The impact of vulnerabilities and strengths on the academic experiences of twice-exceptional students: a message to school counselors.

The ever-broadening roles of school counselors range from traditional (advisor for college planning) to novel (advocating for students with learning difficulties or giftedness). A newly recognized group of learners, with both learning difficulties and academic strengths, known as twice-exceptional learners, has emerged. After a synopsis of federal legislation that has shaped the field of twice-exceptionality,, the authors use two case examples to highlight the contribution of prevailing educational myths to the lack of attention to twice-exceptional students. They conclude with comprehensive recommendations.

**********

Twice-exceptional students baffle their parents and teachers by simultaneously displaying academic strengths and learning difficulties. They often are accused of being lazy and/or underachievers. Their strengths and limitations--either uniquely or in combination--are typically misunderstood. Twice-exceptional students, themselves, are bewildered by the inconsistencies and unpredictable results in their academic lives--inconsistencies that result from the inherent incongruity of their strengths and vulnerabilities. In addition, the unpredictability of their performance makes it difficult for educational professionals and others to understand that twice-exceptional students present distinctive attributes requiring similarly unique educational interventions.

A student is considered twice-exceptional when he or she is identified as gifted/talented in one or more areas while also possessing a learning, emotional, physical, sensory, and/or developmental disability (Yewchuk & Lupart, 1988). For twice-exceptional learners, their school counselor is the logical professional liaison between psychologist and classroom teacher. The psychologist provides the diagnostic assessment and recommendations about classroom interventions for twice-exceptional learners. The recommendations are designed to guide interventions that promote access to challenging curricula matched appropriately to their academic strengths. This curriculum is provided within supportive educational environments where their vulnerabilities also are addressed. Ultimately, the classroom teacher implements the psychologist's recommended interventions, which include attention to the students' strengths and vulnerabilities. A school counselor can facilitate communication among parents, teachers, and psychologists so that recommendations are both understood and actualized within the context of the children's educational environment.

In this article, we explore three main areas that contribute significantly to our message to school counselors. First, we provide a synopsis of the federal legislation that has shaped the current educational environment as well as the delivery systems for specialized programming. This brief discussion serves as the rationale for focusing on gifted students with learning disabilities and/or attention deficit hyperactivity, disorder (ADHD) here. Second, we discuss certain prevailing myths about gifted students, which have perpetuated the lack of attention by the general educational community, to twice-exceptional students. Through the stories of two twice-exceptional students, Jacob and Randy, the impact of these myths is addressed. These particular case studies underscore the need for parental advocacy in ensuring an appropriate learning environment for twice-exceptional children.

The case studies also emphasize the importance of basing educational recommendations on data obtained from comprehensive psychological and academic evaluations. Therefore, the third and final component to the message is a list of recommendations designed to empower school counselors as the professional charged with the responsibility to be concerned with the academic, career, and personal/ social needs of students and as someone who encourages the maximum development of every student (American School Counselor Association, 2005).

FEDERAL LEGISLATION FOR GIFTED EDUCATION AND SPECIAL EDUCATION: SEPARATE AND NOT EQUAL

Within the very broad domain of education, learning difficulties and learning strengths are represented by two separate fields: special education and gifted education. As school and counseling psychologists, we have worked with students who required adaptations to their educational environment due to their special (i.e., related to giftedness or disability) learning needs. This environment has been strongly influenced by two separate federal legislative actions, both occurring in the 1970s and both significantly shaping the landscape that would eventually distinguish the two fields and ultimately impact the lives of students as well as educators and psychologists. The challenge for educators is to assimilate information about students' strengths and/or vulnerabilities so that student achievement is enhanced, not stifled. The degree to which professionals are prepared to take on this challenge may vary significantly, based on the historical era in which they completed their professional training. In addition, it is important to bear in mind that teachers' and school counselors' professional entry into education may occur with little more than superficial exposure to the specialized needs of students requiring gifted and/or special education.

Gifted Education

In 1972, U.S. Commissioner of Education S. P. Marland led the efforts that resulted in the first national report on gifted education, Education of the Gifted and Talented, also known as the Marland Report (as cited in Colangelo & Davis, 2003). This national report elevated the status of gifted education by providing a federal definition of giftedness and proposing that the gifted make up 3-5% of the student population. The Marland definition (see Table 1 for the definition as cited by Assouline, 2003) is the dominant basis for the definitions used in most states. The report gave gifted education national stature by emphasizing the need for programming as well as by suggesting that a failure to meet the academic needs of gifted students would place them at risk for psychological damage. However, validation of gifted students' needs for specialized programming was the extent of the report's impact, as it did not include legislation leading to significant rights for gifted students, their parents, or their teachers.

