The growth of awareness around twice-exceptional education has coincided with and resulted from additional and ongoing research into the topic. Some findings of this research are included here.
Interactions between giftedness and disabilities require twice-exceptional (2e) students to have access to both gifted programming and special education (SPED) resources in order to be successful in school (Baum, Schader & Owen, 2017; Nielsen & Higgins, 2015). 2e students are increasingly recognized by educators, researchers (Baldwin, et al., 2015; Maddocks, 2018; Maker, 2005; Nicpon, et al., 2011; Nielsen, 2002), and parents (Dare & Nowicki, 2015).
However, 2e students still have a hard time accessing both gifted and SPED education (Lovett, 2013; Nielsen & Higgins, 2015). Research conducted by Barnard-Brak et al. (2015) points to little empirical data on prevalence rates, though conservative estimates on the number of 2e students in public schools start at around 360,000 (National Education Association, 2006).
Barnard-Brak et al. (2015) conducted an empirical study using a random nationally representative sample of existing SPED elementary students and found the conservative incidence rate of gifted programming-qualified SPED students to be six times higher than current students receiving both gifted and SPED services. In addition, females, Black, and Hispanic students are least likely to be identified and participate in gifted programming. This study provides parents with a macro view on nationwide discrepancies in the numbers of existing SPED students that should qualify and the actual number of students participating in gifted programming. In addition, this study also provides empirical evidence for the need to pay attention to socio-economic effects in gifted and SPED education access.
What other factors hinder 2e students’ access to both gifted and SPED services? One involves teachers’ perceptions of students. Bianco and Leech (2010) investigated teacher perceptions and educational training (general, gifted, and SPED) effects on gifted programming referrals for students with disability labels. Bianco and Leech’s (2010) findings seem to suggest that teachers’ professional training influences their beliefs in whether a student diagnosed with learning disability (LD) or emotional behavioral disorders (EBD) can be successful in gifted programming. In their study, SPED teachers were least likely to believe a student with LD or EBD could participate successfully in gifted programming. In addition, teachers that focused on student deficits were less likely to believe that gifted programming was a match for students. They also believed that further IQ data was required to prove gifted abilities and were less likely to endorse gifted referrals in general. On the other hand, teachers that focused on students’ positive characteristics and believed they needed to be challenged were more likely to endorse gifted referrals.
Studies such as Bianco and Leech’s (2010) highlight how factors such as different types of teachers, existing disability labels, and whether teachers focus on positives or deficits of student characteristics can influence teacher referrals for gifted programming. These findings are important information parents can utilize and should consider when seeking to advocate for services for their 2e children.
Research conducted by Dare and Nowicki (2015) reveals that parents are often the first to recognize twice-exceptionality in their children. The study concludes that parents are willing to be strong advocates. However, they need support and knowledge about twice-exceptionality in order to be successful advocates for their children in public school settings. These studies help to illustrate how differentiating specific knowledge and strategies based on family data and student’s current status in SPED or gifted programming at school might be more useful in providing parents with relevant information they can use in their school advocacy.
The Barnard-Brak et al. (2015) findings are helpful to parents that have children that are currently already receiving SPED services. Their findings provide a general conservative estimate of the extent of under-identification for 2e students. Parents with children participating only in gifted programming or not identified for either service will not find direct applications from the Barnard-Brak et al. (2015) findings. Parents can share knowledge gained from these findings with their local school districts or gather data from teachers on their thoughts on why some teachers may focus on the positives and others focus on negatives and whether there is a program mismatch in gifted services for qualified SPED students in their district. Such steps can help bring about awareness of possible perceptual biases teachers’ educational backgrounds may play in gifted referrals of twice-exceptional students receiving SPED services only. In addition, particular attention should be paid to socio-economic factors that may hinder access to gifted programing in public schools.
References
Barnard-Brak, L., Johnsen, S. K., Pond Hannig, A., & Wei, T. (2015). The incidence of potentially gifted students within a special education population. Roeper Review, 37(2), 74. doi:10.1080/02783193.2015.1008661
Baum, S. M., Schader, R. M., & Owen, S. V. (2017). To be gifted and learning disabled: Strength-based strategies for helping twice-exceptional students with LD, ADHD, ASD, and more., 3rd ed. () Prufrock Press.
Bianco, M., & Leech, N. L. (2010). Twice-exceptional learners: Effects of teacher preparation and disability labels on gifted referrals. Teacher Education and Special Education, 33(4), 319. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ901745&site=ehost- live&scope=site
Dare, L., & Nowicki, E. A. (2015). Twice-exceptionality: Parents’ perspectives on 2e identification. Roeper Review, 37(4), 208. doi:10.1080/02783193.2015.1077911
Lovett, B. J., & Sparks, R. L. (2011). The Identification and Performance of Gifted Students With Learning Disability Diagnoses: A Quantitative Synthesis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 46(4), 304–316. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219411421810
Maker, J. (2001). DISCOVER: Assessing and developing problem solving. Gifted Education International, 15(3), 232. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ637237&site=ehost- live&scope=site
Maddocks, D. L. S. (2018). The identification of students who are gifted and have a learning disability: A comparison of different diagnostic criteria. Gifted Child Quarterly, 62(2), 175. doi:10.1177/0016986217752096
National Education Association. (2006). The twice-exceptional dilemma. Retrieved from http://www.nea.org/assets/docs/twiceexceptional.pdf
Nielsen, M. E. (2002). Gifted students with learning disabilities: Recommendations for identification and programming. Exceptionality, 10(2), 93. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ofm&AN=507738790&site=ehost- live&scope=site
Nielsen, M. E., & Higgins, L. D. (2015). Into the wilderness.. Gifted Child Today, 38(4), 220. doi:10.1177/1076217515597278
Interactions between giftedness and disabilities require twice-exceptional (2e) students to have access to both gifted programming and special education (SPED) resources in order to be successful in school (Baum, Schader & Owen, 2017; Nielsen & Higgins, 2015). 2e students are increasingly recognized by educators, researchers (Baldwin, et al., 2015; Maddocks, 2018; Maker, 2005; Nicpon, et al., 2011; Nielsen, 2002), and parents (Dare & Nowicki, 2015).
