There is considerable interest in applying Response to Intervention (RtI) as a schoolwide methodology for instruction, assessment, and intervention for students who, early in their academic careers, are struggling academically. Supporters contend that the tiered service delivery model holds great promise for many students who otherwise would fall behind and end up with a disability label. It is unclear whether RtI is compatible with gifted learners, although a number of authorities in the gifted field are advocating for its adoption for all students, including high-ability students. This article provides a rationale for why gifted education should consider RtI assessment protocols compatible with gifted learners, discusses the implications of RtI’s core requirements and assessment measures for gifted learners, and offers a model for implementing RtI for gifted learners.
BatscheG.ElliottJ.GradenJ. L.GrimesJ.KovaleskiJ. F.PrasseD. (2006). Response to intervention: Policy considerations and implementation. Alexandria, VA: National Association of State Directors of Special Education.
2.
BrackenB. A.McCallumR. S. (1998). Examiner’s manual for the Universal Nonverbal Intelligence Test. Itasca, IL: Riverside.
3.
CallahanC. M. (2005). Making the grade or achieving the goal? In KarnesF.BeanS. (Eds.), Strategies for teaching gifted students (pp. 211-244). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
4.
ClasenD.MiddletonJ.ConnellT. (1994). Assessing artistic and problem-solving performance in minority and nonminority students using a nontraditional multidimensional approach. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38, 27-37.
5.
Council for Exceptional Children. (2007). CEC’s position on response to intervention: The unique role of special education and special educators. Arlington, VA: Author.
6.
CsikszentmihalyiM. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York, NY: Harper Perennial.
7.
DaurioS. P. (1979). Education enrichment versus acceleration: A review of the literature. In GregoryW. C.CohnS. J.StanleyJ. C. (Eds.), Educating the gifted: Acceleration and enrichment (pp. 13-63). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
8.
FeldhusenJ. F.KolloffM. B. (1986). The Purdue three-stage model for gifted education. In RenzulliJ. S. (Ed.), Systems and models for developing programs for the gifted and talented (pp. 126-152). Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
9.
FordD. Y. (1996). Reversing underachievement among gifted black students: Promising programs and practices. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
10.
FordD.HarmonD. (2001). Providing access to gifted education for culturally diverse students. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 3, 141-143.
11.
FuchsD.MockD.MorganP. L.YoungC. L. (2003). Responsiveness-to-intervention: Definitions, evidence, and implications for the learning disabilities construct. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 157-171.
12.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD. (1986). Treatment validity: A unifying concept for reconceptualizing the identification of learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 13, 204-219.
13.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD. (2005). Responsiveness-to-intervention: A blueprint for practitioners, policymakers, and parents. Teaching Exceptional Children, 38, 57-61.
14.
GreshamF. M.MacMillanD. L.Beebe-FranklenbergerM. E.BocianK. M. (2000). Treatment integrity in learning disabilities intervention research: Do we really know how treatments are implemented?Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 15, 198-205.
15.
HughesC. E.RollinsK. (2009). RtI for nurturing giftedness: Implications for the RtI school-based team. Gifted Child Today, 32(3), 31-39.
16.
HughesC. E.RollinsK.ColemanM. R. (2011). Response to intervention for gifted learners. In ColemanM. R.JohnsenS. K. (Eds.), RtI for gifted students: A CEC-TAG educational resource (pp. 1-20). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
17.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, Pub. Law 108-446 (December3, 2004)
18.
JohnsonE.MellardD. F.FuchsD.McKnightM. A. (2006). Responsiveness to intervention (RtI): How to do it. Lawrence, KS: National Research Center on Learning Disabilities.
19.
KulikJ. (1993). Meta analytic findings on grouping programs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 73-77.
20.
McCallumR. S.BrackenB. A.WassermanJ. (2001). Essentials of nonverbal assessment. New York, NY: Wiley.
21.
MakerJ. (1996). Identification of gifted minority students: A national problem, needed changes, and a promising solution. Gifted Child Quarterly, 40, 41-50.
22.