Shortly after the release of the Marland Report, gifted education programs appeared throughout the nation's schools. Many of the programs were developed according to the Enrichment Triad Model (Renzulli, 1976), which is the core of Renzulli's Schoolwide Enrichment Model (SEM). Because SEM aims to provide a comprehensive menu of challenging opportunities, it is understandably attractive to many educators who want to provide a broad spectrum of gifted-education opportunities to their students. In addition, SEM uses an identification system that features above-average achievement (based on grade-level tests), creativity, and motivation. The first step to participation in a SEM program often is an evaluation of the student's performance on a nationally normed, grade-level achievement test. The next step often involves the student taking a group-administered ability test. (For a comprehensive treatment of the Schoolwide Enrichment Model, see Renzulli & Reis, 2003.)

This model is effective for most students; however, for gifted students with a disability, ironically, SEM's emphasis on above-average achievement and demonstrated motivation may inadvertently exclude from participation gifted students who have learning disabilities. This was the situation with Randy, the second of the two cases presented later here.

Another form of gifted-education programming has existed since the early 1980s, when programs for high-ability students were offered through university settings. Typically presented as a benefit of participation in university-based talent searches (Lupkowski-Shoplik, Benbow, Assouline, & Brody, 2003), these programs are almost entirely outside of the K12 domain. The talent-search model for discovering academic talent is a two-step process, and the first step, as with the Schoolwide Enrichment Model, often emanates from the student's performance on a nationally normed grade-level achievement test; however, this is the only point at which the talent-search programs resemble the SEM programming.

A comprehensive discussion of the talent-search model and its effectiveness for meeting the needs of academically able youth can be found in Lupkowski-Shoplik et al. (2003). In brief, the primary concept for the talent-search model is above-level testing, described as follows:

   A systematic assessment program using aptitude
   tests rather than achievement tests or IQ
   tests to identify talent. The tests used by talent
   search programs endeavor to allow talented
   students to use their reasoning abilities to
   solve a problem, even if the content is unfamiliar.
   (Lupkowski-Shoplik et al., p. 204)

In this context, an aptitude test is a diagnostic tool that helps determine how for a student is functioning above grade-level curricula. Such information is extremely helpful to educators who are seeking to align students to programs that are at an appropriate learning pace and curriculum level (Olzewski-Kubilius, 2004).

As mentioned above, SEM, which serves as the basis for the majority of enrichment pull-out programs for gifted students in the K-12 setting, and university-based talent-search programs are almost mutually exclusive. As additional evidence of this assertion, we report that 30% of the students who participated in the Belin-Blank Talent Search in 2004 and 2005 indicated on a survey that their "school has a gifted program, but I am not in it" (Colangelo, Assouline, & Ihrig, 2005). Because the question format for this survey was a forced-choice response, we could not ascertain why the students were not part of the school's gifted education program. However, anecdotal information gleaned over the 15 years that the Belin-Blank Assessment and Counseling Clinic at the University of Iowa has existed suggests that it is due to the fact that identification systems for enrichment programs are seeking globally gifted students, and the talent-search model focuses on aptitude in specific subject areas. Therefore, SEM and talent-search philosophies serve unique purposes in that the talent-search model uses aptitude rather than achievement or ability information for identification, and acceleration rather than enrichment as curriculum options for participating students. These issues will be revisited during the presentation of the case studies.

Special Education

The rights of students with disabilities were recognized in the last quarter of the 20th century. In 1975, federal legislation known as the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (P.L. 94-142), which ensured access to a free and appropriate public education, was passed. This was a landmark occurrence in education and, in essence, leveled the playing field for students with disabilities. In 1990, P.L. 94-142 was updated and renamed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA; as cited in Sattler, 2001). Subsequently, IDEA has been reauthorized (1997), amended (1999), and most recently reauthorized in 2004 (Individuals with Disabilities Improvement Act, known as IDEA 2004).

Since its implementation in the mid-1970s, IDEA has experienced both qualitative and quantitative changes. Qualitatively, the categories of disability and their corresponding definitions have evolved. The quantitative changes also have been dramatic. In the 10-year period from 1991 to 2000, there was an overall increase of 28.4% in the number of students ages 6-21 receiving services under IDEA (i.e., 4,499,824 in 1991-1992 and 5,775,722 in 2000-2001). In 1990-1991, specific learning disabilities (one of the 13 disability categories) represented half of all students served; and in 2000-2001, specific learning disabilities remained in first place as the largest disability category (U.S. Department of Education, 1999, 2002).

Although the definition of specific learning disabilities has not changed as a category, there have been qualitative changes, especially with respect to options for identification. In an effort to eliminate the wait-to-fail system of the past, the legislators who crafted IDEA 2004 conceptualized an identification procedure that was not dependent upon the long-standing (i.e., since 1975) discrepancy model. At first glance, this change might be viewed positively for gifted students with learning disabilities; however, in reality, it is likely to increase the probability that these students' specialized needs will remain masked. The main reason is that due to the decreased emphasis on administration of nationally normed standardized tests, including individual tests of intelligence, the advanced ability (i.e., giftedness) of twice-exceptional students is far less likely to be revealed.

