Response to Intervention

GT Identification

When GT programs and research were first developed, gifted students were originally identified by one score, the composite IQ of more than 140, generally from the Stanford–Binet Intelligence Test (Terman, 1925). To qualify as a participant for the Terman longitudinal studies, a minimum IQ of 140 was required. Identifying giftedness through an intelligence test was common practice for many years and even now exists in some districts today. However, as definitions were expanded, such as the definition in the Marland (1972) Report and the Three Ring definition from Renzulli (1978), more assessments were used to evaluate a wide variety of students’ abilities rather than just one IQ score. Identification procedures therefore need to match broader definitions of giftedness.

Most districts in the state selected for this study currently recognize that collecting a “body of evidence” for a student is the most comprehensive method of identification that still matches said definitions. In the Colorado definition used for this study, intellectual ability, academic aptitude, creativity, leadership, visual/performing arts, and psychomotor abilities are included (Colorado Department of Education [CDE], 2004). The body of evidence for most schools in this state still needs to be representative of this definition; therefore, it needs to include multiple pieces of information to show above average ability in one or more of these areas. Intellectual ability is assessed using individual or group administered cognitive abilities assessments (such as the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children 4th Edition, Stanford–Binet IV, Cognitive Abilities Test, and the Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test). Academic aptitude can be measures by individual achievement tests (such as the Colorado Student Assessment Program, Northwest Evaluation Association, Galileo, Woodcock-Johnson Test of Achievement 3rd edition, and the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test), work samples from classroom activities, and teacher observations. Creativity can be assessed by creativity measures (such as the Torrance Test of Creative Thinking or Guilford’s Alternative Uses Task), work samples, and teacher observations (Gagne, 2000). Leadership is generally reported by teachers, administrators, or even other students in referral forms. Leadership is also demonstrated through involvement in a variety of activities. Performing and visual arts in addition to psychomotor abilities are rated by teachers and other professionals to judge above average ability. A body of evidence for an individual student should include several strong indicators from one or more of the areas shown (preferably at least two areas; CDE, 2004).

Once students are identified for GT programs, the question of what type of programming they need begins. Colorado set the following “Big Ideas” for schools to consider in regard to GT programming: Programming is linked to identification, is systematic, occurs along a set of continuums, encompasses a variety of services, is monitored and documented in a structured process, and the results of programming services, options, and strategies link to student achievement and program evaluation for accountability (CDE, 2004).

Rogers (1999) updated a meta-analysis of research in the field of GT education and provisions for such programming. Rogers grouped the provisions into three main areas: instructional management services, instructional delivery services, and curricular services. Instructional management services include individualization, grouping permutations, and acceleration permutations. These three areas refer to the optimal environment for students based on individual need. Students may be working on individual assignments or projects, group work with same-age peers, or advanced to a higher grade level to work with peers of similar ability. The process of changing the environment based on ability level is one area of differentiation.

The second provision, instructional delivery services, refers to the process of student learning and access to information. The five areas of this provision are projects (independent study and small group); self-instructional materials; hands-on activities (i.e., games and simulations); lecture, discussion, and mentoring; and pacing, instructional modifications of process. GT students need a variety of instructional activities and learning opportunities to stay engaged in the general curriculum. Modifying the process of learning is often the most effective method of keeping GT students engaged.

The third provision, curricular services, is broken down into content modifications and product modifications. This addresses the last two areas of differentiation, content and product. GT and general education teachers need to differentiate the content for students based on ability level. Some of this can be addressed with the first provision of instructional management services, but does not always work out to simply change the setting. Changing the setting does not automatically imply the content will be differentiated, which needs to be addressed individually. Finally, allowing creativity and choice in demonstrating what has been learned is referred to by product modifications. Creative minds need the opportunity to apply newfound knowledge in abstract or atypical methods.

Although programming options should be specific and differentiated to each student’s identified needs and areas of ability, many schools provide the same type of GT programming for all identified students. GT programming can take many different forms including (but not limited to) enrichment, content acceleration, grade-level acceleration, content extensions, interest-based projects, affective development, and leadership development. The foundation for all of these options is differentiation, which is the foundation for the RtI model.

