, difficulties that teachers face when trying to use the research in classrooms. These sources suggest that teachers' viewpoints provide insights into How to Make the Research Recommended Practices Happen.

Teacher Efficacy and Working Conditions

Teacher self-efficacy was linked to classroom processes, students' academic adjustment and teacher well-being by Zee and Koomen (2016). Gottfried et al. (2024) found that teacher job satisfaction was related to student absenteeism, suggesting that the classroom environment has an impact on teacher experience. Thus, working conditions and continuity are important for instruction, as teacher turnover carries costs for schools, as Sorensen and Ladd demonstrated (2020). Collectively, the studies indicate that teacher perceptions of their preparation, support, and working conditions provide information to understanding the delivery of reading instruction and what could be improved. Comment by David Schaaf: The year must go immediately after the authors’ names in the citation.

Implications for Understanding Reading Problems

The studies on teacher knowledge, efficacy and work conditions indicate that, on the whole, poor proficiency is not likely to be the responsibility of any one decision or of any one set of teachers. The issues of the research-preparation gap (Hindman et al., 2020), teacher efficacy and classroom processes and student adjustment (Zee and Koomen, 2016), and the financial impacts of teacher turnover (Sorensen and Ladd, 2020) were all cited in this research. Kraft et al., (2018) and Ronfeldt et al., (2015) demonstrated that coaching and collaborative work can impact instruction and achievement, and thus the supports that teachers receive are part of the story of classroom experiences. Therefore, teachers who teach a student on an almost daily basis are well suited to describe which of these conditions are present, missing, and/or most consequential for the children they teach and whose descriptions complement information provided by achievement data (Opfer & Pedder, 2011).

Research Gap

Several factors have been identified in the reviewed literature that have been associated with reading achievement: basic reading instruction, intervention design, tiered systems of support, socioeconomic factors, student attendance, teacher skills and abilities, and school-level implementation capacity (Duke & Cartwright, 2021; Fien et al., 2021; Neitzel et al., 2022). Previous research offers critical information about reading development and how to support students with reading challenges, and meta-analytic evidence shows that effective interventions can make a difference (Gersten et al., 2020; Hall et al., 2023). But there are still some questions that are applicable to the current research.

First, evidence that an intervention can support reading development does not necessarily indicate whether a particular school can implement it consistently, because outcomes depend on the quality of implementation (Durlak & DuPre, 2008). School-level conditions, including staffing, instructional time, professional development, and access to resources, may influence the extent to which research-supported approaches become part of everyday teaching (Kraft et al., 2018; Sorensen & Ladd, 2020). Second, standardized reading assessments can identify differences between students’ achievement and expected benchmarks, but they do not fully explain teachers’ experiences of addressing those differences (Seidenberg et al., 2020). Third, socioeconomic disadvantage and chronic absenteeism may affect students’ opportunities to participate in literacy instruction, but their practical effects can vary across schools and classrooms (Gottfried, 2019; Sirin, 2005).

Fourth, the availability of intervention frameworks does not guarantee that teachers have sufficient training, time, and institutional support to use them effectively (Arden et al., 2017). Research on educators’ experiences may help identify the specific implementation barriers that need to be addressed in particular settings. The literature does not explain how these factors interact within an individual high-poverty elementary school with a reading proficiency rate of 41%, and findings from other schools cannot be assumed to apply identically to Meadowfield Elementary School. This gap establishes the rationale for an applied single case study that examines the extent of the problem and the factors associated with it within a specific site.

Summary

The Active View of Reading was explored in this chapter and literature on elementary reading proficiency, evidence-based reading instruction, reading intervention, Multi-Tiered Systems of Support, socioeconomic factors, chronic absenteeism, teacher preparedness, school leadership and implementation, and teacher perspectives were summarized. Research suggests that reading proficiency requires students to develop in two domains: word recognition and language comprehension, as well as a third, self-regulation, and that well-designed interventions, systematic instruction, and regular progress monitoring benefit students who struggle with reading. It also demonstrates that staffing, instructional time, attendance, leadership and professional learning are components of a school's ability to implement these practices. A review of the literature indicates that while the school level data reveal that reading proficiency is at or below benchmark at Meadowfield Elementary School, literature does not explain how these factors operate within the school, hence the rationale for the present research. The method which will be employed to study the problem is described in Chapter 3.

Chapter 3: Method

Overview

The purpose of this applied single case study is to examine the extent to which below-average reading proficiency exists at Meadowfield Elementary School in Columbia, South Carolina. This chapter describes the Research Design, Research Questions, Site, Researcher’s Role, Data Collection Procedures, Data Analysis Procedures, and Ethical Considerations.