The temporal convergence of the two educational watershed events in the 1970s (i.e., Marland's Education of the Gifted and Talented report and passage of the Education for all Handicapped Children Act) did little to facilitate a formal, conceptual convergence of these two exceptional populations. In fact, gifted education and special education remained mutually exclusive for nearly 30 years. The Marland Report made no mention of gifted students with disabilities; and pertinent legislation previous to IDEA 2004 made no mention of students with disabilities who were gifted. However, through IDEA 2004, the connections between gifted education and special education were improved. With IDEA 2004, Congress added gifted and talented students who have a disability to the groups of students whose needs have priority in U.S. Department of Education grants to guide research, personnel preparation, and technical assistance.

As in gifted education, delivery of services for special education has evolved over the years, and there exists a gamut of delivery models that match the unique needs of the various categories. For a long time, students with a specific learning disability were served in pull-out programs; in fact, it is uncanny that the enrichment pull-out programs serving gifted students seem to greatly resemble the resource-room model used for students with learning disabilities. However, the similarity appears to be coincidental. Pull-out programs do exist for students at both ends of the ability spectrum, although currently there is renewed focus on inclusion in the regular classroom.

FOCUS ON SPECIFIC LEARNING DISABILITIES AND ATTENTION DEFICIT HYPERACTIVITY DISORDER

For both the qualitative and quantitative issues cited above, we decided to focus the discussion on two groups of twice-exceptional students who would benefit from school counselors' expertise and guidance: gifted students who have specific learning disabilities and/or ADHD. According to the Office of the Federal Register (2005), a specific learning disability is

   a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological
   processes involved in understanding or
   in using language, spoken or written, that may
   manifest itself in an imperfect ability to listen,
   think, speak, read, write, spell, or do mathematical
   calculations ... it does not include
   learning problems that are primarily the result
   of visual, hearing, or motor disabilities; of
   mental retardation; or emotional disturbance;
   or of environmental, cultural, or economic
   disadvantage. (pp. 35,836-35,837)

Kaufmann and Castellanos (2000) offered a thorough discussion of ADHD, its (sometimes) co-occurrence with giftedness, and the multitude of problems associated with differentiating a diagnosis for ADHD and/or giftedness. ADHD, which is considered the most common neuropsychiatric disorder of childhood (American Psychiatric Association, as reported by Kaufmann and Castellanos), is included in IDEA within the "Other Health Impairment" category. We, as psychologists specializing in giftedness, find that the referring question or issue that prompts a psychoeducational evaluation often revolves around the etiology of a student's behavioral problems in a classroom (i.e., is the student's lack of attention to classwork due to an underchallenging curriculum, to core symptoms of ADHD, or to some combination of the two?). Because the core symptoms of ADHD are impulsivity, inattention, and hyperactivity, etiology is a logical consideration when trying to optimize the learning environment for gifted students.

PREVAILING MYTHS PERPETUATE THE MISUNDERSTANDINGS ABOUT TWICE-EXCEPTIONAL STUDENTS

There are a variety of myths or misassumptions about gifted students (Colangelo, 1985) that have an additive effect on educators' misunderstanding of twice-exceptional students. For example, educators often assume that gifted students do not require any special intervention--they will make it on their own. However, since 1985, when Colangelo articulated this particular myth, much progress has been made that highlights the crucial need for explicit programming that addresses specific talent areas (see Colangelo & Davis, 2003).

A spin-off of the make-it-on-their-own myth is the notion of global giftedness. Although we are not sure how this myth originated, even in the most respected school systems its impact is obvious in the global or general approach of gifted-student identification systems and subsequent programming. Even though scholars have demonstrated that most individuals are not equally talented in the variety of talent areas (e.g., verbal, quantitative, musical, and leadership), schools continue to base entry into gifted education programs on global or composite standardized test scores. These practices continue to deny the enormous diversity that exists among gifted students. For example, educators may assume that all gifted students love school, read well, process information quickly, or are able to complete work or learn new material independently.

A final, confounding myth that is central to the twice-exceptional student is the idea that a gifted student cannot have a coexisting learning disability. Within the field of learning disabilities, there is a movement to eliminate misclassifications of students as learning disabled. That is, some argue that the possibility of a learning disability, label for students who function normally in comparison to their peers is not valid, regardless of their ability, aptitude, and/or achievement test scores (Gordon, Lewandowski, & Keiser, 1999). Although a thorough treatment of this issue is outside the scope of this article, a brief discussion is relevant because current efforts to eliminate misclassification increase the possibility that gifted students with learning disabilities will be precluded from receiving services, thereby leading to continuation of the incorrect assumption that exceptional academic ability and learning difficulties are mutually exclusive.

Because none of the above-mentioned myths have been entirely overcome, routine identification practices for both gifted education and special education remain narrow in focus. That is, educators look for exceptional strengths or deficits, but not both. Students in gifted programs are rarely screened for learning disabilities, and students receiving services for learning disabilities are rarely screened for academic talents. Screening practices that specifically seek to identify students who are both gifted and learning disabled are virtually nonexistent.