In an attempt to align programming with definitions and provide opportunities and structure for differentiation for GT students, many professionals in the field have created models for GT programming. Renzulli and Reis (1997) developed the School Wide Enrichment Model with the understanding that most students spend the entire day in general education classrooms without being pulled out for gifted education services. This model is based on a three-type system in which the Type I and Type II activities can occur with all students in the general education classroom (Renzulli & Reis, 1997). Many other models are used in schools today, such as the Autonomous Learner Model (Betts & Kercher, 1999) and Levels of Service (Treffinger, 1986). Treffinger’s (1986) Levels of Service model shares many similarities with the RtI model in that the intention is to break down services into a continuum to best meet student needs.

Brief History of RtI

RtI started to impact schools after the signing of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB; 2001). NCLB was intended to help all students achieve their academic potential in addition to holding schools accountable for making adequate growth each year in student progress. Schools would now be measured by how students scored on achievement tests given a minimum of once each year. These assessments are often referred to as “high-stakes tests” because of the massive amount of pressure on teachers and schools to perform. If students did not perform well enough as a whole, the school would then not make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). After 3 years of not making AYP, a school may lose funding or even get taken over and turned into a charter school. The main goal of NCLB and monitoring AYP was to have all students reach grade-level proficiency in reading, writing, and mathematics by the year 2014.

With emphasis placed on proficiency levels in high-stakes testing, schools immediately began to look at low-achieving students. A major problem with students with learning disabilities is that they were not being identified until their achievement fell to a level of qualification. Teachers needed a method of early identification to address the needs of struggling learners and still achieve AYP. In 2004, the federal government reauthorized the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, then renamed as the Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA, 2004). IDEIA (2004) did not mandate the use of RtI for identification of students with learning disabilities, rather it opened the door for the model to be used and allowed districts and schools to not use the controversial discrepancy model (Pasternack, 2002, Stevenson & Danielson, 2007, Zirkel & Krohn, 2008).

RtI and Colorado

RtI is a multi-tiered model designed to help teachers identify student needs within a classroom, establish appropriate interventions on a continuum to meet identified needs, and monitor progress of students with interventions in place (Burns, Appleton, & Stehouwer, 2005; CDE, 2008; Elliott, 2008; Murawski & Hughes, 2009; Samuels, 2008). The general design is that all students receive instruction at the universal level; approximately 80% to 90% of students will be successful at this universal level without additional interventions. Small groups of students will need targeted interventions to address specific problems or holes in learning. Approximately 5% to 15% of students will need this targeted level of support. The top of the pyramid represents the most intensive support for 1% to 5% of students, typically those who receive special education programming (Butler, 2009, D. Fuchs, Mock, Morgan, & Young, 2003; Vaughn & Fuchs, 2003). The original model was divided into three clear areas of intervention need; however, Colorado has taken the dividing lines out of the pyramid to represent the fluidity of the model. The fluidity of the model, shown by the problem-solving process arrows in the middle of the pyramid, results from students moving from less intensive interventions to more intensive interventions and instruction, or from more intensive interventions to less intensive interventions as their needs change (CDE, 2008). Through this model, teachers have a framework for identifying need, using interventions, and monitoring student progress (Cummings, Atkins, Allison, & Cole, 2008). The model by itself does not provide enough support and foundation for teachers to implement RtI, so state- and district-level administrators have established additional tools, resources, and guidelines to assist in implementation. Many schools have been applying principles foundational in the RtI model for several decades through high-quality instruction and differentiation. Key components to a quality GT program include a variety of instructional and learning opportunities and differentiation for content, process, and product (Tomlinson, 1999). All high-quality educational practices require research-based instructional techniques, and they respond to the needs of the students in terms of higher level thinking skills, enrichment, or advancement in content. However, most teachers have not received training that illuminated some of these similarities, thus many still believe RtI is a special education model.

