Providing Services for Students With Gifts and Talents Within a Response-to-Intervention Framework

Abstract

Response to intervention (RTI) was included in the 2004 reauthorization of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), specifically as part of an assessment process to determine if a child has a disability. Although IDEA’s focus is on students with disabilities, 10 states have developed policies that attend to students with gifts and talents within their RTI frameworks (National Association for Gifted Children [NAGC] & the Council of State Directors of Programs for the Gifted [CSDPG], 2013). This article describes (a) how gifted and talented students might access services within a comprehensive RTI framework and (b) research-based models and practices in gifted education.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Adams

C. M.

Yssel

Anwiler

(2013). Twice-exceptional learners and RtI: Targeting both sides of the same coin. In Coleman

M. R.

Johnsen

S. K.

(Eds.), Implementing RtI with gifted students: Service models, trends, and issues (pp. 229–251). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

Baum

S. L.

(1988). An enrichment program for gifted learning disabled students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 32, 226–230.

Baum

S. L.

Bender

Shores

(2007). Response to intervention: A practical guide for every teacher. Arlington, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.

Baum

S. L.

Owen

S. V.

(2004). To be gifted and learning disabled: Strategies for helping bright students with LD, ADHD, and more. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.

Bloom

B. S.

(1985). Generalizations about talent development. In Bloom

B. S.

(Ed.), Developing talent in young people (pp. 507–549). New York, NY: Ballantine Books.

Burns

(1998). The SEM directory of programs. Storrs: University of Connecticut, NEAG Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development.

Colorado Department of Education. (2008). Response to intervention: A practitioner’s guide to implementation. Denver, CO: Author.

Delcourt

M. A. B.

(1988). Characteristics related to high levels of creative/productive behavior in secondary school students: A multi-case study (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Connecticut, Storrs.

Delcourt

M. A. B.

(1993). Creative productivity among secondary school students: Combining energy, interest, and imagination. Gifted Child Quarterly, 37, 23–31.

10.

Emerick

(1988). Academic underachievement among the gifted: Students’ perceptions of factors that reverse the pattern. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 140–146.

11.

Gavin

M. K.

Casa

T. M.

Adelson

J. L.

Carroll

S. R.

Sheffield

L. J.

Spinelli

A. M.

(2007). Project M³: Mentoring mathematical minds: Challenging curriculum for talented elementary students. Journal of Advanced Academics, 18, 566–585.

12.

Gavin

M. K.

Casa

T. M.

Firmender

J. M.

Carroll

S. R.

(2013). The impact of advanced geometry and measurement curriculum units on the mathematics achievement of first-grade students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 57, 71–84.

13.

Georgia Department of Education. (2011). Response to intervention: Georgia’s student achievement pyramid of interventions. Responses to meet the needs of all Georgia students. Atlanta, GA: Author. Retrieved from http://www.gadoe.org/Curriculum-Instruction-and-Assessment/Curriculum-and-Instruction/Documents/RTI%20document%20Full%20Text.pdf

14.

Hughes

C. E.

Rollins

Coleman

M. R.

(2011). Response to intervention for gifted learners. In Coleman

M. R.

Johnsen

S. K.

(Eds.), RtI for gifted students: A CEC-TAG educational resource (pp. 1–20). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

15.

Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 (2006).

16.

Johnsen

S. K.

Sulak

T. N.

Rollins

(2012). Serving gifted students within an RtI framework: A practical guide. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

17.

Kentucky Department of Education (2012). A guide to the Kentucky system of interventions (Version 2.1). Frankfort, KY: Author. Retrieved from http://education.ky.gov/educational/int/ksi/Documents/KSIRtIGuidanceDocument.pdf

18.

Latz

A. O.

Speirs Neumeister

K. L.

Adams

C. M.

Peirce

R. L.

(2009). Peer coaching to improve classroom differentiation: Perspectives from Project CLUE. Roeper Review, 31(1), 27–39.

19.

Little

C. A.

Feng

A. X.

VanTassel-Baska

Rogers

K. B.

Avery

L. D.

(2002). Final report on social studies curriculum effectiveness study. Williamsburg, VA: College of William and Mary Center for Gifted Education.

20.

Lubinski

Benbow

C. P.

Webb

R. M.

Bleske-Rechek

(2006). Tracking exceptional human capital over two decades. Psychological Science, 17, 194–199.

21.

Moon

S. M.

Feldhusen

J. F.

(1994). The Program for Academic and Creative Enrichment (PACE): A follow-up study ten years later. In Subotnik

R. F.

Arnold

K. D.

(Eds.), Beyond Terman: Contemporary longitudinal studies of giftedness and talent (pp. 375–400). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

22.

Moon

S. M.

Kolloff

P. A.

Robinson

Dixon

Feldhusen

J. F.

(2009). The Purdue three-stage model. In Renzulli

J. S.

Gubbins

E. J.

McMillen

K. S.

Eckert

R. D.

Little

C. A.

(Eds.), Systems and models for developing programs for the gifted and talented (2nd ed., pp. 289–322). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

23.

National Association for Gifted Children & the Council of State Directors of Programs for the Gifted. (2013). 2012–2013 state of the states in gifted education: National policy and practice data. Washington, DC: Author.

24.

