In classrooms nationwide, educators are facing a complex challenge: helping students who are falling behind in reading and math to catch up. The lingering effects of interrupted learning, rising academic expectations, and increasingly diverse student needs have made academic intervention essential. But what does effective intervention look like in today’s schools?
Teacher Created Materials conducted a national survey to uncover the latest trends in K–12 intervention; specifically, in reading intervention and math intervention. The findings provide a clearer picture of how schools are delivering interventions, the challenges they face, and the strategies yielding the best results. This article and accompanying infographic highlight key insights to enhance intervention practices.
We heard from 363 educators, including teachers, instructional coaches, curriculum directors, and administrators. They represented a range of district types: urban, suburban, and rural, with student populations ranging from fewer than 1,000 to more than 10,000. This broad sample offers valuable insights into intervention practices across various school settings.
One of the most eye-opening findings? Just how many students are receiving academic support. Over half of respondents (52%) said that at least one in four students receives reading intervention, while 46% reported the same for math intervention. And those numbers are likely conservative—some educators said more than half their students were receiving intervention.
Despite the scale of support, 68% of respondents reported that fewer than half of those students are meeting end-of-year grade-level expectations. This highlights a disconnect: while interventions are widespread, many aren’t producing the accelerated growth students need to close learning gaps.
Assessments play a central role in intervention. Educators use them to identify students in need and to monitor progress over time. According to survey data, diagnostic assessments are the most commonly-used tools, followed by standardized tests, district-created assessments, and program-embedded assessments.
However, nearly one in four administrators (23%) pointed to limited access to assessment tools and data as a major implementation challenge. This raises an important question: Are diagnostic assessments enough—or do educators need more actionable data to better inform instruction and monitor progress?
Schools use a variety of delivery models to meet student needs: push-in (39%), pull-out (29%), and blended approaches (32%). Pull-out models offer focused, small-group instruction outside the classroom, while push-in models allow support within the classroom environment. Many schools combine both to tailor interventions based on student needs, staff availability, and scheduling constraints.
Despite creative scheduling, time remains a critical challenge. More than 60% of educators said students receive 45 minutes or less of intervention per week in reading and math. Summer school, a primary intervention tool for 37%, limits year-round support. These constraints emphasize the need for sustainable solutions to expand instructional time.
Teachers and administrators don’t always agree on where K–12 intervention is most needed. Teachers point to grades K–2 as having the highest needs in both reading and math intervention, while administrators prioritize grades 6–8.
This misalignment underscores the importance of collaboration and shared understanding. When school teams align on where needs are most urgent, they can better allocate resources and target interventions for maximum impact.
While educators are united in their commitment to student growth, the obstacles they report differ by role. Teachers cite a lack of trained staff (34%) as their biggest challenge, followed by scheduling (24%) and limited resources (19%). For administrators, the top issues are scheduling (25%), assessment access (23%), and staff training (21%).
95% of respondents said their districts offer professional development for intervention, yet many administrators still view training as a major barrier. This suggests a disconnect between what’s offered and what’s needed—whether that’s due to content, format, or accessibility.
Despite the challenges, educators have a strong sense of what drives successful intervention. Teachers pointed to four key factors: delivery method (45%), staff training (21%), funding (19%), and dedicated time for each student (14%).
While teachers emphasized the importance of delivery, administrators placed greater weight on funding (31%) and staff training (28%). These varying perspectives reflect the different responsibilities and priorities of each role. Both viewpoints are essential. Effective intervention relies on collaboration across roles and a shared commitment to flexible, student-centered support.
Funding emerged as a key success factor—but not a top barrier. While administrators rank it high in importance, they don’t consistently identify it as a primary challenge.
This paradox speaks to the nuance of education funding: resources may technically be available, but may not be flexible, timely, or aligned to evolving intervention needs. Ultimately, financial resources are only one part of the equation. Long-term impact depends on aligning funding with data, staff support, and instructional strategies.
The survey findings reveal a clear picture of both the urgency and complexity surrounding intervention in today’s schools. Here are four key takeaways to guide future action and improve K–12 intervention practices in both reading and math intervention:
Many students receive less than 45 minutes of weekly intervention. Schools must find sustainable ways to increase both the duration and frequency of support—during the school year and year-round.
While diagnostic assessments are common, educators need timely, embedded, and instructionally relevant data to adjust support in real time.
Training is available in most districts, but often misses the mark. Professional learning must be targeted, ongoing, and responsive to classroom realities.
Teachers and administrators often hold differing views on intervention needs. Stronger communication and shared planning can help align efforts and effective resource allocation, especially around grade-level priorities.
K–12 intervention isn’t a one-size-fits-all solution—and it can’t be an afterthought. The challenges are real, but so are the opportunities. By listening to educators, using data with purpose, and committing to collaborative, student-centered strategies, we can build stronger, more responsive math and reading intervention systems of support. Together, we can ensure all students get what they need to thrive.