There is one group of adults, however, who have ignored the myths and forged ahead in the area of twice-exceptionality: parents. For decades, many parents of gifted children have known that their children have been overlooked for enrichment classes or have been accused of being lazy when they were actually working very hard, struggling to learn because of an undiagnosed disability. They have found allies in the work of some educators in gifted education (e.g., Baum, 1988; Brody & Mills, 1997; Fertig, 2002; Gallagher & Gallagher, 1994; Kaufmann & Castellanos, 2000; Olenchak, 1994, 1995; Olenchak & Reis, 2001; Reis, Neu, & McGuire, 1995; Silverman, 1989; Webb et al., 2005). Each author has contributed substantially to the field of twice-exceptionality, yet their work has not been systematically implemented, largely because there has not been widespread national support in the form of federal legislation requiring programming for students who have high-level ability as well as areas of disability. However, since IDEA 2004, the learning needs of children who are gifted and talented and also have learning difficulties now have been recognized in federal legislation. Parents are often the first to consult with educators regarding their beliefs that their child might be twice-exceptional.

Because twice-exceptional students are apt to be misunderstood, resulting in students who remain under-identified and, consequently, underserved, the necessity for the school counselor to be especially aware of the concerns associated with twice-exceptional students is acute. The manifestation of such concerns is presented in the following two case studies selected from the Belin-Blank Assessment and Counseling Clinic. This clinic offers multifaceted services to gifted students and their families, and assessment of students to determine twice-exceptionalities is among those provided.

These case studies highlight how, through a comprehensive, diagnostic assessment, students' talents and disabilities can be identified. Equally significant, the studies demonstrate how discovering these diagnoses can directly relate to recommendations that are applicable to counselors working in schools. Names have been changed to protect student privacy.

CASE STUDY 1--JACOB: WHY DOES THIS AVID READER DETEST SCHOOL?

Brief Background

Jacob, a freckle-faced, 7-year-old, second-grade student, completed a psychoeducational evaluation at the Belin-Blank Assessment and Counseling Clinic. His parents, who accompanied him to the appointment, described Jacob as a bright child who was beginning "to detest" school. He had ongoing problems completing homework and attending to classroom activities, and Jacob's teacher called the parents weekly about these and various other behavioral concerns. Jacob's parents had two primary questions, related to each other, that they hoped the assessment results would answer: (a) Does Jacob have an attention deficit hyperactivity disorder that has a negative impact on his school performance? (b) Are the observed behavioral problems, inattentiveness, and dislike for school a result of his unmet needs as a gifted student?

Brief background information obtained from Jacob's parents suggested that, early on, they suspected that Jacob had advanced intellectual ability. He spoke his first word at 8 months of age and was able to count, put several words together, and recognize letters from the alphabet by his first birthday. By age 24 months, Jacob read simple words, and he later developed into a prolific reader. For example, during the summer after first grade, Jacob read all five books in the Harry Potter series.

To address Jacob's talents in reading, his second-grade teacher provided enrichment activities on a weekly basis. Jacob viewed this positively, yet continued to struggle in other academic areas, particularly writing. Jacob's aversion to writing assignments had resulted in his refusal to complete them. He began complaining of headaches or stomachaches on school mornings, and he often said that he did not like going to school because it "was not a good fit" for him.

Additionally, his parents expressed concern about Jacob's history of interrupting adults and impulsively making poor decisions. For example, they described a time when Jacob sprayed his nicely dressed aunt with water during a family party. Jacob typically became tearful after these impulsive behaviors, yet he seemed unable to make positive behavioral changes. His parents further noted that Jacob had heightened sensitivities to textures (e.g., tags had to be removed from clothing). He often was overwhelmed by changes in routine, was shy around people when meeting them for the first time, and had bouts of anger when frustrated.

Clinical interview

When Jacob was asked why school was such a negative experience for him, he first responded that his teachers did not care about his education or happiness in school. He later disclosed that he felt discouraged when it took a long time to finish schoolwork; he attributed this to being easily distracted. When asked why writing assignments were particularly difficult to complete, Jacob stated that writing was "boring" and that it was "easier to think about what to say than put it on paper." Overall, Jacob described himself as "happy, but not as happy as other kids."

Assessment Procedures and Observations

In an attempt to answer the questions initially posed by Jacob's parents, a psychologist administered various assessment instruments. The results from the testing, as well as observations about Jacob's behavior during testing, provided insight into his strengths and vulnerabilities. Throughout this assessment, Jacob was friendly and cooperative and appeared eager to perform well. He focused appropriately on challenging tasks, such as the advanced-level reading test. However, on activities that appeared to be of less interest (i.e., advanced-level mathematics), Jacob seemed to prefer standing at the table to sitting in his chair. In fact, it took him almost three times as long to finish the mathematics test as it had to finish the reading test, likely due to the fact that he frequently was out of his chair, yawned, and seemed unfocused. Although Jacob's attention span seemed to diminish as the morning progressed, he continued to use effective strategies to solve difficult problems. For example, when he was asked to complete complex multiplication, he used his own method to find the correct answer, not knowing how to solve such a problem conventionally. In addition, he seemed to benefit from scheduled breaks.

