This chapter provides background information for the reader by addressing the recent movement toward a developmental model in special and gifted education, definitions of Response To Intervention (RtI), standard protocol and problem-solving models, and major components of RtI. The movement toward RtI originated from special educators' concerns about the discrepancy model. In 1932, Monroe introduced the discrepancy model to operationalize unexpected underachievement. Disenchantment with the effectiveness of the discrepancy model began to emerge in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Disenchantment with the effectiveness of the discrepancy model began to emerge in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Standard protocol models require the use of scientifically based classroom instruction with all students, regular administration of curriculum-based assessments, and frequent comparisons of students to expected growth. RtI is based on the principle that all children can achieve high standards if given access to a strong core curriculum.

Jose is an eighth-grade student with autism spectrum disorder. He is mainstreamed into classes that are cotaught for the four basic subjects in the general education setting. Effective educational teaming cannot happen without a supportive infrastructure that provides personnel preparation, policies that facilitate cooperation, and time for coordinated planning and interventions. Family involvement is important for every student; however, it is essential for the twice-exceptional student. Families engaged in a positive relationship with schools can have a direct impact on the achievement of students. The more effective K-12 programming is for 2e students, the more planning is needed for college and career transitions. Effective programming for 2e students includes team problem solving to address academic as well social and emotional needs, and families are key partners in ensuring student success. Most of all, educators need the collective will to implement educational practices that focus on every student's success.

Response to Intervention has many positive features that will help students not only succeed, but when paired with a strand that incorporates gifted education, could even help students reach their potential. A challenge for gifted education teachers and administrators is adjusting to a major change in the identification process. In reviewing the challenges, we categorized them under three headings: Response-to-intervention (RtI) as Systemic Change, Implementing RtI in Schools and Classrooms, and Specific Implementation Issues for Twice-Exceptional Students. Change is a difficult process, and systemic change is even more difficult. Roles and responsibilities will change. Educators who implement RtI in schools and in classrooms face special challenges that relate to differentiating Tier 1, collaborating with other professionals and parents, identifying research-based practices in gifted education, developing decision points for more intensive services, and finding or developing appropriate assessment tools and strategies.

Response to Intervention (RtI) is a schoolwide process that integrates curriculum and instruction with ongoing assessment and intervention. Gifted education is already familiar with multiple types of services that provide support for emerging potential. RtI was originally designed as a preventive, early intervention approach to remediate learning difficulties in core subject areas—specifically reading and math. A critical look at how RtI evolved and is still evolving provides important directions for future research on its implementation with gifted students. RtI provides a framework within which evidence-based strategies can be placed. The supports and services themselves should have an evidence base showing their effectiveness. A large-scale study of RtI's implementation with gifted learners would make a substantial contribution to the field's understanding of the pros and cons of multi-tiered frameworks for this population.

The Response to Intervention (RtI) model is sweeping the country, changing the way children's educational needs are recognized and met. The standard protocol model requires the use of scientifically based classroom instruction for all students using the same curriculum, the same program, and/or the same management strategies; regular administration of curriculum-based assessments; and frequent comparisons of students to expect or normal growth. The problem-solving approach relies on a system of increasingly intensive interventions that are planned and implemented by school personnel to provide an effective program for a particular student. The tiered approach within RtI extends this thinking to the supports and services provided. To implement RtI with gifted students, universal screening needs to include all students who are achieving at a high level. The Higher Education Opportunity Act requires all teacher preparation programs to contain information about teaching gifted learners.

The following is a list of websites that have resources for implementing Response to Intervention.

Meeting the needs of students who are twice exceptional (2e), those with gifts and talents as well as areas of disabilities, can feel daunting. Responding to the complexities of strengths and challenges of 2e students requires flexibility, innovation, and most especially teamwork. This chapter explores how the needs of 2e students change across the lifespan, sharing the role of the problem-solving team from early childhood through postsecondary planning. The chapter includes (a) problem-solving guidelines that foster collaboration to address academic, social, and emotional success; (b) examples of instructional strategies using universal design for learning and differentiated instruction for pre-K though postsecondary; and (c) family partnership approaches to support the students’ success.

Response to Intervention has many positive features that will help students not only succeed, but when paired with a strand that incorporates gifted, could even help students reach their potential. However, RtI will not be successful unless it is viewed as a systemic process that involves systemic change. For change to occur at the classroom level, it also must involve administrative support at the school and district levels. If implementation is not done systemically, RtI will meet with limited success.

n 1995, the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) was conducted at five grade levels with more than 40 countries participating. The cross-sectional study measured both mathematics and science achievement in grades 3, 4, 7, 8, and the final year of secondary school gathering information about the teaching and learning of mathematics and science. The study reported these important results: • Grades 3 and 4 students in the U.S. performed above the international mean in both science and mathematics. • By secondary school, students in the U.S. performed below the international mean in mathematics and science literacy. • Gender differences in mathematics achievement in primary and middle school grades were small or nonexistent. By the final year in secondary school, males had higher achievement than females in mathematics literacy and advanced mathematics in most countries. • Gender differences in science achievement were evident by grade 4 in about half the participating countries, including the U.S., with males outperforming females. By the final year in secondary school, males outperformed females in science in all participating countries except South Africa. Clearly, achievement in science and mathematics wanes as students in U.S. schools advance to the secondary level. What is happening? Is the national focus on proficiency driving achievement down as students are prepared for the test rather than for practical applications of knowledge to their lives? Are the gifted and talented learners being ignored by a curriculum aimed at minimum performance and accountability? Fortunately, many teachers and scholars are committed to providing broad opportunities for gifted and talented learners in their classrooms. We are pleased to provide a special issue to help you experience the passion and possibilities that do exist for GT students—even in an era of testing, minimum standards, and sometimes grave consequences for below-minimum performance. The article on Magnetic Levitation by Raymond Budd describes a science unit designed to teach friction and force to gifted students. The teaching methods described in this paper can be easily modified and used to teach science using a hands-on, experiential approach at any level. Combining creative thinking skills and science in the primary grades is the topic of Karen Meador’s article. She provides two examples of science lessons primary teachers typically teach and procedures for differentiating each. M. Katherine Gavin and Sally Reis discuss reasons why females lag behind and ways teachers can encourage talented girls in mathematics. The authors include an annotated list of Web sites, mathematics contests and competitions, teacher resources, notable women in mathematics, and organizations. Todd Kettler and Marc Curliss provide a method to scale mathematics objectives in mixed-ability classes so gifted students learn new concepts with fewer repetitions. They suggest using layers rather than an objective linear approach to teaching. For example, once gifted students have mastered a mathematics objective in sixth grade, they will move on to problems based on a scaled-up (i.e., seventh grade objective rather than sixth) mathematics objective. Finally, Deb Pfouts and Bob Schultz discuss Outdoor Learning Centers (OLCs) in early grades as a way to differentiate for students not (yet) formally identified as gifted. Using OLCs can help teachers realize potential and interests of students, while also honoring the processes of life and living. The TIMSS studies are continuing and currently the results of the 1999 study have been released. The 1999 TIMSS study included 38 countries and focused on mathematics and science achievement in eighth grade students. The results placed U.S. students about at the middle of the achievement distribution. Two of the more interesting results have to do with curricular issues. First, higher mathematics achievement is found in classes where teachers emphasize reasoning and problem solving activities. Second, higher science achievement was related to the emphasis placed on practical investigations and experiments. Emphasizing problem solving and investigation obviously aligns well with expected (and measured) outcomes. Within the following pages, best practices abound. We hope you enjoy your exploration, putting some of the authors’ insights and practices into play in your classrooms. GCT I From the Guest Editors