Rti and gifted_students_coleman_ecu

839 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
839
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
49
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Rti and gifted_students_coleman_ecu

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

×