The comprehensive assessment battery that was administered to Jacob included the following: an individual IQ test (Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-4th ed.); a measure of eye-hand coordination (Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration); two types of achievement test (Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement-3rd ed. and Comprehensive Testing Program 4); a measure of attentiveness and impulsivity (Continuous Performance Test-2nd ed.); a memory test (Children's Memory Scale); a parent survey of student behaviors related to ADHD (the ADHD Rating Scale-IV Home Version); and parent and student surveys of student behavior (the Behavior Assessment System for Children, Parent and Self Report Scales).

Results and Discussion

The information from these tests and surveys was invaluable in answering Jacob's parents' questions. The impacts of his learning strengths and vulnerabilities are presented in italics below:

1. The test results confirmed that Jacob had verbal and nonverbal abilities that were extraordinary. The results were nearly three standard deviations above the average; such high abilities usually correspond with advanced academic skills in various content areas. Students with such extreme ability are very rare and require significant academic challenges to remain engaged in academic activities.

2. Jacob's achievement in reading and math was far more advanced than would normally be expected in second grade, yet his achievement level in these areas matched his IQ level. These results emphasized the need for accelerated and higher-level instruction in these areas.

3. Compared to others his age, Jacob's short-term memory is average; however, relative to his superb verbal and nonverbal abilities, it is significantly lower. This may mean that both Jacob and his teacher could be confused if Jacob may frequently need to have directions repeated more often than would be expected.

4. Similarly, Jacob was not as apt as other children his age at completing basic paper-and-pencil activities and demonstrating grade-appropriate handwriting skills. Not only was his handwriting difficult to read, but also his written expression did not reflect his outstanding verbal knowledge. With the information from these standardized assessments, it was determined that Jacob met diagnostic criteria for a disorder of written expression.

5. Considerable evidence supported the notion that Jacob was more inattentive, impulsive, distractible, and hyperactive than most boys his age. Despite earning scores on achievement and ability tests that were outstanding, Jacob continuously had to be redirected, given breaks, and asked to attend to the task at hand. His difficulty with remaining focused likely contributed to his frustration and dislike for school, because it was almost certain that he was asked several times a day to behave in ways that were almost impossible for him (e.g., stay in his seat and remain focused on his schoolwork). Based on this information, the examiners concluded that Jacob met diagnostic criteria for ADHD, combined type.

6. Although Jacob had an advanced-level grasp of academic material, his strength (i.e., giftedness) would likely remain concealed in less-than-optimal environments. Therefore, accommodations might include one-on-one attention, freedom from distractions, a challenging curriculum, and adjustments (e.g., use of a computer and/or dictation to a "scribe") for his written-language disability.

WHAT DOES THE SCHOOL COUNSELOR NEED TO KNOW TO BE EFFECTIVE WITH JACOB?

The school counselor can play an important role in ensuring that the unique, and sometimes contradictory, educational needs of students with multiple exceptionalities are met within an educational setting. For example, Jacob's extremely rare and high cognitive and academic skills indicated the need for above-grade-level academic material. However, any form of academic acceleration is a course of action that would require long-term planning by Jacob's educators and family. School counselors could take the lead in this process by helping the team of educators keep in mind that any decision about Jacob's academic future, including the possibility of acceleration, should be carefully balanced with Jacob's psychosocial adjustment, especially in light of his tendency to be resistant to change. School counselors could suggest and monitor ways that school personnel offer advanced, challenging curricula to Jacob that would be conducive to his social and emotional development. Furthermore, school counselors could encourage the team to discuss accommodations for each area of difficulty, while advocating for the understanding that neglecting to address Jacob's behavioral impairments and written-language disorder jeopardizes the recognition, as well as the manifestation, of his academic giftedness.

Jacob's case highlighted the importance of considering both academic strengths and neurodevelopmental impairments that negatively influence school performance. Only professionals trained to make psychiatric diagnoses are in a position to determine whether a particular student is gifted and bored because the curriculum is not challenging or gifted and disabled, with teachers not recognizing either dimension through the traditional curriculum. The school can initiate the process of determining needs and strategies for a supportive learning environment. The role of the school counselor is pivotal.

CASE STUDY 2--RANDY: HOW CAN SUCH A BRIGHT BOY BE SO LAZY?

Brief Background

Randy was poised to transition easily from elementary school to junior high school. However, the 3 years prior to junior high were fraught with conflict between the school's perception of Randy as an average student who was unmotivated and his mother's perception that her son was gifted and unchallenged. Although Randy was not initially identified for his elementary school's gifted education program, his mother persevered in her quest to have the school recognize his strengths in math and science. Some educators may immediately think that Randy's mother is another pushy parent; however, Randy's story is testimony that it was only through his mother's extensive advocacy for appropriate challenges that Randy's elementary teachers eventually recognized the mismatch between his aptitude and the curriculum.

