Implementing RtI With Gifted Students

Service Models, Trends, and Issues

Mary Ruth Coleman, Susan K. Johnsen

• Editore: Routledge
• Anno: 2021
• ISBN:
  9781000493603
• Edizione: 1
• Argomento: Education
• Categoria: Education General

Implementing RtI With Gifted Students shares how RtI can fit within the framework of gifted education programming models. This edited book will serve as a reference guide for those interested in learning more about RtI and how it might be effectively implemented to meet the needs of all gifted students. Chapters contributed by top gifted education experts focus on topics including tiered supports and services for gifted learners; screening, assessment, and progress monitoring; evidence-based practices; popular gifted education models that fit within a tiered framework; and diversity. Additional resources for schools include a self-assessment needs survey; guidelines for planning; forms, templates, and timelines for getting started; and rubrics for reviewing implementation fidelity and progress.

SECTION I
INTRODUCTION

DOI: 10.4324/9781003235736-1

CHAPTER ONE
Overview Of Response To Intervention And Its Application To Students With Gifts And Talents

---

Susan K. Johnsen, Mary Ruth Coleman, and Claire E. Hughes

DOI: 10.4324/9781003235736-2

Response to Intervention (RtI) is a new option for examining a student's response to scientific, research-based interventions. Instead of waiting for students to fail, educators are now able to intervene earlier in the instructional process so that students may achieve at higher levels. This approach, which was introduced in 2004 within the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA), allows each state the freedom to develop its RtI process. This chapter will provide background information for the reader by addressing the recent movement toward a developmental model in special and gifted education, definitions of RtI, standard protocol and problem-solving models, and major components of RtI.

Movement Toward a Developmental Model in Special Education

The movement toward RtI originated from special educators' concerns about the discrepancy model. In 1932, Monroe introduced the discrepancy model to operationalize unexpected underachievement. If a student performed in the above average to superior ranges on an intelligence test and was not achieving in the classroom (e.g., performing 2 years below grade level), then that student was identified as an underachiever. If the discrepancy was severe enough, the student was referred for further testing to determine eligibility for special education services. This identification approach did not focus on any factors that might contribute to the student's performance on aptitude or achievement tests (e.g., the school curriculum, instructional strategies, his or her diverse background).

Disenchantment with the effectiveness of the discrepancy model began to emerge in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Criticisms centered on the model's inability to provide sufficient information for interventions, its unreliability due to its dependence on the assessments that were being administered, its focus on deficits where students had to fail before they were referred for services, and its overidentification and labeling of students with specific learning disabilities (Bender & Shores, 2007; Fletcher et al., 1998; Vaughn, Linan-Thompson, & Hickman, 2003; Vellutino, Scanlon, & Lyon, 2000). Alternative, more developmental identification approaches were sought to identify students who needed assistance at an earlier point in their education to better guide the intervention process and to help determine the intervention's effectiveness on student performance (Deno, 1985; D. Fuchs, Mock, Morgan, & Young, 2003; L. S. Fuchs, Deno, & Mirkin, 1984; Gresham, 1989). These approaches included prereferral teams, curriculum-based measurement, and dynamic assessments, where general education teachers tried different instructional interventions to determine their effects on student progress. Although these assessments and interventions were beneficial for identifying students who needed different instructional approaches or services, they were often not valued by general education teachers because they required more work and were less efficient than traditional approaches (Gersten & Dimino, 2006).

Over the next two decades, the concept of RtI was heavily debated and researched. Numerous organizations, discussion panels, and summits brought together experts to discuss RtI's advantages and disadvantages. It was not until both the President's Commission on Excellence in Special Education (2002) and the National Research Center on Learning Disabilities (2002) supported the Response to Intervention concept that a more student-centered approach to identification became a part of IDEA in 2004. Schools would now be encouraged to develop alternative instructional approaches to identify students who were struggling. These new RtI frameworks addressed the historical criticisms and had advantages over the discrepancy model, including (a) earlier identification of learning problems, (b) the use of a developmental model rather than a deficit model, and (c) a focus on student outcomes.

Movement Toward a Developmental Model in Gifted Education

Paralleling this movement in special education, gifted educators began to examine the developmental nature of students with gifts and talents. Moving away from a singular assessment such as an intelligence test to identify gifted students, the Marland (1972) report broadened the definition of giftedness to include students from diverse domains such as the fine arts, leadership, and creativity, and the National Excellence (U.S. Department of Education, 1993) report emphasized the importance of developing students' strengths rather than focusing on remediating their deficiencies. National Excellenceencouraged educators to provide challenging learning opportunities and to increase access to early childhood education, particularly for gifted students from underrepresented groups such as minorities and children in poverty. The National Research Council's (2002) report, Minority Students in Special and Gifted Education, echoed these concerns by calling for a focus on nurturing potential and access to challenging curricula for students from culturally or linguistically diverse and economically disadvantaged families. Theorists also offered more developmental views of giftedness. For example, Gagné (1995) proposed a Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent where gifts, which are natural abilities, must be developed to become talents, through the systematic learning, training, and practicing of skills that are relevant to a particular domain.

More recently, the National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC, 2011) adopted a new definition that emphasizes talent development:

Gifted individuals are those who demonstrate outstanding levels of aptitude (defined as an exceptional ability to reason and learn) or competence (documented performance or achievement in top 10% or rarer) in one or more domains. Domains include any structured area of activity with its own symbol system (e.g., mathematics, music, language) and/or set of sensorimotor skills (e.g., painting, dance, sports).

