RtI for Gifted Students

A CEC-TAG Educational Resource

Mary Ruth Coleman, Susan K. Johnsen

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2021
• ISBN:
  9781000495874
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

RtI for Gifted Students provides a comprehensive overview of Response to Intervention (RtI) frameworks that include gifted students. One of the books featured in the CEC-TAG Educational Resource series, the book incorporates national, state, and local RtI models and how gifted learners can be included within these frameworks. Specific attention is given to addressing the needs of students who are twice-exceptional and to culturally responsive practices. The book concludes with ways of assessing a school's RtI model and challenges for using RtI in gifted education.

CHAPTER 1

Response to Intervention for Gifted Learners

Claire E. Hughes, Karen Rollins, and Mary Ruth Coleman

DOI: 10.4324/9781003237785-1

The Response to Intervention (RtI) model is sweeping the country, changing the way children’s educational needs are recognized and met. RtI was introduced through special education legislation as part of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA, 2004) and offered an alternative approach for identifying students with learning disabilities (Bender & Shores, 2007). Its impact today, however, has moved well beyond this initial goal (Council for Exceptional Children, 2007). RtI is designed to bring together information about each child’s strengths and needs with evidence-based instructional approaches that support the child’s success (Kirk, Gallagher, Coleman, & Anastasiow, 2009). Although RtI is still an emerging practice, it hinges on a collaborative approach to recognizing and responding to the needs of each child. This collaborative approach requires educators to think about the child first and match the supports and services to his or her strengths and needs. The allocation of resources follows the supports and services, promoting synergy rather than increasing fragmentation, as the needs of the child increase. In other words, within the RtI model, when the child’s needs are the most intense, educational resources can be combined to provide greater support. This use of resources differs significantly from traditional approaches where, as the needs of the child intensify, the supports and services become more separate and rigidly codified with clear boundaries delineating the allocation of resources.

A comprehensive approach to RtI addresses the needs of all learners, including learners who need additional time, support, practice, and/or more intense direct instruction to meet with success and learners who need more challenge and a faster pace of learning to meet with success. This comprehensive approach encompasses all learners and helps educators remember to address students’ strengths as we work to meet their needs. When students with gifts and talents are left out of the framework, their needs are not addressed, and they often do not make the academic gains they are capable of accomplishing. This is particularly true for students from low socioeconomic (low-SES) backgrounds who may need early support to prevent academic declines (Wyner, Bridgeland, & DiIulio, 2007). Within a comprehensive approach to RtI, attention is given to maintaining academic progress for all learners at the highest possible level.

MODELS OF IMPLEMENTATION

The strategies used to address learners’ needs (for both curriculum enhancement and for additional support) fall into two major approaches: the use of standard protocols and the use of a problem-solving process. Each approach has different implications when used for addressing the needs of students with gifts and talents.

THE STANDARD PROTOCOL MODEL

The standard protocol model requires the use of scientifically based classroom instruction for all students using the same curriculum, the same program, and/or the same management strategies; regular administration of curriculum-based assessments; and frequent comparisons of students to expected or normal growth (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2005). Standard protocols that address learners’ needs are identified and defined ahead of time so that they are “ready on the right” when teachers see students with specific sets of needs. Because standard protocols are well-defined interventions (they may even be scripted), it is relatively easy to help practitioners use an intervention correctly with large numbers of students. The goal of standard protocols is to ensure that all learners receive optimum instruction to help them make appropriate progress.