Context for the Study

Although the original intent of the RtI model was to incorporate needs-based differentiation and interventions for all students, in most schools across the country GT programs are not benefiting from the use of the model (Johnsen, 2000). Some states and even specific districts identify the usefulness of RtI for GT students, but with limited resources and training, few schools are actually implementing it efficiently. The majority of current research and publications about RtI in GT programs is for advocacy and training rather than implementation. The goal of educators at this point is to push for the use of the model in their schools rather than making sure it is done correctly. Many teachers view RtI as simply a model for identifying students as having a specific learning disability (SLD), others view it only as deficit based. This deficit can be perceived in academics, behavior, or possibly even English language learning (ELL; Rinaldi & Samson, 2008, Speece, Case, & Molloy, 2003). Where the difference lies when attempting to apply the model to GT programs is in the wording of the model. RtI is widely known as the “problem-solving model” (Deno, 2002). This language automatically provides the users with a preconception that all issues being identified are “problems,” which implies deficits (Kavale, 2005). However, what if the concern being identified by the RtI team was not a problem, but a need? Needs for GT students could be that they are underachieving, need behavioral interventions, need social and emotional support or counseling, or numerous other problems (Hughes et al., 2009; Rollins, Mursky, Shah-Coltrane, & Johnsen, 2009). Needs for GT students could also be the need for enrichment, acceleration, passion-based learning, higher order thinking skills, performing and visual arts, and many others. The shift in thinking and perception for teachers needs to include a view of needs as what a child needs to be successful in school. These needs might relate to enhancing learning in line with advanced potential.

There are many reasons why RtI is not explored fully for GT students and programs. Teachers already feel overwhelmed having to differentiate for at-risk and struggling learners, and they do not always have the resources for interventions for GT students in their classrooms (Canter et al., 2008; L. S. Fuchs, 2003). With emphasis placed on achievement, it is “more important” to focus on the underachieving and nonproficient rather than students who are already beyond grade level. Perhaps the biggest road block to implementing RtI for GT students and programs is that teachers do not view the model as a needs-based model for differentiation, but a problem-based model designed to close the achievement gap. This frame of reference needs to change before RtI can begin to work for GT students. Some GT students are benefiting from RtI type programming due to twice exceptionality. Twice exceptional students can be a wonderful example for how to use the RtI for all students, as teachers need to differentiate for both special education and gifted education needs (McCoach, Kehle, Bray, & Siegle, 2001; Pereles, Omdal, & Baldwin, 2009).

Paradigm Shift

A paradigm shift refers to a dramatic change in methodology, practice, thinking, and planning. With reference to RtI, a paradigm shift is needed to change the current methodology of teachers in implementing the model as a deficit-based model into a needs-based model. With a current frame of mind being that RtI is simply for the struggling or at-risk learner, students with GT needs will not benefit from the proper differentiated instruction they deserve under this framework. The original intent of RtI was to address specific needs of all learners. Only a small percentage of students are benefiting from the current program as it is most often only being used to identify and serve students with special needs rather than all students. A paradigm shift could change the current methods of identification and programming for all students, providing a data-driven differentiated process that benefits all students. Not until this paradigm shift occurs in the educational system will RtI be able to be implemented fully for 100% of students.

Teachers of GT students have the ability to initiate such a change in their schools. Currently, many GT teachers and coordinators make the decisions about identification and programming for GT students in their respective schools. By making the change from identifying students for GT programming with a “body of evidence” and moving toward a tiered level of instruction and support, GT teachers can influence the perception of the teachers they work with on a daily basis. Teachers will continue to use collected data to make decisions about appropriate range of interventions so that the interventions are targeted to student needs. By implementing RtI in a school, the GT teacher will need support from the general education teachers. It is likely that the general education teachers will already be familiar with the model through use with other populations of students, such as special education. The GT teacher can have a positive impact on these teachers to encourage the use of the RtI model for all students for the sake of consistency throughout the school as the overall RtI process should not change based on demographics. If all students’ needs are identified and addressed through a tiered system, the true systemic change of education is not far behind. This approach is a “bottom-up” change rather than a “top-down” type of change that typically comes through legislation or state mandates. Individual schools and districts will need to show what can be effective for the system as a whole to adopt the RtI model.

