Gifted Education and Response to InterventionUpdate on Gifted Education WorkshopAugust 2013 Toddie Adams, Marshall County Schools
What is RtI?
• Screening children within the general curriculum
• Tiered instruction of increasing intensity
• Evidence-based instruction
• Close monitoring of student progress
• Informed decision making regarding next steps for individual students
Evolution of RtI
2004Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) signed into law
2006 IDEA became effective
RtI is an addition to IDEA
• Rooted in special education• Developed from studies
regarding IQ/achievement discrepancies
• Evolved into an approach to identify and service students with reading disabilities
• Currently implemented to include identification of low achieving students and provide instructional and behavioral interventions
Growing all Students
• 2002: NCLB is passed • Goal: All students will reach
proficiency by 2012• Focus is on raising math and
reading scores• Needs of high achieving and
gifted students is questioned• 2010: The Reauthorization of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act is passed• Goal: By 2020 the USA will lead
the world in college completion• Grow all students
New assessments with a revised accountability system
What is KSI?
The Kentucky System of Interventions (KSI) was established by the Kentucky Department of Education.It is based on and includes the RtI model.
Goals of KSI
• Optimize instruction through accelerated learning targeted to student needs
• Development of teacher expertise
• Use data to collaborate• Close achievement gaps• Focus on student goals• Provide advanced instruction• Prepare students to be college
and career ready
A Guide to the Kentucky System of Interventions
http://education.ky.gov/educational/int/ksi/Documents/KSIRtIGuidanceDocument.pdf
The KSI Model
• Universal Screening/ Diagnostic Assessment
• Data-Based Decision Making• Evidence-Based Instruction• Progress Monitoring• Tiered Service Delivery• Fidelity of Implementation• Family Involvement• Professional Development
The practice of•Accelerated Learning •Highly Effective Teaching and Learning •RtI
To reach the goals of•Closing the achievement gap•Readiness to learn at all levels•Smooth student transition
Implications for Gifted Education
• RtI can be utilized for student growth in their area(s) of strength
• Teachers/schools/districts are accountable for continuous progress of all students including high ability students
• High level learners will be challenged in their area(s) of strengths
Gifted Education and the RtI Model
GT RtI
• Screening children within the general curriculum
• Tiered instruction of increasing intensity
• Evidence-based instruction
• Close monitoring of student progress
• Informed decision making regarding next steps for individual students
Research regarding GT RtI
• Lack of literature regarding research combining gifted education and RtI
• RtI was recently implemented in many states
• GT Programs are not mandated in all states
• Plans for integrating RtI within gifted programs are designed parallel to meeting needs of students requiring remediation
• Implications for the impact of RtI on gifted education are discussed
Literature addressing Response to Intervention and Gifted Education
District/State Policies
“RtI embeds gifted education in the daily priorities of quality instruction. Academic, behavioral, and affective outcomes and growth, not solely enrichment, are the focus. Strength of RtI lies in the upfront planning and problem solving that uses data, strengths and interests of students to plan appropriate, rigorous and relevant instruction. Ongoing assessment continually contributes new data so that learning is dynamic and adjustments made according to an individual student’s need”
Colorado Department of Education,2008
District/State Policies
“In gifted education, rather than remediation-based interventions, strength-based interventions and strength-based programming, are used to describe tiered instruction. The problem-solving process which uses data, strengths and interests of students to implement appropriate, rigorous and relevant curriculum and instruction are strengths of RtI”
Montana Office of Public Instruction,2009
Kentucky Department of Education
The Kentucky System of Interventions (KSI) framework emphasizes optimizing instruction through targeted accelerated learning, development of teacher expertise and responsiveness to the needs of all learners. What is effective for every learner is a systematic and ongoing assessment of their academic and behavioral needs and using the data in collaborative conversations with parents/guardians and educators in the interest of preparing students to be college and career ready to live and work in a global society.
