ERIC EJ849373: RtI for Nurturing Giftedness: Implications for the RtI School-Based Team

2009·0.29 MB·English

by  ERIC

RtI
for
Nurturing
Giftedness:
Implications for the
RtI School-Based Team
The first-grade team of Mr. Orton, Ms. Poland, and
Ms. Lloyd are meeting to review DIBELS scores on
the third-grade reading tests that were administered
at the beginning of the year. It’s the end of September,
and they’re meeting for the first time to initiate the
process known as RtI. In their district, it’s known
as Responsiveness to Intervention, and the school’s
assistant principal, Ms. Tracy, is leading the team.
Ms. Tracy instructs them to rank the 92 scores from
lowest to highest. The teachers have done so, and
they are examining the needs of their bottom 25%,
about 24 students. Ms. Poland notes that even among
these lower students, there are about seven of them
whose scores are significantly lower than the groups
and whose reading is of great concern. Ms. Weichel,
the special education teacher who collaborates with
both Mr. Orton’s and Ms. Lloyd’s classes, has been
asked to include these seven students when she works
with the students with identified learning disabili-
ties. She has a reduced special education caseload so
that she can engage in this RtI process and work on
by Claire E. Hughes and Karen Rollins a short-term basis with these Tier 3 students. She is
gifted child today 31
RtI for Nurturing Giftedness
going to try some short-term interven- particularly among students from low be important as a member of an RtI
tions for about 6 weeks and document socioeconomic backgrounds? team within a school to determine two
the students’ responses to these interven- If education is to focus on devel- points for discussions—those students
tions, focusing on measuring the students’ oping student abilities and provid- performing below given criteria, and
fluency rates and comprehension because ing an educated work force, then it those students performing above a cer-
those areas seem to be of greatest concern. also must focus on the growth and tain criteria. Providing teachers with
In addition, the first-grade teachers have achievement for all students—where a chart such as the one in Figure 1
agreed to focus on the 17 other students “all” truly does mean all. In the face would allow teachers to look at their
and emphasize specific reading concepts of changing educational policies and class as a whole, and to focus on the
to them, focusing specific questions and processes, such as RtI, it is critically
two extremes: those students who are
activities to these identified students in important that teachers and advo-
significantly ahead of their peers and
Tier 2. The team hopes that with the cates for gifted education come to
those students who are significantly
assistance of Ms. Weichel and the focused the table to insist that the philosophy
below their peers.
instruction, the students’ performance can that undergirds the changes inherent
As a school system, procedures need
improve, and a follow-up team meeting in the law are addressed to meet the
to be in place to identify children who
is scheduled for mid-November. needs of all students. From a practical
are performing either significantly
Just as the group is breaking up, Mr. viewpoint, there are some critical simi-
below or significantly above their
Orton looked at the ranked test scores and larities and differences to be addressed
peers. Because of ceiling effects found
noted that there were five students whose from a campus-level perspective. Table
among students who score in the 90th
reading scores were significantly ahead 1 summarizes the major RtI principles
percentile and above and floor effects
of their peers’ and a significant number (Council for Exceptional Children,
from students who score below the
of students whose test scores were above The Association for the Gifted [CEC-
15th percentile, it would be necessary
the average. “Wait!” he called out to his TAG], 2009; Fuchs & Deschler, 2007;
to have testing procedures in place
fellow team members, “Why don’t we do Fuchs & Fuchs, 2007) and describes
to allow specialists to offer off-grade-
something for these students? Don’t we how they can be implemented across
level testing to determine at what grade
want ALL of our students to improve?” all levels—to include struggling learn-
level a student is actually performing.
ers as well as gifted learners.
