505855

research-article2013
SGOXXX10.1177/2158244013505855SAGE OpenGilman et al.

Article

SAGE Open

Critical Issues in the Identification

July-September 2013: 1­–16
© The Author(s) 2013
DOI: 10.1177/2158244013505855
of Gifted Students With Co-Existing sgo.sagepub.com

Disabilities: The Twice-Exceptional

Barbara Jackson Gilman1, Deirdre V. Lovecky2, Kathi Kearney3, Daniel B. Peters4,

John D. Wasserman5, Linda Kreger Silverman6, Michael G. Postma7,
Nancy M. Robinson8, Edward R. Amend9, Michelle Ryder-Schoeck10,
Patricia Hedges Curry11, Sally K. Lyon12, Karen B. Rogers13, Linda E. Collins14,
Gerry M. Charlebois15, Colleen M. Harsin16, and Sylvia B. Rimm17

Abstract
Federal law ensures all students with disabilities the right to a Free, Appropriate Public Education (FAPE). However, current
policies governing a student’s eligibility for services may contribute to the underidentification of gifted children with co-existing
disabilities—the Twice-Exceptional. The emphasis on below-grade-level (or lower) performance, without regard to ability or
potential weaknesses, misses twice-exceptional students. Those who perform at grade level, by using advanced conceptual abilities
and hard work to compensate, may still require interventions and accommodations to manage increasing educational demands.
Otherwise, college and even high school graduation may be out of reach. This article reviews changing laws and policies, explores
case studies of twice-exceptional students missed, and examines the diagnosis of twice-exceptionality through comprehensive
assessment. Appropriate best practices for the identification of twice-exceptional learners, maintenance of their civil rights, and
provision of FAPE are offered for educators, parents, advocates, and legislators as federal, state, and district laws/policies evolve.

Keywords
gifted studies, special education, education, social sciences, learning disabilities, educational psychology, applied psychology,
psychology, educational measurement & assessment, assessment, clinical psychology, law and courts, legal studies, political science

Introduction hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and autism spectrum disor-

der (ASD) (Foley Nicpon, Allmon, Sieck, & Stinson, 2011)
It has become apparent that current school policies may con- strongly suggests that gifted students can have co-existing
tribute to the underidentification for specialized educational
services of gifted children with co-existing disabilities—the
1
Twice-Exceptional. This article reviews identification proce- Gifted Development Center, Westminster, CO, USA
2
dures supported by research and compares them with current Gifted Resource Center of New England, Providence, RI, USA
3
Maine School Administrative District #51, Cumberland, ME, USA
policies to locate students with disabilities. Case studies of 4
Summit Center, Walnut Creek and Los Angeles, CA, USA
gifted students with different types of disabilities are exam- 5
Independent Practice, Burke, VA, USA
ined to determine why they were overlooked by schools, and 6
Institute for the Study of Advanced Development, Westminster, CO, USA
7
the long-term ramifications of missing them. Kennedy Charter School, Charlotte, NC, USA
8
The failure to identify gifted students with disabilities University of Washington, Seattle, USA
9
Amend Psychological Services, Lexington, KY, USA
has civil rights and legal implications. Appropriate best 10
Lindbergh Schools, St. Louis, MO, USA
practices for the identification of twice-exceptional learners 11
Private Psychological Testing Practice, St. Charles, MO, USA
are recommended. This article is meant to inform and guide 12
Our Gifted Online Community, Salt Lake City, UT, USA
13
the broader education community, parents, advocates, psy- University of St. Thomas, Minneapolis, MN, USA
14
chologists, researchers concerned with disabilities in high Blue Valley School District, Overland Park, KS, USA
15
Carrollton-Farmers Branch School District, Carrollton-Farmers Branch,
functioning children, and legislators as federal, state, and TX, USA
district laws and policies evolve. 16
The Davidson Academy of Nevada, Reno, USA
17
Family Achievement Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA
Background Corresponding Author:
Barbara Jackson Gilman, Gifted Development Center, 8120 Sheridan
A recent review of 20 years of research on gifted children Blvd., Suite C-111, Westminster, CO, 80003-6104, USA.
with specific learning disabilities (SLDs), attention deficit Email: [email protected]
2 SAGE Open

disabilities, but identifying such students remains a chal- comprehensive manner. Colorado’s “Full and Individual
lenge. “First, a comprehensive individualized evaluation that Evaluation” is described as “more focused on the specific
employs an intra-individual, rather than an interindividual areas of suspected disability than in the past—when a com-
approach toward ability and achievement analysis is critical” prehensive evaluation typically meant a common and exten-
(Foley Nicpon et al., 2011, p. 7) to understand the relative sive battery of assessments given to all students referred . . .
strengths and weaknesses of gifted students with learning ” (Colorado Department of Education, Exceptional Student
disabilities. Furthermore, achievement and ability tests must Services Unit, 2012, p. 1). Yet, focused or targeted assess-
be accompanied by a variety of other developmental, perfor- ment increases the chance that giftedness or a co-existing
mance, psychometric, and sociometric measures. disability will be missed, especially if parents are asked to
Silverman (1998) also recommends that diagnosticians state the specific area of disability to be assessed. Some
use an “intrapersonal” rather than “normative” approach in weaknesses have overlapping symptoms (e.g., auditory pro-
analyzing test results to identify twice-exceptional children cessing and attentional disorders); teasing them apart requires
(p. 209). Instead of comparing a child’s scores to the scores evaluating each possibility to learn which to rule out or
of average children, she suggests that clinicians interpret the address. Moreover, examiners who are severely limited in
discrepancy between the twice-exceptional child’s strengths the scope of their assessment are less likely to confirm the
and weaknesses, and the degree to which relative weaknesses combinations of weaknesses so many twice-exceptional chil-
frustrate the full development of the child’s abilities dren exhibit. Although IDEA 2004 describes in detail the
(Silverman, 1998, 2002, 2003). broad and detailed characteristics of comprehensive assess-
Students experiencing SLDs and other disabilities in ment (Assistance to states, 2006, pp. 46642-46643), some
school have legal rights of access to comprehensive assess- educators believe RTI teams should be able to redefine com-
ment by school psychologists and other specialists. However, prehensive assessment, as desired, for a given student (e.g.,
the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act four performance assessments alone may be sufficient). Such
of 2004 (IDEA, 2004) has been widely interpreted as restrict- approaches, which may or may not comply with federal leg-
ing open access to comprehensive assessments by establish- islation, undermine a gifted child’s access to the comprehen-
ing a new introductory step in the qualification process for sive assessment needed to diagnose disabilities, and to the
special education services. Under current federal law, stu- specialists with the diagnostic training to identify them.
dents are first exposed to a process of ongoing learning Contributing to this problem, some states have further scaled
assessment by classroom teachers. Children performing back services for SLDs, allowing only students performing
below grade level (i.e., below average) are located and pro- at or below designated levels to qualify for special education
vided tiered interventions of increasing magnitude to allevi- services for SLDs. For example, Colorado views perfor-
ate performance delays—a process commonly called mance at the 12th percentile or below in an area (1½ standard
Response to Intervention or RTI. Students who fail to deviations below the mean) as representing a significant
improve to grade level, in the critical areas of oral expres- deficit (Colorado Department of Education, Exceptional
sion, listening comprehension, written expression, basic Student Services Unit, 2012, p. 3). Colorado utilizes a gap
reading skills, reading fluency skills, reading comprehen- analysis formula, allowing services only for children consid-
sion, mathematics calculation, and mathematics problem erably below grade level and making inadequate progress to
solving are then referred for special education. Yet, Silverman catch up within a reasonable time. Educators report that a
(2003) notes that gifted students with learning disabilities child is typically considered ineligible for services for SLDs
frequently perform at average or higher levels by using if he or she can catch up within 3 years without them. Because
advanced reasoning to compensate for deficits. Foley Nicpon such rules pay no heed to a child’s abilities and reasonable
and her colleagues (2011) conclude that this new focus on expectations for his or her progress, they disproportionately
curriculum-based assessment could lead to fewer referrals exclude twice-exceptional children from needed services.
for services for those students who are performing average or For students who barely qualify, interventions may be termi-
above in a given academic area, despite the relative discrep- nated as soon as performance improves beyond designated
ancy between this performance and their cognitive abilities. low levels. When comprehensive assessment is done, such
According to a series of clarifications issued by the U.S. rules may undermine accurate interpretation by school psy-
Department of Education, “an RTI process does not replace chologists and confuse parents if diagnoses are skewed to
the need for a comprehensive evaluation” (U.S. Department reflect only the most extreme weaknesses considered dis-
of Education, 2007), nor can it be used “to delay or deny the abilities by the state.
provision of a full and individual evaluation” (Musgrove, Other states appear to be more supportive of twice-excep-
2011, p. 2). However, states have not done enough to ensure tional students, but with critical limitations. Minnesota
comprehensive assessment is available when needed. allows two ways to qualify for services—through 5th per-
Students not located by RTI should have access to compre- centile or below performance or a 1.75 standard deviation
hensive assessment if requested by parents, but some states discrepancy (Weinberg, v./Minnesota Department of
withhold such assessment or seek to redefine it in a less than Education, 2009). Although such a discrepancy between
Gilman et al. 3

