New Directions in Research
Cultural Considerations With Response to Intervention Models

Janette K. Klingner, University of Colorado, Boulder

Patricia A. Edwards, Michigan State University, Lansing

About the authors

Now that the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA, 2004) has been reauthorized, states have the option of discontinuing the use of IQ-achievement discrepancy formulas and using Response to Intervention (RTI) criteria as part of the special education identification process. This change has dramatic implications for culturally and linguistically diverse students who historically have been disproportionately overrepresented in special education programs (Artiles, Trent, & Palmer, 2004; Donovan & Cross, 2002; Heller, Holtzman, & Messick, 1982). RTI models hold promise for preventing academic failure by providing support for culturally and linguistically diverse students before they underachieve (Donovan & Cross; Vaughn & Fuchs, 2003). By offering quality literacy instruction in a supportive general education environment, we hope to decrease the number of students who are inappropriately referred to and placed in special education.

Although RTI models may be implemented in various ways (see Fuchs & Fuchs in this issue), and differ in the number of levels of support provided, the overall framework of the model remains the same. Generally, the first tier is considered quality instruction and ongoing progress monitoring within the general education classroom. The second tier is characterized by the provision of intensive intervention support for students who have not met expected benchmarks (i.e., who have not made adequate progress in the core program, as assessed using progress monitoring measures such as the Dynamic Indicator of Basic Early Literacy Skills, or DIBELS; Good & Kaminski, 2002). When students do not adequately respond to the second tier of intervention, they qualify either for special education or for an evaluation for possible placement in special education (Fuchs, Mock, Morgan, & Young, 2003).

Fundamental to the notion of the RTI model is that instructional practices or interventions at each level should be based on scientific evidence about what works. However, we would add that it is essential to find out what works with whom, by whom, and in what contexts (Cunningham & Fitzgerald, 1996). We ask, What should the first tier look like for culturally diverse students? For English-language learners? For students living in high-poverty areas? What should the second tier look like? Should it be the same for all? If not, how should it vary, and how should this be determined? How can we make sure that the instruction is in fact responsive to children's needs? What should be the time period between discovering that the instruction is not responsive to children's needs and developing a new instructional plan? Who should monitor what happens in this transition period? These are important questions to consider as we move forward with RTI models.

Our position is that we must ensure that children have received culturally responsive, appropriate, quality instruction that is evidence based, but in order to be deemed appropriate, quality instruction, and evidence based it should be validated with students like those with whom it was applied. As with earlier identification criteria, this model must be based on students having received an adequate opportunity to learn. This concept of adequate opportunity to learn is a fundamental aspect of the definition of learning disabilities as part of its exclusionary clause: When children have not had sufficient opportunity to learn, the determination cannot be made that they have a learning disability.

Our perspectives on culturally responsive literacy instruction

What does it mean to provide culturally responsive literacy instruction? Moje and Hinchman (2004) noted, “All practice needs to be culturally responsive in order to be best practice” (italics added, p. 321). We wholeheartedly agree. This view is especially relevant when considering that culture is involved in all learning (Cole, 1998; Rogoff, 2003). Culture is not a static set of characteristics located within individuals but is fluid and complex (Gutierrez & Rogoff, 2003). Thus, culturally responsive teachers make connections with their students as individuals while understanding the sociocultural-historical contexts that influence their interactions.