However, 2e students still have a hard time accessing both gifted and SPED education (Lovett, 2013; Nielsen & Higgins, 2015). Research conducted by Barnard-Brak et al. (2015) points to little empirical data on prevalence rates, though conservative estimates on the number of 2e students in public schools start at around 360,000 (National Education Association, 2006).
Barnard-Brak et al. (2015) conducted an empirical study using a random nationally representative sample of existing SPED elementary students and found the conservative incidence rate of gifted programming-qualified SPED students to be six times higher than current students receiving both gifted and SPED services. In addition, females, Black, and Hispanic students are least likely to be identified and participate in gifted programming. This study provides parents with a macro view on nationwide discrepancies in the numbers of existing SPED students that should qualify and the actual number of students participating in gifted programming. In addition, this study also provides empirical evidence for the need to pay attention to socio-economic effects in gifted and SPED education access.
What other factors hinder 2e students’ access to both gifted and SPED services? One involves teachers’ perceptions of students. Bianco and Leech (2010) investigated teacher perceptions and educational training (general, gifted, and SPED) effects on gifted programming referrals for students with disability labels. Bianco and Leech’s (2010) findings seem to suggest that teachers’ professional training influences their beliefs in whether a student diagnosed with learning disability (LD) or emotional behavioral disorders (EBD) can be successful in gifted programming. In their study, SPED teachers were least likely to believe a student with LD or EBD could participate successfully in gifted programming. In addition, teachers that focused on student deficits were less likely to believe that gifted programming was a match for students. They also believed that further IQ data was required to prove gifted abilities and were less likely to endorse gifted referrals in general. On the other hand, teachers that focused on students’ positive characteristics and believed they needed to be challenged were more likely to endorse gifted referrals.
Studies such as Bianco and Leech’s (2010) highlight how factors such as different types of teachers, existing disability labels, and whether teachers focus on positives or deficits of student characteristics can influence teacher referrals for gifted programming. These findings are important information parents can utilize and should consider when seeking to advocate for services for their 2e children.
Research conducted by Dare and Nowicki (2015) reveals that parents are often the first to recognize twice-exceptionality in their children. The study concludes that parents are willing to be strong advocates. However, they need support and knowledge about twice-exceptionality in order to be successful advocates for their children in public school settings. These studies help to illustrate how differentiating specific knowledge and strategies based on family data and student’s current status in SPED or gifted programming at school might be more useful in providing parents with relevant information they can use in their school advocacy.
The Barnard-Brak et al. (2015) findings are helpful to parents that have children that are currently already receiving SPED services. Their findings provide a general conservative estimate of the extent of under-identification for 2e students. Parents with children participating only in gifted programming or not identified for either service will not find direct applications from the Barnard-Brak et al. (2015) findings. Parents can share knowledge gained from these findings with their local school districts or gather data from teachers on their thoughts on why some teachers may focus on the positives and others focus on negatives and whether there is a program mismatch in gifted services for qualified SPED students in their district. Such steps can help bring about awareness of possible perceptual biases teachers’ educational backgrounds may play in gifted referrals of twice-exceptional students receiving SPED services only. In addition, particular attention should be paid to socio-economic factors that may hinder access to gifted programing in public schools.
References
Barnard-Brak, L., Johnsen, S. K., Pond Hannig, A., & Wei, T. (2015). The incidence of potentially gifted students within a special education population. Roeper Review, 37(2), 74. doi:10.1080/02783193.2015.1008661
Baum, S. M., Schader, R. M., & Owen, S. V. (2017). To be gifted and learning disabled: Strength-based strategies for helping twice-exceptional students with LD, ADHD, ASD, and more., 3rd ed. () Prufrock Press.
Bianco, M., & Leech, N. L. (2010). Twice-exceptional learners: Effects of teacher preparation and disability labels on gifted referrals. Teacher Education and Special Education, 33(4), 319. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ901745&site=ehost- live&scope=site
Dare, L., & Nowicki, E. A. (2015). Twice-exceptionality: Parents’ perspectives on 2e identification. Roeper Review, 37(4), 208. doi:10.1080/02783193.2015.1077911
Lovett, B. J., & Sparks, R. L. (2011). The Identification and Performance of Gifted Students With Learning Disability Diagnoses: A Quantitative Synthesis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 46(4), 304–316. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219411421810
Maker, J. (2001). DISCOVER: Assessing and developing problem solving. Gifted Education International, 15(3), 232. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ637237&site=ehost- live&scope=site
Maddocks, D. L. S. (2018). The identification of students who are gifted and have a learning disability: A comparison of different diagnostic criteria. Gifted Child Quarterly, 62(2), 175. doi:10.1177/0016986217752096
National Education Association. (2006). The twice-exceptional dilemma. Retrieved from http://www.nea.org/assets/docs/twiceexceptional.pdf
Nielsen, M. E. (2002). Gifted students with learning disabilities: Recommendations for identification and programming. Exceptionality, 10(2), 93. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ofm&AN=507738790&site=ehost- live&scope=site
Nielsen, M. E., & Higgins, L. D. (2015). Into the wilderness.. Gifted Child Today, 38(4), 220. doi:10.1177/1076217515597278