ability and a major area of achievement would seem to qual- through comprehensive assessment and an IEP is developed,
ify some twice-exceptional children using the Minnesota a reasonable educational benefit would be to see achieve-
Regression Table, the following disclaimer is offered: ment rise in the area of SLD to better approximate what
would be commensurate with ability.
Students with exceptionally high abilities may very well exhibit Viewing these issues as a whole, the provision of FAPE
intra-individual discrepancies. A discrepancy between for twice-exceptional students cannot be assured if changing
achievement and aptitude must be put in the context of grade- definitions of disability and limited access to comprehensive
level expectations. If the student is performing within what is assessment disproportionately eliminate high ability students
expected of his/her age or state approved grade-level standards,
from consideration. FAPE cannot be guaranteed for twice-
a determination of SLD may not be appropriate. There is no
legal obligation to provide specialized services for a student
exceptional students if fiscal limitations, in the wake of a
performing within grade-level. (Weinberg, v./Minnesota recession, motivate states to limit costly assessment and ser-
Department of Education, 2009, p. 45) vices to the extent that the civil rights of some students are
compromised. This article addresses a concerning movement
Finally, although IDEA 2004 defines the RTI process as a away from support of twice-exceptional children as federal,
means of locating students with academic performance state, and local regulations evolve. Attention to this issue is
delays (at risk for SLDs), some states and school districts needed now to correct misconceptions about disabilities in
have broadened RTI team responsibilities to include the high-ability individuals, inform decision makers, shape
determination of service eligibility for students with ADHD, emerging legislation, and preserve critical supports for
autistic spectrum disorder, and other disabilities/disorders. twice-exceptional students.
As such disabilities are less related to academic performance
and appropriately diagnosed only by specialists, the merits of Discussion
using RTI to determine eligibility and guide services for such
students are questionable. In fact, emphasis on use of the RTI Changes in IDEA
process can significantly delay identification of ASDs at a
IDEA 2004 reflects a change in policy from the 1997, 1999
time when early intervention is important (Hammond,
reauthorization of the IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities
Campbell, & Ruble, 2013).
Education Act [IDEA] 1997, 1999), in which children with
SLDs were identified through comprehensive individual
Free, Appropriate Public Education assessment of ability, achievement, and all areas of potential
weakness by qualified professionals (34 C.F.R. 533). These
(FAPE) data were gathered to interpret whether a child’s academic
By federal law, all children with disabilities are entitled to achievement met reasonable expectations, considering his or
FAPE. IDEA 2004 specifies that FAPE “emphasizes special her developmental and educational experience. The use of
education and related services designed to meet their [i.e., ability–achievement discrepancies for the identification of
children with disabilities] unique needs and prepare them for children with learning disabilities was an important criterion
further education, employment, and independent living” for detecting SLDs under IDEA 1999 (34 C.F.R. 541, 543).
(p. 26510). The provision of FAPE requires schools to meet If the child’s achievement failed to approach his or her abil-
procedural and substantive requirements, commencing after ity, and was progressing atypically, this was a possible indi-
formal application for special education services is made by cation of a learning disability. Utilizing additional evaluation
parents. Procedural requirements address the timely and in all areas of potential weakness helped to rule out other
appropriate response to a formal application by parents, causes for the child’s lower-than-expected performance (e.g.,
while substantive requirements refer to provisions in an limited access to quality instruction, family stressors, lan-
Individualized Education Program (IEP) that are reasonably guage diversity, etc.). Moreover, it helped to identify pro-
calculated to confer educational benefit. Parents unaware of cessing weaknesses and other deficits likely to accompany
a disability because it has been missed by low-performance- learning disabilities (e.g., sensory, visual, and auditory pro-
based regulations are less likely to apply for accommoda- cessing weaknesses; social skills deficits; executive func-
tions and navigate the special education system successfully. tioning problems; etc.). Through the comprehensive
Such issues can undermine the provision of FAPE for gifted assessment process, gifted children who performed at the
children with disabilities. average level in areas of disability, well below expectations
Grade-level performance should not be construed by for their ability, were frequently identified and provided ser-
teachers or parents to mean that the child already has an edu- vices for learning disabilities under IDEA 1999; today, these
cation with reasonable benefit and requires neither services children may not be considered for services under IDEA
nor assessment. As average performance in a major learning 2004 as interpreted by states.
area is a red flag for SLDs with learning disabled/gifted stu- Although IDEA 2004 continues to allow a pattern of
dents, further investigation is needed. If an SLD is confirmed strengths and weaknesses to be used as an indicator of
4 SAGE Open

learning disability, it mandates that the criteria adopted by disability, disability may conceal giftedness, or the child’s
each state “must not require the use of a severe discrepancy strengths and weaknesses may appear average when com-
between intellectual ability and achievement for determin- bined (Silverman, 2009). Assessments commonly available
ing whether a child has a specific learning disability” to teachers provide no easy answers, and teachers rarely have
(Assistance to states, 2006, p. 46647). The 2004 legislation access to comprehensive testing results. Achievement test
places the primary responsibility for diagnosing SLDs in the scores among twice-exceptional children cannot be expected
hands of teachers, based on multiple classroom achievement to be as low as those of learning disabled children who are
measures. Such curriculum-based assessment avoids com- not gifted. States that require twice-exceptional students to
prehensive assessments by school psychologists and other qualify separately as “gifted” and as “LD” introduce a dou-
specialists, and conserves financial resources. However, for ble hurdle for such students to overcome to receive services
a twice-exceptional child’s average performance to alert (Brody & Mills, 1997). The identification process is made
teachers, the student’s complex patterns of strengths and more problematic when state criteria for giftedness and
weaknesses must be evident and appreciated by the teacher. learning-disability services do not consider the possible co-
The chance that twice-exceptional children will be missed existence of these exceptionalities. Foley Nicpon and her
increases with excessive demands on teacher time and colleagues (2011) caution that students’ disabilities could
inadequate education in observable twice-exceptional affect their ability testing performance, and thus, they may
characteristics. not meet gifted criteria. McKenzie (2010) goes further,
The ramifications of overlooking a twice-exceptional observing the potentially reciprocal “masking” effects that
child are significant. Once missed for special education ser- giftedness and learning disability have on each other, affect-
vices, the child is less likely to be identified later, and a ing student capacities to satisfy eligibility requirements for
promising educational trajectory may be compromised. either or both exceptionalities (p. 164).
Students needing classroom or testing accommodations Efforts have been made to expand RTI to address the
through a 504 Plan are less likely to get them. Without a his- needs of low-performing and high-performing students. The
tory of accommodations for a problem, accommodations for assumption is that if an RTI team can identify struggling stu-
later standardized tests (e.g., College Board exams) become dents and initiate interventions in the regular classroom, it
inaccessible. The termination of periodic comprehensive can also locate and serve gifted students needing advanced
assessment for high school students may make essential col- instruction (Choice & Walker, 2010). RTI used in this way
lege accommodations inaccessible because most colleges might enable gifted education to transition from a largely
require assessment within 3 years of college entrance to supplementary service to the regular classroom. When used
grant them, even if the student has a history of special educa- for twice-exceptional students, RTI could potentially address
tion services (an IEP or 504 Plan) or accommodations. strengths and weaknesses within the same environment.
Unidentified twice-exceptional students have no access to Colorado has embraced this approach, defining RTI as “a
the supports that might prevent or mitigate course failures in framework that promotes a well-integrated system connect-
high school, and may be pushed out of school when failed ing general, compensatory, gifted, and special education in
coursework cannot be fully made up by taking remedial sum- providing high quality, standards-based instruction and inter-
mer courses. vention that is matched to students’ academic, social-emo-
tional, and behavioral needs” (Colorado Department of
Education, 2008, p. 3). Given Colorado’s narrow interpreta-
RTI and Gifted Students
tion of eligibility for special education services for SLDs,
RTI, a regular education initiative, was designed to address a this broad conceptualization of RTI could fill the gap. Yet,
variety of student performance difficulties without waiting private examiners of the gifted report dramatic increases in
for a child to show the requisite ability-achievement discrep- unidentified twice-exceptional students brought for testing in
ancy to qualify for special education. Under RTI, teams of Colorado since 2008. Many parents describe sharing con-
teachers identify children performing below grade level and cerns with a child’s teacher(s), only to be told that the student
apply scientifically based interventions—without first “wait- is fine. Some parents report being chastised by teachers for
ing for a child to fail.” Thus, interventions can be applied having expectations that are too lofty and not appreciating
quickly, beginning in the classroom and discontinued once a their “average” child.
student meets grade-level expectations. The predicament is that RTI’s legal mandate extends only
RTI was not developed with gifted children in mind, and to children who perform below grade level. Teachers who
adaptation of its rules for gifted children was overlooked in recognize and appreciate a twice-exceptional student’s needs
the federal legislation. Classroom teachers can voluntarily may voluntarily provide RTI interventions, but considerable
raise achievement benchmarks and initiate RTI interventions time is required for planning, monitoring, and paperwork. If
for a gifted but average-performing child. However, such twice-exceptional students who perform at grade level are
children often present a confusing picture and go unrecog- missed through RTI, parents have no right to due process.
nized. Intellectual advancement may hide significant Because few students become eligible for special education
Gilman et al. 5