MoonT.BrightonC. M.CallahanC. M.RobinsonA. (2005). Development of authentic assessments for the middle school classroom. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 16, 119-133.
23.
National Association of State Directors of Special Education. (2007). Response to intervention: Research for practice. Alexandria, VA: Author.
24.
PfeifferS. I. (2002). Identifying gifted and talented students: Recurring issues and promising solutions. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 1, 31-50.
25.
PfeifferS. I. (2003). Challenges and opportunities for students who are gifted: What the experts say. Gifted Child Quarterly, 47, 161-169.
26.
RenzulliJ. S.ReisS. M. (1985). The schoolwide enrichment model: A comprehensive plan for educational excellence. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
27.
RenzulliJ. S. (1991). The national research center on the gifted and talented: The dream, design, and the destination. Gifted Child Quarterly, 35, 73-80.
28.
RobinsonA.KolloffP. B. (2006). Preparing teachers to work with high-ability youth at the secondary level: Issues and implications for licensure. In DixonF. A.MoonS. M. (Eds.), The handbook of secondary gifted education (pp. 581-610). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
29.
RogersK. B. (2002). Re-Forming gifted education: How parents and teachers can match the program to the child. Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press.
30.
RollinsK.MurskyC.JohnsenS. (2011). State RtI models for gifted children. In ColemanM. R.JohnsenS. K. (Eds.), RtI for gifted students (pp. 21-41). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
31.
SarouphimK. M. (1999). Discovering multiple intelligences through a performance-based assessment: Consistency with independent ratings. Exceptional Children, 65, 151-161.
32.
ShinnM. R. (2002). Best practices in using curriculum-based measurement in a problem-solving model. In ThomasA.GrimesJ. (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology IV (pp. 671-697). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
33.
StanleyJ. (1976). The study of mathematically precocious youth. Gifted Child Quarterly, 26, 53-67.
34.
TabaH. (1965). Thinking in elementary school children (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED003285). Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/
35.
The Association for the Gifted, a Division of the Council for Exceptional Children. (2007). Response to intervention for gifted children: A position paper. Washington, DC: Author.
36.
TomlinsonC. A. (1999). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
37.
TomlinsonC. A. (2001). How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability classrooms (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
38.
TranL.SanchezT.ArellanoB.SwansonH. L. (2011). A meta-analysis of the RtI literature for children at risk for reading disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 44, 283-295.
39.
U. S. Department of Education. (2003). National excellence: A case for developing America’s Talent. Washington, D.C: Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
40.
VanTassel-BaskaJ. (1998). Excellence in educating gifted and talented learners (3rd ed.). Denver, CO: Love.
41.
VanTassel-BaskaJ.PattonJ.PrillamanD. (1991). Gifted youth at risk: A report of a national study. Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.
42.
VanTassel-BaskaJ.BrownE. (2007). Toward best practice: An analysis of the efficacy of curriculum models in gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51, 342-358.
43.
VanTassel-BaskaJ.FengA. X.EvansB. (2007). Patterns of identification and performance among gifted students identified through performance tasks: A three-year analysis. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51, 218-231.
44.
VanTassel-BaskaJ.BrackenB. A.StambaughT.FengA. (2007). Findings from project clarion. Presentation to the United States Department of Education Expert Panel, Storrs, CT.
45.
VanTassel-BaskaJ. (2008). Alternative assessments with gifted and talented students. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
46.
VanTassel-BaskaJ.ZuoL. (2011). Assessing student learning. In VanTassel-BaskaJ.LittleC. (Eds.), Content-based curriculum for high ability learners (2nd ed., pp. 375-396). Waco, TX: Prufrock.
47.
VaughnS.Linan-ThompsonS.HickmanP. (2003). Response to treatment as a means of identifying students with reading/learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 69, 391-409.
48.
WestbergK. L.ArchambaultF.DobynsS.SalvinT. (1993). The classroom practices observation study. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 16, 120-146.
49.
WestbergK.DaoustM. (2003). The results of the replication of the Classroom Practices Survey replication in two states. The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented Newsletter (pp. 3-8). Storrs, CT: author
