Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Rti and gifted_students_coleman_ecu
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Introducing the official SlideShare app

Stunning, full-screen experience for iPhone and Android

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

Rti and gifted_students_coleman_ecu

517
views

Published on

Published in: Education

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
517
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. RTI and Students Who are Gifted Mary Ruth B. Coleman, Ph.D. Senior Scientist FPG Child Development Institute University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
  • 2. RTI Philosophy Early Intervention to Support Strengths
    • The child/student first
    • Services must match the child/student
    • Allocation of resources
    © Mary Ruth Coleman, 2008
  • 3. RTI Model/Approach Key Features
    • Tiered approach to supports and services
    • Universal screening, progress monitoring, assessment
    • Use of Evidence-Based Practices and Standard Protocols to respond to child/student needs
    • Data Driven Decision Making process
    • Collaborative problem–solving approaches to child/student needs (Parental involvement)
    © Mary Ruth Coleman, 2008
  • 4. RTI Model/Approach Tiered Approach to Services
    • Intensity of support increases as intensity of child/student’s needs increases
    • Flexibility in services and supports to meet student needs
    • Matched with Data Driven Decision Making
    • Nurturing potential & Early Intervention
      • Culturally/Linguistically Diverse
      • Economically Disadvantaged
      • 2e Students
    © Mary Ruth Coleman, 2008
  • 5. Tier l
    • General Classroom that offers a quality strengths-based learning environment
    • Focus on nurturing potential in all children
    • Use of dynamic assessments
    • Differentiation of instruction with high-end learning opportunities
    • Universal Screening for potential in all students
  • 6. Tier ll
    • Collaboration with gifted education to provide more intense supports when needed
    • Additional supports provided to students based on strengths (e.g. abilities, skills, interests)
    • Differentiate instruction based on student’s data
    • Parental involvement
    • Progress Monitoring (Curriculum Compacting)
  • 7. Tier lll
    • More intensive support gifted education may take the lead
    • Assessments include a body-of-evidence approach (e.g. full portrait of strengths and needs)
    • Nomination for formal identification
    • Parents involvement in decision making
    • Sustained differentiation needed in areas of strenght
  • 8. RTI Model/Approach Universal Screening, Progress Monitoring, Assessment
    • Awareness of child/students strenghts
    • Dynamic check–points to “monitor progress”
    • Data driven decision making
    © Mary Ruth Coleman, 2008
  • 9. RTI Strategies Screening, Progress Monitoring, Assessment
    • Appropriate Assessment of Students
    • Assessment is a key part of Creating a High–end Learning Environment.
    © Mary Ruth Coleman, 2008
  • 10. What is needed is a change of perspective concerning assessment and evaluation. This change of perspective asks…
    • That we see what children are doing rather than what they are not doing.
    • That we understand children learn & progress developmentally & uniquely, not by grade level.
    • That assessment & evaluation match instruction in the classroom, with the teacher & student as the primary evaluators.
    • That the progress of a child is documented over time & based upon a variety of evidence rather than on a test.
    • That we find other ways to show growth rather than rely on numerical summaries.
    Janine Batzle. Portfolio Assessment & Evaluation . Cypress, CA: Creative Teaching Press, 1992. © Mary Ruth Coleman, 2008
  • 11. Assessment
    • Systematic and Purposeful methods for looking at where you or your students are in order to plan for where you or they are going.
    © Mary Ruth Coleman, 2008
  • 12. Assessment How do you know what your students know?
    • Prior knowledge (pre–assessment)
    • Learning/teaching loop (embedded assessment, also called progress–monitoring)
    • Mastery point (post or final assessment)
    © Mary Ruth Coleman, 2008
  • 13. Multiple Assessments of a Learner
    • Norm Referenced & Criterion Referenced Tests
    • Paper–Pencil Tests
    • Performance Assessments
    • Samples of Work: Portfolio
    • Informal Measures:
      • Observations
      • Conferences
