A systematic literature review of the organisational arrangements of primary school‐based reading interventions for struggling readers.

This paper presents findings from a systematic literature review that explored the delivery arrangements of school‐based reading interventions for struggling readers aged 5–8 years. Databases were searched for published and unpublished studies from 1970 to 2017, which employed a randomised controlled trial or quasi‐experimental design. Sixty‐four texts that met the inclusion criteria were categorised according to targeted tier based on the response‐to‐intervention model. Findings showed that tier 2/3 interventions targeting pupils who did not respond to whole class teaching (tier 1) were almost exclusively delivered in pull‐out sessions by people other than the classroom teacher. At present, certain delivery arrangements appear to be used more than others in reading interventions conducted with young pupils in schools. This could to some extent reflect practices already used in primary schools and suggests that pupils who are identified for tier 2/3 support might have less access to their teacher's time and expertise. Highlights: What is already known about this topicIntervention delivery is becoming increasingly important in light of the attention that the response‐to‐intervention model has been receiving.Intervention delivery is relevant to whether schools continue using successful interventions after the end of a study.Few papers have explored the way reading interventions have been delivered. What this paper addsCertain delivery arrangements appear to be used more than others in primary school‐based reading intervention trials, for example, classroom teachers delivering tier 1 sessions and other individuals delivering tier 2/3 sessions.This could to some extent reflect practices used in primary schools.This suggests that pupils who are identified for tier 2/3 support might have less access to their teacher's time and expertise. Implications for theory, policy or practiceQuestions are raised about how tier 1 is designed in terms of quality and relevance of provision for the diversity of pupil needs.And how tiers 2 and 3 are then defined and designed in relation to tier 1 both with regard to their goals, methods, location of delivery and who delivers the tier 2/3 programmes.The aforementioned data reflect broader issues about the relationship between general and additional programming and teaching, which bear on the future of inclusive teaching [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]