However knowing who is experiencing 2e can be difficult with the variety of definitions. There are estimates that betwee
Inclusion for Students with Twice Exceptionality Paradox and Possibility Susan Prior Brisbane Catholic Education Office Qld Australia Currently there is little research available about who students with twice exceptionality are, their experiences in partnerships with their teachers and the learning environments that nurture their particular talents (Prior, 2013). This paper reviews some of the literature available with implications for pedagogical and school leadership in Catholic Education. It is suggested that there may be lessons for inclusive leadership contained in the twice exceptional (2e) experience. I consider recent research in educational leadership, inclusion and 2e to challenge school leaders that such vulnerable learners in their communities may actually hold the most promise for success. Including these diverse and perhaps otherwise unheard voices in the leadership process provides space for the creative perspectives we need in teaching and learning. Keywords: twice exceptional, gifted, disabilities, inclusion, leadership
Twice Exceptionality Students with 2e are an embodiment of paradox and possibility in our schools. 2e is an umbrella term used to describe students who are both gifted and have some kind of disability or learning difficulty. As a small heterogeneous population of students in special, gifted and mainstream education they present a unique opportunity for leaders to synthesise best practices across our fields particularly as we transition to more inclusive and collaborative school communities valuing diversity (Prior, 2013). Pfeiffer, (2013) cautions us about “dichotomizing individuals into two distinct mutually exclusive groups, gifted and the nongifted” (p.4), so what if giftedness and disability coexists for one person? Giftedness and disability are diverse concepts which have broadened over time so that we now understand they are not necessarily mutually exclusive and there are many possible combinations (Prior, 2013). Asynchrony is the term often used to describe this uneven development and vulnerability (Silverman, 2007), which means this is an underserved and often marginalised population (Newman & Sternberg, 2004). However knowing who is experiencing 2e can be difficult with the variety of definitions. There are estimates that between 2-5% of gifted students and 2-5% of students with disabilities will experience 2e (Nielsen, 2002.) According to Rogers 14% of the gifted students in her study had some form of disability (2011). There is a general acceptance that there are at least three different possible types of presentations of 2e. 1. Those who are gifted with mild learning disabilities, which only become apparent once work becomes more difficult. 2. Those identified with a learning disability but their giftedness is never realised so they are not challenged. 3. Those not identified as either being gifted or having a disability as each masks the other and therefore neither need receives appropriate support (Wormald & Vialle, 2011). If we do identify these students with 2e, and assessment rather than identification is gaining more attention (Lupart, 2004), we tend to dichotomize the individual child into the sum of his or her parts through allocating various specialists, teachers, schools and pedagogy separately. Yet the use of comprehensive assessment is crucial. Assouline (et al., 2010) recommend that this plays a critical role in identification of 2e including the possibility of psychosocial concerns, and then developing appropriate educational recommendations.The experience of 2e is therefore potentially isolating, confusing, frustrating and paradoxical if treated in this fragmented way.
1
Embraced from a more holistic perspective 2e encourages the acknowledgement and synthesis of apparent contradictions in the self and others order to create, collaborative and inclusive school communities. We all need the contributions of the unique 2e perspectives in order to create new ways of learning to bridge complex problems. Inclusive schools offer an opportunity to meet this challenge.
Inclusion Learner diversity and inclusion are increasingly seen as key challenges for educational leaders (Ainscow & Sandhill, 2010). However inclusion is not always well defined and is often misrepresented as being about disability. Inclusion is really about education for all students. It is about removing barriers to access and participation for marginalised groups, in particular and any who may be at risk of exclusion or underachievement (Ainscow & Miles, 2008). The UNESCO (1994) Salamanca Statement Framework for Action on Special Needs Education specifically mentions giftedness (p. 6) because it may not be well understood that this is indeed a marginalised group at risk of underachievement. Yet rarely is giftedness mentioned in the inclusive education literature (Prior, 2013). Students with 2e, as a diverse and vulnerable group have also not been adequately represented in the inclusion discussions. Kumashiro (2000) believes we need to addresses the fundamental purpose of education by asking, who do we want to succeed in our education system? Inclusive education is also riddled with its own paradoxes and contradictions (Ainscow & Miles, 2008) such as this paradox for example: “The most direct route for a school to achieve academic success for their students is the indirect route through the fostering of student empowerment and social development” (Silins & Mulford, 2010, p.15) and it is the teachers’ work in the classroom that is the strongest predictor of student participation in and engagement with school” (Silins & Mulford, 2010, p. 90) Any principal’s