Research Design

An applied single case study design will be used for this study. A case study is an examination of a phenomenon in its natural context that is supported by multiple sources of evidence, and that is particularly appropriate when boundaries around the phenomenon and the context are not clearly defined (Yin, 2018). Stake (1995) characterized the case study as a study of the particularity and complexity of a single case, and Creswell and Poth (2025) noted that one of the hallmarks of the approach is that it is bounded and involves in-depth data collection from various sources. Applied form of the design looks at a specific problem at one location to address that location. The selected school design was chosen because the issue of low attainment in reading is situated within the teaching and learning environment of one school and its context of social and organizational structures, which needs to be taken into account when understanding the issue. The design fits the purpose of the study because it enables me to look at the problem through three data sources, to look at the factors that seem to contribute to the problem, and to come up with evidence-based and school-appropriate strategies. The design is consistent with the research questions and procedures outlined in this chapter, and does not attempt to generate results that can be generalized across the site.

Research Questions

The research questions should direct the data collection and data analysis processes outlined in this chapter, and help to maintain focus on the problem at the site. They demonstrate the single case study approach by exploring how widespread the problem is, what may be contributing to it and how it could be tackled. Questions are not formulated as hypotheses but rather follow the results that come out of the data. The purpose statement and the interview, survey and observation procedures that follow have been aligned to each question. This study has three research questions:

Research Question 1:

To what extent does below-average reading proficiency exist at Meadowfield Elementary School?

Research Question 2:

What factors appear to contribute to below-average reading proficiency within Meadowfield Elementary School?

Research Question 3:

What evidence-informed strategies could address below-average reading proficiency within Meadowfield Elementary School?

Site

This study will take place at the Meadowfield Elementary School, a public elementary school that qualifies as a Title 1 school, in Columbia, South Carolina. The school is located in Richland County School District One (RCSD 1) and educates around 615 students from prekindergarten to fifth grade. The school community is high poverty with a predominately African American student body, and all children are eligible for free or reduced price lunch (South Carolina Department of Education, 2025). Dr. Melisa Johnson heads up the school, which is organized by grade level, with classroom teachers, reading specialists, and other support staff for prekindergarten through grade 5 students.

Meadowfield Elementary School was selected for this study to examine the extent to which below-average reading proficiency exists within the school, as this issue has been identified in the broader literature as relevant to similar settings. The school’s reported reading proficiency rate of 41% falls below district and state rates (South Carolina Department of Education, 2025), and the literature identifies instructional, socioeconomic, attendance-related, and resource-related factors as relevant to reading achievement (Duke & Cartwright, 2021; Gottfried, 2019; Neitzel et al., 2022). While existing research suggests that reading difficulties have multiple causes, it is not yet known to what extent the problem is present within Meadowfield, particularly among the teachers, reading specialists, and school leaders who work with students. This rationale makes the site appropriate for an applied single case study.

Permission to conduct the study will be obtained prior to data collection. All participants will be assigned pseudonyms to ensure confidentiality and protect privacy.

Researcher’s Role

I will serve as the primary instrument for data collection, analysis, and interpretation in this study. I am a student who has been in school for many years and am completing this study as part of my doctoral degree in educational leadership. I do not currently work at Meadowfield Elementary School or hold a professional position in reading instruction, and my knowledge of the topic comes from my coursework and my review of the research literature. This background provides familiarity with the topic of the study while also requiring careful attention to potential bias. My relationship to Meadowfield Elementary School is external to the organization with no prior employment or supervisory ties to the staff or students. To maintain objectivity, I will ensure that participation is voluntary and that no power relationships influence participant responses.

I acknowledge potential biases related to my experiences as a student and my prior beliefs about reading instruction, student achievement, and school improvement, which may influence the interpretation of findings. Reflexivity, the ongoing examination of how a researcher’s assumptions and position shape the research, is an accepted way of addressing such influences in qualitative inquiry (Dodgson, 2019). To mitigate bias, I will use structured interview and observation protocols, apply consistent data analysis procedures, rely on multiple data sources for triangulation, and maintain clear documentation of my decisions in analytic memos. I will report findings accurately, including perspectives that differ from my initial expectations, and I will avoid presenting assumptions as facts. These procedures will promote credibility, transparency, and ethical conduct throughout the study.

Data Collection Procedures

This study will start with the approval of the site from Meadowfield Elementary School, which will be requested through a written request to the principal and district administrators. Data will then be gathered through three different strategies, to achieve triangulation, defined as the use of more than one method or data source to gain a comprehensive picture of the phenomenon (Carter et al., 2014). Aiming to follow these procedures, the first approach will be individual, semi-structured interviews, the second will be a survey, and the third will be structured classroom observations. These strategies will enable data to be gathered from teachers, reading specialists, and school leaders that will aid in a holistic understanding of possible site-level presence of below average reading proficiency. Qualitative data will come from the interviews and observations, quantitative data will come from the survey. The use of multiple approaches will aid in methodological triangulation and enhance findings interpretation (Yin, 2018). Table 1 illustrates how each approach relates to the research questions. All data will be stored in encrypted and password protected files and participants will be pseudonymous to ensure privacy.