A child in fifth grade who is scoring
An Issue of “Fairness”
above the 95th percentile in math
Universal Screening
might be performing at a seventh-
As in the preceding scenario, if such
grade level, or even at a ninth-grade
attention is to be given to low-achiev- If teachers were to implement
level. Similarly, a fifth-grade student
ing students, a similar focus must be RtI for gifted students, the universal
who scores at the 10th percentile in
placed on students whose initial per- screening aspect would need to iden-
math might be at the first-grade level,
formance is higher than other students. tify students who were achieving at a
or he or she might not even recognize
Without the same focus, these students’ high level. Using a parallel structure
numbers. For instructional purposes
achievement over time may suffer due to traditional RtI, those students who
for both students, it would be impor-
to the little educational effort that score in the top 25% could warrant
tant to know specific knowledge and
historically has been placed on raising extra attention, perhaps needing some
skills within the curriculum for target-
the achievement level of students who additional challenges or differentiated
ing instruction. Children who are per-
are outperforming their peers. Studies instruction. Students in the top 5% to
that track students over time, particu- 10% of the class would need signifi- forming at either of the extreme ends
larly students from low socioeconomic cantly more intensive interventions. must have off-level testing in order for
backgrounds (Wyner, Bridgeland, & In addition, the universal screening instructional practices to match their
Diiulio, 2007), find that such early instrument would need to include a educational levels. Such instructional
performers slip and do not maintain higher level ceiling than grade-level approaches are the antithesis of elit-
their achievement levels, and in many expectations to identify those excep- ism; rather, it is determining appro-
cases, perform more and more poorly tional students who might be candi- priate instructional intervention for
over time. Shouldn’t falling achieve- dates for significant acceleration in every child—a goal for the changing
ment warrant such attention as well, certain subject areas. Overall, it would educational landscape.
32 summer 2009 • vol 32, no 3
RtI for Nurturing Giftedness
Table 1
RtI Principles and Implications for Serving the Needs of Gifted Students
RtI Principle Traditional RtI Actions for Struggling Students System Implications for Gifted Learners
Universal Screening Students who score below established criteria Scores who score above established criteria receive
receive intensive remedial instruction. differentiated and advanced instruction.
Early Intervention Students can qualify for intervening services before Abilities are identified within a nurturing system
“waiting to fail.” regardless of label or potentially biased teacher
recommendations.
Tiered System of The more intense the needs, and the farther from The more intense the needs, and the farther from typi-
Interventions typical the student, the more intense and long-term cal the student, the more intense and long-term the
the instructional interventions that are provided. instructional interventions that are provided.
Fidelity of Intervention The student actually receives instruction geared to The student actually receives instruction geared
particular needs; not a “one-size-fits-all” remedial to particular needs; not a “one-size-fits-all” gifted
program. program.
Progress Monitoring Documented student progress has a goal of moving Documented student progress has a goal of moving
a child from a more intensive to a less intensive tier a child from a less intensive to a more intensive tier
of intervention as a child raises achievement levels. of intervention as a child raises achievement levels.
Professional Training is provided for specific, research-based Training is provided for specific strategies of accelera-
Development interventions that are effective for struggling tion, enrichment, and differentiation that are effective
learners. with gifted learners.
Collaborative Structure Greater collaboration is needed between special Gifted education professionals collaborate with gen-
education, reading specialists, and other interven- eral education teachers to identify and serve high-
tion specialists to identify and serve struggling achieving students in need of differentiated services.
learners.
Greater possibilities for appropriate services for twice-
Greater use of collaboration and coteaching facili- exceptional students are available through collabora-
tates this process. tions with special education professionals.
Parental Involvement Sharing information to and from families raises the Sharing information to and from families raises the
achievement levels and effectiveness of interven- achievement levels and effectiveness of interventions.
tions. Targeted interventions are built upon acquired Targeted interventions are built upon acquired infor-
information regarding interest areas and areas of mation regarding interest areas and areas of strength.
strength.
Resources Special education monies are freed up to serve stu- Gifted education resources are more targeted to meet
dents on a short-term basis who are not identified the needs of students, rather than the needs of the
as having a disability. program.