The development of ability or talent is a lifelong process. It can be evident in young children as exceptional performance on tests and/or other measures of ability or as a rapid rate of learning, compared to other students of the same age, or in actual achievement in a domain. As individuals mature through childhood to adolescence, however, achievement and high levels of motivation in the domain become the primary characteristics of their giftedness. Various factors can either enhance or inhibit the development and expression of abilities.

A person's giftedness should not be confused with the means by which giftedness is observed or assessed. Parent, teacher, or student recommendations, a high mark on an examination, or a high IQ score are not giftedness; they may be a signal that giftedness exists. Some of these indices of giftedness are more sensitive than others to differences in the person's environment, (para. 4-6)

The NAGC definition describes ability as a "lifelong process" and emphasizes the use of assessments that examine "rapid rates of learning." Because of this emphasis on talent development in the field of gifted education, educators are encouraged to (a) identify students' strengths at an early age and provide services that address these strengths, (b) view giftedness as a developmental construct, and (c) focus on student outcomes. For students to be identified as having talents in particular domains, they need classrooms where they have opportunities to show their gifts and achieve at high levels (Coleman & Shah-Coltrane, 2010). All of these recommendations are similar to the advantages noted in the RtI model for special education. The remainder of this chapter will discuss RtI, its components, and its utility in general, gifted, and special education.

Definition of Response to Intervention

Response to Intervention is a schoolwide process that integrates curriculum and instruction with ongoing assessment and intervention (Johnson, Mellard, Fuchs, & McKnight, 2006). The purpose of RtI is for all students to receive high-quality, scientifically validated instructional practices in the general education classroom so that they achieve higher levels of academic and behavioral success (Campbell, Wang, & Algozzine, 2010; Kirk, Gallagher, Coleman, & Anastasiow, 2012; Mellard & Johnson, 2008). Its components include a multi-tiered or layered set of increasingly intensive interventions designed to (a) enhance the early identification of students who are struggling in basic skills so that they will not fall further behind other students (Bender & Shores, 2007; Johnson & Smith, 2008; Vaughn et al., 2003) and/or (b) nurture children's areas of strength so that they will be able to advance according to their developmental levels (Coleman & Hughes, 2009). In all cases, the purpose of RtI is to bring a child to higher levels of development by matching appropriate interventions to his or her needs.

Two approaches to designing an RtI process have been described in the literature and implemented at the state and local levels: standard protocol models and problem-solving models.

Standard Protocol Models

Standard protocol models require the use of scientifically based classroom instruction with all students, regular administration of curriculum-based assessments, and frequent comparisons of students to expected growth (D. Fuchs & Fuchs, 2005). If a student is not progressing as expected, he or she receives a well-defined and often scripted intervention. Because of the standardization of the curriculum, the standard protocol can be implemented with fidelity, which helps to ensure that a student's unresponsiveness to the curriculum is not related to poor instruction.

Most standard protocols provide support for students who are struggling in reading and math; they have not been developed for gifted students. Protocols for gifted students will look different from those in special education and will include a scientifically based curriculum that is above grade level and that supports a student's strengths and interests (VanTassel-Baska, Avery Little, & Hughes, 2000; VanTassel-Baska, Zuo, Avery, & Little, 2002). Progress will still be monitored, but students will be expected to develop within a domain or talent area at an accelerated rate or more complex level when compared to their same-age peers. The responsiveness of the students would still be used as a guide as to the effectiveness of the intervention.

Problem-Solving Models

In problem-solving models, a student's poor classroom performance prompts a team-based examination of possible modifications, supports, or enhancements within the general education classroom (Kavale & Spaulding, 2008). 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 (Bolt, 2005; Deno, 2002; Mellard, Byrd, Johnson, Tollefson, & Boesche, 2004). The model provides increasingly intensive interventions that are planned and implemented by school personnel. Referrals to special education services are made only in those cases where the suggested interventions are ineffective. The problem-solving approach is also used within a schoolwide behavioral support model (e.g., Positive Behavior Support Model; Sugai, Horner, & Gresham, 2002). In this case, the interventions address behavioral concerns in addition to academic concerns.

Some RtI problem-solving models at both the state and school district levels have included gifted and talented students (Rollins, Mursky, Shah-Coltrane, & Johnsen, 2009). For example, U-S PARS~PLUS (Coleman & Shah-Coltrane, 2010) is centered in the K—3 regular education classroom with a highly engaging, science-based curriculum, whereas the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction model has expanded upon its statewide special education model in applying Response to Intervention to include gifted students (Rollins et al., 2009). In these models, high-quality differentiated instruction is provided that engages each student in challenging, meaningful tasks. For students who have already met or exceeded the expected benchmarks, interventions occur, including acceleration, compacting, enrichment, and other forms of targeted support. Balanced assessments that incorporate formative, benchmark, and summative measures ensure that the interventions are effective with the students.

The majority of states use a combination of standard protocol and problem-solving approaches (Berkeley, Bender, Peaster, & Saunders, 2009). Each of the approaches emphasizes high-quality instruction, the use of ongoing assessments in making decisions regarding student progress, and collaboration.

Major Components of RtI

Key components of RtI include (a) a strong general education curriculum, (b) a system for implementing research-based interventions at all tiers prior to formal identification with...