This quantitative causal-comparative study examined whether early recuperative Department of Education (DOE) Coordinated Early Intervening Services (CEIS) could significantly impact the number of underperforming general education students targeted for special education services resulting from "not meeting Math and Reading grade-level state standards." Approximately 1400+ students were randomly selected from several elementary, middle, and high schools and enrolled for four years in CEIS in the Equliebeh School District. This study's findings were generated in response to several research questions that provided valuable insights into CEIS factors that impacted students' academic performance within the context of its programming. For instance, although some data points of this study align with CEIS expectations for approximately 1400+ students rostered, only 395 had the complete required data sets. Furthermore, this study's findings suggested that self-efficacy could be a crucial determinant in the success or failure of all stakeholders, specifically providers and participants selected from various ethnic groups enrolled in the program. Furthermore, the study also highlighted disparities among diverse racial and ethnic groups, which aligned with the tenets of social injustice. These disproportions underscored the need to examine structural and systemic failures contributing to educational inequities before, during, and after programming. The practical implications of this study's findings are profound for academic institutions and education policy executives who are responsible for the execution and enforcement of the DOE laws. Understanding how demographic factors, disciplinary actions, attendance patterns, and even mobility elements influence student achievement underscores the necessity of targeted support systems grounded in social-emotional intervention support, hence a holistic lens to guarantee some success. The findings of this study will also provide valuable insights into the need for potential improvements in educational administrative practices, not so much for the policymakers or crafters of the initiatives but for the executioners. LEAs and educational administrators must consider implementing proactive systems tailored to the most defenseless, vulnerable children needing academic lenience, as they are constantly innocent victims of systemic academic disarray. Education administration must build trusting relationships and mobilize their constituents while embracing social-emotional challenges in educational processes and demanding changes in self-awareness. [The dissertation citations contained here are published with the permission of ProQuest LLC. Further reproduction is prohibited without permission. Copies of dissertations may be obtained by Telephone (800) 1-800-521-0600. Web page: http://www.proquest.com/en-US/products/dissertations/individuals.shtml.]