services without first being located through RTI, their access the area of learning disability (e.g., reading), as well as dis-
to FAPE may be compromised. crepancies between reading and other areas of learning (oral
The current mandated RTI approaches to address weak- language, writing, math). Discrepancies of 1 to 1½ standard
nesses should at least be adapted for use with students of deviations (usually 15-23 composite score points) suggest
higher ability to prevent inequities. Reynolds (1984-1985) problems. The greater the discrepancy between the observed
writes: reading problem and competence in one or more of the listed
abilities, the more likely the disability is caused by intrinsic
Some states exclude children who do not score below grade factors. The learning disability reflects a significant depar-
level, regardless of any discrepancy between IQ, expected ture from the child’s progress in other areas. It is resistant to
achievement level, and obtained achievement level, regardless intervention (most disabilities are lifelong), although gifted
of the type of mathematical model applied. Any such children respond more quickly to interventions than less
exclusionary model will result in the systematic denial of
advanced children, and later accommodations may be minor.
services to children with IQs above 100 with the higher the IQ
the more likely the denial of services. Yet, these are most likely
The gifted child with a reading disability (dyslexia) may
to be the ones able to benefit most from services for the learning exhibit some or all of the following: problems retaining
disabled. (p. 457) sound/symbol relationships (phonics), word spellings, or
math facts in long-term memory; visual perceptual/direc-
In utilizing RTI approaches, McKenzie (2010) advises tional weaknesses (i.e., letter or word reversals, confusion
teachers to look beyond whether a student is responsive (R) with visual patterns, a tendency to get lost); sensory, visual,
or nonresponsive (NR) to instructional interventions because or auditory processing weaknesses; mathematics disability
SLD produces “unexpected low achievement” that cannot be (calculation difficulties, while math reasoning may be intact);
derived by an absolute one-dimensional indicator, such as and problems with written expression (sequencing words
the level of academic achievement alone: into sentences and thoughts onto paper). Small words may be
omitted when reading or words substituted while maintain-
The absolute nature of the low-achievement markers designed ing context. Thus, twice-exceptional students frequently
to distinguish between NR and R in RTI must not be used to require substantial extra time to process when completing
determine the relative underachievement that is characteristic of classroom activities or homework (VanTassel-Baska, 2012),
SLD, and particularly among G/LD [Gifted/Learning Disabled] fatigue easily due to compensation demands, require unusual
students. In that spirit, teachers who suspect that a student may parent support just to keep up with their classes, and need
be G/LD must not automatically doubt their judgment merely therapeutic interventions (e.g., reading interventions, occu-
because the student was determined to be R in class-wide testing. pational therapy, vision therapy, etc.) to prevent years of aca-
(McKenzie, 2010, p. 166)
demic struggle. Despite basic skills that appear typical for
grade, such skills are insufficient to support the higher-level,
McKenzie (2010) concludes that the insufficiency of RTI
rapid learning typical of gifted students.
alone with twice-exceptional students is producing a grow-
ing educational consensus on the complementary need for
Example: Student A. Age 8-5, gifted verbal and visual intel-
comprehensive psychometric assessments.
ligence; Reading Disability (dyslexia); Disorder of Writ-
ten Expression; sensory, auditory, and visual processing
Symptoms of Learning Disabilities in the Gifted weaknesses; some executive functioning issues
Student A was fortunate to be recognized as gifted early in
Are gifted children who perform at average levels truly dis- school due to her advanced math abilities. She grasped ele-
abled? While twice-exceptional students may achieve at mentary math concepts in preschool and had always enjoyed
average academic levels due to strong compensatory strate- math. However, A increasingly felt “different” because her
gies, they exhibit learning patterns common to disabled chil- reading-related academic abilities set her apart from others.
dren. For example, such students may be conceptually She hated reading, struggled with comprehension, and was
advanced but struggle with basic skills, show high verbal unable to participate in enrichment activities due to her
ability but extreme difficulty in written language, demon- weakness in reading. Sensory issues common to dyslexia
strate high levels of retention for lecture material while further challenged A. She put her hands over her ears to
struggling with reading, etc. The capacity of twice-excep- avoid loud sounds, struggled with reversals, and misunder-
tional students to compensate for an SLD appears increas- stood directions. She found it difficult to focus in a noisy
ingly challenged with development, as the pace of instruction classroom, yet her teacher did not view her as inattentive.
accelerates and large-group instruction becomes predomi- Central Auditory Processing Disorder was later diagnosed,
nant (McKenzie, 2010). despite normal auditory acuity. Magnifying lenses and vision
In assessment terms, we would expect to see a clinically therapy were prescribed for visual processing issues that
large discrepancy in test scores between reasoning ability affected her reading and writing. Student A disliked home-
and processing skills, reasoning ability and achievement in work because it took her so long to complete, and was
6 SAGE Open

Table 1. Student A’s Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children- Table 2. Student A’s Woodcock-Johnson-III Tests of
Fourth Edition (WISC-IV). Achievement (WJ-III ACH).

Standard Area Standard score Percentile Level

Composite/Index score Percentile Range
Brief Reading 93 31 Average
Verbal Comprehension 130 98 Very superior Brief Math 130 98 Superior
(“Gifted”) Brief Writing 93 33 Average
Perceptual Reasoning 133 99 Gifted
Working Memory 113 81 High average
Processing Speed 88 21 Low average
obtain if the student’s school believes there is no disability
General Ability Index 138 99 Gifted
requiring accommodation.
Yet, this third grader’s performance is far below that of a
typical gifted student. Reversals were evident in reading and
embarrassed in class when she was the slowest to finish. Her
spelling (e.g., “baby bird” was spelled “dady drbe”) and she
mother wrote that although A loved learning math, “We no
missed some sounds altogether. She labored reading pas-
longer work on math; there is simply not enough time so her
sages, frequently adding words and guessing. Unlike an
math skills are ‘rusty.’”
average student, she repeatedly mentioned her struggle with
Tested on the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children–
reading, writing, and spelling, and her feelings when she got
Fourth Edition (WISC-IV), A’s Verbal Comprehension
a bad grade. Student A reported spending at least one full day
Composite of 130 confirmed “very superior” or gifted
of every weekend on homework; otherwise, she would lose
abstract verbal reasoning and language abilities, and the like-
sleep each night working. She added, “If no one helps me in
lihood of success in a full-time gifted classroom. Perceptual
reading it will take me 24 hours!”
(visual) Reasoning (133) documented gifted visual-spatial
Student A most needs support for her strengths in school,
strengths and pattern recognition. Not surprisingly, (audi-
including advancement in math. However, assessment also
tory) Working Memory (113) scored lower, while Processing
documented the need for an IEP to provide immediate read-
Speed on paper-and-pencil tasks was low average (88).
ing/writing interventions and accommodations to manage
Student A earned the following Composite scores on the
her workload and ensure success. Accommodations are also
WISC-IV (see Table 1).
needed to address auditory, visual, and sensory processing
Student A was administered 10 individual WISC-IV sub-
weaknesses and some executive functioning issues. Student
tests, which yield scaled scores from the test manual of 1-19.
A is in peril if she fails to qualify for services through either
A’s subtest scaled scores varied from 19 (99.9th percentile)
RTI or IDEA based solely on her grade-level performance.
to 6 (9th percentile), a significant discrepancy of over 4 stan-
Already struggling with her workload in the third grade, she
dard deviations, suggestive of a learning disability. Specific
can anticipate that the reading/writing demands of her educa-
weaknesses were noted in visual-motor speed, non-meaning-
tion will only increase.
ful auditory memory, vocabulary, and visual perception.
The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Dis-
On the Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Achievement
orders, Fourth Edition (American Psychiatric Association,
(WJ-III ACH), A’s Brief Math (130) was commensurate with
1994) notes, “Particularly when Reading Disorder is associ-
her ability. However, her reading/writing performance failed
ated with high IQ, the child may function at or near grade
to approach her WISC-IV 130 Verbal Comprehension score
level in the early grades, and the Reading Disorder may not
as expected. Scores were 37 points lower (over 2 standard
be fully apparent until the fourth grade or later” (p. 49). Yet,
deviations; Table 2) in Brief Reading (93) and Brief Writing
early reading intervention is key to preventing learning prob-
(93), the latter of which includes Spelling (88) and Writing
lems in all subjects and a potential loss of motivation to
Samples (103). Scores were as follows:
learn, especially if the child’s veiled struggle is interpreted as
Student A’s assessment strongly suggests SLDs, but when
laziness. Student A exhibits a far larger strength–weakness
reading and writing skills are generally average, most schools
discrepancy than was required for any child under IDEA
will not view them as weaknesses requiring RTI services.
1999; current regulations apply an inequitable standard of
Few of A’s scores fall below average (below 90). If she can
proof of disability for twice-exceptional learners. Reynolds
qualify for special education services based on a significant
and Shaywitz (2009) write:
discrepancy between ability and achievement, with other
evidence of a significant learning problem, an IEP could pro- IQ is relevant, both in consideration of the RTI process and in
vide appropriate interventions and support. However, if her the diagnosis of LD . . . . A bright student might be functioning
state bases eligibility solely on below-grade-level perfor- below his or her capability but at an absolute level comparable
mance—regardless of ability—she will not qualify for either to the class average of his or her less able peers. That struggling
RTI or IDEA services. Even a 504 Plan, designed to provide reader . . . would be entirely invisible and overlooked in such an
classroom and testing accommodations, may be difficult to RTI process. In fact, often, the only way such struggling readers
Gilman et al. 7

Table 3. Student B’s Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Fourth Table 4. Student B’s Woodcock Johnson-III Tests of
Edition (WAIS-IV). Achievement (WJ-III ACH).