Early Identification because of extenuating circumstances, In addition, there are many
and Intervention such as poverty or cultural and lin- instances where students are not iden-
guistic differences, that impact their tified as gifted due to a “mismatch”
level of achievement in a mainstream between the identification instrument
Often, gifted education is reserved
school. By waiting to provide talent and the child’s strengths. Through an
for students who qualify for gifted ser-
development activities until students RtI delivery model that incorporates
vices, not recognizing that many stu-
dents may not score above a required “qualify” for gifted education ser- tiers for students performing above
level without some exposure to spe- vices, schools are ensuring that only their peers in the school curriculum,
cific content and/or proper identifica- students who have the appropriate you ensure that all students with
tion. In a case for early intervention, backgrounds when they enter school potential receive services even if the
the issue of nurturing talent, especially receive such services. RtI promises an designated instrument of choice from
among diverse populations, becomes exciting means of nurturing talent and the district does not indicate quali-
primary. Simply stated, many students the potential for growth before a stu- fication for gifted services. Without
continued on page ??
enter schools with lower achievement dent qualifies. nurturing the strengths of gifted stu-
gifted child today 33
RtI for Nurturing Giftedness
Reading: Rate the students in the class, with 1 being much lower, and 5 being much higher than other students in the class on the following:
Sight Word Reading
Name of Student Oral Reading Word Attack Vocabulary Vocabulary Comprehension
Math: Rate the students in the class, with 1 being much lower, and 5 being much higher than other students in the class on the following:
Name of
Student Numeration Estimation Money Measurement Geometry Graphing Word Problems
Writing: Rate the students in the class, with 1 being much lower, and 5 being much higher that other students in the class on the following:
Name of
Student Expressiveness Story Length Sticks to Topic Creativity Mechanics Handwriting Spelling
Figure 1. Universal screening.
dents, true growth cannot occur and in math with reading modifications dous range of actual performance levels
students are in danger of not develop- and direct instruction in reading within this group.
ing, and even losing, their gifts. strategies. An important aspect to remember
Most significantly, by allowing the within the tiers of instruction are the
integrated opportunities for enrich- Tiered System concepts of flexibility and fluidity.
ment and remediation, the needs of Interventions Once a student has been identified
of twice-exceptional students can as needing a different tier of instruc-
be more easily met. Winebrenner tion, whether it be for remediation
Gifted students are an incredibly
(2003) suggested that when deal- or enrichment, it will be imperative
heterogeneous group (Cross, 2005),
ing with twice-exceptional students, to allow that child the flexibility of
with greater diversity in achievement
teachers should give direct teach- movement as he or she develops in
levels than among typical students.
ing of needed skills while providing the area of need. Also, in respect to
Thus, the idea of a one-size-fits-all
acceleration and enrichment, with movement, fluidity allows that child
gifted education program is not based
emphasis on problem solving, reason- to move within tiers when needed.
upon the actual characteristics of gifted
ing, and critical thinking. Such dual- students. Historically, there has been With struggling students, this move-
instructional approaches become pos- a tremendous disconnect between the ment may be up to another tier for
sible when all professionals in gifted process of identification based upon more specific instruction and then
education and special education and characteristics and the program that is back to a previous tier once concepts
the general education classroom offered for gifted learners (Coleman & have been mastered. However, that
teachers are working together to pro- Gallagher, 1995). In a tiered program, movement may occur again if addi-
vide instruction that matches each teachers would be better able to more tional struggles are evident through
child’s curricular needs. For example, specifically meet the needs of gifted data monitoring. With a gifted child,
a child might score in the 90th per- learners based on their characteristics. movement also will be important.
centile in math, and in the 20th per- It is important to realize that we must However, this movement may not only
centile in reading. That child could differentiate within a gifted group. be an upward movement to the next
conceivably have both needs met with Even though gifted students may have tier for more specific enrichment, but
instruction provided by different tiers been identified as gifted, there are still also additional movement as that child
of instruction: advanced instruction strengths, weaknesses, and a tremen- develops. A gifted student may stay at
34 summer 2009 • vol 32, no 3
RtI for Nurturing Giftedness
this higher level tier indefinitely as part
of differentiation.