Table 1

Alignment of Research Questions With Data Sources and Analysis

Research Question	Interview Questions	Survey Items	Observation Dimensions	Analysis
RQ1: Extent of the problem	Questions 1–2	Items 1–12	Dimensions a–f	Descriptive statistics; thematic analysis; deductive coding
RQ2: Contributing factors	Questions 3–9	Items 1–11	Dimensions a–f	Thematic analysis; descriptive statistics; deductive coding
RQ3: Evidence-informed strategies	Questions 5–10	Items 5, 8, 9, 11	Dimensions d–f	Synthesis across data sources and comparison with the literature

Data Collection Approach 1: Interviews

Semi-structured interviews will be the first data collection method as it will enable me to obtain detailed, firsthand accounts of the experiences and perceptions of reading instruction and student proficiency in the school. This approach is suitable for the study as it allows us to gain insight into how participants experienced, perceived, and interpreted their experiences with the school that we are unable to gain through school performance data (Creswell & Poth, 2025). I will be using this model (Castillo-Montoya 2016) to create and refine interview protocols to make sure that the questions relate to the research questions and yield in-depth responses.

Interview participants will be selected using purposeful sampling, which entails finding and including persons who know and/or experience the phenomenon being studied (Palinkas et al., 2015). I will seek classroom teachers, reading specialists or interventionists, and school leaders at Meadowfield Elementary School who have first-hand experience in reading instruction and experience with student proficiency data. The interviews will be conducted until saturation, defined as reaching a sufficient number of interviews to capture themes, but similar to the findings of Guest et al. (2006), Hennink and Kaiser (2022) report that saturation of themes is reached after about 8 to 10 interviews when participants provide relevant experience. Recruitment will be via e-mail invitation with the principal's written consent, and participants will return a written informed consent. The interview will be conducted one-on-one, either in person in a private room at the school, or via video conference, for about 30 – 45 minutes. The interview protocol will be semi-structured, open-ended questions in order to provide for consistency in areas of focus, and for follow-up probes. All interviews will be audio recorded and transcribed with participants permission. Each transcript will be compared to the recording to ensure accuracy.

The open-ended questions that will be used in the individual interviews are listed below, each followed by its rationale.

1. Please describe your educational background, your current role, and your experience with reading instruction at Meadowfield Elementary School.

López-Martín et al. (2023) reported that teacher characteristics and competencies are related to student achievement, so background information provides context for interpreting participants’ responses.

2. In your experience, how would you describe students’ reading proficiency at Meadowfield Elementary School, and what does below-average proficiency look like in your classroom or school?

This question addresses Research Question 1 and reflects the view that reading difficulties have a number of causes and take different forms (Duke & Cartwright, 2021).

3. What factors do you believe contribute most to below-average reading proficiency among students at Meadowfield Elementary School?

This question addresses Research Question 2 and allows participants to identify factors within and beyond word recognition and language comprehension (Duke & Cartwright, 2021).

4. What reading instructional practices are you currently using for word recognition and language comprehension, and how effective do you believe they are for your students?

Spear-Swerling (2019) described differences between structured literacy and typical literacy practices, and this question surfaces the practices teachers use and perceive as effective.

5. How do you identify and support students who are reading below grade level, including through small-group instruction or intervention?

Neitzel et al. (2022) found that tutoring and small-group approaches improved outcomes for struggling readers, and Fien et al. (2021) discussed tiered systems of support as a means to improve reading achievement, so this question explores how such support operates at the site.

6. What barriers do you encounter when implementing evidence-based reading instruction or intervention?

Durlak and DuPre (2008) found that the quality of implementation influences program outcomes, which makes barriers to implementation an important line of inquiry.

7. What role, if any, do you believe chronic absenteeism plays in your students’ reading proficiency, and how do you respond when students miss instruction?

Gottfried (2019) found that chronic absenteeism affects the achievement of classmates as well as absent students, which makes teachers’ observations of its effects relevant.

8. What professional development, coaching, or collaboration have you received related to reading instruction, and what additional support would help you?

Kraft et al. (2018) found that coaching improved instruction and achievement, and Ronfeldt et al. (2015) linked collaboration to achievement gains, so this question examines the supports teachers receive.

9. How do school and district leaders support reading instruction through scheduling, staffing, materials, and resources?

Leithwood et al. (2020) described school leadership as an influential factor in school improvement, so leaders’ support is an important contextual condition.

10. What strategies or recommendations would you make to school and district leaders to improve reading proficiency at Meadowfield Elementary School?

This question addresses Research Question 3, and Opfer and Pedder (2011) described teacher learning as shaped by school conditions, which makes teachers’ recommendations informative about what is feasible.

All interviews will be conducted, recorded, and transcribed using audio recording and transcription software that I will verify by hand. I will review and organize the interview data, then code and categorize responses using thematic analysis to identify patterns, themes, and key insights. Findings from the interviews will be used to address the research questions and to triangulate with the survey and observation data.

Data Collection Approach 2: Survey

The second data collection approach will be a survey, selected because it allows me to collect standardized data on teachers’ perceptions of reading instruction, supports, and conditions from a larger group of educators than interviews alone could include. This quantitative method is appropriate for the purpose of the study because it can identify patterns and the extent to which particular conditions are reported across the school. A Likert-type scale, which asks respondents to indicate their level of agreement with statements, is a common way of measuring attitudes and perceptions (Joshi et al., 2015).