Composite/Index Standard score Percentile Range Standard Grade

Area assessed score Percentile equivalent Range
Verbal Comprehension 141 99.7 Gifted
Perceptual Organization 105 63 Average Letter-word 96 40 9.5 Average
Working Memory 95 37 Average Passage 110 75 >18.0 Average
Processing Speed 86 18 Low average Comprehension
Reading Fluency 101 54 11.2 Average
Word Attack 88 21 4.5 Low average
Broad Reading 102 56 11.4 Average
are identified is through a complete, comprehensive assessment Calculation 101 51 11.0 Average
in which cognitive abilities and psychological processes are Applied Problems 101 54 11.4 Average
evaluated. (p. 136) Math Fluency 67 1 3.9 Low
Broad Math 94 33 8.6 Average
Example: Student B. Age 16-1. Gifted verbal intelligence, Spelling 85 15 5.9 Low average
Reading Disorder, Mathematics Disorder, visual and cen- Writing Samples 103 59 13.0 Average
tral auditory processing weaknesses, suicidal ideation Writing Fluency 92 29 7.6 Average
Student B received no comprehensive assessment until Broad Written 90 26 7.5 Low average
age 16 when his parents requested a private evaluation. His Language
mother noted, “We know he is smart. Why does he struggle
in a traditional school environment?” B’s educational needs
were reasonably met at his small K-8 school; however, per- learned the multiplication tables. Although Broad Math was
formance at his competitive high school had been “a night- average, there were holes in his knowledge of arithmetic
mare.” B had earned Fs for four semesters, and making up operations. Broad Reading was average, but nonsense word
failed work was becoming impossible. He had earned three reading (Word Attack) was low average (fourth grade level),
Fs just in the semester prior to assessment and was required suggesting a reading disability (dyslexia). B admitted he
to take summer school. However, only two classes could be never learned to sound out words. Spelling was low average,
made up the following summer and B was again failing. B’s at the fifth grade level. Writing Samples showed writing
mother reported that for 2 years she had asked the school to weaknesses combined with the interesting content expected
test B; however, school personnel saw no need. B had been of a gifted student.
designated as “gifted in art and leadership,” so educators Inattention to B’s deficits undermined his ability to suc-
thought his academic problems were due to laziness. ceed in a competitive academic environment consistent with
Recently, when B’s mother requested testing again, she was his giftedness, and threatened his self-esteem. He managed
told, “We don’t do that anymore.” to compensate well enough in the early grades due to strong
On the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale–Fourth Edition reasoning ability, but his untreated deficits sabotaged his
(WAIS-IV), B earned the following Composite scores: success as school demands increased. B attended the posttest
The WAIS-IV documented B’s gifted verbal reasoning conference and was relieved to find real reasons for his fail-
ability and low average processing speed. Central Auditory ures beyond laziness, and interventions likely to help. His
Processing Disorder and visual processing weaknesses were mother reported that he said upon leaving, “Drive carefully.
subsequently confirmed by specialists, explaining his lower We finally have a reason to live.”
Perceptual Reasoning and Working Memory scores. Foley Nicpon and her associates (2011) report that twice-
Composite scores varied by 55 points (between 3 and 4 stan- exceptional students can have internalized feelings of failure,
dard deviations; Table 3). Subtest scores ranged from the depression, low self-efficacy, and worthlessness, along with
99.9th percentile to the 9th percentile, a pattern typically externalizing behaviors such as aggression and hyperactiv-
seen in individuals with learning disabilities. ity. This negative emotionality is not surprising, given the
WJ-III achievement scores ranged from the 75th to the 1st students’ frequent negative school experiences and interac-
percentile. B’s standard scores in the following table fall well tions, but is “particularly disheartening because these stu-
below his WAIS-IV Verbal Comprehension Composite of dents were found to have a great capacity for motivation and
141 (see Table 4), which should predict success in advanced confidence” (p. 7).
classes. Note how few scores fall below 90 and might not be B’s private testing failed to solve the problem. His state
detected by “below average” markers of disability. had instituted an additional low performance requirement to
B’s scores on timed tests of simple reading, math facts, ensure eligible students were well below grade level; thus, he
and writing (i.e., academic fluency) were consistent with was considered ineligible for IDEA services and an IEP. He
processing weaknesses. Math Fluency yielded a score of 67 was offered a 504 Plan with some of the accommodations
(1st percentile, third grade level). B revealed that he never suggested by the specialists he had seen. However, he was
8 SAGE Open

Table 5. Student C’s Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children- Table 6. Student C’s Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-
Fourth Edition (WISC-IV) 2004. Fourth Edition (WISC-IV) 2007.

Standard Standard
Composite/Index score Percentile Level Composite/Index score Percentile Level
Verbal Comprehension 134 99 Gifted Verbal Comprehension 138 99 Gifted
Perceptual Reasoning 117 87 High average Perceptual Reasoning 102 55 Average
Working Memory 107 68 Average Working Memory 97 42 Average
Processing Speed 88 21 Low average Processing Speed 80 9 Low average
Full Scale IQ 119 90 High average Full Scale IQ 109 73 Average
General Ability Index (GAI) 129 97 Superior GAI 123 94 Superior

Note. GAI = General Ability Index.

provided no way to make up his failing classes or to take

fewer classes per semester to finish. Teachers wanted to help, Example: Student C. Tested at age 7-1 and age 10. ADHD,
but felt their hands were tied. Without an IEP or sufficient Nonverbal Learning Disability
accommodations to prevent failure, he was forced out of Student C was tested privately in the first grade (2004),
school. Because B’s parents were never advised of their right after services were initially denied by her school, and again
to formally request comprehensive assessment, they did not in the fourth grade (2007). Both evaluations showed strong
do so in writing. They were unaware of their right to due evidence of giftedness, ADHD and Nonverbal Learning
process if such assessment is refused. Therefore, it is unclear Disability, with a pattern of increasing score discrepancies
whether his school could even have been held accountable between gifted WISC-IV Verbal Comprehension scores and
for procedural errors. This case represents a clear failure to declining scores in areas of weakness.
ensure FAPE. Student C’s 2004 WISC-IV yielded a discrepancy of 46
points (over 3 standard deviations; Table 5). Her 2007
Gifted Children With Other Disabilities WISC-IV yielded a discrepancy of 58 points (60 points is 4
standard deviations; Table 6). C’s Full Scale IQ scores for
(ADHD, Autistic Spectrum Disorder, etc.)
2004 (119) and 2007 (109) offer no indication of her twice-
IDEA 2004 utilizes RTI as a first and primary step in identi- exceptionality. General Ability Index (GAI) scores for 2004
fying and addressing SLDs. However, some schools have (129) and 2007 (123) offer a somewhat better estimate of
expanded its scope to include children with other disorders, reasoning strengths, but the full profile is needed to under-
such as ASD and ADHD, and have denied students accom- stand her strengths and weaknesses.
modations because they do not appear to teachers to be While WJ-III ACH Broad Reading was consistent from
“impaired enough.” Many of these children suffer from anxi- 2004 to 2007 (130, 129), Broad Math declined from 116 to
ety, being overwhelmed by stimuli, and inability to focus. 98 (in relation to age peers), largely due to untimed
Comprehensive assessment by specialists is essential for Calculation skills, which dropped from 108 (average, 70th
such diagnoses, and invaluable to guide interventions and percentile) to 78 (low, 7th percentile). Broad Written
accommodations in school. Not all disabilities should be Language declined from 126 (superior, 96th percentile) to
viewed as if they were learning disabilities in the specific 106 (average, 66th percentile). The Beery-Buktenica Visual-
areas of reading, writing, and math. Deirdre Lovecky (2004), Motor Integration Test yielded a 2004 score of 97 (average,
clinical psychologist and author of Different Minds: Gifted 42nd percentile) and 2007 score of 86 (low average, 18th
Children With ADHD, Asperger Syndrome, and Other percentile). Student C’s scores on executive function tests,
Deficits notes that gifted students with disabilities need inter- visual perception, and visual motor tests were much lower on
vention for a variety of problems in the early years, and con- the second testing, often well below average.
tinuing, even if they score above grade level. Children with Student C struggled to pass her subjects. What was unfin-
ADHD will need accommodations and remediation of exec- ished in school was sent home to complete in addition to
utive function deficits, including writing skills. Otherwise, as homework. C’s mother spent every evening, including week-
work becomes more complex and they have to juggle more ends, working with C to complete work. C needed significant
parameters at once, they start to fail. Children with ASD help interpreting directions, organizing her thoughts, and
need help with executive functions, processing speed, writ- composing written work. She labored to complete math
ten expression, and social/emotional deficits. If these twice- problems. She had difficulty breaking apart questions and
exceptional children are not given appropriate remediations figuring out what was wanted. She did not know how to
because they score too high on academics, then they are solve a slightly different problem than the one presented in
being deprived of the chance for a productive adult life. class. Though she had good ideas for stories and essays, she
(D. Lovecky, personal communication, November 20, 2010) had difficulty organizing her thoughts and writing with
Gilman et al. 9