Tier 1
If educators were to teach students at their actual levels
Tier 1 includes instruction that
of achievement, rather than where we think they should
would be differentiated within the
general education classroom. Using
a tiered system, or menu system of be, much of the charges of elitism and other negative
instruction, or any of the other dif-
ferentiation methods recommended aspects of gifted or special education programming
by gifted education experts such as
Kaplan, Tomlinson, and VanTassel-
would simply vanish.
Baska, students would have the
opportunity within the general edu-
cation classroom to excel and strive
for higher levels. Twice-exceptional
is commonly misunderstood and even more clearly help teachers know
children do well particularly within a
rejected by many general education where to begin teaching. Programs
tiered approach that allows for focused
teachers and administrators (Colangelo, such as the Study of Mathematically
instruction that is both targeted at
Assouline, & Gross, 2004). As a stu- Precocious Youth (SMPY) have been
areas of challenge and areas of strength.
dent’s performance grows, more and organized around this principle for
One of the best practices to ensure suc-
more accelerative and intensive enrich- years. If educators were to teach stu-
cess of twice-exceptional students is
ment opportunities would be provided. dents at their actual levels of achieve-
allowing them to participate in gifted
Examples of Tier 3 include intensive ment, rather than where we think
instruction (Baum & Owen, 2004;
acceleration, such as skipping a grade they should be, much of the charges
Silverman, 1989), particularly if that
or two, early Advanced Placement (AP) of elitism and other negative aspects
instruction is within the same setting.
classes, or early college classes. of gifted or special education pro-
The issue of increasing levels of gramming would simply vanish.
Tier 2
instruction as student needs grow
and as student achievement levels Fidelity of Intervention
In Tier 2, perhaps using the assis-
rise raises the issue of off-level test-
tance of a gifted education teacher,
students would receive additional ing. A child who scores in the 95th Ensuring the fidelity of interven-
enrichment and/or accelerative options or 99th percentile on a standardized tion, or a systematic procedure that
within specific content areas. Contracts test when compared to his or her is clearly followed for all students,
and compacting are strategies that peers has “topped” out the test. The ensures two important aspects: (a)
could be employed to provide chal- full range of that child’s knowledge Curricular interventions are selected
lenging instruction in those areas of or skills is still not known to teachers. based upon data-based decisions and
strength for a gifted child. Similarly, a student who makes a 100 are related to identifiable, measurable
on a curriculum-based measure or a gifted characteristics; and (b) educa-
Tier 3 pretest before instruction has clearly tors are held accountable for present-
mastered that level of curriculum, but ing the instruction in a manner that
In Tier 3, perhaps the most inten- it is still not clear on what level of reflects best teaching practices. The
sive services, gifted students would achievement that child is operating. issue of bias and potential bias of
receive more significant acceleration In order to provide such information, identification in gifted education is
and/or gifted group activities. The cri- it is necessary to use tests and mea- one that is rampant throughout the lit-
teria for such programming would be sures that are designed for an above- erature (Coleman, 2003; Coleman &
based on clearly established protocols. grade-level population to know that Gallagher, 1995). With the inclusion
These protocols would establish criteria child’s actual level of performance. of data, and the fidelity of instruction,
continued on page ??
for the practice of acceleration, which The actual level of performance can the issue of bias is removed.
