Gifted Education
and
Response to Intervention
Update on Gifted Education Workshop
August 2013
Toddie Adams, Marshall County Schools
•
•
•
•
•
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
What is 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
Evolution of RtI
• 2002: NCLB is passed
New
assessments
with a revised
accountability
system
• 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
Growing all Students
The Kentucky
System of
Interventions (KSI)
was established by
the Kentucky
Department of
Education.
It is based on and
includes the RtI
model.
What is KSI?
A Guide to the
Kentucky System of
Interventions
http://education.ky.gov/educational/in
t/ksi/Documents/KSIRtIGuidanceDoc
ument.pdf
• 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
Goals of KSI
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
• Universal Screening/
Diagnostic Assessment
• Data-Based Decision Making
• Evidence-Based Instruction
• Progress Monitoring
• Tiered Service Delivery
• Fidelity of Implementation
• Family Involvement
• Professional Development
The KSI Model
Gifted Education
and the RtI
Model
• 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
Implications for Gifted Education
•
•
•
•
•
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
GT RtI
Literature
addressing
Response to
Intervention and
Gifted Education
• 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
Research regarding GT RtI
Colorado
Department of
Education,
2008
“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”
District/State Policies
Montana Office of
Public Instruction,
2009
“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”
District/State Policies
A Guide to the
Kentucky System of
Interventions
http://education.ky.gov/educational/in
t/ksi/Documents/KSIRtIGuidanceDoc
ument.pdf
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.
Kentucky Department of Education
Traditional RtI
GT RtI
Students scoring below
established criteria
receive intensive
remedial instruction
Students scoring above
established criteria
receive differentiated and
advanced instruction
Universal Screening
Hughes & Rollins, 2009
Traditional RtI
GT RtI
Students qualify for
intervening services
before “waiting to fail”
Abilities are identified
within a nurturing system
regardless of label or
potentially biased teacher
recommendations
Early Intervention
Hughes & Rollins, 2009
Traditional RtI
GT RtI
The more intense the
needs, the more intense
and long-term
interventions are
provided
The more intense the
needs, the more intense
and long-term
interventions are
provided
Tiered System of Interventions
Hughes & Rollins, 2009
Traditional RtI
GT RtI
The student receives
instruction geared to
particular needs; not a
“one size fits all”
remedial program
The student receives
instruction geared to
particular needs; not a
“one size fits all”
accelerated program
Fidelity of Intervention
Hughes & Rollins, 2009
Traditional RtI
GT 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
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
Progress Monitoring
Hughes & Rollins, 2009
Traditional RtI
GT RtI
Training is provided for
specific, research-based
interventions that are
effective for struggling
learners
Training is provided for
specific strategies of
acceleration, enrichment,
and differentiation that
are effective with gifted
learners
Professional Development
Hughes & Rollins, 2009
Traditional RtI
GT RtI
Greater collaboration is
needed between special
education, reading
specialists, and other
interventionists to identify
and serve struggling
learners
Gifted education
professionals collaborate
with general education
teachers to identify and
serve gifted learners in
need of differentiated
services
Collaborative Structure
Hughes & Rollins, 2009
Traditional RtI
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
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
Parental Involvement
Hughes & Rollins, 2009
Traditional RtI
GT RtI
Students scoring below
established criteria
receive intensive
remedial instruction
Students scoring above
established criteria
receive differentiated and
advanced instruction
Resources
Hughes & Rollins, 2009
• Implementation team
Used to implement
educational
decisions in the RtI
model
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Principals
Counselors
Teachers
School Psychologists
FRYSC
GT Specialists
Curriculum Specialists
• Responsible for administration
of core curricula and
intervention system through
formative and summative
assessments
Standard Treatment Protocol Model
Pulaski County Intervention System (PCIS) Appendix E, 2013
Used to guide the
decision making
process in the RtI
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
Problem Solving Process Model
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.

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.

A Student with high abilities and
others exceeding advanced
expectations receive intensive
individually designed curriculum
with increased depth and
complexity from age-level peers.

Assessment data results are used
to shape future instructional
decisions.

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.

Students in Tier III Acceleration
are highly gifted students whose
needs are not being met in Tier 1
and Tier 2.
Ensure continuous progress,
remove academic ceilings and
align with the area(s) of clustered
group instruction based on
interests, needs and abilities

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
Accelerated Academic Systems
Pulaski County Intervention System (PCIS) Appendix E, 2013
Tier I
All grade levels: scoring <79%
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
Tier II Acceleration
All grade levels: Scoring 80% 94%
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
Tier III Acceleration
All grade levels: Scoring 95% 99%
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
Key Strategies for Differentiated Instruction
Pulaski County Intervention System (PCIS) Appendix E, 2013
Pulaski County Intervention System (PCIS) Appendix E, 2013
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=4583c8852cf1-46ba-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 from
http://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 from
http://www.nagc.org/index.aspx?id=574
Pulaski County Intervention System (2013). Retrieved from
http://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 from
http://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
References