Table 7. Student D’s Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children- D had been having a behavior problem in school. He had
Fourth Edition (WISC-IV). difficulty remaining in his seat, instead wandering around
Standard the room. He blurted out answers and told the teacher she
Composite/Index score Percentile Level was wrong about information she was giving the class. D
bothered other students, poking, pinching, hitting them, and
Verbal Comprehension 132 98 Gifted intruding into their personal space. He had several full-scale
Perceptual Reasoning 131 98 Gifted meltdowns a week in class when he became upset. Instead of
Working Memory 113 81 High average
doing his written classwork, he spent his time daydreaming
Processing Speed 83 13 Low average
and making up stories of his imagined superhero. Yet, D par-
Full Scale IQ NA
ticipated in class discussions, offered to help other students,
GAI 138 99 Gifted
and passed the state standardized testing at the “with distinc-
Note. NA = not applicable; GAI = General Ability Index. tion” level in all areas.
When D moved to his current school in Grade 3, his
behavior and social skill problems were readily apparent
excessively slow handwriting. To compensate, C’s mother from the first day. His school was concerned, but thought
had her dictate material and then recopy it. Homework was that he did not need special services since he was doing so
an exhausting process. Student C, a girl who loved to read, well academically. The behavior and social issues were tar-
enjoyed outdoor activities such as gardening, and loved sing- geted by RTI with a behavior plan. Because there was no
ing and music, had little time to pursue any of her interests. formal assessment made, the diagnosis of Asperger Syndrome
Despite the 2007 scores, which showed a decrease in gen- was missed. Thus, the behavior plan treated D as if he had a
eral performance over the three-year time span indicative of choice about his behaviors. The plan called for all students to
unmet needs, the school system denied any services because receive tickets. Those who had fewer than two warnings dur-
Student C was passing everything. The school did not take ing the day were able to keep them and receive a reward at
into account her incomplete classwork, poor grades in math, the end of the week. D lost his ticket by noon every day,
or C’s excessively slow work speed. Even though she was increasing his meltdowns; he was frequently removed from
unable to complete classwork within a time frame sufficient the room screaming and crying.
for the average student, her school did not see evidence of a At the end of third grade, his private therapist gave him
disability. Given the option of continuing the nightly home- the Asperger diagnosis. D qualified based on checklists, par-
work support or discontinuing it and allowing C to fail, her ent interview, and several interviews in which he was asked
mother, a single mom, took her out of school and home- to identify feelings, discuss other’s perspectives and the idea
schooled her through 8th grade. At that point, they moved to of empathy, all of which D could not do. A letter was submit-
another subsidized house in another town and the new school ted to the school outlining D’s issues and making recommen-
system was more responsive in providing an IEP. Student C dations for an IEP as well as specific strategies that should be
is now in 10th grade in the new school. Even with the IEP, C used to help D. This included a one-on-one aide, help with
needs homework support; however, she is now more suc- transitions and dealing with the unexpected, help with execu-
cessful. Student C demonstrates not only how passing per- tive function deficits and writing, as well as the need for aca-
formance can hide patterns of weakness, but also the essential demic stimulation. The school’s response was to give D a
need to ensure FAPE for children of limited means and no 504 plan for Grade 4.
possibility of private schools. The 504 plan was only marginally successful. Though D
was calmer, he still had extensive classroom difficulty com-
Example: Student D. Age 10, gifted, Asperger Syndrome pleting work, dealing with the unexpected, and negotiating
and ADHD-Combined Type; anxiety and depression. social situations. He did decrease the number of times he
Student D is a gifted 10-year-old, fourth-grade boy. He blurted out questions and answers. With the aide present, he
earned the following Composite scores on the WISC-IV: was able to reduce the number of meltdowns slightly.
Verbal Comprehension-132, Perceptual Reasoning-131, However, his school did not fully understand his needs.
Working Memory-113, and Processing Speed-83 (see Socially, he was not functioning at all. One child told his
Table 7). The Full Scale IQ was not calculated due to parents that he did not want to be near D because he was
the 49-point difference between highest and lowest afraid D would hurt him. When questioned about the specific
Composite scores. Instead, the GAI (which summarizes incident, D had no idea that he had transgressed. By the end
the Verbal Comprehension and Perceptual Reasoning of the year, D felt that he was no good. He made comments
scores) was used. D’s GAI of 138 (99th percentile) indi- that he wished he were dead, and became even more anxious.
cates intellectual potential within the gifted range. In con- Finally, after several classroom incidents, the school decided
trast, his Processing Speed score of 83 (13th percentile, he was eligible for an IEP for Grade 5.
low average range) suggests relatively impaired fine-motor It took 2 years for D to finally receive services he needed,
processing and handwriting speed. including a full-time aide trained in the needs of children
10 SAGE Open

with ASD, along with training of his teachers. Finally D has rules on the implementation of IDEA 2004 from the Federal
the services he needs, but he lost 2 years of his life during a Register (Assistance to states, 2006) discuss and resolve sev-
time when intervention is extremely important. RTI only eral issues associated with twice-exceptional students. (The
made matters worse; it provided only strategies, without a “comment” raises the question and the “discussion” delivers
professional qualified to make an accurate diagnosis. FAPE the official answer from the Department of Education.):
requires that a child like D receive an appropriate education.
The only way to accomplish that is for there to be an accurate Comment: Many commenters stated that the elimination of
diagnosis on which to base interventions. discrepancy models would result in an inability to identify
children with SLD [Specific Learning Disability] who are gifted.
One commenter stated that a scatter of scores should be used to
Example: Student E. Law student, moderately to exception-
identify children with SLD who are gifted.
ally gifted, Reading Disability, auditory processing issues,
Mathematics Disability Discussion: Discrepancy models are not essential for identifying
In the elementary grades, E attended the learning-disabled children with SLD who are gifted. However, the regulations
track of a private school to address her significant dyslexia. clearly allow discrepancies in achievement domains, typical of
Early IQ testing indicated average abilities due to weak- children with SLD who are gifted, to be used to identify children
nesses lowering scores. With interventions and supports, she with SLD. (p. 46647)
was moved to the regular track of the same school for her
middle-year education. With accommodations for extra time, Comment: Several commenters stated that intra-individual
books on tape, use of a calculator, emphasis on writing con- differences, particularly in cognitive functions, are essential to
tent, rather than spelling, she began to win academic awards, identifying a child with an SLD and should be included in the
and demonstrate uncommon leadership and creativity. In eligibility criteria in § 300.309.
subsequent testing, E’s IQ scores rose with interventions.
She earned gifted scores and, increasingly, presented as Discussion: As indicated above, as assessment of intra-individual
differences in cognitive functions does not contribute to
highly to exceptionally gifted. E attended a full-time gifted
identification and intervention decisions for children suspected
program within a public high school, where she benefited of having an SLD. The regulations, however, allow for the
from continued accommodations and graduated with multi- assessment of intra-individual differences in achievement as
ple honors. She distinguished herself in academics and part of an identification model for SLD. The regulations also
became a powerful self-advocate, even winning a lawsuit allow for the assessment of discrepancies in intellectual
against a high profile university that refused her accommo- development and achievement. (p. 46651)
dations for entrance tests. E went on to college, graduating
with distinction, and is now flourishing in law school. The Learning Disabilities Association of America’s White
E’s history is notable for her success with sensible inter- Paper on evaluation of SLDs (2010) concurs that an “ . . .
ventions and continued accommodations for lifelong chal- approach that identifies a pattern of psychological process-
lenges, combined with support for her giftedness. Armed ing strengths and deficits, and achievement deficits consis-
with assistive technologies (i.e., a Dragon Naturally Speaking tent with this pattern of processing deficits, makes the most
voice-activated word processor and Kurzweil optical text empirical and clinical sense: . . . ” (p. 2). Such an approach
reader that offers multi-sensory help to read complex texts) separates children with SLDs from those who simply have
and double time for tests, she can reasonably demonstrate the learning delays. LDA concludes,
full extent of her knowledge. However, if she were a young
child now in states requiring performance at very low levels, An empirically-validated RTI model could be used to prevent
she would either be denied services altogether or provided learning problems, but comprehensive evaluations should occur
services only for the brief time required to progress beyond a whenever necessary for SLD identification purposes, and
low absolute performance requirement. Under such circum- children with SLD need individualized interventions based on
stances, E’s story would more likely have reflected Student specific learning needs, not merely more intense interventions
designed for children in general education. (Learning Disabilities
B’s experience, with increasing failure as educational
Association of America, 2010, p. 6)
demands increased.
While IDEA 2004 requires states to utilize RTI as part of
Comprehensive Assessment: A Legal the comprehensive evaluation process for determining SLDs,
according to the Office of Special Education and
Mandate Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) of the U.S. Department of
Access to comprehensive assessment must be preserved to Education (2007), RTI cannot be permitted to constitute the
explore and clarify needs that are unclear or missed in the entire process. Since publication of the final regulations,
classroom. According to federal law, test score discrepancies OSERS published the following questions and answers in
can still be used but are not required. The following final January 2007 to provide interpretive guidance:
Gilman et al. 11

