Go Fish: Data Without Direction, Too Little Too Late, Fidelity First or Failure Follows – The Myth of Interventions

Abstract

This study examined the extent to which Coordinated Early Intervening Services (CEIS), a voluntary initiative under the U.S. Department of Education’s IDEA framework, influenced academic outcomes and subgroup disproportionality among underperforming general education scholars in a large, diverse urban district. CEIS was implemented in response to chronic underperformance and racial overrepresentation in special education referrals. Grounded in Bandura’s Self-Efficacy Theory and the Whole Child framework, this study employed a causal-comparative quantitative design within a positivist paradigm. Archival data from 395 CEIS-enrolled scholars across elementary, middle, and high schools were analyzed over a 24–27-month period. Seven indicators were examined: ELA and Math achievement, excused and unexcused absences, in- and out-of-school suspensions, and enrollment mobility. Ethnicity was a statistically significant predictor of CEIS participation (p < .001). However, no statistically significant academic gains were observed overall, and Math scores declined slightly after the intervention, underscoring the limited impact of the program. The purpose of this study was to determine whether CEIS improved academic outcomes and reduced subgroup disparities. The study further identified self-efficacy as a critical determinant of program success. It emphasized the consequences of fractured implementation in high-need systems, reinforcing the need to address structural and systemic failures in early intervention delivery.