    • Self–Assessments
    • Peer Feedback
    © Mary Ruth Coleman, 2008
  • 14. Assessments
    • All Assessments should give us data that is useful in understanding the student’s strengths and needs so that we can plan appropriate educational experiences for them.
    © Mary Ruth Coleman, 2008
  • 15. Data: Information that “drives” or helps in planning & decision making
    • Achievement
    • Interests/Passions/Motivation
    • Multiple Intelligence
    • Learning Styles/Preferences/Strategies/Approaches
    • Aptitude
    • Ecology/Context Home & Family
    • Disability Areas
    • Social & Emotional Needs
    © Mary Ruth Coleman, 2008
  • 16. Interviewing Your Data
    • What does my data have to tell me?
      • Broad Pattern/Trend for the group/class
        • Clusters:
          • High
          • Middle
          • Low
        • Group Strengths/Needs
        • Outliers:
          • These students don’t cluster easily.
    © Mary Ruth Coleman, 2008
  • 17. Interviewing Your Data cont.
    • Specific Question:
      • What does this tell me about…
        • Content
        • Students
        • Environment Learning (instruction)
      • Why does this pattern exist?
    • What is missing?
      • What do I need to know that my data does not tell me?!
      • How can I collect this data?
    (Coleman, 2004) © Mary Ruth Coleman, 2008
  • 18. General Class Summary of Data Teacher _______________ Grade _____ Year _____ # Students _____ # Boys _____ # Girls _____ # Exceptional _____ # ELL _____ Comments about special needs of students for consideration planning: ______________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ Strategies to Differentiate for this class should include: ___________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ © Mary Ruth Coleman, 2008 Content # below # on target # above # outliers Reading Writing Math Science Social Studies Other
  • 19.
    • Evidence–based responses that provide additional support (e.g. William and Mary Curriculum, U-STARS~PLUS, Triad Enrichment Model, Autonomous Learner Model, Renzulli Learning)
    • Strategies that promote high-end learning (e.g. questioning techniques, acceleration, enrichment, problem-based learning)
    • Differentiated instruction
    • Readily implemented with fidelity
    RTI Strategies Standard Protocols © Mary Ruth Coleman, 2008
  • 20. RTI Model/Approach Collaborative Problem–Solving
    • Individual child/student with more complexity
      • Culturally/Linguistically Diverse
      • Economically Disadvantaged
      • 2e Learners
    • Intensity of needs (e.g. highly gifted learners)
    • Pooling resources
    • Parents as part of the team and decision making
    © Mary Ruth Coleman, 2008
  • 21.
    • Team approach to child’s strengths and needs
    • Parental involvement
    • Vehicle for planning that goes beyond standard protocols (e.g. acceleration, social emotional, interest-based)
    • Planning for gifted students with more complex needs (e.g. twice exceptional learners, ELL)
    RTI Strategies Collaborative Problem–Solving © Mary Ruth Coleman, 2008
  • 22. A Nurturing Classroom Environment supports students intellectually and emotionally
    • An Intellectually Nurturing Environment provides:
      • Challenge (high expectations, appropriate complexity)
      • Choice (child’s interests, self–determination)
      • Changes (novelty, flexibility)
    • An Emotionally Nurturing Environment is:
      • Safe (respectful, understanding, validating, caring)
      • Supportive (helpful, “risk–taking”)
      • Secure (child can be at ease)
    © 2007 by Coleman & Shah-Coltrane
  • 23. HIGH-END LEARNING ENVIRONMENT Tool kit of strategies for differentiation in the regular classroom:
      • Curriculum compacting
      • Tiered activities
      • Learning centers/stations
      • Independent/small group contracts & projects
      • Effective questioning, higher order thinking
    © 2007 by Coleman & Shah-Coltrane
  • 24. Family and School Partnerships
    • Family involvement programs
    • Effective parent conferences
    • Cultural competency (impact of poverty, diversity, and social emotional needs)
    © 2007 by Coleman & Shah-Coltrane
  • 25.
    • Twice exceptional students
    • Nurturing potential Early Intervention
      • Culturally/linguistically diverse
      • Economically disadvantaged
    • Affective needs of gifted students
    Special Issues for RTI and Gifted Students © Mary Ruth Coleman, 2008
  • 26. Challenges with RTI for Gifted Learners