Participants will be selected through purposeful sampling, focusing on classroom teachers at Meadowfield Elementary School who provide reading instruction. Approximately 20 to 25 teachers across prekindergarten through fifth grade will be invited to complete the survey, which exceeds the minimum of 15 participants. The survey will include 12 topic-focused items rated on a five-point scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) and a brief set of demographic items (grade level taught, years of teaching experience, and role). The survey will be administered electronically through the school, will take approximately 10 to 15 minutes, and will remain open for two weeks. Responses will be collected anonymously, and no names or other identifying information will be requested. The survey items and their rationales are listed below.

1. My students receive reading instruction that is explicit and systematic in foundational skills such as phonics and phonemic awareness.

1	2	3	4	5
Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
☐	☐	☐	☐	☐

This item addresses word recognition instruction in the Active View of Reading (Duke & Cartwright, 2021; Ehri, 2020).

2. I regularly use assessment data to identify the specific reading skills each of my students needs to develop.

1	2	3	4	5
Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
☐	☐	☐	☐	☐

Spear-Swerling (2019) noted that structured approaches permit teachers to diagnose where skill breakdowns occur, which depends on the use of assessment data.

3. My students receive instruction that builds vocabulary, background knowledge, and comprehension.

1	2	3	4	5
Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
☐	☐	☐	☐	☐

This item addresses language comprehension, a core component of the Active View of Reading (Duke & Cartwright, 2021; Elleman & Oslund, 2019).

4. I have received adequate training to teach foundational reading skills effectively.

1	2	3	4	5
Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
☐	☐	☐	☐	☐

Hindman et al. (2020) discussed the need for tools that bridge research and practice in teacher preparation, so this item measures perceived preparedness.

5. Students who are reading below grade level receive timely, targeted intervention.

1	2	3	4	5
Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
☐	☐	☐	☐	☐

Neitzel et al. (2022) found that targeted small-group and one-to-one approaches benefit struggling readers, so this item measures perceived access to such intervention.

6. I have sufficient instructional time each day for reading instruction.

1	2	3	4	5
Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
☐	☐	☐	☐	☐

Durlak and DuPre (2008) showed that implementation conditions influence outcomes, and instructional time is one such condition.

7. Student absences make it difficult for me to deliver reading instruction in sequence.

1	2	3	4	5
Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
☐	☐	☐	☐	☐

This item addresses the effects of absenteeism on classroom instruction described by Gottfried (2019) and Gottfried et al. (2024).

8. I have access to a reading specialist, interventionist, or literacy coach when I need support.

1	2	3	4	5
Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
☐	☐	☐	☐	☐

Kraft et al. (2018) found that coaching improved instruction and student achievement, which makes access to such support a relevant condition.

9. I have regular time to collaborate with colleagues about reading instruction and student progress.

1	2	3	4	5
Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
☐	☐	☐	☐	☐

Ronfeldt et al. (2015) found that higher-quality collaboration in instructional teams was associated with achievement gains.

10. Students at my school have sufficient access to books and other reading materials outside of school.

1	2	3	4	5
Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
☐	☐	☐	☐	☐

Neuman and Moland (2019) described limited access to print in high-poverty neighborhoods, so this item gathers teachers’ perceptions of access.

11. School leaders provide the scheduling, staffing, and resources I need to teach reading effectively.

1	2	3	4	5
Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
☐	☐	☐	☐	☐

Leithwood et al. (2020) described school leadership as influential in school improvement, so this item addresses perceived leadership support.

12. I feel confident in my ability to improve my students’ reading proficiency this school year.

1	2	3	4	5
Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
☐	☐	☐	☐	☐

Zee and Koomen (2016) found that teacher self-efficacy was associated with classroom processes and student outcomes, so this item measures teachers’ confidence.

Survey results will be used to identify patterns and levels of agreement across items, to address Research Questions 1 and 2, and to triangulate with the interview and observation findings.

Data Collection Approach 3: Observations

The third data collection approach will be structured, nonparticipant classroom observations of reading instruction. This method was selected because direct observation allows me to record instructional practices as they occur and provides evidence that is not dependent on participants’ self-reports. Observation is one of the sources of evidence commonly used in case study research, and it is useful for corroborating and extending interview and survey data (Yin, 2018).

I will observe six to eight classrooms purposefully selected to include at least two grade bands, primary (kindergarten through second grade) and intermediate (third through fifth grade), so that differences by developmental level are captured. Each classroom will be observed twice, and each session will last one full reading instructional block of about 45 to 60 minutes. Before any observation, I will obtain written permission from the principal and informed consent from each teacher whose classroom is observed, and the school administration will inform parents or guardians in writing at least two weeks before scheduled sessions. At the start of each session, I will record the date, time, grade level, classroom identifier, and the number of students present.