Randy had been labeled an "underachiever" by most of his elementary school teachers, who patently disregarded (or did not recognize) the signs of his giftedness and blatantly attributed his incomplete assignments to "laziness." Given the fixed attitudes of Randy's teachers, they were dismissive of his mother's consistent expression of concern regarding her son's educational experience and the possibility that he had an undiagnosed disability.

Randy's mother contacted the Assessment and Counseling Clinic when Randy was in fifth grade. She sought clarification about what would be an appropriate program for Randy, because she was puzzled by Randy's teachers' general lack of knowledge concerning his academic strengths and their apparent lack of interest regarding his low performance. In addition, she was concerned that his teachers were developing a stereotype based upon the fact that her son was biracial. Although puzzled and confused, she was intrepid with respect to pursuing the correct course of action for her son. Like most parents, she knew that something was not right; however, she differed from most parents in persisting in her efforts to learn more about her son's academic needs as well as in her endeavors to advocate for programming that matched his needs.

Randy's mother shared with the examiners his Iowa Tests of Basic Skills (ITBS) scores, his Cognitive Abilities Test (CogAT) scores, and the scores that he had earned through participation in the Belin-Blank Center's talent search when he was a fourth-grader. All of his scores were high, but the ITBS and CogAT were not at the level that would qualify him for the school's enrichment program. This fact was in direct contradiction to the experience that Randy was having in Belin-Blank Center enrichment classes, which were a result of his participation in the talent search. Randy's mother was most interested in understanding the discrepancy between his standardized test performance from his school and his performance from the talent search. She also wanted to obtain more information from individualized testing to better understand her son's strengths and difficulties. Her initial goal was to convey this information to his teachers so that he might be reconsidered for his school district's Talented and Gifted (TAG) program.

Assessment Procedures and Observations

Randy had already taken the CogAT, a group-administered ability test, as part of the identification process for the district's enrichment program. Because the accuracy of the results was being questioned, the examiners determined that it was important to administer an individual intelligence test and selected the most current edition of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-3rd ed. (WISC-III). They also administered the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement-3rd ed., the Test of Written Language, a memory test, and the Piers-Harris Children's Self-Concept Scale-2nd ed.

Results and Discussion

In Randy's district, students being considered for the TAG program were screened, with the ITBS as an initial step to determine the need to take the CogAT. The results of the CogAT were the primary determinant of eligibility for the district's gifted education class. Although the composite results from the CogAT did not qualify Randy for enrichment programming, an analysis of the subtest profile revealed the possibility of a learning disability. His CogAT nonverbal subtest score was extremely high (98th percentile), whereas his verbal and quantitative subtest scores were in the average range (50th and 69th percentiles, respectively). A personal communication in August 2003 with one of the authors of the CogAT specified that students with a nonverbal strength often perform less well on tasks that require verbal fluency, such as speaking and writing. In fact, students with extremely high levels of spatial ability, as evidenced by their very high scores on the nonverbal subtest of the CogAT, often are observed to have serious problems in verbal activities including poor spelling and difficulty learning phonics.

Although these concerns were not recognized by Randy's educators, the examiners were able to use this information to build upon the hypothesis that Randy was a gifted student with a specific learning disability. The impacts of both the strengths and difficulties are presented in italics below:

1. The results from the WISC confirmed that Randy's overall ability to succeed in school surpassed that of 98% of students his age. Given that his general ability, as measured by an individualized IQ test, the WISC, was in the gifted range, he should be considered eligible for placement in an enrichment program.

2. The results from the WISC also indicated that Randy's short-term memory was very weak, compared to his age peers, and affected his mental processing. Additionally, on the WISC subtest that required reproduction of written symbols, a task similar to writing, Randy had great difficulty. Although perceived by educators as lazy or stubborn, he was actually neither, and the severe short-term memory deficits and fine-motor difficulties likely contributed to this inaccurate perception by his teachers. Randy was picking up on this, was developing a negative self-concept, and was unsure of his place in an academic setting. These negative self-perceptions require counseling to help him better understand why some of his teachers did not recognize that he had severe learning difficulties despite his high ability.

3. The results of the individualized achievement tests substantiated the diagnosis of a specific learning disability in written language. The results from the memory tests confirmed severe short-term memory deficits. Therefore, recommendations included accommodations of extended time during standardized tests and use of the test booklet to record answers, rather than the "bubble sheets," on which students blacken small circles to represent their responses. Additional adjustments within the classroom also were recommended, as needed.

4. The results from the above-level testing via the talent search were the first indication that Randy had some exceptional abilities, especially in math and science (as a fourth grader, Randy's performance on the eighth-grade-level math and science tests exceeded the average performance of eighth graders). Because of these results, he participated in weekend and summer programming and thrived in an academically challenging environment. This supplemental programming is strongly recommended.

