A Survey of Procedures Used for Identifying Gifted Learning Disabled Children

Abstract

Since the early 1970s, concern for children who are both gifted and handicapped has risen dramatically. Books written about this emerging field deal with identification and programmatic concerns (e.g., Fox, Brody, and Tobin, 1983) and also with case studies illustrating the ways in which the two conditions may coexist (Whitmore and Maker, 1985). This research focuses on the problems involved in identifying the child who is both gifted and learning disabled (GLD). The state of the art is demonstrated by surveying procedures in use in Texas by special education and gifted programs. Results from the survey yield characteristics of GLD children that are consistent with observations in the litetature.The identification of children who are both gifted (GT) and learning disabled (LD) has been troublesome to researchers since concern for the gifted handicapped arose in the early 1970s (Hemmings, 1985;Porter, 1983). Research on the characteristics of the gifted learning disabled (GLD) and subsequent identification has yielded limited results. A major barrier to research on the GLD has been the lack of students who are identified as both GT and LD (Yewchuk, 1986). This lack occurs not because such children do not exist but because they are not identified within existing school systems.Identification of children for gifted programs or special education (SPED) services for the LD tend to be mutually exclusive activities in school districts across the United States. This separation is due in part to the federal definitions used in setting criteria in each of the two areas. Procedures for Evaluating Specific Learning Disabilities (Federal Register, U.S.O.E., 1977, p. 65083) are used to guide states and districts in interpreting the PL 94-142 (1975) definition of an LD child:(A) child has a specific learning disability if:(1) The child does not achieve commensurate with his or her age and ability levels in one or more of the areas listed [below] ... when provided with learning experiences appropriate to the child's age and ability levels; and (2) The [multidisciplinary] team finds that a child has a severe discrepancy between achievement and intellectual ability in one or more of the following areas:(i) Oral expression; (ii) Listening comprehension; (iii) Written expression; (iv) Basic reading skill;(v) Reading comprehension;(vi) Mathematics calculation; or (vii) Mathematics reasoning. These procedures have led to an emphasis on the aptitudeachievement discrepancy. As a result, methods have been developed for measuring this discrepancy, and learning disability has become synonymous with underachievement. Therefore, gifted children who are able to compensate for their learning disabilities will not be referred unless they also exhibit severe behavior disorders (Senf, 1983).The Marland Report to Congress (1972) provided the following definition of gifted and talented children:Gifted and talented children are those identified by professionally qualified persons who by virtue of outstanding abilities are capable of high perform...

Multiple Intelligences and Underachievement

“…Although most of the teachers had little knowledge or training in the area of learning disabilities, results from this research revealed that teachers of gifted students were "less inclined to refer learning disabled and poor children than identically described children without those particular traits" (p. 37). The author noted that this research supported similar findings from a former study (Boodoo et al, 1989) indicating that general classroom teachers are also less inclined to refer such students for possible placement in gifted programs. Such attitudes leave entire segments of school populations unserved by appropriately challenging programs.…”

Beyond Over-representation: The Problem of Bias in the Inclusion of Minority Group Students in Special Education Programs

“…(Som, 1996), to screening methods (Wilson and Reichmuth, 1985), both in finding subjects with learning difficulties and those with high abilities (Satz and Fletcher, 1988;Boodoo et al, 1989).…”

A Case Study of Giftedness and Specific Learning Disabilities: Bridging the Two Exceptionalities

“…In general, though, they are underrepresented in gifted programs. For example, Boodoo et al (1989) surveyed Special Education teachers and directors of gifted programs in Texas and found that teachers and schools did not deal well with identifying and therefore providing for gifted learning disabled students. At the time Boodoo et al (1989) undertook this research, programs for gifted students were not mandated in Texas.…”

“…For example, Boodoo et al (1989) surveyed Special Education teachers and directors of gifted programs in Texas and found that teachers and schools did not deal well with identifying and therefore providing for gifted learning disabled students. At the time Boodoo et al (1989) undertook this research, programs for gifted students were not mandated in Texas. Mandating did not occur until later in 1990 and made little difference to the number of gifted learning disabled students participating in programs for the gifted in Texas.…”

“…Mandating did not occur until later in 1990 and made little difference to the number of gifted learning disabled students participating in programs for the gifted in Texas. For example, research undertaken by Tallent-Runnels and Sigler (1995), in which they surveyed gifted program coordinators in Texas, found that little had changed since the research undertaken by Boodoo et al (1989) and that the rate of identification of gifted learning disabled students had dropped from 23% to 19.7%. It may be that with identification efforts declining that schools see little point in providing programs for these students if they cannot be formally identified for placement.…”