Question C-6: May an eligibility determination be made using some advanced learning options (with accommodations), as
only information that was collected through an RTI process? well. Such services would have improved B’s skills prior to
entering a competitive high school. Most importantly, care-
Answer: The Department provided additional clarification ful monitoring of his course load could have kept B’s learn-
regarding this issue in the Analysis of Comment and Changes ing demands reasonable and avoided failure. With early
section of the regulations, page 46648. This section states, “an
therapeutic interventions, it is possible that limited accom-
RTI process does not replace the need for a comprehensive
modations for classroom learning or standardized testing
evaluation. A public agency must use a variety of data gathering
tools and strategies even if an RTI process is used . . . ” “The would have been sufficient later. B would have benefitted
results of an RTI process may be one component of the from a word processor with spell check or voice-activated
information reviewed as part of the evaluation procedures . . . word processor for writing; audio books or a computer text
[but] an evaluation must include a variety of assessment tools reader for reading; use of a calculator; extra time, a key-
and strategies and cannot rely on any single procedure as the board, or a scribe for standardized tests and college board
sole criterion for determining eligibility for special education exams. Including specialist recommendations for visual or
and related services.” (p. 46648) auditory weaknesses might have aided classroom learning.
Such an approach would have prevented the devastating “too
States that have largely terminated their use of compre- little too late” scenario that resulted. Student B could have
hensive individual assessment offer little else to provide a been provided reasonable services to allow a highly capable
fair evaluation. Private assessment and therapeutic interven- student to complete high school successfully and go to
tions may be a parent’s only choice to explore and address college.
disabilities. If a child shows evidence of disability and the Instead, B did not qualify as having a disability due to
RTI process has failed to recognize it or provide successful reasoning such as the following (as seen on multiple state
interventions, the child has the right to a timely initial evalu- special education websites):
ation for special education services. It is reasonable to
assume that this includes assessment by trained professionals An individual student who has had a diagnosis of dyslexia may
outside the classroom. A recent memorandum from the or may not be eligible for special education services—it is never
United States Department of Education states: an automatic conclusion that if a student is identified as having
dyslexia, that student is also eligible for special education
It has come to the attention of the Office of Special Education services . . . The fact that the determination of the significance of
Programs (OSEP) that, in some instances, local educational an academic skill deficit is no longer based on a comparison
agencies (LEAs) may be using Response to Intervention (RTI) between assessed achievement and assessed ability or
strategies to delay or deny a timely initial evaluation for children intelligence has also caused some confusion. A significant
suspected of having a disability. States and LEAs have an academic skill deficit is now determined by comparing a child’s
obligation to ensure that evaluations of children suspected of academic skill level to grade-level standards or norms. (Colorado
having a disability are not delayed or denied because of Department of Education, Exceptional Student Services Unit,
implementation of an RTI strategy. (Musgrove, 2011, p. 1) 2012, p. 7)

This timely evaluation should explore not only the area of The question must be asked: Given the guarantee of a
suspected disability but also all areas related to the suspected “FAPE,” is it ethical to redefine disability in a way that
disability, including, if appropriate, health, vision, hearing, denies eligibility for special education services to children
social and emotional status, general intelligence, academic who cannot succeed in school without them? The first spe-
performance, communicative status, and motor abilities. cial education case heard by the Supreme Court, Board of
Information from parents is needed to understand the child’s Educ. v. Rowley (1982) addresses fundamental issues. It
current situation, as well as psychosocial, health, and devel- notes that special education law was largely enacted to pro-
opmental history. Such comprehensive assessment is needed vide students access to public education who had been previ-
to reveal the complex patterns of strengths and weaknesses ously excluded or were “sitting idly in regular classrooms
that define twice-exceptionality, and document the need for awaiting the time when they were old enough to ‘drop out’”
special education services. (p. 179). The Rowley case clarifies that special education
How might early comprehensive assessment have does not guarantee any particular level of education once
changed the life of Student B, who was forced out of high inside; yet, a child’s special education should at least provide
school? Such evaluation could have diagnosed B’s reading “benefit.” It further states:
and mathematics disabilities in elementary school and
prompted early reading intervention and related services. B In addition, the IEP, and therefore the personalized instruction. .
believes he would have benefitted from some therapeutic .should be reasonably calculated to enable the child to achieve
learning situations (e.g., work with a reading therapist, passing marks and advance from grade to grade. (Board of Educ.
resource room assistance). He might have flourished with v. Rowley, 1982, p. 204)
12 SAGE Open

(not email) and include permission for the assess-

Student B was unable to achieve passing marks and ment. Parents can be excellent indicators of potential
advance from grade to grade without services. He was sitting problems. The need for testing should not be deter-
(if not idly) in classrooms awaiting the time when he would mined by teacher observation. No parent should be
be forced to leave high school due to failure. Similarly, many casually denied testing for a child, informed that a
students such as Student A, B’s younger counterpart, have child is “average,” or that testing is no longer
unrecognized learning disabilities and no access to educa- available.
tional programs at their public schools that would provide 3. Parents may contact their regional United States
“benefit” for their disabilities. Student C, whose performance Department of Education Office of Civil Rights for
declined over several years as her school denied services, help if a school refuses to evaluate a child, or fails to
demonstrates the total dependence of children without means consider or follow a 504 Plan or IEP (see
on appropriate, free, public education. Her mother had to http://3wdcrobcolp01.ed.gov/cfapps/OCR/contactus.
homeschool, then move to another town to gain public school cfm for the nearest office). Time limits (e.g., up to
services for her daughter. Student D’s behavioral and social 180 days) apply to contest such decisions and a paper
problems due to Asperger syndrome were amplified as teach- trail of the parent’s contact with school officials is
ers initially overlooked them due to high test scores, then necessary.
slowly implemented RTI and 504 Plans. The ill-advised RTI 4. Educators and legislators should adapt RTI legisla-
behavior plan caused meltdowns and the 504 Plan allowed tion and program strategies to include and protect
D’s social difficulties to intensify, causing him to feel he was gifted students with disabilities. Remove below-
no good, experience greater anxiety, and wish he were dead. grade-level performance requirements. Combine RTI
It was not until fifth grade that D received an IEP with rec- intervention strategies and comprehensive assess-
ommendations guided by the specialist who diagnosed him. ment to guide eligibility and needed interventions,
D’s case underscores the notion that the only way to ensure and continue interventions as long as the child is
FAPE is with an accurate diagnosis on which to base improving. Scientifically based interventions should
interventions. meet the higher conceptual needs of the gifted.
As special education in the U.S. shifts its focus away from 5. Legislators and educational administrators should
students exhibiting “unexpectedly” low performance to only eliminate any absolute performance requirements
those meeting below-grade-level, absolute performance cri- from federal, state, or district policies for the identifi-
teria, equity issues arise. This new definition of disability, cation of children with SLDs that prohibit the inclu-
designed to avoid “waiting for a child to fail,” makes gifted sion of higher ability children from needed services,
students wait longer—perhaps indefinitely—to be recog- undermine the provision of FAPE, and threaten civil
nized (Reynolds & Shaywitz, 2009). Such children can only rights.
look forward to being undereducated and underemployed. 6. Districts and other educational entities should pro-
Must a generation of our most capable students fail before vide teacher training in the personality and perfor-
changes are made? mance patterns of twice-exceptional students to
improve classroom identification of gifted students
with deficits and raise academic progress bench-
Recommendations for Best Practices
marks for gifted children.
1. Schools should provide comprehensive assessment
whenever a disability or second exceptionality is sus-
Conclusion
pected in a gifted child. Consider testing capable stu-
dents who struggle and present a conundrum to Efforts to curb costly special education services for students
teachers or parents. Laziness and motivational issues with disabilities have undermined the identification of gifted
are rarely the cause of underperformance for such stu- children with disabilities: the Twice-Exceptional. New regu-
dents. Include students with suspected other disorders, lations have reduced access to comprehensive assessment and
including ADHD, ASD, etc. Utilize comprehensive introduced restrictive, achievement-based eligibility require-
assessments for diagnosis, eligibility determinations, ments. Research indicates that gifted students with SLDs,
and to guide interventions. Ongoing learning assess- ADHD, and ASDs are best identified by a complex pattern of
ments may be included within a body of evidence, but strengths and weaknesses, detected through comprehensive
are insufficient for eligibility determinations. assessment by psychologists and other specialists experi-
2. Educators must inform parents who report perfor- enced with gifted children. Comprehensive assessments are
mance concerns in a bright child of the student’s right needed to determine the nature and severity of the disorder(s)
to comprehensive assessment, the protocol required and recommend appropriate educational responses.
to request it, and the right to due process if the request Since the 2004 reauthorization of federal special educa-
is denied. Parents should submit a request in writing tion law (IDEA, 2004), the first step toward application for
Gilman et al. 13

