Gifted Education and Response to Intervention Update on Gifted Education Workshop August 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 2004 Individuals 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 t/ksi/Documents/KSIRtIGuidanceDoc ument.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 t/ksi/Documents/KSIRtIGuidanceDoc ument.pdf

Universal Screening Traditional RtI Students scoring below established criteria receive intensive remedial instruction GT RtI Students scoring above established criteria receive differentiated and advanced instruction Hughes & Rollins, 2009

Early Intervention Traditional RtI Students qualify for intervening services before “waiting to fail” GT RtI Abilities are identified within a nurturing system regardless of label or potentially biased teacher recommendations Hughes & Rollins, 2009

Tiered System of Interventions Traditional RtI The more intense the needs, the more intense and long-term interventions are provided GT RtI The more intense the needs, the more intense and long-term interventions are provided Hughes & Rollins, 2009

Fidelity of Intervention Traditional RtI The student receives instruction geared to particular needs; not a “one size fits all” remedial program GT RtI The student receives instruction geared to particular needs; not a “one size fits all” accelerated program Hughes & Rollins, 2009

Progress Monitoring Traditional RtI Documented 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 RtI Documented 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 RtI Training is provided for specific, research-based interventions that are effective for struggling learners GT RtI Training is provided for specific strategies of acceleration, enrichment, and differentiation that are effective with gifted learners Hughes & Rollins, 2009

Collaborative Structure Traditional RtI Greater collaboration is needed between special education, reading specialists, and other interventionists to identify and serve struggling learners GT RtI Gifted education professionals collaborate with general education teachers to identify and serve gifted learners in need of differentiated services Hughes & Rollins, 2009

Parental Involvement Traditional RtI Sharing 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 RtI Sharing 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 RtI Students scoring below established criteria receive intensive remedial instruction GT RtI Students 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 I All grade levels: scoring <79% Tier II Acceleration All grade levels: Scoring 80% - 94% Tier III Acceleration All 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 I All grade levels: scoring <79% Tier II Acceleration All grade levels: Scoring 80% - 94% Tier III Acceleration All 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), DOI: / Bianco, M. (2010). Strength-based RtI: Conceptualizing a multi-tiered system for developing gifted potential. Theory Into Practice, 49(4), DOI: / Coleman, M. R., & Hughes, C. E. (2009). Meeting the needs of gifted students within an RtI framework. Gifted Child Today, 32(3), Retrieved from Colorado Department of Education (2008). Thinking points: Gifted student education in a response to interventions framework. Retrieved from 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), Retrieved from 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), Retrieved from

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), Retrieved from Kentucky Administrative Regulations: 704 KAR 3:285 (2008). Retrieved from Kentucky Department of Education (2012). A guide to the kentucky system of interventions. Retrieved from Montana Office of Public Instruction (2009). Response to intervention and gifted and talented education. Retrieved from National Association for Gifted Children (2011). Current definitions. Retrieved from Pulaski County Intervention System (2013). Retrieved from gid= &fid= &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), Retrieved from 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), DOI: / United States Department of Education (2010). A blueprint for reform: The reauthorization of the elementary and secondary education act. Retrieved from 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), Retrieved from 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), Retrieved from