Question 4

Question 4

Question 4

Introduction

Educators are responsible for the selection of screening and assessment tools which is not a straightforward task since these students possess two seemingly opposite special education identities, and programming becomes complicated and tenuous (Vaidya, 1993).

Brody and Mills (1997) stress the need for accurate identification by pointing out that most students who are gifted and learning disabled do not get referred for special education services. While some qualify on the basis of their disability and some qualify because of their gifts, most gifted students with learning disabilities are not identified. Ferri, Gregg and Heggoy (1997) found that 47% of the gifted/learning disabled students they studied were not identified until college. Gifted students are often able to compensate for their disabilities and so are not identified however, because of their disabilities; gifted students may not demonstrate the high achievement often looked for in order to identify giftedness. Brody and Mills (1997) content, that unless operational definitions and identification criteria are modified to accommodate the characteristics of this subgroup, this situation will, unfortunately continue (p. 285).

Type 1 - Mild Learning Disability

The first type of GLD students are those who are gifted with mild learning disabilities. These students tend to do well throughout elementary school and often participate in gifted programs at that level (Clarke, 2002). They do not run into difficulty until they must do higher level work in the area of their disability and may go through periods of underachievement. Because they have previously done well, they are often not identified as learning disabled, but may be looked upon as lazy, lacking motivation, or as having poor self-esteem (Beckley, 1998). Baum (1990) does caution that these may be valid causes of underachieve and must be considered as well.

Type II - Severe Learning Disability

The second type of student has severe learning disabilities, but is also gifted. These students are often identified as learning disabled, but rarely identified as gifted (Clarke, 2002). They are noted for what they cannot do, rather for what they can do and attention becomes focused on their problems. Unless they are correctly identified and provided with appropriate programming, it is difficult for these students to reach their full potential (Baum, 1990).

Type III - Masked Abilities and Disabilities

The final type of student is generally not identified as gifted or learning disabled. Their gifts mask their disabilities and their disabilities mask their gifts. As a result of this masking they appear average and are not often referred for evaluation (Brody & Mills, 1997). Without a formal assessment, the discrepancy between their ability and their achievement is not noticed. These students may perform at grade level, but do not reach their full potential (Baum, 1990; McCoach et al., 2001). This third group presents an interesting challenge, as their disability may lower their IQ score so significantly that even with testing they may not be identified as gifted (Waldron & Saphire, 1990).

Compensation

Further complicating the identification of gifted/learning disabled students is the idea of compensation (Silverman, ...