gifted child today 35
RtI for Nurturing Giftedness
Progress Monitoring est in the content that teachers will the RtI model is in the area of col-
learn regarding characteristics and the laboration. Collaboration as a ser-
Progress monitoring is the system- implications for the education of gifted vice delivery option currently exists
atic gathering of data to evaluate the learners. The National Association for in special education and holds great
progress of a child. For a teacher, it Gifted Children (NAGC) currently promise for RtI as a means of identi-
means knowing how one will evaluate is examining the core knowledge that fying and serving students who need
a child on a particular set of skills over would be considered essential for additional interventions (Murawski &
time. It may mean repeating a set of general education teachers. However, Hughes, 2009). There is great poten-
curriculum-based measures, or using a although it is acknowledged that the tial for gifted educators to be tapped
more standardized test over the course majority of gifted children spend as resources in order to better enable
of several weeks. Progress monitoring most of their time in general edu- the general education teacher to meet
is key to the process of Tiers 1 and 2. cation classrooms, there is a set of the needs of potentially strong stu-
In a remedial-focused RtI, students core knowledge and skills that The dents. Gifted education teachers can
often are only in Tier 2 for a speci- Association for the Gifted, Council gather data, provide on going assess-
fied amount of time before either (a) for Exceptional Children (CEC-TAG); ment, and provide services for stu-
their needs are remediated and they NAGC; and the National Council for dents at multiple tiers, such as direct
are moved back to Tier 1, or (b) more Accreditation of Teacher Education acceleration and enrichment activities,
long-term solutions are needed and (NCATE) programs have recently to students showing a need for these
they are served in Tier 3 or special edu- provided for the education of teachers services. Significant research indicates
cation. The goal in a remedial program, of gifted students (Johnsen, VanTassel- that within a general education set-
clearly, is to raise student achievement Baska, & Robinson, 2008; Kitano, ting, little to no differentiation for
to the level of his or her peers and to Montgomery, VanTassel-Baska, & high-achieving students occurs on a
receive instruction in the general edu- Johnsen, 2008). Thus, there is a set regular, systematic basis (Tomlinson,
cation classroom, or Tier 1. However, of guidelines for professional develop- 2008). With the collaboration of a
in a strengths-based RtI, the goal is to ment opportunities for a district to fol- gifted education professional, such dif-
raise achievement beyond the general low in selecting and training teachers ferentiation can occur, and counter the
education classroom. Thus, students of gifted students. argument of “I just don’t have time or
should not simply “pass through” Tier know how to meet everyone’s needs,”
2, but should perhaps remain in this Collaborative Structure which is a concern for many general
tier as a learning objective. Heightened education teachers.
achievement gains that are achieved Perhaps the area of greatest poten- In addition to the services that gifted
in Tier 2 should be maintained and tial to aid the classroom teacher in education teachers can provide within
encouraged. Progress monitoring is
critical to this process of determining
how much a student’s achievement lev-
There is great potential for gifted
els are changing over time. With the
goal being achievement gains for all
students, progress monitoring is key
educators to be tapped as resources
to measuring that goal.
Professional
in order to better enable the general
Development
With the passage of the Higher
education teacher to meet the needs of
Education Opportunity Act (2008),
which requires all teacher preparation
programs to contain information about
potentially strong students.
teaching gifted learners, among other
populations, there is significant inter-
36 summer 2009 • vol 32, no 3
RtI for Nurturing Giftedness
a general education setting, gifted edu- sional respect of a gifted education criteria. Each of these four areas
cation teachers also can provide more teacher, and consequently, the field. involves all members of the team.
intensive direct services in a Tier 3 set- This team might consist of admin-
ting. Some school districts may opt for Parental Involvement istrators, the classroom teacher, the
accelerative or self-contained settings instructional specialist, the interven-
for gifted students who significantly One of the keys to the success of tion teacher, the gifted education
exceed the achievement level of their RtI is developing strategies that are teacher, parents, the school psychol-
peers and need to continue to grow effective for a particular student. In ogist, whoever will be examining
and achieve. Ensuring such growth for order to link content to a student, student growth, or anyone else who
students who are two to five grade lev- has a vested interest in the success
it is critical to know the interests
els ahead of their peers would require of the child. It is not recommended
and strengths of a particular child,
school districts to truly provide appro- that students who are ahead of their
whether the interventions be of a
priate education for all—one that remedial nature (Brown-Chidsey & peers have a separate process from
emphasizes growth for all. Steege, 2005) or of an enrichment students who are falling behind
Finally, one of the strongest their peers. All members of the team
nature (Reis, Burns, & Renzulli,
aspects of the collaborative process 1992). Parents, clearly, have a valued should undertake the same challenge
is the ability to meet the needs of perspective on an individual child’s of “How can we assist this child in
twice-exceptional learners, or gifted strengths and interests. In addition, making achievement gains when the
students with disabilities. Twice- the family, if it has worked with an standard curriculum is not appropri-
exceptional students are directly cited educational system for some length ate to do so?”—whether it be a strug-
in the Individuals with Disabilities of time, will have a clearer idea of gling child or a high-achieving child.