I will use a structured observation protocol aligned with the Active View of Reading to record six dimensions of instruction: (a) explicit instruction in word recognition skills, including phonemic awareness, phonics, and fluency; (b) instruction that builds language comprehension, including vocabulary, background knowledge, and discussion of text; (c) practices that support active self-regulation, including strategy use, motivation, and engagement; (d) grouping, differentiation, and the delivery of intervention; (e) use of instructional time and the effects of student absences or interruptions on instruction; and (f) the availability and use of instructional materials. I will serve as a nonparticipant observer, sitting in a fixed, unobtrusive location to minimize disruption and reduce observer effects, and I will not interact with students or participate in instruction. Field notes will be taken by hand during every session and expanded into detailed descriptive text within 24 hours to maintain accuracy and contextual detail.

Data Analysis Procedures

In the qualitative analysis, I will use thematic analysis and in quantitative analysis I will use descriptive statistical analysis after the data has been collected. This section explains how the data gathered in the interviews, survey and observations will be analysed in the same order in which it is gathered. The datasets will initially be analyzed separately, to ensure methodological rigor; subsequent analysis of the data across all the data sources will be conducted to provide triangulation (Carter et al., 2014). Triangulation improves credibility and consistency of the findings by comparing patterns of evidence across various evidence (Yin, 2018).

Data Analysis Approach 1: Interviews

Interview data will be prepared by transcribing the audio recordings and organizing the transcripts by pseudonym. I will review each transcript while listening to the audio recording to ensure accuracy and to become familiar with the data. Data will then be analyzed using thematic analysis, which Braun and Clarke (2006) described as a method for identifying, analyzing, and reporting patterns within data, following a systematic process of familiarization, initial coding, searching for themes, reviewing themes, defining themes, and reporting. Codes will be developed inductively from the data and aligned with the research questions, using the approaches to coding described by Saldaña (2021).

Manual coding will be used for organizing and managing the data. Codes will be collapsed into larger categories through an iterative process and themes will be developed based on patterns and common ideas across participants. To ensure transparency and reliability (Saldaña, 2021), analytic memos will be kept along the way to record coding decisions and inferences. Once initial themes are generated, participants will be provided with a summary of themes to check the accuracy of themes, a member checking procedure to enhance credibility (Birt et al., 2016). The findings of the interview analysis will give them a deep understanding of the experiences and perspectives about sub-standard reading ability of the participants.

Data Analysis Approach 2: Survey

Survey data will be compiled and cleaned to ensure accuracy and completeness, including the review of response patterns and missing data. Data will be analyzed using spreadsheet software. Descriptive statistical procedures will be conducted, including frequencies, percentages, means, and standard deviations, to summarize participants’ responses and identify trends. Because Likert-type items are ordinal, I will report the distribution of responses for each item in addition to the mean (Joshi et al., 2015).

The data will be tabulated according to the constructs that are linked with the research questions: foundation instruction, language comprehension instruction, preparedness, intervention, time, attendance, support, collaboration, leadership and teacher confidence. The results will be presented in tables, and the patterns in the results will be discussed, but will not be repeated in the discussion for each value of the results. The survey analysis will be quantitative in nature and give a picture of how prevalent conditions linked to below average reading skills are found in the school.

Data Analysis Approach 3: Observations

Classroom and Session data will be organized by observation data. Field notes will be coded deductively following the six dimensions in the observation protocol developed from the AVR and the research questions and will be open to further coding of field notes when practices do not fit dimensions (Saldaña, 2021). Data will be tallied in intervals and then expressed as percentages so that data can be compared across classrooms and across grade bands. I will compare the results of observations with those of interviews and surveys to look for points of agreement and disagreement. The observation analysis will document contextual evidence of how reading is being taught in the site.

Synthesis Across Data Sources

After each dataset is analyzed, I will create a matrix that arranges findings from the interviews, survey, and observations by research question, and I will examine where the data sources converge, diverge, or complement one another. Findings related to Research Question 1 will describe the extent to which below-average proficiency is reported and observed, findings related to Research Question 2 will identify the factors that appear to contribute to it, and findings related to Research Question 3 will draw on participants’ recommendations and the literature to propose evidence-informed strategies. Trustworthiness will be supported through triangulation, member checking, reflexive memos, and a clear audit trail, which are practices associated with quality in qualitative research (Tracy, 2010).

Ethical Considerations

Prior to data collection, I will obtain approval from the Liberty University Institutional Review Board (IRB) and site approval from the principal and district administrators of Meadowfield Elementary School. Written permission will be secured to access participants and to conduct observations. Participation in this study will be voluntary for all individuals involved in interviews, the survey, and observations. Participants will be provided with an explanation of the purpose of the study, the procedures involved, the potential risks and benefits, and how the information will be used, and informed consent will be obtained from each participant before data collection. Participants will be informed that they may withdraw at any time without penalty. Ethical challenges in qualitative research include protecting privacy, managing power relationships, and ensuring that consent is meaningful, and these are addressed through careful planning (Sanjari et al., 2014).

Confidentiality will be maintained throughout the study. Participant identities and identifiable organizational information will be protected through the use of pseudonyms, and no identifying details about individuals will be included in the final report. Data collected from interviews, the survey, and observations will be reported in a manner that protects individual participants. Because observations take place in classrooms, no student names or identifying information will be recorded, and the focus will be on teacher practices and instructional conditions.