National Center on Response to Intervention. (2010). Essential components of RTI: A closer look at response to intervention. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, National Center on Response to Intervention.

25.

National Center on Response to Intervention. (2012). RTI implementer series: Module 3. Multi-level prevention system: Training manual. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, National Center on Response to Intervention.

26.

National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities. (2011). Learning disabilities: Implications for policy regarding research and practice. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 34, 237–241.

27.

Nielsen

E. M.

(2002). Gifted students with learning disabilities: Recommendations for identification and programming. Exceptionality, 10, 93–111.

28.

Olenchak

F. R.

(1991). Assessing program effects for gifted/learning disabled students. In Swassing

Robinson

(Eds.), NAGC 1991 research briefs (pp. 86–89). Washington, DC: National Association for Gifted Children.

29.

Pereles

Baldwin

Omdal

(2011). Addressing the needs of students who are twice-exceptional. In Coleman

M. R.

Johnsen

S. K.

(Eds.), RtI for gifted students: A CEC-TAG educational resource (pp. 63–86). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

30.

Reis

S. M.

Burns

D. E.

Renzulli

J. S.

(1992). Curriculum compacting: The complete guide to modifying the regular curriculum for high ability students. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

31.

Reis

S. M.

Eckert

R. D.

Jacobs

Coyne

Richards

Briggs

C. J.

. . . Gubbins

E. J.

(2005). The schoolwide enrichment model: Reading framework. Storrs: University of Connecticut, National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.

32.

Reis

S. M.

Fogarty

(2006). Savoring reading, schoolwide. Educational Leadership, 64(2), 32–36.

33.

Reis

S. M.

McCoach

D. B.

Coyne

Schreiber

F. J.

Eckert

R. D.

Gubbins

E. J.

(2007). Using planned enrichment strategies with direct instruction to improve reading fluency, comprehension, and attitude toward reading: An evidence-based study. Elementary School Journal, 108(1), 3–24.

34.

Reis

S. M.

Westberg

K. L.

Kulikowich

J. M.

Purcell

J. H.

(1998). Curriculum compacting and achievement test scores: What does the research say? Gifted Child Quarterly, 42, 123–129.

35.

Renzulli

J. S.

(1994). Schools for talent development: A practical plan for total school improvement. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

36.

Robinson

Stein

M. K.

(2013). Evidence-based practice model and response to intervention for students with gifts and talents. In Coleman

M. R.

Johnsen

S. K.

(Eds.), Implementing RtI with gifted students: Service models, trends, and issues (pp. 101–119). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

37.

Rollins

Mursky

C. V.

Shah-Coltrane

Johnsen

S. K.

(2009). RtI models for gifted children. Gifted Child Today, 32(3), 20–30.

38.

Selby

R. C.

Young

G. C.

(2001, September). A harvest of talent. Parenting for High Potential, pp. 8–11, 25.

39.

Taylor

L. A.

(1992). The effects of the secondary enrichment triad model and a career counseling component on the career development of vocational-technical school students (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Connecticut, Storrs.

40.

Tieso

(2004). Through the looking glass: One school’s reflections on differentiation. Gifted Child Today, 27(4), 58–65.

41.

Treffinger

D. J.

(1981). Blending gifted education with the total school program. Buffalo, NY: DOK.

42.

VanTassel-Baska

(2013). The integrated curriculum model: A basis for RtI curriculum development. In Coleman

M. R.

Johnsen

S. K.

(Eds.), Implementing RtI with gifted students: Service models, trends, and issues (pp. 169–186). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

43.

VanTassel-Baska

Avery

L. D.

Little

C. A.

Hughes

C. E.

(2000). An evaluation of the implementation: The impact of the William and Mary units on schools. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 23, 244–272.

44.

VanTassel-Baska

Bass

G. M.

Ries

R. R.

Poland

D. L.

Avery

L. D.

(1998). A national study of science curriculum effectiveness with high ability students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 42, 200–211.

45.

VanTassel-Baska

Bracken

(2006). Evaluation report to the United States Department of Education Javits Program. Williamsburg, VA: College of William and Mary Center for Gifted Education.

46.

VanTassel-Baska

Johnson

D. T.

Hughes

C. E.

Boyce

L. N.

(1996). A study of the language arts curriculum effectiveness with gifted learners. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 19, 461–480.

47.

VanTassel-Baska

Stambaugh

(2005). Challenges and possibilities for serving gifted learners in the regular classroom. Theory Into Practice, 44, 211–217.

48.

VanTassel-Baska

Stambaugh

(2006). Comprehensive curriculum for the gifted. Boston, MA: Pearson.

49.

VanTassel-Baska

Wood

(2008). Curriculum development in gifted education: A challenge to provide optimal learning experiences. In Karnes

F. A.

Stephens

K. R.

(Eds.), Achieving excellence: Educating the gifted and talented (pp. 209–229). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

50.

VanTassel-Baska

Zuo

Avery

L. D.

Little

C. A.

(2002). A curriculum study of gifted student learning in the language arts. Gifted Child Quarterly, 46, 30–44.

51.

Warne

R. T.

(2014). Using above-level testing to track growth in academic achievement in gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 58, 3–23.

52.

Young

G. C.

Selby

E. C.

(2001). Key elements of the talent development journey. Creative Learning Today, 10(3), 1–3.