Education Act (IDEA; 1990) as a
strategies that have been tried and
population that must have their
found effective with the child in the Ms. Tracy, Mr. Orton, Ms. Poland,
diverse needs met. In other words,
and Ms. Lloyd met again the next day to
past than a teacher developing a plan
states and districts do not have the
identify particular students for interven-
with limited experience with a child.
option to only meet the remedial
tion purposes with a goal of increasing
In addition to providing infor-
needs of twice-exceptional students;
achievement for all students. Ms. Weichel,
mation to educators, parents also
they must develop the child’s abilities
the special education teacher, and Ms.
are ultimately responsible for their
as well. In fact, in the case of twice-
Joyce, the gifted education teacher, also
child’s education, and as such, can
exceptional students, it is imperative
were present so that they could lend their
glean information from educators
to develop strengths while remediat-
specialized knowledge to the formula-
about choices possible for their child.
ing, because remediation alone does
tion of intervention plans. Following an
Through teamwork, educators and
not build self-efficacy as found in
agenda such as the one shown in Figure
parents can work together to meet the
students with learning disabilities
2, the meeting lasted about 2 hours, and
high level needs of students with the
(Little, 2001). With such a legal
at the end of the process, a set of both
right to learn even if that learning is
mandate pressuring states and dis-
remedial and accelerated opportunities
beyond their age peers.
tricts, gifted education professionals
for students with difficulties and strengths
have an opportunity to engage with
RtI Process were identified.
special educators and general educa-
tors in a problem-solving process that
Conclusions
can produce a coherent instructional There are four essential deter-
and Implications
approach, rather than the often dis- minations to make when creating
jointed educational patchwork that a Response to Intervention plan,
emerges with twice-exceptional learn- whether the focus be on a child Because implementation of RtI in
ers (Hughes, 2009). Similarly, such who is falling behind or a child who the framework of special education’s
opportunities for collaboration exist is ahead of his or her peers. These identification process still is relatively
for gifted English language learn- include strategies to: (a) determine new, many districts are only now deter-
ers (ELL) and Title I populations. the need, (b) determine the interven- mining the implications at the school
Providing a vehicle for collaboration tion, (c) determine the progress, and or system level. In fact, in some dis-
continued on page ??
through RtI can ensure the profes- (d) determine the decision-making tricts these discussions may not be
gifted child today 37
RtI for Nurturing Giftedness
Present: Administrator, General Education Classroom Teacher, • Spell out the particulars of the intervention as a series of spe-
Special Educator, Gifted Educator, Parents, School Psychologist. One cific steps so that the teacher or other person(s) involved can
of these person is, on a rotating basis, assigned the role of meet- do so efficiently and correctly.
ing facilitator and chairperson. Other meeting roles might include
Sample Questions
timekeeper, case manager, and recorder (Rhode Island Department
• What intervention ideas would best meet this student’s
of Education, 2007).
needs?
• What is it about this particular intervention that is likely to
Review Baseline Data (5 Minutes)
improve the student’s behavior or academic functioning?
Goals • Is there specialized training or materials that you feel are
To determine starting point/levels within the academic or behav- needed to carry out this intervention?
ioral targeted area of concern.