services for SLDs is the RTI process in which classroom all areas related to the suspected disability, and can initiate
teachers locate children performing below grade level (below due process if a school refuses. Average work for twice-
average) and initiate interventions of increasing magnitude exceptional students may represent a “failure to thrive” and
to alleviate performance delays. This new initial step replaces should not be construed as evidence that a student has no
previous large-scale comprehensive assessment by having disabilities. To ensure equity and avoid an excessive crite-
classroom teachers refer for special education only those stu- rion for identification, the discrepancy between strengths and
dents who first fail to respond appropriately to RTI interven- weaknesses required for twice-exceptional children to qual-
tions. However, there is growing concern that ify for services must be no greater than the discrepancy
twice-exceptional children may be missed through this pro- required for average children. Comprehensive assessment
cess. Many score at average levels on achievement measures can be used to identify twice-exceptional students and guide
by using their advanced reasoning to compensate for dis- interventions for them through any instructional framework,
abilities, despite significant learning disabilities that could including RTI.
undermine their success. Whereas prior to 2004 such chil- The current inclination of states and school districts to
dren could have been identified as having SLDs through reduce expensive special education services for students
documented atypical academic progress for their high ability, with learning disabilities and other deficits by identifying
current achievement-based assessments alone may miss only those who achieve at low average to low levels reflects
them. Some states have extended RTI responsibilities to also a fundamental misconception about serving the most needy.
determine service eligibility for children with ADHD, autis- Even when financial limitations force cutbacks, disabilities
tic spectrum disorders, and other disabilities less related to present similar barriers to the educational success of high
academic performance. Some gifted students with these dis- ability children, and comparably grave results when the dis-
abilities have been denied interventions because they do not ability is ignored. If schools are to ensure FAPE for all, dis-
appear to teachers to be “impaired enough,” without evalua- regarding higher ability children with significant disabilities
tion by specialists. cannot be justified.
RTI has been championed as a potential framework for
differentiating education for low-performing and high-per- Authors’ Note
forming gifted students. If used in this way, it has potential to This article represents the combined contributions of professionals
improve gifted education programs that are now mostly sup- in the field of gifted assessment, gifted education, and gifted advo-
plementary, and offers a means to address the strengths and cacy, brought together by a single concern: the underidentification
weaknesses of twice-exceptional students, beginning in the for special education services of gifted students with disabilities.
regular classroom. However, IDEA 2004 only mandates the The views expressed in this article represent both the experience
identification of below-grade-level students through RTI. and consensus of the authors, following a multiyear investigation of
The extension of RTI frameworks to include gifted and the causes and solutions to this problem.
twice-exceptional students is both voluntary and dependent
upon teachers recognizing twice-exceptionality when symp- Acknowledgments
toms often present a conundrum. Parents have no due pro- We wish to express our appreciation to Deirdre Lovecky for sharing
cess if children are missed. her expertise in gifted children with ADHD and ASD, to Kathi
As state and local regulations have been codified since Kearney for a wealth of research for this article, and to John
2004, some states have imposed performance restrictions Wasserman for editing and research. We thank our psychologists
well below grade level for children to qualify for special edu- for providing case studies of actual students and our author-parents
for keeping the personal ramifications of “children with no ser-
cation services for SLDs. These may or may not comply with
vices” in our sights. Bobbie Gilman, Dan Peters, Mike Postma, and
IDEA 2004, but threaten the eligibility of gifted students Kathi Kearney created early drafts of the article, which then under-
with SLDs for services and can conceal disabilities from par- went a lengthy review process by all authors. Nancy Robinson,
ents. Moreover, they raise the specter of increased movement Edward Amend, and Linda Collins offered additional help with
away from relative approaches to the detection of disabilities editing and references. Most of the authors hail from a National
as laws continue to evolve. Association for Gifted Children Assessment Task Force (later a
Whenever a disability is suspected in a gifted child, access Special Interest Group), first led by Sylvia Rimm and Linda
to comprehensive assessment is essential to determine the Silverman. We thank Linda Silverman for her enthusiastic commit-
level of giftedness, degree of impairment due to disabilities, ment to this project, help with content, and editorial expertise. We
areas affected by the disability, and specific accommodations are grateful to Sylvia Rimm for her continuing support and encour-
needed for a twice-exceptional child. Access to comprehen- agement for our efforts. Finally, we appreciate Jim Delisle’s invalu-
sive assessment is assured. Clarification of IDEA 2004 con- able assistance as advisor and ambassador for our work.
firms that an RTI process does not replace the need for
comprehensive evaluation, nor can it unduly delay or deny a Declaration of Conflicting Interests
request for a special education evaluation. Parents have the The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect
right to request a comprehensive evaluation at any time, in to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
14 SAGE Open

Funding Reynolds, C. R., & Shaywitz, S. E. (2009). Response to Intervention:

Ready or not? Or, from wait-to-fail to watch-them-fail. School
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, author-
Psychology Quarterly, 24, 130-145.
ship, and/or publication of this article.
Silverman, L. K. (1998). Through the lens of giftedness. Roeper
Review, 20, 204-210.
References Silverman, L. K. (2002). Upside-down brilliance: The visual spa-
American Psychiatric Association (1994). Diagnostic and statisti- tial learner. Denver, CO: DeLeon.
cal manual of mental disorders, (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Silverman, L. K. (2003). Gifted children with learning disabilities.
Author. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted edu-
“Assistance to states for the education of children with disabili- cation (3rd ed., pp. 533-543). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
ties and preschool grants for children with disabilities; Final Silverman, L. K. (2009). The two-edged sword of compensa-
rule.” Federal Register 71:156 (2006, August 14) (codified as tion: How the gifted cope with learning disabilities. Gifted
34 C.F.R. Parts 300 and 301), p. 46647. Retrieved from idea Education International, 25(2), 115-130.
.ed.gov/download/finalregulations.pdf VanTassel-Baska, J. (2012, March-April). The role of parents in
Board of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982). helping gifted children with learning problems. 2e Twice-
Brody, L. E., & Mills, C. J. (1997). Gifted children with learn- Exceptional Newsletter, Issue 51, pp. 3-4.
ing disabilities: A review of the issues. Journal of Learning U.S. Department of Education. (2007, January). Building the leg-
Disabilities, 30, 282-286. acy: IDEA 2004. Q and A: Questions and answers on Response
Choice, P., & Walker, S. (2010). The new RtI response to intel- to Intervention (RTI) and Early Intervening Services (EIS)
ligence. Marion, IL: Pieces of Learning. [Formal Answer to Question C-6]. Retrieved from http://idea
Colorado Department of Education. (2008). Response to Intervention .ed.gov/explore/view/p/%2Croot%2Cdynamic%2CQaCorner
(RtI): A practitioner’s guide to implementation. Retrieved from %2C8%2C
http://www.cde.state.co.us/sites/default/files/documents/rti/
downloads/pdf/rtiguide.pdf
Colorado Department of Education, Exceptional Student Services
Supplemental Readings
Unit. (2012, April). SLD topic brief: Evaluation and eligibility. Eide, B., & Eide, F. F. (2006) The mislabeled child. New York:
Retrieved from http://www.cde.state.co.us/sites/default/files/ Hyperion. This is a reference for symptoms of a variety of dis-
documents/cdesped/download/pdf/sld_topicbrief_evaluatio- abilities that can cause problems in school.
neligibility.pdf. Eide, B., & Eide, F. F. (2011). The dyslexic advantage. New York:
Foley Nicpon, M., Allmon, A., Sieck, B., & Stinson, R. D. (2011). Hudson Street Press. This book focuses on individuals who
Empirical investigation of twice-exceptionality: Where have overcame dyslexia, providing concrete suggestions for devel-
we been and where are we going? Gifted Child Quarterly, 55, oping typical strengths and overcoming weaknesses at differ-
3-17. doi:10.1177/0016986210382575 ent age levels.
Hammond, R. K., Campbell, J. M, & Ruble, L. A. (2013). Hoagies Gifted Education Page, http://www.hoagiesgifted.org/
Considering identification and service provision for students Hoagies offers a large library of information for parents, educa-
with autism spectrum disorders within the context of Response tors, counselors, administrators, and students about all aspects
to Intervention. Exceptionality, 21, 34-50. doi:10.1080/093628 of giftedness. There is a twice-exceptional page with informa-
35.2013.750119 tion on specific disabilities in the gifted. http://www.hoagies-
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, P.L. 105-17, 20 U.S.C. gifted.org/twice_exceptional.htm
§1400 et. Seq. (Statute). 34 C.F.R. 300 (Regulations) (1997, Lovecky, D. V. (2004). Different minds: Gifted children with
1999). ADHD, Asperger Syndrome, and other learning deficits.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, London: Jessica Kingsley. These issues are explored within the
P.L. 108-446, 20 U.S.C. § 1401, 118 STAT. 2657 (2004). context of different levels and kinds of giftedness. This book
Learning Disabilities Association of America. (2010). White paper clarifies diagnosis and suggests appropriate ways to nurture
on evaluation, identification, and eligibility criteria for stu- these children at home and at school.
dents with specific learning disabilities. Retrieved from http:// 2e Twice-Exceptional Newsletter [www.2eNewsletter.com] pro-
www.ldanatl.org/pdf/LDA%20White%20Paper%20on%20 vides news, articles, court cases, conference announcements,
IDEA%20Evaluation%20Criteria%20for%20SLD.pdf book reviews and support for parents and professionals helping
McKenzie, R. G. (2010). The insufficiency of Response to twice-exceptional children reach their potential.
Intervention in identifying gifted students with learning dis- Webb, J. T., Amend, E. R., Webb, N. E., Goerss, J., Beljan, P., &
abilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 25, Olenchak, F. R. (2005). Misdiagnosis and dual diagnoses of
161-168. gifted children and adults. Scottsdale: Great Potential Press.
Musgrove, M. (2011, January 21). Memorandum: A Response to This book addresses misdiagnosis of gifted children with
Intervention (RTI) process cannot be used to delay-deny an behavioral and emotional disorders due to characteristics of
evaluation for eligibility under the Individuals with Disabilities gifted children that mimic pathological diagnoses.
Education Act (IDEA) [OSEP Policy Letter]. Retrieved from Weinberg, v./Minnesota Department of Education. (2009).
http://www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/memosdcltrs/ Determining the eligibility of students with specific learn-
index.html ing disabilities. Roseville, MN: Minnesota Department of
Reynolds, C. R. (1984-1985). Critical measurement issues in learn- Education. Retrieved from http://education.state.mn.us/MDE/
ing disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 18, 451-476. EdExc/SpecEdClass/DisabCateg/SpecLearnDisab/index.html
Gilman et al. 15