influence on student outcomes is indirect and mediated through teachers work (Silins & Mulford, 2010, p. 88). If student empowerment and social development are the way to student academic success and it is the work teachers do in the classroom that predicts this engagement then an inclusive school with shared leadership offers great possibilities for progress for students experiencing 2e. Ainscow (2005) reminds us however that responding to learner diversity involves tackling assumptions, most often relating to expectations about certain groups of students, their capabilities and behaviours (Ainscow, 2005). The learning profiles of students with 2e can invite distorted teacher perceptions (Lovecky, 2004). If a student is extremely bright but not producing a teacher can assume that student isn’t making the effort (Tollefson, 2000). I’m almost always disappointing someone because everybody used to tell me, “Oh he’s gifted and he’s smart and he’s just being ignorant and doesn’t want to do the work but he can”. That was before I got ADD testing and that was almost okay for me though because I could deal with underachieving in the respect of people expecting me to do better. I can’t deal with underachieving that you expect yourself to do better” (Hands, 2011, p. 88). Underachievement in gifted students is frequently treated as a disciplinary issue and many negative adjectives are ascribed to these adolescents (Grobman 2006, Hands, 2011). These assumptions need to be constantly challenged and informed through inclusive pedagogy. Leadership can be understood as “the outcomes from the relationships between groups of people rather than specific traits or skills of a single person” (Robinson et al., 2009). Leithwood and Sun (p. 413, 2012) note that acknowledging the need to “pay close attention to both the classroom conditions that students experience directly and the wider organizational conditions that enable, stimulate, and support those conditions will improve leadership policy and practice.”
Asynchrony The challenge for inclusion of any students who are gifted is the adequate education of all teachers in the nature and needs of students experiencing giftedness (Vialle & Rogers, 2012).
2
The challenge for inclusion of students who experience 2e may be in them being recognised at all. Rouse (2012) states that it is how broadly inclusive the school system is and how well prepared teachers are over time to support all students that will determine how effectively barriers to learning are anticipated and removed. This is particularly so for such a diverse group as students with 2e who require support in integrating asynchronous abilities to build their talents in a more supportive and challenging environment.
Liminal Space The 2e experience can be likened to the existence of a liminal space, a threshold of ambiguity between giftedness and disability. This is the essence of paradox and possibility, which for student empowerment requires reflection and collaborative action. “Part of the liminal experience is the grappling to name the situation in which we discover ourselves. It calls for especially a leadership that breathes the spirit of paradox, that true home of the sacred. In particular memory and imagination, responsibility and risk, distinction and inclusion, judgement and openness, unity and diversity, holding on and letting go……….” (Ranson, 2006). In the case of 2e a somewhat liminal space is created within the individual learner. Naming this experience ‘twice exceptionality’ means that we are challenged with, what F. Scott Fitzgerald considered a sign of a first rate intelligence… “the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function” (2009). In terms of a student experiencing 2e the paradox and possibility coexist and not only can students and teachers function but if the situation is named and given appropriate attention, thrive.
Inclusive Dialogue; Hidden Voices Navigating this liminal learner space between ability and disability demands a focus on individual student’s giftedness and giving expression to that gift. Developing ability into talent requires support, and careful nurturing through creating inclusive spaces, real audiences and opportunities to influence decisions (Prior, 2011). Students have varied learning needs and inclusive leaders make it explicit that diversity is actually about differences and inclusion is our capacity to include these differences (Gordon, 2010, Gerstandt, 2007). Gordon (2010) suggests one way to overcome the challenges of inequity among diverse student populations is to engage in more extensive conversations with students and include their points of view into the school structure. Dunleavy (2008) notices that if we fail to engage more deeply with students in conversations about their learning the risk of student disengagement increases. (Attfield & Williams, 2003) suggest that ‘those students who experience barriers to their presence participation and achievement can be regarded as ‘hidden voices’ who, under certain conditions, can encourage the improvement of schools in ways that would be of benefit to all of their students.” Bragg puts this another way; ‘Take time with the anomalous, allow what doesn't fit or produces unexpected reactions in us to disrupt our assumptions and habitual ways of working- because it is from these that we may, in the end, learn the most' (2001, p. 73).
Conclusion To create academic and student personal success inclusive school leaders can consider the lessons available in the paradox and possibilities of the 2e experience. Inclusive school leaders promote equity, voice, social justice and positive relationships inside and outside of the school Riehl (2000, p. 71) so that those most at risk may offer the most insight.