All data, including interview recordings, transcripts, survey responses, and field notes, will be stored securely in password-protected and encrypted electronic files. Only I and appropriate university personnel will have access to the data. Data will be retained for three years after the completion of the study and then securely destroyed. I will report findings honestly, avoid misrepresentation, and comply with the ethical research requirements of Liberty University.

Summary

The methodology used in this study was described in this chapter, which consisted of the research design, research questions, researcher's role, data collection procedures and data analysis procedures conducted during the study. An applied single case study design will be used to explore the situational extent of below average reading proficiencies at Meadowfield Elementary School. Data will be gathered by individual interviews, a survey, and classroom observations, and will be analyzed separately prior to synthesizing the findings via triangulation. All phases of the study will be conducted in adherence with ethical principles such as obtaining approval, informed consent, maintaining confidentiality and protecting data. All of these together form the basis for alignment with the purpose and objectives set out in Chapter 1. The results of the study will be given in Chapter 4.

References Comment by David Schaaf: Currently, eighty percent of your references are more than five years old. Of these older references, over 37 percent are more than ten years old. These references are much too old for this research. The School of Education’s new guidance states that the majority of research support must be within the last five years. Previously, the School of Education required 85 percent in the last five years. You must replace a lot of your older references with more current sources. Your minimum goal should be at least 50 percent; however, I urge you to have a higher percentage than that. I highly recommend you replace all references more 10 years old with current references unless the older references are seminal for your theoretical framework.

Arden, S. V., Gandhi, A. G., Zumeta Edmonds, R., & Danielson, L. (2017). Toward more effective tiered systems: Lessons from national implementation efforts. Exceptional Children, 83(3), 269–280. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402917693580

Birt, L., Scott, S., Cavers, D., Campbell, C., & Walter, F. (2016). Member checking: A tool to enhance trustworthiness or merely a nod to validation? Qualitative Health Research, 26(13), 1802–1811. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732316654870

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Burns, M. K., Duke, N. K., & Cartwright, K. B. (2023). Evaluating components of the active view of reading as intervention targets: Implications for social justice. School Psychology, 38(1), 30–41. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000519

Cain, K., Oakhill, J., & Bryant, P. (2004). Children’s reading comprehension ability: Concurrent prediction by working memory, verbal ability, and component skills. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(1), 31–42. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.96.1.31

Campbell, S. (2021). What’s happening to shared picture book reading in an era of phonics first? The Reading Teacher, 74(6), 757–767. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.2004

Carter, N., Bryant-Lukosius, D., DiCenso, A., Blythe, J., & Neville, A. J. (2014). The use of triangulation in qualitative research. Oncology Nursing Forum, 41(5), 545–547. https://doi.org/10.1188/14.ONF.545-547

Cartwright, K. B., & Palian, S. R. (2024). Considering roles of executive functions in the science of reading: A meta-analysis highlighting promises and challenges of reading-specific executive functions. Educational Psychologist, 59(4), 263–290. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2024.2418392

Castillo-Montoya, M. (2016). Preparing for interview research: The interview protocol refinement framework. The Qualitative Report, 21(5), 811–831. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2016.2337

Castles, A., Rastle, K., & Nation, K. (2018). Ending the reading wars: Reading acquisition from novice to expert. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 19(1), 5–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100618772271

Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2025). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (5th ed.). Sage.

Denton, C. A., Fletcher, J. M., Taylor, W. P., Barth, A. E., & Vaughn, S. (2014). An experimental evaluation of guided reading and explicit interventions for primary-grade students at-risk for reading difficulties. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 7(3), 268–293. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2014.906010

Desimone, L. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38(3), 181–199. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X08331140

Dodgson, J. E. (2019). Reflexivity in qualitative research. Journal of Human Lactation, 35(2), 220–222. https://doi.org/10.1177/0890334419830990

Donegan, R., & Wanzek, J. (2021). Effects of reading interventions implemented for upper elementary struggling readers: A look at recent research. Reading and Writing, 34(8), 1943–1977. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-021-10123-y

Duke, N. K., & Cartwright, K. B. (2021). The science of reading progresses: Communicating advances beyond the simple view of reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 56(S1), S25–S44. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.411

Durlak, J. A., & DuPre, E. P. (2008). Implementation matters: A review of research on the influence of implementation on program outcomes and the factors affecting implementation. American Journal of Community Psychology, 41(3–4), 327–350. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-008-9165-0

Ehri, L. C. (2005). Learning to read words: Theory, findings, and issues. Scientific Studies of Reading, 9(2), 167–188. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532799xssr0902_4

Ehri, L. C. (2020). The science of learning to read words: A case for systematic phonics instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 55(S1), S45–S60. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.334

Elleman, A. M., & Oslund, E. L. (2019). Reading comprehension research: Implications for practice and policy. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 6(1), 3–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/2372732218816339