Sample Questions Method of Monitoring Progress (5 Minutes)
• Where is the student currently functioning, according to the Goal
information provided? • Each goal must have a method of assessing and monitoring
• Is there anything significant in the student’s history that progress.
needs to be discussed?
Sample Questions
• Does the monitoring information really measure the teach-
Discussion of Teacher Observations of Particular Students
(10 Minutes) er’s concerns?
• Who will collect the monitoring information?
Sample Question
• How frequently should the data be collected?
• Given the information, what are specific issues or problems
we can address today for each student?
Plan How to Share Meeting Information With The Student’s
Parents (if They Did Not Attend; 5 Minutes)
Inventory Student Strengths, Talents, and Specific Areas
of Challenge (10 Minutes) Goal
• Agree on who will contact the parents to share the student’s
Goals
intervention plan and invite the parents to a future RTI meet-
• Discuss and record the student’s strengths, talents, and areas
ing.
of difficulty.
• Discuss incentives that motivate the student. Sample Questions
• What specific details about the intervention would be of
Sample Questions
greatest interest to the parents?
• What rewards or incentives does this child seem to look for-
ward to?
Review the Intervention and Monitoring Plans (5 Minutes)
• What are some things that this student enjoys or does well?
Goal
Select Target Areas (5–10 Minutes) • Review the main points of the intervention and monitoring
plans with the teachers involved and other team members.
Goals
• Define the top one to two areas for remediation or accelera- Sample Questions
tion in easily observable, measurable terms. • Do the members of our team know what their responsibili-
• Identify the presence of underlying academic skill or deficits, ties are in carrying out the intervention and monitoring plans
mismatch between student skills and classroom instruction. for these students?
• Is our team able to support the teachers?
Set Academic and/or Behavioral Goals (15–20 Minutes) • Did our team help the teacher assemble a good intervention
Goal plan that is feasible and can be carried out with currently
• For each of the academic areas, set ambitious but realistic available resources?
goals that are attainable in 6–8 weeks. • How will we determine fidelity of implementation?
Sample Question
Determine Date and Purpose of Next Meeting
• Given the student’s current functioning, at what level would
to Evaluate Progress (5 Minutes)
you like to see him or her after a 6–8 week intervention
period? Goals
• Determine criteria for successful achievement.
Design an Intervention Plan (15–20 Minutes) • Determine length of time for monitoring of progress.
Goals Sample Questions
• Select at least one intervention that addresses each of the • What will be the criteria for change of tier or placement?
selected referral areas. • What will “appropriate achievement gain” mean?
Figure 2. Sample RtI team meeting agenda.
38 summer 2009 • vol 32, no 3
RtI for Nurturing Giftedness
taking place. The concept of also iden- References VanTassel-Baska (pp. 183–193). Waco,
tifying students who show promise in a TX: Prufrock Press.
nurturing framework, as opposed to a Baum, S., & Owen, S. (2004). To be gifted Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act, 20 U.S.C. §1401 et seq. (1990).
preventative framework, is even newer and learning disabled: Strategies for help-
Johnsen, S. K., VanTassel-Baska, J., &
still. However, many of the school- ing bright students with LD, ADHD,
Robinson, A. (2008). Using the national
level issues are similar. Teachers need and more. Mansfield, CT: Creative
gifted education standards for university
to know (a) how to identify students Learning Press.
teacher preparation programs. Thousand
Brown-Chidsey, R., & Steege, M. W.
for whom the standard curriculum is
Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
(2005). Response to intervention: Prin-
not appropriate for reasonable achieve-
Kitano, M., Montgomery, D., VanTassel-
ciples and strategies for effective practice.
ment growth, (b) how to find resources Baska, J., & Johnsen, S. K. (2008). Using
New York: Guilford Press.