Participants

This study sought the experiences, attitudes, and needs of GT teachers when attempting to implement the RtI model. To collect accurate and meaningful data, participants needed to meet several criteria to be part of the study: (a) The participant needed to be either a teacher or administrator in GT education, (b) the participant needed to be in the field of GT for a minimum of 3 years, (c) the participant needed to be viewed by experts in the field as successful in GT program implementation, and (d) experts in the field of GT education, including university professors with knowledge of programming, validated the criteria for participant selection for the study. The researcher began with a list of 20 names of exemplary teachers and administrators of GT education throughout Colorado. These names were generated from two expert professors in the field of GT education. Due to geographic location, time, and resource needs, the expected participation in the study was 8 to 12 participants. The study involved 8 participants for the individual interviews, 4 of whom participated in the focus group.

Data Collection

This research project used a combination of individual interviews and a focus group to investigate the necessary components of an RtI model when used for GT programs in addition to how teachers and administrators can advocate for desired components to help ensure success of the model in their schools.

The following series of questions was created to examine the experiences, attitudes, and needs of GT teachers implementing programming in relation to RtI:

The setting for the interviews varied depending on what was convenient for the participant. The researcher attempted to make the interviews and focus groups as convenient as possible for everyone involved, so several of the interviews took place at the participants’ schools. Each interview lasted between 45 and 125 min. The interviews were recorded and transcribed into 90 pages of text for further analysis.

The focus group was a more relaxed discussion and relied on follow-up questions from the interviews that the researcher wanted to clarify. Questions for the focus group examined what was needed in schools for implementation of RtI with GT students. Specific topics centered on identification, training, resources, and benefits of using RtI. The focus group lasted almost 3 hr.

Data Analysis

The researcher used a three-level coding system of open, axial, and selective coding to organize and summarize the data from the interviews and focus group. The interviews were recorded and transcribed into 90 pages of text for further analysis.

Theme 1: Awareness of GT Students and RtI

The second most prevalent theme in the interviews and focus groups was the need for awareness in the field of GT education, but with the RtI model in general. The most prevalent topic discussed was time, which will be discussed in Theme 4. Awareness of GT students and the RtI model was repeatedly discussed by each one of the participants throughout all data collection. In the last several years, as more schools have adopted the RtI model to assist in the identification and intervention of struggling learners, the focus of training and awareness has been on struggling learners. This level of awareness is completely justified as the foundation of RtI was derived from special education law, IDEIA (2004). It was a natural progression that teachers associate RtI with a special education mandate and students involved in the RtI process would be struggling learners who may eventually be identified for special education services. The focus, however, has shifted. Schools began to adopt the RtI model for struggling learners, then students with behavioral needs, and very quickly teachers began to see that the same model could be used for all students regardless of their identified area of need. Advanced students with a need for more complex and challenging material could also fit into the framework of RtI and teachers could apply interventions with these students in the same fashion as a struggling learner. Several participants said they often talk to general education teachers about GT in the context of RtI, and it is like a light bulb goes on in their head. Often the teachers respond with a comment like, “I never thought about it that way before, but you’re right, it should work the same way for these students.” Many schools are simply dealing with a lack of exposure or awareness on the part of the teachers. According to the participants, administrators need to have the right background and training to help their teachers become aware of the entire scope of RtI and how to use it with all students. Administrators are not simply going to happen onto this training and knowledge without some guidance.

Teachers and other professionals need to advocate for the use of RtI with all students, within or outside their own district. Several participants stated that for administrators to buy into the model and see the value in applying RtI with all students, the impetus for change would have to come from an external source. Professionals in the field of GT and RtI need to become advocates and educate administrators and teachers on the importance of high-quality differentiated instruction through a tiered approach. Only with the knowledge and buy-in of administration will the teachers get the support they need to implement RtI effectively.