Erbeli, F., Rice, M., Xu, Y., Bishop, M. E., & Goodrich, J. M. (2024). A meta-analysis on the optimal cumulative dosage of early phonemic awareness instruction. Scientific Studies of Reading, 28(4), 345–370. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2024.2309386

Every Student Succeeds Act, Pub. L. No. 114-95, 129 Stat. 1802 (2015). https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/1177

Fien, H., Chard, D. J., & Baker, S. K. (2021). Can the evidence revolution and multi-tiered systems of support improve education equity and reading achievement? Reading Research Quarterly, 56(S1), S105–S118. https://www.jstor.org/stable/48634392

Gershenson, S., Jacknowitz, A., & Brannegan, A. (2017). Are student absences worth the worry in U.S. primary schools? Education Finance and Policy, 12(2), 137–165. https://doi.org/10.1162/EDFP_a_00207

Gersten, R., Haymond, K., Newman-Gonchar, R., Dimino, J., & Jayanthi, M. (2020). Meta-analysis of the impact of reading interventions for students in the primary grades. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 13(2), 401–427. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2019.1689591

Gottfried, M. A. (2019). Chronic absenteeism in the classroom context: Effects on achievement. Urban Education, 54(1), 3–34. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085915618709

Gottfried, M. A., Ansari, A., & Woods, S. C. (2024). Do teachers with absent students feel less job satisfaction? Educational Researcher, 54(1), 34–45. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X241292331

Gottfried, M., & Ehrlich, S. B. (2018). Introduction to the special issue: Combating chronic absence. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 23(1–2), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1080/10824669.2018.1439753

Gough, P. B., & Tunmer, W. E. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7(1), 6–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/074193258600700104

Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006). How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods, 18(1), 59–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X05279903

Hall, C., Dahl-Leonard, K., Cho, E., Solari, E. J., Capin, P., Conner, C. L., Henry, A. R., Cook, L., Hayes, L., Vargas, I., Richmond, C. L., & Kehoe, K. F. (2023). Forty years of reading intervention research for elementary students with or at risk for dyslexia: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Reading Research Quarterly, 58(2), 285–312. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.477

Hennink, M., & Kaiser, B. N. (2022). Sample sizes for saturation in qualitative research: A systematic review of empirical tests. Social Science & Medicine, 292, Article 114523. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.114523

Hindman, A. H., Morrison, F. J., Connor, C. M., & Connor, J. A. (2020). Bringing the science of reading to preservice elementary teachers: Tools that bridge research and practice. Reading Research Quarterly, 55(S1), S197–S206. https://www.jstor.org/stable/48587616

Hoff, E. (2013). Interpreting the early language trajectories of children from low-SES and language minority homes: Implications for closing achievement gaps. Developmental Psychology, 49(1), 4–14. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027238

Hoover, W. A., & Gough, P. B. (1990). The simple view of reading. Reading and Writing, 2(2), 127–160. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00401799

Hoover, W. A., & Tunmer, W. E. (2022). The primacy of science in communicating advances in the science of reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 57(2), 399–408. https://mro.massey.ac.nz/handle/10179/72450

Hudson, A., Koh, P. W., Moore, K. A., & Binks-Cantrell, E. (2020). Fluency interventions for elementary students with reading difficulties: A synthesis of research from 2000–2019. Education Sciences, 10(3), Article 52. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci10030052

Jackson, C. K., & Mackevicius, C. (2024). What impacts can we expect from school spending policy? Evidence from evaluations in the United States. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 16(1), 412–446. https://doi.org/10.1257/app.20220279

Joshi, A., Kale, S., Chandel, S., & Pal, D. K. (2015). Likert scale: Explored and explained. British Journal of Applied Science & Technology, 7(4), 396–403. https://doi.org/10.9734/BJAST/2015/14975

Kearney, C. A., & Graczyk, P. (2020). A multidimensional, multi-tiered system of supports model to promote school attendance and address school absenteeism. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 23(3), 316–337. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10567-020-00317-1

Kennedy, M. M. (2016). How does professional development improve teaching? Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 945–980. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315626800

Kraft, M. A., Blazar, D., & Hogan, D. (2018). The effect of teacher coaching on instruction and achievement: A meta-analysis of the causal evidence. Review of Educational Research, 88(4), 547–588. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654318759268

Leithwood, K., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2020). Seven strong claims about successful school leadership revisited. School Leadership & Management, 40(1), 5–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2019.1596077

Liebowitz, D. D., & Porter, L. (2019). The effect of principal behaviors on student, teacher, and school outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Review of Educational Research, 89(5), 785–827. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654319866133

López-Martín, E., Gutiérrez-de-Rozas, B., González-Benito, A. M., & Expósito-Casas, E. (2023). Why do teachers matter? A meta-analytic review of how teacher characteristics and competencies affect students’ academic achievement. International Journal of Educational Research, 120, Article 102199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2023.102199

Mol, S. E., & Bus, A. G. (2011). To read or not to read: A meta-analysis of print exposure from infancy to early adulthood. Psychological Bulletin, 137(2), 267–296. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021890