and provide differentiated activities, (c) the national gifted education standards for
Colangelo, N., Assouline, S. G., & Gross,
what other alternatives are available if preK–12 professional development. Thou-
M. U. M. (2004). A nation deceived:
longer term issues are involved, (d) sand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
How schools hold back America’s bright-
how to use data to make instructional est students (Vol. 1). Iowa City: The Little, C. (2001). A closer look at gifted
decisions, and (e) how to collaborate University of Iowa, The Connie Belin children with disabilities. Gifted Child
effectively with other members of the & Jacqueline N. Blank International Today, 24(3), 46–64.
educational community to meet the Center for Gifted Education and Talent Murawski, W. A., & Hughes, C. E.
varied needs of students. These issues Development. (2009). Response to intervention, col-
Coleman, M. R. (2003). The identification laboration, and coteaching: A recipe for
are the same whether the child is ini-
of students who are gifted. Arlington, successful systemic change. Preventing
tially below the standard, grade-level
VA: ERIC Clearinghouse on Disabili- School Failure, 53, 267–275.
curriculum or above it.
ties and Gifted Education. Reis, S. M., Burns, D. E., & Renzulli, J.
The most critical difference
Coleman, M. R., & Gallagher, J. (1995). S. (1992). Curriculum compacting: The
between the RtI framework for spe- State identification policies: Gifted stu- complete guide to modifying the regular
cial education identification purposes dents from special populations. Roeper curriculum for high ability students.
and for gifted education purposes is Review, 17, 268–275. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learn-
that the goal of remediation is to Council for Exceptional Children, The ing Press.
make children more similar to other Association for Gifted. (2009, April). Rhode Island Department of Education.
children, whereas the goal of nur- Response to intervention for giftedness: (2007). Changing roles and teaming pro-
turing strengths is to make children A position paper. Presentation at the cess: RTI Initiative Module #4. Retrieved
Council for Exceptional Children from http://www.ritap.org/ritap/
more different. There will be “clos-
Annual Conference, Seattle, WA. content/ChangingRolesofTeams.ppt
ing of the gap” in a remedial-based
Cross, T. (2005). The social and emotional Silverman, L. K. (1989). Invisible gifts,
RtI Model if student strengths are
lives of gifted kids: Understanding and invisible handicaps. Roeper Review, 12,
ignored and the top is left to remain
guiding their development. Waco, TX: 37–42.
static while the lower achieving stu-
Prufrock Press. Tomlinson, C. (2008). Differentiated
dent grow and develop. However, in Fuchs, D., & Deschler, D. D. (2007). instruction. In J. A. Plucker & C. M.
an RtI model, where there also is a What we need to know about respon- Callahan (Eds.), Critical issues and
strength-based emphasis, the gap siveness to intervention (and shouldn’t practices in gifted education: What the
between the lowest students and the be afraid to ask). Learning Disabilities research says (pp. 167–179). Waco, TX:
highest students should expand if no Research & Practice, 22, 129–136. Prufrock Press.
cap is placed on student achievement. Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (Eds.). (2007). Winebrenner, S. (2003). Teaching gifted
All students should have opportuni- Responsiveness to intervention [Special kids in the regular classroom: Strategies
issue]. Teaching Exceptional Children, and techniques every teacher can use to
ties to make continual growth. At this
39(5). meet the academic needs of the gifted and
time in our educational history, RtI
Higher Education Opportunity Act, Pub. talented. Minneapolis, MN: Free Spirit.
provides a means of making that hap-
Law 110-315 (August 14, 2008). Wyner, J. S., Bridgeland, J. M., & Diiulio,
pen. As education shifts in a way to
Hughes, C. E. (2009). Janusian gifted: J. J., Jr. (2007). Achievement trap: How
allow struggling students to grow and
Twice-exceptional children and two America is failing millions of high achiev-
develop, so must gifted students be worlds. In B. MacFarlane & T. Stam- ing students from lower-income families.
allowed to develop and learn as well. baugh (Eds.). Leading change in gifted Washington, DC: Jack Kent Cooke
continued on page ??
GCT education: The festschrift of Dr. Joyce Foundation and Civic Enterprises.
gifted child today 39