Theme 2: Multilevel Support

According to the participants, after a level of awareness is established among teachers, the foundational knowledge they possess is not going to progress within a school without the support of administration. The participants felt that administrative support needs to come from district personnel as well as building principals and assistant principals. District-level administrators need to invest time and resources into developing a streamlined system of approach for RtI to be implemented for all students within a district. The problem of teacher mobility and transiency can be reduced by having more consistent processes in all schools within a district. Building administrators need to invest in quality professional development for teachers. Quality professional development that is supported by the administration comes across as an exciting opportunity for teachers to help students, not just as another item that a law or mandate is requiring teachers to do.

There was an overwhelming impression during the interviews and focus group that principals and other administrators are not putting any emphasis on RtI other than what is required to use it for struggling learners. Given that impression, it is extremely unlikely that the majority of teachers are going to take it upon themselves to implement more than the minimum requirements just because it is in the best interest of all students. Teachers feel overwhelmed, as many of the participants stated, and they will not typically add another dimension to their job that requires a great deal of time and commitment if it is not supported by the school as a whole. Aside from administration, teachers need to be supportive of one another as well. RtI is often seen as a systematic change in which everyone in the building needs to be involved and have buy-in. RtI is very much a team approach and relies heavily on collaborative processes. If some team members support the process and others do not, it might leave teachers feeling disenfranchised with the system.

The impression I got from several of the GT teachers in interviews is that they are seen as almost an outside department where students go to get challenged. These teachers already do not feel supported in what they do, and the support needed for implementing a complicated model such as RtI is extensive. The main method identified by the participants in creating a collaborative and supportive school environment is through high-quality and purposeful professional development.

Theme 3: Professional Development in GT Education and RtI

One of the most surprising aspects of the interviews and focus group discussions came in reference to professional development. I had assumed prior to the interviews that a very common comment of the participants was going to be they did not have enough training and knowledge about RtI to make the model successful. Although this is true, it was not the most important aspect of professional development according to almost every participant. How they viewed the problem was more foundational than lacking the knowledge of RtI; the teachers in their building are lacking the knowledge of GT students. The participants believe it is necessary to provide a better foundation for their teachers on the characteristics of gifted students, how those characteristics are manifested in the classroom, how to differentiate for the needs of GT students, and how the whole process should be a collaborative effort rather than just falling on the shoulders of the GT teacher. Only one of the participants felt like her school was adequately trained on GT needs of students. All of the participants, however, believed that only when the general education teachers have the knowledge of GT students can they begin to incorporate RtI into that framework of understanding as well. Several participants stated they currently, or have previously, presented a short class addressing the characteristics and needs of GT students for the staff at their respective schools. Often, the time to introduce or refresh concepts such as GT identification and needs (such as enrichment, advancement, and affective development) is reduced to make room for another item that administration deems more important at the time.

The second area of professional development that was discussed among all the participants was how to approach RtI. Taken from an awareness standpoint initially, where teachers begin to use common vocabulary and experiences to draw upon, teachers will begin to make the connection to RtI in terms of GT students. This process, however, can only take place, according to the participants, after teachers have a solid understanding of GT students. From there, intensive, continuous, and comprehensive professional development needs to take place. A concern of the participants, particularly in the focus group, was teacher transiency or mobility. Gone are the days of working in one job in one school for an entire career. Teachers move and change schools for a variety of reasons; schools need to have the ability to adapt to new staff every year. Professional development then needs to take on a new look. The focus group participants believed that RtI needs to be something addressed to the staff every year, throughout the year, and not just on staff in-service days. RtI vocabulary and context should be used every day within a school, in a variety of contexts. The nature of using RtI is that it is so inclusive that when it is adopted fully, it changes the entire culture of the school. With proper training and usage, RtI is no longer a model to help struggling learners, but a paradigm and framework for an entire school. Although some participants are fully aware and supportive of this concept, others are still seeing RtI anywhere from a student plan for those who have a need to a model for differentiation for all students. These teachers have not received relevant training that can bring about the systemic change associated with RtI. As with any change in a school, the biggest struggle for teachers is going to be the reallocation of time. As I learned in the interviews, time is possibly the No. 1 concern for teachers.