WHAT DOES THE SCHOOL COUNSELOR NEED TO KNOW ABOUT RANDY?

Initially, Randy needed counseling from the school counselor to better understand why some of his teachers dismissed his strengths and did not understand his vulnerabilities. For all intents and purposes, the results from the group-IQ and grade-level achievement tests suggested that Randy was neither gifted nor disabled--rather, that he was lazy and somewhat stubborn. Labeled an underachiever, he was denied access to the challenging programming offered in the TAG classroom, which, although it was needed, was considered undeserved, given his underperformance on standardized tests and in class. Conversely, his teachers did not have a basis to search for ways to accommodate him because they believed that if he tried harder, he could write neater and more rapidly.

Fortunately for Randy, his mother knew her child better than school personnel did, and she knew how to search for the questions to ask the experts as well as how to obtain answers to share with Randy's educators. The school counselor served as a liaison between Randy's parents and teachers as they discussed the results of this evaluation and developed an intervention plan. In addition, the school counselor could interpret the discrepancy that exists when students do not qualify for the school's gifted program yet have earned scores that qualify them to participate in talent searches, which was the case with Randy.

Many students who participate in talent searches (i.e., above-level testing) do not qualify for their school's program for gifted and talented students. Multiple explanations exist for this identification inconsistency. Primarily it is due to the highly selective nature of most enrichment programs as well as the under-identification of gifted students when group-administered ability tests, such as the CogAT, are used. In Randy's case, the reason he did not qualify was both obscure and significant for him, his family, and his teachers. Randy was twice-exceptional: gifted and learning disabled. However, similar to many twice-exceptional students, his special abilities and disabilities cancelled each other when school personnel made educational placement recommendations based upon group-administered, grade-level assessments.

The junior-high years offer unique challenges to twice-exceptional students such as Randy. Some of these challenges would be experienced by all seventh graders, and others would be exclusive to Randy and other twice-exceptional students. However, Randy could rest assured that his mother would be a model of effective parental advocacy. As Randy progressed through the secondary grades, it would be important for the role of advocate to shift gradually from parent to student. Randy's mother could always serve as a behind-the-scenes advocate, but the shift should be complete by 10th or 11th grade, and plans should be made to consider postsecondary institutions that have an accommodating environment for twice-exceptional students.

MESSAGE TO SCHOOL COUNSELORS

Schools counselors are equipped with many talents, one of the most important being the skill of listening. It is essential for them to listen to parents, because, in almost all cases, parents' instincts about their child's abilities are correct and deserve to be considered in educational decision-making for their child. That is, if parents suspect that their child's needs are not being met at school, counselors can suggest ways that parents can learn more about their child's abilities, achievement, and psychosocial development through a referral either within the school system or to an outside professional who has an understanding of twice-exceptional students. Indeed, school counselors are in a unique position to make a positive difference in the academic lives of twice-exceptional students. They can advocate for services to meet the multifaceted educational needs of these students and also can serve as supportive adults who understand the special social-emotional needs of students who are both gifted and disabled. Our 10-point message below offers specific suggestions for school counselors:

1. Review students' school records. For example, when scores from a group-administered ability, test (e.g., Cognitive Abilities Test) present a unique pattern of strengths and relative weaknesses, it is helpful to obtain individualized testing to rule out the presence of a learning disability.

2. Provide support for the child, parents, and teachers in navigating the legal protections for special education. As a specific example, school counselors can explain the difference between 504 plans and Individualized Education Programs and clarify how, depending on the exceptionality, either could help meet the child's educational, behavioral, emotional, and social needs.

3. Work to integrate programming for talents and difficulties (e.g., a gifted student with a written-language learning disability writes a paper for History Day on a favorite topic with support from special-education and gifted-education teachers).

4. Encourage students with high ITBS scores to participate in university-based talent searches. This is the most effective way to be involved in identifying high aptitudes in specific content areas. The programming that is provided by talent-search organizations affords students a chance to be with other high-ability students who are passionate about similar topics.

5. Help students to develop a self-awareness of their unique set of strengths and difficulties, as well as self-advocacy and problem-solving skills.

6. Address social and emotional concerns that have an impact on academic and/or home environments (e.g., social and/or test anxiety, depression, social difficulties).

7. Develop support groups for twice-exceptional students.

8. Recognize the relevance of traditional areas of school counselor expertise, which include planning postsecondary education and vocational decision-making with the twice-exceptional population, keeping in mind the need for gifted students to pursue their talents and interest areas (e.g., school counselors can engage students in a dialogue about choice of college while problem-solving ways to accommodate for their disabilities within a college setting).

9. Initiate collaboration among teachers in special, gifted, and regular education, as well as with school personnel such as school psychologists.

10. Act as agents of change. For example, integrate twice-exceptionality into professional development goals and collaborate with other support staff to provide pertinent in-service for school personnel.

References

American School Counselor Association. (2005).The ASCA national model: A framework for school counseling programs (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Author.