A Guide to the Kentucky System of Interventions
http://education.ky.gov/educational/int/ksi/Documents/KSIRtIGuidanceDocument.pdf
Universal Screening
Traditional RtIStudents scoring below established criteria receive intensive remedial instruction
GT RtIStudents scoring above established criteria receive differentiated and advanced instruction
Hughes & Rollins, 2009
Early Intervention
Traditional RtIStudents qualify for intervening services before “waiting to fail”
GT RtIAbilities are identified within a nurturing system regardless of label or potentially biased teacher recommendations
Hughes & Rollins, 2009
Tiered System of Interventions
Traditional RtIThe more intense the needs, the more intense and long-term interventions are provided
GT RtIThe more intense the needs, the more intense and long-term interventions are provided
Hughes & Rollins, 2009
Fidelity of Intervention
Traditional RtIThe student receives instruction geared to particular needs; not a “one size fits all” remedial program
GT RtIThe student receives instruction geared to particular needs; not a “one size fits all” accelerated program
Hughes & Rollins, 2009
Progress Monitoring
Traditional RtIDocumented student progress has a goal of moving a child from a more intensive to a less intensive tier of intervention as a child raises achievement levels
GT RtIDocumented student progress has a goal of moving a child from a less intensive to a more intensive tier of intervention as a child raises achievement levels
Hughes & Rollins, 2009
Professional Development
Traditional RtITraining is provided for specific, research-based interventions that are effective for struggling learners
GT RtITraining is provided for specific strategies of acceleration, enrichment, and differentiation that are effective with gifted learners
Hughes & Rollins, 2009
Collaborative Structure
Traditional RtIGreater collaboration is needed between special education, reading specialists, and other interventionists to identify and serve struggling learners
GT RtIGifted education professionals collaborate with general education teachers to identify and serve gifted learners in need of differentiated services
Hughes & Rollins, 2009
Parental Involvement
Traditional RtISharing information to and from families raises the achievement levels and effectiveness of interventions. Targeted interventions are built upon acquired information regarding interest areas and areas of strength
GT RtISharing information to and from families raises the achievement levels and effectiveness of interventions. Targeted interventions are built upon acquired information regarding interest areas and areas of strength
Hughes & Rollins, 2009
Resources
Traditional RtIStudents scoring below established criteria receive intensive remedial instruction
GT RtIStudents scoring above established criteria receive differentiated and advanced instruction
Hughes & Rollins, 2009
Standard Treatment Protocol Model
• Implementation team• Principals• Counselors• Teachers• School Psychologists• FRYSC• GT Specialists• Curriculum Specialists
• Responsible for administration of core curricula and intervention system through formative and summative assessments
Used to implement educational decisions in the RtI model
Pulaski County Intervention System (PCIS) Appendix E, 2013
Problem Solving Process Model
• Interventions in general education
• Referral to special education or gifted education
• Evaluation for special education eligibility or gifted education eligibility
• Clarify the needs of individual students
• Gather information to assist in decision making
• Analyze data to assist in decision making
• Plan and modify interventions
Used to guide the decision making process in the RtI model
Pulaski County Intervention System (PCIS) Appendix E, 2013
Accelerated Academic Systems
Pulaski County Intervention System (PCIS) Appendix E, 2013
Tier IAll grade levels: scoring <79%
Tier II AccelerationAll grade levels: Scoring 80% -
94%
Tier III AccelerationAll grade levels: Scoring 95% -
99%
All students receive core instruction that is researched and standards-based with clear objectives and have multiple avenues to show mastery of content, skills, and learning.
Assessment data results are used
to shape future instructional decisions.
Instructional pacing, depth, and
complexity are varied with general education or core teacher providing differentiated instruction.
All students who meet above grade-level benchmarks early or quickly receive focused and targeted enhancement of differentiated instruction for individuals and/or small groups.
Assessment data results are used to
shape future instructional decisions.
Ensure continuous progress,
remove academic ceilings and align with the area(s) of clustered group instruction based on interests, needs and abilities
A Student with high abilities and others exceeding advanced expectations receive intensive individually designed curriculum with increased depth and complexity from age-level peers.
Students in Tier III Acceleration
are highly gifted students whose needs are not being met in Tier 1 and Tier 2.
Frequent progress monitoring
provides data that drives customized strategies to ensure the needs of these students are met.
Ensure continuous progress,
remove academic ceilings and align with the area(s) based on interests, needs and abilities
Key Strategies for Differentiated Instruction
Pulaski County Intervention System (PCIS) Appendix E, 2013
Tier IAll grade levels: scoring <79%
Tier II AccelerationAll grade levels: Scoring 80% -
94%
Tier III AccelerationAll grade levels: Scoring 95% -
99%