    • Misuse of progress monitoring to hold children back instead of move them forward;
    • Misuse of interventions versus enhancements; shift in thinking
    • Continued need for funding and support for intellectual and emotional nurturing of potential
    • Continued need for professional development to support teachers
    • Increased need for collaboration among special, general, and gifted education
  • 27. Potential of RTI for GT
    • Strengthen Collaborations with General and Special Education
    • Address issues of Disproportionate Representation
    • Promote Early supports to Nurture Potential
    • Address the needs of 2e Learners
    • Enhance General Curriculum with a focus on Strengths!
  • 28. Systemic Change
    • Capacity building of leadership at state, district, & school levels (professional development and policy)
    • Fidelity of Implementation (district, school, classroom)
    • Accountability (district, school, classroom, child)
    © 2007 by Coleman & Shah-Coltrane
  • 29. Planning for RtI with Gifted Learners
    • Guiding Questions to think about as we work to incorporate the needs of gifted learners within our RtI approaches
  • 30. Action Steps for Planning
    • Create or join a multi-member stakeholder team.
    • Review existing supports and services using question above as a guide.
    • Seek additional input and information to help you reflect on how a multi-tiered approach will change your current supports and services (pros and cons).
    • Develop and action plan for next steps that includes timelines, responsibilities, professional development needs, and budget.
  • 31. Alignment of Gifted Education Philosophy with RTI
    • Does your gifted education philosophy include the importance of recognizing and nurturing potential?
    • Does your gifted education philosophy address the need for collaborative approaches?
    • Does your gifted education philosophy include the importance of data driven decision making?
    • Does your gifted education philosophy include the importance of family involvement?
  • 32. RTI Strategies
    • What are you currently doing to monitor children/student’s progress? How does this fit across the three tiers?
    • What are you currently doing to address the needs of gifted children/students? How do these supports and services fit within the three tiers?
    © Mary Ruth Coleman, 2008
  • 33.
    • Do you currently have a team approach to identifying student’s strengths, challenges and needs?
    • How do you ensure parental/family involvement in planning for and supporting the students success?
    • Does this give you the flexibility needed for planning that goes beyond standard protocols (e.g. acceleration, social emotional, interest-based)?
    • How have you planned for gifted students with more complex needs (e.g. twice exceptional learners, ELL)?
    RTI Strategies Collaborative Problem–Solving © Mary Ruth Coleman, 2008
  • 34. RTI Model/Approach
    • How does your current GT model/approach fit with existing general/special/gifted education structures?
    • What challenges are you facing (or will you face) as you integrate your current approach within RTI for general/special/gifted educational supports and services?
    • How will your GT/RTI approach differ for early childhood, elementary, middle, and high school needs?
    © Mary Ruth Coleman, 2008
  • 35.
    • What structures do you currently have in place that facilitate collaboration (e.g. shared planning time, joint advisory groups, etc.)?
    • What will you need to do to collaboration across
    • stakeholders;
    • programs; and
    • schools?
    Additional RTI Questions © Mary Ruth Coleman, 2008
  • 36.
    • How will you address the needs of twice exceptional students?
    • How will you nurture potential and offer early intervention for
      • Culturally/linguistically diverse
      • Economically disadvantaged
      • Twice exceptional learners?
    • How will you address the affective needs of gifted students?
    Special Issues for RTI and Gifted Students © Mary Ruth Coleman, 2008
  • 37. How will you avoid the Challenges with RTI Implementation for Gifted Learners?
    • Misuse of progress monitoring to hold children back instead of move them forward;
    • Misuse of interventions versus enhancements; shift in thinking
    • Continued need for funding and support for intellectual and emotional nurturing of potential
    • Continued need for professional development to support teachers
    • Increased need for collaboration among special, general, and gifted education