Fuchs and Fuchs (2005) described an elementary school that used a standard protocol RtI model for students with reading difficulties. For screening, each first-grade student was administered a curriculum-based measurement word identification fluency assessment (CBM-WIF) in September. All students in Tier 1 instruction received a validated reading curriculum program. To ensure that the reading program was implemented correctly, the school’s lead reading teacher observed each first-grade teacher’s classroom quarterly. The teachers kept records that monitored each student’s progress. Students who were not learning approximately 1.75 words per week then received Tier 2 instruction. In Tier 2, students received 45 minutes of instruction four times each week in groups of one to three from tutors who had completed training. The lead reading teacher also observed these tutors and provided corrective feedback. Once each week, the lead reading teacher met with all of the tutors for one hour to examine the students’ CBM-WIF graphs and to problem solve about students whose progress was inadequate. Tutoring sessions then focused on specific areas of student weakness that included phonological awareness, letter-sound recognition, decoding, sight word recognition, short story reading with highly explicit instruction, and self-regulated learning strategies to increase motivation and goal-directed learning. In this model, the third tier was referral to special education, which included a comprehensive evaluation phase. Across all tiers, teams empirically set decision rules to plan changes based on past research with specific interventions.

When we think of the needs of students who are gifted, we must reframe the standard protocol interventions so that they offer additional enrichment, challenge, and enhancement for learners with strengths in the targeted area (e.g., reading, as in the case above). For students whose progress monitoring data indicate a strength in reading, standard protocols might include:

• curriculum compacting to release students from additional direct instruction and guided and independent practice on skills where they have shown mastery;
• selection of advanced reading material on the students’ independent reading levels that allow them to keep reading logs with key questions in their journals;
• participation in seminar discussion with other students who are reading the same level material; and
• learning opportunities that allow students to explore their interests in more depth.

In summary, the standard protocol RtI model uses a high-quality, research-based, standardized curriculum in Tier 1; monitors students to identify those who need additional support or enhancement to meet with optimal success; provides for collaboration among special and general educators; and refers to specialized services in Tier 3 if the student needs additional support for success (New Mexico Public Education Department, 2008). Although the standard protocol is used primarily for children who may need additional support for success in reading, it should also be used with children who are advanced in reading if the standard curriculum can be differentiated.

THE PROBLEM-SOLVING MODEL

The problem-solving approach relies on a system of increasingly intensive interventions that are planned and implemented by school personnel to provide an effective program for a particular student (Deno, 2002; Mellard, Byrd, Johnson, Tollefson, & Boesche, 2004). The four-level problem-solving model generally involves (a) identifying the problem, (b) designing and implementing interventions, (c) monitoring the student’s progress and modifying the interventions according to the student’s responsiveness, and (d) planning the next steps. Because each child’s needs are addressed individually, professional expertise and collaborative consultation are essential for success.

The Minneapolis Public Schools used a three-stage problem-solving model (Hegranes, Casey, & Marston, 2006). The problem-solving steps included (a) problem identification, (b) problem definition, (c) designing intervention plans, (d) implementing interventions, and (e) problem solution. In Stage 1, classroom intervention, the teacher identified specific concerns and baseline data were collected for an individual student. Other relevant information such as school history and relevant health issues was collected from the student, parents, and staff members. Classroom modifications were then made and the student’s progress was documented for 4–6 weeks. Following this modification and perhaps other modifications, the student may have entered Stage 2. At this stage, a team of educators provided research-based intervention strategies and ideas to the general education teacher.

In this model, in addition to the general education teacher, the team may include a Title I teacher, counselor, social worker, psychologist, speech and language pathologist, special education teacher(s), and building administrator. When the team is addressing the needs of a student who is gifted and talented, the gifted education specialist should also participate. The team establishes a goal and an intervention is selected. To maintain the integrity of the intervention, activities are monitored and documented. These data are then used to document student progress and evaluate the effectiveness of the suggested interventions, approximately 6–8 weeks later. The team then decides to continue the intervention, to modify the intervention, or to refer the student for special education evaluation—Stage 3.

In summary, the problem-solving RtI model uses varied curriculum and multiple interventions, monitors students to identify those who may need additional supports and enhancement, provides for collaboration among a range of educators, and refers to special and or gifted education services if the suggested interventions show a need for additional support.