Differentiated Instruction•Choice Boards•Curriculum Compacting•Extensions •Flexible tasks/Assessments•Grouping strategies: Cluster Grouping Cooperative Grouping Cross Grade Groups Flexible Skills Groups Full-time Ability Grouping Regrouping by achievement for subject instruction Within class performance grouping •Higher Order Thinking: Bloom’s Taxonomy•Orbital Study•Pre-assessment•Scaffolding•Tiered Assignments
Differentiated Instruction•Advanced Placement•Dual Credit•Flexible tasks/Assessments•Grouping strategies: Cluster Grouping Cooperative Grouping Cross Grade Groups Flexible Skills Groups Full-time Ability Grouping Regrouping by achievement for subject instruction Within class performance grouping Note: Accelerated students perform significantly higher when the majority of their time in academic core is spent in true peer interactions. •Curriculum Compacting•Honors/Advanced or Pre-AP Courses•Independent Study•Specialized Focus STEM Curriculum Example: Pre-Engineering & Project Lead the Way (PLTW)•Subject-Matter Acceleration•Partial Acceleration•Pre-assessment•Tiered Assignments
Differentiated Instruction•Advanced Placement•Grouping Strategies •Dual Credit•Early Entrance into Middle Grade Level Acceleration•School, High School, or Postsecondary•Flexible tasks/Assessments•Independent Study•Mentorships•Pre-assessment•Problem-based learning•Seminars•Specialized Focus STEM Curriculum Example: Pre-Engineering & Project Lead the Way (PLTW)•Symposiums•Tiered Assignments
Pulaski County Intervention System (PCIS) Appendix E, 2013
References
Ardoin, S. P., Witt, J. C., Connell, J. E., & Koenig, J. L. (2005). Application of a three-tiered response to intervention model for instructional planning, decision making, and the identification of children in need of
services. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 23(4), 362-380. DOI: 10.1177/073428290502300405
Bianco, M. (2010). Strength-based RtI: Conceptualizing a multi-tiered system for developing gifted potential. Theory Into Practice, 49(4), 323-330. DOI: 10.1080/00405841.2010.510763
Coleman, M. R., & Hughes, C. E. (2009). Meeting the needs of gifted students within an RtI framework. Gifted Child Today, 32(3), 14-17. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov.proxy.lib.siu.edu/PDFS/EJ849371.pdf
Colorado Department of Education (2008). Thinking points: Gifted student education in a response to interventions framework. Retrieved from http://www.cde.state.co.us/gt/download/pdf/GiftedRtI_thinking_points.pdf
Fuchs, D., Mock, D., Morgan, P. L., & Young, C. L. (2003). Responsiveness-to-intervention: Definitions, evidence, and implications for the learning disabilities construct. Learning Disabilities Research &Practice, 18(3), 157-171. Retrieved from
http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy.lib.siu.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=4583c885-2cf1-46ba-880c-368eacd37ef0%40sessionmgr104&vid=2&hid=111
Hughes, C. E. & Rollins, K. (2009). RtI for nurturing giftedness: Implications for the RtI school-based team. Gifted Child Today, 32(3), 31-39. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov.proxy.lib.siu.edu/PDFS/EJ849373.pdf
References
Hughes, C. E., Rollins, K., Johnsen, S. K., Pereles, D. A., Omdal, S., Baldwin, L., … Coleman, M. R. (2009). Remaining challenges for the use of RtI with gifted education. Gifted Child Today, 32(3), 58-61. Retrieved from
http://eric.ed.gov.proxy.lib.siu.edu/PDFS/EJ849376.pdf
Kentucky Administrative Regulations: 704 KAR 3:285 (2008). Retrieved from http://www.lrc.state.ky.us/kar/704/003/285.htm
Kentucky Department of Education (2012). A guide to the kentucky system of interventions. Retrieved fromhttp://education.ky.gov/educational/int/ksi/Documents/KSIRtIGuidanceDocument.pdf
Montana Office of Public Instruction (2009). Response to intervention and gifted and talented education. Retrieved from http://opi.mt.gov/pub/RTI/Resources/RTI_Gifted_Talented.pdf
National Association for Gifted Children (2011). Current definitions. Retrieved fromhttp://www.nagc.org/index.aspx?id=574
Pulaski County Intervention System (2013). Retrieved fromhttp://rti--response-to-intervention.pulaski.schoolfusion.us/modules/locker/files/get_group_file.phtml? gid=1554345&fid=21686351&sessionid=924a02b4af920ee72c3cda6380e40e0d
References
Rollins, K., Mursky, C. V., Shah-Coltrane, S., & Johnsen, S. K. (2009). RtI models for gifted children. Gifted Child Today, 32(3), 20-29. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov.proxy.lib.siu.edu/PDFS/EJ849372.pdf
Simmons, D. C., Coyne, M. D., Kwok, O., McDonagh, S., Harn, B. A., & Kame'enui, E. J. (2008). Indexing response to intervention: A longitudinal study of reading risk from kindergarten through third grade. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41(2), 158-173. DOI: 10.1177/0022219407313587
United States Department of Education (2010). A blueprint for reform: The reauthorization of the elementary and secondary education act. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/blueprint/blueprint.pdf
Vaughn, S., Linan-Thompson, S., & Hickman, P. (2003). Response to instruction as a means of identifying students with reading/learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 69(4), 391-401. Retrieved fromhttp://www.metapress.com.proxy.lib.siu.edu/content/q742w7261667m47g/fulltext.pdf
Vellutino, F. R., Scanlon, D. M., Small, S., & Fanuele, D. P. (2006). Response to intervention as a vehicle for distinguishing between children with and without reading disabilities: Evidence for the role of kindergarten and first grade interventions. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39(2), 157-169. Retrieved from http://ldx.sagepub.com.proxy.lib.siu.edu/content/39/2/157.full.pdf+html