Neitzel, A. J., Lake, C., Pellegrini, M., & Slavin, R. E. (2022). A synthesis of quantitative research on programs for struggling readers in elementary schools. Reading Research Quarterly, 57(1), 149–179. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.379

Neuman, S. B., & Moland, N. (2019). Book deserts: The consequences of income segregation on children’s access to print. Urban Education, 54(1), 126–147. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085916654525

Opfer, V. D., & Pedder, D. (2011). Conceptualizing teacher professional learning. Review of Educational Research, 81(3), 376–407. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654311413609

Pace, A., Luo, R., Hirsh-Pasek, K., & Golinkoff, R. M. (2017). Identifying pathways between socioeconomic status and language development. Annual Review of Linguistics, 3, 285–308. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011516-034226

Palinkas, L. A., Horwitz, S. M., Green, C. A., Wisdom, J. P., Duan, N., & Hoagwood, K. (2015). Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 42(5), 533–544. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-013-0528-y

Perfetti, C., & Stafura, J. (2014). Word knowledge in a theory of reading comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 18(1), 22–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2013.827687

Petscher, Y., Cabell, S. Q., Catts, H. W., Compton, D. L., Foorman, B. R., Hart, S. A., Lonigan, C. J., Phillips, B. M., Schatschneider, C., Steacy, L. M., Terry, N. P., & Wagner, R. K. (2020). How the science of reading informs 21st-century education. Reading Research Quarterly, 55(S1), S267–S282. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.352

Podolsky, A., Kini, T., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2019). Does teaching experience increase teacher effectiveness? A review of US research. Journal of Professional Capital and Community, 4(4), 286–308. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPCC-12-2018-0032

Public School Review. (2025). Meadowfield Elementary School profile. https://www.publicschoolreview.com/meadowfield-elementary-school-profile

Ronfeldt, M., Farmer, S. O., McQueen, K., & Grissom, J. A. (2015). Teacher collaboration in instructional teams and student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 52(3), 475–514. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831215585562

Saldaña, J. (2021). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (4th ed.). Sage.

Sanjari, M., Bahramnezhad, F., Fomani, F. K., Shoghi, M., & Cheraghi, M. A. (2014). Ethical challenges of researchers in qualitative studies: The necessity to develop a specific guideline. Journal of Medical Ethics and History of Medicine, 7, Article 14.

Santibañez, L., & Guarino, C. M. (2021). The effects of absenteeism on academic and social-emotional outcomes: Lessons for COVID-19. Educational Researcher, 50(6), 392–400. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X21994488

SchoolDigger. (2025). Meadowfield Elementary School. https://www.schooldigger.com/go/SC/schools/0336001303/school.aspx

Seidenberg, M. S., Cooper Borkenhagen, M., & Kearns, D. M. (2020). Lost in translation? Challenges in connecting reading science and educational practice. Reading Research Quarterly, 55(S1), S119–S130. https://www.jstor.org/stable/48587609

Shanahan, T. (2020). What constitutes a science of reading instruction? Reading Research Quarterly, 55(S1), S235–S247. https://www.jstor.org/stable/48587617

Sirin, S. R. (2005). Socioeconomic status and academic achievement: A meta-analytic review of research. Review of Educational Research, 75(3), 417–453. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543075003417

Sorensen, L. C., & Ladd, H. F. (2020). The hidden costs of teacher turnover. AERA Open, 6(1), Article 2332858420905812. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858420905812

South Carolina Department of Education. (2025). South Carolina school report cards. https://screportcards.com

Spear-Swerling, L. (2019). Structured literacy and typical literacy practices: Understanding differences to create instructional opportunities. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 51(3), 201–211. https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059917750160

Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Sage.

Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21(4), 360–407. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.21.4.1

Sun, Y., Wang, J., Dong, Y., Zheng, H., Yang, J., Zhao, Y., & Dong, W. (2021). The relationship between reading strategy and reading comprehension: A meta-analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, Article 635289. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.635289

Tracy, S. J. (2010). Qualitative quality: Eight “big-tent” criteria for excellent qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(10), 837–851. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800410383121

Wanzek, J., Stevens, E. A., Williams, K. J., Scammacca, N., Vaughn, S., & Sargent, K. (2018). Current evidence on the effects of intensive early reading interventions. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 51(6), 612–624. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219418775110

Wanzek, J., Vaughn, S., Scammacca, N., Gatlin, B., Walker, M. A., & Capin, P. (2016). Meta-analyses of the effects of Tier 2 type reading interventions in Grades K-3. Educational Psychology Review, 28(3), 551–576. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9321-7

Wyse, D., & Bradbury, A. (2022). Reading wars or reading reconciliation? A critical examination of robust research evidence, curriculum policy and teachers’ practices for teaching phonics and reading. Review of Education, 10, Article e3314. https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.3314

Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). Sage.

Zee, M., & Koomen, H. M. Y. (2016). Teacher self-efficacy and its effects on classroom processes, student academic adjustment, and teacher well-being: A synthesis of 40 years of research. Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 981–1015. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315626801