PRINCIPLES OF RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION

Regardless of the approach used, if education is to focus on developing student abilities, then it must also focus on the growth and achievement for all students—where all truly does mean all. In the face of changing educational policies and processes, such as RtI, it is critically important that teachers and advocates for gifted education come to the table to ensure that the philosophy that undergirds the changes inherent in the law are addressed to meet the needs of all students. From a practical viewpoint, this means that gifted education will also need to shift as there are some critical areas that may look somewhat different within an RtI framework.

Key components of RtI include: (a) a tiered or stage approach to supports and services; (b) early intervention prior to formal identification; (c) universal screening, (d) fidelity of implementation through standard protocol interventions, (e) progress monitoring or dynamic assessments to determine the child’s needs and to plan instruction; (f) the use of professional development so that practitioners can implement the interventions; and (g) collaborative problem-solving structures that allow (h) greater involvement with parents.

Table 1.1 summarizes the major RtI principles (Council for Exceptional Children, The Association for the Gifted [CEC-TAG], 2009; Fuchs & Deshler, 2007; Fuchs & Fuchs, 2007) and describes how they would change gifted education. The remainder of this chapter will explore what gifted education might look like within an RtI framework.

TABLE 1.1 RTI PRINCIPLES AND IMPLICATIONS FOR SERVINGTHE NEEDS OF GIFTED STUDENTS

RTI Principle	Traditional Gifted Education	Gifted Education Within RTI
Tiered system of interventions	The more intense the needs, the more intense and long-term the instructional intervention and the more different the learning environment; many “one-size-fits-all” programs versus services	Scaffolding support that starts with differentiation in Tier I, targeted support for strengths in Tier 2, and individualized supports in Tier 3 (formal identification may take place here)
Early intervention	Supporting learners in the general education program, with formal identification at grades 2 or 3	Recognizing ability within a nurturing system regardless of label and providing early support to develop potential for all learners
Universal screening	Establishing scores that students would reach to be placed in the “talent pool”	Establishing scores that students would reach that indicate a need for differentiated and advanced instruction
Fidelity of intervention	Reviewing and evaluating programming to examine parental and student satisfaction and effectiveness of program	Reviewing and evaluating programming to ensure that the student actually receives instruction geared to his or her particular needs—not a “one-size-fits-all” gifted program; using student outcome data to show that growth has taken place
Progress monitoring	Using some preassessment and curriculum compacting to allow students to show mastery	Documenting student progress with a goal of providing the appropriate level of instruction to match the student’s strengths, interests, and pace of learning
Professional development	Providing specific, research-based interventions that are appropriate for the needs of the child	Providing specific strategies of acceleration, enrichment, and differentiation that are effective with sifted learners
Collaborative structure	Collaborating when needed and time permits	Collaborating between gifted, special, and general education teachers to identify and serve high-achieving students in need of differentiated services; providing greater possibilities for twice-exceptional students
Parental involvement	Sharing information with and from families to look at achievement levels and effectiveness of interventions	Collaborating with families to look at achievement levels and effectiveness of interventions; building targeted interventions based on information regarding each student’s interest areas and areas of strength

THE TIERED APPROACH TO SUPPORTS AND SERVICES

The use of tiered approaches to supporting strengths is not new for gifted education. The field has relied on curriculum differentiation strategies that promote tiered lessons and units for many years (Tomlinson, 1999). Gifted students are an incredibly heterogeneous group (Cross, 2005), with greater diversity in achievement levels than among typical students. Thus, the idea of a one-size-fits-all gifted education program is not based upon the actual characteristics of gifted students. Historically, there has often been a disconnect between the process of identification (based upon characteristics of gifted students) and the program that is offered for gifted learners (Coleman & Gallagher, 1995). In a tiered framework, teachers would be better able to meet the needs of giftedlearners based on their individual characteristics by differentiating within the group of gifted students. Even though students may have been identified as gifted, there are still strengths, weaknesses, and a tremendous range of actual performance levels within this group.

Important aspects to remember within the tiers of instruction are the concepts of flexibility and fluidity. Once a student has been identified as needing a different tier of instruction, whether it is for remediation or enrichment, i...