Wrightslaw Special Education Law and Advocacy, www.wright- 33 years, she has studied over 6,000 children who have been
slaw.com/ This website offers information about special edu- assessed at GDC, the largest data bank on this population. She has
cation law, education law, and advocacy for children with written over 300 articles, chapters and books, including Giftedness
disabilities. It is a source of books by attorney Peter Wright 101, Upside-Down Brilliance: The Visual-Spatial Learner,
and co-authors, and has a twice-exceptional page. Advanced Development: A Collection of Works on Giftedness in
Adults, and the textbook, Counseling the Gifted and Talented, serv-
Author Biographies ing as editor and contributor.
Barbara (Bobbie) Jackson Gilman, MS, is Associate Director of Michael G. Postma, EdD, serves as Head of School at Kennedy
the non-profit Gifted Development Center in Westminster, CO, Charter School in Charlotte, NC. Michael has two children with
where she specializes in the assessment of gifted and twice-excep- dual exceptionalities and is active in that field writing and present-
tional children for educational planning and advocacy, consultation ing on 2e and other educational issues.
with parents, and research on the gifted and effective gifted assess-
Nancy M. Robinson, PhD, a psychologist, is Professor Emerita of
ment. She wrote Academic Advocacy for Gifted Children: A
Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at the University of Washington.
Parent's Complete Guide and Challenging Highly Gifted Learners.
Her interest in assessment began as a teaching assistant to Maud
She co-chairs the National Association for Gifted Children's
Merrill, co-author of the 1937-1972 Stanford Binets. She has stud-
Assessments of Giftedness Special Interest Group and spearheaded
ied precocity in young children and outcomes of early college
its work on twice-exceptional issues.
entrance. She has received both the Distinguished Scholar and the
Deirdre V. Lovecky, PhD, is a clinical child psychologist who Anne Isaacs Founders Memorial awards from the National
directs the Gifted Resource Center of New England in Providence, Association for Gifted Children.
Rhode Island, where she offers assessment, psychotherapy and con-
Edward R. Amend, PsyD, licensed psychologist, provides com-
sultation to gifted children and their families. She has conducted
prehensive psychological services in KY and OH including assess-
research and is the author of Different Minds: Gifted Children with
ment and evaluation, consultation, counseling, and therapy for
AD/HD, Asperger Syndrome and Other Learning Deficits, as well
gifted, disabled, and twice-exceptional students and their families.
as book chapters and journal articles on gifted children.
Dr. Amend is co-author of A Parent's Guide to Gifted Children and
Kathi Kearney, MA, Ed, teaches elementary gifted students in Misdiagnosis and Dual Diagnoses of Gifted Children and Adults:
Maine School Administrative District #51 in Cumberland, Maine. ADHD, Bipolar, OCD, Asperger's, Depression, and Other
She has worked with children as a teacher and administrator in a Disorders. He has served on the Board of Directors of Supporting
wide variety of settings, urban and rural, in public, private, reli- Emotional Needs of Gifted (SENG); as President of the Kentucky
gious, and home schools; teaches online courses in gifted education Association for Gifted Education; Chair for the National Association
for the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs; is a longtime for Gifted Children (NAGC) Counseling and Guidance Division;
examiner, home schooling consultant, and curriculum planner for consultant to the Davidson Institute for Talent Development; and
the gifted; and served as the past Chair of NAGC’s Conceptual Contributing Editor for Roeper Review.
Foundations Network. She has contributed scholarly journal arti-
Michelle Ryder-Schoeck, MA, EdS, is the coordinator of gifted
cles on such topics as assessment, the highly gifted child, rural and
programs and PEGS Administrator for the Lindbergh Schools, St.
distance learning, minority groups in gifted education, and Leta
Louis, Missouri, supervising gifted programming for 600 gifted stu-
Hollingworth’s work on children with IQ scores above 180.
dents and 100 exceptionally gifted students. In addition, she is an
Daniel B. Peters, PhD, Licensed Psychologist, is Co-Founder and adjunct instructor for Maryville University.
Executive Director of the Summit Center which provides assess-
Patricia Hedges Curry, MEd, has served as Gifted and Special
ment, consultation and treatment to children, adolescents, and fami-
Education Coordinator in St. Charles, MO, as an adjunct professor
lies, with special emphasis in gifted, talented, creative, and twice-
in both areas and is currently specializing in identification of
exceptional individuals. Dr. Peters serves on the Advisory Board
gifted and exceptionally gifted children in her private practice.
for the California Association of the Gifted (CAG), is on the
Previously, she received the Gifted Association of MO Parent of
Editorial Board for SENG (Supporting the Emotional Needs of the
the Year Award and has served as president of SAGE (St. Louis
Gifted), and is Co-Chair of the Assessments of Giftedness Special
Association for Gifted Education). Training teachers to work with
Interest Group for the National Association of Gifted Children
gifted children in the regular classroom is her passion which has
(NAGC). He is the recipient of the 2013 Distinguished Service
resulted in nationally presented workshops and two published
Award from the California Association for the Gifted.
articles.
John D. Wasserman, PhD is a licensed clinical psychologist and
Sally K. Lyon, MPA, is an educational consultant and founder of
neuropsychologist with a private practice in Burke, Virginia. His
Our Gifted Online Conferences and a national twice-exceptional
interests in twice-exceptional students date back to his direction of
#2E twitter network, both dedicated to providing a safe harbor for
a gifted assessment program at George Mason University and his
those who are seeking to understand and advocate for gifted chil-
direction of research and development on the Stanford-Binet Fifth
dren. She is a recipient of NAGC’s Professional Achievement
Edition.
Certificate Program 2003, UAGC’s Sally M. Todd Local Leadership
Linda Kreger Silverman, PhD is a licensed psychologist and Award 2006, and Top Online Educator Award 2007. She serves on
founder of the non-profit Institute for the Study of Advanced SENG's Editorial Board and is a liason, served on NAGC’s Parent
Development and its subsidiaries, Gifted Development Center Advisory Committee, helped develop the Mile Marker Series, and
(GDC) and Visual-Spatial Resource in Westminster, CO. In the last has written for Understanding Our Gifted.
16 SAGE Open

Karen B. Rogers, PhD, is Professor of Gifted Studies at the and presentations for educators and parents to help them better
University of St. Thomas College of Education, Leadership, and understand the nature and needs of the gifted child.
Counseling in Minneapolis, Minneapolis. She has assessed many
Colleen, M. Harsin, MA, MSW, serves as Director of The
children using both the Wechsler and Stanford Binet intelligence
Davidson Academy of Nevada. She was instrumental in the devel-
tests and is author of Re-forming Gifted Education and A Menu of
opment and expansion of the Davidson Young Scholars program,
Grouping Options for Gifted Learners.
working directly with profoundly gifted young people, their par-
Linda E. Collins, MEd, a gifted education teacher at Blue Valley ents, and educators in the areas of educational advocacy and plan-
Southwest High School in Overland Park, KS, specializes in ning, talent and interest development, and socio-emotional well-
working with 2e students, presents nationally, and enjoys being. Since 2003, Ms. Harsin has actively participated in focus
researching and writing about gifted students. In 2009, Linda was groups in support of the Institute for Research and Policy on
semi-finalist for Region 3, Kansas Teacher of the Year; was Acceleration.
Master Teacher of the Year for Blue Valley School District in
Sylvia B. Rimm, PhD, is a psychologist, Director of the Family
2004; was named a 2013 Sunflower Ambassador for the Blue
Achievement Clinic, part-time counselor at Menlo Park Academy
Valley School District; and is a member of the Editorial board for
in Cleveland, and previous member of the NAGC Board of
SENG. Currently, Linda is working on a doctorate at University
Directors. Dr. Rimm is a syndicated columnist; was a longtime con-
of Kansas.
tributor to NBC's Today Show, to public radio and a popular TV
Gerry M. Charlebois, MA, is the Executive Director for Advanced guest; is the author of more than 20 books; and co-author, with Gary
Academic Services for the Carrollton-Farmers Branch School Davis and Del Siegle, of the textbook, Education of the Gifted and
District in Carrollton-Farmers Branch, Texas. Her District is unique Talented. She is a recipient of the Ann Isaacs Award, and the first
in that it provides programs and services, in a public school setting, recipient of the Palmarium Award, both for her contributions to
for the profoundly gifted child. She has provided staff development gifted education.