3
References Ainscow, M. (2005) Looking to the Future: Towards a Common Sense of Purpose. Australasian Journal of Special Education, 29(2),182-186. Ainscow,M. & Miles, S. (2008). Making Education for All Inclusive: where next? Prospects, 38: 15-34. doi: 10.1007/s11125-008-9055-0 Ainscow, M. & Sandhill, A. (2010). Developing inclusive education systems: The role of organisational cultures and leadership. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 14(4), 401416. doi: 10.1080/09243450903569759 Assouline, S. G. Foley Nicpon, M. Whiteman, C. (2010). Cognitive and Psychosocial Characteristics of Gifted Students With Written Language Disability. Gifted Child Quarterly, 54(2), 102-115. doi: 10.1177/0016986209355974 Attfield, R. & Williams, C. (2003). Leadership and inclusion: a special school perspective. British Journal of Special Education, 30(1), 28-33. Doi:10.1111/1467-8527.00278 Bragg, S. (2001). Taking a joke: learning from the voices we don't want to hear, Forum, 43(2), 7073. Dunleavy, J. (2008). Listen up: Student voice and educational change. Canadian Education Association, 48(2), 31. Fitzgerald, F.S. (2009). The crack- up. New Directions Publishing. Gerstandt, J. (2007). A Perspective: Diversity2.0-What We Must Become. The Diversity Factor, 15(4) 36-40.fgerstandt Gordon, M. (2010). Student Voice Key to Unlocking Inclusive Educational Practices. Canadian Journal for New Scholars in Education, 3(2), 1-11. Grobman, J. (2006). Underachievement in exceptionally gifted adolescents and young adults: A psychiatrist’s view. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 17, 199-210. Hands, R.E. (2011). The phenomenon of underachievement: Listening to the voice of a twiceexceptional adolescent (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest, UMI Dissertation Publishing, USA. Kumashiro, K.K.(2000) Toward a Theory of Anti-Oppressive Education. Review of Educational Research, 70(1), 25-53. doi: 10.3102/00346543070001025 Leithwood, K. & Sun, J. (2012). The Nature and Effects of Transformational School Leadership: A Meta-Analytic Review of Unpublished Research. Educational Administration Quarterly, 48(3), 387-423. doi: 10.1177/0013161X11436268 Lovecky. D. V. (2004). Different minds: Gifted children with AD/HD, Asperger syndrome and other learning deficits. London Jessica Kingsley. Lupart, J.L. (2004). Unraveling the mysteries of GLD: Toward the application of cognitive theory to assessment. In T. M. Newman & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Students with both gifts and learning disabilities (pp. 49–72). New York: Kluwer. Newman, T. M., & Sternberg, R.J. (Eds.), (2004). Students with both gifts and learning disabilities: Identification, assessment, and outcomes. Neuropsychology and Cognition, 25, 235246.
4
Pfieffer, S. I. (2013) Serving the Gifted: Evidence-Based Clinical and Psychoeducational Practice. Oxon, UK: Routledge. Prior, S. (2013). Transition and Students With Twice Exceptionality. Australasian Journal of Special Education, 37(1), pp19-27. doi:10.1017/jse.2013.3 Prior, S. (2011). Student Voice: What do Students who are Intellectually Gifted say They Experience and Need in the Inclusive Classroom? Gifted and Talented International, 26(1& 2), 121-129. Ranson, D. (2006). Forming a New Generation of Leaders for Catholic Schools. Australasian Catholic Record, 83(4), 415-421. Riehl, C.J. (2000). The Principal’s Role in Creating inclusive Schools for Diverse Students: A Review of Normative, Empirical and critical Literature on the Practice of Educational Administration. Review of Educational Research, 70(1) 55-81. doi: 10.3102/00346543070001055 Robinson, V., Hohepa, M., Lloyd, C. (2009). School leadership and student outcomes: Identifying what works and why. Best evidence synthesis. Wellington: New Zealand Ministry of Education. Rouse, M. (2012). Foreword. In C. Forlin (Ed.), Future directions for inclusive teacher education: An international perspective. Oxon, UK: Routledge. Silins, H., & Mulford, B. (2010). Reconceptualising school principalship that improves student outcomes. Journal of Educational Leadership, Policy and Practice, 25(2) 73-93. Silverman, L. (2007). Perfectionsim: The crucible of Giftedness. Gifted Education International, 23(3), 233-245. doi: 10.1177/026142940702300304 Tollefson, N. (2000). Classroom applications of cognitive theories of motivation. Educational Psychology Review, 12 (1), 63-83. UNESCO. (1994). The Salamanca statement and framework for action on special needs education. Paris, France: Author. Vialle, W., & Rogers, K.B. (2012). Gifted, talented or educationally disadvantaged? The case for including ‘giftedness’ in teacher education programs. In C. Forlin (Ed.), Future directions for inclusive teacher education: An international perspective (pp. 114–122). Oxon, UK: Routledge. Wormald, C., & Vialle, W. (2011). Dual exceptionality. University of Wollongong, Australia: AAEGT.
5