Theme 4: Time for Collaboration and Implementation

Although the most common comment and concern in both interviews and the focus group is time, I have it listed as the fourth theme due to other factors that need to occur prior to the allocation of time. Without an awareness of bringing RtI and GT together, support from administration, and training on how to utilize RtI effectively and efficiently, providing teachers with time to implement the model is not going to greatly change the way teachers operate. Although these other items likely need to come first, it was the consensus of the participants that teachers’ time is greatly valued and limited; to change time would be vital in implementing a comprehensive model. Several teachers in the interviews were almost dismissive from the beginning stating that “we just don’t have time for it; there is no way we could ask our teachers to do anything more right now.” In some ways, this statement holds an element of truth. In the district one teacher was referring to, the district administration has even told teachers they “don’t have time to go through RtI with all the struggling learners, so pick the one or two out of your class that really need it.” This statement was not made in the context of GT but remediation and struggling learners. If this district cannot find the time to support the needs of their struggling learners, obviously they are not going to find the time to support advanced learners. This is the main reason that the participants and I agreed that time, although a crucial element for success, has to come after awareness and support from administration.

In reference to time, when asked what they feel would help to make RtI successful in the classroom, one of the participants stated that paraprofessional support for GT services could help tremendously. The participants stated that special education paraprofessionals assist students and teachers in the class with differentiation on a daily basis; theoretically, the process should be no different in gifted education.

In one of the interviews with a coordinator of GT services, the participant stated that the awareness was coming, the support from administration was largely there, and the professional development was happening; however, the time for teachers to successfully implement RtI was still lacking. Several teachers equated this to the priorities of the state and federal laws. Currently, there are very few requirements on GT education from the state and federal level.

In addition, there is extremely little funding compared with a similarly sized population of students in special education. Several participants in the focus group agreed that until GT is federally mandated and supported financially, incorporating RtI for all students may not be as possible as we would like.

The participants agreed that the main way to increase the opportunities for RtI and GT was through a mandate, and the only way to get a mandate was to build awareness on a much higher level than their individual schools. Teachers and administrators need to become advocates for high-quality instruction through the RtI model and take their advocacy to state and national levels. According to the participants, advocacy might be the most effective way of creating awareness and eventually additional time and support for teachers in the classroom. After all other elements take place, the participants stated the final step in getting RtI off the ground in a school would be to ensure high-quality differentiation for all learners is taking place at the Tier 1 level.

Theme 5: High-Quality Tier 1 Differentiation

Several participants made it explicitly clear that Tier 1 instruction is not simply “doing what you have always done and seeing who is not successful or is needing more.” Quality Tier 1 instruction depends on a significant level of differentiation. It is the nature of RtI that a significant degree of differentiation occurs within the classroom to assist the teacher in identifying a possible need in a learner. The participants agreed that especially if RtI is being used to aid in the identification process, investigating the effects of differentiation within the classroom is a necessary component.

Although differentiation was only mentioned in a few of the interviews, it seemed that the participants who had a better grasp on the overall concept and implementation of RtI were the ones who referenced differentiation as a key component. These participants stressed that, fundamentally, RtI and differentiation are extremely intertwined and quality differentiation is the foundation for a successful RtI model. Taken from a broad point of view, they are speaking in terms of the model as a whole because students are receiving the intervention that fits their need, regardless of tier intensity. From a more fundamental point of view, differentiation at the Tier 1 level will provide extremely useful and necessary information for other teachers when needing to introduce more intensive interventions for students based on the effectiveness of the differentiation strategy in the general education classroom.

Although some teachers instinctively differentiate for struggling and advanced learners in their classrooms, the majority of teachers will likely need assistance with that process. One participant in the focus group mentioned how teachers even think they are differentiating when they really are not. Similarly, differentiation in one classroom can look vastly different from the same process with a different teacher. One participant stated, “If I go hear that JB is differentiating in his classroom, I know good things are happening. Another teacher could tell me they are differentiating the same curriculum and it will look completely different and not be as effective.” According to the participants, general education teachers will need extensive training on how to make differentiation consistent among teachers so a transition to a more intensive intervention will be more consistent. They also agreed that the opportunity for specialists in a school, such as a GT teacher, should be trained to be utilized by general education teachers to assist with the process of differentiating.