Assouline, S. G. (2003). Psychological and educational assessment of gifted children. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed., pp. 124-145). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Baum, S. (1988). An enrichment program for gifted learning disabled students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 32(1), 226-230.

Brady, L. E., & Mills, C. J. (1997). Gifted children with learning disabilities: A review of the issues. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 282-286.

Colangelo, N. (1985). Myths and stereotypes of gifted students: Awareness for the classroom teacher. In N. Colangelo, D. Dustin, & C. H. Goxley (Eds.), Multicultural nonsexist education (pp. 458-463). Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt.

Colangelo, N., Assouline, S. G., & Ihrig, D. (2005). [Belin-Blank Center Talent Search Survey]. Unpublished raw data.

Colangelo, N., & Davis, G. A. (2003). introduction and overview. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed., p. 3010). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Fertig, C. (Ed.). (2002, Winter).Twice exceptional [Special issue]. Understanding Our Gifted, 14(2).

Gallagher, J. J., & Gallagher, S. A. (1994). Teaching the gifted child. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Gordon, M., Lewandowski, L., & Keiser, S. (1999).The LD label for relatively well-functioning students: A critical analysis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32, 485-494.

Kaufmann, F. A., & Castellanos, F. X. (2000). Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in gifted students. In K.A. Heller, F.J. Monks, R.J. Sternberg, & R.F. Subotnik (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent (2nd ed., pp. 621-632). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Lupkowski-Shoplik, A. E., Benbow, C. P., Assouline, S. G., & Brady, L. E. (2003).Talent searches: Meeting the needs of academically talented youth. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed., pp. 204-218). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Office of the Federal Register. (2005, June). Federal Register, 70, 35,836-35,837.

Olenchak, F. R. (1994).Talent development: Accommodating the social and emotional needs of secondary gifted/learning disabled students. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 5(3), 40-52.

Olenchak, F. R. (1995). Effects of enrichment on gifted/learning disabled students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 18, 385-399.

Olenchak, F. R., & Reis, S. M. (2001). Gifted students with learning disabilities. In M. Neihart, S. M. Reis, N. M. Robinson, & S. M. Moon (Eds.), The social and emotional development of gifted children (pp. 267-289). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

Olszewski-Kubilius, P. (2004).Talent searches and accelerated programming for gifted students. In N. Colangelo, S. G. Assouline, & M. Gross (Eds.), A nation deceived: How schools hold back America's brightest students (pp. 69-86). Iowa City, IA: Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development.

Reis, S. M., Neu, T.W., & McGuire, J. M. (1995). Talents in two places: Case studies of high ability students with learning disabilities who have achieved. Storrs, CT: National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.

Renzulli, J. S. (1976).The enrichment triad model: A guide for developing defensible programs for the gifted and talented. Gifted Child Quarterly, 20, 303-326.

Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (2003).The Schoolwide Enrichment Model: Developing creative and productive giftedness. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (pp. 184-203). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Sattler, J. M. (2001). Assessment of children: Cognitive applications (4th ed.). San Diego, CA: Author.

Silverman, L. K. (1989). Invisible gifts, invisible handicaps. Roeper Review, 12, 37-42.

U.S. Department of Education. (1999). Twenty-first annual report to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (pp. A-2, A-3, A-4, 11-39). Washington, DC: Author.

U.S. Department of Education. (2002). Twenty-fourth annual report to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (pp. 11-20). Washington, DC: Author.

Webb, J.T., Amend, E. R., Webb, N. E., Goerss, J., Beljan, P., & Olenchak, F. R. (2005). Misdiagnosis and dual diagnoses of gifted children and adults: ADHD, bipolar, OCD, Asperger's, depression, and other disorders. Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press.

Yewchuk, C., & Lupart, J. L. (1988). Gifted handicapped: A desultory duality. In K. A. Heller, F. J. Monks, & A. H. Passow (Eds.), International handbook of research and development of giftedness and talent (pp. 709-725). London: Pergamon Press.

Susan G. Assouline, Ph.D., Megan Foley Nicpon, Ph.D., and Dawn H. Huber, M.Ed., re with the University of Iowa, Iowa City. E-mail: susan-assouline@ uiowa.edu

Table 1. Definition of Giftedness

The 1972 Marland Report Definition of Giftedness

Gifted and talented children are those identified by professionally
qualified persons who, by virtue of outstanding abilities, are capable
of high performance. These are children who require differential
educational programs and/or services beyond those provided by the
regular school program in order to realize their contribution to self
and the society.

Children capable of high performance include those with demonstrated
achievement and/or potential ability in any of the following areas,
singly or in combination:

1. General intellectual ability
2. Specific academic aptitude
3. Creative or productive thinking
4. Leadership ability
5. Visual and performing arts
6. Psychomotor ability *

It can be assumed that utilization of these criteria for identification
of the gifted and talented will encompass a minimum of 3% to 5% of the
school population.

* This was later removed.